Yet I take pause when considering the concept of adaptivity. Of course it sounds rosy- the software adapts to your skill level as you go along. If you're not doing so well in a certain area, it will focus on that so you can get better. Yet I can imagine that this could actually limit learning for some. There were many times when I did not get a concept in school, but only when I went ahead to the next concept or the one after did I gain further understanding of the previous concept. I use this thinking when I teach; I usually have a strong belief of the level I can get each student to, and try to push them toward that level. I consistently make links between current lessons and prior lessons to try to fill any blanks and solidify understanding. I do not necessarily base this on any previous work they've done. I put more of the pressure on myself to get them where I think they should go, with solid understanding, by keeping them moving while stressing the ongoing connections between everything we learn.
If adaptive learning personalizes the learning according to what your students have done before and how they've performed in the past, I'm not sure if such a thought process could be used. It seems you could get students to be really solid at everything, but maybe not truly exceptional at certain things, if you use adaptive learning. Am I off with this?
The NYT and Audrey Watters articles reaffirmed something I've been thinking a lot about lately. While the data issues themselves are big, what's more troubling is how technology is moving too fast for education. I don't think this is education's fault; at the end of the day, I think it all comes down to money. Everyone seems to have the answer to solve all of education's "problems." And then they create a tool to try to address this. And through that tool, they push forward their platform and agenda. So all of the adaptive learning platforms are pouncing on the notion that adaptive learning is the way to go. It could be, but we don't really know! But companies are flourishing because of the speed at which edtech is moving, which creates a competitive marketplace. Education tries to catch up, creating more problems and more people with their idea of the solution.
After my years in GSE, and now in VOLT, I almost think we need to just go back to just teacher, students, paper and pencil, and good books (not textbooks haha).
Marcus, I thought a lot about a comment you made in class last Tuesday. You asked whether anyone had ever entered a code in a video game to get past a level, only to be quite successful in the game later on (you said it much more eloquently). I'm glad your blog post this week tackles that situation. I completely agree with you that real learning is much messier than "learn, master, learn more". It's a dance where often a leap is more appropriate than several purposeful steps.
ReplyDeleteI have a lot of hang-ups with adaptive learning. I love the theory, but the practice seems too simplistic. It doesn't take enough into account and, as I point out in my blog for this week, the price is too high. I think there's still a lot to figure out and some boundaries to set along the way. I agree with your last sentiment. We all want to harness the good parts of technology for education, but I think it's important to remember that there are PARTS of technology that are good. Technology, in and of itself, is not better--or even as good--in many cases. We need to get our ratios and responsibilities in order. How much should be handled by the teacher and how much can be handled via technology? And what are the ramifications of our decisions?
Hi Alli,
DeleteSorry this is so late! I like how you say we need to get our ratios and responsibilities in order. Maybe I should not become too disillusioned with edtech and instead look at things from that perspective. Because at the end of the day, like you say, there are parts of technology that are good. Figuring out the best way to leverage those parts is a victory worth pursuing, right?
Marcus, I think you have identified a real philosophical difference between adaptive learning delivered by software and instruction delivered by a human teacher. You're right that your approach of pushing students on toward an end goal, while stressing connections with past learning but not basing current instruction on past learning, is beyond the scope of current adaptive learning software. So it probably follows that some students, using adaptive learning, will never be able to excel in areas where they otherwise might.
ReplyDeleteAnd I completely agree with you that the tech is moving faster than policy can keep up with (the Watters and NY Times articles are also good evidence of this). But let's look back to the outcome of adaptive learning. If you're right, and we could use adaptive learning to be really solid at everything - well, that sounds pretty good to me. Certainly an improvement over where we are now, right? What percentage of high school graduates have a solid grounding of reading comprehension and mathematics based on international standards? Alli's right - this might be sacrificing too much in terms of, you know, survival of a free-thinking, individualistic society. But if adaptive learning could help the country's education system surpass that of Lithuania (roughly equal as of 2012, per NPR) it might be worth slowing down to think about a little more.
Hi Jesse,
DeleteSorry for the late reply! You nicely sum up the fundamental conflict here. Would it pay to have everyone solid at everything, or to have some excel at some things (risking some of the students lagging behind)?I feel like there's a push and pull here. I like to see all of my students reach a certain level, but I also recognize if some of them are more motivated to reach higher levels. This is where being an educator becomes more messy; perhaps these students will need different kind of out-of-classroom motivation from me than others. The motivation I give could be grounded in my awareness that this student is extra motivated and wants to reach a higher ceiling.
Yet still in class, I want everyone to reach a certain level and will teach accordingly. Meaning, if someone does not "get" something, and I can tell, I'll focus on helping that student "get it." I still want my motivated students to achieve a high level, so sometimes I will have those who are understanding the lesson help explain it to those who aren't getting the lesson. I try whatever I can so that we don't leave too many students behind, and students who want to reach a higher ceiling still can do so. It's a lot of mental work, lol.
-MTW
Marcus, I think you are in an interesting place. I'm glad we were able to have the synchronous discussion this week - thanks for suggesting it! It is a difficult balance. I've always said "technology is ubiquitous, but should be invisible." So what others are saying here makes great sense in that regard - to use it as it works for us, and for our students. But it shouldn't be about the technology. It should be about what we do with it. Thanks for sharing this Marcus.
ReplyDeleteYou're right Donna and I'm glad I was able to share my impending feelings of disillusionment with edtech. The cohort really helped me take a step back and remember that it's not about the (hundreds of!) tools, but rather about what we are doing with them (and what we CAN do with them).
Delete-MTW