Talk:Personalized learning

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vincentooi808. Peer reviewers: Wombatsaregreat.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Switte.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

POV-check info
The verbiage of the article is currently very dismissive of personalized learning, yet there are several prominent organizations that are researching, funding, and supporting PL: http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=503581 http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsf0728/nsf0728_6.pdf http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/cms/8996/9127.aspx http://www.springerlink.com/content/h88x11269j14842k/ http://www.pearsoned.com/pr_2009/072109.htm http://www.elearningguild.com/pdf/2/050702dss-h.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.111.186.50 (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

In the table "List of Differences", should a less obscure term replace "valorization"? Dictionary definitions (dictionary.com, thefreedictionary.com) of "valorise" and "valorisation" seem almost comically wrong for this context. The Wikipedia entry for "Valorisation" gives a Marxist defintion most prominently; it contains an alternative definition that does seem right for the context of this "Personalized learning" entry, but that alternative definition is rather buried. Perhaps this is a defect in the Wikipedia entry for "Valorisation". Monty669 (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, please keep it comically buried in obscurity. It helps to bring mirth to complex issues. No, just kidding. Maybe that was a Gödel joke? FeatherPluma (talk) 03:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Re-editing for Neutrality
I have been working on re-editing this entry on personalized learning for neutrality. Personalized learning is now a topic that is debated in many venues and especially in Canada. How else can the neutrality of this entry be improved at this point in time? Dennisshirley (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have added in several citations, edited some of the writing and added some links. How can we get this entry approved for neutrality now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennisshirley (talk • contribs) 19:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Personalized learning be merged into Personal learning environment. I think that the content in the personal learning environment article can easily be explained in the context of personalized learning, and the personalized learning article is of a reasonable size such that the merging of personal learning will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Thoughts? Flyte35 (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree totally. Personal learning environment should to be merged into Personalized learning. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. My reason is that personalized learning (in the UK personalised learning) has a long history to do with how each child's/person's learning is structured and how teachers and administration respond to and plan for each learner (see ) and Professor David Harper . Personal learning environment's are referring to environments created by and for learners and are closely related to Personal Learning Networks (PLNs) see . As the discussion about this topic has now started up again in the US, having died down in the UK a while ago, it is likely that more contributions will be forthcoming. Mandy Honeyman (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Madmkh (talk)
 * with courtesy copy to Thank you for your input. Based on the page tags, rather the inadvertent inversion in the merger proposal above, let's clarify that we are presently discussing merging Personal learning environment to Personalized learning. Your reasoning has to do with retaining Personalized learning. Do you have any input about the present proposal, as herein clarified? (We can look at the question of Personalized learning as an article as a separate step. Let's discuss that subsequently.) FeatherPluma (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the fact that "personalized learning has a long history to do with how each child's/person's learning is structured and how teachers and administration respond to and plan for each learner" is not sufficient reason to retain two separate articles. It's possible to put the history within an article that also discusses "environments created by and for learners... closely related to Personal Learning Networks." That would probably make for a more complete and readable article. Flyte35 (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Thanks for your continued input. Your proposal makes sense. I think it's good form to await consensus input. However, without prejudice to restarting a new personal learning environment article, which User:Madmkh may want to do from scratch, I have taken the initiative and worked through it, line by line. It was not my initial intent to force the issue, but after reviewing the relevancy of content per WP:PILLARS, in particular WP:5P2, it ends up that no content remains. This was a line by line review, as per edit summaries, and also reflects the {{Multiple issues|{{original research|date=December 2014}} and {{more footnotes|date=July 2014}} tags. I therefore tagged it as {{under construction |placedby=FeatherPluma |section= |nosection= |nocat= |notready= |comment= |category= |altimage= }}, by which I am designating its impending redirect. I would have completed the merger here, but I would like to go through this article first, and also give User:Madmkh an opportunity to discuss, before finalizing the redirect. This should only take a few days, unless I get distracted.


 * Addendum - The agony of suspense was building, so I completed the merger. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * As you appreciate, many terms and concepts in educational technology have been defined nebulously; for example, Fiedler's extensive review of the literature found a complete lack agreement of the definition and the components of a personal learning environment. Fiedler et al then went on to then make a suggestion for what might be a future concept, but I am not aware that this has attained currency of use, or analysis in WP:RS, and it amounts entirely to a theoretical. (The Fiedler reference is worth incorporating into Wikipedia, but the suggestion need not receive unwarranted attention.) Even enthusiasts for the concept admit that, "By design, a PLE is created from self-direction, and therefore the responsibility for organization—and thereby for learning—rests with the learner. What are the downsides? Personal learning environment is an evolving term, one without a single, widely accepted definition."(both emphases added) Standard WP:RS considerations have us observe that this 2009 source was released by a non-neutral ex-charity (now defunct / absorbed under a "bigger umbrella"), whose stated mission included promotion of this concept, that the source has no named author, was subject to no editorial control, and had no peer-review or literature references. In other words, I suggest it's fair to conclude that to some extent it's close to ambitious political / charity puffery. I would not be opposed to a cautious deployment of the reference within Wikipedia, subject to the usual stipulations. I will not belabor this further, although the source's problems could well be expanded upon. The best sources that I am aware of presently that are in favor of retaining anything in this domain are Powell and Martindale & Dowdy.. I would suggest that in reading that first source it's quite apparent that the "environment" term is very much a "run along", not an actual distinguishing denotator - in other words, if you read each of the 42 times "environment" is used ( ! ), without using "environment", the meaning doesn't change at all ( ! ). Martindale & Dowdy, despite being enthusiastic, admit that, "At present, no single environment or application instantiates an archetypal PLE." (That's an instantiation of saying it's "not defined".) Frankly, without mincing about, it's my impression that usage of "personal learning" and  "personal learning environment" is mainly by politicians, not educators, at least not by educators who are tapping into the literature (as herein explained). FeatherPluma (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Term first used?
The history section now begins with this line: "The term was used in a 2004 speech in Britain by David Miliband, Minister of State for School Standards for the United Kingdom...." But that can't possibly be accurate; the term is used in the title in one of the references, "Two Schools: Two Approaches to Personalized Learning," which was published in 2002. Flyte35 (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, again I see you are going to get to the heart of this. Jenkins (this is not the Jenkins who is Henry Jenkins is Provost's Professor of Communication, Journalism and Cinematic Arts at the Annenberg School for Communication, University of Southern California) states in the source you point to that, "Personalized learning has been developing as an instructional model since the mid-1970s." There are at least 2 relevant references, that source's refs 2 and 3. I presently have access to a limited version at, and could comment more if I get a chance to log in to an academic network at some point (but maybe I will think of a different search approach). In 1999, Littky and Allen suggested that, "Truly personalised learning requires reorganising schools to start with the student, not the subject matter. A school that takes personalised education to its full potential is less concerned with what knowledge is acquired and more interested in how knowledge is used. The priority at such a school is to know students and their families well enough to ensure that every teaming experience excites the students to learn more. The school that looks at one student at a time truly prepares students for lifelong learning."
 * An issue in these cases, however, is often the difference between the terminologic conflation of the words, "Personalized" and "Learning", and the elevation to a (specific / political / educational ?) concept that transcends that terminologic conflation. In fact, it's this precise issue of "real concept" versus "verbal conflation" that needs to be resolved in determining the notability of the article per criteria. As written here in the existing article, I am withholding opinion, although I am very willing indeed to actively seek confirmation that there is adequate encyclopedic commentary in sources that there is a real concept and not a political placeholder. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Even on a really quick and dirty, it's not that hard to find the term used as far back as 1961. (But does it matter? The real work is assessing "terminologic conflation" versus "transcendent conceptualization" -- has it ever really happened? One way of handling all this is to lay aside the need to go back in detail into the 1960's by using the Jenkins source to quickly earmark the 1970s, and then pick up the various highlights like the various gov and charity-funded review papers that have come out e.g. UK, Australia, the US ed lotto for personalized teaching prize money in 2012 that User:Madmkh is indirectly mentioning, Rand, etc etc) OK, the concept probably deserves an article but the article's present sexy news approach to Miliband and BECTA etc etc needs toned down. In reality, it's probably going to be a more than a 50% redo start over, and I am not going to go after it right now. And personally I am never going to sort out the usage all the way back - I so do not freaking care - but someone else can try if they wish. I think starting with Jenkins will be super -- I got the full paper and it looks fine, with a ref to the other author, Keefe, whose book was a little bit earlier.


 * Sources:
 * 1961 THE FIRST BOOK OF TEACHING MACHINES. S Epstein, B Epstein - 1961 - ERIC ... PROGRAMS CAN ONLY BE DESIGNED BY HIGHLY TRAINED HUMAN BEINGS WHO, THROUGH THE TEACHING MACHINE, CAN REACH COUNTLESS STUDENTS AND ENABLE EACH TO TAKE AN ACTIVE ROLE IN A HIGHLY PERSONALIZED LEARNING EXPERIENCE ...
 * 1966 Studies in probabilistic information processing RJ Kaplan, JR Newman - IEEE Transactions on Human Factors in …, 1966 - rand.org ... Latest Insights. Reports. A teacher working with young students in a classroom. Promising Evidence on Personalized Learning. Piggy bank and school books in a classroom. A Tool for Reviewing K-12 Financial Education Curricula. Blog Posts. ...
 * 1968 Pupil and Teacher Roles in Individualized Instruction BJ Wolfson - The Elementary School Journal, 1968 - JSTOR ... degrees of success. I be- lieve that organizing to individualize instruction-or, more accurately, to encourage personalized learning-will strengthen efforts to move in these directions. What is individualization? Even though we ...
 * 1970 The Not-So-Specific Learning Disability Population: I. An Interactional View of the Causes of Learning Problems. II. Identification and Correction Through Sequential … HS Adelman - 1970 - ERIC ... are presented in Figure 1. Insert Figure 1 about here Essentially, what is suggested is a two step sequential process by which the teacher (1) establishes a personalized learning environment, Page 9. 8 and then, if necessary, (2) employs up to three sequential and hierarchical ...
 * 1977 The personalized learning center: A university wide system of personalized instruction HS Pennypacker, JB Heckler, SF Pennypacker - Handbook of applied behavioral …, 1977
 * 1980 A contemporary approach to individualization MD Fantini - Theory into Practice, 1980 - Taylor & Francis ... education. Many of our school reforms have been waged in its name. More recently, individualization has also been referred to as "personalized learning influence of humanistic psychology over the past decade. While ...
 * 1981 Learning through coping: An effective preschool program S Zeitlin - Journal of Early Intervention, 1981 - jei.sagepub.com ... For the teacher: To write and implement personalized learning plans (IEP's), which include strategies to help each child capitalize on personal strengths and im- prove adaptive coping habits within the framework of the daily classroom program. . ...
 * 1991https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=%22Personalized+learning%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,6&as_ylo=1988&as_yhi=2000#
 * 1991 Technology and Restructuring Part I: New Educational Directions. D Ray - Computing Teacher, 1991 - ERIC Topics discussed include higher order cognitive skills; long-range vision and planning; transdisciplinary education; metacognition; global stewardship; human values; lifelong learning; personalized learning; the process approach; and the master-apprentice approach. ...
 * 1998 The place of confluent education in the human potential movement: A historical perspective. SB Shapiro - 1998 - psycnet.apa.org ... Throughout the years of this program, the most lasting values were actualized in the context of a personalized learning community.
 * 1998 Mapping a route toward differentiated instruction CA Tomlinson - Educational leadership, 1999 - palmbeachschools.org Page 1. Mapping a Route Toward Differentiated Instruction // Carol Ann Tomlinson September 1999 September 1999 | Volume 57 | Number 1 Personalized Learning Pages 12-16 Mapping a Route Toward Differentiated Instruction ...
 * 2000 Personalized Instruction: Changing Classroom Practice Paperback – July, 2000 by James W. Keefe ISBN 978-1883001865
 * 2001 http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.4.1.26?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Key Design Considerations for Personalized Learning on the Web Margaret Martinez Ph.D. Journal of Educational Technology & Society Vol. 4, No. 1, Technologies and Their Effect on Learning as a Biological Process (January 2001), pp. 26-40 Published by: International Forum of Educational Technology & Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.4.1.26
 * What is personalized learning M Martinez - The e-Learning Developers' Journal: Strategies and …, 2002
 * An agent enabling personalized learning in e-learning environments Hongchi Shi, Spyridon Revithis, Su-Shing Chen · Proceeding AAMAS '02 Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems: part 2 Pages 847-848 ACM New York, NY, USA ©2002 table of contents ISBN:1-58113-480-0 doi>10.1145/544862.544941
 * Personalized Instruction The Key to Student Achievement, Second Edition JAMES W. KEEFE AND JOHN M. JENKINS ISBN 978-1578867561
 * Learning Personalized: The Evolution of the Contemporary Classroom 1st Edition by Allison Zmuda (Author), Greg Curtis  (Author), Diane Ullman ISBN 978-1118904794
 * Make Learning Personal: The What, Who, WOW, Where, and Why by Barbara A. (Ann) Bray (Author), Kathleen A (Ann) McClaskey ISBN: 978-1483352978
 * Designing Personalized Learning for Every Student Publisher: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development (January 1, 2001) ISBN 978-0871205209 by Dianne L Ferguson (Author), Ginevra Ralph (Author), Gwen Meyer (Author)
 * It's Inevitable: Customized Teaching and Learning: A Fieldbook For and From the Field Paperback – August 24, 2012 ISBN 978-1477605493 by James D. Parry Ph.D. (Author), Nancy Hall Ed.D.
 * Personalized Learning 1st Edition by Margaret Grant (Author) ISBN 978-1564843524
 * Personalized Learning: Student-Designed Pathways to High School GraduationApr 17, 2013 by John H. Clarke ISBN 978-1452258546
 * Multi-model, metadata driven approach to adaptive hypermedia services for personalized elearning O Conlan, V Wade, C Bruen, M Gargan - Adaptive hypermedia and…, 2002 - Springer
 * United States government: Democracy in action RC Remy - 1993 - corebutte.org ... College Model of Education: College Model of Education: Personalized Learning Model emphasizes independent study while attending Resource Center classes twice weekly. Students may choose to meet weekly with their Personalized Learning Teacher and/or Highly Qualified Teacher instead. The same instructional methods are used in either case.
 * FeatherPluma (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Refs that actually matter
FeatherPluma (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Jenkins "Two Schools: Two Approaches to Personalized Learning," Jenkins, Keefe
 * Fiedler QUOTE: "There are clear signs that over the years a wide range of conceptualisations and interpretations have surfaced in the ongoing debates and exchanges. Attwell (2007b), for example, reported his experience at a conference in the following terms: "there was no consensus on what a Personal Learning Environment (PLE) might be. The only thing most people seemed to agree on was that it was not a software application. Instead it was more of a new approach to using technologies for learning" (p. 1). Even this minimal consensus appears to be rather questionable after a thorough literature review on the topic. Kolas and Staupe (2007) also contested that "the variety of interpretation illustrates how diffuse the PLE concept still is" (p. 750). Johnson and Liber (2008) only recently asserted that "within this label, however, a number of practices and descriptions have emerged – not all of which are compatible, and discussions have raged as to the interpretation of the terms" (p. 3). This doesn't sound much different from what Johnson et al. (2006) had concluded already two years earlier: "This is a title that embraces a variety of different interpretations, and this essential ambiguity is reflected in the discourse that has emerged around it ... That such a variety of interpretation can emerge around the same terminology is indicative of a lack of clarity defining exactly what a PLE is" (p. 182). There is very little indication that this state of affairs has substantially improved or is currently improving."
 * Powell
 * Martindale & Dowdy
 * educause
 * Best Practices in Personalized Learning Environments (Grades 4 – 9) October 2012 ..."In August 2012, the U.S. Department of Education released its finalized application for the 2012 Race to the Top-District (RTTT-D) competition.5 The Department's Absolute Priority 1 – the creation of Personalized Learning Environment(s) is at the center of this competition, as is described here:6"
 * Are Personalized Learning Environments the Next Wave of K–12 Education Reform?
 * AU paper
 * RU paper

Another merger proposal
I propose that Individualized instruction be merged into Personalized learning. I think that the content in the Individualized instruction article can easily be explained in the context of personalized learning, and the personalized learning article is of a reasonable size such that the merging of personal learning will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This makes sense in theory, though Individualized instruction is all uncited. Merely merging the text of that article into personalized learning would be, I hope, the first step in a more serious edit. Flyte35 (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merger done. I will obliterate much of the Individualized instruction content after this merger, and will in the next few days use that as the stepping off point to edit this article as well. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Yet another merger proposal
I propose that Direct instruction be merged into Personalized learning. I think that the content in the Direct instruction article can be best explained in the context of personalized learning and the other related concepts in this article, rather than in a stand-alone article, and I think that the personalized learning article is of a reasonable size such that the merging of Direct instruction will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. FeatherPluma (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Similarly, I propose that Direct Instruction be merged into Personalized learning. This has been tagged since January 2014 for merger to Direct instruction, with a positive discussion comment, but no task completion. I think that the content in the Direct Instruction article can leap-frog here, rather than going to Direct instruction first, and that the content can be best explained in the context of personalized learning and the other related concepts in this article, rather than in a stand-alone article, and I think that the personalized learning article is of a reasonable size such that the merging of Direct Instruction will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. FeatherPluma (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Well definitely go ahead and merge Direct Instruction into Direct instruction. The fact that those are even two separate articles at this point is ridiculous. I'm not really seeing that Direct instruction is a natural fit into this article, but it may make more sense once the Individualized instruction merger is complete. Flyte35 (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you are correct; I will follow through in the way you have signposted. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Critiques of personalized learning
This article presents two "criticisms" of personalized learning:


 * "while there are advantages in students being able to access information instantly on-line, one should not mistake such processes for 'something deeper, more challenging, and more connected to compelling issues in their world and their lives'."
 * "while personalized learning may sound like a useful strategy for education, in practice it's mostly just about selling technology products."
 * "...meaningful (and truly personal) learning never requires technology. Therefore, if an idea like personalization is presented from the start as entailing software or a screen, we ought to be extremely skeptical about who really benefits."

I think these are critiques of the role of technology and vendors in personalized learning rather than critiques of PL per se, and should not be presented as such. We should find criticisms of PL itself and present those. Qzekrom (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)