Problems with the Personalisation Agenda
Created by Catherine Howell (University of Cambridge) on September 20, 2006
Some thoughts on PLEs, in response to the recent ALT-C Conference, in Edinburgh.
I didn't blog during the conference itself, but took notes, pondered, and waited for it all to sink in and for my thoughts to coalesce a bit. There were too many competing strands and ideas flying around for me to try and make sense of it at the time. It's probably worth noting that the following notes and criticisms relate to my take on what I would term the "personalisation agenda", not necessarily to personalisation per se.
PLEs would appear to sit neatly within a "consumer" model for education. Perhaps too neatly. I am not entirely comfortable with the vision of institutions as "providers" and students as "clients" or "consumers." I get nervous when institutions become too corporate- / market-friendly.
How do the personalisation agenda and the consumer model for education challenge our vision of the social and charitable dimensions of education?
The personalisation agenda appears too individualistic to me. It appears to fit well with a vision of the student as an individually-motivated, strategic high achiever. Yet by adopting the language of personalisation to address the specific learning needs of individuals, are we losing focus on a key aspect of learning -- the ways in which individuals learn not in isolation, but in communities? Surely Lave and Wenger's work on Communities of Practice was designed to address just this problem? Are we now taking a step backward, and returning to an individualistic model for education -- a New Cognitivism, perhaps?
I am committed personally to publicly accessible education and to the existence of public educational institutions. I believe that broad social benefits flow from free dialogue and interchange between public cultural institutions and the wider society. And I believe this interchange is best facilitated when there is social commitment to funding public institutions in such a way that their infrastructure, including technological infrastructure, is publicly-owned. If we privatise this infrastructure, if we devolve it entirely to the individual, are we taking something away from our educational communities?
Belonging and participation (as valued aspects of education within an organisation or institution) involve a dimension of consensus, of modelling and apprenticeship, of playing to a common rule-set. Sometimes, participation involves giving up personal preferences and modes in order to join the conversation.
I didn't blog during the conference itself, but took notes, pondered, and waited for it all to sink in and for my thoughts to coalesce a bit. There were too many competing strands and ideas flying around for me to try and make sense of it at the time. It's probably worth noting that the following notes and criticisms relate to my take on what I would term the "personalisation agenda", not necessarily to personalisation per se.
PLEs would appear to sit neatly within a "consumer" model for education. Perhaps too neatly. I am not entirely comfortable with the vision of institutions as "providers" and students as "clients" or "consumers." I get nervous when institutions become too corporate- / market-friendly.
How do the personalisation agenda and the consumer model for education challenge our vision of the social and charitable dimensions of education?
The personalisation agenda appears too individualistic to me. It appears to fit well with a vision of the student as an individually-motivated, strategic high achiever. Yet by adopting the language of personalisation to address the specific learning needs of individuals, are we losing focus on a key aspect of learning -- the ways in which individuals learn not in isolation, but in communities? Surely Lave and Wenger's work on Communities of Practice was designed to address just this problem? Are we now taking a step backward, and returning to an individualistic model for education -- a New Cognitivism, perhaps?
I am committed personally to publicly accessible education and to the existence of public educational institutions. I believe that broad social benefits flow from free dialogue and interchange between public cultural institutions and the wider society. And I believe this interchange is best facilitated when there is social commitment to funding public institutions in such a way that their infrastructure, including technological infrastructure, is publicly-owned. If we privatise this infrastructure, if we devolve it entirely to the individual, are we taking something away from our educational communities?
Belonging and participation (as valued aspects of education within an organisation or institution) involve a dimension of consensus, of modelling and apprenticeship, of playing to a common rule-set. Sometimes, participation involves giving up personal preferences and modes in order to join the conversation.
Bookmark/Search this page with:
The personalisation agenda and public institutions
Nadia, thanks for your comment. I think we agree: I certainly don't see a conflict between high educational standards and expectations of achievement, and a philosophy of education that emphasises participation, peer learning and collaboration. For me, it is all about helping students to operate as individuals, creatively and effectively, within a learning community. Trust is another important factor - who can I trust with my data? I saw the Bazaar Project (www.bazaar.org) are holding a seminar in Barcelona next month on this issue.
Login to post commentsTrust, yes, and awareness
Hi, Catherine. I like your definition: "it is all about helping students to operate as individuals, creatively and effectively, within a learning community". Now, I am not sure that the younger generation is ready to put up with what can be seen as adulhood imperatives. When and where do they develop the level of awareness necessary to accept the effort of becoming autonomous learners as well as apt members of a community? This question has been bothering me since I got involved in educational technologies... Personalisation shouldn't emphasize a self-centered view of the world, that's why we need to consider the trend carefully. And you are right, trust certainly is an important factor.
Login to post commentsThe personalistion agenda and public institutions
The link between the 'personalisation agenda' and public funding of universities makes me think. In Switzerland, where almost all higher education institutions are publicly funded, students are clearly not considered as clients. However, they are usually expected to be 'high achievers'. I agree that belonging and participation are important, but I do not see them as contradictory to a high level of autonomy in learning. How to create suitable conditions to develop both types of skills - to allow students to take the most of any learning situation - is our challenge, since they are likely to be faced with a complex professional life later on. Nadia Spang BoveyUniversity of Lausanne, Switzerland
Login to post comments