Whole hearted agreement here. As a fellow prof, and one influenced by the personalist Dorothy Day, this vision of education is a humanized one that is more labor intensive but far better for students and faculty alike.
I like this distinction between "personal" and "personalized" learning. In addition to the points you make about the benefits of friction, it makes me think about the emphasis on the individual vs. the communal: Part of what education (in a school setting) entails is learning together. Personalized learning can meet an individual's specific needs, which can be good (there are certainly moments when the communal emphasis of the classroom holds a student back or leaves them behind.) But the personal space of the classroom allows students to learn from one another in unexpected ways, ways that I imagine a personalized curriculum could never anticipate.
Great point about the individual vs. community aspects. There are certainly benefits to meeting individual needs, but we lose a lot when we move out of communal spaces. Hoping to double click on that idea in a future post. Thanks for reading and commenting!
I think your mention of trying to help students become active creators and not passive consumers is incredibly important, but massively swimming upstream. The most widely used products are those that help people be more sedentary and driven towards consumerism. Few people garden or write, but we all buy vegetables and read books in some capacity. Yet, the most growth in at least my life has come when I take back my own personal creativity and make something for myself, rather than paying for it from someone else.
Thanks Jacob, totally agree. To compound the issue, we've also got a very performative vision of what it means to create. Even in creating, we are often creating to consume (views, likes, comments, etc.). We need to find ways to help students to love the process for itself, irrespective of the ultimate impact of the product.
Nice one, Josh. You are really on a roll to close out the term.
One thing that struck me about your description of active learning is how social learning environments are, which gets lost in the personalization framework. Intelligence and academic achievement gets measured at the individual level, but so much of learning is happens through active interactions and exchange.
And Tana French is a great recommendation! The Searchers is my favorite, although that may be just because I read it most recently.
Thanks Rob. And yes, the social/community aspects are really important. It feels like the future of education according to Sal Khan et al. is students sitting in pods working by themselves an an AI tutor. I think we're missing a whole swatch of what actually makes educational environments powerful. It's not to say that they always deliver on that potential, but we should be thinking about ways to use AI to strengthen those aspects instead of further destroying them.
Whole hearted agreement here. As a fellow prof, and one influenced by the personalist Dorothy Day, this vision of education is a humanized one that is more labor intensive but far better for students and faculty alike.
Shared this with my faculty as we begin curriculum revision next year.
Thanks Myles, would be glad to hear any comments or feedback they might have. Hope it's helpful!
I like this distinction between "personal" and "personalized" learning. In addition to the points you make about the benefits of friction, it makes me think about the emphasis on the individual vs. the communal: Part of what education (in a school setting) entails is learning together. Personalized learning can meet an individual's specific needs, which can be good (there are certainly moments when the communal emphasis of the classroom holds a student back or leaves them behind.) But the personal space of the classroom allows students to learn from one another in unexpected ways, ways that I imagine a personalized curriculum could never anticipate.
Great point about the individual vs. community aspects. There are certainly benefits to meeting individual needs, but we lose a lot when we move out of communal spaces. Hoping to double click on that idea in a future post. Thanks for reading and commenting!
I think your mention of trying to help students become active creators and not passive consumers is incredibly important, but massively swimming upstream. The most widely used products are those that help people be more sedentary and driven towards consumerism. Few people garden or write, but we all buy vegetables and read books in some capacity. Yet, the most growth in at least my life has come when I take back my own personal creativity and make something for myself, rather than paying for it from someone else.
Thanks Jacob, totally agree. To compound the issue, we've also got a very performative vision of what it means to create. Even in creating, we are often creating to consume (views, likes, comments, etc.). We need to find ways to help students to love the process for itself, irrespective of the ultimate impact of the product.
Nice one, Josh. You are really on a roll to close out the term.
One thing that struck me about your description of active learning is how social learning environments are, which gets lost in the personalization framework. Intelligence and academic achievement gets measured at the individual level, but so much of learning is happens through active interactions and exchange.
And Tana French is a great recommendation! The Searchers is my favorite, although that may be just because I read it most recently.
Thanks Rob. And yes, the social/community aspects are really important. It feels like the future of education according to Sal Khan et al. is students sitting in pods working by themselves an an AI tutor. I think we're missing a whole swatch of what actually makes educational environments powerful. It's not to say that they always deliver on that potential, but we should be thinking about ways to use AI to strengthen those aspects instead of further destroying them.
This reminds me of an MLK quote
“We must remember that intelligence is not enough. Intelligence plus character—that is the goal of true education.”
The full essay can be found here,
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/purpose-education#:~:text=Education%20must%20enable%20a%20man,ligitimate%20goals%20of%20his%20life.
Yes, very true. Thanks for sharing, Joseph. Resonates with a piece I wrote a while back as well. https://joshbrake.substack.com/p/education-is-for-human-flourishing