# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Articulate Storyline: All you need to create interactive e-learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Build highly interactive online and mobile courses with Articulate Storyline, the only e-learning authoring software that grows with you. It's simple enough for beginners, powerful enough for experts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A few weeks ago, while perusing Twitter for news stories, a few folks on the EdSurge team came across a Tweet by math blogger, former teacher and current Desmos Chief Academic Officer Dan Meyer. He had recently read an EdSurge article regarding struggles that had taken place during a Fulton County Schools' personalized learning initiative, and in response, Meyer Tweeted the following:

Though the "invitation" wasn't directed at anyone in particular, EdSurge decided to take him up on the offer. Last week, Meyer joined in on a very special Google On Air Hangout for a live discussion around exactly that topic-the "core assumptions" of personalized learning, where Meyer thinks PL helps or hurts classroom learning, and how technology fits into all of this.

We've adapted the interview into both a podcast and a (slightly abbreviated) Q&A. Scroll below to get right to the interview, and scroll even further down to view the recording of the live conversation.
EdSurge: Let's start out with the basics. What do you define as personalized learning?
Dan Meyer: That's a great question with a very contested answer. I'd say there's a couple of key parts that are non-negotiables, and from there, you can find some flexibility. For instance, competency-based grading seems really important, where students can demonstrate their competency on a given course... Whenever you hit the end of Algebra One, if two students know the same about Algebra, they should progress in the same direction in their learning. They should both get the same grade.

The next that I think that is non-negotiable is the idea that technology should play some part in helping students learn at their own pace. This comes from the Bloom study, which is cited a lot-Bloom found enormous gains for tutoring, which in this day and age is a kind of obvious point to a lot of educators. But back when that study came out, it was a pretty serious deal that when you gave someone a one-on-one tutor, they learned loads more than without that.

It's really hard to accomplish those two goals without some technological help. The idea is, "How can I get myself to duplicate and make copies of myself 40 times to help out with students side by side?" It's impossible. Therefore, enter technology. Those, in my mind, are some of the core assumptions I see across lots of different models.
Where does that technology come in? Pedagogy? In the Atlanta piece that we published, one of the educators described the key to personalized learning as "the idea of the teacher transferring ownership of learning to students so they can be self-directed learners." Do you agree or disagree that that is the key to this concept of personalized learning?
I love the statement. My goal as the person representing in some ways a more traditional style of instruction, less personalized, and emphasizing certain parts of math... I don't want to default to some lazy cliches. "Ownership of learning" and "self-directed learning," in my mind, are overused cliches, to the point of meaninglessness. I'm going to do my best to reckon with them.

I'll make a metaphor. When I go to the gym, it's a pretty rare day when I push myself consistently to have my heart rate in the red, working really hard. I want to slack a bit. I want to do exercises in ways that accommodate my limitations and laziness. And so, one of the benefits of having a teacher who has a more global view of the subject is that they can push you and direct you in ways that keep your brain in the red zone. That's one aspect I think where teachers are super valuable. I'm not sure it's even possible for students to provoke themselves in the ways that teachers can provoke those students.

The assumption I love about personalized learning is the idea that every student in class should be challenged and in that mental red zone for large portions of the day. Every day, every hour? That will burn a kid out.
The "ownership" piece that you spoke about may be a bit cliché, but what about the implementation piece? Don't we want to ensure that you're training students to take ownership of the work that they are doing in the sense that they feel responsible for it, and that they feel proud of the work that they're producing?
"Proud of the work that they're doing" is a very uncliched description of a student in the classroom... Love it. All of that.

There's a learner profiles that came up in this RAND study that showed another more unevenly implemented version of PL. I'm in favor of students knowing what they know and don't know, and where they're going next. But in the cliché, it leaves a lot of room for me to step in and say, "I'm not sure what this means." And there's part of it where I don't know if [some things] are possible, or even advisable.
So then, when it comes to the assumptions behind personalized learning, what do you question as the biggest, most potentially damaging assumption?
The biggest assumption I question is the degree to which technology replaces the word that sets off alarm bells ("teachers"). Technology is not up to the task. I question the assumption that technology can do what we want technology to do. We ask technology to do a couple things that I don't think in 2017 it does a good job of, and one is to be the human tutor at the side of the student. We overestimate the ability of a computer!

Also, we overestimate the ability of the computer to access student mastery in a competency-based system. I've run (as a math teacher) competency-based grading, and it was entirely on paper. Sure, there were aspects of it that were a bummer for me. It was a lot of hand grading, but in turn, I felt so much confidence when I said, "Yes, you're competent." That meant something.

The computer does not reach the level of the human tutor in assessing competency.
Let's stick with that: What about the assessment piece? What's the role of technology in that, if any?
As far as the practice goes, computers do a very good job of taking teacher input, teacher assessment, teacher grading or feedback on student thinking, and storing that somewhere in a way that everyone (parents, administrators, students, and teachers) can view.

I'm nervous about computers being the one to assign that student a score, a mark, a grade. To elaborate, what I see in a lot of these platforms is multiple choice-a lot of numerical responses... It's the kind of learning that's cheapest and easiest for computers to do.
Some might think that artificial intelligence could improve that-that someday, computers will basically be able to do assessments that relies more on human cognition right now.
Fingers crossed, right? Sure. Hey, I'm not opposed. I don't see it happening in 2017. What are we going to do? Put these systems in place, and the kids between now and 2024 are going to get screwed? We can't do that.
Do you think then when we implement PL, we're at risk of moving from a community-based mentality in schools to more of an individual-based mentality?
Yeah, absolutely. I couldn't have said it better. Where I work, at Desmos, we're not looking to individualize learning as how we think of it. What am I learning? What am I watching? What assessment am I taking? We're in favor of a learning that is social and creative, so our efforts related to finding ways to make these devices, phones and computers that students love outside of class resemble what they do inside of class.

For instance, think about what students love to do with their phones outside of class. They're creating, and they're sharing those creations: stories, and text messages, and videos, and photos. They share those with their networks to get feedback on them, find out triggers about what people like. But you bring those same devices into a school setting, and it's like they switch into airplane mode... Why isn't it awesome when they step into the four walls of my classroom?
On the other side of that, more of an individualistic perspective would say, "It's good to focus on the individual, because then kids don't get lost in the group." What's your response to that?
I'm generally in favor of some balance. There are some times where students will be practicing different things. But, I think we vastly underestimate the value of discussion and explanation. An hour ago, before this talk, I was thinking about what I might say here. And when I'm saying it in my head, I'm like, "Yeah. Nailed it." But here and now, when I start to articulate it... I start to realize the limitations of my imagination... You respond to things I'm saying, and you're pushing on ways that I didn't anticipate.
Slight switch-why don't we hear more about the failures of personalized learning?
There is a certain hero narrative, a savior narrative. This is the new hot thing. We don't like to publish, even in research studies, negative results. With every incentive, from venture capital on down to even individual teachers, it seems to be all about, "Let's make this thing work." If I'm in conversation with a teacher, I can find out pretty fast if they're pedaling cliches or if they're real. I really think it really has to do with incentives from the media, to the venture capital world, all invested in the narrative that personalized learning is what is going to save society-from test scores to our GDP.
So that being said, going forward, as a last question, how do you think we can continue having these conversations, without all of that white noise that takes place in and around this space?
I think that we should all resolve to be a little bit annoying when it's possible, and to ask people to clarify their priors to define personalized learning in very concrete terms. What does this mean on the ground level? What does a good classroom look like? What if I walked into your school? Get on that level as fast as possible, as annoyingly as possible. That's my resolution.

Know what you love about learning and teaching, and let's make sure whatever models we use testify that truth. If you ever feel that twinge, this is not living up to my ideals. Don't suppress that. Steer straight into that, and change it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Questioning the Core Assumptions of Personalized Learning With Math Blogger Dan Meyer - EdSurge News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A few weeks ago, while perusing Twitter for news stories, a few folks on the EdSurge team came across a Tweet by math blogger, former teacher and current Desmos Chief Academic Officer Dan Meyer.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is Memorization Important in the Age of Google

# data[].attributes.subject
Is Memorization Important in the Age of Google

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Similar to the birth of eLearning in the 1990s, the rush to implement adaptive learning has led to the development of poorly designed courses that are not properly aligned and fail to effectively implement the principles of multimedia learning. As a result, many institutions often proclaim their use of adaptive learning as a failure. Much of their disappointment with the initial results can be directly linked to the design of the course itself. One of the wonderfully unique strengths of using adaptive learning to deliver courses at the university level is the ability of the tool to illuminate gaps in the course design.

Oftentimes, universities make a swift decision to incorporate adaptive learning into a course, program, or department (and sometimes across departments when prompted by grants and other financial incentives) as one way to address their student success strategic initiatives. While adaptive learning is an excellent tool for improving student success across a university campus and its feeder system, little attention is usually given to the role of the faculty when redesigning courses for use in such a platform. Additionally, there is a gross underestimate of the time required to design and develop courses that are both aligned and adhere to the principles of multimedia learning. In an effort to most effectively take advantage of the power that lies in the use of a strong adaptive learning platform, faculty should be involved in the process from day one and the use of instructional designers should be considered a valuable use of resources.

Regardless of the delivery modality, poorly designed courses impact student success. It is past time we pay more attention to this critical issue as we now have tools that can provide support to students on a one to one basis. Attention to the development of a properly aligned course is imperative for student success. More often than not, however, most faculty completely ignore or lack knowledge of what proper alignment is, how to use it, and why it is important.

What is Proper Alignment?

Proper alignment means there is a direct connection, or correlation, between the course goals, the objectives, the assessments, and lessons. Proper alignment ensures that students learn what you intend for them to learn and are able to perform the tasks you expect them to be able to perform. One of the most effective ways to ensure proper alignment of a course is through the use of the backward design model. In this model, faculty begin with the end in mind and design the actual lesson last.

Beginning with the End in Mind: Course Goals

Faculty should ask themselves, "What do students need to know and be able to do by the end of this course?" Whatever it is that students should know and be able to do at the end of the course is the stick by which all other decisions about the course and its design should be measured. If an objective, assessment, or lesson does not contribute to that ultimate goal(s) of the course, it should not be included.

Faculty and other course developers should have a very narrow focus for each course they develop and always ask if each assessment and each lesson will help their students achieve the goal(s) for their course. Additionally, faculty should know that less is usually more in education. There should be no more than one, maybe two, overall goals for any particular course. Much thought should be given to exactly what the goal of each course is or should be.

When deciding to move a course into an adapted learning platform, it is crucial that the course has a clearly defined goal and that you are able to define what success means, especially if your university is working to meet student success initiatives. Defining success helps the adapted platform partner better meet your needs by providing yo u the most important data and identifying possible gaps in the course and curriculum.

Properly Aligned Learning Objectives

Anytime you have a large goal, you should have smaller goals that help you reach that larger goal. I like to explain to the students in my teacher education courses that a course goal and its objectives are like a ladder. The course goal sits at the top of the ladder and each rung on the ladder is an objective that students need to master in order to reach that course goal.

Another critical component of effective learning objectives is that they must be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time sensitive). This can be quite challenging for faculty to grasp. Each learning objective set must meet the SMART criteria to increase the likelihood of student success in any course.

When designing a course for delivery using an adaptive learning platform, you must map out the objectives and determine if these objectives must be learned in a particular order such as is typically the case with math courses as they follow a more linear path - you must be able to add and subtract before you can multiply and divide. Here, you are beginning to tap into the power of the adapted platform to highly personalize the course to each student's needs based upon their incoming knowledge.

Properly Aligned Assessments

Hopefully by now, you have clearly identified your course goal and the learning objectives that will be needed to help students reach that goal. Now you are ready to think about how you will know if students reach the goal and how you will measure their progress toward meeting that goal along the way. My professional opinion is that effectively assessing students continuously is the backbone to learning.

The days of giving a midterm and final should be over in higher education although I am clearly aware that it is not. This is clearly a training issue. Unless you have been trained as an educator, you may not have ever been taught how to teach. Unfortunately, just because you are an expert in your field does not mean you can do an effective job of teaching others. This is where the university must take a stand and begin requiring that faculty receive professional development and training around pedagogy/andragogy.

To determine how much students are learning throughout the course, the use of formative assessments are key. Here, you are assessing for learning. In an adapted course, these assessments allow you to provide detailed feedback and adjust the lesson for students on an individual and dynamic basis. Effective feedback is critical to increasing learning and it is essential that the feedback is timely. In an adapted course, feedback is immediate regardless of the time of day or night. No teacher can or ever will be capable of doing this without the assistance of a digital tool, such as an adaptive platform.

In my experience, getting faculty to understand the importance of and commitment to the development of effective assessments is the most challenging part of designing a course to be delivered using adaptive learning. While not new, variablized questions - assessment questions with multiple correct and incorrect answers - is an excellent assessment type to maximize the power of adaptive learning. While it takes a little time to get the hang of, the use of 5 variablized questions can allow an adapted platform to produce over 100 different versions of those questions! When each question is properly tagged to each objective, strong evidence for student success can be clearly identified. This is where the use of adaptive learning gets exciting! There's nothing like seeing the results from your hard work developing a properly aligned course from top to bottom.

Properly Aligned Lessons

I teach students that the last component they need to develop in the backward design of their course is the actual lesson. After you know the goal, the objectives needed to reach that goal, and how you will assess students' progress toward that goal, you are now ready to design the lesson. To me, this is the easiest part of the design process. By now the picture is clear and you are best able to develop a lesson that is not only aligned to the goal and objectives of the course but also ensure that you will teach in such a way that will best prepare students for the ways in which you will assess them.

At the end of the day, I am either helping my students succeed or helping them to fail. Too often in academia, we like to pass the buck off to the students. However, this practice is not fair unless we can ensure that our courses are properly aligned and that we are asking students to complete activities and assessments that will help them move up the ladder to reach the ultimate goal of the course.

The use of adaptive learning can allow faculty to design lessons to ensure that all learners are capable of succeeding by properly aligning their courses. However, as you now might be able to more clearly see, the development of effective courses, rather delivered face-to-face, in a hybrid setting, or in an online format, will require the involvement of faculty and, in many cases, the use of instructional designers. Additionally, faculty must be supported with course releases or other appropriate support needed to develop effective courses that can increases student success.

While the use of proper alignment is a critical aspect of course design, the proper use of multimedia principles are also needed. Catch my next blog post for an overview of the multimedia principles and how they are used to design effective courses.

Niki Bray
Instructor & Instructional Designer
School of Health Studies
Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE)
The University of Memphis
Former WCET Fellow on Adaptive Learning
n.bray@memphis.edu

Target image credit: http://hopbeinc.blogspot.com/2012/09/setting-smart-goals.html

Learn more about WCET!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Developing Effective Courses Using Adaptive Learning Begins with Proper Alignment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Similar to the birth of eLearning in the 1990s, the rush to implement adaptive learning has led to the development of poorly designed courses that are not properly aligned and fail to effectively implement the principles of multimedia learning. As a result, many institutions often proclaim their use of adaptive learning as a failure.