Talk:Personalized learning

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: POV-check info

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re-editing for Neutrality 

message: * 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." 
* Powellhttp://www.inacol.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/mean-what-you-say.pdf
* Martindale & Dowdy
* educausehttps://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eli7049.pdf
* 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
FeatherPluma (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs that actually matter 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Another merger proposal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I think you are correct; I will follow through in the way you have signposted. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another merger proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Critiques of personalized learning