Valerie Lovejoy

Personalised learning: lessons to be learnt

Personalised learning is now broadly endorsed as a key strategy to improve student curricular engagement and academic attainment, but there is also strong critique of this construct. We review claims made for this approach, as well as concerns about its conceptual coherence and effects on different learner cohorts. Drawing on literature around differentiation of the curriculum, self-regulated learning, and ‘relational agency’ we propose a framework for conceptualising and enacting this construct. We then report on an attempt to introduce personalised learning as one strategy, among several, to improve student academic performance and wellbeing in four low SES regional secondary schools in Australia. We report on a survey of 2407 students’ perceptions of the extent to which their school provided a personalised learning environment, and a case study of a programme within one school that aimed to apply a personalised approach to the mathematics curriculum. We found that while there were ongoing challenges in this approach, there was also evidence of success in the mathematics case.

Teacher adaptation to personalized learning spaces

Personalized learning spaces are emerging in schools as a critical reaction to ‘industrial-era’ school models. As the form and function of schools and pedagogy change, this places pressure on teachers to adapt their conventional practice. This paper addresses the question of how teachers can adapt their classroom practice to create personalized learning spaces. Personalized learning spaces draw conceptually from several decades of attempts to personalize learning and open up classrooms, both physically and virtually. They are characterized by deliberate and active interactions between the context, teacher and students. Two case studies are presented of teachers in Australian regional schools reacting to new open plan school buildings by adapting their practice. Key findings discussed are the influence of context on teacher reasoning, and teacher agency when establishing alternative learning environments.

Personalised learning in the open classroom: The mutuality of teacher and student agency

Abstract In this paper we examine how agency is characterised by teachers and students when personalised learning is enacted in the contemporary open classroom. A case study is outlined that identifies teacher reasoning for practice, the use of physical and virtual learning spaces, and student reaction to teacher facilitation of personalised learning. Agency is conceptualized as a multi-faceted set of behavioural, affective and cognitive choices, as realised by both teachers and students, drawing upon the action possibilities of contemporary educational contexts. A model of the mutuality of teacher and student agency is outlined. The model shows how a shared understanding of the affordances of flexible learning spaces and personalised learning interact to both produce teacher and student expectations and perceptions of their own and other’s choices and actions. Specific student choices and actions are examined in relation to problem-solving and open access of resources to achieve the task requirements. Implications are noted for teaching and learning in modern school contexts.

“They Can’t Just Google the Correct Answer”

Natalie, a Year 8 student, responding to a scientist’s blogged suggestion that her diagram of her invented spider-bat might need bigger ears (to explain its super-keen hearing and effective survival tactics), blogged back: Thanks Dr Dave. I’m glad you like the idea for my Spider-Bat and I will definitely try and fix those ears and I agree that my critter does seem a little defenceless. I will make sure to think about some ways in which my SpiderBat can avoid being lunch!! Thanks again. Enhancing students’ interest in and learning from school science experiences has remained a challenge for decades in many countries (DeWitt, Osborne, Archer, Dillon, Willis, & Wong, 2013; Duit, 2007; Tytler, 2007). This challenge is variously attributed to: (a) too much didactic teaching that casts students as reluctant bystanders tasked with memorising expert claims, (Duit & Treagust, 1998; Osborne & Dillon, 2008; Lyons, 2006); (b), a disconnect between official science curricula and students’ everyday worlds and interests (Aikenhead, 1996); and (c) lack of teacher familiarity with current scientific agendas, discoveries and methods (Chubb, 2014). Proposed and enacted solutions include: changes to the content, purposes and physical settings for learning (Duschl, 2008; Sadler, 2004; Tytler, 2007); integration with other subjects (Freeman, Marginson, & Tytler, 2015); more links with practising scientists (Chubb, 2014); more use of virtual resources (Linn, Davis, & Bell, 2013), and increased explicit focus on opportunities for students to use these and other resources as reasoning tools for learning in this subject (Lehrer & Schuable, 2006; Tytler, Prain, Hubber, & Waldrip, 2013).

Using Student Voice in Social Studies/Humanities to Personalise Learning

Promoting student voice in school learning is now broadly advocated to enhance the quality and personalised nature of this learning (Beattie, 2012; Elias, 2010; Mitra & Gross, 2009). In this chapter we report on a program where Year 8 low SES students participated in peer formative assessment in a humanities inquiry-based project, where they chose both the type and context of learning activities, and were taught by three teachers in an open-plan setting.

Characterising Personalising Learning

Can removing classroom walls enable more personalised learning and enhance student wellbeing? In this book we claim these outcomes are possible in an open-plan school for low SES students, if appropriate conditions are met. A major condition is the development of these spaces as supportive communities where teams of teachers address learners’ individual and collective needs.

Creating and Analysing Multi-Modal Texts in English Classes in Open-Plan Settings

As in other countries, the aims, rationale, and content of the English curriculum in Australia are hotly contested (Edwards, 2010; Green, 2008; Kress, 2006). Teachers disagree about the degree to which equity outcomes for all students are addressed and the extent to which state and national documents enshrine, or should enshrine, past and/or future versions of literacy (Goodwyn, Reid, & Durrant, 2013; Peel, Patterson, & Gerlach, 2000; Turner, 2007).

A Whole-School Approach to Adolescent Wellbeing in Open-Plan Schools

In this chapter we report on the attempts of one Bendigo Education Plan (BEP) school to respond to identified wellbeing issues by developing a whole-school approach to foster the wellbeing needs of their Years 7–10 students. The school has a cohort of students from lower than average socio-economic backgrounds. Research points to the necessity of a multi-layered approach to building a positive school culture to improve student wellbeing.

Remaking Schooling through Open-Plan Settings

In assessing a major educational reform of the kind enacted in the BEP, many questions are raised, requiring comprehensive, evidence-based answers. Was the original Plan well-conceptualised and effectively enacted to meet the needs of these twenty-first century learners? What are the short-term and long-term effects of this major reorganisation of schooling? What are the gains and losses (if any) of this approach? To what extent were initial goals achieved, and enacted strategies effective, and why? How sustainable are the emerging signs of positive changes to student academic attainment and wellbeing? What are lessons for like contexts and future schooling? Elsewhere (Prain et al., 2014), we have sought to answer some of these questions around BEP goals, implementation strategies, and outcomes, including key enablers and constraints.

“It’s Not a Plug-In Product”

As noted by Jonassen (2014), computer use has evolved over the last thirty years, deeply diversifying how students learn. This resource now functions variously as a learning guide or tutor (as in access to web-based tutorials and information sites), as a communicative tool with self and others for reasoning, inquiring, and creating or disseminating knowledge (as in the programs in computer games, English, science, and mathematics outlined in other chapters in this book), and as an organiser through which students can self-manage, reflect upon, and enact/improve their learning in systematic ways (as in learning dashboards).