Adaptive Learning Technology Plan
Adaptive Learning – Grading the 2010 National Education Technology Plan
Adaptive Learning – By Patrícia Gomes and Tony Wan Dec 9, 2015
Adaptive Learning –Read the entire article, here
Access The 2010 National Technology Plan, here
Tom McDonalds Comments:
Adaptive Learning – The model is solid and the targets are realistic
If Fast = A, Medium = C and slow = F, I think the progress made in 5 years would be deemed unacceptable
Unfortunately, the lack of real progress, in 5 years, specific to advancing student success outcomes is dismal (where advancing student success outcomes is the primary goal/objective).
ALL the proven research reflects a paradigm change, replacing the ineffective, inefficient, one size fits all teaching methodology, with 21st century, truly personalized, ongoing, professionally facilitated, adaptive learning methodology, supported by educationally innovative technology, that seamlessly integrates, relevant, appropriate, research proven, pedagogy.
Where are the professional educators that embrace their mission/vision of advancing student success outcomes?
This was known in 1984, (31 years ago):
“Bloom found that the average student tutored one-to-one using mastery learning techniques performed two standard deviations better than students who learn via conventional instructional methods—that is, “the average tutored student was above 98% of the students in the control class”. Additionally, the variation of the students’ achievement changed: “about 90% of the tutored students … attained the level of summative achievement reached by only the highest 20%” of the control class.”
Even with this knowledge:
“Teachers still do not “personalize” instruction. On p. 2 of the report, under the heading “What Today’s Classrooms Look Like” the first finding of the survey is in the following paragraphs”:
“Despite the proliferation of technology that enables student learning experiences to be tailored to meet individual skills, needs, and interests, … More than two-thirds (69 percent) of participating teachers report teaching in classrooms where students generally learn the same content, working at the same pace together as a class”
69%? The message and the research seems to be ignored when incumbent classroom methodologies are documented.
- Would a mechanical engineer be allowed to ignore positive advances in his profession, to the disadvantage of his employer and clients?
- What if we went to a MD that was utilizing 20th century practices? Would we be okay with that, knowing there is a much, much better way to practice medicine for OUR benefit? Would we, as patients, think this was ok?
- What if our septic tank needed fixing and the plumber, instead of using a back hoe, personally did the job poorly, with a shovel and charged us 4 times what another plumber would have charged, by using a backhoe (and the use of the backhoe resulted in a better overall job). Would we be okay with this?
Most likely not, in all circumstances, but we aren’t outraged when we are funding ineffective, inefficient teaching methodology, that does not measurably advance student success outcomes, with the knowledge that there is a much, much, better, research proven, methodology, that DOES, effectively and efficiently, advance student success outcomes:
What if someone said that you will see these results from educationally innovative software? (these are proven results):
- More Stimulation per Minute of Study
- 300% Improvement in Retained Learning per Hour of Study
- 11% less study time, 22% less test time, and 95% higher test scores
You will benefit from:
(I) Improved Learning Outcomes and Increased Competence;
- Retention to fluency (95% vs. 28%),
- Behavior change through accountable reinforcement,
- Improved application,
- Advanced individual performance and
- Advanced organization performance
Would you say, nah, my way is better? Would you say, nah, those aren’t real results? Would you say one to one deep learning is a myth? I hope not, but I’ve heard these responses from educators.
The problem is that traditional educators have been brought up to believe that rapid learning is possible (its not) and that power point (one size fits all teaching) is king (its not). Compound this with legacy LMS’s, SIS’s, LCMS’s, replicating this event based teaching scenario, coupled by rapid content development software, you have an ineffective and inefficient, unchanged current teaching paradigm. because of this we are stuck in the past, because change is hard (weep, weep).
Compound this with the fact that some educators have no real clue at to what creates deep learning (I had a recent interaction with a physics PhD that thought one to one, deep learning, student success outcomes, was a myth…They didn’t think personalized learning worked. Wow!)
ALL professionals MUST embrace their profession. We expect no less.
Real, incentivized, accountability, measures, for advanced student success outcomes, must be implemented, along with real incentivized, accountability measures to understand and correctly implement 21st century deep learning methodology, utilizing proven, adaptive learning technologies.
Positive change MUST occur at a much faster rate
Access The 2010 National Technology Plan, here
To Discuss how these Solutions will add value for you, your organization and/or your clients, Affinity/Resale Opportunities, and/or Collaborative Efforts, Please Contact:
Tom McDonald, email@example.com; 608-788-5144; Skype: tsmw5752