Personalized Learning in the UK and Australia

Introduction

Personalized learning (PL) runs the gamut of contemporary educational perspectives. In this respect educators and students relate such phenomenon to the needs of contemporary time. Living in the post-industrial society with the information as the most valuable product, people cannot use obsolete methods but the newest ones. The state-of-the-art trend in education is concerned, as strange as it may seem, with personalized learning. Its approach is far-reaching today. More and more learners in civilized high-tech societies cannot but use PL, as a prerogative trend in identifying something new. Up-and-coming students of today do not feel any problem in studying on the personalised basis. A somewhat “isolation” is nothing for personalized learners. Thus, the purpose of the paper is to identify the peculiarities of PL in terms of the international discourse and its usability for contemporary learners and educators in the UK and in Australia. To expand this aim, it is better to ensure that several questions are clear to an observer. Thereupon, it is applicable to show these issues off:

1. What is PL?
2. How does it relate to Maslow’s theory of needs?
3. What peculiarities of this form of education in the UK and in Australia?
4. What are the advantages and limitations of PL?
5. Why is PL significant for all that?
6. What are the future implications of PL?

These draft questions lead the discussion in the paper to more critically well-crafted assumptions and claims.

Literature review

PL in focus

Heller et al. (2006, p. 1) give a definition that “personalised learning aims at tailoring the teaching to individual need, interest and aptitude so as to ensure that every learner achieves and reaches the highest standards possible.” Hence, PL is the way students can have additional knowledge and educational background by means of learning individually. Such a frontal way of educating students gains more popularity today.

Ally (2004) focuses on the idea that personalised learning in contemporary time can be inferred by stating the culturally-historical feature of educational system throughout years. Thus, it is no surprise that the UK government as many countries worldwide points out the primordial significance of PL to support governmentally the higher standards of education. This viewpoint is at a focus of customized learning. Learning materials and instructional design principles should spark interest among the officials. Informational world needs more efforts from people to recognize, accumulate, and, finally, use information in practice.

Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs

In accordance with the Maslow’s theory of five main needs PL fits each of them. Students are in safety due to a teacher. Psychologically, a teacher implements the most suitable methods of teaching a student based on generally accepted practice of using, for instance ICT. However, esteem is stimulated from self more than from others in PL. In the UK this is seen in how the government provides the student-centred education with more points on teacher’s performance. In this respect all students are about to be divided into those who are inclined and those who neglect the opportunity of PL (Stevenson, 2008). However, in Australia the overall attention is paid to all categories of learners despite their social and economical background.

Actualizing the deficiency needs of a child, Maslow wanted to grasp the meaning of self in the very beginning of child’s growth. In this respect he wanted to outline the need to make a child look at the inner powers of him/her so that to be able to grow intellectually. A teacher, thus, plays a role of an assistant with equally related focus on each student. Stevenson (2008, p. 41) admits: “Self-actualization and transcendence, according to Maslow, are “being” or “growth needs.” Such a speculation gives grounds to infer PL as the most perfect fit for the Maslow’s theory. Self-actualization need is seen as being on the top of the Malsow’s hierarchy followed by esteem, belongingness and love, safety, biological and physiological needs (Stevenson, 2008).

Peculiarities of PL in the UK and in Australia

As the twenty-first century rolls around, a new type of educational standard became predominant in the UK. A new reform in education makes each student the central figure for a teacher (Miliband, 2004). The UK Department for Education and Skills currently supports an idea of spreading the influence of PL over all students across the kingdom. Thus, the government of the UK is taking care of making the educational “system in which every child matters” (Miliband, 2004, p. 3).

The significance of PL in contemporary education across the UK is the fact. In this case many researchers in the field of educational innovations constitute the relevance of PL. A very appealing form of education, PL gives several grounds on its use. Johnson (2004) provides five points to ensure in the perfection of PL. In this respect the first reason is that an educator has distinct information on strength and limitations of a learner. Second, PL encourages competence and confidence of the educational process. Third, curriculum is easy to structure individually for a learner taking into consideration its relevance and level of advancement. Fourth, it promotes an organisational approach through laying more emphasis on student’s progress. Finally, fifth, PL supports student’s progress in the classroom.

In Australia, the role of PL has been taken into consideration already. In state of Victoria, for instance, the set of initiatives includes:

• Innovative ICT-rich learning environments;
• Introducing student-led interviews as an assessment;
• Reporting initiative (Keamy & Nicholas, 2007, p. 3).

However, launching this model of education, Australian government tries to encompass as more educational establishments as possible. Here comes a challenge for schools located in the poorest areas of the country. Thus, donation in Australia is processed not solely through the budget resources but owing to philanthropy. Education Foundation Australia seeks to penetrate into such area to promote more incentives for student-centred education (Black, 2008)

PL becomes a new style of learning. Thus, it provokes pedagogy move toward new directions in theoretical background and classical principles of learning. In this respect an individual should be aware of the PL use through different aspects of the national approach. In fact, Johnson (2004) does not diminish the role of school, but he points out its economical profit. The researcher provides an assumption that the economical drawback of PL, as appealed to solely one learner, can be resolved by grouping learners according to particular similarities in their profiles (Johnson, 2004). In Australia this problem is at stake currently.

Personalized learning in practices

The UK

Since the Blair’s initiative on accepting PL as a new governmental strategy within the educational system of the UK, PL went through different transformations and interpretations in terms of.the main criteria and features of it (Keamy & Nicholas, 2007). Thereupon, centred on the student education in close participation with a teacher became a norm in public schools across the country. The most common initiative outlined by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) in 2004 is known as “Every cchild matters” (Keamy & Nicholas, 2007). The main points as pertaining to this approach in education state:

• be healthy
• stay safe
• enjoy and achieve
• make a positive contribution
• achieve economic wellbeing (Keamy & Nicholas, 2007, p. 12).

Drawing up the main perspectives and directions of PL in the UK, specialists are more inclined to use the all-pervading and weighed in terms of psychology and pedagogy strategy. In this case DfES once proposed and implemented the strategy that covers somehow Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Keamy & Nicholas (2007, p. 13) illustrate it through the five components of PL, namely:

1. Inner core (Assessment for learning; effective teaching and learning; curriculum entitlement and choice);
2. Personalizing the school experience (organizing the school; beyond the classroom).

These components evaluate the main approach of PL practiced in the UK.

Australia

Initially, PL was (and continues to be) used in Australia. The main problem of this country in providing education in the largest part of it (desert) is in demographic misbalance. The question is that the population of Australia does not cover the territory of the continent evenly. Thus children could study by means of radio. In fact, they were solely given the task and instructions to it. The next step was to handle them and make personal efforts to study. However, this model proved itself on a large scale of people living in Australia.

PL is an innovation in the Australian education that emerged here in the late 1990s. However, the similarity of PL implemented in Australia with that in the UK is in the requirement to fulfil student’s needs. In fact, Australia is aimed at supporting all categories of students with proper education. In this respect the government constantly verifies if students:

• are provided with a learning environment promoting wellbeing and lifelong learning opportunities
• are encouraged to be active, engaged learners
• acquire the competencies and skills to operate effectively in our changing society (Keamy & Nicholas, 2007, p. 19).

Thus, the general essential standards of PL are apparent in Australia. However, the main peculiarity as opposing to the UK situation is in differentiation of PL among three main areas of the country (Keamy & Nicholas, 2008). It is done by the Australian government in order to keep up with the characteristic features of different layers of the society in terms of economic factor, ethnicity, and some other attributes.

Learning styles focusing on PL

The reality of driving any system toward perfection presupposes that once the peculiarity of time demanded something new to use, researchers tend to invent the methodology of styles and principles. Thereupon, PL learning systems also have particular structure of guts composing them. Sampson & Karagiannidis (2002) highlight differentiation of PL systems to be implied through adaptation logic. The appropriateness of learning styles as well as their efficacy for a learner throughout the learning outcome. In this respect Melis & Monthienvichienchai (2004) propose to check learning style through didactically flexible design and differential evaluation of learning systems.

More blended approach to psychopedagogical model can be assumed when introducing PL learning styles in terms of e-learning. Alonso et al. (2005, p. 218) ground their research on the need of “information processing psychology and social constructivism.” In turn, the psychological approach should nave the prerogative functional role among the main features of yielding PL effectively. This is clearer if one draws up schemes or algorithms to reach the point of education. Hargreaves (2005) researched the implementation of PL as opposed to standardized ways of learning. Thus, he strictly outlines that reflection of different learning styles, theoretical implementation, and practical activities might be aimed to compliment meta-cognition and engagement with learning (Hargreaves, 2005).

Jarvela (2006) makes out the construct of PL as additional tool to impact children in order they could think not solely well but wisely. Thus, it should be taken into the schedule of learning styles appropriate to the figure of a learner and a subject learnt. The influence of learning styles on the academic performance is felt when talking about the use of them in processing information. Litzinger et al. (2007) identify the recently broadened and, perhaps, the most popular “fixed trait” theories based on the individual skills and talents of learners.

Conole et al. (2004) underline in their study analytical as well as critical observation of an educator should be incorporated in different learning scenarios. Pursuant to the theoretical approach on their implementation these very scenarios might be exposed by specific resources and tools. Conole & Oliver (2002) characterize necessary tools and resources to improve learning as a “design of decision-making resources.” All in all, PL needs the implementation of more devices to support and, what is more significant, to speed up the process of education at large.

Discussion

The whole discussion on the applicability of PL in terms of modern society deserves being true and rational. It makes possible for people living in different parts of the planet to communicate and exchange their experiences. Getting closer to PL, it is the way to provide individual techniques to make a student grow intellectually. Such a communication between a tutor and a learner drives both toward working out new learning styles that in part facilitate the load of curriculum.

At present, the humanity can drive educational prospects forward. Karagiannidis & Sampson (2004) see it in incorporation of learning styles through verification of PL determinants as concerned directly with each learner. In this respect the individual portfolio of a student should presuppose his/her knowledge background, an educator’s expertise to prove it, skills, and overall ability to respond the requirements of the course. The main approach of the educators, thus, should identify the most applicable way to use PL systems without contradicting current learning styles in general. To be precise, an observer should pay special attention to the character of means used in Knowledge Society (Conole et al., 2004). The most appealing and efficient ones should be prior. On the other hand, a practitioner should take into account pure styles or a sort of their synthesis to make the educational process more convenient.

On the other hand, as shown in the study of Sebba et al. (2007), PL supersedes the way form of education the majority of people used to follow, i.e. learning at school. The validity of this assumption gains more proof when having a glance at contemporary youth and business of people. It is a challenge for a modern individual to break away from everyday activities (work, family, etc.) and spend time in order to obtain degree. Thus, Web space makes wonders for everyone tending to get education in constantly updating information world of today. Each university, college, or school has databases that suggest a student formal assessment and individual settings (Kurzel, 2004). Even such presumptions on education lead to delineation of student’s skills and knowledge to be worked on by a tutor afterwards. In other words, PL encompasses the set of norms and rules proposed in educational establishments narrowed down to a definite student.

The transformation of educational process and quality of teaching from public to individual approach becomes easier by means of straightforward implementation of toolkits assessing learners in their progress. In the era of information predominance PL is seen to be the state-of-the-art approach in education. In this respect PL becomes more customized in relationships between an educator and a student. A tutor can have an idea on the peculiarities of the curriculum related to a student’s individual program.

The personality of a learner as well as the learning process as such in terms of PL integrates into the semantic e-learning framework (Huang et al., 2006). Thus, the humanity is confronted with an alternative to transform learning from public to personalized type. In this respect I think that this process should not be that spontaneous or one that happens at once. Students need get used to having additional portion of knowledge outside the school. Educational environment throughout Internet can guarantee it. On the other hand, students can refer to a private tutor at home. However, it is not so popular in modern society.

The limitations of PL presuppose that when learning individually can improve skills of a student, it keeps him/her far from communication in class. On the other hand, the role of a teacher (coach) simply comes down to instructive. Closer participation of a student with a teacher is omitted. In turn a lack of care and “real” communication can appear instead.

The future implications of PL are far-reaching. In fact, living in the high-tech society nowadays can give reasons for further development of technological era, but with faster tempos. Pettenati & Cigognini (2007) point out that PL will grow into a new quality of “connectivism” and “personal learning environments.” Thus, it is irrational to reduce the technological amenities of time if they are so widespread and accessible to people. Supposedly, education will not lose its historical or theoretical background. However, the way of accumulating and knowledge and its supervision and assessment would change definitely (Heller et al., 2005). This assumption leads contemporary researcher to new frontiers of educational system. Moreover, it creates a vortex of ideas on interrelation of pedagogy with neuroscience, psychology and cybernetics.

Conclusion

To sum up, the discussion provided in the paper touched upon the multidimensional and all-pervading nature of PL in contemporary education. The evaluation of PL in practice touches upon the experience in the schools across the UK and in Australia. Multiple studies a part of which is represented in this paper provide quite ostensive arguments for the importance of PL. All in all, scholars and educators are talking today about the emergence of new type of education, i.e. e-learning. Web-based educational environment looks attractive to many students. Thus, it helps both educators and learners to follow an exclusive set of learning styles which lead the whole educational process to positive results. In fact, there are enough reasons to implement PL faster in the course of current educational systems.

Reference

Ally, M 2005, ‘Using learning theories to design instruction for mobile learning devices,’ Mobilelearning anytimeeverywhere, pp. 5-8, Web.

Alonso, F, Lopez, G, Manrique, D & Vines, JM 2005, ‘An instructional model for web-based e-learning education with a blended learning process approach,’ British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 217–235.

Black, R 2008, Crossing the Bridge: Overcoming entrenched disadvantage through student-centred learning, The R. E. Ross Trust Education Foundation.

Conole, G, Dyke, M, Oliver, M. & Seale, J 2004, ‘Mapping pedagogy and tools for effective learning design,’ Computers & Education Vol. 43, pp. 17–33.

Conole, G Oliver, M 2002, ‘Embedding Theory into Learning Technology Practice with Toolkits,’ Journal of Interactive Media in Education, Vol. 8, pp. 1-28.

Hargreaves, D 2005, ‘Personalising Learning – 3: Learning to learn & the new technologies,’ Specialist Schools Trust, Web.

Heller, J, Mayer, B, Hockemeyer, C & Albert, D 2005, ‘Competence-based Knowledge Structures for Personalised Learning: Distributed Resources and Virtual Experiments,’ Web.

Heller, J, Steiner, C, Hockemeyer, C & Albert, D 2006, Competence-based knowledge structures for personalised learning, Journal on E Learning, Web.

Huang, W, Webster, D, Wood, D & Ishaya, T 2006, ‘An intelligent semantic e-learning framework using context-aware Semantic Web technologies,’ British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol 37, No 3, pp. 351–373.

Jarvela, S 2006, ‘Personalised Learning? New Insights into Fostering Learning Capacity,’ Personalising education, Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, pp. 31-46.

Johnson, M 2004, ‘Personalised Learning: New directions for schools?’ New Economy, Institute for Public Policy Research, pp. 224-229.

Kabassi, K & Virvou M 2003, ‘Using Web Services for Personalised Web-based Learning,’ Educational Technology & Society, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 61-71.

Karagiannidis C & Sampson D 2004, ‘Adaptation Rules Relapting Learning Styles Research and Learning Objects Meta-data,’ Workshop on Individual Differences in Adaptive Hypermedia, 3^rd International Conference on Adaptive Hypermedia and Adaptive Web-based Systems (AH2004), Eidhoven, Netherlands.

Keamy, K & Nicholas, H 2007, Personalizing Education: From Research to Policy and Practice, Victoria Department of Education and Early Childhood, No. 11, September.

Koper, R & Manderveld, J 2004, ‘Educational modelling language: modelling reusable, interoperable, rich and personalised units of learning,’ British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 537-551.

Kurzel, F 2004, ‘Introducing Instruction into a Personalised Learning Environment,’ Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, pp. 565-572. Web.

Litzinger, TA, Lee, SH, Wise, JC & Felder, RM 2007, ‘A Psychometric Study of the Index of Learning Styles,’ Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 96, No. 4, pp. 309-319.

Melis, E & Monthienvichienchai, R 2004, ‘They Call It Learning Style But It’s So Much More,’ Web.

Miliband, D 2004, Personalised Learning: Building a New Relationship with Schools, Education Conference, Belfast.

Papanikolaou, KA & Grigoriadou M 2003, ‘An Instructional Framework Supporting Personalized Learning on the Web,’ Proceedings of the The 3rd IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT’03), Athens, Greece.

Pettenati, MC & Cigognini, ME 2007, ‘Social Networking Theories and Tools to Support Connectivist Leraning Activities,’ Journal of Web-based LearnIng, pp. 1-20.

Sampson D & Kragannidis C 2002, ‘Accommodating Learning Styles in Adaptation Logics for Personalised Learning Systems,’ 14th World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (ED-MEDIA 02) Denver, Colorado, USA, June, pp. 24-29.

Sebba, J Brown, N, Steward, S, Galton, M, James, M 2007, ‘An Investigation of Personalised Learning Approaches used by Schools,’ Research Report RR843, Web.

Sharples, M, Taylor & J, Vavoula, G 2005, Towards a theory of mobile learning, Web.

Stevenson, L 2008, Personalised Learning in a Web 2.0 Environment, The University of Waikato.