In this post I would like to consider two things. Firstly, the fact that e-technologies can be used to reproduce the same kind of pedagogy that has been practiced for years, using as an example two instances of “Personalised Learning.” This idea was addressed in the course in the opening units. My second point is really a question that arises from both these examples, namely whether it is possible to transform our schools from a didactive to a reflexive pedagogical model as long as high-stakes testing determines a student’s opportunities to enter Higher Education.

(https://www.essex.gov.uk/Business-Partners/Partners/Schools/One-to-one-tuition/Documents/Personalised%20Learning%20a%20practical%20guide.pdf)

As the diagram above suggests, it is very possible to take the idea of “Personalised Learning” as simply another way to ensure that students stay "on trajectory" through individual interventions or programmes without challenging the dominant didactive pedagogy. The previous UK government’s policy shown above really is about recognising that students do not all come to the classroom with the same experiences or abilities (even if these are not seen as fixed abilities), but that where they need to “go” is still the same place (end of year common assessments).

Therefore, while that getting to the same place through the affordances of e-technologies is recognised, there is still little question in this approach of how to use those affordances to transform education in a meaningful way. We began this course with a look at how e-technologies could be used to transform education from a didactive to a reflexive model in which student agency was prioritised and the production of knowledge artifacts rather than memory-tests was promoted.

In some approaches to Personalised Learning that make use of new e-technologies, for example New Classrooms, there is still no shift in what students are expected to know and do, nor in how they are expected to show this. Using these new e-technologies may be a way of helping the teacher better manage the ‘trajectories’ of student learning by providing the teacher with on-going and instant data on students progress, or allowing the teacher to use class time to ask and answer student questions because the content learning has been outsourced to homework via the production of videos of lectures, but the goal is still the same: pass the mandated end of unit/semester/year tests.

The fact that Personalised Learning can be used to support teachers in achieving the same goals as they have had to for decades raises the issue of whether individual teachers or even schools can realistically adopt very different approaches (such as a reflexive model of pedagogy) when the system they operate within still requires the same kind of assessment of learning. What “affordance” is there for radically different pedagogies as long as results on exams such as Advanced Placement, A Levels or IB Diploma Programmes, which to varying degrees prioritise content knowledge (ie memory), determine entrance to Higher Education?

Presumably, until there is a change in this area, if change from a didactive to a reflexive model is going to be possible there will need to be robust research that shows that students who participate in a reflexive model of pedagogy can still do well on standardised tests that determine university entrance.