Homeschooled children have benefited from personalized learning due to a dedicated parent who chose curriculum and lessons that best fit a child’s learning style. It is the ultimate in education. Often, we see attempts to mimic this idea of personalized learning that is accomplished with technology. Are the results the same?

Attorney Jane Robbins on the Truth in American Education website delves into this topic and provides us with much to consider. She states, the “goal of adopting education by machine is to (1) replace genuine education with training for workforce skills, and (2) eventually reshape individual personalities, attitudes, and mindsets to better fit the government-approved mold.” She also challenges the assertion that personalized learning via computer is beneficial to students.

IAHE has had concerns about the effects of technology on the brain. Parents, please consider the research as you determine what is in the best interest of your child.

Beware of the Personalized Learning Propaganda

The lust for money and power drives a lot of bad public policy. This truism certainly applies to education, where technology corporations have joined Brave New Worlders in seeking to implement technology-driven “personalized learning” (PL). What these forces won’t admit (or at least not in so many words) is that the goal of adopting education by machine is to (1) replace genuine education with training for workforce skills, and (2) eventually reshape individual personalities, attitudes, and mindsets to better fit the government-approved mold.

But even if the goal of PL really were to bolster academic content knowledge by improving instruction, modern cognitive science suggests this can’t happen. A recent article by Benjamin Riley explains why. Writing for an issue of Educational Leadership devoted to “Getting Personalization Right,” Riley begins with this wry observation: “with the exception of the article you’ve just started reading, nearly everything you read in this magazine about personalized learning is probably wrong.”

Read more here.