I missed the first great topic on the TESOL Greece blog challenge, and I was determined to write a post for the second even before a gentle nudge from Elinda. (Thanks for that, it did push me to put my act together.)
Then when I saw the topic, I was even more excited to write about it: Personalisation (customisation) in the English classroom. It’s a huge topic but I feel very passionate about, and – perhaps a bit uncharacteristically of me – proud of the strides English language teaching has made in this area.
I believe personalisation in education is the single most important global impact English language teaching has had. English as a foreign language was the first school subject that recognised the immense influence that individual interest, knowledge and experience have on lasting and successful learning.
OK, perhaps the ancient Greek academia was also student centred. Thanks for that, Greece – and for the many other things we have got from you.
OK, perhaps the ancient Greek academia was also student centred. Thanks for that, Greece – and for the many other things we have got from you.
 |
| Photo credit: cb_agulto Flickr |
Medieval scholastic tradition and in the 19th century the factory model schools became institutions that delivered standardised knowledge, which was ultimate, unquestionable and absolute. Of course, there were great teachers who believed in the individual along the way, but in this instance I refer to a complete set of methods and principles applied across institutions, countries and continents.
It was the advocates of the communicative approach who a few decades ago designed tasks and activities which encouraged students to build on their own experience, using their interests and opinions as a source and the foreign language as a tool. This was an immense breakthrough after literally centuries of curricula that prescribed what students were to be tested on.
Another important shift brought about by personalisation and more attention to individual differences is that we focus much more on what each student is capable of learning at a certain age and we devise ways in which that learning can be more relevant and suitable for each individual student.
Our learners are used to receiving personalised advertising on Facebook, however surprisingly inappropriate it might look. They become decision-makers in terms of what they want to do/watch/play with from a very early age. They are used to being cheered and encouraged for their achievements. They get hundreds of “Likes” for saying something clever or doing something brave. These learners will definitely not be happy with being treated as an unrecognisable atom in a grey mass.
Similarly, there are more and more teachers who now come with the same kind of attitude. They are not the teaching slaves, or “the day labourers of the nation” (as we refer to them in Hungary*) any more. Their pedagogy is already student-centred and individualistic; they look for ways in which they can improve their own and their students’ knowledge, in places that don’t rely on curriculum descriptors and coursebooks. This new generation of teachers asks open questions, sets challenges and does not expect students to come up with the one correct answer. They want their students to ask the next clever question that takes the conversation – and by default, the learning – forward. Teachers of English were the first to institute games, activities, tasks instead of tests and exercises.
Does this mean that we are done and it’s all good, we can rest, the great work is done**? Oh no. You don’t need me to tell you how many teachers are still delivering the material, teaching to the test, applying the curriculum unconditionally and uncritically. They need guidance and support to find ways in which they can kill two birds with one stone: meet external expectations and provide for the effective and lasting learning for each and every one of their students. (I used to think these terms were mutually exclusive. Now, I think that “bringing down the system from within”*** is the way forward: be mindful of what is expected of you in administrative, curriculum and assessment terms, and do your utmost to achieve these as well as give the most possible individual development opportunities for your students. No, I did not say this was easy. On the contrary, I think this is the really hard part of our job these days. It’s not impossible but it IS hard work and requires a lot of dedication, time, energy and a fair bit of non-conformist attitude.)
Of course, there is all the work we need to do on integrating technology focusing on providing students with individual learning opportunities. (B
ecause this is what I believe is great about technology in the classroom.)
Also, there are the teachers of other subjects who claim that it’s easy enough for an English teacher, but biochemistry can’t be taught in a personalised way. I’m sure this was the first reaction of English teachers at the beginning. It takes time to realise all that we can do if we put our minds to it.
We must not forget the other huge responsibility that arises: we can only create independent learners and provide personalised learning opportunities if we ourselves are learners who seek new things to learn in new ways, challenging our beliefs, routines and principles.
It was the advocates of the communicative approach who a few decades ago designed tasks and activities which encouraged students to build on their own experience, using their interests and opinions as a source and the foreign language as a tool. This was an immense breakthrough after literally centuries of curricula that prescribed what students were to be tested on.
Another important shift brought about by personalisation and more attention to individual differences is that we focus much more on what each student is capable of learning at a certain age and we devise ways in which that learning can be more relevant and suitable for each individual student.
Our learners are used to receiving personalised advertising on Facebook, however surprisingly inappropriate it might look. They become decision-makers in terms of what they want to do/watch/play with from a very early age. They are used to being cheered and encouraged for their achievements. They get hundreds of “Likes” for saying something clever or doing something brave. These learners will definitely not be happy with being treated as an unrecognisable atom in a grey mass.
Similarly, there are more and more teachers who now come with the same kind of attitude. They are not the teaching slaves, or “the day labourers of the nation” (as we refer to them in Hungary*) any more. Their pedagogy is already student-centred and individualistic; they look for ways in which they can improve their own and their students’ knowledge, in places that don’t rely on curriculum descriptors and coursebooks. This new generation of teachers asks open questions, sets challenges and does not expect students to come up with the one correct answer. They want their students to ask the next clever question that takes the conversation – and by default, the learning – forward. Teachers of English were the first to institute games, activities, tasks instead of tests and exercises.
Does this mean that we are done and it’s all good, we can rest, the great work is done**? Oh no. You don’t need me to tell you how many teachers are still delivering the material, teaching to the test, applying the curriculum unconditionally and uncritically. They need guidance and support to find ways in which they can kill two birds with one stone: meet external expectations and provide for the effective and lasting learning for each and every one of their students. (I used to think these terms were mutually exclusive. Now, I think that “bringing down the system from within”*** is the way forward: be mindful of what is expected of you in administrative, curriculum and assessment terms, and do your utmost to achieve these as well as give the most possible individual development opportunities for your students. No, I did not say this was easy. On the contrary, I think this is the really hard part of our job these days. It’s not impossible but it IS hard work and requires a lot of dedication, time, energy and a fair bit of non-conformist attitude.)
Of course, there is all the work we need to do on integrating technology focusing on providing students with individual learning opportunities. (B
ecause this is what I believe is great about technology in the classroom.)
Also, there are the teachers of other subjects who claim that it’s easy enough for an English teacher, but biochemistry can’t be taught in a personalised way. I’m sure this was the first reaction of English teachers at the beginning. It takes time to realise all that we can do if we put our minds to it.
We must not forget the other huge responsibility that arises: we can only create independent learners and provide personalised learning opportunities if we ourselves are learners who seek new things to learn in new ways, challenging our beliefs, routines and principles.
Thanks for the opportunity to write about this fascinating topic, I really enjoy thinking about how much we have achieved and how much more we’ve got to do.
Have a great 2013 full of learning and a little bit of teaching
Have a great 2013 full of learning and a little bit of teaching
*I have just found out that the term was originally used by Gereben Vas, a popular 19th century Hungarian writer, to refer to actors. Slowly the saying became attached to teachers and today it almost exclusively refers to teachers.
** Another Hungarian reference to one of the greatest plays ever written in Hungarian: Imre Madach: Tragedy of The Man (If interested you can find it in English translation here and a short entry about it in English on Wikipedia)
*** Yes, you guessed it, one last Hungarian reference. This was the sarcastic reaction of many Hungarians after 1990 to more and more ex-party members joining and profiting from the new democracy, and claiming to have worked on bringing down the communist system from within.
** Another Hungarian reference to one of the greatest plays ever written in Hungarian: Imre Madach: Tragedy of The Man (If interested you can find it in English translation here and a short entry about it in English on Wikipedia)
*** Yes, you guessed it, one last Hungarian reference. This was the sarcastic reaction of many Hungarians after 1990 to more and more ex-party members joining and profiting from the new democracy, and claiming to have worked on bringing down the communist system from within.
Here’s a quick wordle of this post.
Currently Tamas is a full-time father in Dubai as well as a freelance materials writer and teacher trainer. He has had over 20 years of experience of working with students and teachers in Europe and the Middle East. He is passionate about using technology in the classroom, Personal Learning Networks, Professional Development and life-long learning. He is an
active member of the TESOL Arabia and manages the Dubai chapter’s blog
(http://dubaichapter.edublogs.org). You can find him on
Twitter: http://twitter.com/tamaslorincz. He also blogs
at http://tamasonline.com.
TESOL Greece Blog 
Tamas describes a lovely approach to teaching but his embrace of personalised education is based on a misunderstanding. He thinks that personalised education is just the latest form of child-centred education, and he accepts a naive opposition between personalisation and the factory/industrial model. How would he explain, for instance, the insistence by David Miliband (one of the architects of personalised learning in the UK) that "Personalised learning is not a return to child-centred theories." A closer look at the reality (rather than the spin) of personalised learning reveals that George Drivas is in fact right, and personalised learning is all about applying a new model of industrial relations (the new flexible factory) to education.
I agree with your sentiments, Tamas, but I don't think we can claim that English language teaching has led the way. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personalized_learning to see why!PhilipXX
Thanks for the comment. Sorry it's taken me a while to respond, it has been a bit of a hectic week. Very interesting points. It definitely would be a development if our schools resembled 21st centry factories rather than 19th century ones – but do they? Reading Miliband's talk on the topic: http://www.oecd.org/site/schoolingfortomorrowknowledgebase/themes/demand/41175554.pdf has also been illuminating, thanks for drawing my attention to his contribution to the discussion about presonalised learning. I admit that there is a lot more to the topic than I implied, and that personalised learning is a much more complex issue. My fist question about the Miliband quote is: When did we abondon or attain child-centred teaching? In my teaching contexts it still seems to be one of the most prevalent issues. I think we are still nowhere near understanding and acting on designing schools/curricula/lessons which provide students with individual growth opportunities. For me to go any deeper would require a lot more research and reading. This is is probably why I dont see a big gap between child-centre and personalised education. I think the later is the consequnce of the first. Once we perceive your classroom/school/education system as something consisting of individuals with idiosynchratic needs and characteristics we create the "new flexible factory" model – though I am not at all convinced that going on copying industrial models is necessarily the way forward for education. (Few industry models seem to be working these days and the ones that do don't necessarily do so by following ethical standards I would like education to represent: industrial success these days depends on exploitation, environmental damage, legal manipulation, deception.) Thanks for the comment again, this will keep buzzing in my head for a while.
Thanks for reading and commenting on the post, Philip. I didn't mean to suggest that we were the first ever to think of personalised appoach to teaching and learning – all I meant was that perhaps apart from early learning initiatives, English as a foreign language has been the pioneer school subject pretty much across the world to promote the value of personalised learning over a set of learning objectives to be attained. My probably too sweeping generalisation was also based on my experience in schools in Hungary and the Middle East, where it was the English teachers who started looking at teaching as a means of awakening students' individual potentials. Excellent Wikipedia entry. Learnt a lot from it. Thanks.