I have a rather uncomfortable confession to make*: I think I am more than a WEE bit paranoid about the corporate takeover of education.
I often catch myself imagining cronies from huge conglomerates like Pearson and McGraw Hill smoking cigars in back rooms with heartless politicians, cackling as they systematically dismantle public education and suck every last damn dime out of a system scrambling for answers in a “high stakes” world where the “schools are failing” narrative has convinced everyone that teachers are incompetent and technology can do it all.
“Relax, Bill!” I’ll say in the middle of my incoherent ramblings and cold sweats. “SURELY there are good people at big corporations who are developing products with PURE intentions. It’s NOT about capitalizing on fears and making a fast buck. It’s about improving schools FOR THE CHILDREN!”
And then I read headlines like this one:
(click to enlarge)
Poke through the article. It filled with horrifying quotes like this:
Based on Knowledge Space Theory, ALEKS uses research-based artificial intelligence to determine precisely what each student knows, doesn’t know and is most ready to learn in a given course. ALEKS interacts with students like a personal tutor, helping them study more effectively and efficiently by delivering the exact instruction they need, right when they need it.
The ability to assist students at all levels using real-time feedback and inherent motivators has resulted in significant improvements in retention, success and confidence. While the hallmark of ALEKS was its data-driven computational excellence, this new level of research on student behavior and archetypes will allow the learning system to focus more on conceptual learning and increase student motivation and persistence.
Sounds AMAZING, right? HOORAY for Personal Tutors, Artificial Intelligence and Computational Student Archetypes!
That’s when the rational side of my inner-lunatic returns: “Take off your tinfoil hat, Bill. There’s no evil corporate cabal trying to undermine education. You are being ridiculous.”
So I take a few deep breaths, stream a few Yo Gabba Gabba videos to channel my inner Foofa and think a few happy thoughts about daffodils and unicorns and pay raises for North Carolina teachers. I settle myself and temper myself and steel myself for a return to the Internets in hopes of finding something hopeful to read about teaching and learning and schools.
And then I stumble across headlines like this:
(click to enlarge)
Poke through the article. It’s filled with horrifying quotes like this:
Cengage is leveraging the power of the Knewton platform to create a next-generation adaptive course that is built with personalization in mind from the start, said Jose Ferreira, founder and CEO.
“Students will get continuously updated recommendations for what to study at any given moment and instructors will get predictive analytics that help them intervene before a struggling student falls behind or an advanced student becomes disengaged. Furthermore, ASU is involved in the product development to further tailor the course for students and instructors.”
The Active Adaptive Psychology course will be the first in a series of new “Active Adaptive” General Education courses delivered through this partnership. ASU will study the effects of both delivery models in on-ground, hybrid, and online class settings.
Sounds AMAZING, right? HOORAY for Predictive Analytics and Active Adaptive Psychology!
Maybe I AM losing my mind. At the very least, I probably need to burn my Conspiracy Theory DVD and kick my late-night Neal Boortz and Free Talk Live habit. But then again, what if I’m right. Maybe corporations really ARE pushing flawed definitions of “personalized learning” in an effort to sell crap to school districts desperate for the good press that comes from looking like you’ve found the solution to “ensuring success for every student.”
All that I know is that genuine learning is a heck of a lot messier than McGraw Hill and Cengage and Knewton are making it out to be.
There’s very little “predictive” and “analytical” and “artificial” and “computational” about genuine learning. Instead, genuine learning is social and driven by interactions and preconcieved notions and intellectual challenge delivered at just the right moment by people that you trust and respect and enjoy.
I also know that my students are WAY more motivated and persistent when they are working to address real-world problems. They want to participate and to make a difference and to belong and to matter. Mastery is meaningless when it leads to nothing other than “progress pie charts” and “personalized celebrations encouraging students to attain learning momentum” — cheap promises that McGraw Hill pushes on its customers.
That messiness is stripped away by “personalized, adaptive technologies” whose primary goal seems to be to clinically deliver the RIGHT basic facts to the RIGHT kids at the RIGHT time so they can answer the RIGHT questions on the RIGHT end of grade exams — and the end result is learning spaces that are lonely and less personal than ever before.
Am I wrong here?
*Blogger’s Note: Have fun figuring out what percentage of this bit is honesty, sarcasm and humor!
Related Radical Reads: