Dear Friends,

This week's evidence comes from our friends at Johns Hopkins University. Once again, I need to let the evidence get in the way of my preconceived notions. The study is about personalized learning. Well before COVID, this term has often been poorly defined and a buzzword for tech companies to have students spend more time in front of screens with adaptive tests than engaging in collaborative learning. This global meta-analysis focused on early reading and included students from five countries. It focused on using Personalized and Adaptive Learning (PAL). It found an effect size (the percentage of a standard deviation change in student scores) of .29. That’s less than the Hattie standard of .40 but still much stronger than many other interventions. 

I need to learn more about the details before making a full-throated endorsement of PAL, but given the ever-widening learning gaps since COVID, we need to be open to other interventions. Certainly, this is better than the continuing pervasive use of after-school and summer school programs in which the neediest students rarely participate. Here’s the link:

Exploring the impact of personalized and adaptive learning technologies on reading literacy: A global meta-analysis - ScienceDirect