Personalisation of education unquestionably represents a key component of many education reforms worldwide. A simple as well as partial definition equates it with individualisation plus socialisation (Ferrer, forthcoming). However, this implies a clear-cut divergence from mere individualisation and a fundamental emphasis on the learner as a person, a subject socially situated in the larger community. In spite of its apparent self-evidence, personalisation remains largely ambiguous both in theory and in practice, as fundamentally a reassembling of old and new pedagogical approaches under new reform discourses. In this article I engage with theoretical and contextual meanings, some of which predate the recent prominent English wave of personalisation as a “big idea” policy. I will assess its different ingredients and meaning in the works of major scholars such as Michael Fullan (Fullan, Hill & Crévola, 2006), Chris Watkins (2004, 2005, forthcoming), and Michael Fielding (2008, forthcoming), with the help of a set of criteria: an underlying theoretical perspective, main “ingredients”, major aims and possibilities, key education levels at which it must be implemented, a major focus on learning vs. teaching, and focus on specific target groups of pupils. In terms of education policy, personalisation will be comparatively assessed through a set of similar criteria in several contexts: England, Italy, Romania and the Australian State of Victoria. My argument is that the huge variety of initiatives undertaken in the name of personalisation have very different theoretical foundations, domestic legitimatory bases and practical configurations. Moreover, in line with the social cartography of Paulston (2003), I will propose a map of personalisation. Through speculative and comparative analysis of contrasting theories and different policy models, it is however possible to derive that the main quality benchmark should be an increase in equity for the lowest achievers.
Comparing Theories and Politics of Personalisation:What is worth fighting for?
MINCU, Monica Elena
2011-01-01
Abstract
Personalisation of education unquestionably represents a key component of many education reforms worldwide. A simple as well as partial definition equates it with individualisation plus socialisation (Ferrer, forthcoming). However, this implies a clear-cut divergence from mere individualisation and a fundamental emphasis on the learner as a person, a subject socially situated in the larger community. In spite of its apparent self-evidence, personalisation remains largely ambiguous both in theory and in practice, as fundamentally a reassembling of old and new pedagogical approaches under new reform discourses. In this article I engage with theoretical and contextual meanings, some of which predate the recent prominent English wave of personalisation as a “big idea” policy. I will assess its different ingredients and meaning in the works of major scholars such as Michael Fullan (Fullan, Hill & Crévola, 2006), Chris Watkins (2004, 2005, forthcoming), and Michael Fielding (2008, forthcoming), with the help of a set of criteria: an underlying theoretical perspective, main “ingredients”, major aims and possibilities, key education levels at which it must be implemented, a major focus on learning vs. teaching, and focus on specific target groups of pupils. In terms of education policy, personalisation will be comparatively assessed through a set of similar criteria in several contexts: England, Italy, Romania and the Australian State of Victoria. My argument is that the huge variety of initiatives undertaken in the name of personalisation have very different theoretical foundations, domestic legitimatory bases and practical configurations. Moreover, in line with the social cartography of Paulston (2003), I will propose a map of personalisation. Through speculative and comparative analysis of contrasting theories and different policy models, it is however possible to derive that the main quality benchmark should be an increase in equity for the lowest achievers.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
