Page 64 - Looking_after_school

Looking after school: a critical analysis of personalisation in education

tially always an answer to the gap between the current level of perfor-
mance and the desired or chosen level of performance. This means
that the fixed connection of age, subject matter, and proficiency level
is no longer of value here, and neither is the organisational translation
into, for instance, grades and class groups. Age, grades, and classes
could very well still have a part to play in the outcome-oriented learn-
ing environment, but only for pragmatic reasons. This means that they
are only maintained in so far as they are functional for the learning
process and support the orientation towards outcomes of individual
learners.
Next to the focus on competency-based employability, the principle of
selection and choice might very well play a role in learning environ-
ments. The word talent, and the discourse on enabling learners to dis-
cover their talents, refers to a disposition that is at least partly innate,
one that will ‘naturally’ orient the learner towards a domain in which
they want to be employable. In a way, this focus on developing talents
into competences installs a regime of ‘self-selection’ based on what
somebody is ‘naturally’ good at. Whatever may be, in this architecture,
everyone’s longing for employability is translated into personal learning
needs, and tailored education can be offered by basing itself on these
needs. For reasons of efficiency, but also in order to make personalised
learning paths technically possible, these learning environments are to
a great extent digital. Digital environments transgress the boundaries of
physical spaces and the prescribed time schedules. This means ideally
that the learner also becomes the organiser and manager of their own
learning path (as much as possible) and becomes thus the co-producer
or the co-designer of their own learning environment.
Since learning environments are focused on outcomes, there are very
specific quality indicators for these environments and learning paths:
effectiveness (achieving learning outcomes), efficiency (achieving out-
comes in as little time as possible, and as cheap as possible), perfor-
mativity (producing as much output with as little input as possible)
and productivity (paths with added value that guarantee real employ-
ability). It is always about learning gain: in time, price, output, or added
value. One consequence of this architecture is that education and the
teacher - from the perspective of the supply side - can always be evalu-
ated and judged by the learner (or the financing government) based on

64