The logic of data-sense: thinking through Learning Personalisation

ABSTRACT

Big Data and Learning Analytics’ promise to revolutionise educational institutions, endeavours, and actions through more and better data is now compelling. Multiple, and continually updating, data sets produce a new sense of ‘personalised learning’. A crucial attribute of the datafication, and subsequent profiling, of learner behaviour and engagement is the continual modification of the learning environment to induce greater levels of investment on the parts of each learner. The assumption is that more and better data, gathered faster and fed into ever-updating algorithms, provide more complete tools to understand, and therefore improve, learning experiences through adaptive personalisation. The argument in this paper is that Learning Personalisation names a new logistics of investment as the common ‘sense’ of the school, in which disciplinary education is ‘both disappearing and giving way to frightful continual training, to continual monitoring'.

KEYWORDS:

• Big data
• learning analytics
• Deleuze
• learning
• personalisation

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 While the form of these examinations may be revised from time to time, they are always used to represent, usually through some ranking and/or sorting process, the ability of the student and/or the quality of the school. We also note that commonly agreed does not mean universally accepted, there is vocal opposition to these examinations as well.

2 For Murphie (2014), the audit culture has ‘expanded its range to “account” for a wide range of behaviours, thoughts and even feelings’ and uses these to manage the fear of the differential. We note here the OECD's current interest in ‘soft skills’ to frame the prerequisites of innovation for economic success. Skills for innovation and research (OECD, 2011) suggests that, as ‘demand for knowledge sharing and learning increases, “soft” skills such as communication and teamwork may gain in importance’ (p. 10).

3 We are mindful of Savat's (2009, p. 56) compelling argument that technologies of control like LP never work to make a person a ‘good individual’ because their continuous nature means that they produce dividuals (momentary effluxions of code); whereas disciplinary mechanisms, like the school, ‘care’ for the individual by moulding them to be productive and self-governing citizens.