Is Personalised Learning Always a Good Thing?

Introduction

Personalised learning is one of the most celebrated ideas in modern education. The logic is intuitive: every student learns differently, so why force them all through the same material at the same pace? With advances in AI and adaptive learning platforms, we now have the tools to tailor education to each individual learner.

But there is a question that rarely gets asked: if every student is on a different learning path, what happens to the classroom as a shared space?

The more we personalise, the more we fragment. And when students are all learning different things at different speeds, the communal experience of education — the debates, the shared references, the collective struggle with a difficult concept — starts to dissolve. The result may be better individual outcomes but a weaker social fabric.

The Promise of Personalisation

The case for personalised learning is strong. Traditional classrooms force students into a one-size-fits-all model that inevitably leaves some behind and holds others back.

Adaptive platforms like Century Tech, Khan Academy, and DreamBox adjust difficulty in real time based on student performance. Teachers can use data dashboards to identify struggling students earlier and intervene more effectively.

Edutopia has reported extensively on schools where personalised learning has lifted attainment, particularly for students from disadvantaged backgrounds who previously fell through the cracks of a rigid curriculum.

And the research is broadly supportive. The University of Edinburgh has found that well-designed personalised learning environments can improve engagement and outcomes — particularly when students feel a sense of ownership over their learning journey.

The Hidden Cost: Social Fragmentation

But here is the trade-off that enthusiasts rarely acknowledge.

When students spend significant portions of their day working independently on tablets or laptops — each following their own adaptive pathway — they are not talking to each other. They are not debating. They are not learning to disagree respectfully, to listen to someone else's perspective, or to build on a classmate's idea.

Nancy E. Bailey, a prominent education commentator, has argued that the push for personalised digital learning risks creating classrooms full of isolated individuals, each in their own digital bubble. The social skills that come from genuine classroom interaction — empathy, persuasion, compromise — cannot be learned from a screen.

This matters beyond school. The ability to communicate across difference, to engage with people who think differently to you, and to build shared understanding is the foundation of a functioning society. If we train children to learn alone, are we preparing them for a world that demands collaboration?

The NextGen Learning Project has pushed back on this framing, arguing that personalised learning can be both personal and social — incorporating group projects, collaborative problem-solving, and peer-to-peer learning. But in practice, many schools implementing personalised learning default to screen-based individual work because it is easier to manage and measure.

A Deeper Question: Do We Want Cohesion?

There is also a philosophical question beneath all of this. The traditional classroom — with its shared curriculum, whole-class teaching, and common assessments — is a cohesion machine. Everyone reads the same book. Everyone grapples with the same maths problem. Everyone learns the same history.

This creates a shared frame of reference. It builds a common culture. It gives students, regardless of background, a set of shared experiences and knowledge.

Personalised learning, by definition, diversifies that experience. Each student's education becomes unique to them. The question is whether that uniqueness comes at the cost of the shared foundation that holds communities together.

This is not just an abstract concern. In an era of increasing polarisation, where people increasingly consume different media, inhabit different information ecosystems, and struggle to find common ground, the school classroom may be one of the last places where a diverse group of young people share a common intellectual experience.

Conclusion

Personalised learning is a powerful tool, and it has a genuine place in education. Students who struggle deserve support tailored to their needs. Students who excel deserve to be challenged.

But personalisation should complement shared learning, not replace it. The classroom should remain a communal space — a place where students learn together, debate together, and build the social skills that no algorithm can teach.

The best education systems will find a balance: personalised practice at home, shared learning and human connection in the classroom. The worst will hand every child a tablet and call it progress.

Is your child's school getting the balance right? Do you think personalised learning risks fragmenting the classroom? Share your experience in the comments.