Student Autonomy

What is the impact of adaptive technologies on student autonomy?

Because adaptive technology in education is so closely intertwined with 'personalization' and 'individualization', we wondered what impact these technologies might have on student autonomy and...

...The answer is mixed.

“The phrase ‘learner autonomy’ was coined in the early 1980s by educational guru Henri Holec who defined it as the “learner’s ability to take charge of his or her own learning”. (O'Neill, 2019)

A review by Educause suggests that adaptive technologies encourage student ownership through automated feedback cycles that prompt action and advancement independent of their teacher. (Pugliese, 2016)

However, recently, Synnøve Moltudal et al. conducted a mixed method research study in Norway to understand how adaptive learning technology might affect learning outcomes, learning environment and motivation, in grade 5, 6 and 7 mathematics classes. The results revealed that students who perceived themselves as ‘not very good at math’ before the intervention did not like the adaptive learning technology, experienced a decrease in motivation and expressed an unmet need for human support and help.

On the other hand, students who perceived themselves as “okay” or “good” in math felt the adaptive software met their needs and some enjoyed using it. All groups expressed dislike for the measurement, comparison and control aspects of the software.

The study concludes with the following warning:

“If the volume training is not sufficiently personalized, or if the pupils are not sufficiently prepared to enter the ALT [ Adaptive learning technology] activity loop, it might lead to a volume of frustration (as opposed to a volume of training/learning), decreasing the pupils inherent motivation for learning...” (Synnøve Moltudal, 2020, p. 26)

This case study is less a critique of the theory of 'adaptive learning technologies' and more a warning about the limitations of current adaptive solutions and a reminder about the importance of HOW a solution is implemented . Perhaps if the solution had provided different scaffolding, or a combination of different human interventions, it would have been more successful for all students.

However, one interesting outcome was that ALL student groups expressed dislike for the measurement, comparison and control aspects of the software; and control is directly correlated to 'autonomy'. This suggests a closer examination of THE KIND of adaptation that is implemented.

The kind of adaptation matters:

Imhof et al. offer further insight into the complicated relationship between student motivation, autonomy and adaptive technologies. They suggest that learning can be adapted by technology in three basic ways:

  1. Presentation

Adaptive presentation might include:

  • More or less detailed instructions

  • Design choices like dimming, sorting, zooming, etc.

2. Navigation

Adaptive navigation might include personalized learning paths, including learner controlled or system controlled




3. Content

Content adaptation might include hints, prompts and suggestions from the system.

What gets adapted most?

A recent systemic review of journal publications focused on adaptive/personalized learning between 2007 and 2017 identified personalized presentation as the most frequently implemented adaptation, followed by adaptive navigation. (Haoran Xiea, 2019, p. 8)

Lessons Learned:

Imhof et al. suggest that if the adaptive solution imposes the student’s learning pathway,(adaptive navigation) it may lead to better outcomes, however lack of student control (autonomy) risks frustrating learners, especially if the system is faulty, which was evident in the Norwegian study.

To mitigate this risk, Imhof et al. suggest that adaptive technologies use a recommender system to offer advice to learners but leaves them free to follow the recommendation or ignore it. (Christof Imhof, 2020, pp. 99-100)

Something to Ponder:

Before proceeding to the next section, take a moment to consider adaptive navigation. According to our research, it is the second most common use of adaptive learning tech, and can manifest in two basic forms:

  • learner controlled

  • system controlled

A learner controlled system acts as more of a "recommender system" whereas "system controlled" forces the learner down a particular learning pathway. Does a 'system controlled' pathway reduce a student's ability to take charge of his/her/their learning (learner autonomy), or does it reinforce it by giving students the tools they may not realize they need to be successful?

[You don't have to submit anything here, just take pause and consider the questions.]