Research update

Decent research into adaptive learning remains very thin on the ground. Disappointingly, the Journal of Learning Analytics has only managed one issue so far in 2015, compared to three in 2014. But I recently came across an article in Vol. 18 (pp. 111 – 125) of  Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline entitled Informing and performing: A study comparing adaptive learning to traditional learning by Murray, M. C., & Pérez, J. of Kennesaw State University.

The article is worth reading, not least because of the authors’ digestible review of  adaptive learning theory and their discussion of levels of adaptation, including a handy diagram (see below) which they have reproduced from a white paper by Tyton Partners ‘Learning to Adapt: Understanding the Adaptive Learning Supplier Landscape’. Murray and Pérez make clear that adaptive learning theory is closely connected to the belief that learning is improved when instruction is personalized — adapted to individual learning styles, but their approach is surprisingly uncritical. They write, for example, that the general acceptance of learning styles is evidenced in recommended teaching strategies in nearly every discipline, and learning styles continue to inform the evolution of adaptive learning systems, and quote from the much-quoted Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008) Learning styles: concepts and evidence, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 105–119. But Pashler et al concluded that the current evidence supporting the use of learning style-matched approaches is virtually non-existent (see here for a review of Pashler et al). And, in the world of ELT, an article in the latest edition of ELTJ by Carol Lethaby and Patricia Harries disses learning styles and other neuromyths. Given the close connection between adaptive learning theory and learning styles, one might reasonably predict that a comparative study of adaptive learning and traditional learning would not come out with much evidence in support of the former.

Murray and Pérez set out, anyway, to explore the hypothesis that adapting instruction to an individual’s learning style results in better learning outcomes. Their study compared adaptive and traditional methods in a university-level digital literacy course. Their conclusion? This study and a few others like it indicate that today’s adaptive learning systems have negligible impact on learning outcomes.

I was, however, more interested in the comments which followed this general conclusion. They point out that learning outcomes are only one measure of quality. Others, such as student persistence and engagement, they claim, can be positively affected by the employment of adaptive systems. I am not convinced. I think it’s simply far too soon to be able to judge this, and we need to wait quite some time for novelty effects to wear off. Murray and Pérez provide two references in support of their claim. One is an article by Josh Jarrett, Bigfoot, Goldilocks, and Moonshots: A Report from the Frontiers of Personalized Learning in Educause. Jarrett is Deputy Director for Postsecondary Success at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Educause is significantly funded by the Gates Foundation. Not, therefore, an entirely unbiased and trustworthy source. The other is a journalistic piece in Forbes. It’s by Tim Zimmer, entitled Rethinking higher ed: A case for adaptive learning and it reads like an advert. Zimmer is a ‘CCAP contributor’. CCAP is the Centre for College Affordability and Productivity, a libertarian, conservative foundation with a strong privatization agenda. Not, therefore, a particularly reliable source, either.

Despite their own findings, Murray and Pérez follow up their claim about student persistence and engagement with what they describe as a more compelling still argument for adaptive learning. This, they say, is the intuitively appealing case for adaptive learning systems as engines with which institutions can increase access and reduce costs. Ah, now we’re getting to the point!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.