This is an interesting post by Elaine J. Roberts, Ph.D.
Where I tried to clarify some technology matters:
Elaine, I like your vision, concerns and beliefs about ideal learning. But let me specify a bit your generalized perception of adaptive learning algorithms. We already have around a range of adaptive learning systems (algorithms) and they are quite different.
Some of them (like Knewton) really dictates the learner what to do and people (learners and teachers) have no choice or power to change it. That is what you do not like, right? Though Knewton is good for drill and practice for test passing.
Others (like Smart Sparrow) give people (teachers) all the power to program a course of learning (and providing choices for learners). That is what you might like, but quality of such manually designed courses is usually questionable. It is not good either.
An ideal adaptive learning system (algorithm) is supposed to provide:
1) course authors with a strict logical framework for shaping amorphous human-authors content ideas, excluding errors, assuring quality and yet leaving a lot of space for creative freedom;
2) learners with close monitoring of personal learning behavior to collect necessary data
3) learners with opportunity to drive their own learning
4) Learners, educators and authors with explicit representation and automatic frequent updating of a learner’s personal proficiency, learning style parameters and preferences;
5) automation of what computers do better than humans: consideration of too many factors and data, complex planning and logical recommendations with OPTIONS for learners to choose from;
6) teachers with means to easily UPDATE and REFOCUS content and ADJUST a system’s teaching style.
I hope this sounds not bad at all. That is what we offer in our Adaptive Learning-Authoring platform CLARITY https://www.itutorsoft.com
So, educators do not need to “rethink” a lot, they just need make a right choice and go ahead.
Thanks
Vlad