Adaptive learning and competency assessment system
The learning team determines, according to the tasks performed by the participant, what it is worth to practice further. If necessary, additional material or human help is offered.
Prior to offering the course, the user's purpose and abilities already available are not determined enough. People with different backgrounds receive a similar catalogue and learning sequence. The participant can choose through an easy or through-hard program and not finish it. Platforms are more difficult to show clear learning value and justify the offer to continue.
How the solution works
- Agree on the user's purpose and the purpose of initial verification
- Suggest a suitable sequence of content and task
- Obtain proof of independent performance
- Explain the mistake or pass on the need for help
- Check the result and discuss the next action
Key challenges
- The user's goal and initial level are not appreciated
- The barriers to learning remain without proper help
- Content usage is confused with learning outcome
- Subscription withdrawal analysis fails to explain learning barrier
Solution capabilities
Goal and baseline
A short task and a user goal allow you to select a start. One test is not considered to be an invariable assessment of human ability.
Learning Sequence
Content assumptions and educator rules determine the proposal. The user sees an explanation and can get another suitable path.
Proof of the result
Task performance, criteria and evaluation version are stored separately from review, click or time on the platform.
Proper help
The type of error and the expressed need point to practice, explanation or a person. Not using in itself does not prove a lack of motivation.
Review the process
Analyses the obstacles to task and assistance, including the reason for the user's specified withdrawal. Payment and cancellation of the subscription remain in commercial course.
Business context
- The user's goal and initial level are not appreciated
- Prior to offering the course, the user's purpose and abilities already available are not determined enough. People with different backgrounds receive a similar catalogue and learning sequence. The participant can choose through an easy or through-hard program and not finish it. Platforms are more difficult to show clear learning value and justify the offer to continue.
- The barriers to learning remain without proper help
- An incomplete task, a technical impairment and a conscious break in learning are seen as a uniform interruption. The learner receives a general reminder instead of the explanation, task or human help he needs.
- Content usage is confused with learning outcome
- Reports are mostly visible reviews and time spent, but they are not linked to verified tasks or abilities. Participation is considered sufficient proof of progress. The user and the company that buys the training do not see what the person has learned. It is difficult for the team to justify the result of the program and choose the right next stage of learning.
- Subscription withdrawal analysis fails to explain learning barrier
- The commercial reason for withdrawal is not related to the chosen learning goal, task difficulty and unsolved help. The product team cannot separate the achieved goal from the content or lack of help and select reasonable improvement.
- The participant sees the direction of learning according to their goal
- The user may lose motivation when the material is too heavy, too light or not related to his need. The results of the tasks allow for selection of further practice and assistance. The platform can better justify the value of continuing learning by assessing the change in abilities along with the course of use.
Core features
- Goal and baseline
- Learning Sequence
- Proof of the result
- Proper help
- Review the process
Key integrations
- Source of learning content
- Version of the object, ability, assumptions and proper task.
- Tasks and Help Course
- Proof of performance, evaluation criteria and aid outcome.
- Commercial Source
- The aid action requires plan data and voluntarily stated reasons for withdrawal.
Potential impact (%)
The ranges indicate an illustrative relative change in the metric under the stated assumptions. Results depend on the starting position and actual use of the solution. Percentages for different metrics must not be added together.
Self-agreed share of those meeting ability criteria
1–5%Increasing
Sample starting portion - 60%. Assumption: 10-25% of the remaining cases involve unsuited practice and assistance of a particular ability; a solution would help resolve 15-30% of these cases.
The number of learners who have achieved the agreed assessment criteria independently is divided by the number of pre-defined assessed group and multiplied by 100. The baseline is compared, and participants who have not completed or underestimated are not eliminated unnoticed.
Unresolved barriers to learning
5–25%Decreasing
This illustrative scenario assumes that 20-50% of missed actions can be identified through task and deadline tracking. That share is assumed to fall by 25-50%. Company data is needed to verify both the addressable share and the resulting change.
Count recorded instances of an obstacle for which no appropriate assistance has been provided within the agreed time frame.
Conditional calculation scenarios. The assumptions have not been validated against client measurements.
When this solution is relevant
- Learners' initial preparation varies, but all are given the same tasks.
- Evaluation results do not help with selecting the right complexity material or assigning assistance in a timely manner.
Project scope and implementation
Adaptive learning requires clear learning goals, materials of varying complexity and evaluation criteria. If they are not available, a teaching methodology is first developed. System recommendations are checked against learner outcomes.
Further development options
- Additional road branches and guidance methods only after proving their benefits to comparable tasks and audiences.