Adaptive Learning Interfaces

This work was presented at the 2026 User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP) conference in Gotherburg, Sweden.

Problem

Educational platforms increasingly use class averages, rankings, leaderboards and peer-progress indicators to motivate students. These features are often added as though comparison were a neutral piece of information. My research examines why that assumption is unreliable. The work is governed by this question: For whom does comparison work, and in what form does it work?

The same feedback affects students differently

Social comparison means evaluating our own ability, progress or performance in relation to other people. It is a normal part of human behaviour. We use others to understand whether we are doing well, falling behind or improving at an expected pace.

My review of previous research found that educational comparison appears in several forms, including leaderboards, comparative dashboards, peer-activity displays and direct messages about other students. Across these designs, the reported effects on motivation, engagement and learning were inconsistent.

The inconsistency repeatedly pointed to three sources of variation:

• the learner, including their goals and competitive tendencies;

• the design, including privacy, visibility and the chosen comparison target;

• the situation, including the learner’s current performance and whether the benchmark appears attainable.

Three categories of students

The research identified three broad learner profiles that are practical patterns that summarize how students may relate to comparative feedback.

The Competitive learner

Competitive learners are strongly interested in performing well relative to others and are willing to engage with competition. For them, comparison can establish a target worth pursuing. A class average may sometimes be too comfortable. Once these students see that they have reached it, they may decide that their effort is sufficient. A higher but attainable benchmark can instead preserve the sense of challenge.

Potential design: show progress relative to a stronger-performing group.

The Vulnerable learner

Vulnerable learners are also sensitive to how they perform relative to others, but they do not experience competition as positively. Comparative information is therefore relevant to them, yet may also create pressure or threat. Showing that stronger peers are far ahead can reinforce a sense of inadequacy rather than provide direction. A safer reference point may help protect confidence and sustain participation, although it must not be so low that it removes the need to improve.

Potential design: use reassuring or carefully framed comparison and avoid threatening benchmarks.

The Independent learner

Independent learners are less concerned with demonstrating competence relative to others. They may focus more strongly on understanding the material, reaching a personal goal or improving their previous performance. For these students, social information may contribute little. It can even distract from a more useful self-referenced question: Am I making progress?

Potential design: remove peer comparison and emphasize personal progress or mastery.

Design Principles

Protect privacy. Students may want to know where they stand without having their own performance exposed.

Adapt the reference point. A higher, lower or similar benchmark can communicate very different messages.

Allow comparison to disappear. More information is not always more useful.

Evaluate behaviour, not preference alone. What students choose or say they like may not be what best supports their learning.