We embedded our peer-reviewed Guiding Empowerment Model into system design—reframing platform strategy around real learner constraints. This work influenced how features were prioritized, how data was collected, and how support systems were built—driving more inclusive, context-aware design at scale.
Using GEM spectra to inform authoring tools, scheduling, and content flexibility.
It’s easy for platform decisions to be shaped by what’s technically feasible or what’s been done before. But those choices ripple outward—affecting what students experience and what authors can build. We needed to start with learners, not legacy logic.
I led the translation of GEM insights into product and infrastructure decisions—ensuring internal systems reflected the actual barriers students face, not just technical requirements or stakeholder preferences.
We used GEM to identify core student needs the system wasn’t meeting—like difficulty with planning, low energy, and a need for more accessible, bite-sized content. Where GEM didn’t offer specifics, I layered in findings from additional research and usage data to round out the picture.
I worked with product, design, and content teams to map those needs to infrastructure decisions: task scheduling, new XBlock components, and internal content workflows. These insights also helped us prioritize multimodal authoring capabilities and advocate for more flexible systems across the board.
This strategy helped position internal tooling as a key part of the personalization effort. It reframed engagement as a systems issue—not just a student one—and helped shape an infrastructure roadmap that scaled with real-life learning conditions.
