A student asks their trainer, “What should I do?” The trainer has experience, a timetable and an answer. Giving that answer might be the right thing to do. But sometimes there is room for another question first: “What have you considered?”

That small opening is part of what we mean by agency. The person has some authorship of the next step. They can explain their thinking, ask for help and take responsibility for a choice.

In Sariio’s language, we want people to do great work together and each say, “I did it my way.” Education puts a useful challenge to that statement. What happens when someone's preferred way is unfamiliar to the tutor, inconvenient for the group, or insufficient for the task? And what happens when development involves doing something the person does not yet enjoy?

A serious answer needs room for both the person and the demands of the work.

Choice and structure belong in the same conversation

Self-determination theory identifies autonomy, competence and relatedness as basic psychological needs. Autonomy concerns a sense of volition; competence concerns effectiveness; relatedness concerns connection with other people. Ryan and Deci’s foundational account examines how social conditions can support or frustrate these needs. It does not prescribe a preference survey or claim that people should only do what they already like. [1]

For a development conversation, we suggest translating those ideas into practical questions: where can the student exercise choice? What needs to become clearer or more achievable? Who can help them make progress?

The task still has requirements. A nursing placement, a laboratory procedure or a group presentation cannot be redesigned entirely around an individual's wishes. A trainer can explain which elements are fixed, why they matter and where a student has discretion. That gives choice a meaningful place within the work.

Learning does not always feel easy

Ryan and Deci’s 2020 review focuses specifically on motivation in educational settings. It describes the value of supporting students’ psychological needs and distinguishes intrinsic motivation from forms of extrinsic motivation that people personally endorse. It also discusses the influence of institutional conditions on teachers. The practical implication is broader than making every activity entertaining: a person can willingly engage in demanding work because they understand and value it. [2]

Consider an adult student preparing a presentation. They may prefer to organise their thoughts in writing. Their course still requires an oral presentation. A useful plan might involve written preparation, practice with a partner and a clear rehearsal deadline.

That is our illustrative application, not a finding from the review. The student practises the required skill, with some choice over preparation. A preference becomes useful information for planning rather than an exemption from learning.

A preference is not a learning-style prescription

This distinction deserves plain language. Sariio explores work preferences. It does not establish that a student will learn best through a particular sensory format or should only receive teaching matched to a supposed type.

The Education Endowment Foundation finds very limited evidence for consistently identifying learning styles and warns against categorising pupils in this way. Its review gives us a reason to avoid turning a description into a restriction. [3]

A student who enjoys discussion may still need to read closely. A student who likes a clear plan may still need to practise responding to uncertainty. Neither has reached the boundary of their capability because a report describes a preference.

In practice, we would ask a student to connect the report to an actual experience. What feels familiar? What seems wrong? What changes when the task, setting or people change? Those questions keep the person actively involved in interpreting the report.

Where Coach can contribute

Coach offers an AI-assisted development conversation informed by the person’s work preferences. At Shadow Global, Coach is used for student development, alongside CircleMAPS for cohorts and myMAP comparisons between individuals. This is a description of use confirmed by Sariio’s founder, not a controlled study of results.

A proposed application is preparation for a conversation with a trainer. An adult learner might explore a recent challenge, identify the question they want to ask and decide on one action to discuss. They can bring that thinking to the trainer rather than starting with an empty page.

A trainer remains responsible for their professional judgement. The student should be able to question the AI’s suggestions, decline an interpretation and seek human support. An AI conversation cannot establish facts it has not been given, assess a person's full circumstances or replace the relationships around their development.

A useful pilot would ask whether the preparation was relevant and whether the learner actually used it. The answer may vary between people and situations. That variation is something to learn from.

The educator is a person too

The same questions about choice and support belong in staff development. A department introducing a new approach should ask what time, training and discretion its educators need to use it thoughtfully. A new platform can create tasks as well as possibilities.

Our recommendation is to begin with a contained use case. Choose one adult cohort or staff team, identify the facilitator, agree the period and decide what would count as useful. Make participation and sharing choices clear. Explain who can see each output before inviting people to contribute.

An institution-wide culture view may be helpful later. It should remain a starting point for enquiry, with staff invited to interpret what it shows alongside their experience. A cultureMAP represents collective work preferences. Leadership still needs to understand workload, resources, relationships and the actual conditions in which people work.

From a report to a decision the person owns

Here is a suggested sequence for a tutor and adult student. Begin with a real challenge. Ask the student what they recognise in their myMAP that might be relevant. Consider the task requirements and other explanations. Explore possible next steps. Let the student articulate the action they intend to try, then arrange a review.

At the review, ask what happened rather than whether the person followed the report correctly. A useful outcome might be a revised plan, a better question or a clearer request for support. None needs to become a claim that Sariio has raised grades or prevented withdrawal.

There is room to be ambitious and precise at the same time. We want development that involves the person, stretches their capabilities and takes their circumstances seriously. Work preferences can contribute to that conversation. The value has to be demonstrated in what people do with the insight.

Every day’s a school day. A report should leave someone with possibilities to explore.

Sources and scope

  1. Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. (2000), Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being, American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
  2. Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. (2020), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860.
  3. Education Endowment Foundation, Learning styles.

These sources inform the discussion of motivation and education. They do not validate Sariio’s survey or establish the effectiveness of its AI coaching. The examples and pilot recommendations are our proposed applications. Student use described here concerns adults; younger learners require a separate review.

Explore next: Learning to work together in student cohorts, the person-to-culture view, or Sariio for education.