Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this article is to analyze how to make changes to prescribed curriculum, pedagogy, activities, learning environments, and assessments to loosen control over time and space of learning to increase time for student autonomy.

Design/Approach/Methods

A theoretical analysis of functions of the five elements (curriculum, pedagogy, activities, learning environments, and assessments) of schooling in controlling time and space in learning.

Findings

Students’ time available for autonomy is limited due to prescribed curriculum, which occupies all students’ school time. Pedagogical practices that aim to efficiently implement the prescribed curriculum force and tempt students to spend all available time on the prescribed curriculum and extend work on the prescribed curriculum beyond classrooms through time concentration. Furthermore, the design and implementation of learning activities alter students’ perception of time, making activities long and tedious. Moreover, students’ time occupation by the prescribed curriculum compresses their space in learning environments. Finally, assessments and evaluations are typically limited to a distorted picture of students due to misplaced observers on different time scales and from an observation perspective. All these can be changed and we proposed possible directions of change.

Originality/Value

This article furthers our positions in the previous article published in ECNU Review of Education—“Paradigm Shifting in Education: An Ecological Analysis.” In this article, we provided a more detailed analysis of schooling from spatiotemporal perspectives and gave a uniquely fresh perspective on the changes we need in the age of AI to increase the time available for autonomy.

Keywords

AI and education future of education personalized learning systems student autonomy in learning systemic educational reform temporal flexibility in education

In our previous article, “Paradigm Shifting in Education: An Ecological Analysis” (Zhao & Zhong, 2024), we argued for a paradigm shift in education and provided an ecological analysis of its possibilities. We identified the tension between prescribed curriculum and student autonomy as the core issue of educational transformation aimed at achieving personalized learning for all students in the age of AI (Zhao, 2018b, 2020, 2023, 2024). We contended that the more students are compelled to follow a prescribed curriculum, the less autonomy they have to personalize their learning. Furthermore, we argued that schooling has become more rigid as policymakers, practitioners, and researchers have worked hard to tweak the mechanisms of the school system.

In this article, we focus on schools as relatively semi-open sub-ecosystems within the broader educational system (according to Panarchy theory, schools function as sub-ecosystems of the social education system). We aim to delve into the specifics of this educational paradigm shift by analyzing the interrelations among the curriculum and four other key elements within the school-based system—namely pedagogy, evaluation and assessment, activities, and environment. Through this analysis, we seek to identify concrete strategies to balance the prescribed curriculum with learners’ control over learning.

Time available for autonomy

To analyze learners’ control over their learning, it is crucial to establish a measurable and reliable indicator that reflects the balance between the prescribed curriculum and learners’ autonomy. We propose “time available for autonomy” (“TAFA” for short) as a key indicator, referring to the amount of time students can independently, without external coercion, decide how to engage in learning activities in the context of school-based learning.

This article adopts a spatiotemporal perspective to provide a framework for understanding the relationship between student autonomy and time available for autonomy, as well as examining how this concept impacts school-based learning experiences. It then explores potential strategies for improving the current system. As previously argued, prescribed curricula have systematically constrained student autonomy through a tightly coordinated network of subsystems within schools. This raises the question of what can be done to transform the system. While we have established a key indicator, it remains essential to revisit the school system under analysis to examine how its various elements interact and function.

Hierarchical distribution and complex interrelations of elements in schools

In our previous article, we mentioned that within schools, the curriculum serves as an “anchor” connecting various educational elements. It not only presents learning content and resources but also acts as a bridge between the education system and societal needs, occupying a central position among all elements. This is because if we trace back to the origins of the term “curriculum,” derived from the Latin word “currere,” meaning “to run” or “a course,” it initially referred to a racetrack or path. Later, it was extended to mean a path of learning or action. This implies that, from a first-principles perspective, the underlying logic of curriculum design and development is to construct learners’ experiences.

As the curriculum defines the knowledge and skills that learners need to acquire, it becomes the central vehicle through which the school communicates societal needs to individual learners. It embodies society's will within the education system and is translated into actionable processes and steps through other elements of the system that include pedagogy, activities, learning environment, and assessment and evaluation (Zhao & Zhong, 2024).

Once the central role of the curriculum is established, the roles and hierarchical relationships of other elements become clear. Education operates as a complex system of interconnected factors, where the curriculum closely interacts with other elements—such as teaching methods, evaluation standards, learning environments, and activities both inside and outside the classroom. Teaching methods and goals are directly influenced by curriculum content and standards. Assessment and evaluation are designed based on the curriculum to measure student performance, often leading to adjustments in the curriculum. Student activities, whether in or outside the classroom, are often planned based on the efficient implementation of the curriculum. The learning environment, both physical and virtual, is shaped by curriculum requirements, pedagogy, and activity design.

Therefore, we can conclude that among the five core elements of the school system, the curriculum is the foundational and most decisive element. If categorized hierarchically, the curriculum occupies the first level, while other elements are positioned based on their interactions with it:
Pedagogy: Models and tools that support the effective implementation of the curriculum.

Activity: Behavioral designs and implementation strategies that operationalize pedagogy.

Learning Environment: Physical and virtual settings shaped by curriculum decisions, pedagogical approaches, and activity designs.

Assessment and Evaluation: Observational elements that reflect the curriculum's influence, determining what aspects of learning are measured and analyzed.
The curriculum influences students’ learning experiences through multiple levels of control. These layers are hierarchically organized but do not imply a rigid top-down structure. Instead, as described by Panarchy theory (Allen et al., 2014; Gunderson & Holling, 2002), influences are intertwined. Lower level scales can affect higher level ones and vice versa. Changes at any level can propagate throughout the system, demonstrating dynamic interactions where subsystems influence larger systems and larger systems affect subsystems. We will further discuss this interconnectedness in the solution section.

The reduction of time available for autonomy and possible changes

As mentioned in the previous article, “Paradigm Shifting in Education: An Ecological Analysis” (Zhao & Zhong, 2024), the controlling power of curricula has been continuously reinforced by revisions of other elements. This means that the time scheduled by prescribed curricula is further extended by other four elements influenced by the curriculum. In other words, prescribed curricula reduce time available for autonomy.

Prescribed curriculum and scheduled time

Given the curriculum's central role, it not only shapes learning content but also determines how students’ time is spent. This brings us to the analysis of time allocation as a reflection of curriculum control. Humans, regardless of location, have a fixed 24 hr available per day. For students at the school learning stage, time is primarily occupied by the prescribed curriculum and related learning tasks—such as homework, extracurricular tutoring, and additional test-preparation activities, which often include subjects like sports, arts, and other areas deemed useful. We categorize the time spent on these above activities as “Scheduled Time (for the Curriculum).”

This scheduled time reflects the extent of curriculum influence, leaving students with limited autonomy. To quantify learners’ control, we propose analyzing their discretionary learning time, which we call “time available for autonomy”—the time they can allocate independently. Starting with the 24-hour day, we subtract the time required for basic survival activities, such as eating and sleeping. Next, we subtract the Scheduled Time, leaving the remaining hours as time available for autonomy.

“Time available for autonomy” represents the time learners can autonomously allocate to activities based on their preferences and decisions. Given that learning is a fundamental instinct of humans—and even animals—this discretionary time can include not only academic pursuits but also entertainment, which can be viewed as a form of experiential learning.

International data

Let's examine global data to better understand how time allocation impacts student learning and autonomy. OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2018 (OECD, 2023) shows significant variations in time spent on schooling. For example, 15-year-old students in the United States spend about 27 hr per week in school lessons, compared to 32 hr in China, 33 hr in Japan, and 35 hr in Singapore. Additional time spent on homework also varies, ranging from 3 hr per week in Finland to 13.8 hr in China. Moreover, the number of school days per calendar year differs globally—180 days in the United States, 200 days in China, and up to 220 days in South Korea. Students in East Asia often devote weekends and holidays to academic studies, known as “shadow education” (Baker et al., 2001; Bray & Lykins, 2012; Luo & Chan, 2022; Zhang & Bray, 2020).

These data show that students in the United States and Finland have much less total amount of scheduled time devoted to the prescribed curriculum than students in East Asia. Although we don’t have systematic data to show how students in the United States and Finland spend their unscheduled time and we cannot automatically assume all their unscheduled time is spent on personalizing their learning, it is safe to say that East Asian students have less time available for autonomy because their time is much more scheduled.

Traditional arguments advocate for more school time or scheduled time to improve test performance in the United States (National Education Commission on Time and Learning, 1994). However, evidence questions this assumption. Studies show extended school time may not enhance long-term success (Baker, 2007; Tienken, 2008; Zhao, 2020) and may even suppress creativity (Robinson, 2007). Notably, U.S. rural schools with shorter school weeks have maintained academic performance (Armitage, 2022; Barshay, 2022; Kilburn et al., 2021; Watterston & Zhao, 2023). International data also reveal a negative correlation between test scores and student confidence (Loveless, 2006; Zhao, 2017). Similarly, higher PISA scores are linked to lower adult confidence in entrepreneurship (Zhao, 2012). These patterns suggest that granting students more time available for autonomy to shape their learning can boost their confidence and better prepare them for future challenges, rather than focusing solely on test scores.

Possible directions of change

All education systems are under pressure to change for equity and excellence reasons, especially with the rapidly changing societal landscape due to the rise of generative AI. Unfortunately, most of the changes proposed and implemented at the policy level are to add more prescribed courses. For instance, to improve students’ social and emotional well-being, social and emotional learning (SEL) standards have been added and SEL courses have been offered (Zhao, 2020). To cope with AI, courses on how to use AI have been advocated for all students (Su et al., 2024). These actions increase more scheduled time and further reduce the time for student autonomy. Very likely they are not going to bring the expected educational outcomes. From the perspective of giving more student autonomy, we suggest that education systems take the following actions:
Reduce scheduled time by requiring less content. System-level authorities could consider a three-part curriculum: one-third required by national governments, one-third required by local governments or schools, and one-third developed by individual learners (Zhao, 2021).

Require all schools to devote time or create courses to support the personalization of learning by students. This personalization is for each student to pursue interest-driven and strength-based learning in which students are able to decide what, how, when, and with whom to learn as well as how their learning should be assessed and evaluated.

Relax system-level control of scheduling. Systems should not impose a number of hours for each school subject on schools, while they can require competency for some subjects. Systems should enable schools to develop their teaching plans and schedules.

Time concentration and pedagogy

Pedagogy, the theory and practice of teaching, serves as a framework for organizing, delivering, and evaluating learning. It works for the school-based education purpose at both the Tool and Model level. It combines tools such as methods, technologies, and techniques to create a mechanism for micro-monitoring, reinforcing immediate accountability response with a focus on short-term or specific duration. It also operates at the model's level, which includes systemic structures and organizational designs, to impose macro-level frameworks that reinforce uniformity and external definitions of successful achievement. This structured yet flexible framework aims to optimize/strengthen learners’ focus and time management by aligning prescribed schedules, prescribed goals, and prescribed items of assessments, which are prescribed by the curriculum.

Time concentration with pedagogy

Time concentration refers to the degree to which time and effort are focused within a specific period to achieve defined goals. In education, it involves carefully managing students’ cognitive and temporal resources during set learning periods. This structured approach ensures focused engagement with tasks and content, promoting measurable outcomes. However, it also prioritizes efficiency and uniform knowledge acquisition over flexibility and autonomy by minimizing exploratory learning and enforcing externally controlled pacing.

Current pedagogy supports time concentration in several ways. Fixed curriculum timelines divide learning into time-bound units, such as semesters and age-based progressions, emphasizing advancement over depth. Synchronized pacing requires students to follow predetermined pathways, prioritizing content delivery and reducing opportunities for individualized exploration.

Seat time requirements often measure learning based on time spent in class rather than competency mastery. Students are expected to remain present and focused during scheduled periods, regardless of whether they have already mastered the material. Prescriptive learning paths reinforce linear progression by structuring courses and modules to focus only on immediate requirements for advancement. Systems that rely on credit hours reward task completion over deeper understanding. Classroom design and spatial arrangements also influence time concentration. Traditional layouts, such as rows of desks, limit movement and interaction, while single-teacher authority models prioritize instructor-led lessons over collaborative exploration.

High-stakes accountability systems, including standardized tests such as accountability tests and college entrance exams in various education systems, further reinforce time concentration. These systems emphasize measurable outcomes, often encouraging schools to focus on test preparation. Teaching strategies are frequently aligned with boosting test performance, narrowing the curriculum to focus on test-related content.

The structured approach to pedagogy and time concentration offers several advantages. It promotes efficiency, accountability, and scalability, ensuring that large populations can be educated uniformly and effectively. However, it also has limitations. Overemphasis on time concentration may suppress creativity and intrinsic motivation. Rigid structures may struggle to prepare students for nonlinear, dynamic challenges in real life. Additionally, time-focused models may disadvantage learners who need flexible pacing to succeed.

Time concentration reduces autonomy

Time concentration seriously affects students’ time available for autonomy, both in and outside schools. It forces or tempts students to spend all their school time on the required subjects. Schools with pedagogical approaches that result in high time concentrations typically have students spend more time in schools. Moreover, these students tend to spend their weekends and holidays on the prescribed curriculum or preparing tests of the prescribed curriculum.

Furthermore, time concentration makes students focus on a narrow path of learning or limited content and this focus prevents them from exploring a much larger body of possibilities of learning than the required curriculum. This excessive focus on required learning excludes the possibilities of learning different content, developing new skills, learning in new ways, and forming valuable relationships with people outside the school.

Possible directions of change

Balancing structure with flexibility is key to addressing these challenges. While pedagogy and time concentration provide necessary frameworks for modern education, incorporating adaptability and autonomy is essential to support diverse learning needs and prepare students for a rapidly changing world, especially in the age of AI. Below are a few pedagogical changes schools and teachers could make.
Transform the teacher's role from a curriculum deliverer to NPC¹ (Non-Player Character) supporter within the students’ learning experiences, who can play multiple roles based on the in-time requirements of students, including but not limited to facilitator, tutor, mentor, coach, and so on (Zhao, 2018b, 2022). By interacting with students (kind of player within the learning experiences), they can get more opportunities to see each individual student and to know more about students. When a teacher shifts from being a knowledge deliverer to a facilitator who supports student-driven learning, they are more likely to promote autonomy and foster deeper engagement.

Teachers should guide inquiry-based learning, passion projects, and problem-solving activities aligned with students’ interests (Beghetto, 2013; Zhao, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c). In the meanwhile, teachers can know more about their own interests and values and be willing to spend more time and energy on the responsibilities which can foster students’ autonomy. Then they can enjoy the process of working together with students.

Integrate AI and global learning environments can break spatial and temporal constraints, allowing students to learn beyond classrooms while staying grounded in local contexts (Zhao, 2024). Modern technology, including AI, can handle instruction, freeing teachers to support students’ personal learning paths. This shift is challenging, as teachers are traditionally trained to teach standardized content rather than meet diverse individual needs. Instead, teachers can promote autonomy by allowing students to choose both what and how they learn, supporting “passion projects” or “Google time” (Beghetto, 2013).

Shifting focus from daily schedules to multi-year outcomes allows greater flexibility and more success because learning is not a simple addition of bits of knowledge acquisition every day and learning success in the short term is not the same as in the long run (Kapur, 2014, 2016; Zhao, 2017, 2018d).

Replace rigid time-based learning schedules with competency-based systems that let students progress upon mastery rather than seat-time requirements (Chappell et al., 2020).

Time perception and activities

Activities, as behavioral designs and implementation strategies, serve to operationalize pedagogy by transforming instructional plans into practical and interactive learning experiences. In the current school-based education system, activities encompass both in-school and out-of-school engagements. Activities affect students’ time perception, which is regarded as one of the key factors impacting the time available for autonomy.

Time perception in education

Time perception has origins in ancient philosophy but was first scientifically examined by William James in The Principles of Psychology (1890). James introduced the idea of “Temporal Subjectivity and Psychological Time,” suggesting that psychological time differs from clock time based on how events are experienced. Modern research has expanded this concept across psychology and neuroscience. Key theories include Flow Theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), Prospect Theory and Temporal Discounting (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979), and Construal Level Theory (Trope & Liberman, 2003). These studies show how factors such as emotions, engagement, goals, intentions, and meaning influence individuals’ perceptions of time during activities or events. For instance, intention can stretch perceived time, making short moments feel richer and more engaging while meaning can transform tasks into memorable experiences, adding value and permanence to learning.

In education, time perception refers to a learner's awareness, estimation, and management of time during learning activities. It shapes how students allocate attention, plan tasks, and regulate learning behaviors within specific time frames—a phenomenon we refer to as the “relative effect of time length.” The dominant structure of school activities, driven by standardized curricula and externally imposed schedules, prioritizes time regulation and compliance over exploration and personalization. In classrooms, teachers control activities such as lectures, group discussions, and assignments, dictating what students should do and when. Outside the classroom, extracurricular activities—like sports and clubs—are similarly governed by rules, approval processes, and adult supervision authorized by the school. Even programs designed to encourage broader participation often incorporate competitive elements, reinforcing hierarchical rankings based on academic performance, skills, or social status.

Such prescriptive activities, bound by predefined curricula, may limit students’ autonomy and intrinsic motivation. They risk narrowing students’ perception of time to a sequence of tasks to be completed rather than an opportunity to pursue personal interests, intentions, emotions, or goals. In other words, students may perceive time subjectively as moving slower than clock time, resulting in lower achievements relative to the time spent—a form of time inefficiency. To put it differently, these activities often serve as tools for enforcing predetermined schedules rather than fostering deeper engagement and meaningful learning experiences.

Possible directions of change

We want students to be happy and meaningfully engaged in learning, to make learning a flow experience. We need to create activities that make them perceive time differently: short and fulfilling instead of long and tedious. Some areas of possible changes are below.
Purposeful and meaningful activities create opportunities for students to connect tasks with personal growth, transforming time from a constraint into a resource for exploration, reflection, and self-discovery. Shifting the focus from external competition to collaboration and exploration promotes creativity, teamwork, and resilience, enriching learners’ sense of ownership and control over their learning. Activities should go beyond meeting curriculum mandates, embedding purpose to deepen engagement and support personal growth.

Effective activities should provide students with the freedom to explore topics aligned with their interests, allowing flexible pacing and personalization. For instance, instead of rigidly timed tasks, schools can incorporate inquiry-based projects, open-ended investigations, and reflective practices that enable learners to internalize and value their experiences.

Schools play a key role in shaping students’ activities; they should and can play a significant role in altering students’ activities. For example, to prepare students for an uncertain future, especially in the AI era, many schools would like to introduce entrepreneurship education into their traditional curriculum. However, the challenge is they are unable to make it part of the formal curriculum since integrating it into the formal curriculum is not feasible, so they often start with entrepreneurship clubs or other forms of extracurricular programs before or after school. Interested students can join these programs, which normally involve developing business plans, solving real-world problems, and presenting plans to panels of local business leaders.
Meaning and purpose are most important in thinking about changing activities for students. Every student needs to be recognized as a self-determined individual (Wehmeyer & Zhao, 2020) who wants autonomy to engage in activities that have purpose and meaning to others (Seligman, 2011; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Schools, teachers, and parents should rethink the activities students are engaged in and ask the question: Do they make sense to students?

Time-space interchangeability (space compression due to time occupation) and learning environment

In school-based learning contexts, the learning environment encompasses physical, socio-psychological, and cognitive dimensions. It is shaped by curriculum decisions, pedagogical approaches, and activity designs. This environment includes the physical location of the school and its surrounding community, influenced by political systems, socioeconomic conditions, and cultural norms. It also encompasses the social rules governing interactions among students, teachers, and other adults, which significantly shape the “hidden curriculum” (Giroux & Penna, 1979). Additionally, it includes cognitive resources accessible to learners.

The learning environment reflects learners’ broader ecological and living conditions. In theory, it can dynamically adjust to accommodate learners’ needs, goals, and emotions. For instance, in the AI era, knowledge is readily accessible, enabling learning environments to expand beyond prescribed curricula. Tools and technologies (e.g., AI and the Internet) can support exploration across diverse fields rather than limit learners to predefined content.

Time-space interchangeability in learning environments

However, prescribed curricula impose structural constraints that ripple through other elements, including teaching methods and activities, thereby occupying learners’ time available for autonomy. This occupation leads to the compression of learners’ perceived learning environment, limiting their willingness and ability to explore new spaces or adapt to changing contexts. Consequently, learners may lose interest and become less sensitive to learning itself.

This phenomenon, where time constraints force spatial compression, can be explained through the framework of Time-Space Interchangeability. Theoretical insights from multiple disciplines support this perspective:
Physics—Relativity theory conceptualizes time and space as interchangeable dimensions.

Cognitive Psychology—Time pressure distorts spatial perception, limiting exploration (Zakay, 1993).

Social and Decision Theories—Behavioral adaptations emerge under compressed time conditions.

Educational Theories—Pedagogical models, such as Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1988), address how structured schedules affect cognitive processing.
Structured schedules, deadlines, and intensive workloads act as time constraints, effectively compressing learners’ perceived and experienced space. This compression limits opportunities to explore, reflect, and adapt to new environments. Rather than physical boundaries, it is the occupation of time that narrows learners’ engagement, interactions, and experiences.

The learning environment extends beyond physical classrooms to include socio-psychological and cognitive dimensions. It incorporates physical settings, interpersonal interactions, emotional climates, and intellectual frameworks that shape learning experiences. However, in highly prescribed educational systems, these environments often become localized and rigid, reflecting predefined structures and expectations. This results in what can be described as a “narrowed” or “localized” learning environment, where opportunities for exploration are minimized.

Prescribed curricula function as systemic anchors that define not only what is taught but also how it is taught and assessed. These constraints operate across multiple layers:
Structural Rigidity—Fixed schedules and content sequences leave little room for inquiry or adaptive learning.

Cognitive Boundaries—Learners prioritize prescribed tasks, focusing narrowly on predetermined goals rather than exploring broader contexts.

Behavioral Conformity—Institutional expectations reinforce compliance with predefined objectives, discouraging deviation or innovation.
This layered reinforcement perpetuates the compression of learning environments. Cultural expressions, such as “Is what you think suitable actually suitable?” or “There's a kind of cold that's called ‘mom thinks you’re cold,’” highlight the disconnection between perceived needs (as defined externally) and authentic experiences (as felt by individuals). Similarly, learners operate within environments shaped by assumptions about effective learning, often misaligned with their intrinsic motivations and adaptive capacities.

We are living in an era of rapid technological advancement, where the rise of AI is blurring the boundaries between the imagined and the physical world. AI-generated images and videos can deceive us, challenging our perceptions and expanding our experiences beyond the physical realm. Meanwhile, scientific discoveries continue to deepen our understanding of both the microscopic world—through quantum mechanics and elementary particles—and the vastness of the universe. In such a fast-changing and fluid era, learners’ educational environments should not—and cannot—be confined by prescribed curricula. Instead, we must find ways to inspire school-based learners to perceive and explore a broader, more complex world.

Possible directions of change

Firstly, we should treat electronic devices dialectically. Mobile devices, particularly smartphones, have sparked intense debates in schools due to their ability to connect students to worlds beyond their immediate environment. Many education systems have responded by banning these devices in classrooms, citing concerns about distractions and reduced focus (Böttger & Zierer, 2024; Campbell et al., 2024). However, this approach reveals an ironic contradiction. Since the 1990s, schools have heavily invested in computing technologies to ensure students have access to networked devices for learning. Now that students possess such devices at their fingertips, schools are pushing to prohibit them entirely. This reaction has even fueled the growth of a new industry focused on tools and technologies designed to enforce mobile phone restrictions. Such measures reflect a narrow perspective on technology, overlooking its potential as a learning resource. Instead of outright bans, educators must adopt a more balanced, dialectical approach—one that acknowledges both the challenges and opportunities electronic devices present in modern learning environments.

Secondly, we should embrace AI technologies and tools with openness and prudence. The initial reaction to AI in many schools has been to impose outright bans (Harrison et al., 2023; Ogugua et al., 2023; Yu, 2023). While some schools have since reconsidered and lifted these restrictions, the majority still prohibit students from using generative AI. However, this cautious approach overlooks AI's transformative potential in education. Schools and teachers must move beyond fear-driven responses and seriously reconsider the concept of time-space interchangeability in redesigning learning environments.
Rethinking the role of AI in learning. Schools and teachers need to reassess how AI and other technologies fit into students’ learning experiences (Ginsberg & Zhao, 2023). Despite significant investments in modernizing classrooms with technology, educational outcomes have shown limited improvement (OECD, 2023). This stagnation stems not from the tools themselves but from an outdated view of teaching and learning that fails to harness technology's full potential (Papert, 1998, 1999). Unlocking AI's capabilities requires a fundamental shift toward personalized learning, problem-finding, and problem-solving pedagogy, and treating the world as the classroom (Zhao, 2024). AI should be seen not as a threat but as a catalyst for these transformations, enabling students to explore, create, and connect in unprecedented ways.

Creating a global, borderless learning environment. AI and related technologies have already made learning inherently global and borderless (Zhao, 2021). Students are no longer confined to physical classrooms or school walls. Instead, technology empowers them to learn from, with, and for anyone in the world. By integrating AI tools thoughtfully, schools can foster collaborative, interdisciplinary, and cross-cultural learning experiences. This shift not only enriches students’ education but also equips them with the skills needed to thrive in a complex, AI-driven future. Embracing AI with openness and prudence means balancing its risks with its vast possibilities. Schools must evolve into spaces where students leverage AI to enhance creativity, critical thinking, and global collaboration—transforming the learning process into one that mirrors the dynamism and interconnectedness of the modern world.
Thirdly, we should build globally connected learners through localized learning. Being global does not mean ignoring the local. Meaningful global engagement starts with deep local connections. Modern education should adopt a glocal approach—integrating local grounding with global perspectives—to prepare students for an interconnected world. The new education should help students learn to be connected locally: to identify and solve problems that matter to their classmates, schoolmates, and local businesses and cultures, to learn from local experts and resources, and to help the local community connect globally. The best word that describes the new learning environment is: GLocal—global and local.

Spatiotemporal trade-offs versus assessment observer perspective

The influence of prescribed content is further enhanced by system-level assessments, which have a trickle-down effect on classroom assessments. Despite the emergence of new theories of assessment, political reasons have made standardized assessment a widespread phenomenon in education (Broadfoot & Black, 2004; Emler et al., 2019; Yuan & Zhao, 2019). It is now common practice in many countries to use standardized tests to monitor student progress, hold teachers and schools accountable for student's learning, and select students for higher levels of education.

Spatiotemporal trade-offs in school-based education systems

In the current school-based education system, assessment and evaluation function as observational tools that reflect the curriculum's impact, determining which aspects of learning are measured and analyzed. As noted in “Paradigm Shifting in Education: An Ecological Analysis” (Zhao & Zhong, 2024), the prescriptive nature of curricula has been continuously reinforced through the rescripting of other elements. Within this process—where prescriptiveness is transmitted and mutually reinforced across the five core elements—assessment and evaluation act as “observers” of the overall learning experience, whether shaped by a prescribed curriculum or not. However, their scope of observation, temporal scale of evaluation, and spatial dimensions of assessment are significantly narrowed and constrained.

Human growth and development are inherently complex, especially in an era marked by rapid advancements in AI technology and constant global changes. As one of the fundamental instincts for human survival (and indeed for all living organisms), learning cannot—and should not—be confined to a single/isolated environment (such as schools), a specific time frame (such as an assessment period, semester, or academic year), a fixed content scope (such as existing subjects) or be evaluated and assessed through limited perspectives and methods.

However, the reality is that standardized assessment narrows students’ learning experiences and reduces autonomy. It pushes schools and teachers to focus only on tested subjects, often neglecting untested areas (Nichols & Berliner, 2007). This also influences students and parents, who prioritize assessed content, sometimes relying on extra tutoring (Luo & Chan, 2022; Zhang & Bray, 2020). Consequently, students limit their learning to what is tested, and significant time is spent preparing for exams rather than engaging in broader, more meaningful learning.

Observations should aim to enrich our perspectives and deepen our insights to better understand what, why, and how learning experiences occur, as well as where they may lead learners—and whether they ultimately achieve genuine happiness. As participants, everyone brings their own unique observational perspective. As Panarchy theory proposed: Systems operate in nested adaptive cycles, and insights emerge when observers change their temporal or spatial scale of observation (Gunderson & Holling, 2002). Also mentioned by Hierarchy Theory, observations at different levels of a system (micro, meso, and macro) reveal different patterns and details that are invisible at other levels (Allen & Starr, 1982).

When the dimension of time is applied to school-based learning, its meaning varies for different participants. The same 24 hr—or even the same 1 hr—can reflect vastly different learning experiences depending on the different observers’ perspectives. This highlights the relativity of time, which we usually call the “Principle of Relativity” (Albert Einstein, 1905; Galileo Galilei, 1632; Isaac Newton, 1687). Similarly, observers’ perspectives are shaped by their roles/positions in the learning process, leading to positional differences in interpretation, which is caused by the Frame of Reference (Albert Einstein, 1916; Galileo Galilei, 1632).

This misalignment of time and space places the observed subject—the student/individual learner, who directly experiences the learning process—in a “distorted” state. Moreover, as previously mentioned, the prescribed curriculum narrows and restricts the observer's viewpoint. This raises a series of critical questions: What do our observations truly mean for the learner? When we act based on conclusions drawn from these “distorted observations”—whether through positive reinforcement or adjustments—who can ensure the accuracy of the judgments we make?

Possible directions of change

The key point we propose is to extend perspectives in assessment: seeing more possibilities. Traditional assessments, typically controlled by upper-level educational authorities, often distort learners’ profiles by focusing on ranking and standardization using the same measure for the purpose of selecting students (Gould, 1996). These assessments are also a reflection of the society, which is rooted in misplaced faith in meritocracy² (Young, 1959) and manufactured scarcity (Zhao, 2016a).³ These systems fail to capture individual potential. However, reforms like Every Student Succeeds Act⁴ (ESSA) (Zhao, 2020) and test-optional policies⁵ (Nietzel, 2022) show that change is possible. To expand observation perspectives and redefine assessments, schools should:
Expanding the purpose of assessment: Beyond ranking to growth and potential. The purpose of assessment should expand beyond ranking and comparison to focus on uncovering growth, potential, and multidimensional development. Instead of treating learners as data points to be ranked along a single scale, assessments should capture the complexity of individual profiles, highlighting both strengths and areas for growth (Zhao, 2018b). By broadening the scope of assessment, authorities and educators can view learners holistically, recognizing their unique talents, interests, and capabilities rather than reducing them to averages or standardized measures. This shift not only supports personalized learning paths but also encourages diverse forms of success, empowering learners to discover and build upon their potential in ways that reflect their individuality and aspirations.

Personalizing student assessment: Expanding possibilities. Assessments should focus on personalized approaches that highlight individual strengths, interests, and growth potential. By enabling students to select formats, media, and content that reflect their unique abilities, assessments can go deeper and broader, offering richer, multi-dimensional profiles of learners (Zhao, 2018b). We can try from the four approaches below: (1) Focus on Growth and Potential—Assessments should shift their purpose from comparing students to revealing their growth trajectories and uncovering their potential rather than reducing learners to mere averages (Zhao, 2018b). (2) Flexible Formats and Content—Allow students to choose assessment methods that align with their strengths and interests, enabling them to demonstrate their learning in diverse ways. (3) Capture Individuality and Depth—Assessments should emphasize unique traits and talents rather than force conformity to standardized benchmarks (Rose, 2016). (4) Broaden Evaluation Criteria—School accountability systems should focus on personalized profiles of learners’ development, while university admissions can reduce reliance on standardized tests and instead value individual growth evidence and unique capabilities. With mass access to higher education, competitive tests are increasingly irrelevant for many colleges, opening space for alternative admission pathways based on holistic evaluation.

Personalized assessments offer a more accurate and meaningful way to evaluate learners, capturing growth, strengths, and diversity rather than reducing students to narrow metrics. By adopting flexible approaches and broadening evaluation criteria, education systems can better support individual learning journeys and prepare students for complex, dynamic futures (Rose, 2016; Zhao, 2018b).

Moving beyond averages: Seeing and valuing every learner. Breaking away from one-size-fits-all assessments enables education systems to honor individuality, promote equity, and uncover hidden potential. Averages, often used as a simplistic measure, can obscure meaningful differences. For example, an average score of 50 could result from (100 + 0)/2—representing extraordinary talent in one area and weakness in another—or from (49 + 51)/2, reflecting consistency but no exceptional strengths. These cases highlight how averages fail to capture individual profiles, unique abilities, and diverse learning paths. We should start in two ways: First, by replacing rigid comparisons with personalized evaluations that highlight potential and track progress rather than focusing on uniform benchmarks. Second, by moving beyond assessments that flatten differences and instead celebrate variability, ensuring that both exceptional talents and steady learners are valued and supported.

Aligning assessments with future-readiness: Assessing learning across time horizons. Assessments should pay special attention to the time factor in learning. Treat assessments as tools to map learners’ long-term development and spatial adaptability, helping them prepare for dynamic, interconnected environments where knowledge application matters as much as knowledge acquisition. For instance, short-term outcomes such as learning at the end of a day or a week do not necessarily translate into long-term outcomes in a year or longer. Successful performance on assessments at the end of the day or the week may be unproductive for learning in the long run (Kapur, 2016). Moreover, some short-term outcomes such as the direct acquisition of knowledge can lead to a decline in long-term outcomes such as curiosity, creativity, and confidence (Peterson, 1979; Zhao, 2018c).

Connotation of time in education related to time available for autonomy

By analyzing the relationship between five key elements and temporal-spatial factors, we find that the connotation of time integrates perspectives from physics, philosophy, and psychology.
From physics, time represents an objective dimension, measurable within the spacetime continuum, providing a framework to describe the sequence of events.

From philosophy, time is a conceptual construct that helps humans organize experiences and create a sense of continuity.

From psychology, time is subjectively experienced, influenced by attention, emotion, and memory, and reflects the elasticity of perception.
Let's return to “time available for autonomy”—a core indicator for measuring learners’ control over their learning process. It highlights how learners perceive time during their own learning experiences. The connotation of time (relative to time available for autonomy), which even implies the interchangeability of time and space, reflects multiple dimensions, shaping how individuals perceive, interpret, and engage with the world and life (learning objects in a broad sense). It captures both objective rhythms and subjective impressions, offering a complex and layered understanding of time in learning contexts.

It is not difficult to draw a conclusion that the key to giving students more autonomy in school-based learning, and to balancing the prescribed curriculum with the learners’ control over their learning, is the extension and continuation of time available for autonomy of learners.

Extending time available for autonomy

In our previous article, “Paradigm Shifting in Education: An Ecological Analysis,” we discussed how education functions as a complex system of interconnected factors, with the curriculum serving as the anchor for all schooling elements, each possessing its own resilience and adaptability (Zhao & Zhong, 2024). We also examined how various elements, as different parts at distinct levels within this complex educational system, influence time (relative to time available for autonomy) and interact with one another.

Now, shifting our perspective back to the system level—viewing schools as relatively semi-open sub-ecosystems within the broader educational framework (according to Panarchy theory, schools operate as sub-ecosystems of the social education system)—we seek potential solutions from a holistic standpoint. One proposed pathway is to set “extending time available for autonomy” as a consistent goal across the entire system. This objective would act as a mechanism to strengthen and ensure unified, coordinated operations throughout the system. By doing so, the five major elements, various participants, and different subsystems within the existing school system (such as classes and grades) could initiate changes from their respective standpoints, ultimately achieving the system's primary purpose of enhancing learners’ educational experiences with balancing control over learning.

In our previous article (Zhao & Zhong, 2024), we introduced Panarchy theory as a framework for understanding dynamic interactions and transformations within social-ecological systems, specifically the education system. We analyzed the adaptability and resilience of hierarchical subsystems, highlighting the coherence between elements at different levels and the overall system. Notably, setting consistent goals in complex systems fosters coherence among components, a concept supported by foundational works in cybernetics (Wiener, 1948) and systems theory (von Bertalanffy, 1968). Wiener (1948) demonstrated that consistent objectives enable effective communication and control among system components, ensuring coherent behaviors in both biological and mechanical systems. Similarly, von Bertalanffy (1968) posited that systems are characterized by the interdependence of their parts/elements, and that setting unified/consistent goals can strengthen the coherence of each/all/every part, as coherence emerges from shared objectives, thereby enhancing the entire system's adaptability.

In summary, adopting a systems-thinking approach and setting consistent goals as extending time available for autonomy can enhance the coherence, adaptability, and resilience of educational systems, ultimately leading to improved learning experiences for students.

Summary

The purpose of this article is to provide one framework of a spatiotemporal analysis of learning to analyze the possibility of pursuing an education paradigm shift in the age of AI. We establish a key indicator of time available for autonomy as a measure to describe the learners’ control over their learning, and we analyze how the prescribed curriculum reduces the TAFA. We also analyze the five key elements in a school-based learning system and point out that changes could happen at different levels of schooling to loosen the control of the prescribed curriculum and give students more autonomy. As we discussed in our previous article, an education paradigm shift will be necessary and possible (Zhao & Zhong, 2024). Education has entered a new era, in which education has already lost the race against technology (Goldin & Katz, 2008). In this new era of uncertainty (McDiarmid & Zhao, 2022; Zhao, 2023), we do not know exactly what the future will be and what skills and knowledge are necessary. Therefore, we need to make education personalized so that students can personalize their learning. This is also necessary because traditional schooling has not been able to meet the needs of the vastly diverse student population. Moreover, modern science has found that human learners are capable, social, and active learners (Bransford et al., 2000; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018). In the age of AI, personalization of learning is possible. We will continue that conversation and discuss the specifics of changes that are needed and possible.

We analyzed the time and space factors in the school system and discussed how changes in any of the five elements are possible. Prescribed content can change and has changed, but we need to do more at the system level (Zhao, 2015). Assessment can and must change as well (Zhao, 2016b). Changes at the system level can travel down and impact changes in pedagogy, the activities of students, and the learning environments. However, lower-level changes can travel up as well. For example, learning environment changes that include online resources and generative AI can cause changes in student activities and pedagogy. Changes in pedagogy and student activities can influence teachers’ and students’ reactions to assessment and prescribed curriculum. Eventually, the changes in teachers and students may force changes at the system levels.

AI can be a powerful technology to enable these changes. If used well, AI will force systems and schools to change what to teach students, possibly from content to abilities. AI is likely to force changes in assessment, given its ability to complete human-made exams with great excellence. AI can change the roles of teachers from instructors to human educators. And of course, AI can be an effective learning partner for students. All of these can lead to the development of new learning environments.

To realize these changes, anyone in the education business can do something. What we need is not to think and rethink if changes are possible, but to accept the challenge and start making the changes.

Footnotes

Contributorship

The authors contributed equally to the article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Allen

C. R.

Angeler

D. G.

Garmestani

A. S.

Gunderson

L. H.

Holling

C. S

. (2014). Panarchy: Theory and application. Ecosystems, 17, 578‒589.

Allen

T. F. H.

Starr

T. B

. (1982). Hierarchy: Perspectives for ecological complexity. University of Chicago Press.

Armitage

(2022, Sept 22). Long days, long weekends: The four-day week takes off in US schools . https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/sep/26/four-day-school-week-teachers-students-parents

Baker

D. P.

Akiba

LeTendre

G. K.

Wiseman

A. W

. (2001). Worldwide shadow education: Outside-school learning, institutional quality of schooling, and cross-national mathematics achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(1), 1‒17.

Baker

. (2007). Are international tests worth anything? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 101‒104.

Barshay

(2022, August 29, 2022). Proof Points: Seven new studies on the impact of a four-day school week . https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-seven-new-studies-on-the-impact-of-a-four-day-school-week/

Beghetto

R. A

. (2013). Killing ideas softly? : The promise and perils of creativity in the classroom. IAP, Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Böttger

Zierer

(2024). To ban or not to ban? A rapid review on the impact of smartphone bans in schools on social well-being and academic performance. Education Sciences, 14(8), Article 906. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080906

Bransford

J. D.

Brown

A. L.

Cocking

R. R.

(Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. The National Academies Press.

10.

Bray

Lykins

(2012). Shadow education private supplementary tutoring and its implications for policy makers in Asia . https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/29777/shadow-education.pdf

11.

Broadfoot

Black

(2004). Redefining assessment? The first ten years of assessment in education. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 11(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594042000208976

12.

Campbell

Edwards

E. J.

Pennell

Poed

Lister

Gillett-Swan

Kelly

Zec

Nguyen

T.-A.

(2024). Evidence for and against banning mobile phones in schools: A scoping review. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 34(3), 242–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/20556365241270394

13.

Chappell

Gonczi

Hager

. (2020). Competency-based education. In C. Chappell, A. Gonczi, & P. Hager (Eds.), Understanding adult education and training (2nd ed., pp. 191‒205). Routledge.

14.

Csikszentmihalyi

. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.

15.

Einstein

. (1905). On the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Annalen der Physik, 17(10), 891–921.

16.

Einstein

. (1916). The foundation of the general theory of relativity. Annalen der Physik, 49, 769–822. https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.19163540702

17.

Emler

T. E.

Zhao

Deng

Yin

Wang

(2019). Side effects of large-scale assessments in education. ECNU Review of Education, 2(3), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531119878964

18.

Galilei

(1632). Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems. (S. Drake, Trans., 1953). University of California Press. (Original work published in Italian in 1632)

19.

Ginsberg

Zhao

(2023). Duck and cover: Confronting and correcting dubious practices in education. Teachers College Press.

20.

Giroux

H. A.

Penna

A. N

. (1979). Social education in the classroom: The dynamics of the hidden curriculum. Theory & Research in Social Education, 7(1), 21‒42.

21.

Goldin

Katz

L. F.

(2008). The race between education and technology. Harvard University Press.

22.

Gould

S. J.

(1996). The mismeasure of man. Norton.

23.

Gunderson

L. H.

Holling

C. S

. (Eds.). (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press.

24.

Harrison

L. M.

Hurd

Brinegar

K. M.

(2023). Critical race theory, books, and ChatGPT: Moving from a ban culture in education to a culture of restoration. Middle School Journal, 54(3), 2–4.

25.

Kahneman

Tversky

. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.

26.

Kapur

. (2014). Productive failure in learning math. Cognitive Science, 38(5), 1008‒1022.

27.

Kapur

(2016). Examining productive failure, productive success, unproductive failure, and unproductive success in learning. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155457

28.

Kilburn

M. R.

Phillips

Gomez

C. J.

Mariano

L. T.

Doss

C. J.

Troxel

W. M.

Morton

Estes

(2021). Does four equal five? Implementation and outcomes of the four-day school week. RR-A373-1. ERIC.

29.

Loveless

(2006). How well are American students learning? (The 2006 Brown Center Report on American Education, Issue. http://www.brookings.edu/∼/media/Files/rc/reports/2006/10education_loveless/10education_loveless.pdf

30.

Luo

Chan

C. K. Y

. (2022). Influences of shadow education on the ecology of education–A review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 36, 100450.

31.

McDiarmid

G. W.

Zhao

(2022). Learning for uncertainty: Teaching students how to thrive in a rapidly evolving world. Routledge.

32.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). How people learn II: Learners, contexts, and cultures. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24783

33.

Newton

(1687). Philosophiæ naturalis principia mathematica (The mathematical principles of natural philosophy). (A. Motte, Trans., 1846). Benjamin Motte. (Original work published in Latin in 1687)

34.

Nichols

S. L.

Berliner

D. C

. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America's Schools. Harvard Education Press.

35.

Nietzel

M. T.

(2022, November 15). More than 80% of four-year colleges won’t require standardized tests for fall 2023 admissions. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2022/11/15/more-than-80-of-four-year-colleges-wont-require-standardized-tests-for-fall-2023-admissions/

36.

OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 Results (Volume 1): The state of learning and equity in education. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-2022-results-volume-i_53f23881-en

37.

Ogugua

Yoon

S. N.

Lee

(2023). Academic integrity in a digital era: Should the use of ChatGPT be banned in schools? Global Business & Finance Review (GBFR), 28(7), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.17549/gbfr.2023.28.7.1

38.

Papert

(1998, June 2). Child power: Keys to the new learning of the digital century. The 11th Colin Cherry Memorial Lecture on Communication, Imperial College, London.

39.

Papert

(1999). Technology in schools—To support the system or render it obsolete? Milken Exchange. http://www.milkenexchange.org/article.taf?_function=detail&Content_uid1=106

40.

Peterson

P. L.

(1979). Direct instruction: Effective for what and for whom. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 46–48.

41.

Robinson

(2007). Do schools kill creativity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY

42.

Rose

(2016). The end of average: How we succeed in a world that values sameness (1st ed.). HarperOne. Cover image static.harpercollins.com/harperimages/isbn/large/3/9780062358363.jpg

43.

Seligman

M. E. P.

(2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being (1st Free Press hardcover ed.). Free Press.

44.

Seligman

M. E. P.

Csikszentmihalyi

(2000). Positive psychology. An introduction. The American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5

45.

Guo

Chen

Chu

S. K. W.

(2024). Teaching artificial intelligence in K-12 classrooms: A scoping review. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(9), 5207–5226. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2212706

46.

The National Education Commission on Time and Learning. (1994). Prisoners of time. https://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/64/52/6452.pdf

47.

Tienken

C. H

. (2008). Rankings of international achievement test performance and economic strength: Correlation or conjecture? International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership, 3(4), 1‒15. http://journals.sfu.ca/ijepl/index.php/ijepl/article/view/110/44

48.

Trope

Liberman

. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403–421.

49.

von Bertalanffy

(1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. George Braziller.

50.

Watterston

Zhao

. (2023). Rethinking the time spent at school: Could flexibility improve engagement and performance for students and teachers? Prospects. 10.1007/s11125-023-09638-9

51.

Wehmeyer

Zhao

(2020). Teaching students to become self-determined learners. ASCD.

52.

Wiener

. (1948). Cybernetics: Or control and communication in the animal and the machine. MIT Press.

53.

Young

M. D.

(1959). The rise of the meritocracy, 1870–2033; the new elite of our social revolution. Random House.

54.

(2023). Reflection on whether ChatGPT should be banned by academia from the perspective of education and teaching. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1181712. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1181712

55.

Yuan

Zhao

(2019). Respect the power of large-scale assessments: What they cannot measure. ECNU Review of Education, 2(3), 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531119868079

56.

Zakay

. (1993). The impact of time perception processes on decision making under time stress. In O. Svenson & A. J. Maule (Eds.), Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making (pp. 59–72). Springer.

57.

Zhang

Bray

. (2020). Comparative research on shadow education: Achievements, challenges, and the agenda ahead. European Journal of Education, 55(3), 322‒341.

58.

Zhao

. (2012). World class learners: Educating creative and entrepreneurial students. Corwin.

59.

Zhao

. (2014). Who's afraid of the big bad dragon: Why China has the best (and worst) education system in the world. Jossey-Bass.

60.

Zhao

(2015). A world at risk: An imperative for a paradigm shift to cultivate 21st century learners. Society, 52(2), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-015-9872-8

61.

Zhao

(2016a). From deficiency to strength: Shifting the mindset about education inequality. Journal of Social Issues, 72(4), 716–735. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12191

62.

Zhao

(2016b). Shifting the paradigm: Assessing what matters. In Zhao

(Ed.), Counting what counts: Reframing education outcomes (pp. 169–180). Solution Tree.

63.

Zhao

. (2017). What works can hurt: Side effects in Education. Journal of Educational Change, 18(1), 1‒19.

64.

Zhao

(2018a). Reach for greatness: Personalizable education for all children. Corwin.

65.

Zhao

(2018b). The changing context of teaching and implications for teacher education. Peabody Journal of Education, 93(3), 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2018.1449896

66.

Zhao

(2018c). What works may hurt: Side effects in education. Teachers College Press.

67.

Zhao

(2020). Another education war? The coming debates over social and emotional learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 101(8), 42–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721720923791

68.

Zhao

(2021). Learners without borders: New learning pathways for all students. Corwin.

69.

Zhao

(2022). New context, new teachers, and new teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 30(2), 127–133.

70.

Zhao

(2023). Learning for uncertainty: Reach for greatness. Educational Research for Policy and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-023-09358-z

71.

Zhao

(2024). Artificial intelligence and education: End the grammar of schooling. ECNU Review of Education, 8(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311241265124

72.

Zhao

Zhong

(2024). Paradigm shifts in education: An ecological analysis. ECNU Review of Education, 8(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311241296162

Education Paradigm Shifts in the Age of AI: A Spatiotemporal Analysis of Learning

Abstract

Purpose

Design/Approach/Methods

Findings

Originality/Value

Keywords

Time available for autonomy

Hierarchical distribution and complex interrelations of elements in schools

The reduction of time available for autonomy and possible changes

Prescribed curriculum and scheduled time

International data

Possible directions of change

Time concentration and pedagogy

Time concentration with pedagogy

Time concentration reduces autonomy

Possible directions of change

Time perception and activities

Time perception in education

Possible directions of change

Time-space interchangeability (space compression due to time occupation) and learning environment

Time-space interchangeability in learning environments

Possible directions of change

Spatiotemporal trade-offs versus assessment observer perspective

Spatiotemporal trade-offs in school-based education systems

Possible directions of change

Connotation of time in education related to time available for autonomy

Extending time available for autonomy

Summary

Footnotes

Contributorship

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

Notes

References