An exploration of three screens – how television, algorithms, and learning machines quietly reshape what it means to be awake
Where television demanded passive reception of whatever the broadcaster chose, and social media delivered personalized content optimized for maximum dwell time, the adaptive learning systems promised something different: personalized education tailored to individual needs. Yet the mechanism remained surveillance. The system watched. It observed how long a learner took to respond to assessment items. It compared behavior against complex algorithms trained on massive datasets. It decided what came next.
Dr. Amir Teymourian noted that long before we called it adaptive, great teachers noticed when students struggled, adjusted their approach, and helped learners succeed. The distinction lay in scale – one teacher could observe a handful of students; AI-powered systems responded simultaneously to hundreds or thousands. The difference between augmentation and replacement blurred.
Learning management systems’ passivation operated through optimization. Every element of the educational experience tuned itself to maximize engagement and minimize frustration. Difficulty adjusted in real-time. Content formats matched individual learning styles. Resources appeared at precisely the right moment to prevent dropout. But the optimization itself raised questions: when does personalized support become personalized confinement? When does scaffolding become dependency? When does the system know the student better than the student knows themselves?
The research reveals a common thread. All three technologies – television, social media algorithms, adaptive learning systems. reduced the friction between human intention and environmental response. Television removed the effort required to choose content. Social media removed the effort required to find information matching existing interests. Adaptive learning systems removed the effort required to locate materials matching current comprehension levels.
Friction once forced engagement. Without a remote control, television viewers physically approached the device to change channels. Without algorithms curating feeds, internet users searched, clicked, navigated, stumbled upon unfamiliar territory. Without adaptive systems, students confronted materials above their comfort zone, wrestled with concepts beyond current mastery, developed resilience through struggle.
The removal of friction produced comfort. Comfort produced retention. Retention produced profit … for broadcasters, platforms, and edtech companies alike.
Yet comfort and passivation share a border.
A final complication emerges from the research itself. Studies distinguish between active and passive conceptions of audiences across all three media forms. Viewers, users, and learners occupy spectra rather than binaries. Television audiences sometimes engaged critically with content. Social media users occasionally practiced algorithmic resistance. Students in adaptive learning environments demonstrated ownership of their educational journeys.
The question becomes not whether passivation occurs, but how deeply it penetrates. Television’s effects varied with viewing habits, content, and individual differences. Social media filter bubbles depended on user agency, platform design, and broader cultural-political contexts. Adaptive learning systems empowered students to take ownership while simultaneously making decisions on their behalf.
The screens remain. The glow persists. What changes is our capacity to recognize the invitation to surrender, and the possibility of refusal.
In 2026, as AI doubles of instructors answer student questions around the clock and recommendation algorithms construct personalized realities in real-time, the fundamental question Kubey and Csikszentmihalyi posed thirteen years of television research remains unanswered: when we let the screen dictate our engagement, what parts of ourselves grow still, and which parts continue reaching toward the light?
The third part of this blog post with focus on activation or rather interactivation is coming soon
Written by
LarsGoran Bostrom
We help organisations and humans to interactivating themselves by turning screens into active development and safeguard your personal integrity and organisation’s information security. Find out more on eLearningworld Europe AB and B-InteraQtive Publishing
Sources referenced include research from Rutgers University and University of Chicago (Kubey & Csikszentmihalyi, 1990-2003), MDPI Health studies (2025), Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (2024), Springer Nature Discover Education reviews (2025), International Society for Technology in Education findings, and systematic reviews of filter bubble literature from VivataAcademia and CEUR-WS publications.