Adaptable task progression is descriptively more beneficial than fixed task progression in simulation-based learning¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · checked against its sources 2026-10-21 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Simulations with adaptable task progression (g = 1.10) showed descriptively higher effects than those with fixed, non-personalized task progression (g = 0.87), though the difference was not statistically significant. → Chernikova 2025
Evidence¶
Chernikova 2025¶
Chernikova, O., Sommerhoff, D., Stadler, M., Holzberger, D., Nickl, M., Seidel, T., Kasneci, E., Küchemann, S., Kuhn, J., Fischer, F., & Heitzmann, N. (2025). Personalization through adaptivity or adaptability? A meta-analysis on simulation-based learning in higher education. Educational Research Review 46 (2025) 100662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2024.100662
q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2
Random-effects meta-analysis (Hedges g) of studies coded for task progression; Table 1 reports adaptable task progression g = 1.10 (N = 34) versus not personalized g = 0.87 (N = 109); adaptive task progression was not identified in any study (N = 0).
"descriptive values indicate that adaptable scaffolding seems to be in general slightly less beneficial than adaptive scaffolding, but adaptable task progression increases effects of simulation for learners"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- For learners with low prior knowledge, adaptable scaffolding shows the worst effects, while non-personalized scaffolding with adaptable task progression is descriptively most beneficial — related
- Most primary studies in simulation-based learning do not personalize scaffolding or task progression — related
- Fully adaptable learning environments are significantly less beneficial than non-personalized environments — related
- Adaptive scaffolding combined with adaptable task progression is descriptively most effective for high prior knowledge learners but not for low prior knowledge learners — related
- Adaptive scaffolding shows descriptively higher effects than adaptable scaffolding in simulation-based learning, though the difference is not statistically significant — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
adaptable-task-progression-higher-effects |
title |
Adaptable task progression is descriptively more beneficial than fixed task progression in simulation-based learning |
description |
Adaptable task progression is descriptively more beneficial than fixed task progression in simulation-based learning |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2025 |
source_checked |
2026-10-21 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-21 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — chernikova-2025 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.