Fully adaptable learning environments are significantly less beneficial than non-personalized environments¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Fully adaptable learning environments (g = 0.71) were significantly less beneficial (p < .05) than non-personalized learning environments (g = 0.85). → 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

Interaction analysis of scaffolding-by-task-progression combinations across N = 143 studies (Table 2); the fully adaptable combination (adaptable scaffolding with adaptable task progression, N = 7) was the only combination significantly less beneficial than non-personalized environments.

"fully adaptable learning environments (g = 0.71, SE = 0.20; N = 7) are significantly less beneficial (p < .05) than other combinations but also than non-personalized learning environments (g = 0.85, SE = 0.09; N = 82)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Adaptable task progression is descriptively more beneficial than fixed task progression in simulation-based learning — related
• 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
• Adaptive scaffolding shows descriptively higher effects than adaptable scaffolding in simulation-based learning, though the difference is not statistically significant — related