Adaptive vs. Traditional Learning: Long-Term Knowledge Retention -A Literature Review

Amal  Altahi; Chaitali  Bonke; Khaled  Alblowi

doi:10.48161/qaj.v5n4a2165

Authors

Amal Altahi Center of Information Systems and Technology, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont 91711, USA; Department of Management Information Systems, Faculty of Business Administration, University of Tabuk, Tabuk 47512, Saudi Arabia.
Chaitali Bonke Department of Information Systems, Robert C. Vackar College of Business and Entrepreneurship, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburg, Texas 78539, USA.
Khaled Alblowi Department of Accounting, Faculty of Business Administration, University of Tabuk, Tabuk 47512, Saudi Arabia.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.48161/qaj.v5n4a2165

Keywords:

adaptive learning, knowledge retention, traditional learning, personalized learning.

Abstract

Adaptive learning, a personalized educational approach, has appeared as a substitute paradigm to conventional teaching methodologies. Opposed to instruction-based learning, adaptive learning prepares learning content in a way that corresponds to individual learner needs, increasing engagement and knowledge retention. The present study has been conducted to review the literature to evaluate the influence of adaptive learning systems on long-term knowledge retention as compared to their traditional counterparts. Real-time feedback, spaced repetition, and scaffolded content can reduce cognitive load and enhance the learning experience, as they are considered highly effective tools. Several studies have shown that retention improves through the use of adaptive systems, as they help fill information gaps and encourage active learning, especially in STEM fields. Despite the benefits of using adaptive systems in relevant areas, some challenges remain, including limited access in low-resource settings, underrepresentation in non-STEM areas, and difficulties integrating with traditional teaching methods. The present research suggests that future studies should concentrate on longitudinal studies, hybrid models, and equitable access to adaptive technologies. Adaptive learning will revolutionize the learning sector in various situations by addressing these challenges.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Eau, G., Hoodin, D., & Musaddiq, T. (2021). Testing the effects of adaptive learning courseware on student performance: An experimental approach. Southern Economic Journal, 88(3), 1086–1118.

Lim, L., Lim, S. H., & Lim, W. Y. R. (2023). Efficacy of an adaptive learning system on course scores. Systems, 11(1), 31.

Alhamad, B. R., & Agha, S. (2023). Comparing knowledge acquisition and retention between mobile learning and traditional learning in teaching respiratory therapy students: A randomized control trial. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 14, 333–342.

Gasparic, R. P., Glavan, M., Mihelič, M. Ž., & Zuljan, M. V. (2024). Effectiveness of flipped learning and teaching: Knowledge retention and students' perceptions. Journal of Information Technology Education, 23, 001–001.

Lopez, S. (2024). The impact of cognitive load theory on the effectiveness of microlearning modules. European Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 5(2), 29–35.

Thampinathan, S. (2022). The application of the constructivism learning theory to physician assistant students in primary care. Education for Health, 35(1), 26–30.

Zhu, B., Chau, K. T., & Mokmin, M. (2024). Optimizing cognitive load and learning adaptability with adaptive microlearning for in-service personnel. Scientific Reports, 14(1).

Rincon-Flores, E. G., Castano, L., Guerrero Solis, S. L., Olmos Lopez, O., Rodríguez Hernández, C. F., Castillo Lara, L. A., & Aldape Valdés, L. P. (2024). Improving the learning-teaching process through adaptive learning strategy. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1).

Hendricks, G. P. (2019). Connectivism as a learning theory and its relation to open distance education. Progressio: South African Journal for Open and Distance Learning Practice, 41(1).

Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii–xxiii.

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372.

Vincent-Ruz, P., & Boase, N. R. B. (2022). Activating discipline specific thinking with adaptive learning: A digital tool to enhance learning in chemistry. PLOS ONE, 17(11), e0276086.

Chand, S. P. (2024). Constructivism in education: Exploring the contributions of Piaget, Vygotsky, and Bruner. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 12(7), 274–278.

Contrino, M. F., Reyes-Millán, M., Vázquez-Villegas, P., & Membrillo-Hernández, J. (2024). Using an adaptive learning tool to improve student performance and satisfaction in online and face-to-face education for a more personalized approach. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1).

Liu, K., & Lahoz, E. A. (2024). Impact of learning styles on students' retention of information. International Journal of Education and Humanities, 17(1), 207–212.

Brusilovsky, P., Ericson, B. J., Horstmann, C. S., Servin, C., Vahid, F., & Zilles, C. (2023). Significant trends in CS educational material: Current and future. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 2 (pp. 1253–1253).

Siemens, G. (2005). Learning development cycle: Bridging learning design and modern knowledge needs. Elearnspace Everything Elearning, 48(9), 800–809.

Evans, P., Vansteenkiste, M., Parker, P. D., Kingsford-Smith, A., & Zhou, S. (2024). Cognitive load theory and its relationships with motivation: A self-determination theory perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 36(1).

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Ehsanpur, S., & Razavi, M. R. (2020). A comparative analysis of learning, retention, learning and study strategies in the traditional and M-learning systems. European Review of Applied Psychology, 70(6), 100605.

Dhakshinamoorthy, A., & Dhakshinamoorthy, K. (2018). KLSAS—An adaptive dynamic learning environment based on knowledge level and learning style. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 27(2), 319–331.

Minnick, W., Cekada, T., Marin, L., Zreiqat, M., Seal, B., & Mulroy, J. (2022). The impact of active learning strategies on retention and outcomes in safety training. Creative Education, 13(2), 526–536.

Ganda, D. R., & Boruchovitch, E. (2018). A autorregulação da aprendizagem: Principais conceitos e modelos teóricos. Psicologia da Educação, 46, 71–80.

James, W., Oates, G., & Schonfeldt, N. (2024). Improving retention while enhancing student engagement and learning outcomes using gamified mobile technology. Accounting Education, 1–21.

Taylor, D. L., Yeung, M., & Bashet, A. Z. (2021). Personalized and adaptive learning. In J. Ryoo & K. Winkelmann (Eds.), Innovative learning environments in STEM higher education. SpringerBriefs in Statistics. Springer, Cham.

Wilschut, T., Sense, F., van der Velde, M., Fountas, Z., Maaß, S. C., & van Rijn, H. (2021). Benefits of adaptive learning transfer from typing-based learning to speech-based learning. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 4.

Lindsey, R. V., Shroyer, J. D., Pashler, H., & Mozer, M. C. (2014). Improving students' long-term knowledge retention through personalized review. Psychological Science, 25(3), 639–647.

Du Plooy, E., Casteleijn, D., & Franzsen, D. (2024). Personalized adaptive learning in higher education: A scoping review of key characteristics and impact on academic performance and engagement. Heliyon, 10(21), e39630.