What Is Adaptivity? Does It Improve Performance?

  • Jacqueline A. Haynes
  • Jody S. Underwood
  • Robert Pokorny
  • Amit Spinrad
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8534)


Asking whether adaptivity improves performance is the wrong question. The right question is what kinds of adaptivity should be used to tailor the interactions between learner, context, objective, and instructional approach to maximize learning and performance. Most research on adaptive learning has focused on learning in intelligent tutoring systems and other digital learning environments. However, there is a lack of research that focuses on retention and deeper learning. This paper will define adaptivity, review different types of adaptivity used for instruction and their effects within the learning environment and longitudinally, and give some examples of how we have used adaptivity for short- and long-term improvement in performance and learning. We conclude that adaptivity in learning environments should be used to focus on deep conceptual learning promoting long term results.


adaptivity intelligent tutoring systems digital learning environments learning pedagogy individualized instruction 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Corbett, A.T.: Cognitive computer tutors: Solving the two-sigma problem. In: Bauer, M., Gmytrasiewicz, P.J., Vassileva, J. (eds.) UM 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2109, pp. 137–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson, J.R., Corbett, A.T., Koedinger, K., Pelletier, R.: Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of Learning Sciences 4, 167–207 (1995), (retrieved March 2, 2006)
  4. 4.
    Durlach, P.J., Ray, J.M.: Designing adaptive instructional environments: Insights from empirical evidence. U. S. Army Research Institute Technical Report (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jones, V., Jo, J.H.: Ubiquitous learning environment: An adaptive teaching system using ubiquitous technology. In: Atkinson, R., McBeath, C., Jonas-Dwyer, D., Phillips, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference Beyond the Comfort Zone, pp. 468–474 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Melis, E., Andres, E., Budenbender, J., Frischauf, A., Goguadze, G., Libbrecht, P., Pollet, M., Ullrich, C.: ActiveMath: A generic and adaptive web-based learning environment. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 12, 385–407 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Underwood, J.S., Underwood, I.M.: Immediation: Automatically diagnosing what students know, to teach what they are ready to learn. Paper presented at the National Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Underwood, J.S., Kruse, S., Jakl, P.: Moving to the next level: Designing embedded assessments into educational games. In: Zemliansky, P., Wilcox, D. (eds.) Design and Implementation of Educational Games: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives. IGI Global, Hershey (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    VanLehn, K.: The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist 46(4), 197–221 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Falmagne, J.-C., Cosyn, E., Doignon, J.-P., Thiery, N.: The assessment of knowledge, in theory and in practice (2004), (retrieved February 20, 2006)
  11. 11.
    Shute, V.J., Hansen, E.G., Almond, R.G.: An assessment for learning system called ACED: Designing for learning effectiveness and accessibility, ETS Research Report, RR-07-26, Princeton, NJ, pp. 1–45 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barab, S.A., Gresalfi, M., Arici, A.: Why educators should care about games. In: Educational Leadership (September 2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chi, M.T.H.: Active-constructive-interactive: a conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science 1, 73–105 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van Merriënboer, J.J.G., Kirschner, P.A., Kester, L.: Taking the load off a learner’s mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist 38, 5–13 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reigeluth, C.M.: The elaboration theory: Guidance for scope and sequences decisions. In: Reigeluth, R.M. (ed.) Instructional-design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, vol. II, pp. 425–454. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Merrill, M.D.: First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development 50(3), 43–59 (2002)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wulf, G., Shea, C.H.: Principles derived from the study of simple skills do not generalize to complex skill learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 9(2), 185–211 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carpenter, S.K., Cepeda, N.J., Rohrer, D., Kang, S.H.K., Pashler, H.: Using spacing to enhance diverse forms of learning: Review of recent research and implications for instruction. Educational Psychology Review 24, 369–378 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Donovan, J.J., Radosevich, D.J.: A meta-analytic review of the distribution of practice effect: Now you see it, now you don’t. Journal of Applied Psychology 84(5), 795–805 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lakshmanan, A., Lindsey, C.D., Krishnan, H.S.: Practice makes perfect? When does massed learning improve product usage proficiency? Journal of Consumer Research 37(4), 599–613 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kluger, A.N., DeNisi, A.: The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin 119(2), 254–284 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schmidt, R.A., Bjork, R.A.: New Conceptualizations of Practice: Common Principles in Three Paradigms Suggest New Concepts for Training. Psychological Science 3(4), 207–217 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Underwood, J.S.: Effective feedback: Guidelines for improving performance. In: Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Utrecht, The Netherlands (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pokorny, R., Haynes, J., Gott, S., Chi, M., Hegarty, M.: Infusing simulations with expert mental models, adaptivity, and engaging instructional interventions. In: Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference Proceedings (2013)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Haynes, J., Fowler, D., Mayhew, S.: Intelligent reading tutor for improving reading comprehension and content learning. In: Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference Proceedings (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vygotsky, L.: Thought and language. Trans. Alex Kozulin. MIT Press, Cambridge (1986)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Atkinson, R.K.: An experimental evaluation of three computer-based reading comprehension tutors. Final report to the Office of Naval Research, ONR N00014-05-1-0129 (2007)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chapman, R.A.: Computer-based reading-comprehension tutorials: An experimental evaluation. Final report for ONR N00014-07-AF-00002 (February 18, 2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacqueline A. Haynes
    • 1
  • Jody S. Underwood
    • 1
  • Robert Pokorny
    • 1
  • Amit Spinrad
    • 2
  1. 1.Intelligent Automation, Inc.RockvilleUSA
  2. 2.The Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations