AI-Powered Adaptive Quizzing: Enhancing Personalized Learning, Student Engagement, and Performance in Digital Classrooms
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/saludcyt20262647Keywords:
AI-powered adaptive quizzes, personalized learning, learning analytics, formative assessment, student engagement, educational technologyAbstract
Introduction: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into educational technology has transformed assessment practices by enabling more personalized and adaptive learning experiences. This study examined the development and effectiveness of an AI-powered adaptive quizzing system designed to adjust question difficulty in real time based on student performance and to deliver immediate feedback.
Methods: The system employed learning analytics and machine learning algorithms to identify individual learning patterns and recommend targeted exercises aligned with students’ weaknesses. A mixed-methods design was implemented involving 200 high school students divided into an experimental group—using the AI-based adaptive quiz platform—and a control group relying on conventional assessments. Data were collected through pre- and post-tests, student surveys, and instructor interviews.
Results: Findings showed that students using the AI-powered system demonstrated significantly higher engagement, improved knowledge retention, and greater motivation compared to those completing static quizzes. The adaptive mechanism facilitated more efficient learning by aligning question difficulty with students’ proficiency levels while providing timely corrective feedback.
Conclusions:
This study concluded that AI-driven adaptive assessments offer substantial advantages over traditional assessment formats and hold strong potential for enhancing personalized learning in digital classrooms. The findings contribute to the field of educational technology by providing empirical evidence of the role of AI in strengthening formative assessment and differentiated instruction.
References
1. Song Y. Investigating the Relationship Between Math Literacy and Linguistic Synchrony in Online Mathematical Discussions Through Large‐scale Data Analytics. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2024;55(5):2226–56. doi. 10.1111/bjet.13444 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13444
2. Ting MY, Kuo B. A Knowledge‐structure‐based Adaptive Dynamic Assessment System for Calculus Learning. J Comput Assist Learn. 2015;32(2):105–19. doi 10.1111/jcal.12119 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12119
3. Ho PJ. Assessing the Range of Cognitive Processes in the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination (HKDSE)’s English Language Reading Literacy Test. Language Testing in Asia. 2022;12(1). doi 10.1186/s40468-022-00167-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-022-00167-4
4. Webb M, Gibson D, Forkosh‐Baruch A. Challenges for Information Technology Supporting Educational Assessment. J Comput Assist Learn. 2013;29(5):451–62. doi 10.1111/jcal.12033 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12033
5. Viberg O, Mutimukwe C, Hrastinski S, Pargman TC, Lilliesköld J. Exploring Teachers’ (Future) Digital Assessment Practices in Higher Education: Instrument and Model Development. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2024;55(6):2597–616. doi 10.1111/bjet.13462 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13462
6. St‐Onge C, Ouellet K, Lakhal S, Dubé T, Marceau M. COVID‐19 as the Tipping Point for Integrating E‐assessment in Higher Education Practices. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2021;53(2):349–66. doi 10.1111/bjet.13169 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13169
7. Tajeddin Z, Khatib M, Mahdavi M. Critical Language Assessment Literacy of EFL Teachers: Scale Construction and Validation. Language Testing. 2022;39(4):649–78. doi 10.1177/02655322211057040 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322211057040
8. Lazarinis F, Green S, Pearson E. Creating Personalized Assessments Based on Learner Knowledge and Objectives in a Hypermedia Web Testing Application. Comput Educ. 2010;55(4):1732–43. doi 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.019
9. Salas‐Pilco SZ, Yang Y, Zhang Z. Student Engagement in Online Learning in Latin American Higher Education During the COVID‐19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2022;53(3):593–619. doi 10.1111/bjet.13190 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13190
10. Yan L, Sha L, Zhao L, Li Y, Martínez‐Maldonado R, Chen G, et al. Practical and Ethical Challenges of Large Language Models in Education: A Systematic Scoping Review. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2023;55(1):90–112. doi 10.1111/bjet.13370 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13370
11. Pillai R, Upadhyaya P, Prakash A V, Ramaprasad BS, Mukesh H V, Pai YP. End-User Satisfaction of Technology-Enabled Assessment in Higher Education: A Coping Theory Perspective. Educ Inf Technol (Dordr). 2021;26(4):3677–98. doi 10.1007/s10639-020-10401-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10401-2
12. Kossybayeva U, Shaldykova B, Akhmanova DM, Kulanina S. Improving Teaching in Different Disciplines of Natural Science and Mathematics With Innovative Technologies. Educ Inf Technol (Dordr). 2022;27(6):7869–91. doi 10.1007/s10639-022-10955-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10955-3
13. Ifenthaler D, Schumacher C, Kužílek J. Investigating Students’ Use of Self‐assessments in Higher Education Using Learning Analytics. J Comput Assist Learn. 2022;39(1):255–68. doi 10.1111/jcal.12744 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12744
14. Xu Z, Wijekumar K, Ramı́rez G, Hu X, Irey R. The Effectiveness of Intelligent Tutoring Systems on K‐12 Students’ Reading Comprehension: A Meta‐analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2019;50(6):3119–37. doi 10.1111/bjet.12758 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12758
15. Wang X, Huang R, Sommer M, Pei B, Shidfar P, Rehman MS, et al. The Efficacy of Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Adaptive Learning Systems From 2010 to 2022 on Learner Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2024;62(6):1568–603. doi 10.1177/07356331241240459 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331241240459
16. Liang X. Antonym and Oppositeness: A Cognitive Training Approach of Thinking in English Writing in the AI Era. Curric Innov. 2024;2(2):1–10. doi- DOI: https://doi.org/10.61187/ci.v2i2.112
17. Colliot T. What Makes Tablet‐based Learning Effective? A Study of the Role of Real‐time Adaptive Feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2024;55(5):2278–95. doi 10.1111/bjet.13439 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13439
18. Feng L. Investigating the Effects of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Language Learning Strategies on Cognitive Load and Learning Outcomes: A Comparative Study. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2024;62(8):1961–94. doi 10.1177/07356331241268349
19. Debeer D, Vanbecelaere S, Noortgate WVD, Reynvoet B, Depaepe F. The Effect of Adaptivity in Digital Learning Technologies. Modelling Learning Efficiency Using Data From an Educational Game. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2021;52(5):1881–97. doi 10.1111/bjet.13103 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13103
20. Wang S, Christensen C, Cui W, Tong RM, Yarnall L, Shear L, et al. When Adaptive Learning Is Effective Learning: Comparison of an Adaptive Learning System to Teacher-Led Instruction. Interactive Learning Environments. 2020;31(2):793–803. doi 10.1080/10494820.2020.1808794 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1808794
21. Papamitsiou Z, Pappas IO, Sharma K, Giannakos MN. Utilizing Multimodal Data Through fsQCA to Explain Engagement in Adaptive Learning. Ieee Transactions on Learning Technologies. 2020;13(4):689–703. doi 10.1109/TLT.2020.2975702 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2020.3020499
22. Canonigo AM. Levering AI to Enhance Students’ Conceptual Understanding and Confidence in Mathematics. J Comput Assist Learn. 2024;40(6):3215–29. doi 10.1111/jcal.13065 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.13065
23. Viberg O. Advancing Equity and Inclusion in Educational Practices with AI powered Educational Decision Support Systems AI ‐ EDSS. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2024;55(5):1974–81. doi 10.1111/bjet.13462. doi- DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13507
24. Santoveña-Casal S, López SR. Mapping of Digital Pedagogies in Higher Education. Educ Inf Technol (Dordr). 2023;29(2):2437–58. doi 10.1007/s10639-022-11378-w DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11888-1
25. Jafari E. Artificial Intelligence and Learning Environment: Human Considerations. J Comput Assist Learn. 2024;40(5):2135–49. doi 10.1111/jcal.12808 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.13011
26. Tichnor‐Wagner A, Allen D, Socol AR, Cohen‐Vogel L, Rutledge SA, Xing QW. Studying Implementation Within a Continuous-Improvement Process: What Happens When We Design With Adaptations in Mind? Teach Coll Rec. 2018;120(5):1–52. doi- DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811812000506
27. Lester D, Skulmoski GJ, Fisher DP, Mehrotra V, Lim I, Lang A, et al. Drivers and Barriers to the Utilisation of Gamification and Game‐based Learning in Universities: A Systematic Review of Educators’ Perspectives. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2023;54(6):1748–70. doi 10.1111/bjet.13301 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13311
28. Liang H. Effect of an AI‐based Chatbot on Students’ Learning Performance in Alternate Reality Game‐based Museum Learning. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2024;55(5):2315–38. doi 10.1111/bjet.13418 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13448
29. Liao X, Zhang X, Wang Z, Luo H. Design and Implementation of an AI enabled Visual Report Tool as Formative Assessment to Promote Learning Achievement and Self‐regulated Learning: An Experimental Study. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2024;55(3):1253–76. doi 10.1111/bjet.13289 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13424
30. Heitmann S, Obergassel N, Fries S, Grund A, Berthold K, Roelle J. Adaptive Practice Quizzing in a University Lecture: A Pre-Registered Field Experiment. J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 2021;10(4). doi 10.1016/j.jarmac.2021.09.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0101865
31. Ross B, Chase AM, Robbie D, Oates G, Absalom Y. Adaptive quizzes to increase motivation, engagement and learning outcomes in a first year accounting unit. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2018;15(1). doi 10.1186/s41239-018-0100-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0113-2
32. Tetzlaff L, Schmiedek F, Brod G. Developing Personalized Education: A Dynamic Framework. Vol. 33, Educational Psychology Review. 2021. doi 10.1007/s10648-021-09615-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09570-w
33. Thi Huong L. Students’ Perceptoins Towads E-Quizzes in Online EFL Classrooms. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies. 2022;38(6). doi- DOI: https://doi.org/10.25073/2525-2445/vnufs.4886
34. Prasad K, Rao Mangipudi M. Enhanced Academicians Engagement: Evidence from Gamification Interventions in Higher Education Institutes. International Journal of Engineering Technologies and Management Research. 2020;7(9). doi- DOI: https://doi.org/10.29121/ijetmr.v7.i9.2020.779
35. Li H, Wijeyewardene I, Stackhouse S. Scaffolding Summary Writing through the ‘Reading to Learn’ Pedagogy. RELC Journal. 2024; doi 10.1177/00336882241228684 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882231226281
36. Wang S. Critical Thinking Development Through Project-Based Learning. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. 2022;13(5). doi 10.17507/jltr.1305.11 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1305.13
37. Wang AI, Tahir R. The effect of using Kahoot! for learning – A literature review. Comput Educ. 2020;149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103818
38. Feng L. Investigating the Effects of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Language Learning Strategies on Cognitive Load and Learning Outcomes: A Comparative Study. Journal of Educational Computing Research [Internet]. 2025;62(8):1741–74. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331241268349 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331241268349
39. Greving S, Lenhard W, Richter T. Adaptive retrieval practice with multiple-choice questions in the university classroom. J Comput Assist Learn. 2020;36(6). doi 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103680. doi 10.1111/jcal.12453 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12445
40. Leppink J, Paas F, Van der Vleuten CPM, Van Gog T, Van Merriënboer JJG. Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behav Res Methods. 2013;45(4). doi 10.3758/s13428-013-0334-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0334-1
41. Nevin CR, Westfall AO, Martin Rodriguez J, Dempsey DM, Cherrington A, Roy B, et al. Gamification as a tool for enhancing graduate medical education. Postgrad Med J. 2014;90(1070). doi 10.1136/postgradmedj-2013-132238 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2013-132486
42. Schneider J, Borner D, Van Rosmalen P, Specht M. Can You Help Me with My Pitch? Studying a Tool for Real-Time Automated Feedback. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies. 2016;9(4). doi 10.1109/TLT.2016.2591956 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2016.2627043
43. Kar S, Kar A, Gupta MP. Modeling Drivers and Barriers of Artificial Intelligence Adoption: Insights from a Strategic Management Perspective. Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management. 2022 Jun;28. doi 10.1002/isaf.1507 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/isaf.1503
44. Ayling J, Chapman A. Putting AI ethics to work: are the tools fit for purpose? AI and Ethics. 2022;2(3). doi 10.1007/s43681-021-00087-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00084-x
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ayu Gustia Ningsih, Atmazaki, Syahrul Ramadhan (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
