The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Personalized Learning in Higher Education: A Systematic Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Eligibility Criteria
2.2. Information Sources and Search Strategy
2.3. Study Selection Process
2.4. Data Extraction
2.5. Quality Assessment
2.6. Data Synthesis
2.7. Ethical Considerations
3. Results
3.1. Study Selection Results
3.2. Characteristics of Included Studies
3.3. Result Analysis
4. Discussion
4.1. Pedagogical Transformation
4.2. Institutional and Administrative Innovation
4.3. Ethical and Regulatory Considerations
4.4. Limitations
4.5. Future Research
5. Conclusions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
AI | Artificial intelligence |
C | Content bias |
E | Educational bias |
PRISMA | Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses |
R | Resource bias |
RAG | Red, amber, green |
S | Setting bias |
U | Underpinning bias |
References
- Sapci, A.H.; Sapci, H.A. Artificial intelligence education and tools for medical and health informatics students: Systematic review. JMIR Med. Educ. 2020, 6, e19285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Charow, R.; Jeyakumar, T.; Younus, S.; Dolatabadi, E.; Salhia, M.; Al-Mouaswas, D.; Wiljer, D. Artificial intelligence education programs for health care professionals: Scoping review. JMIR Med. Educ. 2021, 7, e31043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yang, W. Artificial Intelligence education for young children: Why, what, and how in curriculum design and implementation. Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell. 2022, 3, 100061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, G.K.; Ma, X.; Dillenbourg, P.; Huan, J. Broadening artificial intelligence education in K-12: Where to start? ACM Inroads 2020, 11, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yue, M.; Jong, M.S.Y.; Dai, Y. Pedagogical design of K-12 artificial intelligence education: A systematic review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009, 151, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kitchenham, B. Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele Univ. 2004, 33, 1–26. [Google Scholar]
- Essa, S.G.; Celik, T.; Human-Hendricks, N.E. Personalized adaptive learning technologies based on machine learning techniques to identify learning styles: A systematic literature review. IEEE Access 2023, 11, 48392–48409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rangel-de Lazaro, G.; Duart, J.M.M. You can handle, you can teach it: Systematic review on the use of extended reality and artificial intelligence technologies for online higher education. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gordon, M.; Patricio, M.; Horne, L.; Muston, A.; Alston, S.R.; Pammi, M.; Daniel, M. Developments in medical education in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: A rapid BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 63. Med. Teach. 2020, 42, 1202–1215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stojan, J.; Haas, M.; Thammasitboon, S.; Lander, L.; Evans, S.; Pawlik, C.; Daniel, M. Online learning developments in undergraduate medical education in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 69. Med. Teach. 2022, 44, 109–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Abulibdeh, A.; Zaidan, E.; Abulibdeh, R. Navigating the confluence of artificial intelligence and education for sustainable development in the era of industry 4.0: Challenges, opportunities, and ethical dimensions. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 437, 140527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Zahrani, A.M.; Alasmari, T.M. Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence on higher education: The dynamics of ethical, social, and educational implications. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2024, 11, 912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amin, S.; Uddin, M.I.; Mashwani, W.K.; Alarood, A.A.; Alzahrani, A.; Alzahrani, A.O. Developing a personalized E-learning and MOOC recommender system in IoT-enabled smart education. IEEE Access 2023, 11, 136437–136455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azevedo, B.F.; Pacheco, M.F.; Fernandes, F.P.; Pereira, A.I. Dataset of mathematics learning and assessment of higher education students using the MathE platform. Data Brief 2024, 53, 110236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bognar, L.; Ágoston, G.; Bacsa-Bán, A.; Fauszt, T.; Gubán, G.; Joós, A.; Strauber, G. Re-evaluating components of classical educational theories in AI-enhanced learning: An empirical study on student engagement. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bukar, U.A.; Sayeed, M.S.; Razak, S.F.A.; Yogarayan, S.; Sneesl, R. Prioritizing ethical conundrums in the utilization of ChatGPT in education through an analytical hierarchical approach. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, C.K.Y.; Hu, W. Students’ voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2023, 20, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, C.K.Y.; Lee, K.K. The AI generation gap: Are Gen Z students more interested in adopting generative AI such as ChatGPT in teaching and learning than their Gen X and millennial generation teachers? Smart Learn. Environ. 2023, 10, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demartini, C.G.; Sciascia, L.; Bosso, A.; Manuri, F. Artificial Intelligence Bringing Improvements to Adaptive Learning in Education: A Case Study. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eltahir, M.E.; Babiker, F.M.E. The influence of artificial intelligence tools on student performance in e-learning environments: Case study. Electron. J. e-Learn. 2024, 22, 91–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallent-Torres, C.; Zapata-Gonzalez, A.; Ortego-Hernando, J.L. The impact of generative artificial intelligence in higher education: A focus on ethics and academic integrity. Relieve—Rev. Electron. Investig. Eval. Educ. 2023, 29, 1–19. [Google Scholar]
- George, B.; Wooden, O. Managing the strategic transformation of higher education through artificial intelligence. Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grosseck, G.; Bran, R.A.; Tiru, L.G. Digital assessment: A survey of Romanian higher education teachers’ practices and needs. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gouia-Zarrad, R.; Gunn, C. Enhancing students’ learning experience in mathematics class through ChatGPT. Int. Electron. J. Math. Educ. 2024, 19, em0781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hang, C.N.; Tan, C.W.; Yu, P.-D. MCQGen: A large language model-driven MCQ generator for personalized learning. IEEE Access 2024, 12, 102261–102273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hooshyar, D.; Azevedo, R.; Yang, Y. Augmenting deep neural networks with symbolic educational knowledge: Towards trustworthy and interpretable AI for education. Mach. Learn. Knowl. Extr. 2024, 6, 593–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hooshyar, D.; Mawas, N.E.; Milrad, M.; Yang, Y. Modeling learners to early predict their performance in educational computer games. IEEE Access 2023, 11, 20399–20417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, L. Improve English learning through artificial intelligence for online and offline mixed teaching path. Scalable Comput. Pract. Exp. 2024, 25, 481–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ilic, M.; Mikic, V.; Kopanja, L.; Vesin, B. Intelligent techniques in e-learning: A literature review. Artif. Intell. Rev. 2023, 56, 14907–14953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ilieva, G.; Yankova, T.; Klisarova-Belcheva, S.; Dimitrov, A.; Bratkov, M.; Angelov, D. Effects of generative chatbots in higher education. Information 2023, 14, 492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamalov, F.; Calonge, D.S.; Gurrib, I. New era of artificial intelligence in education: Towards a sustainable multifaceted revolution. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamruzzaman, M.M.; Alanazi, S.; Alruwaili, M.; Alshammari, N.; Elaiwat, S.; Abu-Zanona, M.; Innab, N.; Elzaghmouri, B.M.; Alanazi, B.A. AI- and IoT-assisted sustainable education systems during pandemics, such as COVID-19, for smart cities. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kiryakova, G.; Angelova, N. ChatGPT—A challenging tool for the university professors in their teaching practice. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewandrowski, K.U.; Elfar, J.C.; Li, Z.M.; Burkhardt, B.W.; Lorio, M.P.; Winkler, P.A.; Novellino, P. The changing environment in postgraduate education in orthopedic surgery and neurosurgery and its impact on technology-driven targeted interventional and surgical pain management: Perspectives from Europe, Latin America, Asia, and the United States. J. Pers. Med. 2023, 13, 852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, Y.; Wang, L.; Zhang, J.; Liu, F.; Jiang, Q. A personalized learning path recommendation method incorporating multi-algorithm. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 5946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Madsen, A.; Chandar, S.; Reddy, S. Are self-explanations from Large Language Models faithful? arXiv 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neumann, A.T.; Yin, Y.; Sowe, S.; Decker, S.; Jarke, M. An LLM-driven chatbot in higher education for databases and information systems. IEEE Trans. Educ. 2025, 68, 103–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naseer, F.; Khan, M.N.; Tahir, M.; Addas, A.; Aejaz, S.M.H. Integrating deep learning techniques for personalized learning pathways in higher education. Heliyon 2024, 10, e32628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ogata, H.; Flanagan, B.; Takami, K.; Dai, Y.; Nakamoto, R.; Takii, K. EXAIT: Educational eXplainable artificial intelligent tools for personalized learning. Res. Pract. Technol. Enhanc. Learn. 2024, 19, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pham, T.; Nguyen, T.B.; Ha, S.; Ngoc, N.T.N. Digital transformation in engineering education: Exploring the potential of AI-assisted learning. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2023, 39, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahiman, H.U.; Kodikal, R. Revolutionizing education: Artificial intelligence empowered learning in higher education. Cogent Educ. 2024, 11, 2293431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sailer, M.; Ninaus, M.; Huber, S.E.; Bauer, E.; Greiff, S. The end is the beginning is the end: The closed-loop learning analytics framework. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2024, 158, 108305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sajja, R.; Sermet, Y.; Cikmaz, M.; Cwiertny, D.; Demir, I. Artificial intelligence-enabled intelligent assistant for personalized and adaptive learning in higher education. Information 2024, 15, 596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saleem, N.; Mufti, T.; Sohail, S.S.; Madsen, D.O. ChatGPT as an innovative heutagogical tool in medical education. Cogent Educ. 2024, 11, 2332850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sallam, M.; Al-Salahat, K. Below average ChatGPT performance in medical microbiology exam compared to university students. Front. Educ. 2023, 8, 1333415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shabbir, A.; Rizvi, S.; Alam, M.M.; Su’ud, M.M. Beyond boundaries: Navigating the positive potential of ChatGPT, empowering education in underdeveloped corners of the world. Heliyon 2024, 10, e35845. [Google Scholar]
- Shimizu, I.; Kasai, H.; Shikino, K.; Araki, N.; Takahashi, Z.; Onodera, M.; Kimura, Y.; Tsukamoto, T.; Yamauchi, K.; Asahina, M.; et al. Developing medical education curriculum reform strategies to address the impact of generative AI: Qualitative study. JMIR Med. Educ. 2023, 9, e53466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, L.; Li, W. The impact of AI usage on university students’ willingness for autonomous learning. Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, T.; Lund, B.D.; Marengo, A.; Pagano, A.; Mannuru, N.R.; Teel, Z.A.; Pange, J. Exploring the potential impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on international students in higher education: Generative AI, chatbots, analytics, and international student success. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weber, F.; Wambsganss, T.; Soellner, M. Enhancing legal writing skills: The impact of formative feedback in a hybrid intelligence learning environment. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2024, 56, 650–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, X.; Wang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Zheng, R. Applying ChatGPT to tackle the side effects of personal learning environments from learner and learning perspective: An interview of experts in higher education. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0295646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xu, T.; Weng, H.; Liu, F.; Yang, L.; Luo, Y.; Ding, Z.; Wang, Q. Current status of ChatGPT use in medical education: Potentials, challenges, and strategies. J. Med. Internet Res. 2024, 26, e57896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yefymenko, T.; Bilous, T.; Zhukovska, A.; Sieriakova, I.; Moyseyenko, I. Technologies for using interactive artificial intelligence tools in the teaching of foreign languages and translation. Amazon. Investig. 2024, 13, 299–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yigci, D.; Eryilmaz, M.; Yetisen, A.K.; Tasoglu, S.; Ozcan, A. Large Language Model-Based Chatbots in Higher Education. Adv. Intell. Syst. 2024, 7, 2400429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoo, G.; Kim, H.; Hong, S. Prediction of cognitive load from electroencephalography signals using long short-term memory network. Bioengineering 2023, 10, 361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Database | Search String | Results |
---|---|---|
PubMed | (“artificial intelligence” OR “AI”) AND (“personalized learning” OR “adaptive learning”) AND (“education” OR “teaching” OR “students”) AND (“higher education”) | 10 |
Scopus | TITLE-ABS-KEY(“artificial intelligence” OR “AI”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY(“personalized learning” OR “adaptive learning”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY(“education” OR “teaching”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY(“higher education”) | 328 |
Web of Science | TS = (“artificial intelligence” OR “AI”) AND TS = (“personalized learning” OR “adaptive learning”) AND TS = (“education” OR “teaching” OR “students”) AND TS = (“higher education”) | 107 |
ERIC | (“artificial intelligence” OR “AI”) AND (“personalized learning” OR “adaptive learning”) AND (“education” OR “teaching”) AND (“higher education”) | 54 |
Google Scholar | (“artificial intelligence” OR “AI”) AND (“personalized learning” OR “adaptive learning”) AND (“education” OR “teaching”) AND (“higher education”) | 17,400 |
Total | 17,899 |
Bias Source | Low Risk | Moderate Risk | High Risk |
---|---|---|---|
Underpinning bias (U) | A clear and relevant description of the theoretical models or conceptual frameworks that underpin development | A limited discussion of underpinning, with minimal interpretation in the context of the study | No mention of underpinning |
Resource bias (R) | A clear description of the cost/time/resources needed for development | A limited description of resources | No mention of resources |
Setting bias (S) | Clear details of the educational context and learner characteristics of the study | Some description, but not significant enough to support dissemination | No details of learner characteristics or setting |
Educational bias (E) | A clear description of relevant educational methods employed to support delivery | Some educational methods mentioned but limited detail as to how they are applied | No details of educational methods |
Content bias (C) | The provision of detailed materials (or details of access) | Some elements of materials presented or summary information | No educational content presented |
Authors and Year | Intervention/Development Summary | Results and Conclusions | Risk of Bias in Study Reporting | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
U | R | S | E | C | |||
Abulibdeh et al. (2024). [12] | Review of ethical and practical dimensions of AI integration in education. | Concludes that AI improves learning efficiency but raises ethical and infrastructural challenges. | |||||
Al-Zahrani & Alasmari (2024). [13] | Investigates ethical, social, and pedagogical implications of AI in education. | Identifies significant benefits alongside concerns over academic integrity and bias. | |||||
Amin et al. (2023). [14] | Describes the development of a recommended system for e-learning based on IoT and AI. | Demonstrates potential for personalized content delivery and improved course selection. | |||||
Azevedo et al. (2024). [15] | Provides a dataset supporting personalized learning and assessment analytics. | Highlights the potential for data-driven personalization in higher education. | |||||
Bognar et al. (2024). [16] | Empirical investigation comparing classical theories with AI-enhanced learning. | Finds that AI can boost engagement if classical components are adequately integrated. | |||||
Bukar et al. (2024). [17] | Uses an analytical approach to assess ethical challenges of ChatGPT use. | Concludes that ethical concerns must be balanced with pedagogical benefits. | |||||
Chan & Hu (2023). [18] | Qualitative study exploring student perceptions of generative AI. | Reports predominantly positive perceptions with some ethical concerns. | |||||
Chan & Lee (2023). [19] | Compares generational attitudes toward generative AI in educational contexts. | Finds significant enthusiasm among Gen Z compared to older generations. | |||||
Demartini et al. (2024). [20] | Presents a study on AI-empowered adaptive learning modules. | Demonstrates improved learning outcomes when instructors support AI integration. | |||||
Eltahir & Babiker (2024). [21] | Study assessing the impact of AI tools on e-learning performance. | Shows that AI-enhanced environments can improve student performance. | |||||
Gallent-Torres et al. (2023). [22] | Explores the ethical implications of using generative AI in academic settings. | Highlights potential benefits alongside serious concerns regarding academic integrity. | |||||
George & Wooden (2023). [23] | Study on strategic management of AI integration in higher education. | Finds that AI can streamline administration and support institutional transformation. | |||||
Gouia-Zarrad & Gunn (2024). [24] | Evaluates ChatGPT as a tool to support mathematics learning. | Reports improved engagement and understanding, with some limitations noted. | |||||
Grosseck et al. (2024). [25] | Survey study of digital assessment practices and needs among university teachers. | Indicates that digital tools can enhance assessment, though teacher training is needed. | |||||
Hang et al. (2024). [26] | Describes a tool for generating multiple-choice questions using LLMs for personalized learning. | Demonstrates efficiency in MCQ creation, supporting tailored assessments. | |||||
Hooshyar et al. (2023). [27] | Explores methods to combine neural networks with symbolic knowledge for interpretable AI in education. | Concludes that hybrid models can enhance trustworthiness and interpretability. | |||||
Hooshyar et al. (2024). [28] | Proposes a predictive model for student performance in educational gaming environments. | Demonstrates promising predictive accuracy for early intervention. | |||||
Huang (2024). [29] | Describes an AI-based approach for enhancing English learning in blended environments. | Reports improvements in language proficiency and engagement. | |||||
Ilic et al. (2023). [30] | Literature review on the application of intelligent techniques in e-learning. | Summarizes diverse methods and stresses the need for further empirical validation. | |||||
Ilieva et al. (2023). [31] | Investigates the effects of generative chatbots on student learning experiences. | Finds that chatbots increase engagement but require careful integration to avoid superficial learning. | |||||
Kamalov et al. (2023). [32] | Proposes a theoretical framework for sustainable AI integration in education. | Emphasizes innovation potential alongside challenges in resource allocation. | |||||
Kamruzzaman et al. (2023). [33] | Discusses the integration of AI and IoT to support sustainable education during pandemics. | Shows that technology can ensure continuity and efficiency in education during crises. | |||||
Kiryakova & Angelova (2023). [34] | Qualitative study on the challenges of integrating ChatGPT in teaching practices. | Reveals mixed perceptions: potential benefits are recognized, but concerns about academic integrity persist. | |||||
Lewandrowski et al. (2023). [35] | Extensive series evaluating the impact of technology-driven interventions in postgraduate settings. | Demonstrates that technology-driven interventions can have a positive impact, though some aspects require improvement. | |||||
Ma et al. (2023). [36] | Proposes a multi-algorithm framework for recommending personalized learning paths. | Demonstrates improved student learning outcomes through adaptive recommendations. | |||||
Madsen et al. (2024). [37] | Explores the use of ChatGPT as a tool for fostering self-directed learning in medical education. | Indicates that ChatGPT can enhance learning if integrated with proper guidance. | |||||
Naseer et al. (2024). [38] | Evaluates deep learning techniques to generate personalized learning pathways. | Reports significant improvements in student engagement and performance. | |||||
Neumann et al. (2025). [39] | Develops an LLM-based chatbot to assist with database course material and queries. | Demonstrates high accuracy and usefulness in supporting student learning. | |||||
Ogata et al. (2024). [40] | Presents an explainable AI tool for generating personalized educational content. | Concludes that enhanced explainability increases teacher and student trust in AI systems. | |||||
Pham et al. (2023). [41] | Examines the impact of AI-assisted learning tools in engineering education. | Reports increased student engagement and efficiency in learning complex engineering concepts. | |||||
Rahiman & Kodikal (2024). [42] | Describes the development and application of AI-empowered learning modules. | Indicates enhanced academic performance when AI is effectively integrated. | |||||
Sailer et al. (2024). [43] | Proposes a closed-loop framework for learning analytics to support personalized feedback. | Demonstrates potential for iterative improvements in student learning through analytics. | |||||
Sajja et al. (2024). [44] | Develops an intelligent assistant using AI to provide personalized, adaptive learning support. | Shows improved student engagement and tailored learning experiences. | |||||
Saleem et al. (2024). [45] | Evaluates the use of ChatGPT as a self-directed learning tool in medical education. | Concludes that ChatGPT can foster independent learning when integrated with proper oversight. | |||||
Sallam & Al-Salahat (2023). [46] | Compares ChatGPT’s exam performance with that of university students in medical microbiology. | Finds that ChatGPT’s performance is inferior, suggesting limitations in its academic reliability. | |||||
Shabbir et al. (2024). [47] | Explores ChatGPT’s potential to enhance educational access and engagement in resource-limited settings. | Highlights both transformative potential and challenges such as academic integrity. | |||||
Shimizu et al. (2023). [48] | Qualitative study on curriculum reform strategies in response to generative AI’s impacts in medical education. | Suggests that curriculum reforms are necessary to accommodate the rapid adoption of AI tools in education. | |||||
Wang & Li (2024). [49] | Examines the influence of AI tools on students’ willingness to engage in autonomous learning. | Concludes that effective AI integration can foster independent learning behaviors. | |||||
Wang et al. (2023). [50] | Explores various AI applications (e.g., chatbots, adaptive systems) for supporting international students’ success. | Indicates that personalized AI interventions can improve academic performance while raising privacy and cultural concerns. | |||||
Weber et al. (2024). [51] | Investigates the impact of formative feedback delivered in a hybrid AI-enhanced environment. | Reports that structured feedback significantly improves legal writing skills. | |||||
Xu et al. (2024a). [52] | Reviews current applications and challenges of ChatGPT in medical education. | Identifies both potential for enhanced learning and challenges, including ethical concerns. | |||||
Xu et al. (2024b). [53] | Interviews experts on the impact of ChatGPT in mitigating the side effects of personal learning environments. | Suggests that expert guidance is needed to optimize ChatGPT integration in higher education. | |||||
Yefymenko et al. (2024). [54] | Explores interactive AI tools for teaching foreign languages and translation. | Indicates that AI tools enhance language instruction while addressing translation challenges. | |||||
Yigci et al. (2024). [55] | Reviews the use of LLM-based chatbots to support personalized learning in higher education. | Concludes that chatbots offer significant benefits in terms of scalability and personalized support despite some limitations. | |||||
Yoo et al. (2023). [56] | Develops a model using LSTM networks to predict cognitive load during learning tasks. | Demonstrates promising predictive performance to support adaptive learning interventions. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Merino-Campos, C. The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Personalized Learning in Higher Education: A Systematic Review. Trends High. Educ. 2025, 4, 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/higheredu4020017
Merino-Campos C. The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Personalized Learning in Higher Education: A Systematic Review. Trends in Higher Education. 2025; 4(2):17. https://doi.org/10.3390/higheredu4020017
Chicago/Turabian StyleMerino-Campos, Carlos. 2025. "The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Personalized Learning in Higher Education: A Systematic Review" Trends in Higher Education 4, no. 2: 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/higheredu4020017
APA StyleMerino-Campos, C. (2025). The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Personalized Learning in Higher Education: A Systematic Review. Trends in Higher Education, 4(2), 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/higheredu4020017