The Research Hotspots and Future Trends of Adaptive Learning in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: A Bibliometric Analysis From 2014 to 2024
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: To examine the research status and developmental trend within the adaptive learning. Background: Adaptive learning provides personalized learning paths based on the unique needs of each learner. However, a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of this field remains limited. Methods: A bibliometric analysis was conducted. Our search within the Web of Science database targeted articles on adaptive learning published from January 1, 2014, to November 16, 2024. The dataset encompassed publication counts, participating countries, institutions, authors, cited journals, references, and keywords, with CiteSpace facilitating the bibliometric analysis. Results: The review encompassed 561 articles by 288 authors across 240 institutions in 68 countries. These publications showed an upward trend over the decade, with the United States of America leading with 214 articles (38.15%). The University of Toronto topped institutional contributions with 16 articles (2.85%). Computers and Education emerged as the most cited journal in adaptive learning, with 244 articles. Timeline analysis and burst detection identified key research hotspots, including the theoretical and technological underpinnings of adaptive learning, its educational applications, and its efficacy. Emerging trends suggest a shift toward intelligent optimization and outcome‐focused adaptive learning, as well as its integration with higher education. Conclusions: The study provides a comprehensive view of adaptive learning research from the past decade, offering insights and indicating future research directions within the field. Implications for Nursing Management: Nursing administrators leverage adaptive learning mechanisms to intelligently identify knowledge gaps in nursing practice, develop personalized training programs and simulation exercises, and optimize nursing management models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.108 | 0.143 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".