A Comparative Analysis Of AI-Powered Adaptive Learning Systems in Higher Education Across Developed Countries

A Comparative Analysis of AI-Powered Adaptive Learning Systems in Higher Education Across Developed Countries

Suhana Saad¹, Zaimah Ramli², Sarmila Md. Sum³, Mohd Nor Shahizan Ali⁴

^1,2,3Centre for Research in Development, Social & Environment Faculty of Social Sciences & Humanities Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia 43600, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

⁴Centre for Research in Media & Communication Faculty of Social Sciences & Humanities Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia 43600, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.905000455

Received: 21 May 2025; Accepted: 24 May 2025; Published: 21 June 2025

ABSTRACT

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into higher education is significantly transforming traditional pedagogical models, particularly through the emergence of adaptive learning systems. These AI-powered platforms enhance the learning experience by tailoring content delivery to individual student needs, adapting in real time based on performance, learning pace, and engagement. This personalized approach promotes more effective and engaging learning, addressing diverse student abilities and improving overall academic outcomes. This concept paper explores the implementation and impact of AI-driven adaptive learning in higher education across five leading nations: the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, China, and Singapore. These countries have emerged as frontrunners in educational innovation, each leveraging AI through distinct policy frameworks, institutional strategies, and varying levels of technological maturity. By analysing their approaches, this paper seeks to uncover how universities in these regions are integrating adaptive learning systems, examining the successes they have achieved, the challenges they face, and the lessons they have learned along the way. In doing so, the paper identifies key institutional practices and national strategies that have facilitated effective adoption. It also proposes a conceptual framework to guide higher education institutions in other contexts seeking to implement similar technologies. By synthesizing global experiences and drawing meaningful comparisons, the paper aims to offer practical insights and strategic recommendations. Ultimately, it provides a roadmap for institutions aspiring to harness the power of AI to develop more personalized, responsive, and future-ready learning environments that can meet the evolving needs of students in the 21st century.

Keywords: Artificial intelligence (AI), adaptive learning, higher education, personalised learning

INTRODUCTION

The rapid evolution of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is reshaping higher education, particularly through the emergence of adaptive learning systems that personalise instruction to meet the diverse needs of learners. These systems leverage real-time data and machine learning algorithms to tailor content, pacing, and feedback, offering a more responsive and student centred learning experience. In contrast to traditional teaching methods, AI-powered adaptive learning provides scalable and data-driven solutions that can enhance engagement, improve outcomes, and support differentiated instruction in university settings.  Countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, China, and Singapore have been at the forefront of implementing AI-driven adaptive learning technologies in higher education institutions (HEIs). Each of these nations brings a unique approach shaped by differing educational policies, levels of technological investment, institutional readiness, and cultural contexts. Understanding their journeys can offer valuable insights into the practical realities of integrating AI in education from pilot initiatives to large-scale implementations. While this study focuses exclusively on developed countries specifically the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, China, and Singapore it is important to clarify that not all higher education institutions within these nations have adopted AI-powered adaptive learning systems uniformly. The analysis concentrates on prominent national initiatives and representative institutions to explore emerging practices. Countries with limited technological infrastructure are outside the scope of this paper, as the intention is to examine contexts where such systems are more likely to be piloted, scaled, and supported by policy.

This concept paper aims to explore how AI-powered adaptive learning is being applied in universities across these five countries. It specifically seeks to examine their experiences in adopting and integrating these technologies, including the strategies they employed, the challenges they faced, and the lessons they have learned. By synthesising these experiences, the paper aims to develop a conceptual framework that can guide other higher education institutions in designing and implementing effective adaptive learning systems.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in higher education, particularly through adaptive learning systems, has garnered substantial scholarly attention over the past decade. Adaptive learning refers to technology-driven, personalised instructional methods that dynamically adjust content, pedagogy, and pacing in response to real-time learner data. This pedagogical innovation is positioned as a transformative tool capable of addressing the heterogeneous needs of students and enhancing learning outcomes by promoting more responsive and flexible educational practices (Johnson et al., 2020; Holmes et al., 2019; Ifenthaler & Yau, 2020).

Early research highlights the potential of AI to foster learner-centred environments that surpass the constraints of traditional didactic approaches. Such environments are underpinned by machine learning algorithms and predictive analytics, which enable systems to deliver tailored learning paths, adaptive assessments, and personalised feedback loops (Kulik & Fletcher, 2016; Xie et al., 2021). These functionalities are correlated with improved learner engagement, academic achievement, and learner retention, especially among students who benefit from differentiated instruction (Chen et al., 2020; Tsai & Gasevic, 2017). Moreover, adaptive learning technologies align with broader educational goals, including equity, inclusivity, and accessibility in higher education (Merrill, 2019; UNESCO, 2021).

Cross-national comparative studies underscore significant disparities in the adoption and scalability of AI-powered adaptive learning systems, influenced by diverse policy environments, technological readiness, infrastructure, and cultural perceptions of AI in education (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019). In the United States, the higher education sector benefits from robust public-private partnerships, venture capital investment, and a culture of innovation that has facilitated the piloting and institutionalisation of adaptive technologies (Smith & Cukurova, 2021; Picciano, 2019). Conversely, the United Kingdom’s strategy has centred on integrating AI within existing virtual learning environments (VLEs), guided by policy efforts focused on widening participation and upholding quality assurance standards (Selwyn, 2020; UK Department for Education, 2022).

In Australia, the approach is marked by a combination of national digital education strategies and university-led initiatives aimed at addressing regional disparities, particularly among learners in rural and remote areas. Here, AI serves as both a pedagogical and social equaliser (Johnson et al., 2019; Corrin et al., 2020). China’s rapid expansion of its tertiary sector has seen AI deployed not only for adaptive learning but also for institutional planning, performance tracking, and curriculum optimisation, backed by substantial state investment and technological advancement (Li & Wong, 2022; Zhao et al., 2021). Singapore offers a model of cohesive national strategy, where smart education initiatives are closely linked to economic planning and workforce development. Through targeted investments, it has cultivated a highly integrated AI learning ecosystem that supports lifelong learning and professional upskilling (Tan & Goh, 2021; Lim et al., 2020).

Despite these global advancements, significant challenges persist. Concerns around data privacy, algorithmic transparency, ethical implications, and digital equity are frequently cited in the literature (Williamson & Eynon, 2020; Luckin et al., 2016). Moreover, issues such as interoperability with existing legacy systems, limited faculty digital competencies, and resistance to institutional change hinder the broader adoption of adaptive technologies (Baker & Siemens, 2019; Rolando et al., 2021). To address privacy challenges, institutions should implement transparent data governance policies aligned with regulations like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). This includes clearly informing students about what data is collected, how it will be used, and obtaining their informed consent. Additionally, institutions should prioritize working with technology providers that ensure strong data protection measures. In terms of fairness, universities can take steps to minimize algorithmic bias by using AI tools that are trained on diverse and representative datasets. Regular audits of these systems should be conducted to detect and correct any biased outcomes. Moreover, human oversight should remain central in the use of AI; faculty members must be trained to interpret AI-generated insights critically rather than relying on them without question. These practical steps can help institutions harness the benefits of AI while maintaining ethical standards in education.

Ultimately, the literature reflects a growing global momentum toward the adoption of AI-driven adaptive learning in higher education, albeit with context-specific variations. Understanding these differences and learning from early adopters is vital for creating scalable, ethical, and impactful adaptive learning solutions that are attuned to the evolving demands of diverse university learners across the world. As universities navigate an increasingly digital and data-intensive educational landscape, adaptive learning systems offer a promising avenue to personalise education at scale while advancing institutional goals related to equity, innovation, and academic excellence.

Conceptual framework: AI-Powered Adaptive Learning in Higher Education

This conceptual framework outlines the key components influencing the adoption of AI-powered adaptive learning in higher education across various national contexts. It integrates macro-level policy drivers, meso-level institutional factors, micro-level implementation, contextual challenges, and expected outcomes, allowing comparative analysis between different countries. The adoption of AI-powered adaptive learning in higher education is influenced by factors operating at multiple interconnected levels, which together shape the pace, scope, and impact of these technologies across diverse national contexts. At the macro-level, national policies, governance structures, and funding priorities provide the foundational environment for AI integration. Countries with centralised governance models, such as Singapore and China, demonstrate coordinated efforts that align AI adoption with broader economic and workforce development goals. These strategies benefit from clear government directives and substantial resource allocation, enabling large-scale deployments. In contrast, decentralised systems like that of the United States rely on a mix of federal funding, private sector partnerships, and institutional autonomy, fostering a dynamic but uneven landscape of AI innovation.

Moving to the meso-level, the readiness of individual higher education institutions becomes crucial. Infrastructure capacity, leadership vision, faculty expertise, and institutional culture collectively determine how effectively AI tools are adopted and integrated. Faculty members’ technical proficiency and pedagogical openness significantly influence successful uptake, while organisational cultures that encourage innovation and risk-taking tend to advance AI integration more rapidly. Conversely, resistance due to workload concerns or scepticism about AI’s educational value can hinder progress.

At the micro-level, AI technologies are deployed to personalise learning experiences, improve student engagement, and support institutional functions. Adaptive platforms tailor content to individual learner needs and use predictive analytics to identify students requiring additional support. These applications must be thoughtfully aligned with curriculum objectives and academic standards to maximise their educational benefits. Additionally, AI assists in administrative tasks such as enrolment forecasting and quality assurance, thereby enhancing institutional efficiency.

Despite these promising developments, contextual challenges must be carefully navigated. Ethical and legal issues around data privacy and security, especially under stringent regulations like GDPR and FERPA, necessitate rigorous compliance and trust-building. Infrastructure disparities and digital literacy gaps across institutions and regions limit equitable access to AI benefits. Moreover, concerns over algorithmic bias and transparency require robust governance frameworks and active stakeholder involvement to ensure fairness and accountability.

The outcomes of AI adoption extend beyond improved academic performance to include enhanced student retention, engagement, and satisfaction, particularly among diverse and non-traditional learners. For institutions, AI facilitates data-informed decision-making and optimises educational offerings in alignment with evolving labour market demands. Realising these outcomes depends on balanced implementation that integrates technological, pedagogical, and ethical considerations.

Finally, applying a comparative lens enables a nuanced understanding of how diverse national contexts moderate AI adoption trajectories. Variations in policy approaches, governance models, technological maturity, and educational priorities highlight that a one-size-fits-all strategy is neither feasible nor desirable. Instead, adaptive frameworks responsive to local needs and capacities are essential for maximising AI’s transformative potential in higher education worldwide. To support clearer understanding of cross-national comparisons, simple visual aids have been included to illustrate the conceptual framework and country-specific adoption patterns. These figures help to summarise key institutional and policy drivers, challenges, and outcomes related to the integration of AI-powered adaptive learning systems across the five developed countries under study (Figure 1).

Figure 1: AI Adoption in Higher Education

METHODOLOGY

This study employs a qualitative literature review methodology to explore the adoption and integration of AI-powered adaptive learning systems in higher education institutions across the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, China, and Singapore. Given the exclusive use of secondary data, this approach enables a comprehensive synthesis of existing knowledge while facilitating cross-national comparisons grounded in documented evidence. The focus here is to develop a conceptual framework grounded in published research and policy documents. Future research is encouraged to incorporate qualitative methods, such as interviews or classroom observations, to further validate and contextualize the findings presented.

Data collection

Secondary data were sourced from a wide range of scholarly and institutional publications, including peer-reviewed journal articles, conference proceedings, policy documents, government reports, case studies, and white papers related to AI in higher education. Emphasis was placed on studies and reports published within the last decade to ensure relevance to current technological and educational contexts. Systematic searches were conducted in academic databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, alongside searches of official websites of relevant higher education bodies and government agencies in the target countries. Keywords used included combinations of artificial intelligence, adaptive learning, higher education, universities, and the names of the respective countries. To ensure the quality and relevance of the data, inclusion criteria were defined as follows:

Publications addressing AI-powered adaptive learning systems within university or higher education settings.

Studies or reports providing insight into adoption strategies, implementation challenges, or lessons learned.

Sources focused on one or more of the five countries under investigation.

Data Analysis

Data extracted from the selected sources were analysed using thematic analysis to identify recurrent themes related to the adoption and integration of AI adaptive learning systems. Thematic categories included institutional strategies, technological investments, policy influences, cultural factors, challenges encountered, and best practices. The analysis involved coding the data to categorise findings, followed by a synthesis that compared and contrasted experiences across the five countries. This process enabled the identification of patterns and divergences in approaches, providing a nuanced understanding of the factors influencing successful AI integration in higher education.

FINDINGS

United States

In the context of higher education, the United States has taken a leading role in the development and implementation of AI-powered adaptive learning technologies. This progress is largely driven by a robust innovation ecosystem, characterised by dynamic public-private partnerships, significant federal investment, and a technologically mature private sector. Universities benefit from funding provided by national agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Education, alongside investments from major corporations like IBM, Microsoft, and Pearson, which support both experimental pilot projects and scalable long-term implementations (Brown & Park, 2020; Smith et al., 2021).

Prominent institutions such as Arizona State University and the Georgia Institute of Technology have pioneered the use of adaptive learning platforms to personalise education. These technologies allow for real-time data analysis and content adjustment based on student performance, with the goal of improving academic outcomes, retention, and engagement. For instance, Georgia Tech’s development of the AI teaching assistant “Jill Watson” exemplifies the potential of AI to support large-scale, personalised instructional models (Goel & Polepeddi, 2016). These innovations align closely with institutional priorities in the US higher education sector, including expanding access to quality education, supporting non-traditional learners, and enhancing learning outcomes through data-informed practices (Johnson & Kumar, 2019).

Despite these advancements, the widespread adoption of adaptive learning technologies across US higher education is hindered by a series of interconnected challenges. The highly decentralised structure of the American higher education system results in significant variation in institutional capacity and digital readiness. While research-intensive universities are often equipped with the necessary resources and expertise, many community colleges and smaller institutions face infrastructural limitations and lack the technical staff required to implement and manage AI-based systems effectively (Selwyn, 2020). This disparity raises concerns about equity, as students at less resourced institutions may not benefit equally from technological innovations.

Faculty resistance also presents a considerable barrier. Educators have expressed concerns about the pedagogical implications of AI, fearing it may replace human teaching with impersonal algorithms, diminish their autonomy, or prioritise efficiency over meaningful learning experiences. Moreover, there is unease surrounding the lack of transparency in algorithmic decision-making, especially when AI tools are used to assess student performance or direct learning pathways (Williamson & Piattoeva, 2019). Such concerns underscore the importance of involving faculty in the design and implementation of AI tools and providing ongoing professional development to build confidence and competence in their use.

Data privacy and ethical governance represent another significant area of concern. US institutions are required to comply with regulations such as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which governs the handling of student information. However, the integration of AI introduces complexities regarding data collection, storage, and use, particularly with regard to informed consent, algorithmic bias, and student surveillance (Regan & Jesse, 2019). Without clear ethical frameworks and data governance protocols, institutions risk undermining trust among students, faculty, and the broader academic community.

Furthermore, the absence of a coordinated national strategy for AI in education contributes to fragmented adoption. While some states and institutions are moving ahead with ambitious digital initiatives, others remain cautious or underprepared. This lack of strategic alignment impedes the development of shared standards, interoperability, and consistent evaluation of adaptive learning technologies (Brown & Park, 2020). Additionally, students themselves may feel ambivalent about AI-powered learning, with some perceiving it as depersonalised or overly automated. Ensuring that these technologies enhance, rather than constrain, learner agency and autonomy is a crucial consideration for institutions aiming to balance innovation with educational integrity. The United States offers a highly fertile environment for AI-powered adaptive learning in higher education, its successful and equitable implementation depends on overcoming substantial challenges. These include institutional inequality, faculty resistance, data privacy concerns, and the need for strategic coordination. Addressing these cabarannya requires not only sustained investment in technological infrastructure but also robust policy frameworks, ethical safeguards, and inclusive stakeholder engagement to ensure that AI serves as a tool for empowerment, rather than exclusion, within the academic landscape.

United Kingdom

In the context of higher education, the United Kingdom has adopted a deliberate and policy-informed approach to integrating artificial intelligence (AI) within teaching and learning environments. Unlike models driven primarily by market innovation, the UK’s strategy is distinguished by embedding AI technologies into already well-established digital learning frameworks. This approach is strongly aligned with national educational priorities particularly widening participation, supporting non-traditional learners, and maintaining academic quality thus reflecting a commitment to both equity and excellence in higher education (Bayne & Ross, 2014; Knox, 2019).

A notable example of this alignment is the work of the Open University, which has been at the forefront of applying AI-powered learning analytics to personalise student experiences, monitor engagement, and improve retention rates, especially among part-time and mature students. These efforts support the UK’s wider aim, as articulated by the Office for Students (OfS), to enhance outcomes for underrepresented and disadvantaged groups through targeted, data-informed interventions (Office for Students, 2022). Rather than pursuing disruptive technological change, UK universities are encouraged through government funding and regulatory guidance to adopt AI in a way that complements existing pedagogical models, allowing for incremental innovation while preserving academic integrity. However, this measured and cautious approach is not without significant challenges. One major barrier lies in infrastructure disparities across the sector. While research-intensive and well-resourced institutions may have the capacity to experiment with sophisticated AI tools, smaller universities and further education colleges often face limitations in terms of digital infrastructure, technical expertise, and investment capital (Beetham et al., 2020). These inequalities create uneven access to adaptive learning technologies, potentially undermining efforts to reduce attainment gaps and deliver equitable learning experiences across the entire higher education system.

Ethical concerns also play a central role in shaping the UK’s adoption of AI in education. Under the stringent provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), universities are required to implement robust data governance mechanisms to protect student privacy and ensure informed consent for the use of personal and academic data (Information Commissioner’s Office, 2018). This has led to a cautious pace of adoption, as institutions seek to build public trust and avoid reputational risks associated with data misuse or breaches. Furthermore, the risk of algorithmic bias and the lack of transparency in AI decision-making processes have raised concerns about fairness and accountability. Without careful design and ongoing auditing, AI systems may unintentionally perpetuate existing social and educational inequalities, reinforcing rather than alleviating structural disadvantages (Williamson, 2018). As a result, there have been growing calls for ethical oversight frameworks and inclusive governance models that involve academic staff, students, and ethicists in the development and deployment of AI tools (Eynon, 2021).

Another significant challenge relates to institutional culture and staff readiness. The successful integration of AI in higher education is not purely a technical issue but also a matter of pedagogical transformation. Many academics remain sceptical of AI’s value in enhancing learning, citing concerns about its depersonalised nature, potential to deskill educators, and lack of alignment with student-centred teaching philosophies (Selwyn, 2019). Additionally, the demands of adapting to new technologies often add to existing workloads, creating further resistance unless accompanied by sustained professional development, peer support, and clear institutional leadership. Consequently, while the UK’s approach to AI in higher education is marked by thoughtful policy design and a strong focus on equity and quality assurance, it is simultaneously shaped and constrained by infrastructure limitations, regulatory caution, ethical dilemmas, and the need for cultural transformation within institutions. Overcoming these challenges will require a coordinated strategy involving investment in digital infrastructure, capacity-building for academic staff, robust data ethics governance, and the promotion of cross-sector collaboration. Only through such a comprehensive and inclusive approach can the UK fully harness the potential of AI-powered adaptive learning to support diverse learners and enhance the overall quality of higher education.

Australia

Australia’s approach to integrating artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education is marked by a pragmatic blend of government-led digital transformation strategies and institution-driven innovation, with a distinct focus on bridging geographic, socio-economic, and cultural divides. Recognising the country’s vast geography and the educational disparities between urban centres and rural or remote regions, Australian policymakers and universities have positioned AI technologies as critical tools for personalising instruction and expanding equitable access to quality higher education.

National frameworks such as Australia’s Digital Economy Strategy 2030 and the National Artificial Intelligence Strategy underscore the government’s commitment to harnessing AI for educational inclusion and workforce readiness. These strategies highlight the need to align technological advancement in higher education with broader national goals, including improving regional access, enhancing learning outcomes, and preparing students for a data-driven economy (Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, 2021).

Australian universities, including the University of New England (UNE), Deakin University, and the University of Sydney, have pioneered the use of adaptive learning systems, intelligent tutoring platforms, and AI-driven learning analytics to offer personalised learning pathways. These technologies adjust content delivery based on students’ performance and engagement, helping to support diverse student populations, including Indigenous learners, international students, and those studying in remote or regional settings (Ifenthaler & Yau, 2020).

One of the defining features of the Australian model is the collaborative ecosystem fostered between higher education institutions, government agencies, and edtech providers. Initiatives such as the National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education (NCSEHE) and the Australian Technology Network (ATN) have facilitated knowledge exchange and supported pilot projects that explore how AI can reduce attrition, enhance student wellbeing, and promote inclusive learning environments.

Despite these strategic advances, Australia faces several systemic challenges that slow the pace and scale of AI integration in higher education. A significant obstacle is the persistent infrastructure gap, particularly in remote and underserved areas. Limited access to high-speed internet and outdated technological infrastructure hinder the consistent implementation of AI-powered learning systems, exacerbating educational inequality rather than alleviating it (Beckman & Chapman, 2020).

Furthermore, uneven levels of digital literacy among academic staff remain a barrier to widespread adoption. While some institutions have robust training and support systems, others struggle to equip educators with the skills and confidence needed to integrate AI into their pedagogical practices. This inconsistency leads to a patchwork of AI readiness across the sector, where innovation is often concentrated in more affluent or urban universities (Selwyn, 2020). Addressing this requires sustained investment in professional development, as well as institutional leadership that promotes a culture of experimentation and digital engagement.

Ethical and regulatory considerations are also central to the Australian context. Institutions must navigate stringent data protection regulations, including the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs), which govern the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data. This necessitates careful planning when deploying AI systems that rely on student data for decision-making and personalisation. Additionally, there is an increasing awareness of the need for culturally responsive AI design, especially in relation to Indigenous learners, whose educational experiences are shaped by unique historical and socio-cultural factors (Williamson & Piattoeva, 2019).

In conclusion, Australia’s AI adoption in higher education reflects a balanced, needs-driven approach, underpinned by strategic government support and institutional innovation. The use of AI to enhance personalisation and bridge access gaps demonstrates a strong commitment to educational equity. However, infrastructure disparities, faculty readiness, and ethical complexities continue to shape the national landscape. For Australia to fully capitalise on the potential of AI in higher education, further investments in digital infrastructure, targeted training programmes, and inclusive policy frameworks will be essential.

China

China represents one of the most rapidly advancing and large-scale adopters of artificial intelligence (AI) in the global higher education sector. Driven by strong governmental directives, strategic planning, and substantial public investment, the integration of AI technologies in Chinese universities is both expansive and deeply aligned with national ambitions for technological leadership, educational modernisation, and workforce development. The central government’s Next Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan (State Council, 2017) identifies education as a key domain for AI application, highlighting the state’s commitment to embedding intelligent systems across the entire learning ecosystem.

In practice, Chinese universities have adopted AI-powered tools at scale for a variety of purposes, including curriculum optimisation, predictive learner analytics, intelligent tutoring systems, and institutional governance. For instance, AI is used to track student progress in real-time, provide adaptive learning pathways tailored to individual learning styles, and flag at-risk students for early intervention. At a macro level, AI applications in university management support resource allocation, admissions decisions, and long-term planning based on data trends (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019).  China’s centralised, top-down governance structure enables rapid policy implementation and standardisation across institutions. This approach allows the government to coordinate national AI education strategies efficiently, provide targeted funding to leading universities, and foster public-private partnerships with major tech firms such as Alibaba, Tencent, and Huawei, which contribute technological infrastructure and innovation (Chen et al., 2020). Flagship institutions such as Tsinghua University and Peking University have become hubs for AI research and application, serving both as testbeds for new technologies and as models for other institutions to emulate.

However, the pace and scale of AI deployment in Chinese higher education also raise significant concerns, particularly around data privacy, ethical governance, and academic freedom. The extensive use of learning analytics and facial recognition technologies for attendance, behaviour monitoring, and performance evaluation has led to critiques about student surveillance and the potential erosion of personal autonomy (Li, 2021). In contrast to regions with robust data protection laws such as the EU’s GDPR, China’s data governance landscape is still evolving, and while recent legislation like the Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) marks progress, challenges remain in ensuring that student data is handled transparently and securely. Moreover, there is limited public discourse and participatory governance around the ethics of AI in education, which can hinder the development of trust and accountability. Critics argue that the emphasis on technological efficiency and national competitiveness may sometimes override considerations of pedagogical soundness, equity, and the rights of learners. There is a growing call for ethical frameworks tailored to the Chinese context that address algorithmic bias, data ownership, and informed consent in educational settings (Yang & Li, 2022).

Another pressing challenge is the preparedness of academic staff to engage meaningfully with AI technologies. While China invests heavily in research and development, there is a persistent need for faculty development programmes that equip educators with the skills to interpret AI-generated data, design adaptive learning environments, and reflect critically on the pedagogical implications of AI use (Huang et al., 2020). Without sufficient training and institutional support, the potential of AI to enhance student-centred learning may not be fully realised.  China’s approach to AI in higher education is highly strategic, large-scale, and state-driven, positioning the country as a global leader in educational innovation. The rapid integration of AI tools supports both individualised learning experiences and national priorities in technological advancement and human capital development. Yet, the model also presents considerable challenges, particularly regarding ethical oversight, data privacy, academic agency, and faculty readiness. Addressing these issues will be essential to ensure that the benefits of AI adoption are equitably distributed and aligned with educational values beyond technological efficiency.

Singapore

Singapore’s model of integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into higher education is characterised by a highly strategic, centrally coordinated approach that aligns educational innovation with national economic priorities. As part of its broader Smart Nation initiative, the Singaporean government has implemented a comprehensive framework for digital transformation in education, viewing AI not only as a pedagogical tool but also as a key enabler of workforce readiness and economic competitiveness (Smart Nation and Digital Government Office, 2021).

Higher education institutions (HEIs) in Singapore, such as the National University of Singapore (NUS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), and the Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT), have embraced AI-driven technologies within structured national agendas. These initiatives are supported by agencies like the Ministry of Education (MOE) and SkillsFuture Singapore, which work to ensure that AI adoption directly supports lifelong learning goals and industry-relevant skills development. The integration of AI tools for personalised learning, learning analytics, and intelligent tutoring systems allows universities to tailor educational experiences to individual student profiles, thereby improving engagement, retention, and academic outcomes (Lim & Wang, 2020).

A core strength of Singapore’s model lies in its centralised governance and policy coherence, which ensure that higher education strategies are closely synchronised with broader socioeconomic objectives. For example, AI adoption is explicitly tied to labour market demands through curriculum co-design with industry partners, thus ensuring that graduates are equipped with competencies relevant to emerging sectors such as fintech, cybersecurity, and data science. Furthermore, national-level platforms such as OpenCerts and Skills Passport exemplify how AI and blockchain can be used to verify credentials and support seamless transitions between education and employment.

Singapore also excels in creating integrated AI ecosystems within universities. These include partnerships with global tech firms, research centres such as AI Singapore (AISG), and incubation hubs that support experimentation and scalability. Such ecosystems facilitate the translation of cutting-edge research into practical, classroom-based applications, while promoting interdisciplinary collaboration among educators, technologists, and policymakers (Chin, 2021).

However, despite its strengths, Singapore’s AI-enabled higher education model is not without challenges. One pressing concern is the need to ensure ethical and responsible AI use within learning environments. With increasing reliance on student data to drive personalisation, questions surrounding data governance, consent, surveillance, and algorithmic fairness have come to the fore. Singapore’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) provides a legal foundation for data protection, yet the ethical use of AI particularly in relation to student profiling and automated decision-making remains an area requiring continued vigilance and regulatory evolution (Tan, 2022).

Additionally, while the technological infrastructure and policy support are strong, the human dimensions of AI integration especially around faculty capacity and pedagogical adaptation—present ongoing challenges. Many academic staff members may lack the necessary digital literacy or pedagogical frameworks to effectively leverage AI tools in the classroom. This can lead to underutilisation of available technologies or resistance stemming from concerns about increased workloads, reduced autonomy, or diminished educational quality. As such, continuous professional development and institutional support for change management are essential to foster a culture of innovation and trust among educators (Ng, 2020).

Moreover, the highly centralised nature of Singapore’s governance model, while facilitating efficient implementation, may also limit local flexibility and institutional autonomy. There is a risk that top-down policies may prioritise measurable outcomes (e.g., employability metrics or productivity) over broader educational values such as critical thinking, creativity, and academic freedom. Balancing these priorities requires careful calibration between national goals and institutional identity.

In conclusion, Singapore’s approach to AI in higher education represents a technologically advanced and strategically coherent model, underpinned by strong state leadership, close industry collaboration, and a clear focus on national competitiveness. However, to fully realise the transformative potential of AI, Singapore must continue to address challenges around ethical governance, faculty readiness, and educational values. Doing so will ensure that AI serves not only as a tool for economic advancement but also as a vehicle for inclusive, thoughtful, and high-quality education.

Figure 2:  AI Approaches and Challenges in Higher Education by Country

Limitations and Future Work

Although this paper provides a comparative analysis of AI-powered adaptive learning systems using secondary data from developed countries, it does not incorporate primary perspectives from students or educators who use these systems directly. Additionally, countries with lower levels of technological readiness were excluded to maintain focus on regions where such technologies are already underway. Future research should address these gaps by conducting interviews or case studies to explore the lived experiences of users, and by including less-developed contexts to present a more globally comprehensive picture.

CONCLUSION

This study has explored the multifaceted landscape of AI-powered adaptive learning adoption within higher education, revealing how national policies, institutional capacities, and implementation practices converge to shape outcomes. The comparative analysis highlights distinct approaches ranging from Singapore’s centralised, strategic alignment with national priorities to the United States’ dynamic yet decentralised innovation ecosystem, the United Kingdom’s cautious but equity-focused integration, China’s rapid state-driven deployment, and Australia’s pragmatic efforts to bridge digital divides. While AI technologies offer significant potential to personalise learning, enhance student success, and optimise institutional management, their effective adoption is contingent upon addressing critical challenges. These include infrastructure disparities, ethical and regulatory concerns, faculty readiness, and cultural acceptance. The study underscores that successful AI integration requires not only technological investment but also robust governance frameworks, ongoing professional development, and a commitment to equitable access. Ultimately, the findings suggest that AI’s transformative promise in higher education can only be fully realised through context-sensitive strategies that balance innovation with ethical stewardship and inclusivity. Policymakers, institutional leaders, and educators must collaborate to create enabling environments where AI enhances educational quality while safeguarding student rights and fostering trust. This comprehensive understanding provides a foundation for future research and practical initiatives aimed at harnessing AI’s benefits across diverse educational landscapes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This study was funded by grant code SK-2024-045.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

This paper  no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

1. Baker, R. S., & Siemens, G. (2019). Educational data mining and learning analytics. In K. Sawyer (Ed.),Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 253–274). Cambridge University Press.
2. Brown, M., & Park, H. (2020).Innovation ecosystems in education technology: Public-private partnerships and policy implications. Journal of Educational Technology, 35(2), 145-160.
3. Bayne, S., & Ross, J. (2014). The pedagogy of the Massive Open Online Course: The UK view.Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 29(3), 196-204.
4. Beetham, H., Freeth, D., McGill, L., & Ribeiro, M. (2020). Digital capacity in UK higher education: Institutional and individual readiness.Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2020(1), 1-14.
5. Chen, L., Chen, P., & Lin, Z. (2020). Artificial intelligence in education: A review.IEEE Access, 8, 75264–75278.
6. Corrin, L., de Barba, P. G., & Bakharia, A. (2020). Using learning analytics to explore help-seeking behaviour in MOOCs.Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5651
7. Dziuban, C., Moskal, P., & Hartman, J. (2021). Adaptive learning: A systematic review.Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 24(2), 45–58.
8. Eynon, R. (2021). Ethical considerations in AI and education: A UK perspective.Learning, Media and Technology, 46(2), 124-139.
9. Goel, A., & Polepeddi, L. (2016). Jill Watson: A virtual teaching assistant for online education.Georgia Institute of Technology. Retrieved from https://www.cc.gatech.edu/~asb/papers/AAAI16-JillWatson.pdf
10. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019).Artificial Intelligence in Education: Promises and Implications for Teaching and Learning. Centre for Curriculum Redesign.
11. Information Commissioner’s Office. (2018). Guide to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Retrieved fromhttps://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/
12. Ifenthaler, D., & Yau, J. Y.-K. (2020). Utilising learning analytics for study success: Reflections on current empirical findings.Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 15(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-020-00138-6
13. Johnson, N., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2019).NMC Horizon Report: 2019 Higher Education Edition. EDUCAUSE.
14. Johnson, L., & Kumar, V. (2019). Personalising learning through AI: Case studies from US universities.International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 29(3), 305-321.
15. Kulik, J. A., & Fletcher, J. D. (2016). Effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems: A meta-analytic review.Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 42–78.
16. Knox, J. (2019). Data power in education: Exploring the promises and perils of data-driven learning analytics.Learning, Media and Technology, 44(2), 166-179.
17. Li, J., & Wong, K. (2022). AI in Chinese higher education: Transformations and challenges.International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19(1), 12.
18. Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016).Intelligence Unleashed: An Argument for AI in Education. Pearson.
19. Lim, C. P., Chai, C. S., & Churchill, D. (2020). Future-ready learning spaces: Creating blended learning environments with technology.Educational Media International, 57(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2020.1727355
20. Merrill, M. D. (2019). Personalized learning: What it is and why it matters.Educational Technology, 59(2), 4–11.
21. Office for Students. (2022). Widening Participation and Access in Higher Education. Retrieved fromhttps://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/widening-participation/
22. Regan, P. M., & Jesse, J. (2019). Ethical challenges of edtech, big data, and personalized learning: Twenty-first century student sorting and tracking.Ethics and Information Technology, 21(2), 105-117.
23. Rolando, L. G. R., Almeida, P. D., & Silva, S. S. (2021). Educators’ readiness to use digital technologies in the post-COVID-19 context.Education and Information Technologies, 26, 6923–6946. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10554-5
24. Selwyn, N. (2020). Education and technology: Key issues and debates (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.
25. Smith, J., & Cukurova, M. (2021). Public-private partnerships in US higher education AI initiatives.Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 43(3), 257–272.
26. Tan, S., & Goh, C. (2021). Smart education in Singapore: Policy and practice.Asian Journal of Education, 6(2), 34–49.
27. Tsai, Y. S., & Gašević, D. (2017). Learning analytics in higher education—Challenges and policies: A review of eight learning analytics policies.Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference, 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1145/3027385.3027400
28. UK Department for Education. (2022).Digital strategy for education and skills. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/digital-strategy-for-education-and-skills
29. Williamson, B., & Eynon, R. (2020). Education governance and datafication.Learning, Media and Technology, 45(1), 1–14.
30. Xie, H., Chu, H., Hwang, G., & Wang, C. (2021). Trends and development of adaptive learning systems: A systematic review.Computers & Education, 159, 104032.
31. Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators?International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 39.
32. Zhao, Y., Zhang, G., & Sun, W. (2021). Leveraging big data and AI for smart higher education in China: Opportunities and challenges.Education and Information Technologies, 26, 5737–5756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10537-6