aceModerate evidence
More
Meta-analysis of 23 studies finds AI boosts students' confidence in their ability to learn
Study title: The Impact of AI on Learners’ Self-Efficacy: A Meta-Analysis
- Evidence type
- Systematic review or meta-analysis
- Sample
- n = 23
- Sources
- 1 sourcePeer-reviewed
- Published
- 2 min read
- Truvace record
- TRV-2026-2719cite or check it
Study title: The Impact of AI on Learners’ Self-Efficacy: A Meta-Analysis
A meta-analysis pooling 23 empirical studies published between January 2005 and February 2025 found that AI use in learning settings had a medium, significant positive effect on learners' self-efficacy, with a pooled effect size of 0.758 (95% CI 0.470 to 1.045). Self-efficacy means a learner's belief in their ability to do a specific task.
Read the study abstract
With the rise of generative artificial intelligence, the application of AI in learning environments has received widespread attention. Although empirical studies have explored the effect of AI on self-efficacy, the results have not been consistent. This study conducted a meta-analysis on the results from 23 empirical studies on the impact of AI use on self-efficacy. These studies were published between January 2005 and February 2025 and indexed in one or more of the three major educational research databases: We…
The gain
A meta-analysis of 23 studies found AI use in learning raised students' self-efficacy by a medium effect size of 0.758 (95% CI 0.470 to 1.045), strongest in natural science and medical subjects.
In brief
The size of the effect depended on the subject and on the role AI played. Natural science (1.310) and medicine (1.013) showed the largest effects, while engineering showed no significant effect. AI as an intelligent learning tool had the highest effect (0.883); AI used in a mixed tutor-and-tool role had a lower one (0.450).
Results varied widely between studies: 16 effect values were positive and significant, 2 were negative and significant, and 5 were not significant. Only university students showed a significant effect, with K-12 and other learners not reaching significance, and only one included study was set online.
Main points
- The analysis screened 1,433 articles from Web of Science, Scopus and ERIC, and 23 studies met the inclusion criteria.
- Pooled effect size was 0.758 (95% CI 0.470 to 1.045); across the 23 effect values, 16 were positive and significant, 2 negative and significant, and 5 not significant.
- Discipline significantly moderated the effect (Q = 10.348, p = 0.035): natural sciences 1.310, medicine 1.013, engineering not significant (p = 0.894).
- AI's role also mattered (Q = 3.991, p < 0.05): intelligent learning tools scored 0.883, mixed tool-and-tutor roles 0.450.
- University students showed a significant effect of 0.813, while K-12 and other learners did not reach significance, though the difference between learner levels was not statistically significant.
- Research setting, type of AI and study duration did not significantly moderate the effect, and all durations showed positive effects.
- Leave-one-out checks kept the pooled effect between 0.598 and 0.815, and fail-safe N and Egger's test (p = 0.073) did not point to substantial publication bias.
What the review found when it combined the studies
These are the review’s own pooled results, copied from its abstract. Truvace did not recalculate them.
Learners' self-efficacy in learning contexts with AI use
Effect size 0.758 (95% CI 0.470 to 1.045)
23 studies · search to February 2025
The review’s own words
the total effect size is 0.758, and the 95% confidence intervals range from 0.470 to 1.045
Code checks every number above against the review’s text before it is shown. The short labels are an AI model’s reading of that text, so the review’s own sentence sits under each one. A pooled figure is only as strong as the studies behind it. How Truvace uses pooled results
The full story
The authors searched three education databases using terms such as AI, chatbot, intelligent tutoring system and machine learning combined with self-efficacy. After removing duplicates and screening titles, abstracts and full texts, 23 studies remained. Two coders independently coded the studies with 86.96% agreement and rated quality, with every study scoring 11 to 15 points.
They used Hedges' g with a random-effects model because heterogeneity was very high (Q = 213.115, I2 = 89.677). Moderator analyses covered learner level, research setting, discipline, type of AI, AI role and study duration. Only discipline and AI role produced significant differences between subgroups.
The authors suggest engineering results may differ because AI gives direct answers, which could hinder the internalisation that builds self-efficacy. They recommend educators design activities that promote student-AI interaction and account for differences between disciplines, and they call for more experimental research, noting few experimental studies exist.
Sources
1 on file- Behavioral Sciencesdoi:10.3390/bs16010158
Talk it over
Who gets this benefit, and who was left out of the study or story?
Meta-analysis of 23 studies finds AI boosts students' confidence in their ability to learnhttps://truvace.com/item/the-impact-of-ai-on-learners-self-efficacy-a-meta-analysis
Who gets this benefit, and who was left out of the study or story?
The gain A meta-analysis of 23 studies found AI use in learning raised students' self-efficacy by a medium effect size of 0.758 (95% CI 0.470 to 1.045), strongest in natural science and medical subjects.
Answer in the threadHow do we know? What can this kind of evidence show, and what can’t it?
The evidence This rests on a systematic review or meta-analysis with a sample of 23, from Behavioral Sciences.
Answer in the threadWhat does it leave open? What else would you want to know before acting on it?
The record’s own caveat Only 23 studies were included, with relatively small samples, some subgroups had fewer than five observations, and heterogeneity was very high, so unmeasured factors may explain much of the variation.
Answer in the threadHave you seen AI used this way where you study, work or live? Did it go the same way?
Answer in the thread
The questions are the same on every record. The details under them are taken from this record as written.
What readers say