Truace
Subscribe
70/100

Moderate evidence

GainPublished recordEducationGood Space

Full story
More
Export record JSONEmailLinkedInX

Impact of Artificial intelligence tools on learning motivation in English instruction: a network meta-analysis

Truvace record
TRV-2026-2773raw data (JSON)
Version
v1Published
First published
Evidence type
Systematic review or meta-analysis
Sources
1 sourcePeer-reviewed
sha256
46194a07bb62…check it

Abstract The rapid expansion of English-Medium Instruction (EMI) programs and the growing demand for English language proficiency have introduced significant motivational challenges for EFL learners who face linguistic barriers. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools offer a potential solution by providing personalized scaffolding and interactive support. This study conducts a network meta-analysis (NMA) of 16 empirical studies (N = 1,923) to compare the effectiveness of three AI interventions, including Generative…

The gain

In a network meta-analysis of 16 controlled studies with 1,923 English-learning students, AI language apps (g = 0.907), chatbots (g = 0.824) and writing assistants (g = 0.692) each raised learning motivation more than traditional instruction.

What this doesn’t fix

All 16 studies compared AI with traditional instruction and none compared AI tools with each other, so rankings among AI types rest on indirect evidence. The median intervention lasted eight weeks and effects may be inflated by novelty and the Hawthorne effect. Nine studies were from China.

Sources

1 on file
  1. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Educationdoi:10.1186/s40862-026-00421-9
    Peer-reviewed2026-07-16

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.

  • Learning motivation of university EFL students using AI tools

    Hedges' g 0.81 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.95)

    14 studies

    The review’s own words
    Studies conducted in university settings (k = 14) yielded a pooled effect of g = 0.81 (95% CI [0.67, 0.95])

  • EFL students' learning motivation with generative AI chatbots compared with traditional instruction

    Hedges' g 0.824 (95% CI 0.690 to 0.959)

    11 studies · 1,268 people

    The review’s own words
    followed by Generative AI Chatbots (g = 0.824, 95% CI [0.690, 0.959]).

  • Learning motivation of K-12 EFL students using AI tools

    Hedges' g 0.89 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.16)

    2 studies

    The review’s own words
    K-12 studies (k = 2) showed a slightly larger pooled effect of g = 0.89 (95% CI [0.62, 1.16])

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

Cite this record

v1

Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2773, v1: “Impact of Artificial intelligence tools on learning motivation in English instruction: a network meta-analysis.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2773 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 46194a07bb62d7ed…

Change history

1 version

Every change made to this record since it was first published, and why. Nothing has changed since it went up.

  1. Publishedv146194a07bb62…

    Certified into the record

Check this record hasn’t been altered

Check this record hasn’t been altered
How to check it yourself, without trusting this page

Download any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2773 and hash its canonical field yourself, for example with shasum -a 256. You should get its content_hash. Each version’s text also ends with prev:and the hash of the version before it (version 1 points to 64 zeros). If anyone had changed a single character of any version after it was saved, those hashes wouldn’t line up.