Truace
Subscribe
70/100

Moderate evidence

GainPublished recordEducationGood Space

Full story
More
Export record JSONEmailLinkedInX

How does artificial intelligence compare to human feedback? A meta-analysis of performance, feedback perception, and learning dispositions

Truvace record
TRV-2026-2774raw data (JSON)
Version
v1Published
First published
Evidence type
Systematic review or meta-analysis
Sources
1 sourcePeer-reviewed
sha256
c1bf959e2834…check it

This exploratory meta-analysis synthesises current research on the effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-generated feedback compared to traditional human-provided feedback. Drawing on 41 studies involving a total of 4813 students, the findings reveal no statistically significant differences in learning performance between students who received AI-generated feedback and those who received human-provided feedback. The pooled effect size was small and statistically insignificant (Hedge’s g = 0.25, CI [−0.11…

The gain

A meta-analysis of 41 studies with 4,813 students found no statistically significant difference in learning performance between AI-generated and human feedback (Hedge's g = 0.25, CI −0.11 to 0.60), suggesting AI feedback may be as effective.

What this doesn’t fix

The analysis is exploratory, the confidence interval for the pooled effect spans zero, and heterogeneity across studies was very high (I2 = 95%), so the result is imprecise.

Sources

1 on file
  1. Educational Psychologydoi:10.1080/01443410.2025.2553639
    Peer-reviewed2025-09-24

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.

  • Student perception of feedback from AI compared with human-provided feedback

    Hedges' g −0.20 (95% CI −0.67 to 0.27)

    The review’s own words
    found a small, negative, and statistically insignificant effect size (Hedge’s g = −0.20, CI [−0.67; 0.27])

  • Student learning performance with AI-generated feedback compared with human-provided feedback

    Hedges' g 0.25 (95% CI −0.11 to 0.60)

    41 studies · 4,813 people

    The review’s own words
    The pooled effect size was small and statistically insignificant (Hedge’s g = 0.25, CI [−0.11; 0.60])

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-2026-2774, v1: “How does artificial intelligence compare to human feedback? A meta-analysis of performance, feedback perception, and learning dispositions.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2774 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 c1bf959e28344090…

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. Publishedv1c1bf959e2834…

    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-2026-2774 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.