aceModerate evidence
Published recordEducationGood Space
More
Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Artificial Intelligence-Based Teaching Feedback on Learning Outcomes
- Truvace record
- TRV-2026-2802raw data (JSON)
- Version
- v1Published
- First published
- Evidence type
- Systematic review or meta-analysis
- Sources
- 1 sourcePeer-reviewed
- sha256
- a10ddd9f2d01…check it
This study is grounded in the practice of educational digital transformation, and was designed in strict accordance with the methodological norms of meta-analysis. By systematically sorting out the inconsistent research conclusions on artificial intelligence teaching feedback, we systematically searched and screened the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang Database, and formulated strict literature inclusion and exclusion criteria, we ultimately selected 32 eligible empirical studies publis…
The gain
A meta-analysis of 32 Chinese studies covering 12,486 students found AI teaching feedback raised learning outcomes over traditional feedback, with a pooled Hedges' g of 0.51, a moderate effect.
What this doesn’t fix
The included studies mostly ran 1 to 6 months, so the review could not examine long-term effects of AI teaching feedback; it also drew only on studies published in China.
Sources
1 on file- International Journal of Education and Humanitiesdoi:10.54097/zq9yk850
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 outcomes with immediate AI teaching feedback
Hedges' g 0.58 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.69)
19 studies
The review’s own words
g=0.58, 95% confidence interval [0.47, 0.69], p<0.001,
Student learning outcomes with AI teaching feedback
Hedges' g 0.51 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.60)
32 studies · 12,486 people
The review’s own words
The results revealed that artificial intelligence teaching feedback had a pooled effect size of Hedges' g=0.51 (95% CI [0.42, 0.60], Z=11.24, p<0.001) on learning outcomes, representing
Learning outcomes of middle school students with AI teaching feedback
Hedges' g 0.49 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.63)
The review’s own words
with a pooled effect size of Hedges' g=0.49 and a 95% confidence interval [0.35, 0.63], p<0.001, indicating a moderate positive effect;
Maths and science learning outcomes with AI teaching feedback
Hedges' g 0.48 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.60)
The review’s own words
The pooled effect size Hedges' g=0.48, 95% confidence interval [0.36, 0.60], p<0.001,
Learning outcomes of primary school students with AI teaching feedback
Hedges' g 0.62 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.76)
11 studies
The review’s own words
pooled effect size of Hedges' g=0.62, a 95% confidence interval [0.48, 0.76], and p<0.001.
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
v1Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2802, v1: “Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Artificial Intelligence-Based Teaching Feedback on Learning Outcomes.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2802 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 a10ddd9f2d01bf4d…
Change history
1 versionEvery change made to this record since it was first published, and why. Nothing has changed since it went up.
Certified into the record
Check this record hasn’t been altered
How to check it yourself, without trusting this page
Download any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2802 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.