Truace
Subscribe
70/100

Moderate evidence

GainPublished recordEducationGood Space

Full story
More
Export record JSONEmailLinkedInX

A Second-Order Meta-Analysis on the Effects of Artificial Intelligence Applications on Student Outcomes

Truvace record
TRV-2026-2817raw data (JSON)
Version
v1Published
First published
Evidence type
Systematic review or meta-analysis
Sources
1 sourcePeer-reviewed
sha256
1b86bc9fbcaf…check it

Research on AI in education has expanded rapidly, resulting in numerous first-order meta-analyses, yet these studies are limited by inconsistent findings, heterogeneous methods, variable quality, and overlapping primary studies, requiring a second-order meta-analysis to obtain a more reliable estimate of AI’s effects. This study examined the overall effect of AI applications on student outcomes, including academic achievement and higher-order thinking skills. We included first-order meta-analyses published betwe…

The gain

A second-order meta-analysis of 19 earlier meta-analyses covering 58,702 students found AI applications raised student outcomes by a moderate average effect size of 0.67 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.78).

What this doesn’t fix

Effects varied significantly by education level, education field and publication bias status, so the average figure does not apply uniformly across settings.

Sources

1 on file
  1. Journal of Educational Computing Researchdoi:10.1177/07356331261424767
    Peer-reviewed2026-02-13

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 outcomes (academic achievement and higher-order thinking) with AI applications, second-order meta-analysis

    Effect size (ES) .67 (95% CI .55 to .78)

    58,702 people

    The review’s own words
    Using a random-effects model, we found a statistically significant moderate mean effect size (ES = .67, 95% CI [.55–.78]), indicating that AI technologies meaningfully contribute to student learning.

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-2026-2817, v1: “A Second-Order Meta-Analysis on the Effects of Artificial Intelligence Applications on Student Outcomes.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2817 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 1b86bc9fbcaf3859…

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. Publishedv11b86bc9fbcaf…

    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-2026-2817 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.