Truace
Subscribe
70/100

Moderate evidence

GainPublished recordEducationGood Space

Full story
More
Export record JSONEmailLinkedInX

Estimating the Effect of ChatGPT-Assisted Instruction on Learning Outcomes in TVET, Vocational Education, and Engineering Education: A Meta-Analysis

Truvace record
TRV-2026-2824raw data (JSON)
Version
v1Published
First published
Evidence type
Systematic review or meta-analysis
Sources
1 sourcePeer-reviewed
sha256
e63684750053…check it

Aim/Purpose: The aim of this study is to synthesize empirical evidence from Scopus-indexed studies and estimate the pooled effect of ChatGPT-assisted instruction on learning outcomes across the included TVET, vocational education, and engineering education contexts. Background: The rapid proliferation of ChatGPT has attracted growing interest in its potential to facilitate learning in TVET, vocational education, and engineering education. However, empirical findings remain inconsistent. Some studies report large…

The gain

A meta-analysis of 10 experimental and quasi-experimental studies in vocational, engineering and related courses found ChatGPT-assisted instruction beat comparison teaching, with a moderate pooled effect (Hedges' g = 0.739, 95% CI 0.469–1.010).

What this doesn’t fix

The review covered only English-language, open-access Scopus studies from 2022 to 2026, so it may have missed studies and the pooled estimate may be higher or lower than the full literature would give.

Sources

1 on file
  1. Journal of Information Technology Education: Researchdoi:10.28945/5877
    Peer-reviewed2026-01-01

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 (cognitive, affective, psychomotor) with ChatGPT-assisted instruction versus comparison conditions in vocational and engineering education

    Hedges' g 0.739 (95% CI 0.469 to 1.010)

    10 studies

    The review’s own words
    (Hedges’ g = 0.739, 95% CI = 0.469–1.010, p < .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

v1

Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2824, v1: “Estimating the Effect of ChatGPT-Assisted Instruction on Learning Outcomes in TVET, Vocational Education, and Engineering Education: A Meta-Analysis.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2824 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 e63684750053e7f1…

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. Publishedv1e63684750053…

    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-2026-2824 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.