Truace
Subscribe
70/100

Moderate evidence

GainPublished recordEducationGood Space

Full story
More
Export record JSONEmailLinkedInX

Emotional Artificial Intelligence in Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Truvace record
TRV-2026-2828raw data (JSON)
Version
v1Published
First published
Evidence type
Systematic review or meta-analysis
Sources
1 sourcePeer-reviewed
sha256
89cd33c83d6a…check it

Abstract Research on emotional artificial intelligence (emotional AI) in education—AI that detects learners’ emotions and/or provides emotional support and AI that produces affective learning outcomes but does not directly provide emotional support—has grown rapidly, yet quantitative syntheses are scarce. We meta-analyzed empirical studies reporting outcomes in knowledge, skills, affect, perception, and behavior. A meta‑analysis was conducted based on 172 articles on empirical research published between 2000 and…

The gain

A meta-analysis of 54 controlled studies found AI that paired cognitive help with emotional support raised students' knowledge scores by g = 0.88, versus g = 0.52 for AI offering cognitive help alone.

What this doesn’t fix

Only two studies tested emotional-only support, and several outcomes pooled very few studies. For affect, a fixed-effects trim-and-fill correction lowered the pooled effect from 0.48 to 0.20, indicating possible publication bias.

Sources

1 on file
  1. Educational Psychology Reviewdoi:10.1007/s10648-025-10086-4
    Peer-reviewed2025-11-15

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.

  • Knowledge acquisition with cognitive-only AI support compared with control

    Hedges' g 0.52 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.87)

    12 studies

    The review’s own words
    cognitive-only support yielded a medium effect on knowledge acquisition ( g = 0.52, 95% CI [0.17, 0.87])

  • Skill acquisition with cognitive-only AI support compared with control

    Hedges' g 0.44 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.68)

    11 studies

    The review’s own words
    a near-medium effect on skill ( g = 0.44, 95% CI [0.19, 0.68])

  • Affective experience with cognitive-only AI support compared with control

    Hedges' g 0.48 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.63)

    31 studies

    The review’s own words
    affect ( g = 0.48, 95% CI [ 0.33, 0.63])

  • Learner perception with integrated cognitive and emotional AI support compared with control

    Hedges' g 0.18 (95% CI -0.41 to 0.77)

    The review’s own words
    a small effect on perception ( g = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.77])

  • Knowledge acquisition with integrated cognitive and emotional AI support compared with control

    Hedges' g 0.88 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.40)

    10 studies

    The review’s own words
    Integrated cognitive and emotional support showed a large effect on knowledge acquisition ( g = 0.88, 95% CI [0.36, 1.40])

  • Learner perception with cognitive-only AI support compared with control

    Hedges' g 0.85 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.20)

    10 studies

    The review’s own words
    a large effect on perception ( g = 0.85, 95% CI [0.50, 1.20])

  • Skill acquisition with integrated cognitive and emotional AI support compared with control

    Hedges' g 0.24 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.46)

    2 studies

    The review’s own words
    weighted mean ES ( g) being 0.24 (95% CI [0.02, 0.46], k = 2)

  • Affective experience with integrated cognitive and emotional AI support compared with control

    Hedges' g 0.42 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.78)

    11 studies

    The review’s own words
    a near-medium effect on affect ( g = 0.42, 95% CI [0.06, 0.78])

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-2026-2828, v1: “Emotional Artificial Intelligence in Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2828 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 89cd33c83d6a80c1…

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. Publishedv189cd33c83d6a…

    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-2026-2828 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.