aceModerate evidence
Published recordScienceThe Trace
More
Unlocking the potential of artificial intelligence in improving learning achievement in blended learning: a meta-analysis
- Truvace record
- TRV-2026-2830raw data (JSON)
- Version
- v1Published
- First published
- Evidence type
- Systematic review or meta-analysis
- Sources
- 1 sourcePeer-reviewed
- sha256
- 6803500d59a5…check it
Introduction While several studies investigated the effect of blended learning on students’ learning achievement, scant information exists on whether using artificial intelligence (AI) in blended learning could further contribute to the obtained effect. Methods To effectively address the challenges and opportunities presented by blended learning and AI, the present study conducts a meta-analysis to systematically examine the impact of AI-enhanced blended learning on students’ learning achievement, considering th…
62Gain side
How the two sides scoreClose call
61Problem side
The gain
A meta-analysis of 21 studies with 2,873 students found AI-enhanced blended learning raised learning achievement by a medium margin (Hedges' g = 0.50), with personalized AI systems reaching g = 0.88.
The problem
The same meta-analysis of 21 blended-learning studies found AI's benefit faded to g = 0.08 in interventions lasting a semester to a year, and the one early-childhood study showed a significant negative effect (g = -0.31).
A fixed formula sets both scores from the evidence and its sources. Reader votes don’t move them.
What the scores mean
G is the gain side, out of 100. It goes up when the gain is specific, when it measurably helped people and when the sources behind it are strong.
P is the problem side, out of 100. It goes up when the problem is specific, when it measurably hurt people and when the sources behind it are strong.
What this doesn’t fix
Heterogeneity was very high (I² about 89%) with a prediction interval of -0.57 to 1.57, several subgroups rested on one or two studies, and tests suggested publication bias; only English-language journal papers were searched.
Sources
1 on file- Frontiers in Psychologydoi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1691414
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 learning achievement with intelligent tutoring systems in blended learning
Hedges' g 0.42 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.69)
16 studies · search to June 01, 2024
The review’s own words
Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) ( k = 16) studies reported a small-to-medium and statistically significant effect size (Hedges’ g = 0.42, 95% CI [0.15, 0.69], p = 0.002)
Student learning achievement with personalized AI systems in blended learning
Hedges' g 0.88 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.27)
4 studies · search to June 01, 2024
The review’s own words
studies that used a personalized AI system ( k = 4) reported a large effect size (Hedges’ g = 0.88), which was statistically significant ( p = 0.001, 95% CI [0.48, 1.27])
Student learning achievement with AI in blended learning after outlier removal and trim-and-fill adjustment
Hedges' g 0.3181 (95% CI 0.1672 to 0.4690)
18 studies · search to June 01, 2024
The review’s own words
the Trim-and-Fill adjusted estimate increased to g = 0.3181, with a narrower confidence interval [0.1672, 0.4690]
Student learning achievement with AI in blended learning compared with no AI
Hedges' g 0.50 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.74)
21 studies · 2,873 people · search to June 01, 2024
The review’s own words
The overall pooled effect size of the 21 studies shows a medium effect size (Hedges’ g = 0.50), with a 95% confidence interval of [0.27, 0.74]
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-2026-2830, v1: “Unlocking the potential of artificial intelligence in improving learning achievement in blended learning: a meta-analysis.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2830 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 6803500d59a540f0…
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-2026-2830 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.