Technology-enhanced adaptive teaching shows no significant effects on monitoring accuracy, subject-specific interest, or self-efficacy¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Neither immediate nor delayed posttests showed significant condition differences in monitoring accuracy, interest, or self-efficacy in using technology. → Sibley 2025

Evidence¶

Sibley 2025¶

Sibley, L., Fabian, A., Plicht, C., Pagano, L., Ehrhardt, N., Wellert, L., Bohl, T., & Lachner, A. (2025). Adaptive teaching with technology enhances lasting learning. Learning and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102141

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Same quasi-experimental study, same models as the learning outcome. Delayed posttests were also non-significant (e.g., monitoring accuracy β = 0.13, p = .162). No effect sizes were printed for these null findings.

"results revealed no differences among conditions neither regarding the immediate posttest (monitoring accuracy: β = 0.00, p = .958; interest: β = 0.08, p = .257; self-efficacy: β = 0.09, p = .202)"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Metacognition — outcome: instruction changes it
• Self-Regulation — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Degree of adaptivity moderates the adaptive teaching effect: only highly adaptive units outperform control, and boost self-efficacy — reports the opposite
• Subject domain moderates the adaptive teaching effect: benefits in languages, none in STEM or humanities — related
• Neither rereading nor self-explanation changed comprehension test performance itself; effects were specific to monitoring accuracy — related
• Technology-enhanced adaptive teaching improves delayed but not immediate learning outcomes compared with business-as-usual teaching — related
• Neither monitoring feedback nor performance feedback improved kindergarteners' monitoring accuracy relative to an active control — related