Differences in AI-supported instruction effects across STEM disciplines are not statistically significant¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q4
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q4 i? Science (g = 0.676) and mathematics (g = 0.650) showed slightly higher effect sizes than technology/engineering (g = 0.501), but between-group heterogeneity was not statistically significant (Q = 4.85, df = 2, p = 0.088). → Doğan Yunus 2026

Evidence¶

Doğan Yunus 2026¶

Doğan Yunus, Kılıç Zeynep, Kalınkara Yusuf, Talan Tarık. (2026). The Impact of Artificial Intelligence-Supported Instruction on Student Learning in STEM: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence14060109

q4 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Discipline moderator analysis across the 35 studies. Science g = 0.676, mathematics g = 0.650, technology/engineering g = 0.501; the article reports the between-group test as "not statistically significant (Q = 4.85, df = 2, p = 0.088)" and urges caution in interpretation.

"In terms of subject area, the highest effects were observed in science (g = 0.676) and mathematics (g = 0.650). In technology and engineering courses, the effect size was slightly lower (g = 0.501)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• AI-supported instruction is most effective at the high school level, with between-level differences statistically significant
• Effect sizes are highest in medium-sized classes (50–99 students), with class-size differences only marginally significant
• Optimal RAG configuration differs by discipline: STEM subjects perform best with 512-character chunks and temperature 0.3 (faithfulness 0.97), while humanities require 1000-character chunks and temperature 0.1 (context recall 1.00, faithfulness 0.98)
• Discipline significantly moderates the effects of educational robotics on STEM learning, with larger effects in technology and cross-disciplinary contexts than in science and mathematics — reports the opposite
• Active Learning Improves Exam Performance — related
• Mathematics and technology show the highest pre–post scaffolding effect sizes among STEM disciplines (ḡ = 1.29 and ḡ = 1.06) — reports the opposite