AI-supported PBL students obtain significantly higher posttest academic achievement scores in robotics programming than traditional-lecture students when controlling pretest scores¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1–r2 · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i3 In the same quasi-experiment, the AI-PBL group showed a statistically significant main effect of instructional group on posttest academic achievement, F(1, 70) = 200.67, p < .001, partial η2 = .741, with adjusted means of 76.10 versus 49.98. → Ayanwale 2026 q2 i? The academic achievement benefit was statistically significant for both female students (F = 146.40, p < .001) and male students (F = 71.50, p < .001). → Ayanwale 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Ayanwale 2026¶

Ayanwale, M. A., & Omeh, C. B. (2026). AI-supported problem-based learning for enhancing computational thinking skills in STEM education. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans 7 (2026) 100263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2026.100263

q2 · i3 · causal · r1

One-way ANCOVA on Post_Academic_Achievement with instructional group as independent variable and Pre_Academic_Achievement and gender as covariates, in the 103-student quasi-experiment. The adjusted mean for the experimental group (M = 76.10, SE = 1.33) exceeded the control group (M = 49.98, SE = 1.27), "partial η2 = .741".

"The analysis indicated a statistically significant main effect of instructional group, F (1, 70) = 200.67, p < .001, partial η2 = .741 (see Table 2a), suggesting a very strong effect"

Ayanwale 2026 (2)¶

Ayanwale, M. A., & Omeh, C. B. (2026). AI-supported problem-based learning for enhancing computational thinking skills in STEM education. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans 7 (2026) 100263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2026.100263

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Simple main effects follow-up from the same ANCOVA study reported in the Results section; no effect sizes are printed for these subgroup tests.

"Simple main effects analysis confirmed that this difference was statistically significant for both female students, F = 146.40, p < .001, and male students, F = 71.50, p < .001"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The overall effect of PBL in the tutor-background meta-analysis is modest (g = 0.27) with large, statistically significant heterogeneity — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• AI-PBL students achieve high normalized learning gains (g = 0.73) in computational thinking and academic achievement while control students record low gains (g ≤ 0.20) — related
• AI-supported PBL students obtain significantly higher posttest computational thinking scores than traditional-lecture students when controlling pretest scores — related
• Gender does not significantly moderate the effect of AI-supported PBL on computational thinking or academic achievement — related
• Problem-based learning environments consistently improve students' critical thinking compared with lecture-based instruction — a broader claim this one bears on
• Effects of P(j)BL on CT are mixed across studies, with positive, null, and negative findings reported — related
• Student engagement is higher during PBL than during traditional instruction — related