AIDA-supported participants spent on average twice as long in the course platform as controls, but the difference in usage time was not statistically significant¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The 115 AIDA-supported participants averaged 75m59s in OLC versus 30m85s for the 48 controls, but a Mann-Whitney U-test found no significant difference (Z = -1.433, p = ns). → Rienties 2026

Evidence¶

Rienties 2026¶

Rienties, Bart; Coughlan, Tim; Domingue, John and Herodotou, Christothea (2026). New systems of learning for distance learning institutions? A six-study review of implementing AIDA. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2026.100607

q2 · i? · design · r3

Study 6 usage-log analysis across both conditions (163 enrolled). The article reports: "Using Mann-Whitney U-test, no significant differences were found (Z = -1.433, p = ns.)", noting many students briefly used OLC irrespective of condition.

"the 115 participants who were supported with AIDA spent on average twice longer in OLC (M = 75m59, SD = 419m40), whereby in particular the large standard deviation is noteworthy"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In an exploratory randomised trial, the AIDA-supported group showed a higher learning gain than the control group, though the authors caution about the small volunteer sample — related
• A pilot AIDA-supported induction course reached 354 new students and supported early-stage orientation, yet further development and upscaling of AIDA subsequently stalled — related
• No AI participants spent roughly 1.5 times as long on the assessment as AI-Assisted participants, descriptively reported as a marker of offloading — related
• Elaborative interrogation increased perceived difficulty and time spent with the lesson — related