In Study 1, differences in self-efficacy between the three conditions did not reach significance¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r3 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 The ANOVA on post-test self-efficacy did not reach significance, η2 = 0.026. → Guido Makransky 2025

Evidence¶

Guido Makransky 2025¶

Guido Makransky, Ban M. Shiwalia, Tue Herlau, Steven Blurton. (2025). Beyond the "Wow" Factor: Using Generative AI for Increasing Generative Sense-Making. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10039-x

q3 · i1 · causal · r3

In pre-registered Study 1, the one-way ANOVA on the three-item self-efficacy measure showed "the differences between the groups on self-efficacy did not reach significance, F (2, 172) = 2.333, p = 0.100, η2 = 0.026"; equivalence was not tested.

"the differences between the groups on self-efficacy did not reach significance, F (2, 172) = 2.333, p = 0.100, η2 = 0.026."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Motivation — outcome: instruction changes it
• Self-Efficacy — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Prompts increased learners' self-efficacy during learning within the prompted group but did not produce between-group differences at mid-learning or post-learning — related
• In Study 1, the three conditions did not differ significantly on the immediate post-test of conceptual knowledge — related
• ITS-based practice did not improve post-training self-efficacy relative to paper-based practice; baseline self-efficacy was the primary determinant — related
• The four experimental conditions did not differ in self-reported prior physics performance at baseline — related