In Study 1, ChatTutor produced significantly higher trust, enjoyment, and behavioral intentions than ChatGPT, while students were blind to condition¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causalr3·q3·i2–i3
Currency · newest study 2025 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i2 ChatTutor students scored significantly higher on trust than ChatGPT students, Cohen's d = 0.60. → Guido Makransky 2025
q3 i3 ChatTutor students scored significantly higher on enjoyment than ChatGPT students, d = 0.86. → Guido Makransky 2025 (2)
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 · i2 · causal · r3
Independent-samples t-test in Study 1 comparing the two GenAI conditions on the four-item trust measure showed "the ChatTutor group (M = 3.64, SD = 0.58) scored significantly higher than the ChatGPT group (M = 3.29, SD = 0.59) on trust t = 2.955; p = 0.002, Cohen's d = 0.60."
"the ChatTutor group (M = 3.64, SD = 0.58) scored significantly higher than the ChatGPT group (M = 3.29, SD = 0.59) on trust t = 2.955; p = 0.002, Cohen's d = 0.60."
Guido Makransky 2025 (2)¶
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 · i3 · causal · r3
Study 1 t-test on the three-item enjoyment measure at follow-up showed "The ChatTutor group (M = 3.65, SD = 0.91) also scored significantly higher than the ChatGPT group (M = 2.99, SD = 0.52) on enjoyment t = 3.304; p < 0.001, d = 0.86."
"The ChatTutor group (M = 3.65, SD = 0.91) also scored significantly higher than the ChatGPT group (M = 2.99, SD = 0.52) on enjoyment t = 3.304; p < 0.001, d = 0.86."
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Achievement Emotions — outcome: instruction changes it
Related Claims¶
- In Study 1, university students using ChatTutor scored significantly higher than teaching-as-usual students on a delayed conceptual knowledge test four weeks after the lesson, but did not differ significantly from ChatGPT students — related
- In Study 1, ChatTutor students answered significantly more new follow-up conceptual knowledge items correctly than teaching-as-usual students, controlling for the testing effect — related
- In Study 1, the three conditions did not differ significantly on the immediate post-test of conceptual knowledge — related
- In a randomised experiment, AI access raised students' enjoyment of learning (p = 0.063) with no statistically detectable effect on self-assessed knowledge or felt effectiveness — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
chattutor-trust-enjoyment-intentions-study1 |
title |
In Study 1, ChatTutor produced significantly higher trust, enjoyment, and behavioral intentions than ChatGPT, while students were blind to condition |
description |
In Study 1, ChatTutor produced significantly higher trust, enjoyment, and behavioral intentions than ChatGPT, while students were blind to condition |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2025 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-20 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — guido-makransky-2025, guido-makransky-2025-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.