Contingent AI feedback outperformed pseudo-interactive generic feedback: interactive viewers scored 0.16 standard deviations higher than pseudo-interactive viewers on science learning¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr3·q3·i1small
Currency · newest study 2023 · checked against its sources 2026-10-24 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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 i1 Children in the interactive condition scored 0.16 standard deviations higher than those in the pseudo-interactive condition (p = .04), showing that contingent feedback itself, not merely being asked questions, improved learning. → Ying Xu 2023
Evidence¶
Ying Xu 2023¶
Ying Xu, Kunlei He, Julian Levine, Daniel Ritchie, Zexuan Pan, Andres Bustamante, and Mark Warschauer. (2023). Artificial Intelligence Enhances Children's Science Learning from Television Shows. https://osf.io/j7upd
q3 · i1 · causal · r3
Same RCT regression analysis (four outliers excluded). Printed standardized effect size: 0.16 standard deviations — "0.16 standard deviations higher than those in the pseudo-interactive condition (p = .04)", with interactive vs non-interactive at p < .001 in the same model (Table 3, Figure 2B).
"children in the interactive condition scored 0.32 standard deviations higher than those in the non-interactive condition (p < .001) and 0.16 standard deviations higher than those in the pseudo-interactive condition (p = .04)"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Children who watched AI-powered interactive videos with contingent feedback scored 0.32 standard deviations higher on a science post-test than children who watched the non-interactive broadcast version — related
- Pseudo-interactive videos also outperformed non-interactive videos by 0.16 standard deviations on science learning — related
- Contingent AI interaction increased children's likelihood of responding over time (OR = 1.026 per question), while pseudo-interactive interaction decreased it (OR = 0.96) — related
- Pseudo-interactive responses showed significantly more repetition: a lower type-token ratio than interactive responses (t = 3.371, p = .001) — related
- Verbal engagement correlated more strongly with science learning in the interactive condition (response rate r = .485) than in the pseudo-interactive condition (r = .193) — related
- Children in the interactive condition responded to 77.94% of Elinor's questions versus 68.13% in the pseudo-interactive condition — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
contingency-beats-pseudo-interactive-learning |
title |
Contingent AI feedback outperformed pseudo-interactive generic feedback: interactive viewers scored 0.16 standard deviations higher than pseudo-interactive viewers on science learning |
description |
Contingent AI feedback outperformed pseudo-interactive generic feedback: interactive viewers scored 0.16 standard deviations higher than pseudo-interactive viewers on science learning |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2023 |
source_checked |
2026-10-24 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-24 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — ying-xu-2023 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.