EAP task performance showed the same directional pattern as reading comprehension but with a weaker Proficiency × Material interaction¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? For EAP task performance, the Proficiency × Material interaction was significant but smaller, F(4, 126) = 3.01, p = 0.021, η2p = 0.087. → Gao X 2026

Evidence¶

Gao X 2026¶

Gao X (2026) From unified to differentiated materials: generative AI–supported adaptation of EAP reading materials. Front. Psychol. 17:1887565. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1887565

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Two-way ANOVA (Table 7) on EAP task performance, a rubric-scored secondary outcome covering summary accuracy, claim–evidence use, rhetorical-structure recognition, and critical response. The article states "This weaker interactionfitsthenatureoftheoutcome" because the support layer was more visible in passage comprehension than in produced answers.

"proficiency, F(2, 126) = 61.53, p < 0.001, and η2 p = 0.494; material, F(2, 126) = 7.20, p = 0.001, and η2 p = 0.103; and Proficiency × Material, F(4, 126) = 3.01, p = 0.021, and η2 p = 0.087."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The Proficiency × Material interaction on reading comprehension was significant, indicating heterogeneous material effects across proficiency strata — related
• Immediate unsupported application on a new passage showed no material-condition effect and no Proficiency × Material interaction, indicating no short-term dependence cost — related
• Differentiated-AI materials exceeded unified-AI materials on reading comprehension within each proficiency stratum, most strongly for high-proficiency learners (d = 1.40) — related
• Expert EAP reviewers rated GenAI-generated differentiated materials favorably for academic fidelity, proficiency appropriateness, and teachability — related