Instructional approach, AI technology type, assessment instrument, educational level, and publication year do not significantly moderate AI literacy intervention effects¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · 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 i? Classroom instruction approach (F(3, 168) = 1.570, p = .198), type of AI technologies (F(2, 169) = 0.960, p = .385), assessment instrument (F(2, 169) = 1.145, p = .321), educational level (F(3, 168) = 1.174, p = .321), and publication year (F(1, 170) = 0.030, p = .862) were non-significant moderators. → Suya Liu 2026
Evidence¶
Suya Liu 2026¶
Suya Liu, Ziyan Lin, Oi Lam Ng, Yijian Yang, Yun Dai. (2026). AI literacy interventions in education: A meta-analysis of effects and moderators. Educational Research Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2026.100813
q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2
Moderator analyses of five non-significant factors in the meta-analysis. Descriptively, mixed pedagogies (g = 1.071), reflective pedagogy (g = 0.988), and GenAI (g = 1.140) showed numerically larger effects, but omnibus tests did not reach significance; equivalence was not tested.
"Effect sizes did not differ significantly across classroom instruction approaches (F (3, 168) = 1.570, p = .198). Descriptive comparisons indicated that mixed instruction approaches (g = 1.071) and reflective pedagogy (g = 0.988) tended to produce larger effect sizes"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- AI literacy interventions show a large, statistically significant overall positive effect on student AI literacy outcomes (g = 0.837) — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
- AI literacy directly and positively predicts learning engagement among university students — related
- Participation in the short INSIGHT training session is associated with a significant pre-post increase in teachers’ perceived ease of use of AI-based technologies — related
- Intervention types (cue-generation encoding-based, retrieval-based, cue-attention, cue-selection) do not substantially differ in effectiveness — related
- Technology type did not significantly moderate effects on metacognitive outcomes, though generative-AI interventions showed a descriptively larger estimate — related
- Effects of educational technology literacy interventions differ according to characteristics of the interventions and participants — reports the opposite
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
five-moderators-non-significant-ai-literacy |
title |
Instructional approach, AI technology type, assessment instrument, educational level, and publication year do not significantly moderate AI literacy intervention effects |
description |
Instructional approach, AI technology type, assessment instrument, educational level, and publication year do not significantly moderate AI literacy intervention effects |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-12 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — suya-liu-2026 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.