Time Management showed a marginally significant post-intervention difference favouring GenAI feedback, while Goal Setting, Help Seeking and Self-Evaluation showed no significant differences¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3·i2medium
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 i2 Time Management yielded a marginally significant difference (p = .057, r = .33); GS, HS and SE showed no significant between-group differences. → Yilmaz 2026
Evidence¶
Yilmaz 2026¶
Yilmaz, M., Temur, H. B., Emmungil, L., Çelik, E., Gauthier, A., & Cukurova, M. (2026). Supporting self-regulated learning through generative AI feedback in online higher education: the importance of student perceptions of the source of feedback. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 23(16). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-026-00592-y
q3 · i2 · causal · r2
Same Mann–Whitney U analysis of standardised SRL proxy scores across the five skills; the study reports the marginal TM result and null results for the remaining skills, with equivalence not tested.
"The Time Management skill yielded a marginally significant difference with a moderate effect size ( p = .057, r = .33), suggesting a potential trend that warrants further investigation. No significant differences were observed for the remaining skills (GS, HS, SE)."
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Self-Regulation — outcome: instruction changes it
Related Claims¶
- The GenAI feedback group showed a statistically significant post-intervention improvement in the Task Strategies dimension of SRL compared with the tutor group — related
- No statistically significant interaction effects between satisfaction and adaptive feedback on the subsequent pre-actional phase; only marginal trends emerged (H4 not supported) — related
- Under blind conditions, students rated GenAI feedback more positively than tutor-generated feedback, with a statistically significant difference only on Genuineness favouring GenAI — related
- MITCA did not improve information-seeking and help management skills relative to traditional homework — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
genai-feedback-tm-marginal-other-srl-null |
title |
Time Management showed a marginally significant post-intervention difference favouring GenAI feedback, while Goal Setting, Help Seeking and Self-Evaluation showed no significant differences |
description |
Time Management showed a marginally significant post-intervention difference favouring GenAI feedback, while Goal Setting, Help Seeking and Self-Evaluation showed no significant differences |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-12 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — yilmaz-2026 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.