Introducing human-AI tutoring improves relative MAP academic growth by 61% over an AI-only baseline within the IK bandwidth¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (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.
q2 i? Within the IK bandwidth, human-AI tutoring was associated with a significant 61% improvement in relative MAP growth compared to the AI-only baseline period. → Ashish Gurung 2026
Evidence¶
Ashish Gurung 2026¶
Ashish Gurung, Ge Gao, Jordan Gutterman, Danielle R. Thomas, Shivang Gupta, Lee Branstetter, Emma Brunskill, Vincent Aleven, Kenneth R. Koedinger. (2026). Improving Hybrid Human-AI Tutoring by Differentiating Human Tutor Roles Based on Student Needs. arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.11155 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.11155
q2 · i? · causal · r2
Quasi-experimental within-subject DiD analysis of 635 students in grades 5-8 comparing winter-to-spring (human-AI) with fall-to-winter (AI-only) relative MAP growth, using a multilevel model with grade random effects. The IK-bandwidth estimate was "significant improvements in relative MAP growth by an additional 61% (p = .003)"; the full-sample trend of 26% was not significant.
"within the IK bandwidth, human-AI tutoring was associated with significant improvements in relative MAP growth by an additional 61% (p = .003). The full sample showed a similar but not significant trend of 26% improvement (p = .086)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Proactive tutoring produced larger relative MAP growth than reactive tutoring on average (75% marginally significant in the IK bandwidth) — related
- At the median cutoff, proactive and reactive tutoring show no significant difference in MAP growth, with proactive benefits increasing for students farther below the cutoff — related
- Human-AI tutoring increases IXL time on task by 25% with no significant difference between proactive and reactive groups — related
- Human-AI tutoring is associated with a 36% rise in IXL skill proficiency, but the gap widened in favor of reactively tutored students (difference-in-differences preprint) — related
- Intelligent tutoring systems improve achievement over non-individualised instruction — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
human-ai-tutoring-improves-map-growth-over-ai-only |
title |
Introducing human-AI tutoring improves relative MAP academic growth by 61% over an AI-only baseline within the IK bandwidth |
description |
Introducing human-AI tutoring improves relative MAP academic growth by 61% over an AI-only baseline within the IK bandwidth |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-11 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — ashish-gurung-2026 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.