ITS substitution: meta-analyses find no significant cognitive learning differences between ITS and human tutoring or small-group instruction¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Meta-analyses comparing intelligent tutoring systems with human tutoring or small-group instruction found no significant differences in cognitive learning effects, suggesting instructional equivalence. → Bauer 2025

Evidence¶

Bauer 2025¶

Bauer, E., Greiff, S., Graesser, A. C., Scheiter, K., & Sailer, M. (2025). Looking Beyond the Hype: Understanding the Effects of AI on Learning. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10020-8

q2 · i? · review · r2

The review reports, citing Ma et al. (2014), Steenbergen-Hu and Cooper (2014), and VanLehn (2011), that meta-analyses found "no significant differences in cognitive learning effects" between ITS and human tutoring or small-group instruction. The review does not print effect sizes for this contrast.

"meta-analyses comparing ITS with human tutor- ing or small-group instruction found no significant differences in cognitive learning effects (Ma et al., 2014; Steenbergen-Hu & Cooper, 2014; VanLehn, 2011), suggesting that while ITS do not surpass human tutoring"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Intelligent tutoring systems improve achievement over non-individualised instruction — related
• AutoTutor's learning gains are virtually equivalent to those of 1-to-1 human tutoring in direct comparisons — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Intelligent tutoring systems show moderate learning benefits but are less effective than human tutoring — reports the opposite