Students' initial knowledge level (midterm scores) did not significantly influence improvement in lab scores, indicating it did not confound the feedback-source difference¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In the robust ANCOVA, the midterm covariate coefficient (0.01) was not statistically significant (p = 0.83), indicating initial knowledge did not confound the difference in feedback use. → Er 2024

Evidence¶

Er 2024¶

Er, Erkan; Akçapınar, Gökhan; Bayazıt, Alper; Noroozi, Omid; Banihashem, Seyyed Kazem. (2024). Assessing student perceptions and use of instructor versus AI-generated feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13558

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Same robust ANCOVA on 35 students with midterm scores as covariate. The article reports the midterm coefficient as non-significant, indicating students' initial knowledge level did not confound the difference in feedback use.

"The coefficient for the midterm variable, 0.01, is not statistically significant ( p = 0.83), indicating that midterm scores do not significantly influence the changes in scores."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Students receiving instructor feedback showed significantly greater improvements in lab assignment scores than students receiving AI-generated feedback, after controlling for initial knowledge — related
• Feedback source does not significantly affect revised essay quality once initial draft quality is controlled — related
• Objective learning gains did not differ significantly by condition in the primary ANCOVA, but KBD showed a significant positive effect on learning gains in exploratory regressions accounting for learner covariates — related
• The post-test advantage of generative AI-supported instruction persists after controlling for pre-test performance (ANCOVA) — related