Students in the non-adaptive condition reached significantly higher average mastery probabilities than students in the adaptive condition¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r3 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 An exploratory ANOVA of ITS log data showed the non-adaptive condition reached higher average mastery probabilities than the adaptive condition. → Sibley 2026

Evidence¶

Sibley 2026¶

Sibley, L., Berner, T., & Schmalfeldt, T. (2026). Effectiveness of adaptive versus non-adaptive intelligent tutoring systems in early primary mathematics. Computers and Education Open 11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2026.100420

q3 · i2 · causal · r3

Exploratory ANOVA of ITS log data on the level of skills students reached during the intervention in the N = 132 experiment. The article reports η² = .06 with means of 0.67 (SD = 0.18) versus 0.58 (SD = 0.19), attributing the difference to the adaptive condition's mastery-gated progression logic.

"Results showed that students in the non-adaptive condition reached significantly higher average mastery probabilities than students in the adaptive condition, F(1, 128) = 7.85, p = .006, η² = .06 (M = 0.67, SD = 0.18 vs. M = 0.58, SD = 0.19)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Intelligent tutoring systems improve achievement over non-individualised instruction — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Exploratory ANCOVA controlling for mastery probability favored the adaptive condition, but is not interpretable as a causal treatment effect — related
• LMS process indicators documented adaptive engagement during the eight-week intervention, with most experimental students reaching mastery by unit end — 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