Sample size category (21–40 vs. >40 participants) does not significantly moderate GenAI writing effects¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Sample size category (21–40 vs. >40 participants) did not significantly moderate effect size (QB = 0.50, p = 0.479), although both subgroups showed positive pooled effects. → Mark Feng Teng 2026

Evidence¶

Mark Feng Teng 2026¶

Mark Feng Teng. (2026). Effectiveness of GenAI in enhancing writing performance: a meta-analysis. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-026-00444-2

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Subgroup moderator analysis in the expanded main synthesis (k = 11). The article reports that "sample size category (21–40 vs. >40 participants) did not significantly moderate effect size", with both subgroups showing positive pooled effects; Table 6 also shows total sample size non-significant in meta-regression (p = 0.171).

"sample size category (21–40 vs. >40 participants) did not significantly moderate effect size (QB = 0.50, p = 0.479), although both subgroups showed positive pooled effects."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• GenAI-supported writing instruction yields a statistically significant positive pooled effect on L2/EFL writing performance (g = 0.80) with very high heterogeneity — related
• GAI-related and GAI-unrelated AI tools show no significant difference in their moderating effects on K-12 STEM learning outcomes — related
• Sample characteristics (immigrant/minority status, L2 status, age) show no significant moderator effects, and several program and delivery features are also nonsignificant — related