School level significantly moderates effects: AI-enabled personalized STEM education is more effective in junior and senior high school than in kindergarten¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q4 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q4 i2 Mean effect sizes differed significantly among school levels (QB = 16.116, p = 0.001), with senior high school showing the largest effect (g = 0.534) and kindergarten the smallest (g = 0.118). → Li 2025

Evidence¶

Li 2025¶

Li, S., Zeng, C., Liu, H., Jia, J., Liang, M., Cha, Y., Lim, C. P., & Wu, X. (2025). A meta-analysis of AI-enabled personalized STEM education in schools. International Journal of STEM Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-025-00566-y

q4 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r2

Subgroup analysis across school levels within the meta-analysis of 99 effect sizes. Elementary (g = 0.423), junior high (g = 0.471), and senior high (g = 0.534) all showed significant effects, while kindergarten yielded "a significant but relatively small effect size (g = 0.118, p = 0.033)".

"QB statistic (QB = 16.116, p = 0.001) indicates the mean effect sizes differed significantly among varying school levels."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• AI-enabled personalized STEM education yields a statistically significant overall effect of g = 0.455, which its authors class as small, compared with traditional non-AI instruction in K-12 schools — related
• The effect of ChatGPT on learning performance is moderated by type of course, learning model, and duration, with problem-based learning and 4–8-week interventions showing the largest effects — related
• Subject significantly moderates effects, with AI-enabled personalized STEM education most effective in comprehensive courses (g = 2.161) — related
• AR/VR tools show the largest effect among AI application types (g = 1.765), while ITS and personalized educational games show small effects — related
• GAI-related and GAI-unrelated AI tools show no significant difference in their moderating effects on K-12 STEM learning outcomes — related
• Personalized learning models combining classroom use with student-centered pedagogies (Model C) exert larger effects than fully automated platforms (Model A) — related
• Coaching effects do not differ significantly across school levels, and in-person versus virtual delivery shows no significant difference — related
• ITS produce significant positive effects at all grade levels and in almost all subject domains evaluated, with exceptions such as chemistry — related
• The effect of SRL interventions does not differ significantly by course type, SRL strategy type, school level, or learning context — reports the opposite
• Neither grade level nor outcome type significantly moderates the effects of Spanish reading programs — reports the opposite