Cited by 153Artificial Intelligence in EducationIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Looking Beyond the Hype: Understanding the Effects of AI on Learning

Open access
Bauer, Elisabeth, Greiff, Samuel, Graesser, Arthur C., Scheiter, Katharina, Sailer, Michael·2025·Educational Psychology Review

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) holds significant potential for enhancing student learning. This reflection critically examines the promises and limitations of AI for cognitive learning processes and outcomes, drawing on empirical evidence and theoretical insights from research on AI-enhanced education and digital learning technologies. We critically discuss current publication trends in research on AI-enhanced learning and rather than assuming inherent benefits, we emphasize the role of instructional implementation and the need for systematic investigations that build on insights from existing research on the role of technology in instructional effectiveness. Building on this foundation, we introduce the ISAR model, which differentiates four types of AI effects on learning compared to learning conditions without AI, namely inversion, substitution, augmentation, and redefinition. Specifically, AI can substitute existing instructional approaches while maintaining equivalent instructional functionality, augment instruction by providing additional cognitive learning support, or redefine tasks to foster deep learning processes. However, the implementation of AI must avoid potential inversion effects, such as over-reliance leading to reduced cognitive engagement. Additionally, successful AI integration depends on moderating factors, including students’ AI literacy and educators’ technological and pedagogical skills. Our discussion underscores the need for a systematic and evidence-based approach to AI in education, advocating for rigorous research and informed adoption to maximize its potential while mitigating possible risks.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This reflection paper argues that AI’s learning benefits depend on instructional implementation rather than the technology itself, and it cautions against overhyping current AI-enhanced education research. It introduces the ISAR model—inversion, substitution, augmentation, and redefinition—to systematize how AI can affect cognitive learning processes and outcomes.

Key findings

  • The ISAR model distinguishes four AI effects: inversion (over-reliance reduces cognitive engagement and learning), substitution (AI replaces non-AI instruction with equivalent functionality), augmentation (AI adds cognitive support beyond non-AI alternatives), and redefinition (AI transforms tasks to foster deep learning).
  • Inversion effects are illustrated by studies where ChatGPT use was linked to shallower processing and diminished learning outcomes, including reduced cognitive processing depth and lower posttest argument quality in a scientific inquiry task, and “metacognitive laziness” in a writing revision task.
  • Substitution effects are supported by meta-analyses finding no significant differences in cognitive learning effects when comparing intelligent tutoring systems with human tutoring or small-group instruction.
  • Augmentation and redefinition effects are supported by meta-analyses reporting medium-to-large learning benefits for ITS versus self-reliant learning without support, small-to-medium gains versus nonadaptive or less adaptive computer-assisted learning, and small-to-medium benefits for constructive learning with ITS versus active and passive instructional methods.

Methods

  • This is a reflection/conceptual paper, not an empirical study; it reports no primary sample, dataset, or new experiment.
  • It draws on empirical evidence and theoretical insights from AI-enhanced education, digital learning technologies, AIED, and prior meta-analyses.
  • Its main contribution is the ISAR model, which builds on the SAMR model and the ICAP-inspired SAMR model, and is used to classify AI effects and discuss conditions for successful integration.

Limitations

  • The paper states that it focuses primarily on cognitive learning processes and outcomes, while noting that motivation and emotions are inextricably linked to cognitive learning but are not the main focus.
  • The paper states that effective prevention strategies for inversion effects in education are yet to be explored and that research must continue advancing understanding of inversion effects.
  • Evident from the text: as a reflection paper, it does not conduct a systematic review or meta-analysis, and its examples and publication-trend claims are illustrative rather than exhaustive or quantified.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10648-025-10020-8

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 121 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Premisecitation

    Domain-specific knowledge and skills remain essential learning objectives because they empower individuals to reason, apply theoretical knowledge, and build foundations for expertise.

    “Specifically, despite ubiquitous and widely-accessible information, domainspecific knowledge and skills remain essential learning objectives as they empower individuals to reason about a broad set of problems, to apply theoretical knowledge to practical problems, and to establish important foundations for expertise development in specialized fields”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Greiff et al., 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation

    LLMs inadvertently learn and replicate biases from the vast, biased datasets they are trained on.

    “These models inadvertently learn and replicate biases from the vast, biased datasets they are trained on (Lee et al., 2024).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lee et al., 2024 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Interpretationcitation

    If learners uncritically rely on information from AI systems, they risk adopting biased or incorrect information.

    “If learners uncritically rely on information from AI systems, they risk adopting biased or incorrect information, an issue also observed in other contexts, such as interactions with Internet sources (Miller & Bartlett, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Miller & Bartlett, 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Interpretationreasoning

    When students use ChatGPT to generate complete assignments, rather than for assistance such as suggesting revisions for their own critical review, they miss essential learning opportunities.

    “For example, when students use ChatGPT to generate complete assignments, rather than for assistance such as suggesting revisions for their own critical review, they miss essential learning opportunities.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Premisecitation

    Generative AI use is linked to shallower processing and diminished learning outcomes in studies on students using ChatGPT for constructive learning tasks such as information search and writing.

    “This has been observed in studies on students using ChatGPT for constructive learning tasks (e.g., information search and writing), where generative AI use is linked to shallower processing and diminished learning outcomes (Fan et al., 2024;Stadler et al., 2024).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Fan et al., 2024

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Stadler et al., 2024

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 57
  • May combine two claims. 38
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    AI literacy is becoming an increasingly important transversal skill for learners.

    “Additionally, AI literacy is becoming an increasingly important transversal skill for learners (Ng et al., 2021).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ng et al., 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The current publication boom in AI-enhanced education partly reflects a tendency to overhype recent developments, driven by neglect of previous theoretical and empirical insights about instructional mechanisms and learning, the framing of arguments, and study methods.

    “In this article, however, we argue that the current publication boom partly reflects a tendency to overhype recent developments, driven by a neglect of previous theoretical and empirical insights about instructional mechanisms and learning, the way arguments are framed, and the study methods used.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    LLMs provide outputs that can be misleading, biased, or incorrect.

    “Especially AI systems that analyze and generate language using algorithms trained on large datasets, such as LLMs, provide outputs that can be misleading, biased, or incorrect.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lee et al., 2024

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Developing human knowledge and skills remains crucial for tasks requiring deep understanding, ethical considerations, and creative problem-solving, which cannot be entirely outsourced to AI.

    “However, developing human knowledge and skills remains crucial, especially for tasks requiring deep understanding, ethical considerations, and creative problem-solving, which cannot be entirely outsourced to AI”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    The probabilistic nature of LLMs implies they generate responses based on likelihood, not verified information, leading to plausible sounding but sometimes incorrect statements.

    “In addition, the probabilistic nature of LLMs implies they generate responses based on likelihood, not verified information, leading to plausible sounding but sometimes incorrect statements.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Research on AI-enhanced learning should integrate theoretical, empirical, and methodological insights from prior research on the learning effects of digital technologies, including AIED.

    “As this research evolves, it is crucial to integrate theoretical, empirical, and methodological insights from prior research on the learning effects of digital technologies, including AIED.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    With advancements in AI, especially generative AI, an increasing range of tasks can be outsourced to AI systems.

    “With advancements in AI, especially generative AI, an increasing range of tasks can be outsourced to AI systems (e.g., many well-defined data analysis tasks), challenging educational systems and their targeted objectives.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    AI holds significant potential for enhancing student learning.

    “Artificial intelligence (AI) holds significant potential for enhancing student learning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Research on AI-enhanced learning should prioritize cognitive learning processes and outcomes to maximize AI's potential for effective learning.

    “This paper argues that research on AI-enhanced learning should prioritize cognitive learning processes and outcomes to maximize AI's potential for effective learning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    New research trends on AI-enhanced learning depart from traditional AIED research, which focused on systematically establishing insights on instructional effectiveness with rigorous research methods.

    “These new research trends depart from the traditional AIED research, which has focused on systematically establishing insights on instructional effectiveness with rigorous research methods.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationcitation

    Effectively teaching knowledge and skills and preparing individuals for complex real-world problem-solving requires engaging them in relevant cognitive learning activities.

    “Effectively teaching knowledge and skills and preparing individuals for complex real-world problem-solving requires engaging them in relevant cognitive learning activities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Similar outcomes could potentially occur with educational AI systems that either relieve students of essential learning processes or allow them to outsource critical learning processes.

    “While the studies of Stadler et al. (2024) and Fan et al. (2024) investigate a non-educational generative AI system in educational settings, similar outcomes could potentially occur with educational AI systems that either relieve students of essential learning processes or allow them to outsource critical learning processes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Stadler et al. (2024)

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Fan et al. (2024)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Hybrid intelligence approaches support continuous learning and upskilling, ensuring humans maintain and develop skills through human-AI collaboration.

    “Such hybrid intelligence approaches were suggested to support continuous learning and upskilling, ensuring humans maintain and develop skills through human-AI collaboration (Järvelä et al., 2023;Rafner et al., 2021).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Järvelä et al., 2023

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Rafner et al., 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Over-reliance on algorithms may weaken decision-making and judgment skills, resulting in poor choices when AI support is unavailable.

    “Over-reliance on algorithms may weaken decision-making and judgment skills, resulting in poor choices when AI support is unavailable (Sutton et al., 2018).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sutton et al., 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The ChatGPT group showed improved task performance during the supported intervention phase compared to other groups, but no differences in posttest knowledge gain or transfer.

    “However, while the ChatGPT group, compared to the other groups, showed improved task performance during the supported intervention phase, there were no differences in the posttest knowledge gain or knowledge transfer.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fan et al. (2024)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Current publications on AI for learning often focus primarily on the potential advantages of these technologies.

    “While a balanced view on the potential of AI, particularly LLMs and generative AI, for learning is necessary, current publications often focus primarily on the potential advantages of these technologies for learning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Performance during an AI-supported intervention phase can suggest initial learning benefits but cannot be considered sufficient evidence for actual learning effects.

    “However, although performance during a supported intervention phase can suggest initial learning benefits, it cannot be considered as sufficient evidence for actual learning effects.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In Stadler et al. (2024), ChatGPT simplified task processing by reducing task-irrelevant extraneous load and load intrinsic to the learning task, but did not improve learning effectiveness and was accompanied by reduced cognitive processing depth and reduced cognitive learning outcomes.

    “The findings indicated that ChatGPT simplified task processing by reducing task-irrelevant extraneous load and load that is intrinsic to the learning task (see Sweller 2010); however, this did not improve learning effectiveness, but was accompanied by reduced cognitive processing depth (germane load; see Sweller 2010) and reduced cognitive learning outcomes, as indicated by students' quality of”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Stadler et al., 2024

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    Lenient inclusion criteria in research syntheses can lead to a 'garbage in, garbage out' problem unless strict methodological and conceptual inclusion criteria are applied.

    “This dynamic can easily lead to a “garbage in, garbage out” problem unless strict methodological and conceptual inclusion criteria are applied during study selection (Borenstein et al., 2021).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Borenstein et al., 2021 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The effectiveness of AI is contingent upon the quality of the instruction provided.

    “Nonetheless, it is crucial to be explicit about what conclusions can and cannot be drawn from each study to prevent overhyping the capabilities of the technology itself, considering that its effectiveness is contingent upon the quality of the instruction provided.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The ISAR model distinguishes four types of effects in AI-enhanced learning: inversion, substitution, augmentation, and redefinition.

    “To offer an explicit terminology for the AI enhancement debate, classify possible implementations, and define different research directions, we suggest distinguishing four types of effects in the context of AI-enhanced learning: inversion effects, substitution effects, augmentation effects, and redefinition effects of AI in educational contexts, summarized in the ISAR model shown in Fig. 1.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The ChatGPT group relied strongly on AI support and showed relatively low metacognitive processing compared to other support groups.

    “A temporal process analysis of learners' metacognitive activities suggested that the ChatGPT group relied strongly on the AI support and showed relatively low metacognitive processing compared to the other support groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fan et al. (2024)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    To effectively enhance learning of knowledge and skills, especially transversal skills, educators need to initiate deep learning processes in students.

    “To effectively enhance the learning of both knowledge and skills, especially transversal skills crucial for the twenty-first century, educators need to initiate deep learning processes in their students.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Syntheses exclusively focusing on LLMs and generative AI usage are currently constrained by the limited number of available studies, which may lead some to apply lenient inclusion criteria.

    “However, syntheses that exclusively focus on LLMs and generative AI usage are currently still rather constrained by the limited number of available studies, which may be the reason why some syntheses and meta-analyses with this specific focus apply rather lenient inclusion criteria.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Without careful differentiation, meta-analyses risk an 'apples and oranges' issue, where studies with varying interventions and comparison conditions are mixed together to make broad claims about AI effectiveness.

    “Without careful differentiation, meta-analyses risk an “apples and oranges” issue, where studies with varying interventions and comparison conditions are mixed together to make broad claims about AI effectiveness.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Many recent primary studies and research syntheses have faced criticism for methodological issues that compromise the interpretability and validity of their findings.

    “Indeed, many recent primary studies and research syntheses have faced criticism for methodological issues that compromise the interpretability and validity of their findings.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    Substitution effects in AI-enhanced learning occur when AI provides instructional equivalence to non-AI alternatives without changing learners' cognitive processing depth and, therefore, without directly changing learning outcomes.

    “Substitution effects in AI-enhanced learning occur when AI provides instructional equivalence to non-AI alternatives without changing learners' cognitive processing depth and, therefore, without directly changing learning outcomes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Learners may redirect spared resources toward more intensive practice or additional learning activities, though the extent depends on individual factors such as motivation and self-regulation.

    “In such cases, learners may redirect their spared resources toward more intensive practice or additional learning activities, though the extent of such benefits likely depends on individual factors such as motivation and self-regulation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationnone given

    Augmentation effects occur when AI enhances instruction by providing additional cognitive learning support compared to a non-AI alternative.

    “Augmentation effects occur when AI enhances instruction by providing additional cognitive learning support compared to a non-AI alternative.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Many studies fail to adequately acknowledge their limitations, thereby contributing to the hype about AI's effects on learning.

    “Despite many examples of rigorous research, there are also many studies that fail to adequately acknowledge their limitations (a problem we will elaborate on below), thereby contributing to the hype about AI's effects on learning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Technology in education has a dual role: instrumental, emphasizing that positive learning effects should be attributed to instruction rather than technology itself; and transformative, highlighting the potential to afford known and new possibilities for enhanced instruction.

    “While these perspectives differ, together they underscore the dual role of technology in education: instrumental, emphasizing that any positive learning effects should be attributed to the instruction rather than the technology itself; and transformative, highlighting the potential to afford known and new possibilities for enhanced instruction.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationcitation

    Inversion effects in AI-enhanced learning occur when AI, intended to support deep learning, instead leads to reduced cognitive processing and learning outcomes, counteracting its intended benefits.

    “Inversion effects in AI-enhanced learning occur when AI, intended to support deep learning, instead leads to reduced cognitive processing and learning outcomes, counteracting its intended benefits.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Meta-analyses found medium to large learning benefits for ITS compared to self-reliant learning without support, and small to medium gains when comparing ITS to nonadaptive or less adaptive computer-assisted learning.

    “For example, meta-analyses found medium to large learning benefits for ITS, which provide feedback and targeted hints, compared to self-reliant learning without support, and small to medium gains when comparing ITS to nonadaptive or less adaptive computer-assisted learning (Ma et al., 2014;Steenbergen-Hu & Cooper, 2014).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Ma et al., 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Steenbergen-Hu & Cooper, 2014 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationcitation

    Redefinition effects occur when AI transforms learning tasks to foster deeper (constructive or interactive) learning, provided that the non-AI comparison condition does not already support deep learning processes.

    “Redefinition effects occur when AI transforms learning tasks to foster deeper (constructive or interactive) learning, provided that the non-AI comparison condition does not already support deep learning processes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Scaffolding can adjust task difficulty and task sequencing, thereby creating personalized learning paths, which is often employed by ITS systems but also considered beneficial in other contexts, such as simulation-based learning.

    “Additionally, scaffolding can adjust task difficulty and task sequencing, thereby creating personalized learning paths, which is a technique that is often employed by ITS systems but also considered beneficial in other contexts, such as simulation-based learning (Fischer et al., 2022;Holstein et al., 2018).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Fischer et al., 2022

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Holstein et al., 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Teachers can use a write-curate-verify approach for generating materials, by writing prompts, curating output, and verifying output, which keeps human in the loop to ensure high-quality results.

    “Teachers can use a write-curate-verify approach for generating materials, by writing the prompts, curating the output, and verifying the output, which keeps the human in the loop to ensure high-quality results (Bai et al., 2024;Ninaus & Sailer, 2022).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Bai et al., 2024

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Ninaus & Sailer, 2022

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Natural language processing combined with speech synthesis can analyze and generate spoken language, though this process may still experience time lags compared to text-based communication.

    “Additionally, natural language processing techniques, combined with speech synthesis, can analyze and generate spoken language (e.g., in computer-generated animated agents; Fink et al., 2024), though this process may still experience time lags compared to text-based communication (Dekel et al., 2024).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Fink et al., 2024

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Dekel et al., 2024

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Key affordances of AI in education lie in implementing these instructional approaches more intensively than is currently done in many educational contexts.

    “However, because key affordances of AI in education lie in implementing these instructional approaches more intensively than is currently done in many educational contexts, the following sections discuss these approaches from the perspectives of augmentation (AIenhanced cognitive support) and redefinition (AI-enhanced learning activities for deep learning).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Teacher oversight can be needed, keeping the human in the loop, to actively monitor AI-generated content and ensure that AI outputs remain accurate, relevant, and pedagogically sound in educational settings.

    “Also, teacher oversight can be needed, keeping the human in the loop, to actively monitor AI-generated content and ensure that AI outputs remain accurate, relevant, and pedagogically sound in educational settings.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Like students, teachers may also be at risk of overrelying on AI outputs and adopting them uncritically, particularly if they have limited awareness of AI's potential pitfalls.

    “However, like students, teachers may also be at risk of overrelying on AI outputs and adopting them uncritically, particularly if they have limited awareness of AI's potential pitfalls.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    AI technologies can enhance cognitive support by providing additional feedback and scaffolding that optimize cognitive processing of various learning activities.

    “Specifically, AI technologies can enhance cognitive support by providing additional feedback and scaffolding that optimize cognitive processing of various learning activities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The validity and accuracy of AI-enhanced cognitive support are crucial for its effectiveness, as low-quality cognitive support can lead to learner disengagement, ultimately hindering the intended augmentation.

    “The validity and accuracy of AI-enhanced cognitive support are crucial for its effectiveness, as low-quality cognitive support can lead to learner disengagement, ultimately hindering the intended augmentation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Such issues might be mitigated by focusing on educational AI tools with built-in quality assurance mechanisms that ensure AI-generated materials adhere to course content.

    “Such issues might be mitigated by focusing on educational AI tools with built-in quality assurance mechanisms that ensure, for example, that AIgenerated materials adhere to the course content.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    AI-based feedback can be complemented by AI-enhanced peer feedback as a scalable alternative to AI-enhanced teacher feedback; however, even with AI support, quality of peer feedback processes and outcomes may still vary.

    “To keep the human in the loop and respond to concerns about dehumanizing learning through replacing human interaction, AIbased feedback can be complemented by AI-enhanced peer feedback as a scalable alternative to AI-enhanced teacher feedback; however, even with AI support, the quality of peer feedback processes and outcomes may still vary (Banihashem et al., 2024;Bauer et al., 2023).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Banihashem et al., 2024

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Bauer et al., 2023 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Log data analysis identifies student behavior patterns, enabling timely interventions.

    “Log data analysis identifies student behavior patterns, enabling timely interventions (Lim et al., 2023).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lim et al., 2023

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Effective feedback significantly impacts learning outcomes by offering insights into task performance, facilitating self-assessment, and guiding future efforts.

    “Effective feedback significantly impacts learning outcomes by offering insights into task performance, facilitating self-assessment, and guiding future efforts.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hattie & Timperley, 2007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Effectiveness of both teacher- and student-facing dashboards depends on dashboard usability and audience characteristics, as designing dashboards that provide accessible, relevant, and actionable information can be challenging, and users may struggle to translate insights into meaningful actions because of their knowledge and skills.

    “However, the effectiveness of both teacher-and student-facing dashboards depends on the dashboard usability and audience characteristics, as designing dashboards that provide accessible, relevant, and actionable information can be challenging, and users may struggle to translate insights into meaningful actions because of their knowledge and skills (Jivet et al., 2017;Matcha et al., 2020).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Jivet et al., 2017

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Matcha et al., 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    While adequate prompting determines immediate output quality, fine-tuning with domain-specific data can further enhance alignment with domain knowledge, instructional accuracy, and educational needs.

    “While adequate prompting determines the immediate output quality, fine-tuning with domainspecific data can further enhance alignment with domain knowledge, instructional accuracy, and educational needs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    A straightforward option for generative AI to enhance deep learning activities in education is by assisting teachers with planning instructional approaches that afford deep learning processes.

    “A straightforward option for generative AI to enhance deep learning activities in education is by assisting teachers with planning instructional approaches that afford deep learning processes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This offers advantages in accessibility and immediacy of answers while alleviating teacher workload, especially in educational contexts with many students.

    “This offers advantages in the accessibility and immediacy of answers while alleviating teacher workload, especially in educational contexts with many students (e.g., lectures in higher education).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The most transformative potential of AI in education may lie in redefinition effects, where AI is used to redesign learning tasks in ways that encourage students to engage in deep rather than shallow learning processes.

    “The most transformative potential of AI in education may lie in redefinition effects, where AI is used to redesign learning tasks in ways that encourage students to engage in deep (constructive or interactive) rather than shallow (passive or active) learning processes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Specialized interfaces that enhance output explainability and promote teachers' critical reflection and revision of AI-generated content might help mitigate these issues.

    “Specialized interfaces that enhance output explainability (e.g., through annotations) and promote teachers' critical reflection and revision of AI-generated content might help mitigate these issues.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Instructional materials such as interactive simulations can be generated with the help of AI and allow students' knowledge construction through exploration of complex concepts.

    “Instructional materials such as interactive simulations can be generated with the help of AI (Bewersdorff et al., 2025) and allow students' knowledge construction through the exploration of complex concepts (Kali & Linn, 2008).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Bewersdorff et al., 2025

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Kali & Linn, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Rule-based systems deliver feedback and scaffolding based on predefined rules but lack flexibility, while machine learning and deep learning systems offer personalized feedback by analyzing complex data patterns.

    “Rule-based systems deliver feedback and scaffolding based on predefined rules but lack flexibility, while machine learning and deep learning systems offer personalized feedback by analyzing complex data patterns (Sailer et al., 2024b;Zapata-Rivera & Arslan, 2024).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Sailer et al., 2024b

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Zapata-Rivera & Arslan, 2024

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    In digital learning environments, AI can enhance the quality of feedback and scaffolding compared to nonadaptive or less adaptive technology-driven cognitive support.

    “Additionally, in digital learning environments, AI can enhance the quality of feedback and scaffolding compared to nonadaptive or less adaptive technology-driven cognitive support.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Different scaffolds are most effective for different learners; for example, worked examples may not be as beneficial to high-knowledge learners as reflection phases.

    “Moreover, different scaffolds are most effective for different learners; for example, worked examples may not be as beneficial to high-knowledge learners as reflection phases (Chernikova et al., 2020).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chernikova et al., 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Generative AI creates personalized feedback and scaffolds based on interactions and performance data, enabling dynamic support systems; however, these systems may lack explainability and, if not designed in agreement with instructional principles, may also generate content that varies in accuracy, specificity, and pedagogical quality.

    “Generative AI creates personalized feedback and scaffolds based on interactions and performance data, enabling dynamic support systems; however, these systems may lack explainability and, if not designed in agreement with instructional principles, may also generate content that varies in accuracy, specificity, and pedagogical quality (Banihashem et al., 2024).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Banihashem et al., 2024

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Using such constructive tasks may increase learner motivation, which could potentially help mitigate inversion effects.

    “Using such constructive tasks may increase learner motivation, which could potentially help mitigate inversion effects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Knowledge and skills related to digital technologies, including AI literacy, are crucial for raising awareness about problems such as biases in training data and outputs.

    “Especially knowledge and skills related to digital technologies, including AI literacy, are crucial for raising awareness about problems such as biases in training data and outputs (Ng et al., 2021).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ng et al., 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Ruffle & Riley system employs AutoTutor's Expectation Misconception Tailoring as a tutoring model to structure dialogues and address student misconceptions.

    “Similarly, the Ruffle & Riley system (Schmucker et al., 2024), a trialoguebased tutoring platform, employs AutoTutor's Expectation Misconception Tailoring as a tutoring model to structure dialogues and address student misconceptions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Schmucker et al., 2024

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In addition to a chat-based user interface, further key components include a learner model tracking students' knowledge and misconceptions, a domain model representing relevant subject information, and a tutoring model determining instructional strategies.

    “However, in addition to a (chat-based) user interface, further key components include a learner model tracking students' knowledge and misconceptions, a domain model representing relevant subject information, and a tutoring model determining instructional strategies (D'Mello & Graesser, 2023).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites D'Mello & Graesser, 2023

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    User-friendly, ethical, and regulation-compliant AI applications may facilitate the effective use of AI in education.

    “Lastly, user-friendly, ethical, and regulation-compliant AI applications may facilitate the effective use of AI in education.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Although it lacks a traditional domain model and learner model, limiting content quality assurance and tracking of learners' task mastery, the Socratic Playground for Learning uses a Socratic tutoring model to foster critical thinking and reflection by iteratively posing questions and guiding learners.

    “Although it lacks a traditional domain model and learner model, limiting content quality assurance and tracking of learners' task mastery, the Socratic Playground for Learning uses a Socratic tutoring model to foster critical thinking and reflection by iteratively posing questions and guiding learners.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Zhang et al., 2024

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    These skills may influence the quality of interactions with AI systems, such as effective prompt-writing and assessing AI outputs.

    “These skills may influence the quality of interactions with AI systems, such as effective prompt-writing and assessing AI outputs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given

    Recent ITS developments increasingly use LLMs for enhanced interactivity.

    “Recent ITS developments increasingly use LLMs for enhanced interactivity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Socratic Playground for Learning uses GPT-4 with assisted prompt engineering for multi-turn dialogues.

    “For example, the Socratic Playground for Learning (Zhang et al., 2024) uses GPT-4 with assisted prompt engineering for multi-turn dialogues.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Zhang et al., 2024

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Successful AI integration in education additionally requires that students and teachers have the necessary knowledge, skills, and motivation to interact effectively with AI systems.

    “However, successful AI integration in education additionally requires that students and teachers have the necessary knowledge, skills, and motivation to interact effectively with AI systems.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Understanding the opportunities and limitations of AI-enhanced learning in any educational context requires a holistic perspective on the various conditions necessary for effective and sustainable AI integration in education.

    “In conclusion, understanding the opportunities and limitations of AIenhanced learning in any educational context requires a holistic perspective on the various conditions necessary for effective and sustainable AI integration in education.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    This access is vital to avoid amplifying the digital divide within and across countries.

    “This access is vital to avoid amplifying the digital divide within and across countries (UNESCO, 2023).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites UNESCO, 2023

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A common form of conversational ITS involves dialogue-based interactions with a simulated tutor.

    “A common form of conversational ITS involves dialogue-based interactions with a simulated tutor (e.g., AutoTutor; Graesser, 2016).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Graesser, 2016

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    In a trialogue, the student can be the tutor, explaining content to a simulated tutee with optional help from a simulated teacher.

    “Alternatively, in a trialogue, the student can be the tutor, explaining content to a simulated tutee with optional help from a simulated teacher (Graesser et al., 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Graesser et al., 2017

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Individual access to technology is essential for both teachers and students, ensuring they have the necessary devices and resources to engage with AI tools.

    “Individual access to technology is essential for both teachers and students, ensuring they have the necessary devices and resources to engage with AI tools (Crompton, 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Crompton, 2017

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Political and institutional regulations governing the ethical use of AI, data privacy, and security are necessary to protect all parties and may provide a structured approach to integrating AI in education.

    “Political and institutional regulations governing the ethical use of AI, data privacy, and security are necessary to protect all parties and may provide a structured approach to integrating AI in education (Liu et al., 2020).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Liu et al., 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Learning-by-design engages students in iterative cycles of designing, building, testing, and reflecting to deepen their learning.

    “For example, learning-by-design engages students in iterative cycles of designing, building, testing, and reflecting to deepen their learning (Kolodner et al., 2003a).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kolodner et al., 2003a

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    These examples illustrate how LLMs can be integrated with ITS components and pedagogical principles, but also highlight challenges in balancing flexibility, content quality, pedagogical quality, and personalized instruction.

    “These examples illustrate how LLMs can be integrated with ITS components and pedagogical principles, but also highlight challenges in balancing flexibility, content quality, pedagogical quality, and personalized instruction.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Constructive learning activities, where students actively generate formative outputs, foster deep understanding and skill development and can, in some cases, be enhanced by generative AI.

    “Constructive learning activities, where students actively generate formative outputs, foster deep understanding and skill development and can, in some cases, be enhanced by generative AI.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Robust digital infrastructure, equitable access to technology, and supportive policies are crucial for seamless implementation.

    “Robust digital infrastructure, equitable access to technology, and supportive policies are crucial for seamless implementation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Instead of using a traditional domain model, Ruffle & Riley generates tutoring workflows from existing content and relies on chat logs and real-time responses rather than building a comprehensive learner model.

    “Instead of using a traditional domain model, it generates tutoring workflows from existing content and relies on chat logs and real-time responses rather than building a comprehensive learner model.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Schmucker et al., 2024

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    These factors are comparable to those influencing the integration of other digital technologies in education, but may partially be further specified for the context of AI.

    “These factors are comparable to those influencing the integration of other digital technologies in education (Lachner et al., 2024;Sailer et al., 2021), which we will summarize below, but may partially be further specified for the context of AI.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Lachner et al., 2024

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Sailer et al., 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Research showed that technology-driven natural language interactions can foster deep conceptual learning by requiring explanation and reflection, and help develop essential communication skills.

    “This research showed that technology-driven natural language interactions can foster deep conceptual learning by requiring explanation and reflection, and help develop essential communication skills (Rus et al., 2023).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rus et al., 2023

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Ongoing professional development may ensure that teachers remain updated with the latest AI advancements and are equipped to integrate these tools effectively into their teaching practices.

    “Ongoing professional development may ensure that teachers remain updated with the latest AI advancements and are equipped to integrate these tools effectively into their teaching practices (Lindner et al., 2019;Williams et al., 2021).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Lindner et al., 2019

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Williams et al., 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Inclusive education can be facilitated through institutional access to technology, which is, however, also not a given.

    “Inclusive education can be facilitated through institutional access to technology, which is, however, also not a given (Liu et al., 2024).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Liu et al., 2024

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Natural language-based learning systems represent a powerful approach to realizing potential redefinition effects through AI-enhanced learning activities for deep learning.

    “Nevertheless, natural language-based learning systems represent a powerful approach to realizing potential redefinition effects through AI-enhanced learning activities for deep learning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Flipped classroom approaches could be useful because constructive activities take place during class, which facilitates teacher interventions that guide students' use of AI, while passive knowledge transfer takes place outside of class time.

    “Additionally, flipped classroom approaches could be useful because the constructive activities take place during class, which facilitates teacher interventions that guide students' use of AI, while passive knowledge transfer takes place outside of class time (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2018;Strelan et al., 2020).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Akçayır & Akçayır, 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Strelan et al., 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

84 of 84
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The greater the instructional enhancement relative to a comparison condition, the greater the transformative potential for enhanced cognitive learning processes and outcomes through the affordances offered by the AI system.

    “The assumption underlying the substitution, augmentation, and redefinition effects in the ISAR model is that the greater the instructional enhancement relative to a comparison condition, the greater the transformative potential for enhanced cognitive learning processes and outcomes through the affordances offered by the AI system.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Leveraging AI for substitution of instructionally equivalent non-AI learning conditions does not inherently lead to greater learning gains.

    “The assumption that leveraging AI for substitution of instructionally equivalent non-AI learning conditions does not inherently lead to greater learning gains aligns with long-standing debates in educational research”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    When AI replaces specific instructional functions without altering the cognitive processes involved, the effectiveness of the AI-enhanced instruction remains comparable to non-AI instructional methods used for the same purpose in the same context.

    “Similarly, we can assume that when AI replaces specific instructional functions without altering the cognitive processes involved, the effectiveness of the AI-enhanced instruction remains comparable to non-AI instructional methods used for the same purpose in the same context.”
3 of 3

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Metacognitive development requires explicit scaffolding rather than emerging naturally from AI interaction.

    “Metacognitive development requires explicit scaffolding rather than emerging naturally from AI interaction (Bauer et al., 2025; Yin et al., 2025; Zhou et al., 2024).”

    From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Bauer et al., 2025

    In “Augmentation Effects Through AI-Enhanced Cognitive Support” (page unavailable), the paper says scaffolding can target self-regulation and that effective scaffolding promotes autonomy and self-regulated learning. In “Redefinition Effects Through AI-Enhanced Learning Activities for Deep Learning” (page unavailable), it cautions that chat-based AI may lack suitable pedagogical support without targeted design. These passages support a role for designed support, but do not establish that metacognitive development requires explicit scaffolding or cannot emerge from AI interaction. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Excessive reliance on AI for emotional navigation may result in cognitive disengagement correlating with reduced critical thinking.

    “yet excessive reliance may result in cognitive disengagement correlating with reduced critical thinking [25].”

    From Encountering Generative AI: Narrative Self-Formation and Technologies of the Self Among Young Adults (2026) · cites this paper as [25]

    The “Inversion Effects of AI Undermining Deep Learning” section (page not supplied) says student over-reliance on AI can undermine critical-thinking development and reports reduced cognitive processing depth in a learning task. It does not address reliance on AI for emotional navigation, so the claim's application to that context is not supported. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Fan et al. is cited for diminished learning outcomes despite no posttest difference

    Minor

    The paper cites Fan et al. (2024) as evidence that ChatGPT use is linked to diminished learning outcomes, but its later account of that study says the ChatGPT group did not differ from the other groups in posttest knowledge gain or transfer. The reported lower metacognitive processing does not resolve the discrepancy about learning outcomes.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 90

  1. Abd-Alrazaq, A., AlSaad, R., Alhuwail, D., Ahmed, A., Healy, P. M., Latifi, S., ... & Sheikh, J. (2023). Large language models in medical education: opportunities, challenges, and future directions. JMIR Medical Education, 9(1), e48291. https://doi.org/10.2196/48291 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Akata, Z., Balliet, D., de Rijke, M., Dignum, F., Dignum, V., Eiben, G., Fokkens, A., Grossi, D., Hindriks, K., Hoos, H., Hung, H., Jonker, C., Monz, C., Neerincx, M., Oliehoek, F., Prakken, H., Schlobach, S., van der Gaag, L., van Harmelen, F., … Welling, M. (2020). A research agenda for hybrid intelligence: Augmenting human intellect with collaborative, adaptive, responsible, and explainable artificial intelligence. Computer, 53(8), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2020.2996587 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Akçayır, G., & Akçayır, M. (2018). The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages and challenges. Computers & Education, 126, 334–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.021 · DOI
  4. Almadhoob, A. H., Saleh, A. S. K., & Akbar, F. (2024). QuizWiz: Integrating generative artificial intelligence in an online study tool. In Proceedings of the 2024 7th International Conference on Big Data and Education (pp. 87–96). https://doi.org/10.1145/3704289.3704296 · DOI
  5. Anderson, J. R., Betts, S., Bothell, D., Hope, R., & Lebiere, C. (2019). Learning rapid and precise skills. Psychological review, 126(5), 727–760. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000152 · DOI
  6. Arastoopour, G., Shaffer, D. W., Swiecki, Z., Ruis, A. R., & Chesler, N. C. (2016). Teaching and assessing engineering design thinking with virtual internships and epistemic network analysis. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(3), 1492–1501. https://www.ijee.ie/contents/c320316B.html
  7. Azevedo, R., Bouchet, F., Duffy, M., Harley, J., Taub, M., Trevors, G., Cloude, E., Dever, D., Wiedbusch, M. D., Wortha, F., & Cerezo, R. (2022). Lessons learned and future directions of metatutor: Leveraging multichannel data to scaffold self-regulated learning with an intelligent tutoring system. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 813632. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.813632 · DOI
  8. Bachiri, Y. A., Mouncif, H., spsampsps Bouikhalene, B. (2023). Optimizing learning outcomes and retention in MOOCs with AI-generated flashcards. In International Conference on Smart Learning Environments (pp. 242–247). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5961-7_32 · DOI
  9. Backfisch, I., Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., Lachner, A., & Scheiter, K. (2021). Teachers’ technology use for teaching: Comparing two explanatory mechanisms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 104, 103390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103390 · DOI
  10. Bai, S., Gonda, D. E., & Hew, K. F. (2024). Write-curate-verify: A case study of leveraging generative AI for scenario writing in scenario-based learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2024.3378306 · DOI
  11. Banihashem, S. K., Kerman, N. T., Noroozi, O., Moon, J., & Drachsler, H. (2024). Feedback sources in essay writing: Peer-generated or AI-generated feedback?. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00455-4 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Bauer, E., Sailer, M., Niklas, F., Greiff, S., Sarbu‐Rothsching, S., Zottmann, J. M., ... & Fischer, F. (2025). AI‐based adaptive feedback in simulations for teacher education: An experimental replication in the field. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 41(1), e13123. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.13123 · DOI
  13. Bewersdorff, A., Hartmann, C., Hornberger, M., Seßler, K., Bannert, M., Kasneci, E., ... & Nerdel, C. (2025). Taking the next step with generative artificial intelligence: The transformative role of multimodal large language models in science education. Learning and Individual Differences, 118, 102601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102601 · DOI
  14. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470743386 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Breideband, T., Bush, J., Chandler, C., Chang, M., Dickler, R., Foltz, P., ... & D'Mello, S. (2023). The Community Builder (CoBi): Helping students to develop better small group collaborative learning skills. In Companion Publication of the 2023 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (pp. 376–380). https://doi.org/10.1145/3584931.3607498 · DOI
  16. Chernikova, O., Heitzmann, N., Fink, M. C., Timothy, V., Seidel, T., Fischer, F., & DFG Research group COSIMA. (2020). Facilitating diagnostic competences in higher education—A meta-analysis in medical and teacher education. Educational Psychology Review, 32(1), 157–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09492-2 · DOI
  17. Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Clark, R. E. (1994b). Media and Method. Educational Technology and Development, 42, 7–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02298090 · DOI
  19. Crompton, H. (2017). Moving toward a mobile learning landscape: Presenting a mlearning integration framework. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 14(2), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-02-2017-0018 · DOI
  20. Crossley, S., Choi, J. S., Morris, W., Holmes, L., Joyner, D., & Gupta, V. (2024). Using intelligent texts in a computer science classroom: Findings from an iTELL deployment. In Y. Shi, P. Brusilovsky, B. Akram, T. Price, J. Leinonen, K. Koedinger, & A. Lan (Eds.). Proceedings of the educational data mining in computer science education workshop 2024 (pp. 11–19). https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3796/CSEDM-24_paper_8293.pdf
  21. D’Mello, S. K., Duran, N., Michaels, A., & Stewart, A. E. (2024). Improving collaborative problem-solving skills via automated feedback and scaffolding: A quasi-experimental study with CPSCoach 2.0. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 34(4), 1087–1125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-023-09387-6 · DOI · Paper page
  22. D’Mello, S. K., spsampsps Graesser, A. (2023). Intelligent tutoring systems: How computers achieve learning gains that rival human tutors. In Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 603–629). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429433726 · DOI
  23. Dekel, A., Shechtman, S., Fernandez, R., Haws, D., Kons, Z., & Hoory, R. (2024). Speak while you think: Streaming speech synthesis during text generation. In ICASSP 2024–2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) (pp. 11931–11935). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP48485.2024.10446214 · DOI
  24. Delen, I., & Sen, S. (2023). Effect of design-based learning on achievement in K-12 education: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60(2), 330–356. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21800 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Deng, R., Jiang, M., Yu, X., Lu, Y., & Liu, S. (2025). Does ChatGPT enhance student learning? A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies. Computers & Education, 227, 105224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105224 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Du Boulay, B., Mitrovic, A., & Yacef, K. (Eds.). (2023). Handbook of artificial intelligence in education. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800375413 · DOI
  27. Du, H., Jia, Q., Gehringer, E., & Wang, X. (2024). Harnessing large language models to auto-evaluate the student project reports. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100268 · DOI
  28. Fink, M. C., Robinson, S. A., & Ertl, B. (2024). AI-based avatars are changing the way we learn and teach: Benefits and challenges. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1416307. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1416307 · DOI
  29. Fischer, F., Bauer, E., Seidel, T., Schmidmaier, R., Radkowitsch, A., Neuhaus, B. J., et al. (2022). Representational scaffolding in digital simulations—Learning professional practices in higher education. Information and Learning Sciences, 123(11/12), 645–665. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-06-2022-0076 · DOI
  30. Fütterer, T., Scherer, R., Scheiter, K., Stürmer, K., & Lachner, A. (2023). Will, skills, or conscientiousness: What predicts teachers’ intentions to participate in technology-related professional development?. Computers & Education, 198, 104756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104756 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Ghosh, S. (2024). Rehumanizing education in the age of technology. In Adarsh Garg, B V Babu, Valentina E. Balas (eds.) Advances in technological innovations in higher education: Theory and practices (pp. 1–15). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003376699 · DOI
  32. Graesser, A. C. (2015). Deeper learning with advances in discourse science and technology. Policy Insights from Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2, 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215600888 · DOI
  33. Graesser, A. C. (2016). Conversations with AutoTutor help students learn. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 124–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0086-4 · DOI
  34. Graesser, A. C., Forsyth, C. M., & Lehman, B. A. (2017). Two heads may be better than one: Learning from computer agents in conversational trialogues. Teachers College Record, 119(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811711900309 · DOI
  35. Graesser, A. C., Hu, X., Nye, B., & Sottilare, R. (2016). Intelligent tutoring systems, serious games, and the generalized intelligent framework for tutoring (GIFT). In H. F. O’Neil, E. L. Baker, and R. S. Perez (Eds.), Using games and simulation for teaching and assessment (pp. 58–79). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315817767 · DOI
  36. Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 104–137. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312031001104 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., Csapó, B., Demetriou, A., Hautamäki, J., Graesser, A. C., & Martin, R. (2014). Domain-general problem solving skills and education in the 21st century. Educational Research Review, (13), 74–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.10.002 · DOI
  38. Hicke, Y., Agarwal, A., Ma, Q., & Denny, P. (2023). AI-TA: Towards an intelligent question-answer teaching assistant using open-source LLMs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.02775. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.02775 · DOI
  39. Hicks, M. T., Humphries, J., & Slater, J. (2024). ChatGPT is bullshit. Ethics and Information Technology, 26(2), 38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Hoff, T. (2011). Deskilling and adaptation among primary care physicians using two work innovations. Health Care Management Review, 36(4), 338–348. https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0b013e31821826a1 · DOI
  41. Hofmann, V., Kalluri, P. R., Jurafsky, D., & King, S. (2024). Dialect prejudice predicts AI decisions about people’s character, employability, and criminality. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2403.00742. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.00742 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Holstein, K., Yu, Z., Sewall, J., Popescu, O., McLaren, B. M., spsampsps Aleven, V. (2018). Opening up an intelligent tutoring system development environment for extensible student modeling. In Artificial Intelligence in Education: 19th International Conference, AIED 2018, London, UK, June 27–30, 2018, Proceedings, Part I 19 (pp. 169–183). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93843-1_13 · DOI
  43. Huber, S. E., Kiili, K., Nebel, S., Ryan, R. M., Sailer, M., & Ninaus, M. (2024). Leveraging the potential of large language models in education through playful and game-based learning. Educational Psychology Review, 36(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09868-z · DOI · Paper page
  44. Hutt, S., & Hieb, G. (2024). Scaling up mastery learning with generative AI: Exploring how generative AI can assist in the generation and evaluation of mastery quiz questions. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale (pp. 310–314). https://doi.org/10.1145/3657604.3664699 · DOI
  45. Jivet, I., Scheffel, M., Drachsler, H., spsampsps Specht, M. (2017). Awareness is not enough: Pitfalls of learning analytics dashboards in the educational practice. In É. Lavoué, H. Drachsler, K. Verbert, J. Broisin, spsampsps M. Pérez-Sanagustín (Eds.), Data driven approaches in digital education (Vol. 10474, pp. 82–96). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66610-5_7 · DOI
  46. Kakar, S., Maiti, P., Taneja, K., Nandula, A., Nguyen, G., Zhao, A., ... spsampsps Goel, A. (2024). Jill Watson: scaling and deploying an AI conversational agent in online classrooms. In A. Sifaleras spsampsps F. Lin (Eds.). International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 78–90). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-63028-6_7 · DOI
  47. Kali, Y., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Designing effective visualizations for elementary school science. The Elementary School Journal, 109(2), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1086/590525 · DOI
  48. Knoop-van Campen, C. A. N., Wise, A., & Molenaar, I. (2023). The equalizing effect of teacher dashboards on feedback in K-12 classrooms. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(6), 3447–3463. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1931346 · DOI · Paper page
  49. Kolodner, J. L., Gray, J., & Fasse, B. B. (2003b). Promoting transfer through case-based reasoning: Rituals and practices in learning by design classrooms. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 3(2), 183–232.
  50. Kotek, H., Dockum, R., & Sun, D. (2023). Gender bias and stereotypes in large language models. In Proceedings of the ACM collective intelligence conference (pp. 12–24). https://doi.org/10.1145/3582269.3615599 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543061002179 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299087 · DOI
  53. Lachner, A., Backfisch, I., & Franke, U. (2024). Towards an integrated perspective of teachers’ technology integration: A preliminary model and future research directions. Frontline Learning Research, 12(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v12i1.1179 · DOI
  54. Leiker, D., Gyllen, A. R., Eldesouky, I., spsampsps Cukurova, M. (2023). Generative AI for learning: investigating the potential of learning videos with synthetic virtual instructors. In International conference on artificial intelligence in education (pp. 523–529). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36336-8_81 · DOI · Paper page
  55. Levy, J., Jotkowitz, A., & Chowers, I. (2019). Deskilling in ophthalmology is the inevitable controllable? Eye, 33(3), 347–348. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-018-0252-7 · DOI
  56. Lindner, A., Romeike, R., Jasute, E., & Pozdniakov, S. (2019). Teachers’ perspectives on artificial intelligence. In 12th International conference on informatics in schools,“Situation, evaluation and perspectives”, ISSEP.
  57. Liu, K., Tschinkel, R., & Miller, R. (2024). Digital equity and school leadership in a post-digital world. EECNU Review of Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311231224083 · DOI
  58. Mamede, S., & Schmidt, H. G. (2017). Reflection in medical diagnosis: A literature review. Health Professions Education, 3(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2017.01.003 · DOI
  59. Mascha, M. F., & Smedley, G. (2007). Can computerized decision aids do “damage”? A case for tailoring feedback and task complexity based on task experience. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 8(2), 73–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2007.03.001 · DOI
  60. Matcha, W., Uzir, N. A. A., Gašević, D., & Pardo, A. (2020). A systematic review of empirical studies on learning analytics dashboards: A self-regulated learning perspective. IEEE transactions on learning technologies, 13(2), 226–245. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2019.2916802 · DOI
  61. May, T. A., Fan, Y. K., Stone, G. E., Koskey, K. L., Sondergeld, C. J., Folger, T. D., ... & Johnson, C. C. (2025). An effectiveness study of generative artificial intelligence tools used to develop multiple-choice test items. Education Sciences, 15(2), 144. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020144 · DOI
  62. Meyer, L., & Dannecker, A. (2024). Comparative analysis of generative AI models in educational exercise performance. In EDULEARN24 Proceedings (pp. 5181–5190). https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2024.1273 · DOI
  63. Miller, C., & Bartlett, J. (2012). 'Digital fluency': Towards young people's critical use of the internet. Journal of Information Literacy, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.11645/6.2.1714 · DOI
  64. Nazar, A. M., Selim, M. Y., Gaffar, A., & Ahmed, S. (2024). Revolutionizing undergraduate learning: CourseGPT and Its Generative AI Advancements. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.18310. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.18310 · DOI
  65. Netland, T., von Dzengelevski, O., Tesch, K., & Kwasnitschka, D. (2025). Comparing human-made and AI-generated teaching videos: An experimental study on learning effects. Computers & Education, 224, 105164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105164 · DOI
  66. Ninaus, M., & Sailer, M. (2022). Closing the loop–The human role in artificial intelligence for education. Frontiers in psychology, 13, 956798. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.956798 · DOI
  67. Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6 · DOI · Paper page
  68. Perković, G., Drobnjak, A., & Botički, I. (2024). Hallucinations in LLMs: Understanding and Addressing Challenges. In 2024 47th MIPRO ICT and Electronics Convention (MIPRO) (pp. 2084–2088). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIPRO60963.2024.10569238 · DOI
  69. NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine), 2018. How people learn II: Learners, contexts, and cultures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24783 · DOI
  70. Rafner, J., Dellermann, D., Hjorth, A., Verasztó, D., Kampf, C., Mackay, W., & Sherson, J. (2021). Deskilling, upskilling, and reskilling: A case for hybrid intelligence. Morals & Machines, 1(2), 24–39. https://doi.org/10.5771/2747-5174-2021-2 · DOI
  71. Rus, V., Olney, A. M., & Graesser, A. C. (2023). Deeper learning through interactions with students in natural language. Handbook of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 250–272. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800375413.00021 · DOI
  72. Sailer, M., Maier, R., Berger, S., Kastorff, T., & Stegmann, K. (2024a). Learning activities in technology-enhanced learning: A systematic review of meta-analyses and second-order meta-analysis in higher education. Learning and Individual Differences, 112, 102446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102446 · DOI
  73. Sailer, M., Ninaus, M., Huber, S. E., Bauer, E., & Greiff, S. (2024b). The end is the beginning is the end: The closed-loop learning analytics framework. Computers in Human Behavior, 108305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108305 · DOI
  74. Sailer, M., Schultz-Pernice, F., & Fischer, F. (2021). Contextual facilitators for learning activities involving technology in higher education: The C♭-model. Computers in Human Behavior, 121, 106794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106794 · DOI
  75. Salomon, G. (1979). Interaction of Media, Cognition, and Learning. Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203052945 · DOI
  76. Schmucker, R., Xia, M., Azaria, A., Mitchell, T. (2024). Ruffle spsampspsRiley: Insights from designing and evaluating a large language model-based conversational tutoring System. In A. M. Olney, I. A. Chounta, Z. Liu, O. C. Santos, spsampsps I. I. Bittencourt (Eds.) Artificial Intelligence in Education. AIED 2024. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-64302-6_6 · DOI
  77. Sommerhoff, D., Codreanu, E., Nickl, M., Ufer, S., & Seidel, T. (2023). Pre-service teachers’ learning of diagnostic skills in a video-based simulation: Effects of conceptual vs. interconnecting prompts on judgment accuracy and the diagnostic process. Learning and Instruction, 83, 101689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101689 · DOI
  78. Spector, J. M., & Ma, S. (2019). Inquiry and critical thinking skills for the next generation: From artificial intelligence back to human intelligence. Smart Learning Environments, 6(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-019-0088-z · DOI
  79. Strelan, P., Osborn, A., & Palmer, E. (2020). The flipped classroom: A meta-analysis of effects on student performance across disciplines and education levels. Educational Research Review, 30, 100314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100314 · DOI · Paper page
  80. Sutton, S. G., Arnold, V., & Holt, M. (2018). How much automation is too much? Keeping the human relevant in knowledge work. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 15(2), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.2308/jeta-52311 · DOI
  81. UNESCO (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023: Technology in education-a tool on whose terms?. UN. https://doi.org/10.54676/UZQV8501 · DOI
  82. Van Gog, T., & Rummel, N. (2010). Example-based learning: Integrating cognitive and social-cognitive research perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9134-7 · DOI
  83. Viberg, O., Cukurova, M., Feldman-Maggor, Y., Alexandron, G., Shirai, S., Kanemune, S., ... & Kizilcec, R. F. (2023). Teachers’ trust and perceptions of AI in education: The role of culture and AI self-efficacy in six countries. arXiv e-prints, arXiv-2312. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.01627 · DOI
  84. Vogt, K., & Flindt, N. (2023). Artificial intelligence and the future of language teacher education: A critical review of the use of AI tools in the foreign language classroom. The future of Teacher Education: Innovations across Pedagogies, Technologies and Societies, 179–199. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004678545_008 · DOI
  85. Williams, R., Kaputsos, S. P., & Breazeal, C. (2021). Teacher perspectives on how to train your robot: A middle school AI and ethics curriculum. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 35, No. 17, pp. 15678–15686). https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v35i17.17847 · DOI
  86. Xhakaj, F., Aleven, V., spsampsps McLaren, B. M. (2017). Effects of a dashboard for an intelligent tutoring system on teacher knowledge, lesson plans and class sessions. In E. Andr´e, R. Baker, X. Hu, M. M. T. Rodrigo, spsampsps B. Du Boulay (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education (Vol. 10331, pp. 582–585). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61425-0_69 · DOI
  87. Xu, T., Liu, Y., Jin, Y., Qu, Y., Bai, J., Zhang, W., & Zhou, Y. (2024). From recorded to AI‐generated instructional videos: A comparison of learning performance and experience. British Journal of Educational Technology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13530 · DOI
  88. Yeh, Y. F., Chan, K. K. H., & Hsu, Y. S. (2021). Toward a framework that connects individual TPACK and collective TPACK: A systematic review of TPACK studies investigating teacher collaborative discourse in the learning by design process. Computers & education, 171, 104238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104238 · DOI
  89. Zapata-Rivera, D., spsampsps Arslan, B. (2024). Learner modeling interpretability and explainability in intelligent adaptive systems. In Mind, Body, and Digital Brains (pp. 95–109). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-58363-6_7 · DOI
  90. Zhang, L., Lin, J., Kuang, Z., Xu, S., Yeasin, M., & Hu, X. (2024). SPL: A socratic playground for learning powered by large language mode. arXiv preprint . arXiv:2406.13919. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.13919 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bauer, E., Greiff, S., Graesser, A. C., Scheiter, K., & Sailer, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Augsburg (DE)
  • Technical University of Munich (DE)
  • University of Memphis (US)
  • University of Potsdam (DE)
Corresponding author
Bauer, Elisabeth
Venue
Educational Psychology Review
Published
2025-04-24
Volume
37
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 1040-726X (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-336X
OpenAlex
W4409772554
Cited by
153
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 126 · 2025: 27
FWCI
158.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Educational Psychology Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • US Army DEVCOM Soldier Center (W912CG-24-2-0001)
  • Institute of Education Sciences of the US Department of Education (R305A200413, R305T240021)
  • Universität Augsburg
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
artificial intelligence in education, AI-assisted learning, cognitive processes in learning, inversion effect, substitution effect, AI literacy, overreliance on AI, deep learning, teaching implementation, digital learning technologies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-06.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review