Cited by 55Artificial Intelligence in EducationEducational Technology and PedagogyArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Can Generative Artificial Intelligence be a Good Teaching Assistant?—An Empirical Analysis Based on Generative AI ‐Assisted Teaching

Tang, Qianwen, Deng, Wenbo, Huang, Yidan, Wang, Shuaijie, Zhang, Hao·2025·Journal of Computer Assisted Learning

Abstract

Background: Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) shows promise in enhancing personalised learning and improving educational efficiency. However, its integration into education raises concerns about misinformation and over‐reliance, particularly among adolescents. Teacher supervision plays a critical role in mitigating these risks and ensuring the effective use of Generative AI in classrooms. Despite the growing interest in Generative AI, there is limited empirical research on its actual impact and the role of teacher oversight. Objective: The purpose of this study is to systematically assess the role of Generative AI in classroom teaching, with a specific focus on how teacher supervision shapes its effectiveness. Method: This study employed a quasi‐experimental design to examine differences in learning outcomes among students under three instructional methods: traditional computer‐assisted teaching, Generative AI‐assisted teaching without teacher supervision and Generative AI‐assisted teaching with teacher supervision. The study was implemented in the context of a two‐week Information Science and Technology course in a middle school, involving three classes with 45, 41 and 45 students, respectively. To ensure consistency in teaching styles, all classes were taught by the same experienced teacher. Data collection included a knowledge test to assess knowledge mastery, as well as questionnaires to measure learning satisfaction and engagement. The collected data were analysed using one‐way ANOVA to compare the effectiveness of the three teaching methods. Results and Conclusion: Compared with traditional computer‐assisted teaching, Generative AI‐assisted teaching can significantly enhance students' learning satisfaction, but can not improve their learning engagement and knowledge mastery level. Furthermore, in the process of Generative AI‐assisted teaching, teacher supervision can significantly increase students' learning engagement and knowledge mastery compared with situations without teacher supervision. This study indicated Generative AI's potential as an educational tool and underscored the essential role of teacher supervision. Implications: This study fills a critical gap by providing empirical evidence on how Generative AI and teacher supervision interact to improve classroom learning outcomes. It shows that Generative AI's potential to enhance learning outcomes is significantly amplified with teacher oversight.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jcal.70027

Cites

119 of 119 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Christopher B., 2024, Fostering Critical Thinking in the AI Era: Innovative Educational Approaches for a Data‐Driven Society
  2. Constantin C., 2009, The Impact of the Current Technologies on the Youth's Personalities Development, Journal of Educational Sciences & Psychology, 61, 1
  3. Gallent Torres C., 2023, The Impact of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: A Focus on Ethics and Academic Integrity, RELIEVE ‐ Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa, 29, 1
  4. Prothero A., 2023, How Students Use AI vs. How Teachers Think They Use It, in Charts, Education Week

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tang, Q., Deng, W., Huang, Y., Wang, S., & Zhang, H.
Affiliations
  • Yangzhou University (CN)
  • East China Normal University (CN)
Corresponding author
Zhang, Hao
Venue
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2025-05-05
Volume
41
Issue
3
ISSN
  • 0266-4909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2729
OpenAlex
W4410134888
Cited by
55
References
115
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 13
FWCI
57.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Educational Technology and Pedagogy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
generative AI, teacher supervision, AI in teaching, computer-assisted instruction, learning outcomes, knowledge mastery, student engagement, learning satisfaction, junior high school students, misinformation risk, overreliance on AI

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.

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