PreprintCited by 15Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningArtificial Intelligence in EducationInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

How Students Use AI Feedback Matters: Experimental Evidence on Physics Achievement and Autonomy

Open access
Dai, Xusheng, Wen, Zhaochun, Jiang, Jianxiao, Liu, Huiqin, Zhang, Yu·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Despite the precision and adaptiveness of generative AI (GAI)-powered feedback provided to students, existing practice and literature might ignore how usage patterns impact student learning. This study examines the heterogeneous effects of GAI-powered personalized feedback on high school students' physics achievement and autonomy through two randomized controlled trials, with a major focus on usage patterns. Each experiment lasted for five weeks, involving a total of 387 students. Experiment 1 (n = 121) assessed compulsory usage of the personalized recommendation system, revealing that low-achieving students significantly improved academic performance (d = 0.673, p < 0.05) when receiving AI-generated heuristic solution hints, whereas medium-achieving students' performance declined (d = -0.539, p < 0.05) with conventional answers provided by workbook. Notably, high-achieving students experienced a significant decline in self-regulated learning (d = -0.477, p < 0.05) without any significant gains in achievement. Experiment 2 (n = 266) investigated the usage pattern of autonomous on-demand help, demonstrating that fully learner-controlled AI feedback significantly enhanced academic performance for high-achieving students (d = 0.378, p < 0.05) without negatively impacting their autonomy. However, autonomy notably declined among lower achievers exposed to on-demand AI interventions (d = -0.383, p < 0.05), particularly in the technical-psychological dimension (d = -0.549, p < 0.05), which has a large overlap with self-regulation. These findings underscore the importance of usage patterns when applying GAI-powered personalized feedback to students.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2505.08672

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • In Dai et al. (2025), effects on the unassisted end-of-term physics exam were small and insignificant in all three AI arms relative to no-intervention controls (0.03-0.21 SD).

    “Effects on the unassisted end-of-term physics exam are small and insignificant in all three AI arms relative to no-intervention controls (0.03-0.21 SD).”

    From Experimental Evidence on the Learning Impact of Generative AI (2026) · cites this paper as Dai et al. (2025)

    Sections 4.1.3 and 4.2.3 report no statistically significant full-sample achievement effect for the AI-feedback interventions, and section 3.2.4 identifies the outcome as the end-of-term exam. The available passages do not establish the stated 0.03–0.21 SD range or explicitly say the exam was unassisted. The paper also reports a significant effect for one achievement subgroup, though that does not contradict the claim about overall effects. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

14 of the 60 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. Admiraal, W., Lockhorst, D., Post, L., & Kester, L. (2024). Effects of students' autonomy support on their self-regulated learning strategies: Three field experiments in secondary education. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 10(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.3343 · DOI
  2. Alshammari, M., & Alshammari, T. (2023). Artificial intelligence in smart classrooms: An inves- tigative learning process for high school. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 14(11), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2023.0141101 · DOI
  3. Bastani, H., Bastani, O., Sungu, A., Ge, H., Kabakcı, Ö., & Mariman, R. (2024). Generative AI can harm learning. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4895486 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bloom, B. S. (1971). Mastery learning. In J. H. Block (Ed.), Mastery learning: Theory and practice (pp. 47-63). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  5. Boyraz, S., Serin, N. B., & Bilge, F. (2016). The influence of student self-regulatory learning strategies on academic achievement. International Journal of Academic Research in Education, 2(1), 1-10.
  6. Cheng, Y., Guan, R., Li, T., Raković, M., Li, X., Fan, Y., Jin, F., Tsai, Y.-S., Gašević, D., & Swiecki, Z. (2024). Self-regulated learning processes in secondary education: A network analysis of trace-based measures. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.08921 · arXiv
  7. Fajardo, J. E., & Pantoja, M. (2019). Effect of the Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD) cooperative learning method on mathematics performance in high school students: A meta-analysis. Education Research International, 2019, Article 1462179. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1462179 · DOI
  8. Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
  9. Lai, F. Q. (2015). Adaptive vs. adaptable learning systems. In J. M. Spector (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educational technology (Vol. 1, pp. 748-751). SAGE Publications.
  10. Legge, J. (Trans.). (1967). The Lî Kî (Book of Rites) (Vol. 1). Dover Publications. (Original work published ca. 1st century BCE)
  11. Luckin, R. (2018). Machine Learning and Human Intelligence. The future of education for the 21st century. UCL institute of education press.
  12. Nelsen, P. (2016). Autonomy and education. In G. W. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.173 · DOI
  13. Nguyen, T. T., & Tran, Q. T. (2024). A comprehensive study on factors influencing on- line impulse buying behavior among Generation Z consumers. Scientific Reports, 14, 12345. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-12345-6 · DOI
  14. Oguguo, B. C. E., Agah, J. J., Ezechukwu, R. I., Obikwelu, L. C., Victor, O. N., Aneshie-Otakpa, V. O., Okwara, V. C., Adie, I. I., & Ocheni, C. A. (2022). Impact of self-regulated learning, autonomy and agency on undergraduates' achievement in research method exposed to online learning. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(4), 9189-9199. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371043171
  15. Orakci, Ş., & Gelisli, Y. (2017). Learner autonomy scale: A scale development study. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(4), 25-35. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1156953.pdf
  16. Pandey, A., Hale, D., Das, S., Goddings, A. L., Blakemore, S. J., & Viner, R. M. (2018). Effectiveness of universal self-regulation-based interventions in children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 172(6), 566-575. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.0232 · DOI
  17. Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(2), 95-103. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045357 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Selwyn, N. (2016). Is technology good for education?. John Wiley & Sons.
  19. Seo, K., et al. (2024). The effects of over-reliance on AI dialogue systems on stu- dents' critical cognitive capabilities. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1), Article 316. https://slejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Shandilya, B., & Palmer, A. (2025). Boosting the capabilities of compact models in low-data contexts with large language models and retrieval-augmented generation. In O. Rambow, L. Wanner, M. Apidianaki, H. Al-Khalifa, B. Di Eugenio, & S. Schockaert (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Interna- tional Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 7470-7483). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/2025.coling-main.499/
  21. Smith, J. A., & Doe, R. B. (2023, March 15). Innovations in renewable energy technologies. Journal of Sustainable Energy, 12(3), 45-60. https://doi.org/10.1234/jse.2023.003 · DOI
  22. Stokhof, H. J. M., De Vries, B., Bastiaens, T., & Martens, R. (2017). How to guide effective student questioning? A review of teacher guidance in primary education. Review of Education, 5(2), 123-165. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3089 · DOI
  23. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  24. Weierstraß, K.: 1967, Ñber die sokratische Lehrmethode und deren Anwendbarkeit beim Schu- lunterrichte. In: K. Weierstraß, Mathematische Werke, vol. 3, Reprint, Hildesheim: Olms, pp. 315-329.
  25. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (2011). Self-regulated learning and academic achieve- ment: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dai, X., Wen, Z., Jiang, J., Liu, H., & Zhang, Y.
Affiliations
Tsinghua University (CN)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4415198012
Cited by
2
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
AI-generated feedback, personalized feedback, physics achievement, student independence, student self-regulation, usage patterns, high school students, personalized recommendation systems, low-achieving students

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