How Students Use AI Feedback Matters: Experimental Evidence on Physics Achievement and Autonomy
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01 · Cited by 34,210 · cited 2× · see citing works
“When learners perceive autonomy in their educational environment, they are more likely to exhibit intrinsic motivation, leading to deeper engagement and improved learning outcomes (Deci & Ryan, 2000).”
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1 · Cited by 6,887 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Instead, it offered fundamental conceptual principles, contextual analysis, and directional suggestions for problem-solving attempts, thereby providing optimal scaffolding for independent learning (Kirschner et al., 2006).”
John-Alder, K. (2019) · Ian McHarg and the Search for Ideal Order · doi:10.4324/9781315545639-2 · Cited by 6,051 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…in the domain of STEM knowledge and skill learning, where direct measurements of students’ self-reported autonomy have similarly indicated, consistent with Darvishi et al. (2024), that AI-provided learning scaffolds may enhance academic performance while concurrently diminishing learner autonomy.”
The Role of Goal Orientation in Self-Regulated Learning
Pintrich, P. R. (2000) · Handbook of Self-Regulation · doi:10.1016/b978-012109890-2/50043-3 · Cited by 5,173 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…Zimmerman’s cyclical model, Pintrich’s self-regulation framework, and Winne and Hadwin’s information processing model, emphasize the dynamic nature of SRL, highlighting its role in goal setting, self-monitoring, and feedback-based adjustments (Zimmerman, 2011; Pintrich, 2000; Winne & Hadwin, 1998).”
Chain-Of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models
Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q. V., & Zhou, D. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-1800 · Cited by 4,505 · cited 1× · see citing works
“These principles were explicitly integrated into the workflow’s prompts, and chain-of-thought examples (Wei et al., 2022) were provided for agent training and reference.”
Teaching and Researching: Autonomy in Language Learning
Benson, P. (2013) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315833767 · Cited by 2,159 · see citing works
Cognitive Tutors: Lessons Learned
Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0402_2 · Cited by 1,982 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Similarly, Anderson et al. (1995) developed Cognitive Tutors based on the ACT theory, which provided students with step-by-step hints during problem-solving tasks.”
Studying as Self-Regulated Learning
(1998) · Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice · doi:10.4324/9781410602350-19 · Cited by 1,589 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…Zimmerman’s cyclical model, Pintrich’s self-regulation framework, and Winne and Hadwin’s information processing model, emphasize the dynamic nature of SRL, highlighting its role in goal setting, self-monitoring, and feedback-based adjustments (Zimmerman, 2011; Pintrich, 2000; Winne & Hadwin, 1998).”
Artificial Intelligence in Education: A Systematic Literature Review
Wang, S., Wang, F., Zhu, Z., Wang, J., Tran, T., & Du, Z. (2024) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124167 · Cited by 977 · see citing works
The analects of Confucius : a philosophical translation
Ames, R. T., & Rosemont, J. (1999) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.36-3846 · Cited by 743 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Therefore, whether considering the potential benefits or risks, it is crucial to adopt a rational and clearly bounded perspective when assessing the impact of GAI on education and learning.”
A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy
Sih, P. K. T. (1964) · Journal of Asian Studies · doi:10.2307/2050770 · Cited by 687
McClelland, M. M., & Cameron, C. E. (2011) · Child Development Perspectives · doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00191.x · Cited by 660 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…these models share a common focus on the interplay between cognition, motivation, and behavioral control as key components of SRL. Self-regulation is regarded as a crucial ability fostering both short-term academic success and long-term developmental achievements (McClelland & Cameron, 2012).”
Help Seeking and Help Design in Interactive Learning Environments
Aleven, V., Stahl, E., Schworm, S., Fischer, F., & Wallace, R. (2003) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543073003277 · Cited by 609 · cited 1× · see citing works
“(Aleven et al., 2003).”
Huang, A. Y. Q., Lu, O. H. T., & Yang, S. J. H. (2023) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104684 · Cited by 605 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In a flipped classroom context, Huang et al. (2023) applied AI-enabled personalized video recommendations for 43 college students studying systems programming and compared their outcomes with 59 control participants; results indicated that personalized recommendations significantly enhanced…”
Impact of AI assistance on student agency
Darvishi, A., Khosravi, H., Sadiq, S., Gašević, D., & Siemens, G. (2024) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104967 · Cited by 548 · cited 3× · see citing works
“Such evidence resonates with concerns raised by Stadler et al. (2024) and Darvishi et al. (2024), who caution that GAI-powered cognitive scaffolds diminish deep thinking and agency.”
Does ChatGPT enhance student learning? A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies
Deng, R., Jiang, M., Yu, X., Lu, Y., & Liu, S. (2025) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105224 · Cited by 531 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Moreover, existing studies often adopt a limited practical approach, primarily facilitating direct interactions between students and Chat-GPT without systematically exploring well designed learning systems underpinned by pedagogical frameworks and empowered by GAI (Deng et al., 2025).”
Promises and challenges of generative artificial intelligence for human learning
Yan, L., Greiff, S., Teuber, Z., & Gašević, D. (2024) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-024-02004-5 · Cited by 499 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In the context of widespread adoption of GAI for on-demand help in education, research into the educational impacts and underlying mechanisms of GAI-based intelligent learning systems has become critically important (Yan et al., 2024).”
Worked-out examples: Instructional explanations support learning by self-explanations
Renkl, A. (2002) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/s0959-4752(01)00030-5 · Cited by 452 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Renkl (2002) conducted an experimental study with 60 participants to compare the effects of instructional explanations versus prompting self-explanations, finding that the latter led to better learning outcomes.”
García‐Martínez, I., Fernández‐Batanero, J. M., Cerero, J. F., & León, S. P. (2023) · Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research · doi:10.7821/naer.2023.1.1240 · Cited by 384 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Driven by the rapid development of generative artificial intelligence (GAI), numerous technological innovations have emerged to enrich K–12 education, particularly in STEM domains where robust logical reasoning and sophisticated pedagogical design are essential (García-Martínez et al., 2023).”
An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment?
Kant, I. (2019) · What Is Enlightenment? · doi:10.1525/9780520916890-005 · Cited by 339 · cited 1×
“These contemporary understanding of autonomy aligns with the philosophical perspective wherein moral agency arises from individuals acting according to principles they have rationally chosen for themselves (Kant, 1992).”
Hsu, C.-K., Hwang, G.-J., & Chang, C.-K. (2013) · Comput. Educ. · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.004 · Cited by 298 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Hsu et al. (2013) found that recommending reading materials aligned with students’ proficiency significantly reduced cognitive load.”
Stadler, M., Bannert, M., & Sailer, M. (2024) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2024.108386 · Cited by 262 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Such evidence resonates with concerns raised by Stadler et al. (2024) and Darvishi et al. (2024), who caution that GAI-powered cognitive scaffolds diminish deep thinking and agency.”
Maier, U., & Klotz, C. (2022) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100080 · Cited by 218 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The usage patterns reflect pedagogy and rules of student learning in nature, while most studies only focus on the precision and adaptiveness of contents (Maier & Klotz, 2022).”
The Development and Validation of the Goal Orientation and Learning Strategies Survey (Goals-S)
Dowson, M. N., & McInerney, D. M. (2004) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/0013164403251335 · Cited by 207 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Autonomy Experiment 1 used a 15-item SRL questionnaire developed by Dowson and McInerney (2004) as instrument for autonomy.”
Towards intelligent E-learning systems
Liu, M.-C., & Yu, D.-M. (2022) · Education and Information Technologies : Official Journal of the IFIP technical committee on Education · doi:10.1007/s10639-022-11479-6 · Cited by 205 · cited 1× · see citing works
“EPR borrows this logic by using instructional preferences and diagnostic data on learning conditions to recommend content or activities that are considered most beneficial for learners’ development (Zhang & Wang, 2022).”
Computer-supported example-based learning: When instructional explanations reduce self-explanations
Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2006) · Comput. Educ. · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.08.011 · Cited by 198 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Furthermore, Schworm and Renkl (2006) found that in computer-supported example-based learning, providing instructional explanations could reduce students’ self-explanation activities, potentially impairing learning.”
The demand-driven learning model: A framework for Web-based learning
MacDonald, C., Stodel, E., Farres, L. G., Breithaupt, K., & Gabriel, M. A. (2001) · Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/s1096-7516(01)00045-8 · Cited by 174 · see citing works
Lawrence, S. (1995) · doi:10.1021/ed072p764.3 · Cited by 163
Wang, Q., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2009) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01331.x · Cited by 156 · see citing works
Recommender systems to support learners’ Agency in a Learning Context: a systematic review
Deschênes, M. (2020) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-020-00219-w · Cited by 85 · cited 2× · see citing works
“In the era when GAI significantly enhances the capabilities of EPR, it is especially important to examine its comprehensive effects on learners’ academic achievement and autonomy, given their rapid growth and increasing practical influence.”
Measuring Language Learner Autonomy: Problems and Possibilities
Murase, F. (2015) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/9781137414380_3 · Cited by 55 · cited 2× · see citing works
“The social dimension examines students’ tendency to form interdependent learning relationships with those around them, including their inclination to communicate with, seek support from, and compare themselves to their teachers and classmates (Murase, 2015).”
Three ways ChatGPT helps me in my academic writing
Gruda, D. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-024-01042-3 · Cited by 53 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In professional contexts, Gruda (2024) demonstrated ChatGPT’s effectiveness in professional writing assistance.”
Measures for recommendations based on past students' activity
Huptych, M., Bohuslavek, M., Hlosta, M., & Zdráhal, Z. (2017) · International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge · doi:10.1145/3027385.3027426 · Cited by 49
Analyzing the Impact of AI Tools on Student Study Habits and Academic Performance
Ward, B., Bhati, D., Neha, F., & Guercio, A. (2025) · 2025 IEEE 15th Annual Computing and Communication Workshop and Conference (CCWC) · doi:10.1109/ccwc62904.2025.10903692 · Cited by 48 · cited 2× · see citing works
“For example, Ward et al. (2024) found that the use of AI tools improved academic performance among students by enhancing study habits, time management, and feedback mechanisms.”
Tools or Fools: Are We Educating Managers or Creating Tool-Dependent Robots?
Hyde, S. J., Busby, A., & Bonner, R. L. (2024) · Organizational Behavior Teaching Review · doi:10.1177/10525629241230357 · Cited by 39 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Some scholars have cautioned that extensive reliance on AI tools may foster technical dependency and undermine independent thinking and metacognitive monitoring (Hyde et al, 2024), yet rigorous, long-term investigations of these potential risks remain scarce.”
Stokhof, H., de Vries, B., Martens, R., & Bastiaens, T. (2017) · doi:10.1002/rev3.3090 · Cited by 35
Tsai, C., Lee, T.-H., & Shen, P. (2013) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2012.760873 · Cited by 34 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In the field of STEM learning, students who develop SRL skills perform better on immediate tasks, such as problem-solving and computational thinking, and retain these skills over time, improving their ability to adapt and succeed in complex academic tasks (Tsai et al., 2013).”
Drissi, S., Chefrour, A., Boussaha, K., & Zarzour, H. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12477-6 · Cited by 32 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Extending the application to mobile learning environments, Drissi et al. (2024) developed GAMOLEAF, a gamified mobile learning framework for teaching Java data structures during COVID-19, and showed through a three-group comparison (N=90) that the integration of both gamification and personalized…”
A Systematic Review of Studies Exploring Help-Seeking Strategies in Online Learning Environments
Yang, F., & Stefaniak, J. (2023) · Online Learning · doi:10.24059/olj.v27i1.3400 · Cited by 27 · cited 1× · see citing works
“This capability facilitates in-depth exploration of help-related behaviors and the underlying learning mechanisms (Yang and Stefaniak, 2023).”
Personalized Recommendation in the Adaptive Learning System: The Role of Adaptive Testing Technology
Dai, J., Gu, X., & Zhu, J. (2022) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/07356331221127303 · Cited by 20 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Additionally, Dai et al. (2023) explored the role of adaptive testing technology in personalized recommendations for junior middle school students, revealing that recommending slightly more challenging content based on learner ability profiles significantly enhanced students’ scores and learning…”
Pratiwi, H., Riwanda, A., Hasruddin, H., Sujarwo, S., & Syamsudin, A. (2025) · Journal of Pedagogical Research · doi:10.33902/jpr.202531677 · Cited by 19
Du, J., Hew, K. F., & Li, L. (2023) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci13040400 · Cited by 16 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Building on the usage pattern categorization proposed by Du et al (2023) and Lai (2015), two primary AI-powered pedagogies in personalized learning were distinguished: (a) adaptive learning or personalized recommendation—wherein the system proactively creates learning pathways or resources based on…”
Zheng, S.-X., & Han, M. (2024) · Journal of Infrastructure Policy and Development · doi:10.24294/jipd10274 · Cited by 13
A New Web-Based Personalized Learning System Improves Student Learning Outcomes
Sancenón, V., Wijaya, K., Wen, X. Y. S., Utama, D. A., Ashworth, M. J., Ng, K. H., Cheong, A., & Neo, Z. (2022) · International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments · doi:10.4018/ijvple.295306 · Cited by 13 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Sancenon et al. (2022) conducted a randomized controlled trial with 43 Singaporean primary school students, implementing an adaptive recommendation system that customized worksheets based on learning analytics, and found that personalized content delivery significantly improved academic performance.”
Du, J., Hew, K. F., & Zhang, L. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12867-w · Cited by 10 · cited 10× · see citing works
“For SRL, Du et al. (2024) recruited 81 graduate students from an online course and employed a three-cycle design-based research approach to develop a recommender system for promoting SRL.”
InfluentialDevelopment and validation of the Self-Regulated Translation Learning Strategy Scale (SRTLSS)
Wen, J., Zhang, J., Yang, Y., & Cai, Y. (2023) · Studies In Educational Evaluation · doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2023.101292 · Cited by 9 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In terms of measurements, numerous tools have been developed for SRL, including questionnaires, interviews, think-aloud protocols, and online-based assessment systems (Wen et al., 2023).”
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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Bloom, B. S. (1971). Mastery learning. In J. H. Block (Ed.), Mastery learning: Theory and practice (pp. 47-63). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
- 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.
- Legge, J. (Trans.). (1967). The Lî Kî (Book of Rites) (Vol. 1). Dover Publications. (Original work published ca. 1st century BCE)
- Luckin, R. (2018). Machine Learning and Human Intelligence. The future of education for the 21st century. UCL institute of education press.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Selwyn, N. (2016). Is technology good for education?. John Wiley & Sons.
- 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
- 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/
- 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
- 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
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- 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.
- 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
Sirnoorkar, A., & Rebello, N. (2025) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.08516 · Cited by 6
“[24] observed that mandated versus on-demand use of AI feedback by high school students had varied influences on their academic performance.”
Hao, Z.-X., Jiang, J.-X., Yu, J.-F., Liu, Z.-Y., & Zhang, Y. (2025) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.01694 · Cited by 6
“For instance, Dai et al. (2025) found that only students at the highest and lowest achievement levels had significant gains from the AI–assisted physics tutoring, while those in the middle level did not benefit equivalently.”
Self-citationA Meta-Analysis of LLM Effects on Students across Qualification, Socialisation, and Subjectification
Huang, J.-Y., Wang, R., Liu, J.-H., Xia, B., Huang, Y., Sun, R., Xue, M., & Zou, J. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.22725 · Cited by 5
“Designs that put learners in control, such as tutor-like systems that hold back the final answer and ask for justification, or workflows with plan–revise cycles and reflective journals, tend to show stronger signals of self-regulation and ownership [92, 76, 83].”
Inteligencia artificial Generativa y competencias académicas: aproximación a un modelo estructural
Cantero, J. M. M., Moreira, E. L., Carballo, J. S., & Espiñeira-Bellón, E.-M. (2026) · RELIEVE - Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa · doi:10.30827/relieve.v32i1.37332 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“Ward et al. (2024) señalan que la retroalimentación generada por IAG puede mejorar los hábitos de estudio, y Dai et al. (2025) indican que, cuando se implementa adecuadamente, favorece la autorregulación y el aprendizaje adaptativo.”
Student Development Agent: Risk-free Simulation for Evaluating AIED Innovations
Jiang, J.-X., & Zhang, Y. (2025) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.09183 · Cited by 1
“Notable research include simulating users in human-computer interaction (J. Wang & Fan, 2025; Xiang et al., 2024), and social simulations in social science (Park et al., 2023, 2024; X. Zhang et al., 2025).”
Self-citationExperimental Evidence on the Learning Impact of Generative AI
Contractor, Z., & Reyes, G. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.08849
Clarke, S. (2026) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-026-01419-2
“While stronger empirical evidence would be required to establish causality, participant responses suggest that the interactive format supports ownership of the decision-making process [19] and reinforces the principle that responsibility for ethical judgement ultimately remains with the educator.”
Paulson, M., George, J. P., & Yadav, J. (2026) · 2026 International Conference on Next-Gen Intelligent Computing and Applications (ICONICA) · doi:10.1109/iconica70605.2026.11736619
“Such non-linear relation, where High level of integration did not directly interpret into highest gains, has been studied by Dai et al. [6].”
Riaz, M., & Shoaib, A. (2026) · Kashmir Journal of Academic Research and Development · doi:10.71317/kjard.2.7.2026.215
“However, their effectiveness could be compromised by challenges such as technical limitations, digital literacy deficits, and over-reliance on technology (Dai et al., 2025).”
Avrilia, D., & Wulandari, W. (2026) · JGK (Jurnal Guru Kita) · doi:10.24114/jgk.v10.i3.74273
“Nonetheless, Dai et al. (2025) warned that over-reliance on AI could reduce students learning independence.”
Kubsch, M. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.16822
“…with it: given the same AI on demand, use split by prior achievement, the lowest achievers disengaging from it while the highest turned it to gain (Dai et al., 2025), though the same trial found that pairing compulsory use with hints helped the lowest achievers most, so the divergence tracks the…”
InfluentialTacpAgent: Enhancing Student Engagement in Classroom Exercises Through LLM-Generated Feedback
Zhang, W.-L., Zhu, J., Yang, X., Shi, W.-J., Cui, Y., Dai, X.-L., & Sun, J. (2026) · AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v40i48.42127
“However, the efficacy and practical value of these LLM-based solutions in operational, real-world classrooms, especially under the typical constraints of daily instruction, have not yet been sufficiently explored by empirical work(Dai et al. 2025).”
Self-citationSantia, S., Andriyaningsih, A., & Sutawan, K. (2025) · TEACHING Jurnal Inovasi Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan · doi:10.51878/teaching.v5i4.7955
“AI contributes to these dimensions by offering personalized feedback, adaptive learning environments, dynamic assessments, and responsive interactions that are tailored to the individual needs of learners (Dai et al., 2025).”
The Impact of AI on Student Productivity in Multitasking Environments: An IPO Framework Analysis
Li, Z., & Zhang, X. (2025) · International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence for Education (ISAIE) · doi:10.1145/3775073.3775233
“…randomized controlled experiments, and found that there were differences in learning autonomy and academic performance between students at different grade levels when they were “asked to use” and “used independently” GenAI, suggesting the criticality of the frequency and mode of AI use [ 7 ].”
Hyde, S. J., Hanna, A. A., & Kaupins, G. E. (2026) · The International Journal of Management Education · doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2026.101549
- 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)
- arXiv
- 2505.08672
- OpenAlex
- W4415198012
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 60
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- 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