Effects of AI-generated adaptive feedback on statistical skills and interest in statistics: A field experiment in higher education

IF 8.1 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Elisabeth Bauer, Constanze Richters, Amadeus J. Pickal, Moritz Klippert, Michael Sailer, Matthias Stadler
{"title":"Effects of AI-generated adaptive feedback on statistical skills and interest in statistics: A field experiment in higher education","authors":"Elisabeth Bauer,&nbsp;Constanze Richters,&nbsp;Amadeus J. Pickal,&nbsp;Moritz Klippert,&nbsp;Michael Sailer,&nbsp;Matthias Stadler","doi":"10.1111/bjet.13609","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study explores whether AI-generated adaptive feedback or static feedback is favourable for student interest and performance outcomes in learning statistics in a digital learning environment. Previous studies have favoured adaptive feedback over static feedback for skill acquisition, however, without investigating the outcome of students' subject-specific interest. This study randomly assigned 90 educational sciences students to four conditions in a 2 × 2 Solomon four-group design, with one factor <i>feedback type</i> (adaptive vs. static) and, controlling for pretest sensitisation, another factor <i>pretest participation</i> (yes vs. no). Using a large language model, the adaptive feedback provided feedback messages tailored to students' responses for several tasks on reporting statistical results according to APA style, while static feedback offered a standardised expert solution. There was no evidence of pretest sensitisation and no significant effect of the feedback type on task performance. However, a significant medium-sized effect of feedback type on interest was found, with lower interest observed in the adaptive condition than in the static condition. In highly structured learning tasks, AI-generated adaptive feedback, compared with static feedback, may be non-essential for learners' performance enhancement and less favourable for learners' interest, potentially due to its impact on learners' perceived autonomy and competence.</p>","PeriodicalId":48315,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Educational Technology","volume":"56 5","pages":"1735-1757"},"PeriodicalIF":8.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bjet.13609","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Educational Technology","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13609","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study explores whether AI-generated adaptive feedback or static feedback is favourable for student interest and performance outcomes in learning statistics in a digital learning environment. Previous studies have favoured adaptive feedback over static feedback for skill acquisition, however, without investigating the outcome of students' subject-specific interest. This study randomly assigned 90 educational sciences students to four conditions in a 2 × 2 Solomon four-group design, with one factor feedback type (adaptive vs. static) and, controlling for pretest sensitisation, another factor pretest participation (yes vs. no). Using a large language model, the adaptive feedback provided feedback messages tailored to students' responses for several tasks on reporting statistical results according to APA style, while static feedback offered a standardised expert solution. There was no evidence of pretest sensitisation and no significant effect of the feedback type on task performance. However, a significant medium-sized effect of feedback type on interest was found, with lower interest observed in the adaptive condition than in the static condition. In highly structured learning tasks, AI-generated adaptive feedback, compared with static feedback, may be non-essential for learners' performance enhancement and less favourable for learners' interest, potentially due to its impact on learners' perceived autonomy and competence.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

人工智能产生的自适应反馈对统计技能和统计兴趣的影响:高等教育中的实地实验
本研究探讨了人工智能生成的自适应反馈或静态反馈是否有利于学生在数字学习环境中学习统计的兴趣和表现结果。然而,先前的研究更倾向于适应性反馈而不是静态反馈来获得技能,而没有调查学生特定学科兴趣的结果。本研究将90名教育科学专业的学生随机分配到2 × 2 Solomon四组设计的四种条件下,其中一种因素反馈类型(自适应与静态),另一种因素反馈类型是测试前敏感(是或否)。采用大型语言模型,自适应反馈提供针对学生根据APA风格报告统计结果的几个任务的反馈信息,而静态反馈提供标准化的专家解决方案。没有证据表明测试前敏感,反馈类型对任务表现没有显著影响。然而,我们发现反馈类型对兴趣有显著的中等效应,在自适应条件下观察到的兴趣低于静态条件。在高度结构化的学习任务中,与静态反馈相比,人工智能产生的自适应反馈可能对学习者的表现增强并不重要,对学习者的兴趣也不太有利,这可能是由于它对学习者感知到的自主性和能力的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
British Journal of Educational Technology
British Journal of Educational Technology EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
15.60
自引率
4.50%
发文量
111
期刊介绍: BJET is a primary source for academics and professionals in the fields of digital educational and training technology throughout the world. The Journal is published by Wiley on behalf of The British Educational Research Association (BERA). It publishes theoretical perspectives, methodological developments and high quality empirical research that demonstrate whether and how applications of instructional/educational technology systems, networks, tools and resources lead to improvements in formal and non-formal education at all levels, from early years through to higher, technical and vocational education, professional development and corporate training.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信