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

• Published in: British journal of educational technology Vol. 56; no. 5; pp. 1735 - 1757
• Main Authors: Bauer, Elisabeth, Richters, Constanze, Pickal, Amadeus J., Klippert, Moritz, Sailer, Michael, Stadler, Matthias
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Coventry Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.09.2025
• Subjects: adaptivity; artificial intelligence; Cognitive tasks; Design factors; Feedback; higher education; interest; Large language models; natural language processing; Performance enhancement; Pretesting; Skill Development; statistical skills; Student Interests; Students
• ISSN: 0007-1013; 1467-8535
• DOI: 10.1111/bjet.13609

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.