Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has the potential to change student learning. Despite the popularity of integrating this novel technology into teaching and learning practices, few meta-analyses have synthesised its effect in the education context with K-12 and college students. This review examined the effects of GenAI interventions on student academic performance. A total of 19 studies with 24 effect sizes were included. These studies either compared the GenAI group with control groups (n = 17, k = 22) or applied a repeated-measure design (n = 2, k = 2). The results revealed an overall large effect size (g = 0.683), supporting the arguments that GenAI can positively affect student academic achievement. Students with teacher support in the student-GenAI interaction have significantly larger gains (g = 1.426) than those without teacher support (g = 0.077). No other significant moderators were identified. We concluded by discussing the implications for policy and practice and provided suggestions for future research.
AbdelhalimS. M. (2024). Using ChatGPT to promote research competency: English as a foreign language undergraduates’ perceptions and practices across varied metacognitive awareness levels. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(3), 1261–1275. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12948
AlbadarinY.SaqrM.PopeN.TukiainenM. (2024). A systematic literature review of empirical research on ChatGPT in education. Discover Education, 3(1), 60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00138-2
5.
AlmasreM. (2024). Development and evaluation of a custom GPT for the assessment of students’ designs in a typography course. Education Sciences (Basel), 14(2), 148. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020148
6.
AlshraahS. M.KariemN.AlshraahA. M.AldosemaniT. I.AlQarniK. (2024). A critical look at how lecturers in linguistics can leverage generative artificial intelligence in enhancing teaching proficiency and students’ engagement. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 15(4), 1361–1371. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1504.34
7.
AnY.YuJ. H.JamesS. (2025). Investigating the higher education institutions’ guidelines and policies regarding the use of generative AI in teaching, learning, research, and administration. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-025-00507-3
8.
BaH.ZhangL.YiZ. (2024). Enhancing clinical skills in pediatric trainees: A comparative study of ChatGPT-assisted and traditional teaching methods. BMC Medical Education, 24(1), 558. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05565-1
9.
*BabaK.FaddouliE.CheimanoffN. (2024). Mobile-optimised AI-driven personalised learning: A case study at Mohammed VI polytechnic university. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 18(4). https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v18i04.46547
10.
BaberH.NairK.GuptaR.GurjarK. (2023). The beginning of ChatGPT–a systematic and bibliometric review of the literature. Information and Learning Sciences, 125(7/8), 587–614. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-04-2023-0035
11.
*BachiriY. A.MouncifH.BouikhaleneB. (2023). Artificial intelligence empowers gamification: Optimising student engagement and learning outcomes in e-learning and moocs. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 13(8), 1. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v13i8.40853
12.
BahrounZ.AnaneC.AhmedV.ZaccaA. (2023). Transforming education: A comprehensive review of generative artificial intelligence in educational settings through bibliometric and content analysis. Sustainability (Basel), 15(17), 12983. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151712983
13.
BanihashemS. K.KermanN. T.NorooziO.MoonJ.DrachslerH. (2024). Feedback sources in essay writing: Peer-generated or AI-generated feedback?International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00455-4
14.
BarrettA.PackA. (2023). Not quite eye to AI: Student and teacher perspectives on the use of generative artificial intelligence in the writing process. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00427-0
15.
BearmanM.TaiJ.DawsonP.BoudD.AjjawiR. (2024). Developing evaluative judgement for a time of generative artificial intelligence. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(6), 893–905. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2335321
BengesiS.El-SayedH.SarkerM. K.HoukpatiY.IrunguJ.OladunniT. (2024). Advancements in generative AI: A comprehensive review of GANs, GPT, autoencoders, diffusion model, and transformers. IEEE Access, 12, 69812–69837. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3397775
18.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P.RothsteinH. R. (2021). Introduction to meta-analysis. John wiley & sons.
19.
BowerM.TorringtonJ.LaiJ. W.PetoczP.AlfanoM. (2024). How should we change teaching and assessment in response to increasingly powerful generative artificial intelligence? Outcomes of the ChatGPT teacher survey. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 15403–15439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12405-0
20.
CheahY. H.KimJ. (2025). STEM teachers’ perceptions, familiarity, and support needs for integrating generative artificial intelligence in K-12 education. School Science & Mathematics, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.18334
21.
ChiuT. K. (2024). The impact of generative AI (GenAI) on practices, policies and research direction in education: A case of ChatGPT and Midjourney. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(10), 6187–6203. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2253861
22.
CoenenC.PfenningerM. (2024). Transforming learning experiences and assessments through AI-empowered cocreation of quality feedback. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20628
23.
CohenJ. C. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Erlbaum Associates.
24.
CrawfordJ.VallisC.YangJ.FitzgeraldR.O’deaC.CowlingM. (2023). Artificial intelligence is awesome, but good teaching should always come first. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 20(7), 01. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.7.01
25.
CuijpersP.WeitzE.CristeaI. A.TwiskJ. (2017). Pre-post effect sizes should be avoided in meta-analyses. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 26(4), 364–368. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796016000809
*DasariD.HendriyantoA.SaharaS.SuryadiD.MuhaiminL. H.ChaoT.FitrianaL. (2024). ChatGPT in didactical tetrahedron, does it make an exception? A case study in mathematics teaching and learning. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1295413. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1295413
28.
EggerM.Davey SmithG. D.SchneiderM.MinderC. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315(7109), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
29.
*EscalanteJ.PackA.BarrettA. (2023). AI-generated feedback on writing: Insights into efficacy and ENL student preference. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00425-2
30.
FanY.TangL.LeH.ShenK.TanS.ZhaoY.ShenD.LiX.GaševićD. (2025). Beware of metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative artificial intelligence on learning motivation, processes, and performance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(2), 489–530. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13544
31.
FerraraE. (2024). GenAI against humanity: Nefarious applications of generative artificial intelligence and large language models. Journal of Computational Social Science, 7(1), 549–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-024-00250-1
32.
FleissJ. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5), 378–382. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031619
33.
FuR.GartlehnerG.GrantM.ShamliyanT.SedrakyanA.WiltT. J.GriffithT. A.OremusM.RainaP.IsmailaA.SantaguidaP.LauJ.TrikalinosT. A. (2011). Conducting quantitative synthesis when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health care program. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(11), 1187–1197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.08.010
34.
GhafouriM.HassaskhahJ.Mahdavi-ZafarghandiA. (2024). From virtual assistant to writing mentor: Exploring the impact of a ChatGPT-based writing instruction protocol on EFL teachers’ self-efficacy and learners’ writing skill. Language Teaching Research, 13621688241239764. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688241239764
GuoY.LeeD. (2023). Leveraging ChatGPT for enhancing critical thinking skills. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(12), 4876–4883. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00505
37.
HabibS.VogelT.AnliX.ThorneE. (2024). How does generative artificial intelligence impact student creativity?Journal of Creativity, 34(1), 100072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjoc.2023.100072
HattieJ. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
40.
HedgesL. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986006002107
41.
HsuH. L.ChenH. H. J.ToddA. G. (2023). Investigating the impact of the Amazon Alexa on the development of L2 listening and speaking skills. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(9), 5732–5745. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.2016864
HwangS. (2022). Examining the effects of artificial intelligence on elementy students’ mathematics achievement: A meta-analysis. Sustainability (Basel), 14(20), 13185. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013185
44.
ImranM.AlmusharrafN. (2023). Analysing the role of ChatGPT as a writing assistant at higher education level: A systematic review of the literature. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(4), ep464. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13605
45.
JeonJ. (2024). Exploring AI chatbot affordances in the EFL classroom: Young learners’ experiences and perspectives. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37(1-2), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.2021241
46.
JeonJ.LeeS. (2023). Large language models in education: A focus on the complementary relationship between human teachers and ChatGPT. Education and Information Technologies, 28(12), 15873–15892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11834-1
KeathA.WyantJ.TownerB. (2024). ChatGPE: Does artificial intelligence have a place in the physical education setting?Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 95(2), 59–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2023.2292941
49.
KellyA.SullivanM.StrampelK. (2023). Generative artificial intelligence: University student awareness, experience, and confidence in use across disciplines. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 20(6), 12. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.6.12
50.
KietzmannJ.ParkA. (2024). Written by ChatGPT: AI, large language models, conversational chatbots, and their place in society and business. Business Horizons. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2024.06.002
51.
KizilcecR. F.HuberE.PapanastasiouE. C.CramA.MakridisC. A.SmolanskyA.ZeivotsC.RaduescuC. (2024). Perceived impact of generative AI on assessments: Comparing educator and student perspectives in Australia, Cyprus, and the United States. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100269
52.
KnothN.TolzinA.JansonA.LeimeisterJ. M. (2024). AI literacy and its implications for prompt engineering strategies. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100225
53.
KongS. C.YangY.HouC. (2024). Examining teachers’ behavioural intention of using generative artificial intelligence tools for teaching and learning based on the extended technology acceptance model. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100328
54.
LawL. (2024). Application of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in language teaching and learning: A scoping literature review. Computers and Education Open, 6, 100174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100174
55.
LeeH.LeeJ. H. (2024). The effects of AI-guided individualised language learning: A meta-analysis. Language, Learning and Technology, 28(2), 134–162. https://hdl.handle.net/10125/73575
56.
LeeH. Y.ChenP. H.WangW. S.HuangY. M.WuT. T. (2024). Empowering ChatGPT with guidance mechanism in blended learning: Effect of self-regulated learning, higher-order thinking skills, and knowledge construction. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00447-4
57.
LeiterC.ZhangR.ChenY.BelouadiJ.LarionovD.FresenV.EgerS. (2024). ChatGPT: A meta-analysis after 2.5 months. Machine Learning with Applications, 16, 100541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mlwa.2024.100541
58.
LiH. (2023). Effects of a ChatGPT-based flipped learning guiding approach on learners’ courseware project performances and perceptions. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 40–58. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.8923
59.
*LiJ.ZongH.WuE.WuR.PengZ.ZhaoJ.YangB.XieH.ShenB. (2024). Exploring the potential of artificial intelligence to enhance the writing of English academic papers by non-native English-speaking medical students-the educational application of ChatGPT. BMC Medical Education, 24(1), 736. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05738-y
60.
LiangH. Y.HwangG. J.HsuT. Y.YehJ. Y. (2024). Effect of an AI-based chatbot on students' learning performance in alternate reality game-based museum learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(5), 2315–2338. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13448
61.
LiaoX.ZhangX.WangZ.LuoH. (2024). Design and implementation of an AI-enabled visual report tool as formative assessment to promote learning achievement and self-regulated learning: An experimental study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(3), 1253–1276. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13424
62.
LightR. J.PillemerD. B. (1984). Summing up: The science of reviewing research. Harvard University Press.
63.
LiuX.XiaoY. (2024). Chinese university teachers’ engagement with generative AI in different stages of foreign language teaching: A qualitative enquiry through the prism of ADDIE. Education and Information Technologies, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13117-9
64.
LiuY.AwangH.MansorN. S. (2024). To explore Sora’s potential influence on future education. Educational Research, 6(5), 98–105.
65.
LoC. K.HewK. F.JongM. S. Y. (2024). The influence of ChatGPT on student engagement: A systematic review and future research agenda. Computers & Education, 219, 105100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105100
66.
*MahapatraS. (2024). Impact of ChatGPT on ESL students’ academic writing skills: A mixed methods intervention study. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00295-9
67.
MaleckiC. K.DemarayM. K. (2002). Measuring perceived social support: Development of the child and adolescent social support scale (CASSS). Psychology in the Schools, 39(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10004
68.
McMillanJ. H.VenableJ. C.VarierD. (2013). Studies of the effect of formative assessment on student achievement: So much more is needed. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 18(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.7275/tmwm-7792
69.
*MeyerJ.JansenT.SchillerR.LiebenowL. W.SteinbachM.HorbachA.FleckensteinJ. (2024). Using LLMs to bring evidence-based feedback into the classroom: AI-generated feedback increases secondary students’ text revision, motivation, and positive emotions. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100199
70.
MoorhouseB. L.WanY.WuC.KohnkeL.HoT. Y.KwongT. (2024). Developing language teachers’ professional generative AI competence: An intervention study in an initial language teacher education course. System, 125, 103399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103399
71.
MuranoD.SawyerJ. E.LipnevichA. A. (2020). A meta-analytic review of preschool social and emotional learning interventions. Review of Educational Research, 90(2), 227–263. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320914743
72.
*NiloyA. C.AkterS.SultanaN.SultanaJ.RahmanS. I. U. (2024). Is ChatGPT a menace for creative writing ability? An experiment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(2), 919–930. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12929
73.
NoetelM.GriffithS.DelaneyO.SandersT.ParkerP.del Pozo CruzB.LonsdaleC. (2021). Video improves learning in higher education: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 91(2), 204–236. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321990713
74.
Olivera-AguilarM.LeeH. S.PallantA.BelurV.MulhollandM.LiuO. L. (2022). Comparing the effect of contextualized versus generic automated feedback on students' scientific argumentation. ETS Research Report Series, 2022(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12344
PageM. J.McKenzieJ. E.BossuytP. M.BoutronI.HoffmannT. C.MulrowC. D.ShamseerD.TetzlaffJ. M.AklE. A.BrennanS. E.ChouR.GlanvilleJ.GrimshawJ. M.HróbjartssonA.LaluM. M.LiT.LoderE. W.Mayo-WilsonE.McDonaldS.MoherD. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International Journal of Surgery, 88, 105906. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
77.
PanaderoE.LipnevichA. A. (2022). A review of feedback models and typologies: Towards an integrative model of feedback elements. Educational Research Review, 35, 100416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100416
78.
PeñalvoF. J. G.IngelmoA. V. (2023). What do we mean by GenAI? A systematic mapping of the evolution, trends, and techniques involved in generative AI. IJIMAI, 8(4), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.9781/ijimai.2023.07.006
79.
PreiksaitisC.RoseC. (2023). Opportunities, challenges, and future directions of generative artificial intelligence in medical education: Scoping review. JMIR Medical Education, 9, e48785. https://doi.org/10.2196/48785
80.
RashidiH. H.HuB.PantanowitzJ.TranN.LiuS.ChamanzarA.HannaM. G. (2024). Statistics of generative AI & non-generative predictive analytics machine learning in medicine. Modern Pathology, 1, 100663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.modpat.2024.100663
81.
SabzalievaE.ValentiniA. (2023). ChatGPT and artificial intelligence in higher education: Quick start guide. UNESCO.
82.
SaishN. V. P.JayashreeJ.VijayashreeJ. (2025). Mathematical foundations and applications of generative AI models. In VajjhalaN. R.RoyS. S.TaşciB.ChowdhuryM. E. H. (Eds.), Generative artificial intelligence (AI) approaches for industrial applications (pp. 19–45). Springer.
83.
Salas-PilcoS. Z. (2020). The impact of AI and robotics on physical, social-emotional and intellectual learning outcomes: An integrated analytical framework. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(5), 1808–1825. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12984
84.
ShamseerL.MoherD.ClarkeM.GhersiD.LiberatiA.PetticrewM.ShekelleL. A.StewartL. A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and explanation. BMJ, 350, g7647. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647
SongC.SongY. (2023). Enhancing academic writing skills and motivation: Assessing the efficacy of ChatGPT in AI-assisted language learning for EFL students. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1260843. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1260843
87.
StojanovA. (2023). Learning with ChatGPT 3.5 as a more knowledgeable other: An autoethnographic study. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00404-7
88.
StrobelG.BanhL.MöllerF.SchoormannT. (2024). Exploring generative artificial intelligence: A taxonomy and types. In Proceedings of the 57th Hawaii International Conference on system sciences. Hawaii, 2024. https://doi.org/10.24251/hicss.2024.546
89.
SuJ.YangW. (2023). Unlocking the power of ChatGPT: A framework for applying generative AI in education. ECNU Review of Education, 6(3), 355–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311231168423
SunL.ZhouL. (2024). Does generative artificial intelligence improve the academic achievement of college students? A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 62(7), 1896–1933. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331241277937
TakitaH.KabataD.WalstonS. L.TatekawaH.SaitoK.TsujimotoY.UedaD. (2024). Diagnostic performance comparison between generative AI and physicians: A systematic review and meta-analysis. medRxiv, 2024-01. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.01.20.24301563
94.
TamA. C. F. (2024). Interacting with ChatGPT for internal feedback and factors affecting feedback quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 50(2), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2374485
95.
TangX.TangS.RenZ.WongD. F. K. (2020). Psychosocial risk factors associated with depressive symptoms among adolescents in secondary schools in mainland China: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 263, 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2019.11.118
96.
TantivejakulN.ChantharasombatJ.KongpolphromW. (2024). Voices of the future: Exploring students’ views on the use of GenAI in academic and professional PR writing. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 17(2), 511–537. https://doi.org/10.70730/PVTD8302
97.
TardyC. H. (1985). Social support measurement. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(2), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00905728
98.
TengM. F. (2024). “ChatGPT is the companion, not enemies”: EFL learners’ perceptions and experiences in using ChatGPT for feedback in writing. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 100270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100270
99.
ThomasB. H.CiliskaD.DobbinsM.MicucciS. (2004). A process for systematically reviewing the literature: Providing the research evidence for public health nursing interventions. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 1(3), 176–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-475X.2004.04006.x
100.
*UddinS. J.AlbertA.OvidA.AlsharefA. (2023). Leveraging ChatGPT to aid construction hazard recognition and support safety education and training. Sustainability (Basel), 15(9), 7121. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097121
101.
Van den NoortgateW.López-LópezJ. A.Marín-MartínezF.Sánchez-MecaJ. (2013). Three-level meta-analysis of dependent effect sizes. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2), 576–594. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0261-6
102.
VeveaJ. L.WoodsC. M. (2005). Publication bias in research synthesis: Sensitivity analysis using a priori weight functions. Psychological Methods, 10(4), 428–443. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.10.4.428
103.
WangF.CheungA. C.NeitzelA. J.ChaiC. S. (2024a). Does chatting with chatbots improve language learning performance? A meta-analysis of chatbot-assisted language learning. Review of Educational Research, 00346543241255621. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543241255621
104.
WangH.DangA.WuZ.MacS. (2024b). Generative AI in higher education: Seeing ChatGPT through universities’ policies, resources, and guidelines. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100326
105.
WeiQ.YaoZ.CuiY.WeiB.JinZ.XuX. (2024). Evaluation of ChatGPT-generated medical responses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 151, 104620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2024.104620
106.
WoodD.MossS. H. (2024). Evaluating the impact of students’ generative AI use in educational contexts. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 17(2), 152–167. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-06-2024-0151
107.
*WuC.ChenL.HanM.LiZ.YangN.YuC. (2024). Application of ChatGPT-based blended medical teaching in clinical education of hepatobiliary surgery. Medical Teacher. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2024.2339412
108.
WuR.YuZ. (2024). Do AI chatbots improve students learning outcomes? Evidence from a meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(1), 10–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13334
109.
XiaQ.WengX.OuyangF.LinT. J.ChiuT. K. (2024). A scoping review on how generative artificial intelligence transforms assessment in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00468-z
110.
YanL.ShaL.ZhaoL.LiY.Martinez-MaldonadoR.ChenG.LiD.JinY.GaševićD. (2024). Practical and ethical challenges of large language models in education: A systematic scoping review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(1), 90–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13370
111.
YanZ. (2022). Student self-assessment as a process for learning. Routledge.
112.
YanZ.LaoH.PanaderoE.Fernández-CastillaB.YangL.YangM. (2022). Effects of self-assessment and peer-assessment interventions on academic performance: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 37, 100484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100484
113.
YiL.LiuD.JiangT.XianY. (2024). The effectiveness of AI on K-12 students’ mathematics learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-024-10499-7
114.
YuH. (2023). Reflection on whether Chat GPT should be banned by academia from the perspective of education and teaching. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1181712. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1181712
115.
YuH. (2024). The application and challenges of ChatGPT in educational transformation: New demands for teachers’ roles. Heliyon, 10(2), e24289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24289
116.
ZhanY.YanZ. (2025). Students’ engagement with ChatGPT feedback: Implications for student feedback literacy in the context of generative artificial intelligence. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2471821
117.
ZhanY.YanZ.WanZ. H.WangX.ZengY.YangM.YangL. (2023). Effects of online peer assessment on higher-order thinking: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(4), 817–835. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13310
118.
ZhangX.ZhangP.ShenY.LiuM.WangQ.GaševićD.FanY. (2024). A systematic literature review of empirical research on applying generative artificial intelligence in education. Frontiers of Digital Education, 1(3), 223–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44366-024-0028-5
119.
ZhengL.NiuJ.ZhongL.GyasiJ. F. (2023). The effectiveness of artificial intelligence on learning achievement and learning perception: A meta-analysis. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(9), 5650–5664. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.2015693
120.
*ZhouW.KimY. (2024). Innovative Music Education: An empirical assessment of ChatGPT-4’s impact on student learning experiences. Education and Information Technologies, 29(16), 20855–20881. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12705-z
121.
ZirarA. (2023). Exploring the impact of language models, such as ChatGPT, on student learning and assessment. The Review of Education, 11(3), e3433. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3433
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
