Randomized trial shows AI-supported adaptive learning improves scientific reasoning in pre-service teachers, suggesting effective educational tools are needed for teacher training.
This study investigated the effect of an AI-supported adaptive learning system on pre-service teachers' scientific reasoning, conceptual understanding and misconceptions reduction in Kwara State, Nigeria. A Pretest-posttest control group quasi-experimental design was used. The sample of 120 pre-service teachers was drawn from Kwara State College of Education (Technical), Lafiagi, randomly assigned by intact classes into two groups. An experimental group (n=60) was exposed to the rule-based adaptive learning system with personal scaffolding, feedback and misconception-targeted interventions, whereas the control group (n=60) was given non-adaptive digital learning. The Scientific Reasoning Inventory (KR-20 = 0.84) and two-tier Conceptual Understanding and Misconception Diagnostic Test (= 0.81) were the instruments used. ANCOVA analysis of post-test scores, controlling for pre-test scores as the covariate, revealed a statistically significant main effect of instructional group on scientific reasoning, F(1, 117) = 151.92, p < .001, ηp² = .565, and on conceptual understanding, F(1, 117) = 140.61, p < .001, ηp² = .546, with the experimental group demonstrating significantly higher adjusted mean scores than the control group. Besides, Pearson product-moment correlation showed that interaction time on adaptive learning was significantly and negatively correlated with scientific misconceptions (r = -.42, p<.01). These results suggest that adaptive learning system is a tool that Nigerian teachers can utilize to positively impact pre-service teachers' scientific reasoning and conceptual understanding. This research recommends that adaptive learning systems with personalized scaffolding and diagnostic feedback mechanisms be adopted and incorporated into teacher education curricula.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Limangba et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: