Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study examined the comparative effectiveness of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted learning and conventional instructional media among fourth- and fifth-grade elementary school students. Although AI is increasingly promoted as a means of personalizing instruction, empirical evidence directly comparing AI-based and conventional approaches at the elementary level remains limited. A quasi-experimental Pretest-Posttest Control Group Design was employed, involving 42 students in an AI-assisted experimental group and 42 students in a conventionally taught control group drawn from intact classrooms within the same school. Learning effectiveness was operationalized through normalized gain (N-Gain) scores derived from pretest and posttest achievement tests previously established as valid and reliable. Because the experimental group's N-Gain scores departed from a normal distribution, between-group differences were examined using the Mann-Whitney U test, complemented by Cohen's d to estimate practical significance. Results showed that although the two groups began with statistically equivalent pretest scores, the experimental group achieved a significantly higher N-Gain (M = 0.40, medium category) than the control group (M = 0.26, low category), U = 1190.500, p = .006, with a medium effect size (d = 0.551). These findings indicate that AI-assisted learning produced greater and more consistent improvement than conventional media among elementary learners. The study contributes empirical evidence to the underrepresented area of AI-supported elementary education and offers practical guidance for teachers, curriculum developers, and policymakers integrating AI into classroom instruction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Azahra et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: