A systematic review of AI-driven intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) in K-12 education
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of artificial intelligence in education (AIEd) has grown exponentially in the last decade, particularly intelligent tutoring systems (ITSs). Despite the increased use of ITSs and their promise to improve learning, their real educational value remains unclear. This systematic review aims to identify the effects of ITSs on K-12 students' learning and performance and which experimental designs are currently used to evaluate them. The 28 studies analyzed in this systematic review included a total of 4597 students (N = 4597) and used quasi-experimental designs with varying intervention durations. Overall, our findings suggest that the effects of ITSs on learning and performance in K-12 education are generally positive but are found to be mitigated when compared to non-intelligent tutoring systems. However, additional research with longer interventions and increased sample sizes with greater diversity is warranted. Additionally, the ethical implications of using AI for teaching should be investigated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it