TL;DR
Get the latest gadgets delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
Google has published findings from two education studies: a 10-week UK trial of Gemini-supported math tutoring and a yearlong study across 31 Italian schools. The company says tutoring outcomes matched human tutoring on some classroom measures, while Italian teachers reported more collaborative lessons; the UK trial did not find gains on STAR standardized test scores.
Google published findings on October 29 from two studies of Gemini in schools, reporting that AI-supported math tutoring performed similarly to human tutoring on some classroom measures in a UK trial, while teachers in an Italian study reported more collaborative lessons when using Gemini to plan. The results come with limits: the UK trial found no improvement on STAR standardized test scores during its 10-week period, and Google says further research is needed.
The UK study was a 10-week randomized controlled trial involving more than 1,100 students ages 12 to 15. It used Eedi’s school platform to compare static hints, human tutoring and interactive AI tutoring that combined Gemini capabilities with Eedi’s teaching resources. Teachers monitored students, tutors provided one-to-one platform support, and human experts reviewed every AI response before it reached a student.
Google reported that students receiving AI tutoring performed similarly to those paired with human tutors on Eedi tasks and intermediate quizzes. Expert reviewers approved 95% of AI responses, up from 76% in the previous study, which Google described as a nearly 25% improvement in pedagogical quality. In nearly 99% of sessions, Gemini reportedly guided students rather than giving them answers; students worked through the math themselves in more than 85% of their chats.
The Italian research ran for a year across 31 schools in the Salesians of Don Bosco network. It involved 1,600 teachers and represented more than 24,500 students ages 13 to 18. Teachers reported feeling more creative while planning and teaching with Gemini than without it, and Google said traditional lectures fell by 38 as workshops, group activities and peer discussions increased. The source report describes these as study findings and teacher reports, not as proof that Gemini alone caused the changes.
Classroom Gains Have Measured Limits
The studies address a central question for schools considering generative AI: whether it can support learning without replacing teachers or simply supplying answers. The UK results suggest that, with teacher involvement and expert review, Gemini-based tutoring can guide students through problems and produce performance comparable to human tutoring on certain classroom measures. That comparison does not establish equal results across all ages, subjects or settings.
The Italian findings point to a possible change in how class time is used. Teachers reported using Gemini to co-design lessons, with more group work and student collaboration in the observed activities. If those patterns hold in other settings, AI lesson-planning tools could help teachers create more active lessons. But the figures come from a study reported by Google, and the source does not establish that the same effects would occur in schools with different resources or teaching practices.
The mismatch between classroom measures and standardized tests is especially relevant to school leaders. In the UK trial, AI tutoring sessions took longer per question, and students solved about 14 problems per session, compared with 19 using static hints. Google said this meant students covered less curriculum material over 10 weeks, which may help explain why gains on daily work and quizzes did not appear on STAR test scores. That explanation is the company’s interpretation, not a confirmed cause.
Products Worth Considering
LG 34GX90SA-W 34-inch Ultragear WQHD OLED Curved Gaming Monitor
Apple AirPods Pro 3 Wireless Earbuds
LG UltraGear 32GX850A-B 32-Inch 4K UHD Glossy OLED Gaming Monitor
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Two Studies, Different Classroom Questions
The UK research built on an earlier exploratory study with Eedi. The newer trial compared three kinds of help after a student answered incorrectly: a static hint, a human tutor, or an interactive AI tutor using Gemini capabilities and Eedi’s pedagogical materials. It tracked progress through platform assignments, intermediate quizzes and independent STAR standardized tests. Google cautioned that test scores are not the only measure of learning.
In Italy, researchers worked with the Salesians of Don Bosco school network and the Pontifical Salesian University in Rome. The yearlong study collected classroom activities and teacher self-reports about lesson planning with and without Gemini for Education. Google reported that 79% of teachers using Gemini said they felt more creative in teaching and planning, compared with 30% without it. The study included primary, secondary and vocational educators, while the student group described in the report was ages 13 to 18.
Both studies were conducted with educators involved in the process. In the UK, experts screened AI responses before students saw them. In Italy, teachers remained responsible for lesson design and classroom instruction. The findings therefore concern AI used with human oversight, not unsupervised tutoring or automated teaching.
“Technology best serves education when it creates space for inspiring teaching and deeper learning.”
— Google’s report
Test Scores and Causation Remain Open
The UK study did not show an improvement in STAR standardized test scores over the 10-week trial, despite gains on platform assignments and intermediate quizzes. Google attributes the difference in part to students completing fewer problems with step-by-step tutoring and covering less curriculum. The study period may have been too short to assess broader outcomes, but the available findings do not establish that this explanation is correct or that longer use would raise test scores.
The source report does not provide detailed independent verification of the company’s summary, or enough information here to assess all study methods and results. The Italian findings include teacher self-reports, and it remains unclear how much of the reported shift in lesson formats can be attributed to Gemini rather than other factors. The figures also should not be treated as evidence that every school or student will see the same results.
Google Plans Longer-Term Follow-Up
Google says it is exploring follow-up UK trials lasting a full academic year and plans to broaden its measures of learning to better understand what contributes to lasting outcomes. That work could help test whether the lower number of questions completed during AI tutoring affects curriculum coverage and whether classroom gains eventually appear on broader assessments.
The company points readers to a technical report for further details on the UK trial. The source material does not set out a publication date for the next study or describe a comparable follow-up timetable for the Italian research. Until more results are available, the reported evidence supports a limited conclusion: Gemini may assist tutoring and lesson planning when educators remain involved, but longer-term effects on standardized achievement are still unresolved.
Key Questions
What did the UK Gemini tutoring trial find?
Google reported that students using Gemini-supported tutoring performed similarly to students working with human tutors on platform assignments and intermediate quizzes. The trial did not find gains on STAR standardized test scores over its 10 weeks.
Did the AI tutor give students the answers?
Google said Gemini guided students rather than giving answers in nearly 99% of sessions, and students worked through the math themselves in more than 85% of their chats. Human experts reviewed AI responses before they reached students.
What did the Italian study report?
Across 31 schools, teachers reported more creative planning when using Gemini and a shift away from traditional lectures toward workshops, group activities and peer discussion. These findings came from classroom activities and teacher self-reports collected over a year.
Does this show Gemini improves standardized test scores?
No. The UK trial reported gains on daily classroom tasks and intermediate quizzes, but no improvement on STAR test scores during the study. Google says it plans to examine outcomes in longer trials.
Were teachers involved in the studies?
Yes. UK teachers monitored student progress, tutors supported students through the platform, and experts reviewed AI responses. In Italy, teachers used Gemini to co-design lessons and remained responsible for classroom teaching.
Source: blog.google
