Impact of Multimodal and Conversational AI on Learning Outcomes and Experience

Karan Taneja, Anjali Singh, Ashok K. Goel · Apr 2, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) offer an opportunity to support multimedia learning through conversational systems grounded in educational content. However, while conversational AI is known to boost engagement, its impact on learning in visually-rich STEM domains remains under-explored. Moreover, there is limited understanding of how multimodality and conversationality jointly influence learning in generative AI systems. This work reports findings from a randomized controlled online study (N = 124) comparing three approaches to learning biology from textbook content: (1) a document-grounded conversational AI with interleaved text-and-image responses (MuDoC), (2) a document-grounded conversational AI with text-only responses (TexDoC), and (3) a textbook interface with semantic search and highlighting (DocSearch). Learners using MuDoC achieved the highest post-test scores and reported the most positive learning experience. Notably, while TexDoC was rated as significantly more engaging and easier to use than DocSearch, it led to the lowest post-test scores, revealing a disconnect between student perceptions and learning outcomes. Interpreted through the lens of the Cognitive Load Theory, these findings suggest that conversationality reduces extraneous load, while visual-verbal integration induced by multimodality increases germane load, leading to better learning outcomes. When conversationality is not complemented by multimodality, reduced cognitive effort may instead inflate perceived understanding without improving learning outcomes.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.