Optimizing AI-Driven Feedback Through Learning Style Alignment: Evidence from a Factorial Experiment among Accounting Students

Diyah Probowulan; Ilham Saifudin; Nina Martiana

doi:10.62794/je3s.v7i5.306

Authors

Diyah Probowulan Universitas Muhammadiyah Jember, Indonesia
Ilham Saifudin Universitas Muhammadiyah Jember, Indonesia
Nina Martiana Universitas Muhammadiyah Jember, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62794/je3s.v7i5.306

Keywords:

AI-driven feedback, personalized learning, learning styles, accounting students, adaptive learning

Abstract

Accounting students often work on computationally intensive procedural tasks such as journal entries and depreciation schedules, where feedback is often delayed and generic, so it is unclear whether AI-based feedback interacts with learners' processing preferences. This study examines how three levels of AI-based feedback, rule-based direct feedback, retrospective ML personalization feedback, and prospective ML predictive feedback combine with learning styles (visual, kinesthetic, and convergent, classified through the Kolb Learning Style Inventory 4.0) to shape accounting learning outcomes. A 3×3 factorial experiment between subjects (N = 135) assigned students to one of nine combinations of force-based feedback. Because pre-test scores differed systematically across different pre-intervention feedback conditions, learning improvements (after the test minus pre-tests), rather than post-test scores, became the primary outcome, with naïve post-test and covariate analyses reported as convergence checks, followed by Tukey's HSD comparisons in which the omnibus effect was significantly relevant. Feedback conditions, learning styles, and interactions each contributed significantly to learning improvements, but the patterns were not uniform: some learning style groups gained relative gains regardless of feedback levels, while others showed feedback-dependent improvements that did not consistently support more technologically advanced conditions. These results suggest that AI-based feedback values are dependent on learner characteristics, not universal, and simpler feedback is not necessarily inferior after baseline differences are taken into account. Given the simple single-location sample, unresolved fundamental imbalances under various conditions, and reliance on composite outcome sizes, these findings should be treated as preliminary evidence justifying replication before force-based feedback configurations are adopted in practice.

References

Adhikari, D. R., & Shrestha, P. (2022). Knowledge management initiatives for achieving sustainable development goal 4.7: higher education institutions’ stakeholder perspectives. Journal of Knowledge Management, ahead-of-p(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-03-2022-0172

Andayani, E., Nurfaizana, D. R., Yudiono, U., Hariani, L. S., & Dameati, F. (2026). Virtual Economy Simulation Model ( VESM ): Interactive Learning Innovation in Introductory Economics Courses. Journal of Economic Education and Entrepreneurship Studies, 7(1), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.62794/je3s.v7i1.21

Chaitali Bhattacharya. (2025). Enhancing Accounting and Business Management Education Through AI-Driven Personalized Learning. Journal of Informatics Education and Research, 5(2), 1102–1111. https://doi.org/10.52783/jier.v5i2.2548

Chang, D., Lin, M., Hajian, S., & Wang, Q. (2023). Educational Design Principles of Using AI Chatbot That Supports Self-Regulated Learning in Education: Goal Setting, Feedback, and Personalization. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151712921

Chen, K., Huang, M., Zhu, X., & Wang, G. (2021). Learning disability early warning system based on classification algorithm. 2021 2nd International Conference on Information Science and Education (ICISE-IE), 597–600. https://doi.org/10.1109/icise-ie53922.2021.00141

Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. Irvington. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1978-11462-000

Ebaid, I. E. S. (2022). Sustainability and accounting education: perspectives of undergraduate accounting students in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 14(4), 1371–1393. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-05-2021-0183

Eloff, A.-M. (2017). The integration of information and information technology in accounting education: Effects on student performance. Journal of Economic and Financial Sciences, 9(2), 409–425. https://doi.org/10.4102/jef.v9i2.49

Gunarathne, N., Senaratne, S., & Senanayake, S. (2020). Outcome-based education in accounting: The case of an accountancy degree program in Sri Lanka. Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, 36(1), 16–37. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEAS-08-2018-0093

Haugland Sundkvist, C., & Kulset, E. M. (2024). Teaching accounting in the era of ChatGPT – The student perspective. Journal of Accounting Education, 69(September 2023), 100932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccedu.2024.100932

Holtzblatt, M., & Tschakert, N. (2011). Expanding your accounting classroom with digital video technology. Journal of Accounting Education, 29(2–3), 100–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccedu.2011.10.003

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. (2008). Experiential Learning Theory: A Dynamic, Holistic Approach to Management Learning, Education and Development. 42-68. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857021038.n3

Kulik, J. A., & Fletcher, J. D. (2016). Effectiveness of Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 42–78. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315581420

Lange, E. A., & Kerr, S. G. (2013). Accounting and incentives for sustainability in higher education: An interdisciplinary analysis of a needed revolution. Social Responsibility Journal, 9(2), 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-08-2011-0058

Mellado-Silva, R., Faundez-Ugalde, A., & Lobos, M. B. (2020). Learning tax regulations through rules-based chatbots using decision trees: A case study at the time of COVID-19. Proceedings - International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society, SCCC, 2020-Novem. https://doi.org/10.1109/SCCC51225.2020.9281267

Mertens, U., Finn, B., & Lindner, M. A. (2022). Effects of computer-based feedback on lower- and higher-order learning outcomes: A network meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(8), 1743–1772. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000764

Manolis, C., Burns, D. J., Assudani, R. H., & Chinta, R. (2013). Assessing Experiential Learning Styles: A Methodological Reconstruction and Validation of the Kolb Learning Style Inventory. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 44-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.10.009

Ortega-Ochoa, E., Quiroga Pérez, J., Arguedas, M., Daradoumis, T., & Marquès Puig, J. M. (2024). The effectiveness of empathic chatbot feedback for developing computer competencies, motivation, self-regulation, and metacognitive reasoning in online higher education. Internet of Things, 25, 101101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iot.2024.101101

Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the Transition From Example Study to Problem Solving in Cognitive Skill Acquisition: A Cognitive Load Perspective. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_3

Rhodes, N. (2013). The Future of Accounting Education with the Integration of ICT. University of Johannesburg (South Africa). https://hdl.handle.net/10210/12413

Skulmowski, A., & Xu, K. M. (2022). Understanding Cognitive Load in Digital and Online Learning: a New Perspective on Extraneous Cognitive Load. Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 171–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09624-7

Stanciu, V., Pugna, I. B., & Gheorghe, M. (2020). New coordinates of accounting academic education. A Romanian insight. Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems, 19(1), 158–178. https://doi.org/10.24818/jamis.2020.01007

Stewart, C., & Khan, A. A. (2021). A strategy for using digital mindsets and knowledge technologies to move past pandemic conditions. Accounting Research Journal, 34(3), 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARJ-09-2020-0313

Suriyanti, Y., Sore, A. D., Relita, D. T., & Bobi, Y. (2026). Web-Based Learning Innovation in Economics Education : Leveraging Google Sites to Boost Interactivity and Conceptual Understanding. Journal of Economic Education and Entrepreneurship Studies, 7(3), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.62794/je3s.v7i3.68

Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory. Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4

Van Merrienboer, J., Kirschner, P., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the Load Off a Learner’s Mind: Instructional Design for Complex Learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3801_2

van Nooijen, C. C. A., de Koning, B. B., Bramer, W. M., Isahakyan, A., Asoodar, M., Kok, E., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2024). A Cognitive Load Theory Approach to Understanding Expert Scaffolding of Visual Problem-Solving Tasks: A Scoping Review. Educational Psychology Review, 36(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09848-3

Venter, J., Coetzee, S. A., & Schmulian, A. (2025). Exploring the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the delivery of effective feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 50(4), 516–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2415649

Wang, H., & Lehman, J. D. (2021). Using achievement goal-based personalized motivational feedback to enhance online learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(2), 553–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09940-3

Wang, X., Zhang, L., & He, T. (2022). Learning Performance Prediction-Based Personalized Feedback in Online Learning via Machine Learning. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137654

Wang, X., Huang, R., Sommer, M., Pei, B., Shidfar, P., Rehman, M., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Martin, F. (2024). The Efficacy of Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Adaptive Learning Systems From 2010 to 2022 on Learner Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 62, 1348 - 1383. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331241240459