TL;DR
Get privacy and security gear delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
Google published findings from studies of Gemini-supported teaching in the UK and Italy. In a 10-week UK trial, students tutored with AI performed similarly to those working with human tutors on platform tasks and quizzes, but the study found no gains on STAR standardized test scores. An Italian yearlong study reported more collaborative lessons and greater teacher-reported creativity when educators used Gemini to plan.
Google published findings on October 29, 2026 from studies of Gemini in schools in the UK and Italy, reporting that AI math tutoring performed similarly to human tutoring on some classroom measures while Italian teachers using Gemini for lesson planning reported more collaborative activities. The results come with limits: the UK trial found no improvement on STAR standardized test scores during its 10-week period, and the company says a longer study is needed.
The UK randomized controlled trial involved more than 1,100 students ages 12 to 15 using the Eedi school platform. Over 10 weeks, students who answered a question incorrectly received either a static hint, help from a human tutor, or interactive AI tutoring that combined Gemini capabilities with Eedi’s educational resources. Teachers monitored progress and supported students, while tutors also provided one-on-one help through the platform. Human experts reviewed every AI response in real time before it was shown to a student.
Google said students receiving AI tutoring performed similarly to students paired with human tutors on Eedi tasks and intermediate quizzes. Expert reviewers approved 95% of AI responses, up from 76% in a previous study, which Google described as a nearly 25% improvement in pedagogical quality. In nearly 99% of sessions, Gemini guided students rather than giving them answers, according to the company; students worked through the math themselves in more than 85% of chats. However, the trial found no corresponding gains on STAR standardized tests.
The Italian study covered 31 schools, 1,600 teachers and more than 24,500 students ages 13 to 18 across primary, secondary and vocational education settings, according to Google. In lessons co-designed with Gemini, teachers reported feeling more creative in planning and teaching: 79% reported this with Gemini, compared with 30% without it. Google also reported that traditional lectures fell by 38% and student-led collaborative learning nearly tripled. These are findings reported by the company from its study, not proof that Gemini alone caused the changes.
Classroom Gains and Test-Score Limits
The findings speak to two different questions schools face: whether AI can support individual practice and whether it can change how lessons are organized. In the UK, results suggest Gemini-based tutoring can provide support comparable to a human tutor on selected classroom measures, while keeping students involved in solving problems. But the absence of STAR score gains means the trial does not establish that this approach improved performance on a broad standardized assessment.
That distinction matters for schools deciding how to use AI. Classroom quiz results and standardized test outcomes are not interchangeable, and the UK trial suggests that time spent on step-by-step help may affect how much material students cover. The Italian results point to potential changes in teaching practice, but are based on classroom activities and teacher reports. They do not, on their own, establish lasting student achievement gains or show that the same effects would occur in other school systems.
Products Worth Considering
LG UltraGear 27-Inch QHD OLED Gaming Monitor, 240Hz, 0.03ms, G-SYNC Compatible, FreeSync Premium Pro, HDMI 2.1
Amazon Kindle Paperwhite Signature Edition (12th Generation, 2024), 32 GB, Metallic Black
Sony WH-1000XM6 Wireless Noise-Canceling Over-Ear Headphones, Blue, Bundle
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Two School Studies Worked
The UK trial followed an earlier exploratory study with Eedi, which Google said found that AI tutoring could operate in real classrooms. The newer trial compared three kinds of help after an incorrect answer and tracked progress through platform assignments, intermediate quizzes and independent STAR tests. Its design included teacher involvement and real-time expert review of AI responses, so its results describe a supervised model rather than unsupervised student use of a chatbot.
In Italy, Google worked with the Salesians of Don Bosco school network and the Pontifical Salesian University in Rome on a yearlong study. Educators used Gemini for Education in lesson planning, and researchers collected classroom activities and teacher self-reports with and without the tool. Google’s account emphasizes changes in lesson formats and teacher experience; the material provided does not describe a randomized comparison like the UK trial.
“Technology best serves education when it creates space for inspiring teaching and deeper learning.”
— Google, in its October 29, 2026 report
Limits of the Evidence So Far
The UK study’s lack of STAR score gains leaves open whether AI tutoring improves broader achievement over a longer period. Google said students using AI solved about 14 problems per session, compared with 19 for students receiving static hints, because step-by-step tutoring took more time. The company believes this reduced problem volume and limited curriculum coverage during the 10 weeks, but that explanation is an interpretation; the trial does not establish whether a longer duration would produce standardized-test gains.
The Italian findings also need careful interpretation. Google’s supplied account does not give further detail about how the study measured classroom collaboration, the size of specific lesson samples, or whether the reported changes persisted after the study. The report describes teacher self-reports and observed classroom activities, so the extent to which Gemini itself caused the differences remains uncertain. Both studies were presented by Google, and independent replication is not described in the source material.
Longer Trials and Broader Measures
Google said it is exploring follow-up UK trials spanning a full academic year and plans to expand the measures used to study learning and later outcomes. Those trials could help test whether students’ stronger performance on daily tasks and quizzes carries over to standardized assessments when they have more time to cover the curriculum. The company has also published a technical report with further details on the UK study.
For schools, the immediate findings support continued evaluation rather than a settled verdict on classroom AI. More information is needed on longer-term learning, the conditions needed for human oversight, and whether the Italian classroom patterns can be reproduced in other settings. The next reported milestone is the outcome of Google’s proposed full-year tutoring research.
Key Questions
Did Gemini tutoring improve students’ standardized test scores?
No gain was found on STAR standardized test scores during the UK trial’s 10-week period, according to Google. Students receiving AI tutoring did perform similarly to human-tutored students on platform tasks and intermediate quizzes.
How many students took part in the UK trial?
The randomized controlled trial included more than 1,100 students ages 12 to 15 using the Eedi school platform.
Were AI responses checked by people?
Yes. Google said human experts reviewed every AI response in real time before it reached a student. Teachers also monitored progress and provided classroom support.
What did the Italian study report?
Across 31 schools, teachers reported greater creativity when planning and teaching with Gemini. Google also reported a 38% drop in traditional lectures and nearly three times as much student-led collaborative learning in lessons teachers co-designed with the tool.
What research is planned next?
Google said it is exploring follow-up trials across a full academic year and broader measures of learning to examine whether classroom gains translate into longer-term outcomes.
Source: blog.google
