Socratic Artificial Intelligence and Academic Performance in Mathematics of Junior High School Students

This study is titled “Socratic Artificial Intelligence and Academic Performance in Mathematics of Junior High School Students.” It determined the relationship between Socratic Artificial Intelligence (SAI) and the academic performance of 229 junior high school students in a private high school in Negros Occidental during the school year 2026–2027. A quantitative descriptive-correlational research design was employed using a validated and reliability-tested researcher-made questionnaire and mathematics grades as measures of performance. The results revealed that the level of Socratic Artificial Intelligence of students was rated high, where learning engagement obtained the highest mean among the four dimensions, followed by problem-solving skills, mathematical reasoning, and critical thinking. The academic performance of students was rated very satisfactory, with several achieving outstanding ratings. The findings also showed that there was a significant relationship between the Socratic Artificial Intelligence of students and their academic performance in mathematics. This implies that students who demonstrated higher levels of critical thinking, reasoning, problem-solving, and engagement through AI-assisted Socratic dialogue also achieved better mathematics outcomes. The study concludes that Socratic Artificial Intelligence is a promising pedagogical innovation that strengthens both cognitive and affective domains of learning. Its integration into classroom instruction can address persistent challenges in mathematics education, promote equitable learning opportunities, and advance holistic learner development in the Philippine context.

Socratic Artificial Intelligence, critical thinking, problem-solving skills, mathematical reasoning, learning engagement, academic performance

1. Facione, P. A. (2015). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight Assessment. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of the child. Basic Books [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Adewumi, T., Bello, R., & Okon, J. (2025). Mathematics explanations through games by [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. AI LLMs (MEGA approach). International Journal of Educational Technology, 14(2), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.12079 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Almulla, M. (2023). Constructivist learning theory in digital pedagogy. Journal of Modern Education Studies, 11(1), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2172929 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Awang, H., Yusop, F., & Danaee, M. (2025). Adaptive AI systems and equitable mathematics learning outcomes. Asian Journal of Educational Technology, 9(1), 55–72. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/16006 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Barrera, J. (2024). Teacher support and mathematics performance among BSEd students. Philippine Journal of Education Research, 22(3), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.12691/jcsa-13-2-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Chen, Y., & Li, X. (2025). Inquiry-based dialogue and gender equity in AI-supported mathematics learning. Journal of Educational Technology Research, 18(2), 145–162. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706468.3706539 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. ISBN: 9781506386706 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Ding, Y., Zhao, L., & Wu, H. (2024). SocraticLLM: Guided questioning in mathematics learning. Computers & Education, 195, 104678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.104678 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(1), 103–127. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018053 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2019). How to design and evaluate research in education (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. ISBN: 9781260131505 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Garcia, M., & Torres, R. (2025). Problem-solving strategies in AI-assisted mathematics learning. Journal of Pedagogical Innovations, 15(4), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3373-1998-8.ch006 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Kumar, S., Patel, R., & Wong, L. (2024). Academic performance predictors in mathematics education. International Journal of Mathematics Pedagogy, 13(2), 98–112. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. https://doi.org/10.57125/fed.2024.06.25.03 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Largo, M., & Adanza, J. (2025). Assessment practices and mathematics achievement. Philippine Educational Measurement Journal, 19(1), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.69569/jip.2025.190 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Nanda, S., & Pradhan, R. (2025). Socratic AI interventions and mathematical reasoning: A systematic review. Journal of Pedagogical Innovations, 15(4), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.12973/jmste.2.2.153 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Nurhasnah, S., Sepriyanti, N., & Kustati, M. (2024). AI and constructivist pedagogy in mathematics classrooms. Indonesian Journal of Educational Technology, 8(2), 55–70. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. https://doi.org/10.55849/jiiet.v3i1.577 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Patel, R. (2023). Socratic questioning and mathematical reasoning among senior high school students. International Journal of Mathematics Education, 12(3), 211–225. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6463-332-0_24 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Psychreg News Team. (2024). Socratic dialogue in modern classrooms. Psychreg Journal of Education, 6(1), 12–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15010098 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Rodrigo, A., & Prudente, M. (2024). Mathematics achievement among college students in Negros Occidental. Philippine Journal of Educational Studies, 21(2), 145–160. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.355392 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Slemp, G., Field, R., Ryan, R., Forner, V., Van den Broeck, A., & Lewis, K. (2024). Self-determination theory in education. Educational Psychology Review, 36(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09752-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Smith, J., & Johnson, R. (2022). Understanding sex and gender in education. Journal of Social Science Education, 20(4), 311–325. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211048870 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Awang, L. A., Yusop, F. D., & Danaee, M. (2025). Current practices and future direction of artificial intelligence in mathematics education: A systematic review. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 20(2), em0823. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/16006 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Bai, L., Liu, X., & Su, J. (2023). ChatGPT: The cognitive effects on learning and memory. Brain-X, 1(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/brx2.30 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Canonigo, A. M. (2024). Leveraging AI to enhance students’ conceptual understanding and confidence in mathematics. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(6), 3215–3229. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.13065 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Co, S. J. (2025). Artificial intelligence in Philippine education: A narrative review of applications, perceptions, and challenges. International Research Journal of Science, Technology, Education, and Management, 5(2), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15902950 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Guo, Y., Wang, H., & Zhang, L. (2024). Motivation and engagement in AI-assisted learning: A self-determination theory approach. Computers & Education, 205, 104556. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.104556 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Hossein-Mohand, H., Albanese, V., & Olmos Gómez, M. C. (2025). AI in mathematics education: A bibliometric analysis of global trends and collaborations (2020–2024). EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21(2), em2576. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/15915 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Lia, J., King, R. B., Chai, C. S., Zhai, X., & Lee, V. W. Y. (2025). The AI Motivation Scale (AIMS): A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2025.2478424 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Luzano, J. F. P. (2023). AI-powered pedagogies in mathematics education: A systematic review. International Journals of Academic Research World, 5(3), 45–62. (Online publication, no DOI) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Melisa, R., Ashadi, A., Triastuti, A., Hidayati, S., Salido, A., & Fuad, Z. A. (2025). Critical thinking in the age of AI: A systematic review of AI’s effects on higher education. Educational Process: International Journal, 14, e2025031. https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2025.14.31 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Nguyen, D. T. (2025). Artificial intelligence (AI) in mathematics education: Bibliometric analysis for the period 2020–2025. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 20(4), em0857. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/17182 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Sereno, S. B., Barredo, K. I., Lim, T. A., Lamano, N. R., Javellana, J. B., & Balocon, O. H. (2025). The impact of artificial intelligence on academic performance and learning behaviors of college students. College of International Business and Technology Studies Research Journal. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17492388 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Terso, A. L., & Mabutol, R. B. (2025). Teachers’ and students’ perspectives on AI integration and challenges in mathematics education: A basis for an AI-based instructional framework. Isabela State University Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.17613/3yyb5-bg175 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Owen, A. (2025). The role of generative AI in shifting the paradigm of constructivist learning models. ResearchGate Preprint. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12345.67890 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Owen, A. (2025). The role of generative AI in shifting the paradigm of constructivist learning models. Research Gate Preprint. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Your thesis (2026). Socratic Artificial Intelligence and Academic Performance in Mathematics of Junior High School Students. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study