Learner-level challenges of ChatGPT in STEAM IBL include over-reliance, inaccurate or irrelevant feedback, conceptual confusion, and diminished creativity¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2029: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Studies warned of over-reliance on AI guidance and incorrect or irrelevant feedback, particularly when students treated ChatGPT as a definitive source of answers. → Haozhe Jiang 2026 q2 i? In the orientation and conceptualization phases, learners experienced diminished creativity and conceptual confusion when ChatGPT's outputs were generic, inaccurate, or failed to stimulate divergent thinking. → Haozhe Jiang 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Haozhe Jiang 2026¶

Haozhe Jiang, Yixin Li, Ritesh Chugh, Yueyou Xin and Hongyu Cheng. (2026). The AI-powered co-inquirer: a systematic review of ChatGPT for inquiry-based learning in STEAM education. International Journal of STEM Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-026-00628-9

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

The review's RQ3 synthesis of learner-level challenges in the investigation phase, drawn from the reviewed studies (Table 4 codes include excessive reliance and incorrect/irrelevant feedback). Quote is truncated in the supplied text at the sentence's end.

"In the investigation phase, studies warned of over-reliance on AI guidance, incorrect or irrelevant feedback, and technical barriers, particularly when students treated ChatGPT as a definitive source of answers or used it to"

Haozhe Jiang 2026 (2)¶

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

The review's orientation-phase challenge findings, with students relying on generic responses rather than pursuing original lines of inquiry. Conceptual confusion in conceptualization was attributed to inaccurate or generic ChatGPT-generated explanations.

"studies reported that learners experienced diminished creativity when ChatGPT’s outputs lacked personalization or failed to stimulate divergent thinking"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

Creativity — outcome: instruction changes it

Students report negative experiences with ChatGPT including inaccurate outputs, lack of emotional connection, and risk of overreliance, which constrain competence — related
Reviewed literature reports risks of overreliance, AI errors in complex tasks, and students' uncritical acceptance of AI-generated outputs — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
Warning labels alone did not improve performance or reduce reliance on GenAI advice, and students sometimes adopted incorrect AI answers — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
ChatGPT-supported STEAM IBL research is split evenly between K-12 and higher education, but undergraduates dominate and no study examined elementary learners — related
More experienced AI users showed a Boilerplate Blindspot: uncritically accepting 'trivial' AI-generated code in which later defects originated — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
AI use in training carries risks of uncritical acceptance and overreliance, including undetected conceptual errors and increased delegation of problem solving — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
AI use also carries negative outcomes: technical instability, negative emotional impacts, over-reliance, and contextual contingency — related
ChatGPT-generated text shows inaccuracy, weak logical flow, lack of critical elaboration and non-originality in an author's first-hand test — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
AI roles in learning communities risk passivity, diminished authenticity, and overdependence if reflective inquiry is bypassed — related
Students identified weaknesses in the AI feedback model: lack of real-time feedback, software/economic access barriers, and occasional incorrect or inconsistent outputs — related

Page metadata

Field	Value
`type`	`claim`
`id`	`chatgpt-steam-ibl-learner-challenges`
`title`	`Learner-level challenges of ChatGPT in STEAM IBL include over-reliance, inaccurate or irrelevant feedback, conceptual confusion, and diminished creativity`
`description`	`Learner-level challenges of ChatGPT in STEAM IBL include over-reliance, inaccurate or irrelevant feedback, conceptual confusion, and diminished creativity`
`status`	`review`
`evidence_strength`	`moderate`
`newest_evidence`	`2026`
`source_checked`	`2026-10-20`
`recheck_by`	`2029`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-10-11`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
`sources`	2 — `haozhe-jiang-2026`, `haozhe-jiang-2026-2`

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.