Within the AI-assisted group, the frequency of checking the AI's claims against sources predicted decision-making gains, with no students flagged for over-reliance¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r? · q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · 1 of 2 entries checked against their sources (automated) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Students who checked the AI's claims against sources more often showed larger decision-making gains. → Dimitrios Gousopoulos 2026 q3 i? No student in the AI-assisted group was flagged for over-reliance on the AI. → Dimitrios Gousopoulos 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Dimitrios Gousopoulos 2026¶

Dimitrios Gousopoulos. (2026). Can AI-Assisted Inquiry Enhance Students' Decision-Making Skills in Socio-Scientific Issues? A Three-Group Experimental Study on Climate Change. International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Research and Studies. https://doi.org/10.62225/2583049X.2026.6.3.6516

q3 · i? · associational · r?

Within-group analysis of the AI-assisted inquiry group (90 students) in the three-group experiment; the article reports that "the number of times students checked the AI's claims against the sources predicted their gains." No effect-size value is printed.

"Within the AI group, the number of times students checked the AI's claims against the sources predicted their gains, and no student was flagged for over-reliance."

Dimitrios Gousopoulos 2026 (2)¶

Dimitrios Gousopoulos. (2026). Can AI-Assisted Inquiry Enhance Students' Decision-Making Skills in Socio-Scientific Issues? A Three-Group Experimental Study on Climate Change. International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Research and Studies. https://doi.org/10.62225/2583049X.2026.6.3.6516

q3 · i? · causal · r?

Over-reliance monitoring within the AI-assisted inquiry group (90 students) in the three-group experiment; the article reports that "no student was flagged for over-reliance" on the AI.

"Within the AI group, the number of times students checked the AI's claims against the sources predicted their gains, and no student was flagged for over-reliance."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• All three instructional groups began at comparable, mostly low decision-making levels and all improved over the intervention — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• Evidence suggests over-reliance on generative AI may negatively affect students' self-regulated learning behaviors, potentially harming retention and transfer to novel contexts — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• AI-assisted inquiry produced larger decision-making gains than inquiry-only and traditional instruction in secondary climate-change education — related
• Between-group effect sizes on decision-making gains were large for AI-assisted versus traditional instruction and moderate-to-large for AI-assisted versus inquiry-only — related
• Over-reliance on AI scaffolding risks learned helplessness, so focus should shift to fostering self-regulated AI interaction — related
• Baseline capability moderates AI productivity benefits non-monotonically across AI's capability frontier — related
• A systematic review reports that over-reliance on AI dialogue systems fosters complacency and dependency and may weaken students' decision-making — related
• The clearest AI-assisted advantages appeared on the stakeholder engagement, alternatives, implementation, and monitoring decision-making steps — related
• In interviews with 25 engineering students at one Swedish university, students described GenAI as acceptable when it stimulates reflection and directly copying its outputs as cheating, and one used its fallibility as a prompt to double-check — related