Gen-AI's effect on HOT is strongest for problem-solving ability (g = 0.745), followed by critical thinking (g = 0.691), with a smaller effect on creativity (g = 0.444)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2025 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Problem-solving shows the largest effect (ES = 0.745), critical thinking the second highest (ES = 0.691), and creativity the lowest (ES = 0.444), all statistically significant. → Zhao Yan 2025

Evidence¶

Zhao Yan 2025¶

Zhao Yan, Yue Yuhe, Sun Zhonghua, Jiang Qiang, Li Gangsheng. (2025). Does Generative Artificial Intelligence Improve Students’ Higher-Order Thinking? A Meta-Analysis Based on 29 Experiments and Quasi-Experiments. Journal of Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence13120160

q3 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r2

Subgroup meta-analysis across the three HOT dimensions (Table 4): problem-solving N = 16, ES = 0.745; critical thinking N = 20, ES = 0.691; creativity N = 23, ES = 0.444, all p < 0.001. The quote reports the problem-solving result; the other two dimension values are printed in the same results section.

"Gen-AI had the most pronounced impact on students’ problem-solving ability, with an effect size (ES) of 0.745, which falls within the moderately significant range (0.5 ≤ ES < 0.8) and is statistically significant (p < 0.001)"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Creativity — outcome: instruction changes it
• Problem Solving — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Meta-reviews reach contradictory conclusions on whether AI reliance harms or helps critical thinking, with substantial design limitations limiting generalizability — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Gen-AI has a moderate positive overall effect on students' higher-order thinking (g = 0.609) across 29 experimental and quasi-experimental studies — a broader claim this one bears on
• Intervention duration significantly moderates Gen-AI's effect on HOT, with the strongest effects at 8–16 weeks (ES = 0.759) and weaker effects for shorter (0.494) and longer (0.372) interventions — related
• Instructional method does not significantly moderate Gen-AI's effect on HOT, though project-based learning shows the largest subgroup effect (ES = 0.717) and lecture-based instruction a small non-significant effect (ES = 0.396) — related
• Self-regulated learning ability significantly moderates Gen-AI's effect on HOT: high-SRL students show ES = 0.863 versus ES = 0.284 for low-SRL students — related
• Educational level does not significantly moderate Gen-AI's effect on HOT, though K-12 subgroups show a larger effect (ES = 0.857) than post-secondary (ES = 0.539) — related
• GPT feedback in VR markedly improved problem-solving and critical thinking but had limited impact on creativity — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Intervention cohort scored significantly higher on creativity thinking, design skills, and problem solving, but not on presentation or attendance — reports the opposite
• Collaborative problem-solving significantly improves students' critical thinking overall (ES = 0.82) — related