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)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · 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 The between-groups moderating effect of instructional method is non-significant (Q = 2.918, p = 0.232); subgroup effects are PBL ES = 0.717, blended ES = 0.525, lecture-based ES = 0.396 (non-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 · r3

Moderator analysis (Table 5) of instructional method: lecture-based N = 6, project-based N = 31, blended N = 22; the omnibus test was non-significant (Q = 2.918, p = 0.232). The quote reports all three subgroup effect sizes.

"project-based learning yielded a moderately significant effect (ES = 0.717, p < 0.001), blended learning produced a moderate effect (ES = 0.525, p < 0.001), while lecture-based instruction yielded a small, non-significant effect (ES = 0.396)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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
• 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) — related
• Instructional model shows a significant subgroup difference (traditional classroom g = 1.19 vs. AI teaching g = 0.69) that does not remain robust in multivariate meta-regression — related
• The pooled effect of self-regulated learning does not differ significantly by course type, though mathematics shows the largest descriptive effect — related
• Gen-AI has a moderate positive overall effect on students' higher-order thinking (g = 0.609) across 29 experimental and quasi-experimental studies — related
• ChatGPT's effect on higher-order thinking is moderated by course type and by ChatGPT's role, with the intelligent-tutor role showing the largest effect — related
• GenAI-assisted education produces significantly higher academic achievement than non-GenAI-assisted approaches (g = 0.40) — 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
• Technology effects on TEFL outcomes trend upward across educational levels (primary g = 0.29, secondary g = 0.35, tertiary g = 0.44), though between-level differences are not statistically significant — related
• 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