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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Between-groups difference for duration is significant (Q = 9.106, p = 0.011); the 8–16 week subgroup yields the largest effect (ES = 0.759), exceeding 0–8 weeks (ES = 0.494) and >16 weeks (ES = 0.372). → 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 intervention duration across subgroups: 0–8 weeks N = 15, 8–16 weeks N = 31, >16 weeks N = 13, with significant between-groups difference (Q = 9.106, p = 0.011). The quote reports all three subgroup effect sizes.

"interventions lasting 0–8 weeks yielded a moderate effect (ES = 0.494, p < 0.001), interventions of 8–16 weeks produced the most significant effect (ES = 0.759, p < 0.001), and interventions exceeding 16 weeks showed a comparatively more minor effect (ES = 0.372, p < 0.001)"

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
• The review identifies a trend linking AI intervention duration to effect size: longer interventions spanning weeks or months yield larger effect sizes than shorter ones — reports the opposite
• Interventions lasting one to two months show the largest effect, and effects do not increase consistently with longer duration — 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
• Intervention duration is the only significant moderator of ChatGPT's effect on learning perception, with effects largest beyond 8 weeks — related
• The effect of ChatGPT on learning performance is moderated by type of course, learning model, and duration, with problem-based learning and 4–8-week interventions showing the largest effects — related
• Interventions longer than one month showed the largest effect size for robot-assisted STEM learning, though duration was not a significant moderator overall — related
• Scaffold effects peak at 2–4 weeks of treatment and decrease dramatically for treatments lasting 9–24 weeks — related
• Teaching type, intervention duration, subject area, group size, and learning scaffold significantly moderate the effect of collaborative problem-solving on critical thinking — 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
• Teacher-supported learning scaffolds show the largest effect (ES = 0.92), and longer intervention durations yield larger effects — reports the opposite
• Intervention duration does not significantly predict GenAI writing effect sizes, which the authors attribute to limited temporal diversity in the evidence base — 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
• Monitoring tool effects were larger in shorter interventions, contrary to the duration hypothesis — related