One week later, the AI-access group's lead on unaided assessments shrinks to 3.9 pp (0.21 SD), short of statistical significance (p = 0.068)¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr3·q4·i1small
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-16 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
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.
q4 i1 One week after the learning phase, with all students working without AI, the AI-allowed group still scores 3.9 pp (0.21 SD) higher on the knowledge test, about 54 percent of the Session One effect. → Zara Contractor and Germán Reyes 2026
Evidence¶
Zara Contractor and Germán Reyes 2026¶
Zara Contractor and Germán Reyes. (2026). Experimental Evidence on the Learning Impact of Generative AI. https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.08849 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.08849
q4 · causal experiment · i1 · small effect, 0.21 SD (not significant, p = 0.068) · causal · r3
Session Two of the same randomized experiment, approximately one week later (average gap 6.98 days), when all students complete a ten-item test and essay without AI or other resources. The article reports the standardized effect as 0.21 SD and notes the Session One and Session Two estimates are not statistically distinguishable (p= 0.321).
"Treated students decline as well but remain ahead of the control group. The resulting ITT of ˆβ= 3.9pp (p= 0.068) is 54 percent of the 7.2 pp Session One effect"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- How genAI is used, not who uses it, predicts whether independent performance declines or improves — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
- AI access raises immediate unaided test scores by 7.2 percentage points (0.28 SD) after a timed learning phase — related
- AI access raises unaided essay quality in both sessions, while AI-generated text detectable in Session One essays disappears by Session Two — related
- AI assistance reduces persistence: persistence costs concentrate among learners who used AI for direct solutions, not hints — reports the opposite
- Review reports a field experiment in which GPT access improved supported practice but was followed by poorer unaided test performance, mitigated by a guarded tutor — related
- Learning outcomes differ by how students use AI: augmentation and mixed users show gains in both sessions, while automation users' Session One essay advantage is absent from their unaided essays — related
- Access to a generative-AI assistant raises task performance for both lower- and higher-education adults, with significantly larger gains for lower-education participants — related
- Immediate task success does not establish learning that persists without AI support — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
genai-learning-gain-persists-one-week |
title |
One week later, the AI-access group's lead on unaided assessments shrinks to 3.9 pp (0.21 SD), short of statistical significance (p = 0.068) |
description |
A smaller AI-access learning gain persists one week later on unaided assessments (3.9 pp, 0.21 SD) |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
source_checked |
2026-10-16 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-10 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — zara-contractor-and-germán-reyes-2026 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.