Blinded panel ratings of design presentations did not differ significantly between GenARch and Control teams¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? GenARch teams showed lower median scores than Control teams on all five presentation criteria, but between-condition differences were not statistically significant. → Xiao 2026

Evidence¶

Xiao 2026¶

Xiao, Y., Chen, M., Li, Y., Powers, N., Wiesenfeld, M., Smith, G., Farzin, S., Liu, S. (2026). Generative AI and Extended Reality in Collaborative Architectural Design Education: An Exploratory Studio Study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2609.13494. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.13494 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.13494

q2 · i? · causal · r1

A blinded seven-member panel (two professors, five senior students) rated recorded team presentations on a 1–5 rubric. Overall median was 3.45 [2.89, 3.92] for GenARch and 3.87 [3.63, 3.88] for Control, with greater variability in the GenARch condition; comparisons are descriptive given few team products and low-to-moderate rater agreement.

"Across the seven team presentations, the GenARch teams showed lower median scores than the Control teams on all five criteria (Fig. 4a), but the between-condition differences were not statistically significant."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Perceived tool quality was perfectly rank-associated with panel-rated presentation score among the four GenARch teams (exploratory) — related
• GenARch use was associated with a positive relative pre–post change in the Team-Q conflict-management subscale — related
• No significant relative pre–post changes for attitudes toward collaborative learning, overall teamwork, or remaining teamwork subscales — related