Prior AI education shows no family-wise association with any baseline perception outcome, with at most small effect sizes, under both three-group and two-group codings¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q2 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i0 Prior coursework or workshop participation does not survive Holm correction for any of the five outcomes; the two-group contrast has minimum pHolm=.524 and Cliff's |δ|<.19. → Yongkyung Oh 2026

Evidence¶

Yongkyung Oh 2026¶

Yongkyung Oh, Lynn Talton, Alex Bui. (2026). Engagement Intensity as a Learner-Modeling Signal for Adaptive AI Ethics Instruction. KDD 2026 AI for Education Day, at the ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD '26). https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.18548 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.18548

q2 · i0 · associational · r1

Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney analyses of the same 91-trainee pre-instruction survey under three-group (formal/informal/none) and collapsed two-group codings of prior AI education. All five Holm-corrected tests are non-significant and printed Cliff's δ values are below .19, i.e. negligible-to-small effect sizes.

"A collapsed two-group contrast (any prior versus none), reported in the same table, reaches the identical conclusion (minimum𝑝Holm =.524 ) with at most small effect sizes (Cliff’s|𝛿|<.19 )."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Student perceptions of LLM influence on collaboration and creativity do not differ significantly by digital familiarity, AI comfort, or prior AI use — related
• Self-reported LLM usage frequency shows Holm-corrected associations with all five baseline AI perception outcomes, strongest for complex-task trust, accuracy trust, and critical-thinking risk — reports the opposite
• The cohort's baseline perception profile shows high endorsement of critical-thinking risk and training interest and substantially more cautious trust for complex-task use than for accuracy — related