Claims

Merely viewing an AI-generated writing example improved writing skill as much as actively practicing with the AI tool, with benefits persisting one day later

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r3 · q4 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · 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 i0 Participants who viewed an AI-generated example without editing it improved as much as participants who practiced with the AI tool (d=.03, p=.883). → Benjamin Lira 2025 q4 i0 At one-day follow-up, the example-only and AI-practice conditions did not differ from each other (d=.02, p=.830). → Benjamin Lira 2025 (2)

Evidence

Benjamin Lira 2025

Benjamin Lira, Todd Rogers, Daniel G. Goldstein, Lyle Ungar, and Angela L. Duckworth. (2025). Coach not crutch: Evidence that AI can improve writing skill despite reducing effort. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.02880 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.02880

q4 · i0 · causal · r3

Pre-registered replication and extension (N=2,003, Prolific) replacing no-practice with an example-only condition. Participants who merely saw an example "improved as much as participants who had practiced with the AI tool" (d=.03, p=.883).

"they improved as much as participants who had practiced with the AI tool (and could edit its output,d= .03,p= .883)"

Benjamin Lira 2025 (2)

Benjamin Lira, Todd Rogers, Daniel G. Goldstein, Lyle Ungar, and Angela L. Duckworth. (2025). Coach not crutch: Evidence that AI can improve writing skill despite reducing effort. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.02880

q4 · i0 · causal · r3

One-day follow-up subsample (n=633 of n=800 recontacted). Both AI conditions "continued to outperform" practice without AI, and the example-only and AI-practice conditions did not differ from each other (d=.02, p=.830). Condition × time interactions were non-significant (ps>.96).

"Participants who had practiced with the AI tool (d= .29,p= .006) and participants who had simply seen an AI example (d= .32,p= .003), both continued to outperform those who had practiced without the tool"

Discussion

Learner Variables

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id viewing-ai-example-as-effective-as-ai-practice
title Merely viewing an AI-generated writing example improved writing skill as much as actively practicing with the AI tool, with benefits persisting one day later
description Merely viewing an AI-generated writing example improved writing skill as much as actively practicing with the AI tool, with benefits persisting one day later
status review
evidence_strength strong
newest_evidence 2025
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-10
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 2 — benjamin-lira-2025, benjamin-lira-2025-2

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.