Truace
Subscribe
70/100

Moderate evidence

GainPublished recordEducationGood Space

Full story
More
Export record JSONEmailLinkedInX

A meta-analysis of the effects of generative artificial intelligence on learning, cognitive, and linguistic outcomes

Truvace record
TRV-2026-2704raw data (JSON)
Version
v1Published
First published
Evidence type
Systematic review or meta-analysis
Sources
1 sourcePeer-reviewed
sha256
016f9583b88f…check it

This meta-analysis examined the effect of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) on students' cognitive, learning, and linguistic outcomes. A total of 68 effect sizes extracted from 58 independent primary studies were analyzed using a three-level random-effects model with cluster-robust variance estimation applied at the study level. Seven moderator variables were evaluated: outcome domain, educational level, GenAI tool type, experimental design, cultural orientation, course/subject domain, and comparison-co…

The gain

A meta-analysis of 58 studies covering 6,941 learners found generative AI use was associated with a large average improvement in learning, cognitive and linguistic outcomes (pooled g = 0.864).

What this doesn’t fix

The prediction interval of −0.213 to 1.942 means a new setting could show no or negative effect, and tests for small-study bias point to an inflated average; most subgroup differences did not hold after correction.

Sources

1 on file
  1. Frontiers in Educationdoi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1971476
    Peer-reviewed2026-10-21

What the review found when it combined the studies

These are the review’s own pooled results, copied from its abstract. Truvace did not recalculate them.

  • Overall effect of generative AI on students' cognitive, learning and linguistic outcomes

    Hedges' g 0.864 (95% CI 0.720 to 1.009)

    58 studies · 6,941 people

    The review’s own words
    The pooled effect was large, g = 0.864, 95% CI [0.720, 1.009]

Code checks every number above against the review’s text before it is shown. The short labels are an AI model’s reading of that text, so the review’s own sentence sits under each one. A pooled figure is only as strong as the studies behind it. How Truvace uses pooled results

Cite this record

v1

Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2704, v1: “A meta-analysis of the effects of generative artificial intelligence on learning, cognitive, and linguistic outcomes.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2704 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 016f9583b88f882c…

Change history

1 version

Every change made to this record since it was first published, and why. Nothing has changed since it went up.

  1. Publishedv1016f9583b88f…

    Certified into the record

Check this record hasn’t been altered

Check this record hasn’t been altered
How to check it yourself, without trusting this page

Download any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2704 and hash its canonical field yourself, for example with shasum -a 256. You should get its content_hash. Each version’s text also ends with prev:and the hash of the version before it (version 1 points to 64 zeros). If anyone had changed a single character of any version after it was saved, those hashes wouldn’t line up.