Truace
Subscribe
70/100

Moderate evidence

GainPublished recordEducationGood Space

Full story
More
Export record JSONEmailLinkedInX

Artificial intelligence-enhanced inquiry-based learning and higher-order thinking skills: a meta-analysis

Truvace record
TRV-2026-2710raw data (JSON)
Version
v1Published
First published
Evidence type
Systematic review or meta-analysis
Sources
1 sourcePeer-reviewed
sha256
745eb94c234e…check it

This meta-analysis synthesizes empirical evidence from 17 studies (N = 2,052) examining the effectiveness of artificial intelligence-enhanced inquiry-based learning on higher-order thinking skills (HOTS). A random-effects model revealed a medium-to-large positive effect (g = 0.696, 95% CI [0.607, 0.785], p < 0.001). Subgroup analyses showed that generative AI technologies, particularly ChatGPT (g = 0.754), outperformed traditional intelligent tutoring systems (g = 0.614), and problem-based learning demonstrated…

The gain

A meta-analysis of 17 studies with 2,052 students found AI-enhanced inquiry-based learning improved higher-order thinking skills, with a medium-to-large pooled effect (g = 0.696).

What this doesn’t fix

Only 59% of the included studies were rated low risk of bias under Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0, so the remainder carry greater risk of bias.

Sources

1 on file
  1. Learning: Research and Practicedoi:10.1080/23735082.2026.2672411
    Peer-reviewed2026-05-22

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.

  • Higher-order thinking skills with AI-enhanced inquiry-based learning

    Hedges' g 0.696 (95% CI 0.607 to 0.785)

    17 studies · 2,052 people

    The review’s own words
    A random-effects model revealed a medium-to-large positive effect (g = 0.696, 95% CI [0.607, 0.785], p < 0.001).

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-2026-2710, v1: “Artificial intelligence-enhanced inquiry-based learning and higher-order thinking skills: a meta-analysis.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2710 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 745eb94c234e90e3…

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. Publishedv1745eb94c234e…

    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-2026-2710 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.