Truace
Subscribe
70/100

Moderate evidence

GainPublished recordEducationGood Space

Full story
More
Export record JSONEmailLinkedInX

Influence of interactive, AI empowered learning tools on students’ higher-order thinking: evidence from a meta-analysis

Truvace record
TRV-2026-2745raw data (JSON)
Version
v1Published
First published
Evidence type
Systematic review or meta-analysis
Sources
1 sourcePeer-reviewed
sha256
3502c0b3df30…check it

This study aimed to determine the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) tools on students’ problem-solving, creative thinking, and critical thinking skills, since the role of AI in educational settings became increasingly important. The meta-analysis was used to quantitatively synthesize relevant research findings. The first question aimed to determine the impact of AI tools on students’ problem-solving, creative thinking, and critical thinking skills, classified as HOT skills. The results, based on 29 papers p…

The gain

A meta-analysis of 29 papers (37 effect sizes, 2000–2025) found AI learning tools were linked to a moderate gain in students' problem-solving, creative and critical thinking over traditional methods (mean Hedges' g 0.628, 95% CI 0.463 to 0.793).

What this doesn’t fix

Only 29 published papers were included, with books, theses and conference proceedings excluded. Most studies involved undergraduates, and creative and critical thinking had very few studies; results varied widely between studies.

Sources

1 on file
  1. Interpersona An International Journal on Personal Relationshipsdoi:10.54899/iij.v20i1.1796
    Peer-reviewed2026-10-13

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.

  • Students' higher-order thinking skills with AI tools compared with traditional methods

    Hedges' g .63 (95% CI .46 to .79)

    29 studies

    The review’s own words
    the mean effect size is .63 with a confidence interval of .46 to .79

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-2026-2745, v1: “Influence of interactive, AI empowered learning tools on students’ higher-order thinking: evidence from a meta-analysis.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2745 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 3502c0b3df30aa06…

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. Publishedv13502c0b3df30…

    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-2026-2745 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.