aceModerate evidence
Published recordEducationThe Trace
More
Evidence of impact and interpretational limits of generative AI in STEM education: a systematic review and meta-analysis on cognitive learning outcomes
- Truvace record
- TRV-2026-2763raw data (JSON)
- Version
- v1Published
- First published
- Evidence type
- Systematic review or meta-analysis
- Sources
- 1 sourcePeer-reviewed
- sha256
- ee482cc30edc…check it
Abstract This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the impact of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) on cognitive learning outcomes in STEM education. Prior research is growing but remains fragmented, often focusing on usability or single tools like ChatGPT rather than domain-specific cognitive effects. We therefore address these gaps by examining (1) the extent to which interactions with GAI enhance learning effectiveness and possible moderators, (2) what challenges learners face when interacting w…
61Gain side
How the two sides scoreClose call
61Problem side
The gain
A meta-analysis of 49 studies found that generative AI looked beneficial for STEM learning overall, and a bias-corrected model still pointed to promise when AI augmented student activities and targeted knowledge gains.
The problem
A systematic review and meta-analysis of 49 STEM education studies found the overall positive effect of generative AI was largely attributable to publication bias (bias-corrected effect 0.076 ± 0.254), with huge variation between studies and possible harm when AI substituted for student activity.
A fixed formula sets both scores from the evidence and its sources. Reader votes don’t move them.
What the scores mean
G is the gain side, out of 100. It goes up when the gain is specific, when it measurably helped people and when the sources behind it are strong.
P is the problem side, out of 100. It goes up when the problem is specific, when it measurably hurt people and when the sources behind it are strong.
What this doesn’t fix
Substantial unexplained heterogeneity remains, and evidence on learner challenges and supportive interventions was limited and inconsistently reported, so those findings are qualitative rather than generalizable effect estimates.
Sources
1 on file- Artificial Intelligence Reviewdoi:10.1007/s10462-026-11665-9
Cite this record
v1Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2763, v1: “Evidence of impact and interpretational limits of generative AI in STEM education: a systematic review and meta-analysis on cognitive learning outcomes.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2763 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 ee482cc30edc2938…
Change history
1 versionEvery change made to this record since it was first published, and why. Nothing has changed since it went up.
Certified into the record
Check this record hasn’t been altered
How to check it yourself, without trusting this page
Download any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2763 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.