Truace
Subscribe
70/100

Moderate evidence

GainPublished recordEducationGood Space

Full story
More
Export record JSONEmailLinkedInX

The cognitive-affective impact of generative AI on EFL/ESL learning: A meta-analysis

Truvace record
TRV-2026-2820raw data (JSON)
Version
v1Published
First published
Evidence type
Systematic review or meta-analysis
Sources
1 sourcePeer-reviewed
sha256
c99cc9428795…check it

Since ChatGPT’s public release in November 2022, generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has rapidly transformed English as a Foreign/Second Language (EFL/ESL) education, yet its precise impact on learning outcomes remains subject to debate. This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizes evidence from 33 pooled empirical studies and 6 narrative-synthesis studies examining GenAI’s effects on language learning outcomes from November 2022 to March 2026. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we searched multipl…

The gain

A meta-analysis of 33 pooled studies found generative AI use in English as a foreign or second language learning was linked to a large overall effect (Hedges' g = 1.253), with language performance at g = 1.197.

What this doesn’t fix

The literature is overwhelmingly concentrated at the tertiary level (87.9%), and heterogeneity across studies was very high (I² up to 99.1%), with the self-regulation estimate not significant.

Sources

1 on file
  1. Language Learning & Technologydoi:10.64152/10125/73714
    Peer-reviewed2026-01-01

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 language learning outcomes in EFL/ESL learners using generative AI

    Hedges' g 1.253 (95% CI 0.954 to 1.542)

    33 studies · search to March 2026

    The review’s own words
    Results revealed a large overall effect (Hedges’ g = 1.253, 95% CI [0.954, 1.542], I² = 94.4%).

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-2026-2820, v1: “The cognitive-affective impact of generative AI on EFL/ESL learning: A meta-analysis.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2820 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 c99cc94287951059…

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. Publishedv1c99cc9428795…

    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-2026-2820 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.