Level 2: CorrelationalLearners: Higher-ed studentsOutcome: Learning or achievementPreprintPreregisteredSmall or imprecise
2026-09-21 · arXiv (back catalog) · Study (preprint)
Students increasingly study alongside generative artificial intelligence (AI), yet unguided access to fluent answers invites cognitive offloading, and there is little evidence on which configurations of AI tutoring produce learning. Two design margins are usually bundled together: pedagogical structure (how the tutor...
Why this label for When AI Tutors Speak: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment
- Level 2: Correlational: Consensus level confirmed against the methodology.
- Review status: Confirmed against the published method (AI-assisted review)
- Grader A: R5 randomized 86 MBA students with a learning outcome starts at Level 3; R6 imprecision lowers it because no interval or power information is reported.
- Grader B: R5: a preregistered randomized field experiment with a learning outcome starts at Level 3; R6 imprecision (n=86, under 100, and only p-values with no interval or power information) lowers it to Level 2.
- Rule version: METHODOLOGY v0.3, pipeline v1, rules rules-v0.4
- Cognitive load: matched 'cognitive offloading'
- Tutoring and personalization: matched 'Tutors'
Graded blind by two AI graders against our published method. Confirmed against the published method (AI-assisted review) Method
Level 1: Descriptive or exploratoryLearners: Higher-ed studentsOutcome: Learning or achievementPreprintSmall or impreciseShort exposureResearcher-made measure
2026-09-18 · arXiv (back catalog) · Study (preprint)
Generative AI can improve students' programming performance, but successful task completion may not reflect what they retain. We examined performance, retention, cognitive load, and ownership in a controlled between-subjects experiment with 59 undergraduate computer science students, 55 were retained for analysis.
Why this label for Your Programming Students' Cognition with ChatGPT: Higher Performance, Lower Ret
- Level 1: Descriptive or exploratory: Between-subjects experiment, 55 analyzed, no baseline equivalence and no interval; downgraded to 1.
- Review status: Confirmed against the published method (AI-assisted review)
- Grader A: R5 controlled comparison lacks explicit random assignment or baseline data; R6 imprecision lowers Level 2 for 55 analyzed students without an interval or power report.
- Grader B: R5: a controlled between-subjects experiment with a recall (learning) outcome is Level 3; R6 imprecision (n=55, no intervals) lowers it to Level 2. R7 short-exposure cap also noted.
- Rule version: METHODOLOGY v0.3, pipeline v1, rules rules-v0.4
- Cognitive load: matched 'cognitive load'
Graded blind by two AI graders against our published method. Confirmed against the published method (AI-assisted review) Method
Level 1: Descriptive or exploratoryLearners: Adult learnersOutcome: Learning or achievementPeer-reviewed (journal reference listed)Small or impreciseShort exposureResearcher-made measure
2026-09-01 · arXiv (back catalog) · Study
Does unrestricted AI access bypass the cognitive effort required for learning, or does it streamline knowledge acquisition? This paper reports on a study where we compare three designs for user-AI interaction in a learning context: (1) an unrestricted conversational bot like ChatGPT, (2) a pedagogically constrained...
Why this label for Socrates went Nuclear: Comparing Interaction Strategies for AI systems in a Lear
- Level 1: Descriptive or exploratory: Consensus level confirmed against the methodology.
- Review status: Confirmed against the published method (AI-assisted review)
- Grader A: R5 design ceiling permits Level 2 for a pre/post comparison without stated equivalence; R6 imprecision and measurement lower it to Level 1 for 50 learners and an unvalidated immediate test.
- Grader B: R5 three-condition comparison with pre-test, capped at 3; R7 short-exposure cap applies; R6 imprecision (n=50, d and p only, no interval) lowers to 2; R6 measurement (researcher-made immediate post-test, no reliability) lowers to 1; construct flag: the authors say the chatbot's gains reflect answer retrieval rather than deeper learning
- Rule version: METHODOLOGY v0.3, pipeline v1, rules rules-v0.4
- Cognitive load: matched 'cognitive effort'
- Tutoring and personalization: matched 'tutoring'
Graded blind by two AI graders against our published method. Confirmed against the published method (AI-assisted review) Method
Commentary
2026-08-26 · EdSurge · News
Educators must shift their focus from preventing cognitive offloading to preserving the critical thinking skills AI threatens to replace.
Why this label for Protecting Student Cognition in the Age of AI
- Commentary or coverage: news, commentary or policy with no study
- Cognitive load: matched 'cognitive offloading'
Provisional label from fixed rules applied to the collected text; research items are re-graded by our review pipeline. Method
Level 3: Controlled comparisonLearners: Higher-ed studentsOutcome: Learning or achievementPreprint
2026-07-23 · arXiv (back catalog) · Study (preprint)
The availability of generative AI (GenAI) has raised concerns that college students substitute GenAI for cognitive effort, earning high grades without learning. If this "GenAI substitution hypothesis" is true, grades should rise disproportionately in GenAI-susceptible courses--those relying more on assessments like...
Why this label for Generative AI Availability, Grades, and Student Satisfaction at a Large Universi
- Level 3: Controlled comparison: Both graders agree; rules version missed it. Consensus level confirmed.
- Review status: Confirmed against the published method (AI-assisted review)
- Grader A: R5 design ceiling: the difference-in-differences analysis compares courses before and after AI availability using baseline administrative data.
- Grader B: R5 design ceiling: difference-in-differences quasi-experiment on administrative data (138,386 students) with a comparison and a pre-period gives Level 3; R7 preprint cap is 3; grades are a proxy for learning, so review for R6 indirectness
- Rule version: METHODOLOGY v0.3, pipeline v1, rules rules-v0.4
- Cognitive load: matched 'cognitive effort'
Graded blind by two AI graders against our published method. Confirmed against the published method (AI-assisted review) Method
Level 2: CorrelationalLearners: K-12 studentsOutcome: Learning or achievementPreprintShort exposureResearcher-made measure
2026-07-14 · arXiv (back catalog) · Study (preprint)
This study proposes a semi-automated system for generating dialogue-based lessons using Large Language Models (LLMs) and Text-to-Speech (TTS) technology, and exploratorily examines its educational potential via a practical quasi-experiment. The system augments rather than replaces educators through a three-stage...
Why this label for A Semi-Automated System for Generating Dialogue-Based TTS Lessons Using Large La
- Level 2: Correlational: Change to 2. Within-subject comparison of three lesson formats with 245 high school students; no baseline equivalence or counterbalancing reported, so 2.
- Review status: Confirmed against the published method (AI-assisted review)
- Grader A: R5 quasi-experiment lacks an equivalent baseline comparison because lesson formats were given in fixed order with different content.
- Grader B: R5/R6: a fixed-order within-subject quasi-experiment with 245 high school students. Format is confounded with content and there is no equivalent comparison, so the ceiling is Level 2. The measurement downgrade (researcher-made outcomes with no reliability reported) lowers it to Level 1.
- Rule version: METHODOLOGY v0.3, pipeline v1, rules rules-v0.4
- Cognitive load: matched 'cognitive load'
Graded blind by two AI graders against our published method. Confirmed against the published method (AI-assisted review) Method
Commentary
2026-06-08 · Carl Hendrick (learning science) · Commentary
The most-cited AI-in-education paper gets retracted, retrieval practice hits a wall under high cognitive load, and a little knowledge turns out to be worse than none at all.
Why this label for The Monthly Dispatch - What's New in Learning Science? - June 2026
- Commentary or coverage: news, commentary or policy with no study
- Retrieval practice: matched 'retrieval practice'
- Cognitive load: matched 'cognitive load'
Provisional label from fixed rules applied to the collected text; research items are re-graded by our review pipeline. Method
Level 1: Descriptive or exploratoryLearners: Adult learnersOutcome: Learning or achievementPreprintSmall or impreciseShort exposure
2026-05-07 · arXiv (back catalog) · Study (preprint)
Advance in technology offer the potential for future adoption of a combination of virtual reality (VR) and real-time adaptivity to enhance training and education. Providing a valid neuro-ergonomic measure of cognitive load can enable an adaptive training regime to continuously adjust tas difficulty to an optimal level...
Why this label for Leveraging fNIRS to Evaluate Workload for Adaptive Training in Virtual Reality
- Level 1: Descriptive or exploratory: Consensus level confirmed against the methodology.
- Review status: Confirmed against the published method (AI-assisted review)
- Grader A: R5 design ceiling: 36 people complete one training task and retention test, with no comparison group reported.
- Grader B: R5 design ceiling: single-session study validating an fNIRS workload measure (n=36); the outcome is the cognitive-load measure, not a learning comparison
- Rule version: METHODOLOGY v0.3, pipeline v1, rules rules-v0.4
- Cognitive load: matched 'cognitive load'
Graded blind by two AI graders against our published method. Confirmed against the published method (AI-assisted review) Method
Commentary
2026-04-11 · Carl Hendrick (learning science) · Commentary
Retrieval practice under scrutiny, feedback's missing mechanism, AI that actually teaches, and the quiet erosion of cognitive effort
Why this label for The Monthly Dispatch - What’s New in Learning Science - April 2026
- Commentary or coverage: news, commentary or policy with no study
- Retrieval practice: matched 'Retrieval practice'
- Cognitive load: matched 'cognitive effort'
Provisional label from fixed rules applied to the collected text; research items are re-graded by our review pipeline. Method
Level 3: Controlled comparisonLevel-4 candidate (held at 3: preprint, needs full-text human check)Learners: Adult learnersOutcome: Learning or achievementPreprintShort exposure
2026-04-06 · arXiv (back catalog) · Study (preprint)
People often optimize for long-term goals in collaboration: A mentor or companion doesn't just answer questions, but also scaffolds learning, tracks progress, and prioritizes the other person's growth over immediate results. In contrast, current AI systems are fundamentally short-sighted collaborators -- optimized for...
Why this label for AI Assistance Reduces Persistence and Hurts Independent Performance
- Level 3: Controlled comparison: Level-4 candidate kept at 3: preprint; full-text check of attrition, baseline and measures required before any Level 4.
- Review status: Confirmed against the published method (AI-assisted review)
- Grader A: R5 design ceiling: randomized controlled trials assign human participants and measure unassisted performance; Level 4 verification and uncertainty information are not reported.
- Grader B: R5 design: series of RCTs (N=1,222) on unassisted performance and persistence; R7 preprint and short-exposure caps hold at max Level 3; human review needed before any upgrade.
- Rule version: METHODOLOGY v0.3, pipeline v1, rules rules-v0.4
- Cognitive load: matched 'cognitive offloading'
- Reading and writing: matched 'reading comprehension'
Graded blind by two AI graders against our published method. Confirmed against the published method (AI-assisted review) Method
