A law professor ran a two-year classroom experiment comparing three setups: a full AI ban, unrestricted AI access, and guided AI training. Students who worked without AI placed last in both years, while the researcher says the outcome overturned his prior assumption that unguided AI use would be harmful. He now argues structured instruction on AI tools matters more than prohibition.
The latest PISA assessment includes findings on how students use AI chatbots as learning aids. It reports that pupils who turned to chatbots more often tended to score worse on the tests. The results raise questions about how such tools should be used in classrooms and what they mean for schools adopting them.
A randomized trial involving over 1,000 university students looked at how using ChatGPT alongside critical-thinking training affected their work on a real-world assignment. The study measured outcomes including originality, critical thinking, and overall performance. It was published by OpenAI and frames the results as evidence that students can get better answers and broader thinking from the combination.
WHY IT MATTERS ↘Because the evidence comes from the model vendor, it may influence institutional procurement and AI-literacy curricula more as marketing than as neutral science, making independent replication and disclosure of task design and baseline conditions essential. For practitioners, the key competitive and governance question is whether pairing LLMs with critical-thinking training improves learning outcomes without creating dependency or eroding assessment validity.