University students with low prior knowledge gain less, or are harmed more, by AI assistance during practice than high-prior-knowledge peers.
- Current status
- Proxy outcomes onlyEvidence unclear · what the nine statuses mean
- Why
- The only relevant evidence is qualitative and process-tracing (struggling CS1 students' difficulties compounding, with an illusion of competence): consistent with differential harm, but entirely proxy measures with no unassisted outcome and no comparison arm.
- What would change it
- Prespecified prior-knowledge moderation analyses on unassisted outcomes.
- Linked evidence
- 1 link · 1 proxy outcomes only
- Last updated
- Sep 18, 2026
The status is the collection's own judgment on its nine-label scale — not a certainty rating, not a GRADE level, and not advice. Every status change is dated, reasoned, and kept below under History.
01The evidence
The evidence, sorted by what it shows
Proxy outcomes only (1)
- The Widening Gap: The Benefits and Harms of Generative AI for Novice ProgrammersQualitative study · 2024 · Study tier 3 · Secondary different · University direct · Partly vendor funded
Lower-graded students showed more AI-related metacognitive difficulties (r=-.503, p=.020) with an illusion of competence — consistent with the claim, but process/qualitative proxies observed largely with AI in use, no unassisted outcome, no comparison arm. Rests on finding F3, judged at assessment v2.
02History
How this assessment has changed
- Proxy outcomes onlySep 18, 2026 · Evidence unclear
initial assessed status (Q-009, owner-accepted IN-018)
- Not yet assessedSep 18, 2026 · Evidence unclear
initial curated status