This is for college students (aka students educated enough to learn on their own already), reads like a promotion for AI, has a limited sample size and does not translate to school kids at all and from the study itself:
Finally, the study’s limitations include its single-institution sample, short duration, and reliance on proxy behavioral indicators. Ethical concerns around informed consent, data privacy, and AI dependency also warrant closer attention. Future research should pursue longer-term and cross-institutional designs, employ multimodal behavioral measures, and develop governance frameworks that align technical gains with equity, autonomy, and critical capacity.
This “”study”” seems to spend more time opining on AI learning frameworks than actually measuring scores on standardised testing and only dedicates a minimal amount of the paper to the results. It also states in paper that higher achieving college students saw less benefits (poorer performing student, AI can bump your grades enough to be noticeable for a unit/pass an exam).
Did you read this study or google something in order to provide a study? This study does not support the claim that “these kids will perform traditional learning by miles”.
You said the data says otherwise which you then used to support that opinion. The data doesn’t say otherwise.
Almost like that was in my original comment that you then replied to with a study as if it were compelling, so spare me the sassy comment. Don’t claim the data says otherwise when it doesn’t if you don’t want to be called out on it.