Coach not crutch: Evidence that AI can improve writing skill despite reducing effort

Summary

Lira, Rogers, Goldstein, Ungar & Duckworth (2025) test the intuition that using AI inevitably hinders learning by sparing effort. Across pre-registered studies they find the opposite is possible: AI can reduce effort while improving the learning environment, so learners can "work less and learn more." A nationally representative Gallup survey of young adults (N = 2,472) confirmed that the public largely holds the "crutch" intuition (73% negative about AI's impact on capability). But in experiments, participants who practiced writing cover letters with an AI tool wrote higher-quality no-AI cover letters than those who practiced alone — and AI beat both googling examples and receiving personalized feedback from experienced human editors. A third experiment showed AI teaches by example: merely viewing an AI-revised letter (no further practice) produced the same gain as practicing with the tool.

Key Findings

"Work less, learn more" is empirically possible. Across pre-registered studies, AI access reduced practice effort but improved (or did not harm) learning outcomes — effort and learning rate can move in opposite directions.
Public belief in the crutch intuition. In the Gallup survey (N = 2,472, ages 18–28), 73% scored above the midpoint on negative AI-impact attitudes: 79% agreed AI makes people lazier, 63% that it makes people less smart, 62% that it reduces ability to learn.
Practice with AI beat practice without AI. Random-assignment experiment: those who practiced cover letters with an AI tool wrote better no-AI cover letters than those who practiced on their own.
AI beat Google Search and human editors. Practicing with AI improved writing more than googling examples/tips (test d = 0.46) and more than personalized feedback from experienced human editors (test d = 0.20).
No illusion-of-mastery effect. AI-practice participants did not over-report learning or skill vs. editor-feedback participants, mitigating concern that gains reflect inflated self-assessment.
AI teaches by example. Participants who only viewed an AI-revised cover letter improved as much as those who practiced with the AI tool — the scaffolding/example function, not just practice, drives the gain.
Two-channel framework. AI simultaneously (a) reduces effort (crutch risk) and (b) improves the learning environment (coach benefit, e.g., worked examples). Skill outcomes hinge on the net effect.

Implications

Challenges the blanket assumption that reduced effort from AI inevitably harms learning — the effect depends on what AI displaces (busywork vs. the skill itself) and how the tool scaffolds.
Supports a design principle: AI that surfaces examples, explanations, and feedback (a "coach") preserves or boosts skill, whereas AI that fully replaces the cognitive act (a "crutch") risks erosion.
Contrasts with studies documenting harmful offloading (e.g., unguarded tutors cutting exam scores); the outcome hinges on tool design and whether the learner stays in the loop — a shared thread across the wiki's Over-Reliance and Cognitive Offloading research.

Connected Concepts

Connected Articles

AI Making Us Stupid — Is AI making us stupid?
Generative AI Guardrails Harm Learning — GenAI Without Guardrails Can Harm Learning
Generative AI Reduced Study Time Math — Generative AI reduced study time in math
AI Generated Feedback Higher Ed — AI-generated feedback in higher education
Efficiency Gain Illusion AI Overreliance — The efficiency-gain illusion
GenAI Performance Vs Learning — GenAI performance vs. learning
Brcic Effortless Trap Productive Struggle 2026 — The Effortless Trap: productive struggle and AI

Citation

Lira, B., Rogers, T., Goldstein, D. G., Ungar, L., & Duckworth, A. L. (2025). Coach not crutch: Evidence that AI can improve writing skill despite reducing effort. arXiv:2502.02880.