ReviewBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025
A Systematic Review of Responses, Attitudes, and Utilization Behaviors on Generative AI for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education.
Review in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Self-Evaluation in AI-Assisted Cognition: An Explanatory Framework for Calibration and Miscalibration Effects.Journal of Intelligence · 2026Review
- How Generative AI Use Styles Shape Academic Engagement: The Roles of Academic Impostor Syndrome and AI Policy Clarity.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluating large language models for pharmacotherapy simulations: a mixed-methods study.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Generative Artificial Intelligence Self-Efficacy and Learning Engagement Among Special Education Teacher Trainees: A Moderated Mediation Model.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Deliberate practice in the age of artificial intelligence: how AI-assisted practice supports self-regulated learning and expert performance development in conservatory musicians.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- The psychological mechanisms and behavioral determinants of academic integrity in the age of artificial intelligence.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Multidimensional responses to generative AI in higher education: an integrative framework linking institutional governance, teaching practice, and student psychological adaptation.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- The impact of artificial intelligence perception on university students' academic engagement: the mediating role of academic motivation and the moderating role of academic self-efficacy.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Adopting Generative AI in Future Classrooms: A Study of Preservice Teachers' Intentions and Influencing Factors.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The utilization of Generative AI (GenAI) in higher education classrooms has significantly increased in recent years. Studies show that GenAI holds promise in impacting the learning experiences of both students and teachers, offering personalized learning and assessment opportunities. This study conducts a systematic review of the responses, attitudes, and behaviors related to the application of GenAI within higher education classrooms. To this end, we synthesized 99 papers published between 2020 and August 2024, focusing on the utilization of GenAI in higher education settings. The analysis addresses three key inquiries: responses, attitudes, and behaviors. This systematic review provides an updated understanding from psychological perspectives of GenAI's role in the teaching and learning processes of higher education, with a particular emphasis on GenAI technologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.