ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025
The perceived impact of artificial intelligence on academic learning.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pharmacy students' use of e-learning resources: a repeated cross-sectional study in 2021 and 2026.BMC research notes · 2026Article
- The psychological mechanisms and behavioral determinants of academic integrity in the age of artificial intelligence.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Teacher-regulated generative AI support, student agency, and perceived learning gains in higher education: the moderating role of perceived fairness.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Modeling and measuring graduate students' generative AI literacy: a study based on Marzano's taxonomy.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- The influence of perceived AI capability on learning engagement in smart education environments: the mediating role of academic self-efficacy and the moderating role of teacher-student relationship.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence, such as ChatGPT, is transforming higher education by enabling personalized learning, while raising ethical challenges. This study explores how technical university students perceive and leverage ChatGPT in academic tasks, focusing on motivation, learning outcomes, and ethical awareness. Using the Technology Acceptance Model and Self-Determination Theory, the research surveyed 84 students from a technical university via a 5-point Likert-scale questionnaire. Six salient dimensions of student engagement with ChatGPT emerged: perceived usefulness for problem solving, learning retention and skill acquisition, structured interaction with familiar content, consultation on unfamiliar topics, preference for conciseness, and confidence in the accuracy of AI responses. Students who perceived ChatGPT as a valuable resource for addressing academic problems reported enhanced motivation and competence, and frequent structured interaction was linked to the practice of verifying uncertain information, indicating the emergence of AI literacy. However, extensive reliance was correlated with dependence and limited citation practices, revealing risks to academic integrity. By examining ChatGPT's role in STEM education, this study substantiates the relevance of AI literacy training and institutional policies to ensure responsible use. The findings offer practical insights for educators to integrate AI tools effectively while fostering critical thinking and academic integrity in technology-driven learning environments.
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.