ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Navigating Ambivalence: Artificial Intelligence and Its Impact on Student Engagement in Engineering Education.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming higher education, yet limited empirical evidence exists on how students experience the emotional, cognitive, and ethical tensions associated with AI, particularly in Latin American contexts. This study addresses this gap by examining patterns of adoption, perceived usefulness, and the ambivalent experiences that arise when engaging with AI tools for academic learning. A questionnaire combining closed and open-ended questions was administered to 170 engineering students from a Chilean public university. A mixed-methods design was used to analyse the data: quantitative analyses identified adoption patterns and perceived usefulness, while qualitative thematic analysis captured emerging emotional, ethical, and motivational tensions. The results showed high adoption (73.5%), driven by the pragmatic usefulness of saving time, understanding concepts, and improving work. Although the overall perception was positive, a deep ambivalence was identified, with enthusiasm and confidence coexisting with ethical (plagiarism), cognitive (dependence), and technical (reliability) concerns. It is concluded that the effective integration of AI transcends technological access and requires an institutional strategy that promotes critical digital literacy, clear policies, and support programmes that address competency and gender gaps, ensuring ethical and equitable adoption that enhances learning without compromising the development of critical thinking.
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.