ArticleScientific reports2026
Evaluating AI-powered learning assistants in engineering higher education with implications for student engagement, ethics, and policy.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As generative AI becomes increasingly integrated into higher education, understanding how students engage with these technologies is essential for responsible adoption. This study evaluates the Educational AI Hub, an AI-powered learning framework, implemented in undergraduate civil and environmental engineering courses at a large R1 public university. Using a mixed-methods design combining pre- and post-surveys, system usage logs, and qualitative analysis of students' AI interactions, the research examines perceptions of trust, ethics, usability, and learning outcomes. Findings show that students valued the AI assistant for its accessibility and comfort, with nearly half reporting greater ease using it than seeking help from instructors or teaching assistants. The tool was most helpful for completing homework and understanding concepts, though views on its instructional quality were mixed. Ethical uncertainty, particularly around institutional policy and academic integrity, emerged as a key barrier to full engagement. Overall, students regarded AI as a supplement rather than a replacement for human instruction. The study highlights the importance of usability, ethical transparency, and faculty guidance in promoting meaningful AI engagement. A total of 71 students participated across two courses, generating over 600 AI interactions and 100 survey responses that provided both quantitative and contextual insights into learning engagement.
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.