ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Modeling learning engagement in AI-supported education: a crossover enabler-inhibitor framework.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Digital Artifacts in Education: How Design Properties Are Associated with Self-Regulated Learning, Participation, and Performance.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence is reshaping how learners interact with content, feedback, and motivation. Yet the psychological processes that support or disrupt engagement in AI-powered environments remain underexplored. This study develops a crossover model to explain how enabling beliefs and emotional strain jointly influence learning engagement. Drawing from self-determination, cognitive load, and social cognitive theories, the model tests how performance expectancy and technology self-efficacy function alongside feedback overload and AI learning anxiety. Learning motivation and AI fatigue are positioned as mediators linking these factors to behavioral engagement. Data were collected from 251 learners with experience using AI-driven educational tools. Structural equation modeling revealed that learning motivation is the most powerful predictor of engagement. Performance expectancy increases motivation, while feedback overload weakens it. Technology self-efficacy has no significant effect on either motivation or fatigue. Fatigue, although linked to anxiety and overload, did not directly reduce engagement. These results suggest that motivation, not depletion alone, drives sustained learning behavior. This study contributes by reframing inhibitors as threats to motivation rather than isolated stressors. It offers practical insights for designing AI systems that preserve psychological energy, minimize cognitive strain, and reinforce learning purpose. Engagement is not automatic. It must be carefully engineered within the emotional architecture of intelligent systems. For AI-system designers, this means embedding motivation-aware dashboards, adaptive feedback controls, and anxiety monitoring features to protect and sustain learner 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.