Cited by 2

Student Perceptions of Personalised GenAI Agents on Student Learning, Success, Engagement, and Wellbeing: A Pilot Study of Cogniti AI

Elliott, Sam, Richter, Madison, Alozie, Chidozie, Raidis, Damien·2026·Technology, Knowledge and Learning

Abstract

In the competitive higher education landscape, Generative AI (GenAI) tools are rapidly emerging as a potential tool for enhancing student learning, engagement, success, and wellbeing. This pilot study investigated undergraduate students’ perceptions of personalised GenAI academic agents as on-demand academic support during assessment preparation across four university courses (education, psychology, social work, and sport). In total, 139 students (18–55 years) completed surveys before and after the deployment of an academic agent. The survey assessed students’ perceptions of the influence of GenAI agents on their learning, engagement, success, and wellbeing with regard to a singular assessment, with quantitative data analysed using Mann-Whitney U tests and qualitative responses analysed using a content analysis method. Results indicated significant improvements in students’ perceptions of their learning and success ( p = 0.04 for both), with no significant changes observed for engagement or wellbeing. Qualitative insights suggest that students perceive value and benefit in having access to 24/7 academic support, increased confidence in assignment preparation, and reduced stress, although some students also emphasised the importance of maintaining human interactions between academics and students. The findings indicate that Cogniti AI academic agents have the potential to enhance targeted aspects of students’ experiences, particularly with respect to student learning and success, when carefully integrated into higher education settings. Conceptual, pedagogical, and institutional implications are discussed to ensure these GenAI agents complement, rather than replace, human-centred learning.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10758-025-09942-7

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. Ahmed, M. A. (2023). ChatGPT and the EFL classroom: Supplement or substitute in Saudi Arabia's Eastern region. Information Sciences Letters, 12(7), 2727-2734.
  2. Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. University of Chicago Press.
  3. Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 Sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one- to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4-16.
  4. Du Boulay, B. (2019). Escape from the Skinner box: The case for contemporary intelligent learning environ- ments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 2902-2919.
  5. Farrelly, T., & Baker, N. (2023). Generative artificial intelligence: Implications and considerations for higher education practice. Education Sciences, 13(11), 1109.
  6. Hasanein, A. M., & Sobaih, A. E. E. (2023). Drivers and consequences of ChatGPT use in higher education: Key stakeholder perspectives. European Journal of Investigation in Health Psychology and Education, 13(11), 2599-2614. h t t p s : / / p m . i . n l m . n i h . / /
  7. Ilieva, G., Yankova, T., Klisarova-Belcheva, S., Dimitrov, A., Bratkov, M., & Angelov, D. (2023). Effects of generative chatbots in higher education. Information, 14(9), 492.
  8. Jain, K. K., & Raghuram, J. (2024). Gen-AI integration in higher education: Predicting intentions using SEM-ANN approach. Education and Information Technologies, 29(13), 17169-17209.
  9. Johnson, S. N., & Gallagher, E. D. (2021). An early exploration of undergraduate student definitions of learn- ing, memorizing, studying, and Understanding. Advances in Physiology Education, 45(2), 342-352. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00082.2020. https://journals.physiology.org/doi/pdf/ · DOI
  10. Jones, E., Priestley, M., Brewster, L., Wilbraham, S. J., Hughes, G., & Spanner, L. (2021). Student wellbeing and assessment in higher education: The balancing act. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(3), 438-450.
  11. Kubullek, A. K., Kumaç, N., & Dogangün, A. (2024). Understanding the adoption of ChatGPT in higher education: A comparative study with insights from STEM and bausiness students. In Proceedings of mensch und computer 2024 (pp. 684-689).
  12. Laari, L. (2025). Inductive-Deductive qualitative data analysis logic in health sciences research: A frame- work for analysing qualitative data. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 24. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 7 7 / 1 6 0 9 4 0 6 9 2 5 1 3 8 1 7 0 6 · DOI
  13. Lo, C. K. (2023). What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature. Education Sciences, 13(4), 410.
  14. Mavrikis, M., Cukurova, M., Di Mitri, D., Schneider, J., & Drachsler, H. (2021). A short history, emerging challenges and co-operation structures for artificial intelligence in education. Bildung Und Erziehung (Stuttgart Germany), 74(3), 249-263. https://doi.org/10.13109/buer.2021.74.3.249 · DOI
  15. McLean, H. (2018). This is the way to teach: Insights from academics and students about assessment that supports learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1228-1240.
  16. Mor, Y., & Craft, B. (2012). Learning design: Reflections upon the current landscape. Research in Learning Technology, 20(sup1), 85-94. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v20i0.19196 · DOI
  17. Prowse, A., Ruiz Vargas, V., & Powell, S. (2021). Design considerations for personalised supported learning: Implications for higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45(4), 497-510. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 0 3 0 9 8 7 7 X . 2 0 2 0 . 1 7 8 9 9 1 · DOI
  18. Stone, C. (2022). From the margins to the mainstream: The online learning rethink and its implications for enhancing student equity. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38(6), 139-149.
  19. Wang, N., Wang, X., & Su, Y. S. (2024). Critical analysis of the technological affordances, challenges and future directions of generative AI in education: A systematic review. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 44(1), 139-155.
  20. White, M. A., & McCallum, F. (2021). Wellbeing and resilience education: COVID-19 and its impact on education. Routledge.
  21. Yusuf, A., Pervin, N., Román-González, M., & Noor, N. M. (2024). Generative AI in education and research: A systematic mapping review. Review of Education, 12(2), e3489.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Elliott, S., Richter, M., Alozie, C., & Raidis, D.
Venue
Technology, Knowledge and Learning
Published
2026-02-10
ISSN
  • 2211-1662
  • 2211-1670
Cited by
2
References
7
Language
en
Funders
Flinders University

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review