CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 223Artificial Intelligence in EducationDigital Education and SocietyTeaching and Learning Programming

Artificial Intelligence and Human Behavioral Development: A Perspective on New Skills and Competences Acquisition for the Educational Context

Open access
Benvenuti, Martina, Cangelosi, Angelo, Weinberger, Armin, Mazzoni, Elvis, Benassi, Mariagrazia, Barbaresi, Mattia, Orsoni, Matteo·2023·Computers in Human Behavior
DOI 10.1016/j.chb.2023.107903
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Despite the significant emphasis placed on incorporating 21st century skills into the educational framework, particularly at the primary level, recent scholarly works indicate considerable variation in the implementation of these skills across different countries and regions, suggesting a demand for further research specifically focusing on primary education. The indications of the Digicomp framework 1 and 21st-century skills in Europe have outlined the key competences for lifelong learning needed for all citizens, including teachers and students. In this perspective, Education plays a fundamental role in ensuring that citizens acquire the required skills. The objective in the common European framework is clear: to initiate a transition from the culture of knowledge to the culture of competence. Nowadays, technological advancement allows the researchers to create and combine different frameworks with the perspective of an even more tailored, and engaged education, some examples derived from the implementation of Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR), in the combination of Gamification and AI, or the development of Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) to foster and create an even more personalized learning and teaching. Following these premises, in this paper, we want to point out new research reflections and perspectives that could help researchers, teachers, educators (and consequently students) to reflect on the introduction of new technologies (e.g., artificial intelligence, robot tutors) and on how these can affect on human behavioral development and on the acquisition of new skills and competences (Specifically: Creativity, Critical Thinking, Problem Solving, and Computational Thinking) for the educational context. The analysis carried on, suggests a perspective on how creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving can be effective in promoting computational thinking, and how Artificial Intelligence (AI) could be an aid instrument to teachers in the fostering of creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving in schools and educational contexts.

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 · 10.1016/j.chb.2023.107903

Cites

55 of 55 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?

  • The existing literature tends to focus on perceptions of AI usefulness, general attitudes, or performance outcomes, often neglecting how students' thinking processes evolve when working alongside AI systems.

    “The existing literature tends to focus on perceptions of AI usefulness, general attitudes, or performance outcomes, often neglecting how students' thinking processes evolve when working alongside AI systems [11,20].”

    From A Systematic Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications and Impact of GenAI on Students' Critical Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [20]

    The Methods section says literature on AI activities for developing students’ creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving is incomplete and not uniform; the Conclusion notes that few articles met the review’s aims. This supports a related research gap, but the paper does not establish that existing studies predominantly examine usefulness, attitudes, or performance instead of how students’ thinking evolves alongside AI. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 8

  1. Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget's constructivism, Papert's constructionism: What's the difference. Future of learning group publication, 5(3), 438.
  2. Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., & Earp, J. (2018). The nordic approach to introducing computational thinking and programming in compulsory education, 1-42. https://doi. org/10.17471/54007 · DOI
  3. Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Kampylis, P., Wastiau, P., Engelhardt, K., Earp, J., et al. (2022). In A. I. dos Santos, R. Cachia, N. Giannoutsou, & Y. Punie (Eds.), Reviewing computational thinking in compulsory education.
  4. Buckley, S. (2012). The role of computational thinking and critical thinking in problem solving in a learning environment. In European Conference on e-Learning (pp. 63-70). Academic Conferences International Limited. October.
  5. Engeström, Y. (2014). Activity theory and learning at work. In Tätigkeit-Aneignung- Bildung (pp. 67-96). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
  6. Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding. Cambridge University Press.
  7. Liu, J., Liu, W., He, W., & Lu, S. (2002). The influence of the students mood on their creativity. Acta Psychology Sinica, 34(4), 51.
  8. Maher, M. L., Brady, K., & Fisher, D. H. (2013). Computational models of surprise in evaluating creative design AI approaches for assessing surprise. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computational Creativity (ICCC-2013), 147-151.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Benvenuti, M., Cangelosi, A., Weinberger, A., Mazzoni, E., Benassi, M., Barbaresi, M., & Orsoni, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Bologna (IT)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • Saarland University (DE)
Corresponding author
Benvenuti, Martina
ORCID
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-11
Volume
148
Pages
107903
ISSN
0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.chb.2023.107903
OpenAlex
W4385562476
Cited by
223
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 76 · 2025: 90 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 9
FWCI
52.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Computers in Human Behavior (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital Education and Society
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
Keywords
artificial intelligence in education, 21st century skills, primary education, creativity, critical thinking, problem solving, computational thinking, intelligent tutoring systems, robot tutors, gamification, virtual reality, augmented reality, personalized learning, lifelong learning

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