The DOI matches its Crossref record; 107 of the 108 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The influence of ChatGPT on student engagement: A systematic review and future research agenda
Open accessAbstract
ChatGPT, a state-of-the-art artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot, has gained considerable attention as a transformative yet controversial tool for enhancing teaching and learning experiences. Several reviews and numerous articles have been written about harnessing ChatGPT in education since its release on November 30, 2022. Besides summarising its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) as identified in previous systematic reviews of ChatGPT research, this systematic review aims to develop a new understanding of its influence on student engagement by synthesising the existing related research using a three-dimensional framework comprising behavioural, emotional, and cognitive aspects. We searched relevant databases and included 72 empirical studies published within one year of ChatGPT's initial release. The findings reveal robust but narrowly focused evidence related to behavioural engagement (i.e., work with ChatGPT) and disengagement (i.e., academic dishonesty). The evidence related to the emotional aspect is mixed, with instances of both engagement (e.g., satisfaction and interest/fun) and disengagement (e.g., disappointment and worry/anxiety). There is broad but weak evidence regarding cognitive engagement (e.g., increased understanding and positive self-perception) and disengagement (e.g., reduced critical thinking and overreliance). Our review uncovers several under-explored indicators of student engagement, pointing to the need for further research. Specifically, future studies could focus on students' study habits and attendance (behavioural engagement), social interaction (emotional engagement), and self-regulation and critical thinking (cognitive engagement) in ChatGPT-supported learning environments.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“This spike likely correlates with the widespread release and adoption of generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT, which induced academic interest and application development [40,41].”
From Systematic review of artificial intelligence in education: trends, benefits, and challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [40]
In the citing paper
“This aligns with recent literature indicating a surge in generative AI adoption in education due to its versatility in producing personalized content and feedback [40,41].”
From Systematic review of artificial intelligence in education: trends, benefits, and challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [40]
Citations
Cites
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
(2001) · Cited by 25,534
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41410412 · Cited by 15,756
School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543074001059 · Cited by 12,581
Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research
F. Hair Jr, J., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & G. Kuppelwieser, V. (2014) · European Business Review · doi:10.1108/ebr-10-2013-0128 · Cited by 11,728
Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002) · Theory Into Practice · doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2 · Cited by 10,197
Sallam, M. (2023) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare11060887 · Cited by 3,126
Handbook of Research on Student Engagement
(2012) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7 · Cited by 3,050
Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media
Clark, R. E. (1983) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543053004445 · Cited by 2,715
Parental Involvement and Students' Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1023/a:1009048817385 · Cited by 2,648
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Alqasham, 2023, ChatGPT in the Saudi EFL classroom: A study of learner usage patterns and possibilities in learning optimization, Migration Letters, 20, 1251
- Bašić, 2023, ChatGPT-3.5 as writing assistance in students' essays, Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10, 750, 10.1057/s41599-023-02269-7 · DOI · Paper page
- Javier, 2023, Developing secondary school English language learners' productive and critical use of ChatGPT, TESOL Journal
- Limo, 2023, Personalized tutoring: ChatGPT as a virtual tutor for personalized learning experiences, Social Space, 23, 293
- Muñoz, 2023, Examining the impacts of ChatGPT on student motivation and engagement, Social Space, 23, 1
- 2022, Introducing ChatGPT
- Zhang, 2023, A systematic review of ChatGPT use in K-12 education, European Journal of Education
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Does ChatGPT enhance student learning? A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies
Deng, R., Jiang, M., Yu, X., Lu, Y., & Liu, S. (2025) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105224 · Cited by 531
Wang, J., & Fan, W. (2025) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-025-04787-y · Cited by 322
RetractedSystematic review of artificial intelligence in education: trends, benefits, and challenges
Garzón, J., Patiño, E., & Marulanda, C. (2025) · Multimodal Technologies and Interaction · doi:10.3390/mti9080084 · Cited by 265
“This spike likely correlates with the widespread release and adoption of generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT, which induced academic interest and application development [40,41].”
Koltovskaia, S., Rahmati, P., & Saeli, H. (2024) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2024.101130 · Cited by 241
Lo, C. K., Yu, P. L. H., Xu, S., Ng, D. T. K., & Jong, M. S. (2024) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-024-00342-5 · Cited by 342
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Lo, C. K., Hew, K. F., & Jong, M. S.-Y.
- Affiliations
- Education University of Hong Kong (HK)
- University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Corresponding author
- Lo, Chung Kwan
- Venue
- Computers & Education
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-10
- Volume
- 219
- Pages
- 105100
- ISSN
- 0360-1315 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4399455976
- Semantic Scholar
- e407f4afa951efeb990ac543e22a83d48fd0a915
- Cited by
- 392
- References
- 108
- Citations by year
- 2026: 190 · 2025: 176 · 2024: 26
- FWCI
- 23.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Computers & Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, student engagement, AI chatbots in education, academic dishonesty, behavioral engagement, emotional engagement, cognitive engagement, student satisfaction, critical thinking, overreliance on AI, self-regulation, study habits, student attendance, social interaction
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