CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 0

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Guarded adoption of generative AI in higher education: high-achieving students, successful-student identity, and epistemic agency in a single-university mixed-methods survey

Zagami, Jason·2026·International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education
DOI 10.1186/s41239-026-00625-6
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence is becoming part of university learning, but students do not engage with it uniformly. This mixed-methods survey of students at one Australian university examined whether successful-student identity and student-reported academic achievement were associated with different patterns of generative AI engagement. The institution-wide survey yielded 484 responses, including 469 with valid GPA-band data. Higher-achieving students reported lower active AI engagement, positive affect, perceived learning impact, and AI-related disengagement, alongside slightly higher negative affect. Item-level analyses showed less endorsement of AI-supported autonomy, effective learning, and active engagement, and greater agreement that reliance on AI hinders critical thinking and independent problem solving. Open-ended responses indicated that these students used AI selectively for clarification, summarisation, and workflow support while checking outputs and keeping them subordinate to their own judgment. The paper interprets this pattern as guarded adoption: selective, bounded, and verification-intensive use in defence of epistemic control and successful-student identity.

Overview

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 · 10.1186/s41239-026-00625-6

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2007). Self-authorship: The foundation for twenty-first-century education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2007(109), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.266 · DOI
  2. Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H., Albashrawi, M. A., Al-Busaidi, A. S., Balakrishnan, J., Barlette, Y., Basu, S., Bose, I., Brooks, L., Buhalis, D., Carter, L., & Wright, R. (2023). So what if ChatGPT wrote it? Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Guay, F., Ratelle, C. F., Roy, A., & Litalien, D. (2010). Academic self-concept, autonomous academic motivation, and academic achievement: Mediating and additive effects. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(6), 644–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.08.001 · DOI
  4. Hall, R. (2024). Generative AI and re-weaving a pedagogical horizon of social possibility. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21., Article 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00445-6 · DOI
  5. Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954–969. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.9.954 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Nieminen, J. H., & Ketonen, L. (2024). Epistemic agency: A link between assessment, knowledge and society. Higher Education, 88(4), 777–794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01142-5 · DOI
  7. Oyserman, D. (2009). Identity-based motivation: Implications for action-readiness, procedural-readiness, and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(3), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.05.008 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Saúde, S., Barros, J. P., & Almeida, I. (2024). Impacts of generative artificial intelligence in higher education: Research trends and students’ perceptions. Social Sciences, 13(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13080410 · DOI
  10. Skinner, E. A., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765–781. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012840 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(3), 493–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164408323233 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Webb, M. E., Fluck, A., Magenheim, J., Malyn-Smith, J., Waters, J., Deschênes, M., & Zagami, J. (2021). Machine learning for human learners: Opportunities, issues, tensions and threats. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69, 2109–2130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09858-2 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Yusuf, A., Pervin, N., & Román-González, M. (2024). Generative AI and the future of higher education: A threat to academic integrity or reformation? Evidence from multicultural perspectives. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21, 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00453-6 · DOI · Paper page

Metadata

Authors
Zagami, J.
Venue
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2026-09-09
Volume
23
Issue
1
ISSN
2365-9440
DOI
10.1186/s41239-026-00625-6
Cited by
0
References
9
Language
en
Licence

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