Self-reported cognitive effects of AI applications on learning
Open accessAbstract
The purpose of this article is to assess whether cognitive abilities of college-level learners have been impacted, positively or negatively, by their use of AI tools. An 18-questions survey was administered at a U.S. public polytechnic university with 161 respondents, with the goal of measuring changes learners have noticed in their learning behavior and cognitive functioning since they started using AI tools in their coursework. Three separate one-sample t-tests were conducted and showed significant effect for cognitive skill erosion: t(160)=10.816, p<0.05, Cohen’s D=0.852; Memorization issues: t(160)=6.7, p<0.05, Cohen’s D=0.52; and Lack of in-depth understanding: t(160)=9.6, p<0.05, Cohen’s D=0.76. However, 85.7% said that motivation to do coursework hasn’t declined since they started using AI, and 74.5% agree that AI has an overall positive effect on their learning. Roughly equal number of participants feel they are becoming dependent on AI (48.5% yes and 51.5% no). Given the results, it is reasonable to conclude, at this time, that AI usage in college coursework can have significant consequences on the cognitive abilities of learners.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Memory retention and autonomous problem-solving face particular risks when students adopt AI as answer-provider rather than thinking partner.
“Memory retention and autonomous problem-solving face particular risks when students adopt AI as answer-provider rather than thinking partner (Gerlich, 2025; Krsmanović and Deek, 2025; Zhai et al., 2024).”
From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Krsmanović and Deek, 2025
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
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Kiely, K.M. (2014). Cognitive function. In Springer eBooks (pp. 974-978). https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 94-007-0753-5_426 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Abdellatif, M. S., Alshehri, M. A., Lamouchi, A., Rahmath, M., & Nemt-allah, M. A. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1809174
“Memory retention and autonomous problem-solving face particular risks when students adopt AI as answer-provider rather than thinking partner (Gerlich, 2025; Krsmanović and Deek, 2025; Zhai et al., 2024).”
Krsmanovic, G., Deek, R. A., & Deek, F. P. (2025) · Computer · doi:10.1109/mc.2025.3576936
Self-citationA scoping review of the negative effects of digital technology on cognition
Žnidarič, U., Štrumbelj, E., & Machidon, O. M. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2026.101326 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Krsmanović, G., & Deek, F. P.
- Affiliations
- New Jersey Institute of Technology (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice
- Publisher
- North American Business Press
- Published
- 2025-03-21
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2158-3595 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4408685703
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 3.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence in education, AI tools, cognitive ability, university students, learning behavior, memorization, deep understanding, student motivation, AI dependency
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
