CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 105Artificial Intelligence in EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning

How Generative AI Influences Students’ Self-Regulated Learning and Critical Thinking Skills? A Systematic Review

Open access
Sardi, Juli, Darmansyah, Candra, Oriza, Yuliana, Devi Faizah, Habibullah, Yanto, Doni Tri Putra, Eliza, Fivia·2025·International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP)
DOI 10.3991/ijep.v15i1.53379
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence (AI), particularly tools such as ChatGPT, is transforming education by enhancing self-regulated learning (SRL) and critical thinking skills, two essential competencies in the digital era. This study systematically analyzes the impact of generative AI on these skills using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) framework to identify, evaluate, and synthesize relevant studies. Document searches were conducted in Scopus, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect, focusing on publications from 2022 to 2024, when ChatGPT was first widely adopted. Of the 3,214 documents identified, 557 met the initial screening criteria, and 38 studies were selected for detailed analysis. The findings reveal that 71.4% of studies reported AI’s positive role in SRL, mainly through personalized learning, metacognitive support, and adaptive feedback. Likewise, 62.5% of studies reported its significant role in critical thinking, supporting the process of analysis, evaluation, and reflection. However, researchers cautioned against an overreliance on technology, which one said could take away some students’ ability to think for themselves. Such findings indicate that educational institutions need to change their ways and include generative AI in a model that focuses on areas that foster learner independence. This approach will assist teachers and decision-makers in harnessing the distinctive kitsch of AI technology by creating new learning spaces that are creative and future-oriented.

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 · 10.3991/ijep.v15i1.53379

Cites

58 of 58 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?

  • Sardi et al.'s review primarily treated CT as a secondary outcome linked to SRL metrics.

    “it primarily treated CT as a secondary outcome linked to SRL metrics.”

    From A Systematic Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications and Impact of GenAI on Students' Critical Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [40]

    The study-selection passage (page not available in our copy) calls SRL and CT “two primary themes,” rather than making CT secondary to SRL. The Results section reports their findings separately, and the study table lists more CT publications (24) than SRL publications (14). The copy does not describe CT as an outcome linked to SRL metrics. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Sardi et al.'s review has a methodological limitation of reliance on only three databases, which increases the risk of omitting relevant studies from broader interdisciplinary venues.

    “A methodological limitation of this review is its reliance on only three databases, which increases the risk of omitting relevant studies from broader interdisciplinary venues such as ERIC, PsycINFO, or IEEE Xplore.”

    From A Systematic Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications and Impact of GenAI on Students' Critical Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [40]

    The Materials and Methods section states that the review searched three databases: Scopus, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect. Our copy does not state that this choice increased the risk of omitting studies from broader interdisciplinary venues; that is the citing author's methodological assessment, not a finding reported by Sardi et al. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Sardi et al. stopped short of embedding these insights within an established CT theory.

    “but stopped short of embedding these insights within an established CT theory.”

    From A Systematic Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications and Impact of GenAI on Students' Critical Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [40]

    The Results report findings about generative AI and critical thinking, including positive, neutral, and negative effects. The Introduction and Discussion passages do not establish whether the review embeds those findings within an established critical-thinking theory; not finding one in the retrieved passages cannot verify that it stopped short of doing so. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Sardi et al. noted persistent risks of overreliance on AI, cultural and digital-literacy variability, and the absence of concrete models for integrating human and AI regulation.

    “They noted persistent risks of overreliance on AI, cultural and digital-literacy variability, and the absence of concrete models for integrating human and AI regulation”

    From A Systematic Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications and Impact of GenAI on Students' Critical Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [40]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) warns that excessive AI dependence can hinder independent problem-solving, while the Conclusion (page unavailable) calls for equitable access across cultural contexts and support for digital literacy. But the Discussion describes a Hybrid Human-AI Regulation framework; it does not support the claimed absence of a model for integrating human and AI regulation. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Sardi et al.'s search strategy relied on generic terms such as 'AI AND Critical Thinking AND Education', which might have missed studies using alternative terminology and thereby underrepresents the CT literature.

    “In addition, their search strategy, although transparent, relied on generic terms such as”

    From A Systematic Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications and Impact of GenAI on Students' Critical Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [40]

    Table 1 lists “AI AND Critical Thinking AND Education” as a search combination, and Materials and Methods describes the keywords and Boolean operators used. The paper does not say that alternative terminology caused studies to be missed or that the CT literature was underrepresented; those are the citing authors’ possible limitations, not findings established by this source. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Sardi, J., Darmansyah, Candra, O., Yuliana, D. F., Habibullah, Yanto, D. T. P., & Eliza, F.
Affiliations
  • Universitas Negeri Padang (ID)
  • Institut Agama Islam Negeri Kerinci (ID)
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP)
Publisher
International Association of Online Engineering (IAOE)
Published
2025-01-10
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
94-108
ISSN
2192-4880 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3991/ijep.v15i1.53379
OpenAlex
W4406246343
Cited by
105
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 61 · 2025: 44
FWCI
16.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Universitas Negeri Padang
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › 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
generative AI in education, ChatGPT, student self-regulation, critical thinking skills, personalized learning, metacognitive support, adaptive feedback, overreliance on AI, learner autonomy, AI-assisted 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