The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How Generative AI Influences Students’ Self-Regulated Learning and Critical Thinking Skills? A Systematic Review
Open accessAbstract
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.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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 cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“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]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The medical education literature describes substantial potential benefits from GenAI, including 24/7 tutoring, personalised feedback, test generation, writing assistance, and support for self-regulated learning (Mulaudzi & Hamilton, 2025; Sardi et al., 2025).”
From Between Co-Intelligence and Cognitive Offloading: Educators’ Perspectives from Dutch Academic Medical Settings on Generative AI, Critical Thinking, and Adult Professional Learning (2026) · cites this paper as Sardi et al., 2025
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“While their synthesis detailed GenAI's role in scaffolding metacognitive strategies and providing adaptive feedback”
From A Systematic Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications and Impact of GenAI on Students' Critical Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [40]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Similarly, Sardi et al. [40] explored both self-regulated learning (SRL) and CT across thirty-eight studies sourced from Scopus, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect spanning 2022-2024.”
From A Systematic Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications and Impact of GenAI on Students' Critical Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [40]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“A few reviews have focused on CT as a primary outcome [19,40].”
From A Systematic Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications and Impact of GenAI on Students' Critical Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [40]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Both reviews offer valuable insights into GenAI's pedagogical affordances and challenges; however, neither systematically applies a robust CT theoretical lens to drive analysis.”
From A Systematic Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications and Impact of GenAI on Students' Critical Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [40]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Reviews also identify situations in which GenAI supports reflective feedback, self-regulation, and analytical activity (Sardi et al., 2025).”
From Between Co-Intelligence and Cognitive Offloading: Educators’ Perspectives from Dutch Academic Medical Settings on Generative AI, Critical Thinking, and Adult Professional Learning (2026) · cites this paper as Sardi et al., 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.
Citations
Cites
1 retracted
RETRACTED: ChatGPT in the classroom: navigating the generative AI wave in management education
Leelavathi, R., & Surendhranatha, R. C. (2024) · Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning · doi:10.1108/jrit-01-2024-0017 · Cited by 54
RetractedZhai, C., Wibowo, S., & Li, L. D. (2024) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7 · Cited by 1,567
Challenges and Opportunities of Generative AI for Higher Education as Explained by ChatGPT
Michel-Villarreal, R., Vilalta-Perdomo, E., Salinas-Navarro, D. E., Thierry-Aguilera, R., & Gerardou, F. S. (2023) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci13090856 · Cited by 877
Ng, D. T. K., Tan, C. W., & Leung, J. K. L. (2024) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13454 · Cited by 591
Jin, S.-H., Im, K., Yoo, M., Roll, I., & Seo, K. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00406-5 · Cited by 522
Darwin, D., Rusdin, D., Mukminatien, N., Suryati, N., Laksmi, E. D., & Marzuki, M. (2023) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2023.2290342 · Cited by 494
Computer-based technology and student engagement: a critical review of the literature
Schindler, L. A., Burkholder, G. J., Morad, O. A., & Marsh, C. (2017) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-017-0063-0 · Cited by 475
Zhang, S., Zhao, X., Zhou, T., & Kim, J. H. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-024-00467-0 · Cited by 409
van den Berg, G., & du Plessis, E. (2023) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci13100998 · Cited by 401
Will generative AI replace teachers in higher education? A study of teacher and student perceptions
Chan, C. K. Y., & Tsi, L. H. Y. (2024) · Studies in Educational Evaluation · doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101395 · Cited by 387
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Izquierdo-Condoy, J. S., Arias-Intriago, M., Tello-De-la-Torre, A., Busch, F., & Ortiz-Prado, E. (2025) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/76340 · Cited by 87
Liu, J., Sihes, A. J. B., & Lu, Y. (2025) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-025-00406-0 · Cited by 52
Xia, Q., Liu, Q., Tlili, A., & Chiu, T. K. F. (2025) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105465 · Cited by 77
Zhao, G., Sheng, H., Wang, Y., Cai, X., & Long, T. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15050554 · Cited by 58
Helal, M. Y. I., Elgendy, I. A., Albashrawi, M. A., Dwivedi, Y. K., Al-Ahmadi, S., & Jeon, I. (2025) · Information Discovery and Delivery · doi:10.1108/idd-05-2025-0125 · Cited by 61
Metadata
- 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)
- Venue
- International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP)
- Published
- 2025-01-10
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 94-108
- ISSN
- 2192-4880 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4406246343
- Cited by
- 105
- References
- 56
- Citations by year
- 2026: 61 · 2025: 44
- FWCI
- 16.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Universitas Negeri Padang
- 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
- 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
