With the breakthrough advancements in generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) technology, GenAI-powered pedagogical agents (GenAI-PA) are emerging as a transformative paradigm shift in education. However, there is still debate about whether the use of GenAI-PA is beneficial for learners’ academic performance. Therefore, this study conducted a meta-analysis of 27 experimental and quasi-experimental studies from 2015 to 2025. The results showed that (1) GenAI-PA had a significant effect on learners’ academic performance (g = 0.401). (2) In a collectivist culture, GenAI-PA had a greater effect on learners’ academic performance. (3) The effect of GenAI-PA in teacher-directed learning was significantly better than in self-directed learning. (4) The dialogue modality of GenAI-PA moderated the effect on learners’ academic performance, with multimodal dialogue showing the highest pedagogical potential. (5) The predictive effect of GenAI-PA on learners’ academic performance was not influenced by grade level, gender, learning domain, learning duration, or the instructional role of GenAI-PA. Ultimately, recommendations for the design and application of GenAI-PA are discussed.
AliF.ChoyD.DivaharanS.TayH. Y.ChenW. (2023). Supporting self-directed learning and self-assessment using teacher GAIA, a generative AI chatbot application: Learning approaches and prompt engineering. Learning: Research and Practice, 9(2), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2023.2258886
2.
AlneyadiS.WardatY. (2023). ChatGPT: Revolutionizing student achievement in the electronic magnetism unit for eleventh-grade students in Emirates schools. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(4), ep448. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13417
3.
AnsariF.ErolS.SihnW. (2018). Rethinking human-machine learning in industry 4.0: How does the paradigm shift treat the role of human learning?Procedia Manufacturing, 23(1), 117–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.04.003
4.
ApokiU. C.HusseinA. M. A.Al-ChalabiH. K. M.BadicaC.MocanuM. L. (2022). The role of pedagogical agents in personalised adaptive learning: A review. Sustainability, 14(11), 6442. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116442
5.
ArguedasM.DaradoumisT.CaballéS. (2024). Measuring the effects of pedagogical agent cognitive and affective feedback on students’ academic performance. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 7(1), 1495342. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1495342
6.
BarnesA. J.ZhangY.ValenzuelaA. (2024). AI and culture: Culturally dependent responses to AI systems. Current Opinion in Psychology, 58(1), 101838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101838
7.
BaylorA. L.KimY. (2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(2), 95–115. https://doi.org/10.3233/IRG-2005-15(2)02
8.
BektikD.UllmannT. D.EdwardsC.HerodotouC.WhitelockD. (2024). AI-Powered curricula: Unpacking the potential and progress of generative technologies in education. Ubiquity Proceedings, 4(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.5334/uproc.160
9.
BloomB. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x013006004
10.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P.RothsteinH. R. (2010). A basic introduction to fixed‐effect and random‐effects models for meta‐analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(2), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.12
11.
BorgesJ. M.AraújoR. D. (2024). Experiences and challenges of a redesign process with the support of an AI assistant on an educational platform. In Proceedings of the XXIII Brazilian symposium on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–12). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3702038.3702046
12.
BozkurtA. (2023). Generative artificial intelligence (AI) powered conversational educational agents: The inevitable paradigm shift. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 198–214. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.7716416
13.
CartelliA. (2007). Socio-technical theory and knowledge construction: Towards new pedagogical paradigms?Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 4(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.28945/928
14.
Castro-AlonsoJ. C.WongR. M.AdesopeO. O.PaasF. (2021). Effectiveness of multimedia pedagogical agents predicted by diverse theories: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 33(3), 989–1015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09587-1
15.
ChangC. Y.HwangG. J.GauM. L. (2021). Promoting students’ learning achievement and self‐efficacy: A mobile chatbot approach for nursing training. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(1), 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13158
16.
CheonG.ChoiY.LeeD.BaekJ. (2025). Generative AI agents in language learning: A randomized field experiment. In Proceedings of the 58th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 4949-4958). https://hdl.handle.net/10125/109443
17.
ChoiS.KangS.LeeK.JuH.SongJ. (2024). The effect of an agent tutor’s integration of cognitive and emotional gestures on cognitive load, motivation, and achievement. Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(1), ep491. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/14101
18.
ChughR.MorshedM.SabrinaF.AzadS.RashidM. M.KaisarK.SubramaniS.KuttyS.TurnbullD. (2025). AI-powered pedagogy: Generative AI as a learning assistant in the ICT discipline. CQ University. https://doi.org/10.25946/28561211.v1
19.
DaiY.XiaoJ. Y.HuangY.ZhaiX.WaiF. C.ZhangM. (2025). How generative AI enables an online project-based learning platform: An applied study of learning behavior analysis in undergraduate students. Applied Sciences, 15(5), 2369. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15052369
20.
DomagkS. (2010). Do pedagogical agents facilitate learner motivation and learning outcomes? The role of the appeal of agent’s appearance and voice. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 22(2), 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000011
21.
EfklidesA. (2006). Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process?Educational Research Review, 1(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2005.11.001
22.
ElsayedH. (2024). The impact of hallucinated information in large language models on student learning outcomes: A critical examination of misinformation risks in AI-assisted education. Northern Reviews on Algorithmic Research, Theoretical Computation, and Complexity, 9(8), 11–23. https://northernreviews.com/index.php/NRATCC/article/view/2024-08-07
23.
EscalanteJ.PackA.BarrettA. (2023). AI-generated feedback on writing: Insights into efficacy and ENL student preference. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00425-2
24.
FelixC. V. (2020). The role of the teacher and AI in education. In. International perspectives on the role of technology in humanizing higher education (pp. 33–48). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2055-364120200000033003
25.
ForeroM. G.Herrera-SuárezH. J. (2023). ChatGPT in the Classroom: Boon or Bane for Physics Students' Academic Performance?arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.02422. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2312.02422
26.
FragkosK. C.TsagrisM.FrangosC. C. (2014). Publication bias in meta‐analysis: Confidence intervals for Rosenthal’s fail‐safe number. International Scholarly Research Notices, 2014(1), 825383. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/825383
27.
FryerL. K.AinleyM.ThompsonA.GibsonA.SherlockZ. (2017). Stimulating and sustaining interest in a language course: An experimental comparison of chatbot and human task partners. Computers in Human Behavior, 75(1), 461–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.045
28.
GuoK.ZhongY.LiD.ChuS. K. W. (2023). Effects of chatbot-assisted in-class debates on students’ argumentation skills and task motivation. Computers & Education, 203(1), 104862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104862
29.
GuoY. R.GohD. H.-L. (2015). Affect in embodied pedagogical agents: Meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(1), 124–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115588774
30.
HaakeM.GulzA. (2009). A look at the roles of look & roles in embodied pedagogical agents–a user preference perspective. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 19(1), 39–71. https://doi.org/10.3233/IRG-2009-19(1)03
31.
HalawehM. (2023). ChatGPT in education: Strategies for responsible implementation. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(2), ep421. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13036
32.
HanJ. W.ParkJ.LeeH. (2022). Analysis of the effect of an artificial intelligence chatbot educational program on non-face-to-face classes: A quasi-experimental study. BMC Medical Education, 22(1), 830. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03898-3
33.
HattieJ. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement (Vol. 59). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203887332
HeilmanM.Collins-ThompsonK.CallanJ.EskenaziM. (2006). Classroom success of an intelligent tutoring system for lexical practice and reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the ninth international conference on spoken language processing. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2006-282
36.
HenkelO.Horne-RobinsonH.KozhakhmetovaN.LeeA. (2024). Effective and scalable math support: Experimental evidence on the impact of an AI-Math tutor in Ghana. In International conference on artificial intelligence in education (pp. 373–381). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-64315-6_34
37.
HigginsJ. P.ThompsonS. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1539–1558. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186
38.
HofstedeG. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
39.
HooshyarD.AhmadR. B.YousefiM.YusopF. D.HorngS.- (2015). A flowchart‐based intelligent tutoring system for improving problem‐solving skills of novice programmers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(4), 345–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12099
40.
HsuY. C.HungJ. L.ChingY. H. (2013). Trends of educational technology research: More than a decade of international research in six SSCI-indexed refereed journals. Educational Technology Research & Development, 61(4), 685–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9290-9
41.
Huedo-MedinaT. B.Sánchez-MecaJ.Marín-MartínezF.BotellaJ. (2006). Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index?Psychological Methods, 11(2), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.193
JärveläS.NguyenA.HadwinA. (2023). Human and artificial intelligence collaboration for socially shared regulation in learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(5), 1057–1076. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13325
44.
JinS. H.ImK.YooM.RollI.SeoK. (2023). Supporting students’ self-regulated learning in online learning using artificial intelligence applications. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00406-5
KasneciE.SeßlerK.KüchemannS.BannertM.DementievaD.FischerF.GasserU.GrohG.GünnemannS.HüllermeierE.KruscheS.KutyniokG.MichaeliT.NerdelC.PfefferJ.PoquetO.SailerM.SchmidtA.SeidelT.KasneciG. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
47.
KhazanchiR.Di MitriD.DrachslerH. (2025). The effect of AI‐based systems on mathematics achievement in rural context: A quantitative study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 41(1), e13098. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.13098
48.
KimM. K.KimN. J.HeidariA. (2022). Learner experience in artificial intelligence-scaffolded argumentation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(8), 1301–1316. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2042792
49.
KimN. Y. (2019). A study on the use of artificial intelligence chatbots for improving English grammar skills. Journal of Digital Convergence, 17(8), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2019.17.8.037
50.
KimY.BaylorA. L. (2016). Research-based design of pedagogical agent roles: A review, progress, and recommendations. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0055-y
51.
KuhailM. A.AlturkiN.AlramlawiS.AlhejoriK. (2023). Interacting with educational chatbots: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 28(1), 973–1018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11177-3
52.
KumarJ. A. (2021). Educational chatbots for project-based learning: Investigating learning outcomes for a team-based design course. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 65. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00302-w
53.
LandisJ. R.KochG. G. (1977). An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics, 33(2), 363–374. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529786
54.
LeeY. F.HwangG. J.ChenP. Y. (2022). Impacts of an AI-based chabot on college students’ after-class review, academic performance, self-efficacy, learning attitude, and motivation. Educational Technology Research & Development, 70(5), 1843–1865. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10142-8
55.
LiX.LiuD. (2022). The influence of technostress on cyberslacking of college students in technology-enhanced learning: Mediating effects of deficient self-control and burnout. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(18), 11800. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191811800
56.
LinM. P. C.ChangD. (2020). Enhancing post-secondary writers’ writing skills with a chatbot. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 23(1), 78–92. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26915408
57.
LinY.YuZ. (2025). Learner perceptions of artificial intelligence-generated pedagogical agents in language learning videos: Embodiment effects on technology acceptance. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 41(2), 1606–1627. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2359222
58.
LiuC. C.LiaoM. G.ChangC. H.LinH. M. (2022). An analysis of children’ interaction with an AI chatbot and its impact on their interest in reading. Computers & Education, 189(1), 104576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104576
59.
LöweB. (2002). The formal sciences: Their scope, their foundations, and their unity. Synthese, 133(1/2), 5–11. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20117290
60.
MageiraK.PittouD.PapasalourosA.KotisK.ZangogianniP.DaradoumisA. (2022). Educational AI chatbots for content and language integrated learning. Applied Sciences, 12(7), 3239. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12073239
61.
MakranskyG.WismerP.MayerR. E. (2019). A gender matching effect in learning with pedagogical agents in an immersive virtual reality science simulation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(3), 349–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12335
62.
ManabeteS. S.AnyimC. A. (2024). Effects of artificial intelligence on senior secondary two civic education students’ motivation in Jos-North local government area, plateau state. BW Academic Journal. https://bwjournal.org/index.php/bsjournal/article/view/2509
63.
MarginsonS.DangT. K. A. (2016). Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory in the context of globalization. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 37(1), 116–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2016.1216827
64.
MatsudaN.CohenW. W.KoedingerK. R. (2015). Teaching the teacher: Tutoring SimStudent leads to more effective cognitive tutor authoring. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 25(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-014-0020-1
MayerR. E.SobkoK.MautoneP. D. (2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker’s voice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 419–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.419
67.
McGuireA.QureshiW.SaadM. (2024). A constructivist model for leveraging GenAI tools for individualized, peer-simulated feedback on student writing. International Journal of Technology in Education, 7(2), 326–352. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.639
68.
MehdianN.TuriA. N. (2025). AI-Powered educational system: Challenges for higher education in emerging economies: Baseline research. Tech Transformation and AI Readiness, 113(1), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73639-1_7
69.
MohammedI. A.BelloA.AyubaB. (2025). Effect of large language models artificial intelligence ChatGPT chatbot on achievement of computer education students. Education and Information Technologies, 30(9), 11863–11888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13293-8
70.
MousavinasabE.ZarifsanaieyN.Niakan KalhoriS.RakhshanM.KeikhaL.Ghazi SaeediM. (2021). Intelligent tutoring systems: A systematic review of characteristics, applications, and evaluation methods. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(1), 142–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1558257
71.
NgbarabaraP. B.OdiboA. (2024). Effect of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) on science education students’ achievements in Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa State. FUO-Journal of Educational Research, 3(2), 121–131. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13825732
72.
OrosooM.GoswamiI.AlphonseF. R.FatmaG.RengarajanM.BalaB. K. (2024, March). Enhancing natural language processing in multilingual chatbots for cross-cultural communication. In 2024 5th International Conference on Intelligent Communication Technologies and Virtual Mobile Networks (ICICV) (pp. 127-133). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICICV62344.2024.00027
73.
PanM.LaiC.GuoK. (2025). Effects of GenAI-empowered interactive support on university EFL students’ self-regulated strategy use and engagement in reading. The Internet and Higher Education, 65(1), 100991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2024.100991
74.
ParkD. Y.KimH. (2023). Determinants of intentions to use digital mental healthcare content among university students, faculty, and staff: Motivation, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and parasocial interaction with AI chatbot. Sustainability, 15(1), 872. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010872
75.
PasangS.LatifaA.AmmadeS. (2024). The use of kuki chatbot application to improve English achievement. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 6(1), 15–46. https://doi.org/10.32996/ijels.2024.6.1.3
76.
RappA.CurtiL.BoldiA. (2021). The human side of human-chatbot interaction: A systematic literature review of ten years of research on text-based chatbots. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 151(1), 102630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102630
77.
RothsteinH. R.SuttonA. J.BorensteinM. (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis. In Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 1–7). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470870168.ch1
78.
RuanS.JiangL.XuQ.LiuZ.DavisG. M.BrunskillE.LandayJ. A. (2021). EnglishBot: An AI-powered conversational system for second language learning. In Proceedings of the 26th international conference on intelligent user interfaces (pp. 434–444). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3397481.3450648
79.
Ruiz ViruelS.Sánchez RivasE.Ruiz PalmeroJ. (2025). The role of artificial intelligence in project-based learning: Teacher perceptions and pedagogical implications. Education Sciences, 15(2), 150. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020150
80.
RupparT. (2020). Meta-analysis: How to quantify and explain heterogeneity?European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 19(7), 646–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474515120944014
81.
SchneiderS.BeegeM.NebelS.SchnaubertL.ReyG. D. (2022). The cognitive-affective-social theory of learning in digital environments (CASTLE). Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09626-5
82.
SchroederN. L.DavisR. O.YangE. (2024). Designing and learning with pedagogical agents: An umbrella review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 62(8), 1907–1936. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331241288476
83.
SchwederS.GrahlL.RaufelderD. (2025). Examining self-directed and teacher-directed learning’s impact on achievement goals and learning strategies. The Journal of Experimental Education, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2025.2459382
84.
ShetyeS. (2024). An evaluation of Khanmigo, a generative AI tool, as a computer-assisted language learning app. Studies in Applied Linguistics and TESOL, 24(1), 38–53. https://doi.org/10.52214/salt.v24i1.12869
85.
SunJ.WangY.QianZ. (2024). Examining the influence of individual-level cultural values on CFL learners’ acceptance of ChatGPT for Chinese learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 33(5), 3393–3407. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2024.2443785
86.
TaiT. Y.ChenH. H. J. (2024). The impact of intelligent personal assistants on adolescent EFL learners’ listening comprehension. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37(3), 433–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2040536
87.
TaoY.ZhangG.ZhangD.WangF.ZhouY.XuT. (2022). Exploring persona characteristics in learning: A review study of pedagogical agents. Procedia Computer Science, 201(1), 87–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.03.014
88.
ThorntonA.LeeP. (2000). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Its causes and consequences. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53(2), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00161-4
89.
ViechtbauerW.CheungM. W. L. (2010). Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta‐analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(2), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.11
90.
WangF.LiW.XieH.LiuH. (2017). Is pedagogical agent in multimedia learning good for learning? A meta-analysis. Advances in Psychological Science, 25(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2017.00012
91.
WangT.WuT.LiuH.BrownC.ChenY. (2025). Generative co-learners: Enhancing cognitive and social presence of students in asynchronous learning with generative AI. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 9(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/3701198
92.
WeiL. (2023). Artificial intelligence in language instruction: Impact on English learning achievement, L2 motivation, and self-regulated learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 14(1), 1261955. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1261955
93.
WeiX.WangL.LeeL.-K.LiuR. (2024). Multiple generative AI pedagogical agents in augmented reality environments: A study on implementing the 5E model in science education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 63(2), 336–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331241305519
94.
WinklerR.HobertS.SalovaaraA.SöllnerM.LeimeisterJ. M. (2020). Sara, the lecturer: Improving learning in online education with a scaffolding-based conversational agent. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–14). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376781
95.
WuR.YuZ. (2024). Do AI chatbots improve students’ learning outcomes? Evidence from a meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(1), 10–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13334
96.
XuY.WangD.CollinsP.LeeH.WarschauerM. (2021). Same benefits, different communication patterns: Comparing children’s reading with a conversational agent vs. a human partner. Computers & Education, 161(1), 104059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104059
97.
YanL.GreiffS.TeuberZ.GaševićD. (2024). Promises and challenges of generative artificial intelligence for human learning. Nature Human Behaviour, 8(10), 1839-1850. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02004-5
98.
YangS. J.OgataH.MatsuiT.ChenN. S. (2021). Human-centered artificial intelligence in education: Seeing the invisible through the visible. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2(1), 100008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100008
99.
YasminM.NaseemF.MassoI. C. (2019). Teacher-directed learning to self-directed learning transition barriers in Pakistan. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 61(1), 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.02.003
100.
YuanB. (2024). Design of an intelligent dialogue system based on natural language processing. Journal of Theory and Practice of Engineering Science, 4(01), 72–78. https://doi.org/10.53469/jtpes.2024.04(01).10
101.
Żemojtel-PiotrowskaM.PiotrowskiJ. (2023). Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory. In ShackelfordT. K. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of sexual psychology and behavior (pp. 1–4). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08956-5_1124-1
102.
ZhangL.YaoZ.Hadizadeh MoghaddamA. (2025). Designing GenAI tools for personalized learning implementation: Theoretical analysis and prototype of a multi-agent system. Journal of Teacher Education, 76(3), 280–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871251325109
ZhuG.FanX.HouC.ZhongT.SeowP.Shen-HsingA. C.RajalingamP.YewL. K.PohT. L. (2023). Embrace opportunities and face challenges: Using ChatGPT in undergraduate students’ collaborative interdisciplinary learning. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.18616
105.
ZhuangY. (2025). Lessons from using ChatGPT in calculus: Insights from two contrasting cases. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 9(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41686-025-00098-2
