Home All Issues Issue articles Previous article Next article

AI-Powered Learning Tools on Measurement of Student Engagement Across Academic Disciplines: Implications of Age and Gender

Chinedu Ositadimma Chukwu 1 2 * ,
Jenny Chinedu Chukwu 3,
Fidelis Ajor Odey 1
1 University of Calabar, NIGERIA2 Ultimate Research Network, NIGERIA3 University of Cross River State, NIGERIA* Corresponding Author
Educational Point, 3(1), 2026, e144, https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/17782
Publication date: Jan 24, 2026
Research Article
Open Access Open Access
Download PDF

ABSTRACT

This study examined the relationship between AI-powered learning tools, student engagement, and academic performance in higher education, with a focus on differences across academic disciplines, age groups, and gender. The study employed a quantitative, correlational, and causal-comparative research design, involving undergraduate students from both STEM and non-STEM disciplines through a multi-stage sampling approach. Data were obtained from AI-generated learning metrics, specifically Time-on-Task, Interaction Frequency, and Knowledge Mastery, alongside a structured questionnaire measuring behavioral, cognitive, and emotional aspects of student engagement, as well as students’ self-reported academic performance. The findings revealed that student engagement varied according to the type of AI learning tool utilized. Tools designed to support knowledge mastery were associated with higher levels of engagement compared to those focused primarily on interaction frequency or time spent on tasks. Students in STEM-related disciplines generally demonstrated stronger engagement than those in non-STEM fields, although the pattern of association between AI tool use and engagement was consistent across disciplines. Knowledge Mastery also emerged as the most influential factor in predicting academic performance across different age groups, with older students tending to achieve better academic outcomes. Additionally, gender differences were observed in how students benefited from specific AI tools, suggesting varying learning preferences and responses to AI-supported instruction. Overall, the study highlights the significant role of AI-powered learning tools in shaping student engagement and academic performance. It emphasizes the need for mastery-oriented, learner-sensitive, and discipline-responsive AI interventions to optimize learning outcomes in higher education.

KEYWORDS

AI-powered learning tools student engagement academic performance STEM age gender

CITATION (APA)

Chukwu, C. O., Chukwu, J. C., & Odey, F. A. (2026). AI-Powered Learning Tools on Measurement of Student Engagement Across Academic Disciplines: Implications of Age and Gender. Educational Point, 3(1), e144. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/17782
Harvard
Chukwu, C. O., Chukwu, J. C., and Odey, F. A. (2026). AI-Powered Learning Tools on Measurement of Student Engagement Across Academic Disciplines: Implications of Age and Gender. Educational Point, 3(1), e144. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/17782
Vancouver
Chukwu CO, Chukwu JC, Odey FA. AI-Powered Learning Tools on Measurement of Student Engagement Across Academic Disciplines: Implications of Age and Gender. Educational Point. 2026;3(1):e144. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/17782
AMA
Chukwu CO, Chukwu JC, Odey FA. AI-Powered Learning Tools on Measurement of Student Engagement Across Academic Disciplines: Implications of Age and Gender. Educational Point. 2026;3(1), e144. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/17782
Chicago
Chukwu, Chinedu Ositadimma, Jenny Chinedu Chukwu, and Fidelis Ajor Odey. "AI-Powered Learning Tools on Measurement of Student Engagement Across Academic Disciplines: Implications of Age and Gender". Educational Point 2026 3 no. 1 (2026): e144. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/17782
MLA
Chukwu, Chinedu Ositadimma et al. "AI-Powered Learning Tools on Measurement of Student Engagement Across Academic Disciplines: Implications of Age and Gender". Educational Point, vol. 3, no. 1, 2026, e144. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/17782

REFERENCES

  1. Aliyu, Z., Kabir, U., Muazu, M. J., & Abubakar, M. I. (2025). Gender-based analysis of generative AI’s effectiveness in enhancing algebra achievement in senior secondary schools in Funtua Educational Zone, Katsina State. Faculty of Natural and Applied Sciences Journal of Mathematics and Science Education, 6(2), 117–123. https://fnasjournals.com/index.php/FNAS-JMSE/article/view/699
  2. Ayanwale, M. A., & Sanusi, I. T. (2023). Perceptions of STEM vs. non-STEM teachers toward teaching artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the IEEE AFRICON Conference (pp. 933–937). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/AFRICON50706.2023.10267415
  3. Baker, R. S., & Yacef, K. (2009). The state of educational data mining in 2009: A review and future visions. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 1(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3554657
  4. Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88(4), 354–364. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1981-25685-001
  5. Bergdahl, N., Bond, M., Sjöberg, J., Dougherty, M., & Oxley, E. (2024). Unpacking student engagement in higher education learning analytics: A systematic review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), Article 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00493-y
  6. Bognár, L., & Khine, M. S. (2025). The shifting landscape of student engagement: A pre–post semester analysis in AI-enhanced classrooms. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 8, Article 100395. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666920X25000359
  7. Borna, M. R., Saadat, H., Hojjati, A. T., & Akbari, E. (2024). Analyzing click data with AI: Implications for student performance prediction and learning assessment. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1421479. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1421479
  8. Cao, S., & Phongsatha, S. (2025). An empirical study of the AI-driven platform in blended learning for business English performance and student engagement. Language Testing in Asia, 15(1), Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-025-00376-7
  9. Chaudhary, A. A., Arif, S., Calimlim, R. F., Khan, S. Z., & Sadia, A. (2024). The impact of AI-powered educational tools on student engagement and learning outcomes at the higher education level. International Journal of Contemporary Issues in Social Sciences, 3(2), 2842–2852. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382559080
  10. Cheng, K. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2020). Students’ motivational beliefs and strategies, perceived immersion, and attitudes towards science learning with immersive virtual reality: A partialleast squares analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(6), 2140–2159. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12956
  11. Chukwu, C. O., & Cletus, I. (2025). Exploring the effectiveness of AI-driven adaptive learning systems in science education: Impact on student engagement. African Journal of Science, Technology and Mathematics Education, 11(2), 60–71. https://www.ajstme.com.ng/admin/img/paper/Paper%208.pdf
  12. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
  13. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
  14. Elshaer, I. A., Hasanein, A. M., & Sobaih, A. E. E. (2024). The moderating effects of gender and study discipline in the relationship between university students’ acceptance and use of ChatGPT. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 14(7), 1981–1995. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe14070132
  15. Fredricks, J. A., Filsecker, M., & Lawson, M. A. (2016). Student engagement, context, and adjustment: Addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues. Learning and Instruction, 43, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.002
  16. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The internet and higher education, 2(2-3), 87-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
  17. Gašević, D., Dawson, S., & Siemens, G. (2015). Let’s not forget: Learning analytics are about learning. TechTrends, 59(1), 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0822-x
  18. George, A. S. (2024). Reimagining India’s engineering education for an AI-driven future. Partners Universal International Research Journal, 3(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13815252
  19. Huisman, B., Saab, N., Van Den Broek, P., & Van Driel, J. (2019). The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: A meta-analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 863–880. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896
  20. Ifenthaler, D., & Şahin, M. (2023). Empowering higher education students to monitor their learning progress: Opportunities of computerised classification testing. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 20(3), 350–366. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-11-2022-0150
  21. Imoniri, A. R. (2025). Harnessing artificial intelligence in science education for skills development and economic transformation in Nigeria. Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies, 10(3), 77–83. http://teacs.org/article/10.11648/j.tecs.20251003.12
  22. Kahu, E. R., & Nelson, K. (2018). Student engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1344197
  23. Kearsley, G., & Shneiderman, B. (1998). Engagement theory: A framework for technology-based teaching and learning. Educational Technology, 38(5), 20–23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44428478
  24. Leahy, K., Ozer, E., & Cummins, E. P. (2025). AI-ENGAGE: A multicentre intervention to support teaching and learning engagement with generative artificial intelligence tools. Education Sciences, 15(7), Article 807. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15070807
  25. Liu, J., & Yang, Y. (2025). A student performance prediction model based on multimodal generative adversarial networks. International Journal of Sensor Networks, 47(3), 186–198. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSNET.2025.144630
  26. Long, P., & Siemens, G. (2014). Penetrating the fog: analytics in learning and education. Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(3), 132-137. https://www.learntechlib.org/d/183382/
  27. Lukumon, G., Maharaj, A., Kafilat, S., Lateefat, A., Sunday, S., Musibau, G. A., … Saheed, O. (2025). From phobia to fun: Enhancing mathematics engagement with AI-powered tools. OSF. 7, 24-38. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/jkt2p
  28. Medina-Gual, L., & Parejo, J. L. (2025). University students’ engagement with artificial intelligence: A cluster analysis of learner profiles in AI literacy. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 9(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-025-09926-7
  29. Møgelvang, A., Bjelland, C., Grassini, S., & Ludvigsen, K. (2024). Gender differences in the use of generative artificial intelligence chatbots in higher education: Characteristics and consequences. Education Sciences, 14(12), Article 1363. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/14/12/1363
  30. Qu, Y., Tan, M. X. Y., & Wang, J. (2024). Disciplinary differences in undergraduate students’ engagement with generative artificial intelligence. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1), Article 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00341-6
  31. Sayici, S. (2025). Artificial intelligence in student learning: Balancing usefulness, stress, and cognitive load [Master thesis, University of Tilburg]. https://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=185574
  32. Siemens, G., & Gašević, D. (2012). Guest editorial-Learning and knowledge analytics. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 1–2. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279555980_Guest_Editorial_-_Learning_and_Knowledge_Analytics
  33. Tang, C., Li, S., Hu, S., Zeng, F., & Du, Q. (2025). Gender disparities in the impact of generative artificial intelligence: Evidence from academia. PNAS Nexus, 4(2), Article 591. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae591
  34. Tomita, K. (2018). Does the visual appeal of instructional media affect learners’ motivation toward learning? TechTrends, 62(1), 103–112. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11528-017-0213-1
  35. Wicks, D. A., Craft, B. B., Mason, G. N., Gritter, K., & Bolding, K. (2015). An investigation into the community of inquiry of blended classrooms by a faculty learning community. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.12.001
  36. Wise, A. F., & Jung, Y. (2019). Teaching with analytics: Towards a situated model of instructional decision-making. Journal of Learning Analytics, 6(2), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2019.62.4
  37. Woolf, B. P., Lane, H. C., Chaudhri, V. K., & Kolodner, J. L. (2013). AI grand challenges for education. AI Magazine, 34(4), 66–84. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v34i4.2490
  38. Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education: Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0

LICENSE

Creative Commons License
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.