Designing Needs- and Attention-Aware AI Learning Tools for Engineering Education: Insights from Psychological Outcomes
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming higher education, but its benefits can vary depending on where, how, and how often it supports learning. While prior research emphasizes cognitive and academic outcomes, this study examines how AI chatbots support the psychological needs and motivational states of engineering students. A survey of college engineering students (n = 206) examined perceived effects of AI chatbots on autonomy, relatedness, and relief from competence frustration. Structura
Record details
Published: 28 July 2026
Source: arXiv cs.HC
Category: Research
Topics: Children & education · Agents & autonomy
Retrieved: 30 July 2026
Related evidence
These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.
(Im)Paired Programming: Coding Agents Improve Productivity but Harm Understanding
arXiv cs.HC · 29 July 2026
Pictura: Perspective-View Self-Play at Scale for Driving
arXiv cs.AI · 28 July 2026
The Agency Gap in AI-Supported Writing: How Reactive and Proactive Agent Designs Shape Multimodal Reasoning
arXiv cs.CY · 30 July 2026
A scoping review of generative AI-powered agentic AI in education: Research landscape, agentic capabilities, and insights from the frontier agent paradigm, exemplified by OpenClaw
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · 30 July 2026
From Scoring to Acting: Outcome-Verified Comparative Self-Distillation for LLM Agents
arXiv · 30 July 2026
Integrating AI into Requirements Quality Learning in Software Engineering Education: A TPACK-Guided Empirical Study
arXiv · 30 July 2026
How to cite this record
ethics.ai (28 July 2026), “Designing Needs- and Attention-Aware AI Learning Tools for Engineering Education: Insights from Psychological Outcomes,” evidence record 14832, https://ethics.ai/record/14832 (originally published by arXiv cs.HC).
Use and limitations
This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.