Evidence Hub

Amplifier or substitute? A systematic review of generative AI's impact on higher-order cognitive skills among university students

Alubthane FO

Frontiers in psychology, 2026

61 participants

Abstract

Background: As generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) becomes embedded in university learning environments, understanding its effects on students' higher-order cognitive development has become one of the most pressing questions in educational research.

Methods: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines, synthesizing 89 peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2024 and 2026 from Web of Science and Scopus. Narrative synthesis was employed to integrate findings across studies.

Results: GenAI's cognitive effects were neither uniform nor unconditional: positive outcomes were documented in 40.4% of studies and mixed or conditional effects in 23.6%. ChatGPT was the predominant tool examined (n = 61, 68.5%), and mixed-methods designs were most prevalent (42.7%). Critically, 55.1% of studies employed no specified pedagogical strategy, and explicit theoretical frameworks were identified in only 25.8% of the corpus. Over-reliance emerged as the leading cognitive risk (33.7%), followed by reduced analytical autonomy (20.2%) and cognitive offloading (18.0%).

Discussion: These findings support a Dual-Mechanism Model: GenAI functions as a cognitive amplifier under structured pedagogical conditions and as a cognitive substitute under unguided use. The evidence calls on universities to anchor GenAI integration within deliberate instructional frameworks that preserve students' cognitive agency and foreground autonomous higher-order reasoning.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 61 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free