Integrating Artificial Intelligence into Cognitivist Learning: Learning Outcomes, Approaches, and Possibilities
Keywords:
Artificial Intelligence, Cognitivist Learning, Learning OutcomeAbstract
This study investigated the influence of artificial intelligence on expected learning outcomes and examined its integration within cognitivist learning frameworks. The participants comprised 121 undergraduates enrolled in the Introduction to Political Science course at the School of Political and Social Sciences, University of Phayao.
The research utilised a structured questionnaire for data collection, and the data were analysed using inferential statistics, specifically the T-test and F-test. The results revealed no statistically significant differences (p > .05) in learning outcomes with respect to either the number of hours students engaged with artificial intelligence or the use of different platforms. Similarly, the adoption of ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, and Grammarly did not yield significant variations in learning outcomes consistent with cognitivist principles. These findings indicate that artificial intelligence alone cannot substitute for cognitive processes or social interactions. Nevertheless, based on the discussion of the research findings in conjunction with the review of relevant literature, artificial intelligence demonstrates potential to function as a supportive tool or a cognitive catalyst for cognitivist learning. This potential can be realized when artificial intelligence is appropriately integrated with critically designed pedagogical approaches and the promotion of active classroom engagement.
References
เนตรชนก ตรีรยาภิวัฒน์, วัตสาตรี ดิถียนต์, และสุกานดา จงเสริมตระกูล. (2567). การประยุกต์ใช้และผลกระทบของปัญญาประดิษฐ์แบบรู้สร้างสำหรับการเรียนการสอนในระดับอุดมศึกษา: การทบทวนอย่างเป็นระบบ.วารสารศึกษาศาสตร์และนวัตกรรม, 26(4), 489–505.
Chan, C. K. Y. (2023). A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), Article 38.
Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., ... & Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and machines, 28(4), 689-707.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Lea, G. R. (2020). Constructivism and its risks in artificial intelligence. Prometheus, 36(4), 322–346. doi:10.13169/prometheus.36.4.0322
Raza, S. A., & Qazi, W. (2020). Digital learning in higher education: A study of students’ acceptance of online education in developing countries. Education and Information Technologies, 25(6), 4603–4619. doi:10.1007/s10639-020-10220-9
Schunk, D. H. (2020). Learning theories: An educational perspective (8th ed.). Pearson Education.
Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (2018). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes
(Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Woolfolk, A. (2019). Educational psychology (14th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Wu, X. (2023). Artificial intelligence in education: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 16(1), 1–15. doi:10.18785/jetde.1601.01
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Education Academic Chiang Rai Rajabhat University

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.