How AI Literacy Affects Students’ Educational Attainment in Online Learning: Testing a Structural Equation Model in Higher Education Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) has contributed to various facets of human lives for decades. Teachers and students must have competency in AI and AI-empowered applications, particularly when using online electronic platforms such as learning management systems (LMS). This study investigates the structural relationship between AI literacy, academic well-being, and educational attainment of Iranian undergraduate students. Using a convenience sampling approach, we selected 400 undergraduate students from virtual universities equipped with LMS platforms and facilities. We collected data using three instruments—an AI literacy scale, an academic well-being scale, and educational attainment scale—and analyzed the data using Smart-PLS3 software. Results showed that the hypothetical model had acceptable psychometrics (divergent and convergent validity, internal consistency, and composite reliability). Results also showed that the general model had goodness of fit. The study thus confirms the direct effect of AI on academic well-being and educational attainment. By measuring variables of academic well-being, we also show that AI literacy in China and Iran significantly affects educational attainment. These findings have implications for students, teachers, and educational administrators of universities and higher education institutes, providing knowledge about the educational uses of AI applications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".