Authors : Sivasankar A.

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 6 - June

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/5ftn48n3

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/3y64cyab

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26jun973

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Over ten years, researchers have looked closely at how artificial intelligence fits into mixed classroom setups, though findings still sit scattered among fields, school stages, and tech uses. Pulling together seven real-world investigations, this overview explores AI helpers like talking robots, voice assistants, data trackers, custom study route planners, and biglanguage engines such as ChatGPT used in elementary, middle, high schools, and colleges. With support from wider reading beyond those reports, the piece weighs how well these tools affect grades, involvement, drive to learn, and teaching strength. Findings show gains tied clearly to better language skills, understanding spoken words, solving problems correctly, plus stronger results across subjects. Despite gains in student involvement - such as a documented 20 percent rise in active participation - not every outcome turns upward. Hidden beneath the surface, persistent hurdles emerge repeatedly during real-world application. Technical glitches disrupt smooth system links. Educators often lack adequate training to use new tools effectively. Some question whether leaning too heavily on machines might dull independent analysis skills. Research itself carries flaws that weaken certainty. Many studies watch learners for only brief intervals. Others rely on trial setups without proper control groups. A shared way to measure results remains missing. To bring clarity forward, a fresh structure appears: the AI-Blended Pedagogical Integration Model (AI-BPIM), offered here as a lens for upcoming inquiry and practical decisions within mixed-mode teaching environments.

Keywords : Blended Learning, Artificial Intelligence, Chatbots, Learning Analytics, Personalised Learning, Student Engagement, Educational Technology, Hybrid Pedagogy.

References :

1. Baker, R. S., & Inventado, P. S. (2014). Educational data mining and learning analytics. In J. Larusson & B. White (Eds.), Learning analytics (pp. 61–75). Springer.
2. Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (Eds.). (2013). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing for 21st century learning (2nd ed.). Routledge.
3. Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM FAccT Conference, 610–623.
4. Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351–370.
5. Borge, M., Aldekhyyel, R., & Kimbo, J. (2023). ChatGPT as an undergraduate teaching assistant: Implications for problem-solving pedagogy in STEM. Computers & Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, 100132.
6. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
7. Ellington, A. J. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effects of calculators on students' achievement and attitude levels in precollege mathematics classes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(5), 433–463.
8. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.
9. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.
10. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.
11. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105.
12. Godwin-Jones, R. (2019). Riding the digital wilds: Learner autonomy and informal language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 23(1), 8–25.
13. Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning (pp. 3–21). Pfeiffer.
14. Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2019). Learner engagement in blended learning environments: A conceptual framework. Online Learning, 23(2), 145–178.
15. Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
16. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
17. Higgins, S., Xiao, Z., & Katsipataki, M. (2012). The impact of digital technology on learning: A summary for the Education Endowment Foundation. Durham University.
18. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
19. Ji, H., Suo, L., & Chen, H. (2024). AI performance assessment in blended learning: Mechanisms and effects on students' continuous learning motivation. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1374821.
20. Kobicheva, A. (2024). Students' intention to learn and academic performance in the blended learning environment: The role of artificial intelligence chatbots. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 14(2), 112–120.
21. Luckin, R. (2017). Towards artificial intelligence-based assessment systems. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 0028.
22. Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Pearson.
23. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1–47.
24. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLOS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097.
25. Nazaretsky, T., Bar, C., Walter, M., & Alexandron, G. (2021). Empowering teachers with AI: Co-designing a learning analytics tool for personalized instruction in the science classroom. Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, 266–276.
26. Obari, H., & Lambacher, S. (2019). Improving the English skills of native Japanese using artificial intelligence in a blended learning program. Proceedings of the 2019 CALL Conference.
27. Obermeyer, Z., Powers, B., Vogeli, C., & Mullainathan, S. (2019). Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science, 366(6464), 447–453.
28. Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469.
29. Pane, J. F., Steiner, E. D., Baird, M. D., & Hamilton, L. S. (2015). Continued progress: Promising evidence on personalized learning. RAND Corporation.
30. Perkins, M., Roe, J., Postma, D., McGaughran, J., & Hickerson, D. (2023). Academic integrity considerations of AI large language models as tools to support student learning: A scoping review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, 100195.
31. Puentedura, R. R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education. Retrieved from http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/
32. Roll, I., & Wylie, R. (2016). Evolution and revolution in artificial intelligence in education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 582–599.
33. Sánchez-Ruiz, L., Moll-López, S., Nuñez-Pérez, A., Moraño-Fernández, J., & Vega-Fleitas, E. (2023). ChatGPT challenges blended learning methodologies in engineering education: A case study in mathematics. Applied Sciences, 13(10), 6039.
34. Selwyn, N. (2019). Should robots replace teachers? AI and the future of education. Polity Press.
35. Siemens, G., & Baker, R. S. (2012). Learning analytics and educational data mining: Towards communication and collaboration. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, 252–254.
36. Tlili, A., Shehata, B., Adarkwah, M. A., Bozkurt, A., Hickey, D. T., Huang, R., & Agyemang, B. (2023). What if the devil is my guardian angel? ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learning Environments, 10, 15.
37. UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
38. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge — a review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109–121.
39. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
40. Wu, Z., Abdul Halim, H., & Mohd Saad, M. R. (2024). Artificial intelligence (AI) and gamification in blended learning: Enhancing language and literacy in Shanxi, China. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 9(2), e002625.
41. Yun, K., & Maeng, U. (2021). The effect of PBL based blended instruction utilizing AI platforms on L2 learning. Modern English Education, 22(2), 14–25.