Usage de l’intelligence artificielle générative, autonomie cognitive et engagement académique chez les étudiants de l’Université Félix Houphouët-Boigny de Cocody
Abstract
Cette étude examine les associations entre la fréquence d’utilisation de l’intelligence artificielle générative (IAG), l’autonomie cognitive et l’engagement académique chez des étudiants de l’Université Félix Houphouët-Boigny de Cocody. Fondée sur une approche quantitative transversale, elle mobilise la théorie de l’autodétermination comme cadre d’interprétation. En mai 2026, un questionnaire fermé a été administré à 400 étudiants de l’UFR Sciences de l’Homme et de la Société, recrutés par convenance et ayant déjà utilisé l’IAG dans leurs études. Les analyses descriptives, les tests du khi-deux de Pearson et le V de Cramér ont été réalisés sous SPSS. Parmi ces utilisateurs, 81,3 % déclarent recourir souvent à l’IAG. La fréquence d’utilisation est associée à l’autonomie cognitive (χ²(4) = 19,847 ; p = 0,001 ; V = 0,158) et à l’engagement académique (χ²(4) = 30,622 ; p < 0,001 ; V = 0,196). L’association entre autonomie cognitive et engagement académique est plus marquée (χ²(4) = 87,792 ; p < 0,001 ; V = 0,331). Ces résultats décrivent des relations statistiques, sans établir de causalité. Ils invitent à renforcer l’accompagnement pédagogique des usages de l’IAG et à examiner, dans de futures recherches, les pratiques concrètes d’utilisation de ces outils.
This cross-sectional study examines associations between the frequency of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) use, cognitive autonomy, and academic engagement among students at Félix Houphouët-Boigny University in Cocody, Côte d’Ivoire. Self-determination theory provides an interpretive framework. In May 2026, a structured questionnaire was administered to 400 convenience-sampled students from the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences who had previously used GAI for academic purposes. Descriptive statistics, Pearson’s chi-square tests, and Cramér’s V were computed using SPSS. Among these GAI users, 81.3% reported frequent use. Use frequency was associated with cognitive autonomy (χ²(4) = 19.847; p = .001; V = .158) and academic engagement (χ²(4) = 30.622; p < .001; V = .196). The association between cognitive autonomy and academic engagement was stronger (χ²(4) = 87.792; p < .001; V = .331). These cross-sectional associations do not establish causal effects. The findings support the need for critical pedagogical guidance and further investigation of how students use GAI in practice.
Downloads
References
Akregbou, B. P. S. (2025). Intégration de l’intelligence artificielle générative dans les universités publiques de Côte d’Ivoire : réalités, risques et opportunités. Revue Belge, 11(130), 91–112. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17290967
Annamalai, N., & Nasor, M. (2025). Exploring ChatGPT in education: Unveiling learners’ experiences through the lens of self-determination theory. Smart Learning Environments, 12, Article 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-025-00393-2
Astin A. W., 1984, « Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education », Journal of College Student Personnel, vol. 25, n° 4, pp. 297-308.
Chiu, T. K. F. (2024). A classification tool to foster self-regulated learning with generative artificial intelligence by applying self-determination theory: A case of ChatGPT. Educational Technology Research and Development, 72, 2401–2416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-024-10366-w
Cochran W. G., 1954, « Some methods for strengthening the common χ² tests », Biometrics, vol. 10, n° 4, pp. 417-451. DOI : https://doi.org/10.2307/3001616
Cohen J., 1988, Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2e édition, Hillsdale (New Jersey), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Deci E. L. et Ryan R. M., 2000, « The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior », Psychological Inquiry, vol. 11, n° 4, pp. 227-268. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Etikan I., Musa S. A. et Alkassim R. S., 2016, « Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling », American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, vol. 5, n° 1, pp. 1-4. DOI : https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
Fredricks J. A., Blumenfeld P. C. et PARIS A. H., 2004, « School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence », Review of Educational Research, vol. 74, n° 1, pp. 59-109. DOI : https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Gerlich M., 2025, « AI tools in society: Impacts on cognitive offloading and the future of critical thinking », Societies, vol. 15, n° 1, article n° 6. DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006
Holec H., 1981, Autonomy and foreign language learning, Oxford, Pergamon Press.
Kuh G. D., 2009, « What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement », Journal of College Student Development, vol. 50, n° 6, pp. 683-706. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0099
Little D., 1991, Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues and problems, Dublin, Authentik.
Lo C. K., Hew K. F. et Jong M. S.-Y., 2024, « The influence of ChatGPT on student engagement: A systematic review and future research agenda », Computers & Education, vol. 219, article n° 105100. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105100
Ng D. T. K., Tan C. W. et Leung J. K. L., 2024, « Empowering student self-regulated learning and science education through ChatGPT: A pioneering pilot study », British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 55, n° 4, pp. 1328-1353. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13454
Reeve J. et Tseng C.-M., 2011, « Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities », Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 36, n° 4, pp. 257-267. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002
Risko E. F. et Gilbert S. J., 2016, « Cognitive offloading », Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol. 20, n° 9, pp. 676-688. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002
Schaufeli W. B., Martínez I. M., Pinto A. M., Salanova M. et Bakker A. B., 2002, « Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national study », Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol. 33, n° 5, pp. 464-481. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022102033005003
Stojanov A., Liu Q. et Koh J. H. L., 2024, « University students’ self-reported reliance on ChatGPT for learning: A latent profile analysis », Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 6, article n° 100243.
Strunk V. A. et Willis J. E., III, 2025, « Generative artificial intelligence and education: A brief ethical reflection on autonomy », EDUCAUSE Review, 13 janvier 2025, [en ligne]. URL : https://er.educause.edu/articles/2025/1/generative-artificial-intelligence-and-education-a-brief-ethical-reflection-on-autonomy
UNESCO, 2023, Guidance for generative AI in education and research, Paris, UNESCO. DOI : https://doi.org/10.54675/EWZM9535
Xia Q., Li W., Yang Y., Weng X. et Chiu T. K. F., 2025, « A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) on students’ motivation and engagement », Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 9, article n° 100455. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100455
Youssef E., Medhat M., Abdellatif S. et Al Malek M., 2024, « Examining the effect of ChatGPT usage on students’ academic learning and achievement: A survey-based study in Ajman, UAE », Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 7, article n° 100316. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100316
Zhai C., Wibowo S. et Li L. D., 2024, « The effects of over-reliance on AI dialogue systems on students’ cognitive abilities: A systematic review », Smart Learning Environments, vol. 11, n° 1, article n° 28. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7
Zimmerman B. J., 2002, « Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview », Theory Into Practice, vol. 41, n° 2, pp. 64-70. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
Copyright (c) 2026 N’Diamoi Tanoh Kouame, N’Guessan Williams Koffi, Logon Albert Thierry Djako
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
