Khanmigo in the Virtual Classroom: A Strategic Evaluation through SWOT and Acceptability Analysis

Background/purpose. This study examines students' perspectives and acceptance of Khanmigo, an AI-driven educational platform, regarding personalized learning, diversity, and participation. As artificial intelligence becomes more integrated into educational settings, it is essential to comprehend students' perceptions and acceptance of these technologies. The main objective is to analyze how perceived strengths, shortcomings, and prospective opportunities affect students' readiness to embrace AI tools in educational environments.

Materials/methods. A mixed-methods approach was utilized, including quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews to gather data from students. Quantitative data evaluated overall acceptance and particular attitudes towards AI-assisted learning, whilst qualitative data offered more profound insights into student experiences and apprehensions. Hierarchical regression analysis was employed to ascertain the predictive significance of students' attitudes regarding their acceptance of AI in education.

Results. Quantitative results demonstrated a significant degree of acceptability for Khanmigo, with students valuing its capacity to improve comprehension, provide immediate feedback, and facilitate autonomous learning. Qualitative replies emphasized heightened motivation and access to varied educational materials while also expressing concerns over technical constraints, ethical dilemmas, and cultural sensitivity. Regression analysis demonstrated that perceived strengths, shortcomings, and opportunities strongly forecasted students' acceptance of AI in educational settings.

Conclusion. The study indicates that successful integration of AI in education necessitates not just utilizing its technology benefits but also mitigating its limits through human monitoring and ethical principles. Future advancements must emphasize emotional intelligence, cultural sensitivity, and usability to enhance the educational advantages of AI while mitigating its disadvantages.

Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Education, Student Perception, Technology Acceptance, Personalized Learning

References

Al-Azawei, A., Serenelli, F., & Lundqvist, K. (2020). Universal Design for Learning (UDL): A content analysis of peer-reviewed journal papers from 2012 to 2015. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(3), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v16i3.19295

Almaiah, M. A., Al-Khasawneh, A., & Althunibat, A. (2020). Exploring the critical challenges and factors influencing the E-learning system usage during COVID-19 pandemic. Education and Information Technologies, 25(6), 5261–5280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10219-y

Alvarez, J., & Galman, S. M. A. (2025). Massive Open Online Course in Elementary Statistics: From Analysis to Evaluation. Educational Process: International Journal, 14, e2025086. https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2025.14.86

Alvarez, J. I., & Galman, S. M. (2023). Hyflex learning: Continuing tertiary education in a post–pandemic environment. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 745, 584–601. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-056-5_57

Alvarez, J. I. (2024). EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF AI–POWERED TUTORS MATHGPT AND FLEXI 2.0 IN ENHANCING CALCULUS LEARNING. Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Terapan Universitas Jambi, 8(2), 495-508. https://doi.org/10.22437/jiituj.v8i2.34809

American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. APA.

Anderson et al. (2021). The impact of artificial intelligence on learner–instructor interaction in online learning.

Baker, T., & Smith, L. (2019). Educ-AI-tion rebooted? Exploring the future of artificial intelligence in schools and colleges. NESTA. https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/Future_of_AI_and_education_v5_WEB.pdf

Bozkurt, A., Jung, I., Xiao, J., Vladimirschi, V., Schuwer, R., Egorov, G., ... & Paskevicius, M. (2020). A global outlook to the interruption of education due to COVID-19 pandemic: Navigating in a time of uncertainty and crisis. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 1-126.

Bryson, J. M. (2018). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A guide to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement (5th ed.). Wiley.

Chen, L., Chen, P., & Lin, Z. (2020). Artificial intelligence in education: A review. IEEE Access, 8, 75264–75278. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2988510

Collaizzi, P. F. (1978). Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. In R. S. Valle & M. King (Eds.), Existential-Phenomenological Alternatives for Psychology (pp. 48–71). Oxford University Press.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification.” Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference, 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040

Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2015). Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000033

Hamdan, A., Almazroi, A. A., & Aldhafeeri, F. (2021). Students’ perceptions of artificial intelligence in higher education: Opportunities and challenges. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 4281–4298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10524-2

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

Helms, M. M., & Nixon, J. (2010). Exploring SWOT analysis – where are we now? A review of academic research from the last decade. Journal of Strategy and Management, 3(3), 215-251.

Hill, T., & Westbrook, R. (1997). SWOT analysis: It's time for a product recall. Long Range Planning, 30(1), 46-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0024-6301(96)00095-7

Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial Intelligence in Education: Promises and Implications for Teaching and Learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.

Hurix Digital. (n.d.). How AI is shaping the future of education. Retrieved from https://www.hurix.com

Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Evaluating constructivist learning. Educational Technology, 31(9), 28–33.

Khosravi, H., Kitto, K., & Buckingham Shum, S. (2022). Personalizing education at scale: AI + human feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(2), 327–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13191

Khosravi, H., Kitto, K., & Liu, D. Y. (2022). Personalized learning analytics: A systematic literature review and future research directions. Computers & Education, 179, 104414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104414

Kovanović, V., Joksimović, S., Gašević, D., Siemens, G., & Hatala, M. (2017). Automated cognitive presence detection in online discussion transcripts. The Internet and Higher Education, 33, 68–79.

Kwahk, K. Y., & Park, J. Y. (2006). The effects of cognitive style and media richness on commitment to web-based learning in a blended learning environment. ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 37(2-3), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1145/1161345.1161354

Lai, E. R. (2011). Critical thinking: A literature review. Pearson Research Report.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.

Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Pearson.

MDPI. (2023). Assessing student-perceived impact of using artificial intelligence tools: Construction of a synthetic index of application in higher education.

Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things (Revised and expanded ed.). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.15358/9783800648108

Pane, J. F., Griffin, B. A., McCaffrey, D. F., & Karam, R. (2015). Effectiveness of Cognitive Tutor Algebra I at Scale. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(2), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373713507480

Panagiotou, G. (2003). Bringing SWOT into focus. Business Strategy Review, 14(2), 8-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8616.00253

Pickton, D. W., & Wright, S. (1998). What's SWOT in strategic analysis? Strategic Change, 7(2), 101-109. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-1697(199803/04)7:2<101::aid-jsc332>3.0.co;2-6

Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4001_1

Roll, I., & Wylie, R. (2016). Evolution and revolution in artificial intelligence in education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26, 582–599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-016-0110-3

Schleicher, A. (2020). The impact of AI on education. OECD Education and Skills Today. Retrieved from https://oecdedutoday.com/the-impact-of-ai-on-education/

Selwyn, N. (2016). Education and Technology: Key Issues and Debates. Bloomsbury.

Selwyn, N. (2019). Should robots replace teachers? AI and the future of education. Polity Press.

Siemens, G., & Long, P. (2011). Penetrating the fog: Analytics in learning and education. EDUCAUSE Review, 46(5), 30–40.

Valentin, E. K. (2001). SWOT analysis from a resource-based view. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9(2), 54-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2001.11501891

VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.611369

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

Wenzhou University. (2024). Artificial intelligence-integrated educational applications and college students’ creativity and academic emotions.

Westman, M., Holmlund, T., & Gellerstedt, M. (2022). Artificial intelligence in career guidance: Exploring potential and challenges in higher education. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 50(2), 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2021.1973582

Williamson, B., & Eynon, R. (2020). Historical threads, missing links, and future directions in AI in education. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(3), 223–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1798995

Yin, B., Zou, D., Wang, B., & Kwok, L. (2021). Effects of AI-based learning environments on student motivation and engagement: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 174, 104310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104310

Yousef, A. M. F., Chatti, M. A., & Schroeder, U. (2020). The SWOT analysis framework for evaluating educational technologies: A case study on MOOCs. Educational Technology & Society, 23(3), 12–24.

Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0

Zhang, Y., Dang, Y., Amer, T., & Wang, J. (2020). Exploring how student engagement and instructor presence contribute to students’ learning outcomes using AI-powered tutoring systems. Computers & Education, 157, 103968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103968

Zhong, B., Wang, Q., & Li, X. (2022). Ethical concerns in AI applications for student mental health monitoring. AI & Society, 37(3), 981–993. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01210-w

Announcement

EDUPIJ Citation Metrics

EDUPIJ News!