evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Behavioural Engagement Patterns in Mangosuthu University of Technology's AI Student-Support Chatbot

South Africa · Durban · See the South Africa profile · See the Durban profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 80% 33/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

A five-month study of Mangosuthu University of Technology's AI-assisted student-support chatbot analysed 1,495 admissions, registration and IT-support interactions, finding 96.8% first-query resolution alongside a 23-hour average first response time and highly uneven use.

1495
Chatbot interaction records analysed (July-November 2025)
96.83 %
Query-level resolution rate
89.26 %
User-level resolution rate
23 hours
Average first response time
7.5 hours
Average overall response time
360 of 484 interactions
Interactions from the single most active user

Details

Maturity
Pilot
Promoter
Mangosuthu University of Technology (Learning and Teaching Development Centre) with Durban University of Technology
Period
July–November 2025 (published July 2026)
Keywords
higher education administration, student support services, chatbot analytics

Context

South African universities of technology often handle high volumes of routine admissions, registration and IT-support queries with limited advising staff, and Mangosuthu University of Technology (MUT) in Umlazi, Durban deployed a hybrid AI-assisted chatbot intended to triage these queries automatically and escalate harder cases to human staff.

Objectives

Researchers from MUT's Learning and Teaching Development Centre and Quality Management Directorate, with a colleague from the Durban University of Technology, set out to analyse chatbot interaction records to understand resolution rates, response times and student engagement patterns at query, user and institutional-team level.

Activities

The study analysed 1,495 chatbot interaction records from July to November 2025, with admissions (111 interactions), registration (63) and IT support (31) as the dominant query types, and described three engagement patterns among students: exploratory, transactional and sustained.

Results

The study found a 96.83% resolution rate at the level of individual queries and 89.26% at the level of individual users, but the average first response time was 23 hours and the average overall response time 7.5 hours, and usage was highly concentrated, with one user alone accounting for 360 of 484 user-level interactions.

Conclusions

The authors frame the system as a hybrid human-plus-AI model rather than a fully autonomous one; the long average first-response time is a notable gap between the promise of instant AI support and this deployment's practice, and the concentration of use in a small number of students limits how far the findings generalise across MUT's wider student body.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Low (< €50k) — No budget figures published; the study is a five-month log analysis of an already-deployed chatbot, not a costed procurement.
Time to results
Short (< 1 year) — Interaction data collected July-November 2025; study published July 2026.
Staffing & skills
MUT Learning and Teaching Development Centre and Quality Management Directorate researchers, Durban University of Technology co-author

Conditions for success

  • Hybrid design that escalates harder queries to human staff rather than relying on the chatbot alone
  • Transparent, peer-reviewed reporting of response-time and resolution-rate data rather than only marketing claims

Common failure modes

  • Average first response time of 23 hours undercuts the promise of instant AI support
  • Usage highly concentrated in a small number of students (one user made 360 of 484 interactions), limiting generalisability

Where it fits

Governance type
university-led operational deployment with academic evaluation
Scale
single university of technology, one semester
Income level
upper-middle-income

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful