Continuing-generation students showed higher usage of procedural and directive question types, while first-generation students leaned toward verification and expectational questions¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Instrumental/procedural questions showed the largest statistically significant difference in Session 1 (Δ = +1.03, p = .013), favouring continuing-generation students, and remained the second-largest advantage in Session 2 (Δ = +1.44). → Matin Amoozadeh and Amin Alipour 2026 q2 i? First-generation students showed relatively higher usage of Verification and Expectational questions, suggesting a more confirmatory use of the AI. → Matin Amoozadeh and Amin Alipour 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Matin Amoozadeh and Amin Alipour 2026¶

Matin Amoozadeh and Amin Alipour. (2026). Analysis of Types of Inquiries in Student-AI Interaction: A case study of two CS2 tasks. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.17919 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.17919

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Mean-difference analysis of Graesser question-type usage between generation groups across both sessions (Figure 2). The article reports Δ = +1.03, p = .013 in Session 1 and Δ = +1.44 in Session 2 for instrumental/procedural questions; these are raw mean differences, not standardized effect sizes.

"Instrumental/proceduralquestions — in which students ask the AI howto accomplish a task — showed the largest statistically signifi- cant difference in Session 1 (Δ=+ 1.03, 𝑝=. 013), and remained the second-largest advantage in Session 2 ( Δ=+ 1.44)."

Matin Amoozadeh and Amin Alipour 2026 (2)¶

Matin Amoozadeh and Amin Alipour. (2026). Analysis of Types of Inquiries in Student-AI Interaction: A case study of two CS2 tasks. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.17919

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Descriptive mean-difference patterns from the same generation comparison. The article characterizes first-generation students as adopting "a more confirmatory role, using the AI to check and validate rather than to generate or explore"; no effect size is printed for this contrast.

"By contrast, first-generation students demonstrated relatively higher usage ofVerificationquestions — asking whether a given answer or piece of code is correct — andExpectationalquestions, which ex- plore hypothetical outcomes."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Socioeconomic Status — predictor: outcomes differ by group: a gap reflecting circumstances and treatment, not a cause

Related Claims¶

• 75% of student-authored physics questions met combined high-quality criteria (clear, correct, plausible distractors, above recall, adequate explanation) — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• First-generation students asked fewer questions overall than continuing-generation students in both sessions — related
• Students' question types shift from confusion-reporting toward procedural and task-oriented inquiry as tasks progress, though the session difference did not reach conventional significance — related
• Students' inquiry sequences differ by session: most start with Assertion questions in Session 1 (prob = 0.48) but with Instrumental/Procedural questions in Session 2 (prob = 0.43) — related