Learning-oriented intentions did not significantly predict enacted in-chat behavior; only selecting final solutions predicted executive and answer-seeking requests¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r1–r2 · q2 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i2 Students selecting 'just give me the final answers' showed higher executive REQUEST rates (46.4% vs. 19.2%, r=.33, p<.01) and higher answer-seeking content (39.9% vs. 16.0%, r=.33, p<.01). → Rania Abdelghani 2026 q2 i? Common learning-oriented intentions (concept explanations, verification, step-by-step support) did not significantly predict their enacted codes (all |r|<.18, p>.10). → Rania Abdelghani 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Rania Abdelghani 2026¶

Rania Abdelghani, Peter Kaiser, and Kou Murayama. (2026). Regulating the AI Tutor: Intentions, Help-Seeking, and Self-Regulated Learning in Adolescent GenAI Use. Accepted at the NextGen Learning Interfaces Workshop, AIED 2026. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.08568 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.08568

q2 · i2 · associational · r1

Correlational analysis of stated intentions against enacted AI-coded behaviors in the 98-student classroom study. The article reports r=.33, p<.01 for both contrasts, the only significant intention-enactment alignment found.

"students whoselected“justgivemethefinal answers” showed higher executive REQUEST rates (46.4%vs.19.2%,r=.33, p < .01) and higher answer-seeking content (39.9%vs.16.0%,r=.33,p < .01)"

Rania Abdelghani 2026 (2)¶

Rania Abdelghani, Peter Kaiser, and Kou Murayama. (2026). Regulating the AI Tutor: Intentions, Help-Seeking, and Self-Regulated Learning in Adolescent GenAI Use. Accepted at the NextGen Learning Interfaces Workshop, AIED 2026. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.08568

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Same correlational intent-enactment analysis, reporting null associations for learning-oriented intentions with no printed effect sizes beyond the correlation bounds; the article concludes students could not reliably translate learning-oriented goals into aligned strategies.

"Common learning-oriented intentions – concept explanations, verification, step- by-step support – did not significantly predict their enacted codes (all|r|< .18, p > .10)"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Achievement Goal Orientation — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Adolescent students' stated pre-chat intentions with an AI math tutor tilt strongly toward scaffolded support rather than answer offloading — related
• Students' help requests to the AI tutor were predominantly instrumental rather than executive, with procedural content and low verification — related
• Students' stated pre-interaction intentions only weakly correspond to their enacted help-seeking with an LLM — a broader claim this one bears on
• Grade-9 students' LLM-supported mathematical interactions are strongly request-dominated, with little explicit planning, monitoring, or evaluation — related
• Behavioral intention translates only weakly into self-reported use behavior, and the extended UTAUT model explains intention formation better than enactment — related
• Direct student requests for answers significantly increased the AI's provision of direct answers (26.1% vs. 12.5% baseline; r = 0.14), though the AI maintained scaffolding in most cases — related
• Adaptive help seeking is a self-regulatory behavioral strategy, distinct from dependent help seeking — related
• ChatGPT biased information access toward solution-oriented artifacts over principle-oriented information — related
• Within a single LLM session, students' help-seeking shifts toward answer- and verification-seeking while explicit self-regulation modestly increases — related
• Metacognitive knowledge and intentions to use effective strategies do not reliably translate into actual strategy use (intention-behavior gap) — related
• Adolescent digital self-regulation is enacted through a typology of four strategy types differing in executive effort versus external scaffolding — related