Nearly all students valued learning through effort while feeling drawn toward AI, and split into those who limited use and those whose use conflicted with stated values¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 2 studies · 2 qualitative r3 · q2
Currency · no dated study recorded · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Twelve of thirteen students described valuing learning through effort while also feeling drawn toward using AI to reduce that effort. → tension-1 q2 i? Seven students limited AI use in ways consistent with their values, while five used AI more extensively in ways they themselves viewed as undermining their learning. → tension-2

Evidence¶

tension-1¶

Keith Tran, Colton Harper, and Thomas Price. 2026. "Why Put in This Much Effort?": How AI Availability Shapes Students' Motivation in Introductory Programming. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research Vol. 1 (ICER 2026 Vol. 1). https://doi.org/10.1145/3765964.3811653

q2 · i? · qualitative · r3

In the navigating-the-tension findings of this interview study, twelve of thirteen participants described simultaneous endorsement of effort and temptation toward AI shortcuts, the study's central emergent pattern.

"Nearly all students (12 of 13) described valuing learning through effort while also feeling drawn toward using AI to reduce that effort."

tension-2¶

Keith Tran, Colton Harper, and Thomas Price. 2026. "Why Put in This Much Effort?": How AI Availability Shapes Students' Motivation in Introductory Programming. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research Vol. 1 (ICER 2026 Vol. 1). https://doi.org/10.1145/3765964.3811653

q2 · i? · qualitative · r3

The same section reports the split in how students acted on their values: seven limited AI use while five used it extensively against their stated values; one student fell outside this framework.

"The majority (n=7) described limiting their AI use in ways consistent with their stated values. Five students described using AI more extensively, in ways they themselves viewed as undermining their learning."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Knowing AI could complete assignments made the cost of independent programming effort feel less worthwhile to strongly motivated students — related
• Peer AI use diminished some students' sense of their own effort's value through social comparison, independent of their own AI use — related
• In TBLT, teachers perceive scaffolding collapse, a shortcut paradox, invisible inequity, and task realism corrosion — related
• Students who used AI reported feeling less accomplished, with heavier reliance associated with greater loss of satisfaction — related
• Learners invest more effort in tasks they perceive as interesting, personally important, or useful to their future goals. — related
• Conflicting student and teacher rules for GenAI produce adaptive counter-norms and student calls for teachers to refine assignments rather than impose unenforceable restrictions — related
• How genAI is used, not who uses it, predicts whether independent performance declines or improves — related
• Students report that GenAI creates an uneven playing field in assessment, favoring students who use it over those who work independently — related
• Students' generative AI use may function either as a scaffold supporting thinking or as a shortcut bypassing essential cognitive processes — related
• Reflection with AI as a cognitive partner demands time and cognitive effort, countering concerns that students use AI merely to outsource cognitive tasks — related