Require students to justify AI-assisted solutions and compare AI-generated with self-developed code¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · no claims cited

Description¶

Because self-directed GenAI use alone did not produce measurable gains on AI-free assessments, the article recommends instructional activities that promote deeper engagement, such as "requiring students to justify AI-assisted solutions or compare AI-generated and self-developed code". This fits its broader recommendation that educators encourage explanation-seeking, critical evaluation of AI outputs, and reflection on problem-solving processes rather than relying on unguided, task-oriented interactions.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Instructional support that promotes responsible, thoughtful, and ethical use of AI, since simply allowing access is unlikely to improve outcomes

Constraints¶

• The article's evidence is observational and self-reported, so the strategy's effectiveness is a recommendation, not a tested result in this study

Target Learners¶

• first-year undergraduate programming students

Target Learning Goals¶

• critical evaluation of AI-generated code and deeper problem-solving engagement in OOP

Related Strategies¶

• Engage students in active learning assignments using generative AI with structured reflection and critique of AI outputs

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Marina Lepp. (2026). Patterns of Learner–AI Interaction and Academic Performance in an Object-Oriented Programming Course. IEEE Frontiers in Education (FIE) 2026 Conference. https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.24755