Published October 14, 2026 | Version v1

GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND STUDENTS' INDEPENDENT LEARNING IN PROGRAMMING EDUCATION: A NARRATIVE REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

  • 1. Denau Institute of Entrepreneurship and Pedagogy, Denov, Uzbekistan Termez State Pedagogical Institute (independent researcher), Termez, Uzbekistan
  • 2. Worldly Knowledge Publishing Centre

Description

Background: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools are now widely available to students who learn programming, yet it remains unclear whether higher task performance with AI leads to durable, independent learning. Methods: A narrative review of empirical studies published in 2023–2025 was carried out in September–October 2026. Studies were included if generative AI was used in a learning task and if performance with AI, performance without AI or learning processes were measured. Five controlled or experimental studies formed the core evidence; one qualitative study, one classroom deployment and two surveys were used as supplementary evidence. All bibliographic data were verified against publisher records. Results: AI consistently raised performance while it was available, but its effect on unassisted performance ranged from negative to neutral. Negative effects appeared when learners obtained complete solutions, whereas hint-based or explanation-oriented use reduced or removed them. Several studies suggest that AI may widen the gap between learners with high and low prior knowledge and weaken self-monitoring. Only one study measured delayed retention, and only one measured transfer. Programming courses should therefore assess unassisted performance separately and organise AI use in guided stages.

 

Files

1326-1333.pdf

Files (427.2 kB)

Name Size
md5:5d9ddd0149aa86e8ea53c4b3aa50776e
427.2 kB Preview Download

Additional details

References

  • 1.Bastani, H., Bastani, O., Sungu, A., Ge, H., Kabakcı, Ö. and Mariman, R. (2025). Generative AI without guardrails can harm learning: Evidence from high school mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(26): e2422633122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2422633122
  • 2.Denny, P., Prather, J., Becker, B.A., Finnie-Ansley, J., Hellas, A., Leinonen, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., Reeves, B.N., Santos, E.A. and Sarsa, S. (2024). Computing education in the era of generative AI. Communications of the ACM, 67(2): 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1145/3624720
  • 3.Fan, Y., Tang, L., Le, H., Shen, K., Tan, S., Zhao, Y., Shen, Y., Li, X. and Gašević, D. (2025). Beware of metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative artificial intelligence on learning motivation, processes, and performance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(2): 489–530. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13544
  • 4.Gerlich, M. (2025). AI tools in society: Impacts on cognitive offloading and the future of critical thinking. Societies, 15(1): 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006 (Correction: Societies, 15(9): 252.)
  • 5.Grinschgl, S., Papenmeier, F. and Meyerhoff, H.S. (2021). Consequences of cognitive offloading: Boosting performance but diminishing memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74(9): 1477–1496. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218211008060