Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) enables students with little programming experience to produce working software, raising the concern that learners may build artifacts they cannot explain. This convergent mixed-methods study examined how uncritical GenAI use and verification behavior (VB) relate to novices’ self-reported understanding of their own AI-assisted projects. Participants were undergraduates from predominantly non-computing majors in two offerings of a general-education Python course; 64 provided complete survey data and 68 written reflections were thematically analyzed. Uncritical use (UR) was associated with a larger self-reported product–understanding gap (GAP; r = 0.43, p < 0.001) but showed little association with perceived understanding (PU), whereas VB was associated with PU (r = 0.45, p < 0.001) but showed little association with the gap. Tests of dependent correlations confirmed that these associations differed. In the reflections, execution-based checking was the most commonly reported verification strategy (47 of 68), whereas comprehension-oriented strategies were less common. Because all measures were self-reported and cross-sectional, the findings are correlational; they suggest that instruction should explicitly scaffold comprehension-oriented verification in AI-integrated introductory programming.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: