Date
Publisher
arXiv
Students learning programming exercise agency in deciding when and how to use GenAI tools like ChatGPT. However, this agency is often implicit and shaped by deadline pressure and peer behavior rather than explicit and conscious learning goals. We designed a GenAI Contract grounded in harm reduction and self-regulated learning theory to scaffold intentional decision-making: students articulated personal learning goals, created usage guidelines, and reflected on alignment at strategic points across an eleven-week semester. The contract was non-binding and graded only for completion, emphasizing self-awareness over enforcement. We implemented this with N=217 students in an intermediate Python course. For students still forming their relationship with GenAI, it worked, as 58% of students reported the intervention changing their thinking and created helpful accountability structures. However, awareness did not always translate to sustained behavior change. Some students who valued their guidelines still abandoned them under various pressures. Maintaining guidelines required constant self-control across hundreds of decisions, while using GenAI freely requires none. Many students could not sustain this burden despite this self-awareness. We discuss supporting student agency when GenAI tools and learning goals create tension.
Study at a glance
- Question: Can personal self-regulated contracts help programming students make more intentional decisions about using generative AI?
- Setting and data: Intermediate Python course at a US Midwestern public research university, Fall 2025, 217 undergraduate students.
- Method: Qualitative and descriptive analysis of non-binding student reflection contracts across eleven weeks (experience report).
Why it matters
Students' choices to use generative AI are often implicit and shaped by deadline pressures rather than intentional learning goals. Blanket rules cannot fit diverse student needs, making harm reduction and self-regulation essential.
Key findings
- Over half of students (58%) reported that the contract intervention changed their thinking about generative AI and created helpful accountability rules.
- A quarter of students (25%) arrived with established generative AI approaches and reported that the contract merely confirmed their existing practices rather than altering them.
- Some students abandoned their rules under pressure (11%), while 13% reported simply forgetting about the contract between course checkpoints.
Summary drafted with AI from the full paper and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.
What is the application?
Who is the user?
Who age?
Why use AI?
Study design
