Trust and Reliance on AI in Education: AI Literacy and Need for Cognition as Moderators

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is changing how students learn, yet the roles of course context, cognitive reliance, evaluation literacy, and early reliance remain underexplored. Using survey responses from 118 students across 12 AI-related courses at our institution, we examined differences in GenAI use and perceived learning experiences. We identified four user clusters: high-use students reporting many benefits, light users reporting less reliance and fewer benefits, and two moderate-use groups reporting different levels of benefit. We also found significant differences between free- and premium-version users, single- and multiple-tool users, and students experiencing different instructor policies. In multivariable regression models, academic benefit was associated with early reliance and academic task support; positive impact was associated with cognitive reliance, academic task support, confidence in GenAI reliability, and instructor policy; and negative impact was associated with early reliance and attitudinal change. The association between early reliance and negative impact became stronger as evaluation literacy increased. Finally, perceptions of GenAI-enhanced learning appear to reflect cognitive, performance, and self-efficacy benefits, while concerns about stress and diminished critical thinking are associated with lower perceived learning benefits. These findings suggest that institutions need better policies to address such inequities so that institutions can enable students to benefit from increasingly capable AI systems.

Generative AI tools provide novice programmers with instant, personalized support, but also raise concerns about whether AI use supports or bypasses students' regulation of problem-solving. Existing work has largely focused on correctness, usability, or overall usage frequency, with less attention to how student--AI help-seeking unfolds. This study addresses this gap by analyzing AI-assisted help-seeking trajectories in university-level programming. Using an SRL-informed analytical framework that links prompt-level help-seeking codes to conceptual, implementation, debugging, and reflective forms of support, we analyzed 1,290 task-specific student prompts linked to 17,190 code submissions from 71 students in introductory Python programming courses. Specifically, we examined how help-seeking interactions were structured across turns and attempts, and how trajectory patterns related to task scores and the number of code submissions. Results indicate that many students primarily used AI for reactive troubleshooting rather than for planned, self-regulated problem-solving. Although trajectory patterns were not associated with significant differences in task scores, they differed substantially in the number of code submissions required. These findings suggest that the educational significance of AI support lies not only in whether students use AI, but in how their help-seeking trajectories develop during programming problem-solving.

AI teaching assistants (AI TAs) backed by large language models (LLMs) and pedagogical guardrails are increasingly being integrated into programming courses, providing students with scalable access to hints, conceptual explanations, and code-level feedback. However, guardrails may also create friction. If students feel that the support provided is overly restrictive or poorly contextualized to their current progress, they may bypass approved tools for general-purpose LLMs. To investigate how AI TA design affects students' learning experiences, we conducted a randomized controlled trial with 132 students in an introductory programming course. Students completed three tasks related to code-writing and debugging and were randomly assigned to one of four AI TAs varied across two dimensions: pedagogical guidance style (Socratic vs. Direct instruction) and context awareness (no context vs. full context of the problem and student solution). We examined students' perceptions, interaction behaviors, and evidence of post-task comprehension. Students rated the Socratic AI TA with full context least favorably, reporting significantly lower perceived support for task completion. Descriptively, this condition also showed the highest observed interaction stress, the highest rate of external LLM use, and the lowest proportion of post-task explanations demonstrating full comprehension, though these differences were not statistically significant. These findings suggest that guardrailed AI TAs are not automatically better for learning. Instead, their effectiveness depends on how pedagogical guidance and contextual awareness are balanced in ways that students experience as useful, supportive, and worth continuing to use.