International Journal of STEM Education· 2026Q1
More than getting the answer: How students engage with generative AI in technical problem solving
- 0citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
In a study of 38 undergraduates, students using generative AI for technical problems exhibited three engagement patterns: Passive (receiving answers), Active (checking their own reasoning), and Constructive (seeking conceptual explanations), with no evidence of Interactive engagement.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- 38 undergraduate students used GenAI on a linear programming problem after solving it manually.
- Three engagement patterns were identified: Passive (receiving output), Active (verifying own reasoning), and Constructive (seeking conceptual explanation).
- No students demonstrated Interactive engagement, even with multi-turn AI conversations.
- Students can position GenAI differently within the same technical task.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) can produce complete solutions and explanations for quantitative STEM problems, raising questions about the forms of cognitive engagement students enact when using these tools. Although prior research has examined AI use, perceptions, and performance, less is known about how students engage with GenAI during structured technical problem solving. This study examined 38 undergraduate students in an operations management course who first solved a linear programming problem manually and then used GenAI on the same task. Student reflections were analyzed using deductive thematic analysis guided by the ICAP framework, with available AI interaction records used to validate classifications and develop illustrative cases. Three engagement patterns were documented. Passive engagement involved receiving AI-generated output without using the interaction to compare, verify, reinterpret, or extend understanding. Active engagement involved using AI to check or confirm previously completed reasoning, whereas Constructive engagement involved seeking explanation or conceptual interpretation, particularly around sensitivity analysis, shadow prices, and binding constraints. No reflection or available interaction record provided sufficient evidence of Interactive engagement, including in cases involving multiple conversational turns. The findings show that students can position GenAI differently within the same technical task, from receiving answers to verifying existing reasoning or seeking conceptual explanation. These distinctions suggest that STEM educators should attend not only to whether students use GenAI, but also to the forms of engagement that instructional tasks and expectations invite.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. International Journal of STEM Education, 2026 · DOI ↗
The rest is in the Pofolia app
Takeaways and questions to the paper; new summaries every day for your field. Free.
Sign in on the web to openField: Computer Science Applications
Computer Science ApplicationsComputer Science