Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 32 references

Designing for Learning with Generative AI is a Wicked Problem: An Illustrative Longitudinal Qualitative Case Series

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Two student paths show why GenAI teaching is a wicked problem

desk verdict Two rich case trajectories, but the wicked-problem trade-off claim overreaches the data: Pat's ethics were already low, Jay's skill loss is inferred from reduced use. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17230 v1 pith:XLLRZ3QJ submitted 2025-07-23 cs.HC

Clara Scalzer , Saurav Pokhrel , Sara Hunt , Greg L Nelson This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords generativeAIwickedproblemstudentdevelopmentlongitudinalqualitativecaseseriesethicscareerconfidencecomputingeducation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Designing courses around generative AI is a "wicked problem," this paper argues: making progress on one educational goal can undermine another. Over a semester of interviews with students in a GenAI-integrated creative media course, the authors trace two trajectories showing this trade-off. One student's growing GenAI fluency coincided with a loss of ethical restraint and a self-described turn to cheating; another's deepening ethical awareness led to self-imposed usage limits that stalled skill growth and intensified career anxiety. The paper concludes that GenAI-integrated learning must be evaluated and designed multi-dimensionally, not by optimizing any single outcome.

What carries the argument

The central object is the concept of a "wicked problem" from planning theory, applied to GenAI-integrated education. The argument is carried by a longitudinal qualitative case series: four semi-structured interviews with each of fourteen students, with the analysis focused on the first and final interviews and rendered as "pen portraits" that narrate each student's trajectory over the semester. Social Cognitive Career Theory supplies the interpretive lens, positing that self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and career confidence reinforce one another; the two cases show GenAI short-circuiting that loop. The specific mechanism that makes the case is the observed inverse relationship—skill gains accompanying ethical decline in one student, ethical gains accompanying skill stagnation in another.

What would settle it

Re-analyze all fourteen participants' first and final interviews and count how many show a clear gain on one dimension matched by a decline on another; if most students improve on several dimensions at once, or if Pat and Jay are clear outliers, the claim that progress on one goal impedes another in this setting would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the authors' own terms, the central claim is that a course deliberately built to teach GenAI skills, ethical reasoning, and career awareness together produced students in which progress on one of these goals impeded another. Pat began the semester avoiding GenAI and calling it "trash," but by the final interview he was using it to "get all the right answers," described himself as a "notorious cheater," and stated he had no ethical views about the technology. Jay began confident that human writing could beat GenAI, but ethical concerns raised in the course—about environmental cost and artists' consent—led to a self-imposed ten-minute daily usage limit that curtailed skill development and made them "nervous to do any type of writing professionally." The authors use these two cases to argue that GenAI-integrated education in this setting exhibited the defining features of a wicked problem: competing values, unpredictable outcomes, and evolving dilemmas without straightforward resolution.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the two selected students, Pat and Jay, are representative enough of the fourteen participants to illustrate the claimed trade-offs; if they are atypical, the observed conflicts could be artifacts of case selection rather than systemic features of GenAI-integrated learning.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Curricula should be evaluated on multiple dimensions—learning, ethics, motivation, and career confidence—rather than on any single outcome like GenAI proficiency.
  • Ethics instruction can suppress skill building when it drives students toward avoidance rather than reflective engagement.
  • Career confidence does not automatically follow from tool proficiency; students need explicit help connecting GenAI skills to their own career narratives.
  • Assessments of GenAI-integrated courses should include longitudinal measures of student development over time, not just end-of-task performance.
  • The "illusion of competence" can persist even when students explicitly acknowledge they are learning less, as Pat's case shows.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension: courses that frame GenAI use through personal values and agency, rather than efficiency, may reduce the observed skills–ethics trade-off.
  • If the wicked-problem framing generalizes, institutional mandates to use GenAI in classrooms could produce unanticipated ethical and motivational harms for students who respond like Jay.
  • The cases suggest that Social Cognitive Career Theory may need enrichment: self-efficacy can be decoupled from actual learning when students attribute success to the tool rather than to themselves.
  • A larger-sample replication could quantify the trade-off and check whether it is robust or an artifact of selecting the two most dramatic cases.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper argues, based on a longitudinal qualitative study of two students in a GenAI-integrated creative media course, that designing for learning with generative AI is a 'wicked problem' in which progress on one educational goal (e.g., GenAI use skills) can impede progress on another (e.g., ethics or career confidence). The two case studies—Pat, who increased his use of GenAI while reporting unchanged low ethical engagement, and Jay, who developed ethical concerns and reduced his GenAI use—are presented as illustrations of such trade-offs. The paper uses Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) as an interpretive lens, analyzes interviews from the beginning and end of the semester, and calls for multi-dimensional evaluation of GenAI-integrated curricula rather than optimizing any single outcome.

Significance. If the central claim were backed by the presented evidence, the paper would make an important contribution to computing education by cautioning against single-outcome evaluations of GenAI integration and highlighting potential feedback loops among learning, ethics, and career outcomes. The paper's strength is its rich, detailed narrative data from a course that explicitly integrated ethics instruction and its attention to understudied career-outcome dimensions. However, as presented, the evidence does not establish the claimed causal trade-offs: the two cases are selected on the outcome of interest, there are no direct measures of skill or ethical change, and the analysis collapses to two timepoints. The paper therefore functions best as a hypothesis-generating case study rather than as a demonstration of the wicked-problem claim; the title and abstract overstate what the data can support.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3 (Method)] The selection of Pat and Jay because their accounts were 'the most detailed and thought-provoking' is a selection on the outcome of interest; without any analysis of the other 12 participants, the paper cannot support the general claim in the title that designing for learning with GenAI is a wicked problem, nor the Introduction's assertion that 'our findings demonstrate that in this setting, it exhibited clear characteristics of one.' The authors should either analyze and report on the full cohort (even concisely) or explicitly limit the claims to 'these two cases illustrate potential tensions' and adjust the title, abstract, and discussion accordingly.
  2. [Section 4.1.1 (Pat)] Pat's narrative does not show 'increasing GenAI use skills can lower ethics' (Abstract). At Interview 1 he already describes himself as a 'notorious cheater' who avoided GenAI because if he started, 'I'm never gonna not use it'; at Interview 4 he states 'I really didn't have any ethical views before, and I still don't really.' The data indicate stable low ethical engagement, not a decline triggered by skill gains. The paper should either present evidence of temporal change in ethical stance or revise the claim to one about stability of low ethics under skill acquisition, which is a weaker and different finding.
  3. [Section 4.2.1 (Jay)] The claim that Jay's ethical awakening 'impeded skill development' is unsupported: the only evidence is his self-imposed 10-minute daily usage limit and reduced use. No GenAI skill measure (e.g., output quality, task performance, self-efficacy) is reported, and reduced use does not logically imply reduced skill. The causal chain from ethical concern to usage limit to skill deficit is assumed rather than demonstrated; the authors should provide direct or indirect skill evidence or rephrase the finding as a potential risk that warrants further study.
  4. [Section 3 (Method) and Section 4 (Results)] Despite the longitudinal design with four monthly interviews, the analysis uses only interviews 1 and 4, as stated in Section 3: 'the analysis for this paper focuses specifically on the first and final interviews.' Two timepoints cannot reveal the feedback loops, 'evolving dilemmas,' and 'cumulative effects' that the wicked-problem framing requires (Section 1, Discussion). The authors should either analyze and report at least one intermediate interview or discuss why the intermediate data were excluded, and temper claims about change over time accordingly.
  5. [Section 3.1 and Section 1] The a priori development of the codebook from SCCT and the introduction of the wicked-problem framing before data collection create a risk of circular interpretation: the analysis may only confirm the pre-existing framework. The paper should explain how the analysis allowed for disconfirming evidence and what alternative explanations (e.g., individual differences, pre-existing attitudes, course context) were considered. This concern does not invalidate the descriptive narratives but weakens the theoretical contribution as stated.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'an GenAI-integrated' should be 'a GenAI-integrated' because 'GenAI' begins with a consonant sound.
  2. [Section 2] Reference [17] is cited awkwardly as 'Studies [17] like Yasar and Karagücük's' inside a sentence; add the author names or rephrase to 'Studies by Yasar and Karagücük [17]...'.
  3. [Throughout] The text uses both 'GenAI' and 'generative AI' inconsistently; choose one convention at first mention and use it consistently thereafter.
  4. [Section 4.2.1] The phrase 'contradicted with my intended meaning' should be 'contradicted my intended meaning'.
  5. [Section 1] The claim that this is 'the first longitudinal, in-depth qualitative study' of this kind requires a more precise comparison set and a defense that no prior longitudinal qualitative studies exist; as written, the claim is too strong.
  6. [Section 5 (Limitations)] The limitations section does not mention the purposive selection of two extreme cases from a 14-participant cohort; this is a central limitation that should be acknowledged explicitly alongside the existing caveats about generalizability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the wicked-problem claim is an interpretive synthesis of independently reported longitudinal cases, not a derivation from its own definitions or self-citations.

full rationale

This qualitative case-series paper makes no quantitative predictions and fits no parameters, so the classic circularity patterns (fitted input called prediction, uniqueness imported from authors, ansatz smuggled via citation) do not apply. The central claim—that progress on one learning goal can impede another—is an interpretive label applied to two longitudinal cases, and the underlying observations are reported directly from participant interviews (e.g., Pat's statements about his 'notorious cheater' identity and unchanged ethical views; Jay's self-imposed 10-minute daily usage limit after an ethics activity). Those observations are not defined in terms of the wicked-problem conclusion; the conclusion is an organizing interpretation of them. The theoretical frameworks (wicked problems literature and Social Cognitive Career Theory) guide the codebook, but they are external frameworks and are not cited from the present authors' prior work. No self-citation is load-bearing. The limitation section explicitly acknowledges that the study is based on two in-depth cases and is not statistically generalizable, which further reduces any concern that the authors are presenting the framework as a forced or uniquely derived result. Concerns about case selection and the inference from reduced use to impeded skill development are evidentiary/correctness issues, not circularity, and therefore do not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a qualitative interpretive paper. There are no numeric free parameters or invented entities. The main content the reader takes on faith is the validity of the wicked-problem and SCCT lenses, the accuracy of self-reports, and the representatives of the two chosen cases. These are listed as axioms; the case-selection assumption is flagged as ad hoc to this paper.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The wicked-problem framework of Rittel and Webber is a valid analytic lens for interpreting GenAI-integrated education.
    Invoked throughout the paper as the interpretive frame; outcomes are categorized as wicked rather than derived from an independent standard of problem-solvability.
  • domain assumption Social Cognitive Career Theory accurately describes how self-efficacy and outcome expectations form, providing the theoretical lens for coding and interpreting interviews.
    The codebook is based on SCCT, so the findings about self-efficacy and career expectations presuppose the theory's validity.
  • domain assumption Participants' self-reported attitudes and behaviors in interviews 1 and 4 truthfully reflect their actual changes over the semester.
    No behavioral logs, course grades, or third-party observations are used; the entire trajectory rests on these self-reports.
  • ad hoc to paper The two selected participants are adequate to demonstrate the range of experiences relevant to the research questions.
    Selection criterion is explicitly 'most detailed and thought-provoking,' a post-hoc choice that lacks a prespecified sampling rule.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Designing for Learning with Generative AI is a Wicked Problem: An Illustrative Longitudinal Qualitative Case Series." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XLLRZ3QJ

@misc{pith2026250717230,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Designing for Learning with Generative AI is a Wicked Problem: An Illustrative Longitudinal Qualitative Case Series},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XLLRZ3QJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17230}
}
read the original abstract

Students continue their education when they feel their learning is meaningful and relevant for their future careers. Computing educators now face the challenge of preparing students for careers increasingly shaped by generative AI (GenAI) with the goals of supporting their learning, motivation, ethics, and career development. Our longitudinal qualitative study of students in a GenAI-integrated creative media course shows how this is a "wicked" problem: progress on one goal can then impede progress on other goals. Students developed concerning patterns despite extensive instruction in critical and ethical GenAI use including prompt engineering, ethics and bias, and industry panels on GenAI's career impact. We present an analysis of two students' experiences to showcase this complexity. Increasing GenAI use skills can lower ethics; for example, Pat started from purposefully avoiding GenAI use, to dependency. He described himself as a "notorious cheater" who now uses GenAi to "get all the right answers" while acknowledging he's learning less. Increasing ethical awareness can lower the learning of GenAI use skills; for example, Jay's newfound environmental concerns led to self-imposed usage limits that impeded skill development, and new serious fears that GenAI would eliminate creative careers they had been passionate about. Increased GenAI proficiency, a potential career skill, did not improve their career confidence. These findings suggest that supporting student development in the GenAI era is a "wicked" problem requiring multi-dimensional evaluation and design, rather than optimizing learning, GenAI skills, ethics, or career motivation individually.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Coda: A wicked problems mindset for educational development

    Bass, R. Coda: A wicked problems mindset for educational development. To Improve the Academy: A Journal of Educational Development 41 , 1 (Apr. 2022). Number: 1 Publisher: Michigan Publishing

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    W., and Tomlinson, B

    Black, R. W., and Tomlinson, B. University students describe how they adopt AI for writing and research in a general education course. Scientific Reports 15, 1 (Mar. 2025), 8799. 0 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2025-04-14] Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Boguslawski, S., Deer, R., and Dawson, M. G. Programming education and learner motivation in the age of generative AI: student and educator perspectives. Information and Learning Sciences 126 , 1/2 (Feb. 2025), 91–109

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Camillus, J. C. Strategy as a wicked problem. Harvard Business Review (2008)

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Chan, C. K. Y., and Hu, W. Students’ voices on generative AI: perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 20 , 1 (July 2023), 43

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Chan, C. K. Y., and Zhou, W. Deconstructing student perceptions of generative AI (GenAI) through an expectancy value theory (EVT)-based instrument, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Churchman, C. W. Guest Editorial: Wicked Problems. Management Science 14, 4 (1967), B141–B142. Publisher: INFORMS

    work page 1967

  8. [8]

    When artificial intel- ligence substitutes humans in higher education: the cost of loneliness, student success, and retention

    Crawford, J., Allen, K.-A., Pani, B., and Cowling, M. When artificial intel- ligence substitutes humans in higher education: the cost of loneliness, student success, and retention. Studies in Higher Education 49, 5 (2024), 883–897. Publisher: SRHE Website _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2326956

    work page arXiv 2024

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Why students use or not use generative AI: Student conceptions, concerns, and implications for engineering education

    Dai, Y. Why students use or not use generative AI: Student conceptions, concerns, and implications for engineering education. Digital Engineering 4 (Mar. 2025), 100019

    2025

  2. [10]

    a key to reducing inequities in like, AI, is by reducing inequities everywhere first

    Everson, J., Kivuva, F. M., and Ko, A. J. "a key to reducing inequities in like, AI, is by reducing inequities everywhere first": Emerging critical consciousness in a co-constructed secondary CS classroom. In Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science ...

    2022

  3. [11]

    Hammer, D., and Berland, L. K. Confusing Claims for Data: A Critique of Common Practices for Presenting Qualitative Research on Learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences 23 , 1 (2014), 37–46. Publisher: Routledge ERIC Number: EJ1031304

    2014

  4. [12]

    all roads lead to ChatGPT

    Hou, I., Man, O., Hamilton, K., Muthusekaran, S., Johnykutty, J., Zadeh, L., and MacNeil, S. "all roads lead to ChatGPT": How generative AI is eroding social interactions and student learning communities, 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    The Effects of Generative AI on Computing Students’ Help-Seeking Preferences

    Hou, I., Mettille, S., Man, O., Li, Z., Zastudil, C., and MacNeil, S. The Effects of Generative AI on Computing Students’ Help-Seeking Preferences. In Proceedings of the 26th Australasian Computing Education Conference (New York, NY, USA, Jan. 2024), ACE ’24, Association for C...

    2024

  6. [14]

    The influence of generative artificial intelligence on creative cognition of design students: a chain mediation model of self-efficacy and anxiety

    Hwang, Y., and Wu, Y. The influence of generative artificial intelligence on creative cognition of design students: a chain mediation model of self-efficacy and anxiety. Frontiers in Psychology 15 (2024), 1455015

    2024

  7. [15]

    Students’ Perceptions and Use of Generative AI Tools for Programming Across Different Computing Courses

    Keuning, H., Alpizar-Chacon, I., Lykourentzou, I., Beehler, L., Köppe, C., de Jong, I., and Sosnovsky, S. Students’ Perceptions and Use of Generative AI Tools for Programming Across Different Computing Courses. In Proceedings of the 24th Koli Calling International Conference o...

    2024

  8. [16]

    Wicked problems: problems worth solving: a handbook & a call to action

    Kolko, J. Wicked problems: problems worth solving: a handbook & a call to action . ac4d, 2012

    2012

  9. [17]

    Will I be replaced?

    Kuhail, M. A., Mathew, S. S., Khalil, A., Berengueres, J., and Shah, S. J. H. “Will I be replaced?” Assessing ChatGPT’s effect on software development and programmer perceptions of AI tools. Science of Computer Programming 235 (July 2024), 103111

    2024

  10. [18]

    O., and Ko, A

    Landesman, R., Salac, J., Lim, J. O., and Ko, A. J. Integrating Philosophy Teaching Perspectives to Foster Adolescents’ Ethical Sensemaking of Comput- ing Technologies. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 1 (Melbourn...

    2024

  11. [19]

    W., and Brown, S

    Lent, R. W., and Brown, S. D. Social cognitive model of career self-management: Toward a unifying view of adaptive career behavior across the life span. Journal of Counseling Psychology 60 , 4 (2013), 557–568

    2013

  12. [20]

    E., Prather, J., Reeves, B

    Margulieux, L. E., Prather, J., Reeves, B. N., Becker, B. A., Cetin Uzun, G., Loksa, D., Leinonen, J., and Denny, P. Self-regulation, self-efficacy, and fear of failure interactions with how novices use LLMs to solve programming problems. In Proceedings of the 2024 on Innovati...

    2024

  13. [21]

    Reliability and Inter-rater Reliability in Qualitative Research: Norms and Guidelines for CSCW and HCI Practice

    McDonald, N., Schoenebeck, S., and Forte, A. Reliability and Inter-rater Reliability in Qualitative Research: Norms and Guidelines for CSCW and HCI Practice. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3 , CSCW (Nov. 2019), 72:1–72:23

    2019

  14. [22]

    Mishra, P., and Koehler, M. J. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record (2007)

    2007

  15. [23]

    N., Savelka, J., Smith, D

    Prather, J., Leinonen, J., Kiesler, N., Gorson Benario, J., Lau, S., MacNeil, S., Norouzi, N., Opel, S., Pettit, V., Porter, L., Reeves, B. N., Savelka, J., Smith, D. H., Strickroth, S., and Zingaro, D. Beyond the Hype: A Comprehensive Review of Current Trends in Generative AI...

    2024

  16. [24]

    N., Leinonen, J., MacNeil, S., Randrianasolo, A

    Prather, J., Reeves, B. N., Leinonen, J., MacNeil, S., Randrianasolo, A. S., Becker, B. A., Kimmel, B., Wright, J., and Briggs, B. The widening gap: The benefits and harms of generative ai for novice programmers. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on International Comput...

    2024

  17. [25]

    W., and Webber, M

    Rittel, H. W., and Webber, M. M. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences (1973)

    1973

  18. [26]

    Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution

    Roberts, N. Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution. Interna- tional Public Management Review 1 , 1 (2000), 1–19. Number: 1

    2000

  19. [27]

    Salac, J., Oleson, A., Armstrong, L., Le Meur, A., and Ko, A. J. Funds of Knowledge used by Adolescents of Color in Scaffolded Sensemaking around Algorithmic Fairness. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research V.1 (Chicago IL USA, ...

    2023

  20. [28]

    M., Alaqeel, O., Abu Salami, A., Almutairi, Z

    Sallam, M., Al-Mahzoum, K., Almutairi, Y. M., Alaqeel, O., Abu Salami, A., Almutairi, Z. E., Alsarraf, A. N., and Barakat, M. Anxiety among medical students regarding generative artificial intelligence models: A pilot descriptive study. International Medical Education 3 , 4 (2...

    2024

  21. [29]

    How to analyse longitudinal data from multiple sources in qualitative health research: the pen portrait analytic technique

    Sheard, L., and Marsh, C. How to analyse longitudinal data from multiple sources in qualitative health research: the pen portrait analytic technique. BMC Medical Research Methodology 19 , 1 (2019), 169

    2019

  22. [30]

    Supporting children’s career aspirations under changing career conditions: A systematic review of intervention approaches

    Sowa, S., Xia, J., Smith, J., and Manches, A. Supporting children’s career aspirations under changing career conditions: A systematic review of intervention approaches. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance (Apr. 2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    The effect of artificial intelligence anxiety on career decidedness among students in english-related departments at universities

    Y aşar, H., and Karagucuk, V. The effect of artificial intelligence anxiety on career decidedness among students in english-related departments at universities. Discover Artificial Intelligence 5, 1 (2025), 1–17. Company: Springer Distributor: Springer Institution: Springer La...

    2025

  24. [32]

    Generative AI in Computing Education: Perspectives of Students and Instructors, Aug

    Zastudil, C., Rogalska, M., Kapp, C., V aughn, J., and MacNeil, S. Generative AI in Computing Education: Perspectives of Students and Instructors, Aug. 2023. arXiv:2308.04309 [cs]

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.