Generation Z Prefers Teacher-Assisted over Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Mathematics Learning: A Self-Determination Theory Analysis

Le résumé fourni par la source

Purposes: The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in education has reinforced techno-optimistic assumptions that algorithmic efficiency can support increasingly autonomous learning. This study examined Generation Z students’ preferences for AI-assisted and teacher-assisted mathematics learning through the lens of Self-Determination Theory (SDT). Method: A quantitative within-subject comparative design was employed to collect data from 481 students in South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Participants evaluated both learning conditions using a 4-point Likert-scale questionnaire covering six dimensions: Concept Clarity, Feedback, Motivation, Learning Mode, Trust, and Comfort in Asking Questions. Paired-sample t-tests were used to compare students’ evaluations across the two conditions. Findings: Students rated teacher-assisted learning significantly higher than AI-assisted learning across all six dimensions (p < .001). The largest mean differences were observed in Concept Clarity and Trust, while the smallest occurred in Comfort in Asking Questions. Teacher-assisted learning was also rated more favorably in Learning Mode, despite the flexibility commonly associated with AI-based learning. Although AI-assisted learning received moderately positive evaluations, the overall pattern suggests that students placed greater value on the conceptual and relational support associated with teacher assistance. Significance: The findings suggest that technological flexibility alone may not be associated with stronger student preference for mathematics learning. Within this context, AI may be better positioned as a complementary instructional resource rather than a replacement for teacher assistance. Because the study relied on self-reported perceptions, the findings should not be interpreted as evidence of comparative instructional effectiveness.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.