The Modern Developer’s Dilemma: The Impacts of Generative AI to Problem Solving Skills and Critical Thinking of 3rd year IT Students at Quezon City University

The widespread adoption of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in programming education has significantly transformed the way students approach academic tasks, coding activities, and technical problem-solving. This study investigated the impacts of Generative AI utilization on the problem-solving skills and critical thinking skills of 3rd year Information Technology students at Quezon City University. The primary objective of the study was to determine the level of Generative AI utilization among students and examine its significant relationship and predictive effect on students’ cognitive and technical skills. A quantitative descriptive-correlational research design was employed using a validated digital survey questionnaire distributed through Google Forms to 273 respondents selected through stratified random sampling. The collected data were analyzed using weighted mean, standard deviation, Pearson Product–Moment Correlation, Independent Samples t-test, regression analysis, and Cronbach’s alpha reliability testing. The findings revealed that 69.6% of the respondents were highly utilizing Generative AI, using AI tools often (37%) or very often (32.6%) on a weekly basis. Results further showed that respondents demonstrated a high level of Generative AI utilization across academic tasks, code generation, debugging, and technological reliance, with students frequently relying on AI tools for programming assistance, error explanation, and task completion. Respondents also exhibited positive levels of problem-solving and critical thinking skills, particularly in evaluating AI-generated outputs, understanding programming logic, and resolving coding errors. Reliability analysis showed excellent internal consistency for the overall instrument (α = .973), while the Critical Thinking Skills scale achieved good reliability after reverse coding (α = .890). Pearson correlation analysis revealed a very strong positive relationship between Generative AI utilization and problem-solving skills (r = .896, p < .001) and a moderate positive relationship between AI utilization and critical thinking skills (r = .407, p < .001). Furthermore, Independent Samples t-test results showed a statistically significant difference between students with high and low AI utilization in terms of problem-solving skills (t = 10.85, p < .001). Regression analysis further confirmed that Generative AI utilization significantly predicts students’ problem-solving skills (R² = .803, β = .896, p < .001). Overall, the study concludes that Generative AI can serve as an effective educational support tool that enhances programming efficiency, technical learning, and cognitive development when used responsibly and balanced with independent reasoning and critical evaluation.

Critical Thinking Skills, Generative Artificial Intelligence, Information Technology Students, Problem-Solving Skills

1. Abbas, M., Jam, F. A., & Khan, T. I. (2024). Is it harmful or helpful? Examining the causes and consequences of Generative AI usage among university students. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00444-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Baria, H. G., & Garg, S. (2025). Influence of Generative AI on problem-solving skills among students. International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management (IJSREM). https://harshbariAIn/assets/papers/Influence-of-Generative-AI-on-Problem-Solving-Skills-among-Students.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Batista, J., Mesquita, A., & Carnaz, G. (2024). Generative AI and Higher Education: Trends, Challenges, and Future Directions from a Systematic Literature Review. Information, 15(11), 676. https://doi.org/10.3390/info15110676 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT’21) (pp. 610-623). Association for Computing Machinery. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bluman, A. G. (2018). Elementary statistics: A step-by-step approach (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Boitizon, J. M. G., Barte, B. P., Layco, J. P., Zoleta, A. N. J., & Balmes, I. L. (2025). The influence of AI code assistants on programming learning: A descriptive study of student dependence. Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Innovations in IT (ICAIIT). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. 3-6-ICAIIT_2025_13(5).pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Calderon, J. F., & Gonzales, E. C. (1993). Methods of Research and Thesis Writing. National Book Store. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Casingal, C. P., & Caerlang, L. J. (2026). Assisted but Unguided: AI Tool Integration, Academic Performance, And Institutional Policy Gaps Among Filipino College Students. MSI Journal of AI and Technology, Volume 2(1), 01–25. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19029680 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2023). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. De Guzman, M. A. G., Tenedero, P. P. P., Gapas, W. G. A., & Deabanico, A. M. (2024). AI anxiety and readiness of English language teachers and students: A Philippine university case study. Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.59960/12.2.a1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Dungganon, M. C. (2026). ChatGPT in education and beyond: Aid or obstacle? Southeast Asian Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 7(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Field, A. (2018). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics (5th ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Genesis G. Camarista, Jan Mark S. Garcia, Edlin Z. Muzones, Jerson T. Valiao, Suzenette M. Javellana, Michelle D. Deasis, Mark Ian S. Tilog (2025). An Exploration of Online Learning Habits and Academic Productivity of BSIT Students. , 12(9), https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.120800320 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Göksel, N., & Akgül, M. (2021). Social media trust and verification habits of undergraduate students. ERIC Document Reproduction Service. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1395193.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Gosset, W. S. (1908). The probable error of a mean. Biometrika, 6(1), 1–25 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. H. P. S. M. F. I. Ghorban Tanhaei, "Predictive analytics in customer behavior: Anticipating trends and preferences," vol. 17, 2024. Agnaou, A., & El Asri, H. (2025). Artificial intelligence and collaborative learning: Impacts on creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving. Journal of Educational Research & Practice, 15, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.5590/JERAP.2025.15.2120 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. He, Q., You, X., & Shen, J. (2026). AI-generated content and academic norms: perspectives and reflections of college students. Interactive Learning Environments, 34(3), 1006–1020. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2025.2511252 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial Intelligence in Education: Promises and Implications for Teaching and Learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Hou, C., Zhu, G., & Sudarshan, V. (2025). The role of critical thinking on undergraduates' reliance behaviours on Generative AI in problem-solving. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56, 1919–1941. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13613 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. K. (2015). Likert scale: Explored and explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(4), 396–403. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Louie Giray, Ruth Aquino, Mark Bonnin Jara et al. Qualitative Analysis of College Teachers’ Practices Using ChatGPT to Develop Educational Materials and the Introduction of the TEACH Framework for Effective AI Integration, 24 March 2026, PREPRINT (Version 1) available at Research Square https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8984458/v1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Lye, C. Y., & Lim, L. (2024). Generative Artificial Intelligence in Tertiary Education: Assessment Redesign Principles and Considerations. Education Sciences, 14(6), 569. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14060569 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. OECD, Critical Thinking. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-issues/future-of-education-and-skills/learning-compass-constructs/Critical%20Thinking.pdf?utm_source [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. OECD. Student problem solving skills. https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/problem-solving.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Oliveira, L., Tavares, C., Strzelecki, A., & Silva, M. (2025). Prompting Minds: Evaluating how Students Perceive Generative AI’s Critical Thinking Dispositions. Electronic Journal of e-Learning. https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.23.2.3986 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Pearson, K. (1895). Notes on regression and inheritance in the case of two parents. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 58, 240–242. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Salsabila, N. F., Sari, E. D. R., Safrida, I. D., Mahardika, M., & Hayatin, N. (2024). The impact of moderating ChatGPT usage on problem-solving skills among computer science students. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. View of The Impact of Moderating ChatGPT Usage on Problem-Solving Skills among Computer Science Students [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research Methods for Business Students (8th ed.). Pearson Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Taherdoost, H. (2016). Validity and Reliability of the Research Instrument; How to Test the Validation of a Questionnaire/Survey in a Research. International Journal of Academic Research in Management, 5(3), 28–36. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Talandron-Felipe, M. M. P. (2025). Efficiency or understanding? Novice programmers’ problem-solving with and without ChatGPT. International Conference on Computers in Education.. https://library.apsce.net/index.php/ICCE/article/view/606 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. UiTM Generation Z Study. (2025). Study on Generation Z Students’ Utilization of AI Technologies in Academic Tasks. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Zantua, J. V. (2025). Self-regulated learning in student-led Generative AI-based learning activities of junior high school students. Retrieved from https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etdm_elmd/56 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Zhou, X., Teng, D., & Al-Samarraie, H. (2024). The Mediating Role of Generative AI Self-Regulation on Students’ Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving. Education Sciences, 14(12), 1302. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14121302 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Smart Iot Device for Weather And Health
• Merlarchive: A Web-Based Academic Hub for UDM With AI-Powered Natural Language Processing
• Enhanced Social Network Security System: Integrating Biometric Authentication for Improved User Verification and Privacy Protection
• Smart Budget Allocation in Public Policy: A Data-Driven Approach for Equitable Resource Distribution
• Decision Support System for Faculty Selection, Promotion, and Reclassification Using Predictive Analytics