Chapter 4

Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data

The purpose of this chapter is to present the findings of the research. It contains the data

findings and the discussions to give a comprehensive explanation of the themes that were

generated in response to the research questions that have been set out before.

The researcher gathered data through a structured survey questionnaire administered to

thirteen (13) Grade 11 students from Section Aardvark and Section 11-AERO TVL of Flight

Dynamic School of Aviation (FDSA). While a larger sample may be preferred in some

qualitative studies, Saunders et al. (2018) clarified that saturation — the point at which no

new ideas are emerging — is more a matter of richness and depth than a fixed number. Since

common themes were already surfacing across the thirteen responses, the researcher believes

this number of participants was enough to yield valuable and complete findings.

Table 1
Themes from the participants' responses through thematic analysis

THEMES
Theme 1: AI as a Convenient and Time-Saving Academic Tool
Theme 2: AI Supports Task Management and Conceptual Understanding
Theme 3: Mixed Effects on Study Habits — Increased Efficiency vs. Growing Complacency
Theme 4: AI as a Motivator, With Risks of Diminished Intrinsic Drive
Theme 5: Concerns About Overdependence and Loss of Independent Thinking
Theme 6: AI's Ambivalent Effect on Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Capacity

Discussion
Using AI tools in school is not simply a matter of convenience — it is an experience that

quietly reshapes how students approach learning, manage their time, and perceive their own
capabilities. As shown in this study, the lived experiences of Grade 11 students who use AI

in their academic activities revealed six key themes: AI as a Convenient and Time-Saving

Academic Tool, AI Supports Task Management and Conceptual Understanding, Mixed

Effects on Study Habits — Increased Efficiency vs. Growing Complacency, AI as a

Motivator, With Risks of Diminished Intrinsic Drive, Concerns About Overdependence and

Loss of Independent Thinking, and AI's Ambivalent Effect on Critical Thinking and Problem-

Solving Capacity. Each of these themes reveals a different dimension of what it means to be

a student learning alongside AI.

One of the most consistent findings across all respondents is how AI has transformed the

speed and ease of academic work. Students shared that AI allowed them to finish tasks faster,

generate ideas more readily, and access information that previously required more time and

effort. Respondent 2 expressed this directly in the survey:

AI helps me to finish my homeworks faster and to discover faster for new

knowledge and also teaches me new things. (Respondent 2)

This sense of convenience is echoed across multiple responses and reflects what Ouyang and

Jiao (2021) describe as AI's capacity to provide timely and individualized academic support.

Respondent 3 similarly noted that

AI helps me finish my schoolworks much easier and faster, using this is very

convenient for me as a student. (Respondent 3)

Respondent 13 added a dimension that goes beyond task completion, describing how AI

filled gaps left by missed lessons:

 AI helps me because I don't need to watch the lesson I missed over and over

to understand. AI also provides suggestions on how to make a research.

(Respondent 13)

This sense of AI as a Convenient and Time-Saving Academic Tool aligns with Smutny and

Schreiberova (2020), who found that AI tools improve learners' accessibility to instructional

materials and provide immediate responses that promote deeper understanding. Accessibility

and immediacy are the most valued characteristics of AI among the participants, and this

preference for speed over struggle — while understandable — carries implications that the

succeeding themes will explore.

Beyond speed, participants identified how AI helped them navigate the organizational and

conceptual demands of schoolwork. AI was not merely used as a search engine — it was

described as a structured guide through complex academic requirements. Respondent 5

shared:

When I have multiple deadlines, AI tools assist in organizing my study

schedule and breaking large assignments into manageable daily tasks, which

helps prevent last-minute cramming. (Respondent 5)

Respondent 11 described a similar pattern, noting that AI served both as an organizer and as

a learning supplement:

AI helps me by organizing tasks, setting reminders, and providing quick

explanations or study resources. (Respondent 11)

For some students, AI also clarified what they could not understand in class. Respondent 6

recalled:

One time, I don't get what the direction of activity means so I sought help

from AI. (Respondent 6)

Respondent 3 went further, crediting AI for guiding her through the process of academic

research itself:

AI helped me understand how to do my research correctly. (Respondent 3)

These accounts reflect what Hwang et al. (2020) describe as AI's transformative role in

personalizing instruction and supporting adaptive learning environments. The theme of AI

Supports Task Management and Conceptual Understanding reveals that AI serves a dual

function for students — it manages the logistics of academic work while also filling

conceptual gaps that classroom instruction sometimes leaves behind.

While some students reported improvements in their study habits, others described the

opposite. The contrast between these two groups was one of the most striking features of the

data. Respondent 5 reflected on a positive shift:

Before using AI, I spent a lot of time searching for basic information or

getting stuck on understanding complex concepts, which often slowed me

down. Now, I'm more focused on critical thinking and application.

(Respondent 5)
Respondent 11 echoed this, describing AI as having made her academic routine more

organized and efficient. Respondent 3 noted that AI had even made her more eager to start

her tasks.

However, several respondents told a different story. Respondent 6 admitted bluntly:

I became a procrastinator. (Respondent 6)

Respondent 7 shared the same experience, saying he had become a little lazy since using AI.

Respondent 8 revealed a more serious consequence:

I don't understand anything in the lessons since I use AI. (Respondent 8)

Respondent 9 offered perhaps the most candid reflection on what AI dependency had cost

her:

Having AI made me dependent on it, making me lose my spark and made my

creativity dull, making my ideas short. (Respondent 9)

The theme of Mixed Effects on Study Habits reveals that AI's impact on learning routines is

not uniform. It depends heavily on how — and how much — students choose to rely on it.

Fryer et al. (2017) similarly found that the engagement AI produces depends greatly on how

the learner approaches the tool. Students who use it selectively tend to experience positive

academic outcomes, while those who use it without restraint risk undermining the very habits

that sustain learning.

The relationship between AI and student motivation was equally complex. For some, AI

lowered the anxiety associated with difficult tasks, making academic work feel more

approachable. Respondent 5 described this clearly:

When I was stuck on difficult topics or overwhelmed by the amount of work, I

often felt discouraged and procrastinated. AI removes some of those barriers

by providing quick help when I'm stuck, making studying feel less daunting.

(Respondent 5)

Respondent 13 expressed a similar sentiment, saying that AI guidance had made him more

confident in completing his activities. Respondent 3 noted that she had become more

motivated to begin her schoolwork since using AI.

Yet for others, the constant availability of AI had the opposite effect. Respondent 8 was

direct:

I noticed I don't have any motivation to study because AI is there.

(Respondent 8)

Respondent 4 connected this to a deeper loss — not just of motivation, but of personal

satisfaction:

Yes, motivation can drop because if you rely only on AI to do your homework

or projects in school, you might feel not motivated and less satisfied from

solving your problems and can't think critically. (Respondent 4)

This observation reflects a concept rooted in self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000):

intrinsic motivation is sustained when individuals experience autonomy and a sense of

personal competence. When AI performs the cognitive work that students would otherwise

do themselves, it removes the very experience that makes learning feel meaningful. The

theme of AI as a Motivator, With Risks of Diminished Intrinsic Drive shows that AI's effect

on motivation is not inherently positive or negative — it depends entirely on the role it is

allowed to play in the student's academic life.

Despite their widespread use of AI, nearly every participant expressed some form of concern

about depending on it too heavily. These reflections were among the most thoughtful in the

entire dataset, suggesting that students are already aware — even if only partially — of what

they may be giving up.

Respondent 1 stated that AI can slow cognitive function and motivation. Respondent 2

worried about losing the ability to think on his own. Respondent 3 expressed a fear of

becoming unable to function academically without AI. Respondent 4 connected

overdependence directly to the erosion of critical thinking:

Being too dependent on AI can't help you in the future and you'll be less

motivated and you can't think critically on the situational problems you've

encountered. (Respondent 4)

Respondent 10 articulated this concern most comprehensively:

 One big issue is losing critical thinking skills. If you always rely on AI to give

answers, you might stop practicing how to analyze problems, think deeply, or

come up with your own ideas. (Respondent 10)

In contrast, Respondent 11 described a deliberate and restrained approach to AI use:

I don't depend on AI much. I only use it when I can't understand a lesson and

need extra help to learn. (Respondent 11)

Respondent 12 went further, advocating for the primacy of human intelligence over AI

assistance, while Respondent 13 identified the constant availability of AI as the very trigger

for complacency:

Becoming too dependent on AI makes you feel lazy because you know AI is

always there. You can let AI do your homework, activity, and projects without

using your own intelligence. (Respondent 13)

The theme of Concerns About Overdependence and Loss of Independent Thinking reveals

that many students are caught between the convenience AI offers and a genuine awareness of

its risks. Ouyang and Jiao (2021) caution that uncritical AI use may reduce the cognitive

effort required for genuine knowledge construction — a warning the students themselves

seem to intuitively understand, even if they continue to use AI extensively in practice.

The final theme addresses what is perhaps the most fundamental question of this study: does

AI use strengthen or weaken students' capacity to think for themselves? The responses

revealed a spectrum of experiences, from cautious optimism to direct concern.

Respondent 5 represented the more optimistic end, describing how AI had actually freed her

to focus on higher-level thinking by handling low-level information retrieval. Respondent 10,

however, captured the risk on the other side:

On the positive side, AI can make studying feel easier and less stressful. But

there's also a downside. Sometimes, having answers so easily available can

reduce the drive to think deeply or try solving problems on your own.

(Respondent 10)

Respondent 9 described this not as a theoretical risk but as a lived reality, saying that AI had

dulled her creativity and shortened her ideas. Respondent 4 connected overreliance on AI to

an inability to handle real-world problems independently. Respondent 1 said simply that AI

can slow cognitive function.

Respondent 12 offered the most principled response, insisting that human intelligence must

remain at the center:

I know some people are more intelligent than AI, so we must use our

knowledge instead of AI. (Respondent 12)

The theme of AI's Ambivalent Effect on Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Capacity

reflects what Lee et al. (2022) found in their research: the academic benefits of AI-assisted

learning are contingent on how students interact with the tool. When AI is used as a scaffold

— a support that helps students reach understanding they could not achieve alone — it can

strengthen critical thinking. When it is used as a shortcut — a replacement for thinking rather
than an aid to it — it undermines the very cognitive capacities that education is meant to

build.

Why Some Students Were Affected Differently

The data clearly show that some participants experienced primarily positive effects from AI

use, while others were more significantly affected by its drawbacks. Understanding this

difference matters for how AI should be introduced, guided, and monitored in the classroom.

Respondents such as Respondent 5, Respondent 11, and Respondent 12 exemplify a pattern

of intentional and restrained AI use. Their capacity to reflect on their own learning, set limits

on how much they rely on AI, and continue to engage effortfully with academic content

suggests the presence of strong self-regulation. These students demonstrate what Masten

(2001) would call protective factors — internal resources that buffer the potential negative

effects of an easily accessible tool.

In contrast, Respondent 8 and Respondent 9 describe a more passive and unrestricted

relationship with AI — one in which the tool has effectively taken the place of personal

effort. Respondent 8's admission that she no longer understands anything in her lessons since

using AI, and Respondent 9's reflection that AI had made her creativity dull, point to a

pattern consistent with what the literature describes as maladaptive reliance on external tools

(Herman, 1992).

It is also worth noting how these themes overlap and reinforce one another. Unrestricted use

of AI as a convenience tool tends to reduce personal effort in study habits, which in turn

erodes intrinsic motivation, weakens critical thinking, and generates the very concerns about

overdependence that many respondents articulated. These themes do not operate in isolation
— they form a cycle whose direction depends on the level of intentionality each student

brings to their use of AI.

These stories serve as a reminder that although AI offers genuine and powerful support for

academic work, it does not have to define how students learn — and it does not have to

diminish what they are capable of on their own.