Perceived Desirable Difficulty in AI Tutoring: Engagement, Retention Confidence, and Continued Use
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.67065/h7bqwv90Keywords:
AI tutoring; perceived desirable difficulty; learner engagement; intrinsic motivation; knowledge retention confidence; continued use intention; PLS-SEM.Abstract
This study examines the role of perceived desirable difficulty in AI tutoring systems and explains how productive learning challenge influences learner engagement, productive struggle orientation, intrinsic motivation, knowledge retention confidence and continued use intention. Although AI tutoring is increasingly used in higher education, much of the existing discussion mainly focuses on usefulness, satisfaction and general acceptance. Due to this reason, less attention has been given to whether students accept AI-supported difficulty as a meaningful learning condition. To address this gap, the study developed a structural model by integrating the Desirable Difficulties Framework, Self-Determination Theory and technology continuance logic. A quantitative cross-sectional survey design was applied, and data were collected from 358 university students who had experience using AI tutoring or AI-assisted learning tools. The proposed model was tested through Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling using SmartPLS 4. The findings show that perceived desirable difficulty is the main psychological and learning driver in the model. It significantly influenced learner engagement, productive struggle orientation, intrinsic motivation, knowledge retention confidence and continued use intention. The result also shows that intrinsic motivation, learner engagement and productive struggle orientation significantly improved knowledge retention confidence, which later influenced continued use intention. Moreover, perceived AI adaptiveness significantly moderated the relationship between perceived desirable difficulty and continued use intention. From the above findings, it can be understood that difficulty in AI tutoring is not harmful when it is productive, adaptive and psychologically meaningful. Rather, manageable challenge can support deeper engagement, stronger motivation, better retention confidence and sustained AI tutoring use.
References
Almufarreh, A. (2024). Determinants of students’ satisfaction with AI tools in education: A PLS-SEM-ANN approach. Sustainability, 16(13), Article 5354. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135354
Annamalai, N., Bervell, B., Mireku, D. O., & Andoh, R. P. K. (2025). Artificial intelligence in higher education: Modelling students’ motivation for continuous use of ChatGPT based on a modified self-determination theory. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 8, Article 100346.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100346
Baule, S. M. (2025, April 1). Opportunities in failing: Why K-12 education needs more productive struggle. eSchool News. https://www.eschoolnews.com/innovative-teaching/2025/04/02/failing-k-12-education-productive-struggle/
Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4561.003.0011
Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2020). Desirable difficulties in theory and practice. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 9(4), 475–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.09.003
Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354
Chen Kulesa, A., Mission, M., Croft, M., & Wells, M. K. (2025, June). Productive struggle: How artificial intelligence is changing learning, effort, and youth development in education. Bellwether. https://bellwether.org/publications/productive-struggle/
Chung, A. T.-H., Zhang, B., Kung, L.-C., Bastani, H., & Bastani, O. (2026). Effective personalized AI tutors via LLM-guided reinforcement learning. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6423358
Contrino, M. F., Reyes-Millán, M., Vázquez-Villegas, P., & Membrillo-Hernández, J. (2024). Using an adaptive learning tool to improve student performance and satisfaction in online and face-to-face education for a more personalized approach. Smart Learning Environments, 11, Article 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00292-y
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
Dahri, N. A., Yahaya, N., Al-Rahmi, W. M., Aldraiweesh, A., Alturki, U., Almotairi, S., Shutaleva, A., & Soomro, R. B. (2024). Extended TAM based acceptance of AI-powered ChatGPT for supporting metacognitive self-regulated learning in education: A mixed-methods study. Heliyon, 10(8), Article e29317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29317
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Demartini, C. G., Sciascia, L., Bosso, A., & Manuri, F. (2024). Artificial intelligence bringing improvements to adaptive learning in education: A case study. Sustainability, 16(3), Article 1347. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031347
DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). SAGE.
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Wiley.
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
Fang, X., & Feng, J. (2026). Research on the application behavior of generative artificial intelligence learning of college students based on self-determination theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 17, Article 1805498. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1805498
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
Galindo-Domínguez, H., Delgado, N., Urruzola, M.-V., Etxabe, J.-M., & Campo, L. (2025). Using artificial intelligence to promote adolescents’ learning motivation: A longitudinal intervention from the self-determination theory. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 41(2), Article e70020. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.70020
Goldstone, G. (2026, January 21). Designing the 2026 classroom: Emerging learning trends in an AI-powered education system. Faculty Focus. https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-with-technology-articles/designing-the-2026-classroom-emerging-learning-trends-in-an-ai-powered-education-system/
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modelling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Hidayat-ur-Rehman, I. (2024). Examining AI competence, chatbot use and perceived autonomy as drivers of students’ engagement in informal digital learning. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 17(2), 196–212. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-05-2024-0136
Jamali, H., Dascalu, S. M., Harris, F. C., Jr., & Wu, R. (2025). AI-powered adaptive learning interfaces: A user experience study in education platforms. Frontiers in Computer Science, 7, Article 1672081. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2025.1672081
Katalinic, A., Slavuj, V., & Jaksic, D. (2026). Artificial intelligence in online education: A systematic review of its impact on learner engagement and satisfaction. Education Sciences, 16(3), Article 389. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16030389
Kestin, G., Miller, K., Klales, A., Milbourne, T., & Ponti, G. (2025). AI tutoring outperforms in-class active learning: An RCT introducing a novel research-based design in an authentic educational setting. Scientific Reports, 15, Article 17458. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-97652-6
Koo, M., & Yang, S.-W. (2025). Likert-type scale. Encyclopedia, 5(1), Article 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia5010018
Li, J., King, R. B., Chai, C. S., Zhai, X., & Lee, V. W. Y. (2025). The AI Motivation Scale (AIMS): A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2025.2478424
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22(140), 1–55.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2024). SmartPLS 4. SmartPLS. https://www.smartpls.com
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, Article 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
Structural Learning. (2025, August 29). Desirable difficulties: Bjork’s 5 principles for teachers. https://www.structural-learning.com/post/desirable-difficulties
Strielkowski, W., Grebennikova, V., Lisovskiy, A., Rakhimova, G., & Vasileva, T. (2025). AI-driven adaptive learning for sustainable educational transformation. Sustainable Development, 33(2), 1921–1947. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3221
Wang, J. (2025). Students’ continuance intention to use generative AI in higher education: Integrating the Technology Acceptance Model and Information Success Model. In Proceedings of the 2025 3rd International Conference on Educational Knowledge and Informatization (pp. 115–124). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3765325.3765346
Yang, Z., Deng, H., & Jiang, N. (2025). The impact mechanism of artificial intelligence dependence on college students’ innovation capability: An empirical study from China. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, Article 1732837. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1732837
Young, J. R., Bevan, D., & Sanders, M. (2024). How productive is the productive struggle? Lessons learned from a scoping review. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 12(2), 470–495. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.3364
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257