## 6 Conclusions
However, this would depend on learners' prior knowledge, the complexity of the subject matter, and the specific instructional design. However, such generalizations require caution, as differencesin course objectives, disciplinary conventions, and student backgrounds could alter the observed effects. Nevertheless, this research has some limitations. First, the sample was limited to students from a single university in Chile, which restricts the generalization of the findings to other educational and cultural contexts. Second, the intervention was a single-session activity conducted over seven days, with no follow-up assessments beyond the immediate post-test. This short duration means that the study primarily captures immediate learning outcomes rather than long-term retention or the ability to apply PHP skills in diverse contexts, potentially limiting the external validity of the results. The lack of follow-up assessments prevents us from determining whether the observed advantages of instructional videos or the potential of Microsoft Copilot persist over time. This is particularly relevant for programming education, where sustained practice is key to mastery. However, the study focused on comparing the immediate effectiveness of the two methods in a controlled setting, and the pre- and post-test design provides a valid measure of short-term learning gains within this scope. Finally, the study focused exclusively on learning PHP, so it would be relevant to examine whether the results are replicated in other programming languages and levels of complexity or entirely different study domains. Another significant limitation is the lack of control over potential confounding variables, such as digital literacy, prior programming experience beyond the course modules, or gender, due to the absence of stratification or balance verification in the random assignment. Although the pre-test confirmed the equivalence in PHP knowledge between the groups, these unmeasured variables could have influenced the interaction with Microsoft Copilot, particularly considering that digital literacy may affect the ability to formulate prompts and validate AI responses. This limitation reflects the scope of the study, which prioritized evaluating the effects on learning and affective perceptions rather than technology adoption factors, which are often the primary focus in technology acceptance studies. Future research should include specific instruments to measure these variables and consider them as covariates or stratification criteria to enhance the robustness of the experimental design. Future studies should address these limitations by expanding the sample to include diverse educational settings, extending the duration of interventions to evaluate long-term effects, and exploring the applicability of the findings across various programming languages (e.g., Python, C++) and non-programming disciplines (e.g., physics, statistics). Such efforts will help determine the extent to which the comparative advantages of instructional videos and generative AI tools can be generalized, providing a more comprehensive understanding of their role in technology-enhanced education across diverse contexts. Future studies should address these limitations by expanding the sample to include diverse educational settings, extending the duration of interventions to evaluate long-term effects, and exploring the applicability of the findings across different programming languages and learner profiles. Such efforts will contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of how emerging technologies can be effectively integrated into programming education while addressing the unique needs of students in various contexts. From a practical perspective, these findings provide valuable insights for curriculum designers and computer science educators. The results suggest that video-based instruction is an effective strategy for introductory programming teaching.