Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates undergraduate students' mental models of generative AI (GenAI) by analyzing 64 concept maps created by students in a technology ethics course. The findings reveal that while students possess a dominant level of declarative knowledge about GenAI, their understanding is largely superficial, with limited procedural and conditional knowledge regarding its application and implications. By categorizing these mental models into five distinct types, the research highlights the need for improved AI literacy initiatives to foster responsible and ethical use of GenAI in academic settings.
Students primarily view generative AI as a collection of tools rather than understanding its deeper implications, revealing a critical gap in AI literacy.
In this paper we present a study of students'mental models of generative AI (GenAI). A student's mental model of GenAI influences not only how they perceive the technology's capabilities and limitations but also how they choose to integrate it into their academic work. Whether they view it as a collaborative partner, a shortcut to complete tasks, or something in between, depends on how they conceptualize its use. This study addresses the following questions: (I) What mental models do undergraduate students hold about GenAI? and (II) What aspects of conceptual knowledge - declarative, procedural, and conditional - are present in these mental models? Sixty-four concept maps were collected from students enrolled in a course on technology ethics. Students were asked to construct concept maps representing their understanding of GenAI use. The concept maps were analyzed using a structured codebook and the analysis revealed five categories of mental models: technical process based, educational tool based, transition model, consequence aware model, integrated model. Declarative knowledge was most dominant across maps, suggesting that students largely understood GenAI primarily at a surface level - knowing its names, tools, and applications but demonstrate limited procedural understanding of how it works and limited conditional knowledge about when and why it should or should not be used. By identifying students'mental models, we can improve students'AI literacy by designing curriculum and guidelines that improve cognition while ensuring responsible and ethical use.
