iSchool students’ mental models of GenAI
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47989/ir31ISIC65224Keywords:
GenAI, artificial intelligence, mental models, graduate studentsAbstract
Introduction. Knowledge of users’ mental models (an understanding of a system and its functions) helps align system behaviour with user expectations and identify user concerns that influence adoption. We examined graduate students’ mental models of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) as part of a larger study of GenAI adoption for academic purposes at the Pratt Institute iSchool.
Method. The data about mental models of GenAI were collected through drawings and conversations with participants during focus groups.
Analysis. The qualitative visual and textual data were analysed using thematic analysis.
Results. Students’ mental models reflect a high-level understanding of the technical complexity of the GenAI system, with occasional acknowledgments of end-users and collection creators, as well as ethical, environmental, and quality concerns. mental models often reflect knowledge of prior information technology and use human analogies to explain the GenAI.
Conclusions. Even a technologically literate group of information science graduate students exhibits limitations in understanding GenAI systems. iSchool students are not only avid users of GenAI—whose deeper understanding of this technology could enhance usage efficiency and satisfaction—but also future designers of GenAI systems. Technology features, additional experiences with technology, educational resources/curricula, and critical media coverage could improve their understanding of GenAI’s technological and social dimensions.
References
Ashktorab, Z., Jain, M., Liao, Q. V., & Weisz, J. D. (2019). Resilient chatbots. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–12). CHI ’19: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300484
Amoozadeh, M., Daniels, D., Nam, D., Kumar, A., Chen, S., Hilton, M., Srinivasa Ragavan, S., & Alipour, M. A. (2024). Trust in generative AI among students: An exploratory study. In Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (pp. 67–73). SIGCSE 2024: The 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3626252.3630842
Baek, C., Tate, T., & Warschauer, M. (2024). “ChatGPT seems too good to be true”: College students’ use and perceptions of generative AI. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100294
Baez, C., Buchner, J., Roos, A.-L., & Schallert-Vallaster, S. (2023). Exploring the perception of AI in
learning: Unveiling the role of student and teacher motivation and self-efficacy. Center for Open Science. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/wqvrh
Banks, J. (2020). Optimus primed: Media cultivation of robot mental models and social judgments. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2020.00062
Bansal, G., Nushi, B., Kamar, E., Lasecki, W. S., Weld, D. S., & Horvitz, E. (2019). Beyond accuracy: The role of mental models in human-AI team performance. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing, 7, 2–11. https://doi.org/10.1609/hcomp.v7i1.5285
Bandi, A., Adapa, P. V. S. R., & Kuchi, Y. E. V. P. K. (2023). The power of generative AI: A review of requirements, models, input–output formats, evaluation metrics, and challenges. Future Internet, 15(8), 260. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi15080260
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. A. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In N. J. Castellan, Jr. (Ed.), Individual and group decision making: Current issues (pp. 221–246). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Carroll, J. M., & Olson, J. R. (1988). Mental models in human-computer interaction. In M. Helander (Ed.), Handbook of human-computer interaction (pp. 45–65). Elsevier.
Chen, A., Kim, S. S., Dharmasiri, A., Russakovsky, O., & Fan, J. E. (2025, April). Portraying Large Language Models as machines, tools, or companions affects what mental capacities humans attribute to them. In Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-14).
Chiyah Garcia, F. J., Robb, D. A., Liu, X., Laskov, A., Patron, P., & Hastie, H. (2018). Explainable
autonomy: A study of explanation styles for building clear mental models. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Natural Language Generation (pp. 99–108). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/w18-6511
Crawford, K. (2021). Atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press.
Daher, W., & Hussein, A. (2024). Higher education students’ perceptions of GenAI tools for learning. Information, 15(7), 416. https://doi.org/10.3390/info15070416
Dahri, N. A., Yahaya, N., Al-Rahmi, W. M., Aldraiweesh, A., Alturki, U., Almutairy, 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), 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. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
DeVito, M. A. (2021). Adaptive folk theorization as a path to algorithmic literacy on changing platforms. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW2), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3476080
Digital Education Council. (2024, August 2). Digital education council global AI student survey 2024. Digitaleducationcouncil.com. https://www.digitaleducationcouncil.com/post/digital-education-council-global-ai-student-survey-2024
Doyle, P. R., Clark, L., & Cowan, B. R. (2021). What do we see in them? Identifying dimensions of partner models for speech interfaces using a psycholexical approach. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–14). CHI ’21: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445206
Druga, S., Christoph, F. L., & Ko, A. J. (2022). Family as a third space for AI literacies: How do children and parents learn about AI together? In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–17). CHI ’22: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3502031
Ehsan, U., Wintersberger, P., Liao, Q. V., Watkins, E. A., Manger, C., Daumé III, H., Riener, A., & Riedl, M. O. (2022). Human-Centered Explainable AI (HCXAI): Beyond opening the black-box of AI. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts (pp. 1–7). CHI ’22: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3503727
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886.
Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor.
St. Martin’s Press.
Gero, K. I., Ashktorab, Z., Dugan, C., Pan, Q., Johnson, J., Geyer, W., Ruiz, M., Miller, S., Millen, D. R., Campbell, M., Kumaravel, S., & Zhang, W. (2020). Mental models of AI agents in a cooperative game setting. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–12). CHI ’20: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376316
Hagendorff, T. (2020). The ethics of AI ethics: An evaluation of guidelines. Minds and Machines,
30(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8
Huang, C., Zhang, Z., Mao, B., & Yao, X. (2023). An overview of artificial intelligence ethics. IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 4(4), 799–819. https://doi.org/10.1109/tai.2022.3194503
Hsiao, C.-H., & Tang, K.-Y. (2024). Beyond acceptance: An empirical investigation of technological, ethical, social, and individual determinants of GenAI-supported learning in higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 30(8), 10725–10750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13263-0
Jin, Y., Yan, L., Echeverria, V., Gašević, D., & Martinez-Maldonado, R. (2025). Generative AI in
higher education: A global perspective of institutional adoption policies and guidelines. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 8, 100348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100348
Johnston, H., Wells, R. F., Shanks, E. M., Boey, T., & Parsons, B. N. (2024). Student perspectives on
the use of generative artificial intelligence technologies in higher education. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-024-00149-4
Katsantonis, A., & Katsantonis, I. G. (2024). University students’ attitudes toward artificial intelligence: An exploratory study of the cognitive, emotional, and behavioural dimensions of AI attitudes. Education Sciences, 14(9), 988.
Kelly, S., Kaye, S.-A., & Oviedo-Trespalacios, O. (2023). What factors contribute to the acceptance of artificial intelligence? A systematic review. Telematics and Informatics, 77, 101925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2022.101925
Kim, J., & Cho, Y. H. (2023). My teammate is AI: Understanding students’ perceptions of student-AI collaboration in drawing tasks. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 45(3), 1013–1027. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2023.2286206
Kumar, D. R., & Raman, R. (2022). Student perceptions on artificial intelligence (AI) in higher
education. In 2022 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC) (pp. 450–454). 2022 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/isec54952.2022.10025165
Langer, M., Körner, A., & Banse, R. (2021). In AI we trust? Effects of agency locus and transparency on uncertainty reduction in human–AI interaction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 26(6), 384–400. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmab011
Liao, Q. V., Gruen, D., & Miller, S. (2020). Questioning the AI: Informing design practices for
explainable AI user experiences. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–15). CHI ’20: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376590
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
Lopatovska, I., Mack, C., Zhu, P., Connors, E., Keller, N., Kaur, S., Koonamparampath, M., Everett, M., Zapata, Z., Giordano, P., Yang, H., Kim, M., & Shetty, N. (in press). The normalization of unease: The case study of GenAI use by iSchool students. Information and Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-08-2025-0125
Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. In
Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–16). CHI ’20: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727
Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy? Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on
Artificial Intelligence, 34(9), 13681–13688. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727
Maita, I., Saide, S., Putri, A. M., & Muwardi, D. (2024). Pros and cons of artificial
intelligence–ChatGPT adoption in education settings: A literature review and future research agendas. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 52(3), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1109/emr.2024.3394540
Makri, S., Blandford, A., Gow, J., Rimmer, J., Warwick, C., & Buchanan, G. (2006). A library or just another information resource? A case study of users’ mental models of traditional and digital libraries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(3), 433–445. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20510
Marx, E., Leonhardt, T., & Bergner, N. (2023). Secondary school students’ mental models and
attitudes regarding artificial intelligence - A scoping review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, 100169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100169
Marrone, R., Zamecnik, A., Joksimovic, S., Johnson, J., & De Laat, M. (2024). Understanding student perceptions of artificial intelligence as a teammate. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 30(3), 1847–1869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09780-z
McDonald, N., Johri, A., Ali, A., & Collier, A. H. (2025). Generative artificial intelligence in higher
education: Evidence from an analysis of institutional policies and guidelines. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 3, 100121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2025.100121
Metz, C., & Diakopoulos, N. (2020). The rise of AI journalism. Columbia Journalism Review.
Nyholm S. (2018). Attributing agency to automated systems: Reflections on human-robot collaborations and responsibility-loci. Science and engineering ethics, 24(4), 1201–1219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9943-x
Norman, D. A. (1983). Some observations on mental models. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 7–14). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Nourani, M., Roy, C., Block, J. E., Honeycutt, D. R., Rahman, T., Ragan, E., & Gogate, V. (2021). Anchoring bias affects mental model formation and user reliance in explainable AI systems. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (pp. 340–350). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3397481.3450639
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Perkins, M. (2023). Academic Integrity considerations of AI Large Language Models in the
post-pandemic era: ChatGPT and beyond. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.02.07
Reiter, L., Jörling, M., Fuchs, C., & Böhm, R. (2025). Student (mis)use of generative AI tools for
university-related tasks. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 41(19), 12390–12403. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2025.2462083
Rutjes, H., Willemsen, M., & IJsselsteijn, W. (2019). Considerations on explainable AI and users’ mental models. In CHI 2019 Workshop: Where is the Human? Bridging the Gap Between AI and HCI. ACM.
Ronge, R., Maier, M., & Rathgeber, B. (2025). Towards a definition of generative artificial
intelligence. Philosophy & Technology, 38(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-025-00863-y
Sanusi, I. T., Ayanwale, M. A., & Tolorunleke, A. E. (2024). Investigating pre-service teachers’
artificial intelligence perception from the perspective of planned behavior theory. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100202
Siau, K., & Wang, W. (2020). Artificial intelligence (AI) ethics. Journal of Database Management,
31(2), 74–87. https://doi.org/10.4018/jdm.2020040105
Tankelevitch, L., Kewenig, V., Simkute, A., Scott, A. E., Sarkar, A., Sellen, A., & Rintel, S. (2024). The metacognitive demands and opportunities of generative AI. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–24). CHI ’24: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642902
Wang, Q., Saha, K., Gregori, E., Joyner, D., & Goel, A. (2021). Towards mutual theory of mind in human-AI interaction: How language reflects what students perceive about a virtual teaching assistant. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–14). ACM.
Wang, L., & Li, W. (2024). The impact of AI usage on university students’ willingness for
autonomous learning. Behavioral Sciences, 14(10), 956. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14100956
Wang, Q. (2024). Mutual theory of mind for human-AI communication in AI-mediated social interaction (Doctoral dissertation, Ph. D. Dissertation. Georgia Institute of Technology).
West, S. M., Whittaker, M., & Crawford, K. (2019). Discriminating systems: Gender, race, and power
in AI. AI Now Institute. https://ainowinstitute.org/discriminatingsystems.html
Zhang, Y., Wu, M., Tian, G. Y., Zhang, G., & Lu, J. (2021). Ethics and privacy of artificial intelligence:
Understandings from bibliometrics. Knowledge-Based Systems, 222, 106994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2021.106994
Zhu, W., Huang, L., Zhou, X., Li, X., Shi, G., Ying, J., & Wang, C. (2024). Could AI ethical anxiety,
perceived ethical risks and ethical awareness about AI influence university students’ use of generative AI products? An ethical perspective. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 41(1), 742–764. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2323277
Zirenko, M., Machura, I. A., Fabriz, S., Schulze-Vorberg, L., & Horz, H. (2025). AI and learning with AI: University students' metaphorical conceptualizations. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2025(1).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Irene Lopatovska, Conor Mack, Ellen Connors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
