Children's Mental Models of AI Reasoning: Implications for AI Literacy Education

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.16031v1
• Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 21:20:12 GMT
• Title: Children's Mental Models of AI Reasoning: Implications for AI Literacy Education
• Authors: Aayushi Dangol, Robert Wolfe, Runhua Zhao, JaeWon Kim, Trushaa Ramanan, Katie Davis, Julie A. Kientz,
• Abstract summary: We identify three models of AI reasoning: Deductive, Inductive, and Inherent.<n>Our findings reveal that younger children (grades 3-5) often attribute AI's reasoning to inherent intelligence, while older children (grades 6-8) recognize AI as a pattern recognizer.<n>We highlight three tensions that surfaced in children's understanding of AI reasoning and conclude with implications for scaffolding AI curricula and designing explainable AI tools.
• Score: 8.996593596034506
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As artificial intelligence (AI) advances in reasoning capabilities, most recently with the emergence of Large Reasoning Models (LRMs), understanding how children conceptualize AI's reasoning processes becomes critical for fostering AI literacy. While one of the "Five Big Ideas" in AI education highlights reasoning algorithms as central to AI decision-making, less is known about children's mental models in this area. Through a two-phase approach, consisting of a co-design session with 8 children followed by a field study with 106 children (grades 3-8), we identified three models of AI reasoning: Deductive, Inductive, and Inherent. Our findings reveal that younger children (grades 3-5) often attribute AI's reasoning to inherent intelligence, while older children (grades 6-8) recognize AI as a pattern recognizer. We highlight three tensions that surfaced in children's understanding of AI reasoning and conclude with implications for scaffolding AI curricula and designing explainable AI tools.

Related papers

• Towards responsible AI for education: Hybrid human-AI to confront the Elephant in the room [2.674109837115132]
  This analysis identifies and examines nine persistent challenges that continue to undermine the fairness, transparency, and effectiveness of current AI methods in education.<n>These include the lack of clarity around what AI for education truly means and the trend of equating it with domain-agnostic, company-driven large language models.<n>We demonstrate how hybrid AI methods -- specifically neural-symbolic AI -- can address the elephant in the room and serve as the foundation for responsible, trustworthy AI systems in education.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-22T13:20:43Z)
• World Models in Artificial Intelligence: Sensing, Learning, and Reasoning Like a Child [10.183372891207966]
  World Models help Artificial Intelligence (AI) predict outcomes, reason about its environment, and guide decision-making.<n>We highlight six key research areas -- physics-informed learning, neurosymbolic learning, continual learning, causal inference, human-in-the-loop AI, and responsible AI -- as essential for enabling true reasoning in AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-19T12:50:40Z)
• Aligning Generalisation Between Humans and Machines [74.120848518198]
  Recent advances in AI have resulted in technology that can support humans in scientific discovery and decision support but may also disrupt democracies and target individuals. The responsible use of AI increasingly shows the need for human-AI teaming. A crucial yet often overlooked aspect of these interactions is the different ways in which humans and machines generalise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-23T18:36:07Z)
• Imagining and building wise machines: The centrality of AI metacognition [78.76893632793497]
  We examine what is known about human wisdom and sketch a vision of its AI counterpart.<n>We argue that AI systems particularly struggle with metacognition.<n>We discuss how wise AI might be benchmarked, trained, and implemented.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-04T18:10:10Z)
• Human Bias in the Face of AI: Examining Human Judgment Against Text Labeled as AI Generated [48.70176791365903]
  This study explores how bias shapes the perception of AI versus human generated content.<n>We investigated how human raters respond to labeled and unlabeled content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-29T04:31:45Z)
• Evaluating Large Vision-and-Language Models on Children's Mathematical Olympiads [74.54183505245553]
  A systematic analysis of AI capabilities for joint vision and text reasoning is missing in the current scientific literature.<n>We evaluate state-of-the-art LVLMs on their mathematical and algorithmic reasoning abilities using visuo-linguistic problems from children's Olympiads.<n>Our results show that modern LVLMs do demonstrate increasingly powerful reasoning skills in solving problems for higher grades, but lack the foundations to correctly answer problems designed for younger children.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-22T05:04:39Z)
• Children's Mental Models of Generative Visual and Text Based AI Models [0.027961972519572442]
  Children ages 5-12 perceive, understand, and use generative AI models such as a text-based LLMs ChatGPT and a visual-based model DALL-E. We found that children generally have a very positive outlook towards AI and are excited about the ways AI may benefit and aid them in their everyday lives. We hope that these findings will shine a light on children's mental models of AI and provide insight for how to design the best possible tools for children who will inevitably be using AI in their lifetimes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-21T06:18:00Z)
• Finnish 5th and 6th graders' misconceptions about Artificial Intelligence [0.0]
  This study analyzed Finnish 5th and 6th graders' conceptions of AI. Three misconception categories were identified. The findings suggest that context-specific linguistic features can contribute to students' AI misconceptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-28T09:49:11Z)
• Bootstrapping Developmental AIs: From Simple Competences to Intelligent Human-Compatible AIs [0.0]
  The mainstream AIs approaches are the generative and deep learning approaches with large language models (LLMs) and the manually constructed symbolic approach. This position paper lays out the prospects, gaps, and challenges for extending the practice of developmental AIs to create resilient, intelligent, and human-compatible AIs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-08T21:14:21Z)
• Cybertrust: From Explainable to Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) [58.981120701284816]
  Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) will incorporate explicit quantifications and visualizations of user confidence in AI recommendations. It will allow examining and testing of AI system predictions to establish a basis for trust in the systems' decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T18:53:09Z)
• Trustworthy AI: A Computational Perspective [54.80482955088197]
  We focus on six of the most crucial dimensions in achieving trustworthy AI: (i) Safety & Robustness, (ii) Non-discrimination & Fairness, (iii) Explainability, (iv) Privacy, (v) Accountability & Auditability, and (vi) Environmental Well-Being. For each dimension, we review the recent related technologies according to a taxonomy and summarize their applications in real-world systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-12T14:21:46Z)
• Building Bridges: Generative Artworks to Explore AI Ethics [56.058588908294446]
  In recent years, there has been an increased emphasis on understanding and mitigating adverse impacts of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies on society. A significant challenge in the design of ethical AI systems is that there are multiple stakeholders in the AI pipeline, each with their own set of constraints and interests. This position paper outlines some potential ways in which generative artworks can play this role by serving as accessible and powerful educational tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-25T22:31:55Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.