Flawed but Memorable: Student Critical Reception of Interest-Personalized GenAI Analogies in Computing Education

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.06095v1
• Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2026 13:47:02 GMT
• Title: Flawed but Memorable: Student Critical Reception of Interest-Personalized GenAI Analogies in Computing Education
• Abstract summary: Students increasingly turn to generative AI (GenAI) tools to understand abstract concepts through analogies.<n>We investigate how students evaluate the accuracy, appropriateness, and assumptions in GenAI-generated analogies.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Motivation: Undergraduate computing students increasingly turn to generative AI (GenAI) tools to understand abstract concepts through analogies. Analogies compare an unfamiliar concept to something familiar, but judging whether the comparison holds requires knowledge of both. GenAI may also embed assumptions about who the learner is. GenAI education research centers on output correctness, leaving students' critical reception of analogies largely unexamined. Method: We investigate how students evaluate the accuracy, appropriateness, and assumptions in GenAI-generated analogies, and their perceptions of interest-personalized versus generic technical explanations. Ten students with CS2 experience participated in a pre-survey, a think-aloud task with linked-list and recursion explanations, and a semi-structured interview grounded in the Paul-Elder framework. They judged accuracy, clarity, engagement, and trust separately. Results: Most participants described interest-personalized analogies as more engaging or memorable than generic technical explanations, while trust was mixed. Some trusted the tailored analogies more; others scrutinized them more closely or distrusted the tailoring. Participants with deep source-domain knowledge identified structural flaws requiring that knowledge to recognize. Because personalization and explanation format differed together, these findings do not isolate an effect of personalization alone. Implications: A familiar source flips the student's role. On the concept they are still learners, but on the familiar source they are the expert, and that is the position from which an analogy can be judged. We call this two-sided analogy auditing. GenAI systems should ask what students know, not just what interests them, and treat a flawed analogy as something to inspect and fix rather than accept.

Related papers

• Uncovering Students' Mental Models of Generative Artificial Intelligence [0.6736390862233058]
  This paper presents a study of students' mental models of generative AI (GenAI)<n>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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-13T15:25:45Z)
• Misconceptions, Pragmatism, and Value Tensions: Evaluating Students' Understanding and Perception of Generative AI for Education [0.11704154007740832]
  Students are early adopters of the technology, utilizing it in atypical ways. Students were asked to describe 1) their understanding of GenAI; 2) their use of GenAI; 3) their opinions on the benefits, downsides, and ethical issues pertaining to its use in education.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T17:41:06Z)
• Boosting Scientific Concepts Understanding: Can Analogy from Teacher Models Empower Student Models? [12.164449420121189]
  We investigate how analogies created by teacher language models (LMs) can assist student LMs in understanding scientific concepts. Our results suggest that free-form analogies can indeed aid LMs in understanding concepts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T09:51:38Z)
• "Like a Nesting Doll": Analyzing Recursion Analogies Generated by CS Students using Large Language Models [5.162225137921625]
  A good analogy can bridge the gap between unfamiliar concepts and familiar ones, providing an engaging way to aid understanding. We investigate what extent large language models (LLMs), specifically ChatGPT, can provide access to personally relevant analogies on demand.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-14T14:01:26Z)
• Mathematical Algorithm Design for Deep Learning under Societal and Judicial Constraints: The Algorithmic Transparency Requirement [65.26723285209853]
  We derive a framework to analyze whether a transparent implementation in a computing model is feasible. Based on previous results, we find that Blum-Shub-Smale Machines have the potential to establish trustworthy solvers for inverse problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-18T15:32:38Z)
• ANALOGYKB: Unlocking Analogical Reasoning of Language Models with A Million-scale Knowledge Base [51.777618249271725]
  ANALOGYKB is a million-scale analogy knowledge base derived from existing knowledge graphs (KGs) It identifies two types of analogies from the KGs: 1) analogies of the same relations, which can be directly extracted from the KGs, and 2) analogies of analogous relations, which are identified with a selection and filtering pipeline enabled by large language models (LLMs)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-10T09:03:01Z)
• Towards Human Cognition Level-based Experiment Design for Counterfactual Explanations (XAI) [68.8204255655161]
  The emphasis of XAI research appears to have turned to a more pragmatic explanation approach for better understanding. An extensive area where cognitive science research may substantially influence XAI advancements is evaluating user knowledge and feedback. We propose a framework to experiment with generating and evaluating the explanations on the grounds of different cognitive levels of understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-31T19:20:22Z)
• The Who in XAI: How AI Background Shapes Perceptions of AI Explanations [61.49776160925216]
  We conduct a mixed-methods study of how two different groups--people with and without AI background--perceive different types of AI explanations. We find that (1) both groups showed unwarranted faith in numbers for different reasons and (2) each group found value in different explanations beyond their intended design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-28T17:32:04Z)
• Explainable AI and Adoption of Algorithmic Advisors: an Experimental Study [0.6875312133832077]
  We develop an experimental methodology where participants play a web-based game, during which they receive advice from either a human or an algorithmic advisor. We evaluate whether the different types of explanations affect the readiness to adopt, willingness to pay and trust a financial AI consultant. We find that the types of explanations that promote adoption during first encounter differ from those that are most successful following failure or when cost is involved.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-05T09:34:38Z)
• Few-shot Visual Reasoning with Meta-analogical Contrastive Learning [141.2562447971]
  We propose to solve a few-shot (or low-shot) visual reasoning problem, by resorting to analogical reasoning. We extract structural relationships between elements in both domains, and enforce them to be as similar as possible with analogical learning. We validate our method on RAVEN dataset, on which it outperforms state-of-the-art method, with larger gains when the training data is scarce.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-23T14:00:34Z)
• Explainable Active Learning (XAL): An Empirical Study of How Local Explanations Impact Annotator Experience [76.9910678786031]
  We propose a novel paradigm of explainable active learning (XAL), by introducing techniques from the recently surging field of explainable AI (XAI) into an Active Learning setting. Our study shows benefits of AI explanation as interfaces for machine teaching--supporting trust calibration and enabling rich forms of teaching feedback, and potential drawbacks--anchoring effect with the model judgment and cognitive workload.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-24T22:52:18Z)

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.