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.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.06095
