PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
July 5, 2026Education and Information Technologies0 citationsOpen Access

Student conceptions of generative artificial intelligence in early adolescence

RMRenee MorrisonKMKathy A. Mills

Key Points

  • This research aims to explore early adolescents' conceptions of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) using various analytical methods.
  • Qualitative focus groups conducted with early adolescents (Grades 7–8, ages 11–13) familiar with ChatGPT.
  • Data analyzed through thematic and concordance analysis to identify recurring themes.
  • Critical discourse analysis utilized to interpret students' discourse around GenAI.
  • Identified four major themes in students' discourse: ease of use, machine versus human responsibility, knowledge concepts, and notions of reality.
  • Students downplay GenAI's revolutionary nature, suggesting a casual perspective.
  • Insights reveal complexities of GenAI as perceived by adolescents, highlighting a gap in existing research.

Abstract

Abstract This research combined critical discourse analysis (CDA), concordance analysis and thematic analysis to understand early adolescent students’ conceptions of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI). The rapid rise of GenAI has raised new questions for learning in all levels of education, given the capacity of ChatGPT and other GenAI applications (Gemini, Dall-E, MS Co-Pilot) to instantly produce text and images. The study analysed how GenAI was discursively conceptualised by early adolescents (Grades 7–8, ages 11–13 years) who were familiar with ChatGPT, while participating in qualitative focus groups in a secondary school. The focus group data was iteratively coded using thematic and concordance analysis identifying four repeated themes in the students’ discourse: (i) GenAI is easy to use, downplaying the revolutionary progress, (ii) GenAI and power: machine versus human responsibility, (iii) GenAI and epistemology: what machines and humans know, and (iv) GenAI and ontology: what is actual or real. CDA was also used to interpret students’ discursive construction of GenAI. The study provides insights into adolescent perspectives of the complexities of GenAI in their own terms. The findings are significant given the paucity of research that applies discursive analyses or concordance analysis to student conceptions of GenAI, and the increasing and inevitable influence of GenAI in everyday life.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Morrison et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a49f591f5d1d45b288005cdhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-026-14065-2
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1“What Makes ChatGPT Dangerous is Also What Makes It Special”: High-School Student Perspectives on the Integration or Ban of Artificial Intelligence in Educational Contexts2024 · 33 citations
  2. 2Trust in Generative AI among Students: An exploratory study2024 · 128 citations
  3. 3Attitudes Towards the Use (and Misuse) of ChatGPT: A Preliminary Study2024 · 42 citations
  4. 4EFL Student's Experiences with AI Chatbots: A Critical Discourse Analysis2025 · 2 citations
  5. 5Student Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence Utility in the Introductory Chemistry Classroom2024 · 19 citations