Actionable companion · Assessment and evidence of learning
From evidence to district action: Metaphorical perceptions of secondary school students regarding the concept of generative artificial intelligence
AI-assisted editorial implementation guide. The district actions are proposed applications, not findings or recommendations attributed to the original authors. No additional peer review is asserted.
Evidence and context
Confirm the study population, setting and task before applying its findings to your district.
Original authors’ abstract, reproduced under the linked source license:
The rapid integration of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools, such as ChatGPT, into educational contexts has raised important questions regarding how adolescents conceptualize and make sense of these technologies. Understanding students’ perceptions is essential for developing age-appropriate, ethical, and pedagogically sound approaches to AI use in secondary education. This descriptive qualitative study employed a phenomenological approach and metaphor analysis to explore secondary school students’ perceptions of generative artificial intelligence. The study sample consisted of 332 students aged 14–18 years from four secondary schools in Türkiye. Data were collected using an open-ended prompt (“Generative artificial intelligence is like … because …”) and analyzed through content analysis. Metaphors were categorized based on shared semantic and conceptual features, and inter-rater reliability was established using Cohen’s kappa (κ = 0.92). Analysis revealed ten metaphor categories clustered under five overarching themes: generative artificial intelligence as (1) a source of knowledge, (2) a teaching and guiding entity, (3) a supportive and assisting tool, (4) a reflection of human intelligence, and (5) a dual-purpose (beneficial–risky) technology. Students most frequently conceptualized GenAI as a comprehensive knowledge source (e.g., book, encyclopedia) and as a human-like cognitive entity (e.g., brain, wise person). At the same time, metaphors reflecting ethical awareness and potential risks, such as misuse and overreliance, were also identified. The findings indicate that secondary school students hold multifaceted and nuanced perceptions of generative artificial intelligence, encompassing both educational opportunities and ethical concerns. These results highlight the importance of integrating AI literacy into secondary education in ways that promote critical thinking, responsible use, and awareness of GenAI’s limitations alongside its potential benefits. Conclusion: It was determined that secondary school students perceive generative artificial intelligence ambivalently as both a useful tool and a source of ethical and emotional concern, highlighting the need for developmentally appropriate artificial intelligence literacy approaches. What is Known: • GenAI tools such as ChatGPT are increasingly integrated into educational contexts and have the potential to support personalized learning, information access, and student engagement. • Existing research has primarily focused on educators’ perspectives or higher education settings, while studies examining adolescents’ perceptions of GenAI remain limited. What is New: • This study provides empirical evidence on secondary school students’ metaphorical perceptions of generative artificial intelligence within a K–12 context. • Findings reveal that adolescents conceptualize GenAI in multifaceted ways, including as a knowledge source, teaching and guiding entity, supportive tool, reflection of human intelligence, and a dual-purpose (beneficial–risky) technology.
A 90-day district pilot
- Days 1–15 · Appraise. Have the curriculum lead and a teacher read the methods and limitations. Record the study design, sample, comparator, outcomes and evidence gaps. Define a local question that the study can help inform.
- Days 16–30 · Design. Redesign one low-stakes assessment: require a first attempt, an AI-assisted revision, a source-check log and a short oral explanation. Use the same rubric for the comparison task. Name an accountable owner and set the baseline, success threshold and budget before implementation.
- Days 31–60 · Test. Start with a small voluntary cohort, preserve an accessible non-AI route and require teacher review. Use synthetic or de-identified examples; approve data handling and tool terms through district processes.
- Days 61–90 · Decide. Blind-score reasoning, factual accuracy and unaided transfer on a fresh task. Record suspected misconduct separately from demonstrated evidence. Compare with baseline, document uncertainty and stop or revise if learning worsens, access is unequal or critical errors persist.
The board decision brief
Report the learning problem, evidence quality, participating population, total cost including review time, measured benefit, errors, access differences and remaining uncertainties. Make a dated recommendation to stop, revise or expand. A positive perception survey alone does not establish learning improvement.
Attribution and reuse
Özkan Özbay. Metaphorical perceptions of secondary school students regarding the concept of generative artificial intelligence. European Journal of Pediatrics (2026-05-02). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-026-07007-0
Companion prepared 2026-10-30. Original authorship and DOI are preserved. The abstract is an attributed source extract; the implementation plan is new AI-assisted editorial material, offered under the same CC BY 4.0 license. This guide has not undergone independent peer review.