Learning from Novice Programmers’ Metaphors of Generative Artificial Intelligence
Keywords:
generative artificial intelligence (GenAI); metaphor analysis; novice programmers; Python; South AfricaAbstract
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools are reshaping how students approach problem-solving in programming education. This study demonstrated the methodological value of metaphor analysis in examining students’ perceptions of AI-supported learning. It explored how first-year students in an introductory Python programming module at a South African university conceptualize GenAI use during coding-related tasks. The context matters because many students from disadvantaged communities enter university with limited computing exposure. Guided by a framework of AI-mediated cognitive engagement, the study drew on 161 responses and used inductive-deductive metaphor analysis to examine how students position AI in relation to their thinking. Six dominant metaphorical framings emerged: tool, tutor, facilitator, specialist, liar, and threat. These metaphors revealed that students experienced AI in both constructive and cautionary ways, as a source of cognitive support and conceptual expansion, and as a potential source of reduced mental effort. The findings showed a systematic correspondence between metaphorical framings and reported cognitive experiences, including mind-mending, mind-stretching, mind-gaming, and mind-replacement. Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests strengthened the qualitative findings by confirming an association between metaphor roles and cognitive influence. The study contributes to research on AI in education by showing that metaphor offers a powerful lens for understanding how students interpret and regulate AI-supported learning. It argues that GenAI is a conditional cognitive mediator whose impact depends on student agency, epistemic trust, and the nature of engagement. The findings have implications for the design of programming curricula and educational practices, integrating AI responsibly while sustaining critical thinking and academic integrity.
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.25.9.7
References
Albrant, L., Suhag, J., Ureel II, L. C., & Jarvie-Eggart, M. (2025). Engaging students with AI for code comprehension, critique, and explanation. In S. Kadry & B. S. [surname], Eds., Artificial intelligence in education: Creating an equitable, creative, and effective learning environment. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1012995
Almaiah, M. A., Alfaisal, R., Salloum, S. A., Hajjej, F., Thabit, S., El-Qirem, F. A., Lutfi, A., Alrawad, M., Al Mulhem, A., Alkhdour, T., Awad, A. B., & Al-Maroof, R. S. (2022). Examining the impact of artificial intelligence and social and computer anxiety in e-learning settings: Students’ perceptions at the university level. Electronics, 11(22), 3662. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11223662
Beshlei, O. (2025). Framing the role of AI agents through metaphors. Dialogica, 1(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.5709/dialogica-01.01.2025-02
Cameron, L. (2008). Metaphor and talk. In R. W. Gibbs Jr (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.013
Cameron, L., Maslen, R., Todd, Z., Maule, J., Stratton, P., & Stanley, N. (2009). The discourse dynamics approach to metaphor and metaphor-led discourse analysis. Metaphor and Symbol, 24(2), 63–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480902830821
Chiramba, O., & Ndofirepi, E. S. (2023). Access and success in higher education: Disadvantaged students’ lived experiences beyond funding hurdles at a metropolitan South African university. South African Journal of Higher Education, 37(6), 56–75. https://doi.org/10.20853/37-6-6021
Cornelissen, J. P., Kafouros, M., & Lock, A. R. (2005). Metaphorical images of organization: How organizational researchers develop and select organizational metaphors. Human Relations, 58(12), 1545–1578. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705061317
Dong, L. (2026). Enhancing deep learning in AI-enhanced education: a dual mediation model of cognitive load and learning motivation through interaction quality. Frontiers in Psychology, 17, 1768822. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1768822
Dostál, J. (2015). Theory of problem solving. Procedia-Social Behavioral Sciences, 174, 2798–2805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.970
du Plessis, L., & Smit, I. (2024). Navigating source code plagiarism challenges: Strategies to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 disruptions. Progressio, 45, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-5895/13677
du Plessis, L., & Smit, I. (2026). Systems thinking for effective learning: Fostering ethical coding principles. In R. Silhavy & P. Silhavy (Eds.), Software engineering: Emerging trends and practices in system development (Vol. 1558, pp. 15–33). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-00236-5_2
Ehsan, U., & Riedl, M. O. (2024). Explainable AI reloaded: Challenging the XAI status quo in the era of large language models. In Proceedings of Halfway to the Future 2024 (HTTF ’24). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3686169.3686185
Gkintoni, E., Antonopoulou, H., Sortwell, A., & Halkiopoulos, C. (2025). Challenging cognitive load theory: The role of educational neuroscience and artificial intelligence in redefining learning efficacy. Brain Sciences, 15(2), 203. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci15020203
Güner, H., & Er, E. (2025). AI in the classroom: Exploring students’ interaction with ChatGPT in programming learning. Education Information Technologies, 30(9), 12681–12707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13337-7
Hardin, L. E. (2003). Problem-solving concepts and theories. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 30(3), 226–229. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.30.3.226
Hausfather, S. J. (1996). Vygotsky and schooling: Creating a social context for learning. Action in Teacher Education, 18(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.1996.10462828
Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2000). Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 7(2), 174–196. https://doi.org/10.1145/353485.353487
Jacobs, C. D., & Heracleous, L. (2006). Constructing shared understanding: The role of embodied metaphors in organization development. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(2), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886305284895
Karakitsou, C., Karayianni, I., Leftheriotis, K., Logotheti, A., & Avgerinou, M. D. (2025). Planets, cars, and personas: Toward an understanding of faculty perceptions of artificial intelligence through visual metaphors and projective techniques. Journal of Visual Literacy, 44(3), 257–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051144X.2025.2538256
Kokina, J., Blanchette, S., Davenport, T. H., & Pachamanova, D. (2025). Challenges and opportunities for artificial intelligence in auditing: Evidence from the field. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 56, 100734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2025.100734
Kumarage, P. M., & Saarela, M. (2026). Explainable generative AI: A two-stage review of existing techniques and future research directions. AI, 7(1), 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/ai7010031
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Lepp, M., & Kaimre, J. (2025). Does generative AI help in learning programming: Students’ perceptions, reported use and relation to performance. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 18, Article 100642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100642
Ljadov, Y., Paramonova, I., & Bauters, M. (2025). Metaphors as cognitive bridges: Matching user expectations with AI capabilities. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the European Association of Cognitive Ergonomics (ECCE 2025) (pp. 1?8). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3746175.3746184
Mac Cormac, E. R. (1990). A cognitive theory of metaphor. MIT Press.
Malik, M. (2025). Co-inference and collaboration: Empowering higher education staff and students through a GenAI literacy development framework based on mind-metaphors. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, 38. https://doi.org/10.47408/jldhe.vi38.1561
Nathaniel, J., Oyelere, S. S., Suhonen, J., & Tedre, M. (2025). Investigating the impact of generative AI integration on the sustenance of higher-order thinking skills and understanding of programming logic in programming education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 9, Article 100460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100460
Pham, T.N.Q., & Morin, C. (2026). ‘Thinking’, ‘helping’, and ‘replacing’: what personification metaphors reveal about the social integration of generative AI. AI & Society 41(6), 6245–6264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-026-02934-w
Pyykkö, L. (2024). Implementation of automated assessment of student assignments on an introductory software testing course [Master’s thesis, Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology]. LUTPub.
Qiao, Y., Shihab, M. I. H., & Hundhausen, C. (2026). A systematic literature review of the use of GenAI assistants for code comprehension: Implications for computing education research and practice. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 26(2), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1145/3785366
Sanford, J. P., Tietz, A., Farooq, S., Guyer, S., & Shapiro, R. B. (2014). Metaphors we teach by. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘14) (pp. 585–590). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2538862.2538945
Schmitt, R. (2005). Systematic metaphor analysis as a method of qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 10(2), 358–394. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2005.1854
Talanker, S. (2016). Problem-solving is decision-making. In Proceedings of the 47th Decision Sciences Institute Annual Meeting (p. 1239). Decision Sciences Institute.
Turpin, S., & Marais, M. (2004). Decision-making: Theory and practice. ORiON, 20(2), 143–160. https://doi.org/10.5784/20-2-12
Unkelos-Shpigel, N., Levy, M., Sherman, S., & Hadar, I. (2026). Cognitive implications of using GenAI in design thinking: Insights from educational case studies. Media and Communication, 14. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.11356
Usman, S. M., Khan, N. A., Maqsood, F., & Sabir, S. (2025). AI-enhanced learning environments and their effects on students’ cognitive engagement and academic achievement. Review of Applied Management and Social Sciences, 8(4), 1511–1524. https://doi.org/10.47067/ramss.v8i4.584
Wang, Y. M., Wei, C. L., Lin, H. H., Wang, S. C., & Wang, Y. S. (2024). What drives students’ AI learning behavior: A perspective of AI anxiety. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(6), 2584–2600. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2153147
Wilson, A., & Burleigh, C. (2026). Generative artificial intelligence as a collaborative thought partner: rethinking cognitive partnership, creativity, and knowledge work in the age of intelligent systems. International Journal of AI in Pedagogy, Innovation, Learning Futures, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.46787/ijaipil.v2026i1.6963
Wittink, J. W. G. J. F. (2011). Reliable metaphor analysis in organizational research: Towards a dual dynamic approach. In OLKC 2011—Making Waves (pp. 1–18). Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Zhao, J., & Yang, L. (2026). Control and value appraisals in AI?mediated language learning: A multi?dimensional analysis of EFL learners’ emotions, engagement and affective judgements. European Journal of Education, 61(1), e70549. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.70549
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Imelda Smit, Linda du Plessis
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
All articles published by IJLTER are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No-Derivatives 4.0 International License (CCBY-NC-ND4.0).
