Software modelling is a creative yet challenging task. Modellers often find themselves lost in the process, from understanding the modelling problem to solving it with proper modelling strategies and modelling tools. Students learning modelling often get overwhelmed with the notations and tools. To teach students systematic modelling, we must investigate students’ practical modelling knowledge and the challenges they face while modelling. We aim to explore students’ modelling knowledge and modelling actions. Further, we want to investigate students’ challenges while solving a modelling task on specific modelling tools. We conducted an empirical study by observing 16 pairs of students from two universities and countries solving modelling tasks for one hour. We find distinct patterns of modelling of class and sequence diagrams based on individual modelling styles, the tools’ interface and modelling knowledge. We observed how modelling tools influence students’ modelling styles and how they can be used to foster students’ confidence and creativity. Based on these observations, we developed a set of guidelines aimed at enhancing modelling education and helping students acquire practical modelling skills. The guidance for modelling in education needs to be structured and systematic. Our findings reveal that different modelling styles exist, which should be properly studied. It is essential to nurture the creative aspect of a modeller, particularly while they are still students. Therefore, selecting the right tool is important, and students should understand how a tool can influence their modelling style.

Trust is a fundamental concept in human decision-making and collaboration that has long been studied in philosophy and psychology. However, software engineering (SE) articles often use the termtrustinformally; providing an explicit definition or embedding results in established trust models is rare. In SE research on AI assistants, this practice culminates in equating trust with the likelihood of accepting generated content, which, in isolation, does not capture the full conceptual complexity of trust. Without a common definition, true secondary research on trust is impossible. The objectives of our research were: (1) to present the psychological and philosophical foundations of human trust, (2) to systematically study how trust is conceptualized in SE and the related disciplines human-computer interaction and information systems, and (3) to discuss limitations of equating trust with content acceptance, outlining how SE research can adopt existing trust models to overcome the widespread informal use of the term trust. We conducted a literature review across disciplines and a critical review of recent SE articles with a focus on trust conceptualizations. We found that trust is rarely defined or conceptualized in SE articles. Related disciplines commonly embed their methodology and results in established trust models, clearly distinguishing, for example, betweeninitial trustandtrust formationand betweenappropriateandinappropriate trust. On a meta-scientific level, other disciplines even discuss whether and when trust can be applied to AI assistants at all. Our study reveals a significant maturity gap of trust research in SE compared to other disciplines. We provide concrete recommendations on how SE researchers can adopt established trust models and instruments to study trust in AI assistants beyond the acceptance of generated software artifacts.

Background: Despite having several advantages, software modelling remains unpopular for developers. Similarly, university students do not see the benefits of software modelling in the university curriculum. Prior research show the lack of guidance for students to do so.