A Critical Analysis of GAI Learning Research: From Theory to Implementation Risks

Authors

  • Inna Artemova Universidad de Guadalajara

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v29i4.4895

Keywords:

generative artificial intelligence, artificial intelligence, AI, learning, risks, learning fundamentals, GAI

Abstract

While existing literature documents the benefits and concerns of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) for learning processes, it largely overlooks fundamental learning theories such as Cognitive Load Theory, Constructivism, Activity Theory, and Bloom's Taxonomy. This study employs a scoping review methodology to identify current research gaps from the perspective of these theories, examining potential risks associated with uncritical GAI usage in learning environments. The results demonstrate that the current discourse focuses on operational aspects, while the learning fundamentals are largely overlooked. The identified risks include the bypassing of essential cognitive processing, fostering illusions of understanding, disrupting social and collective learning dynamics, compromising authentic motivation, and interfering with knowledge transfer and application. These risks manifest differently across various learner profiles, from K-12 students to professionals, with implications extending beyond individual learning outcomes to organizational effectiveness and information quality in broader societal contexts. The findings indicate the necessity for a structured, level-appropriate approach to GAI implementation in educational and professional settings. Future research should investigate long-term impacts of GAI on learning outcomes across different educational levels and diverse cultural and socioeconomic contexts, focusing on developing strategies that mitigate risks and support, rather than circumvent, essential learning processes identified by major learning theories. This research offers a theoretically grounded perspective that can inform more nuanced policy approaches to balance technological advancement with educational effectiveness across diverse global contexts.

References

Anderson, J. R. (2000). Learning and Memory: An integrated approach (2nd ed.). Wiley.

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.

Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

Artemova, I. (2024). Bridging motivation and AI in education: An activity theory perspective. Digital Education Review, 45, 59-69. https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2024.45.59-67

Belt, R., Rahimi, K., & Cai, S. (2022). Researching the hard-to-reach: a scoping review protocol of digital health research in hidden, marginal and excluded populations. BMJ Open, 12. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061361

Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. David McKay Company.

Cacho, R. M. (2024). Integrating generative AI in university teaching and learning: A model for balanced guidelines. Online Learning, 28(3), 55-81. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v28i3.4508

Cardoso Sampaio, R., Chagas, V., Sinimbu Sanchez, C., Gonçalves, J., Borges, T., Brum Alison, M., … Schwarzer Paz, F. (2024). Uma revisão de escopo assistida por inteligência artificial (IA) sobre usos emergentes de ia na pesquisa qualitativa e suas considerações éticas. Revista Pesquisa Qualitativa, 12(30), 01–28. https://doi.org/10.33361/RPQ.2024.v.12.n.30.729

Casale, E. G., Golann, D. W., & LeMaster, E. (2021). US school principals and special education legal knowledge: A scoping review. International Review of Research in Developmental Disabilities, 60, 213-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.irrdd.2021.08.007

Crawford, K. (2021). The Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. Yale University Press.

Cumming, M., Bettini, E., & Chow, J. (2023). High-Quality systematic literature reviews in special education: Promoting coherence, contextualization, generativity, and transparency. Exceptional Children, 89, 412 - 431. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029221146576

Dogan, M., Dogan, T., & Bozkurt, A. (2023). The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in

online learning and distance education processes: A systematic review of

empirical studies. Applied Sciences, 13(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/app13053056

Draganoudi, A., Kaliampos, G., Lavidas, K., & Ravanis, K. (2023). Developing a research instrument to record pre-school teachers’ beliefs about teaching practices in natural sciences. South African Journal of Education. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v43n1a2031

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit.

Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747

Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002

European Commission (2020). Digital Education Action Plan (2021-2027). European Commission. https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-topics/digital-education/action-plan

Ifenthaler, D., & Schumacher, C. (2023). Reciprocal issues of artificial and human intelligence in education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 55(1), 1 -6. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2022.2154511

Jin, Z. (2023). Analysis of the technical principles of ChatGPT and prospects for pre-trained large Models. 2023 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Information Technology, Big Data and Artificial Intelligence (ICIBA), 3, 1755-1758. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIBA56860.2023.10165540

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2010). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2

Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Prentice-Hall.

Leontiev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Progress Publishers.

Leontjev, D., & deBoer, M. (2022). Teacher as creator: Orchestrating the learning environment to promote learner development. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221117654

Li, Z., Wang, C., & Bonk, C. J. (2024). Exploring the utility of ChatGPT for self-directed online language learning. Online Learning, 28(3), 157-180. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v28i3.4497

Liao, H., Xiao, H., & Hu, B. (2023). Revolutionizing ESL teaching with generative artificial intelligence - Take ChatGPT as an example. International Journal of New Developments in Education, 5(20), 39-46, https://doi.org/10.25236/ijnde.2023.052008

Lindsay, E., Johri, A., & Bjerva, J. (2023). A framework for responsible development of automated student feedback with generative AI. ArXiv, abs/2308.15334. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2308.15334

Liu, M., Ren, Y., Nyagoga, L., Stonier, F., Wu, Z., & Yu, L. (2023). Future of education in the era of generative artificial intelligence: Consensus among Chinese scholars on applications of ChatGPT in schools. Future in Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.1002/fer3.10

Luckin, R., & Cukurova, M. (2019). Designing educational technologies in the age of AI: A learning sciences-driven approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50, 2824-2838. https://doi.org/10.1111/BJET.12861

Maani, D., & Shanti, Z. (2023). Technology-enhanced learning in light of Bloom’s Taxonomy: A student-experience study of the history of architecture course. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032624

Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2006). The new taxonomy of educational objectives (2nd ed.). Corwin Press.

McCoy, S., & Lynam, A. (2022). How field experience shapes pre-service primary teachers’ technology integration knowledge and practice. Teacher Development, 26, 567 - 586. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2022.2074086

Miranda, P., Kaur, J., Abhari, S., & Morita, P. (2023). ChatGPT for systematic and scoping reviews in public health research: An applicable approach. The European Journal of Public Health, 33. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckad160.1237

OECD. (2023). OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023. Towards an Effective Digital Education Ecosystem. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-digital-education-outlook-2023_c74f03de-en.html

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. International Universities Press.

Piaget, J. (1970). Structuralism. Basic Books.

Piaget, J. (1976). The grasp of consciousness: Action and concept in the young child. Harvard University Press.

Piaget, J. (1980). Adaptation and intelligence: Organic selection and phenocopy. University of Chicago Press.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive science, 12(2), 257-285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4

UNESCO. (2021). AI and education: Guidance for policy-makers. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000376709

UNESCO (2022). Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137

Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147-177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0

Veresov, N., & Veraksa, N. (2022). Digital games and digital play in early childhood: a cultural-historical approach. Early Years, 43, 1089 - 1101. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2022.2056880

von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. The Falmer Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (2012). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Wadsworth, B. J. (2003). Piaget's theory of cognitive and affective development: Foundations of constructivism (5th ed.). Pearson College Div.

Wertsch, J. V. (1988). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Harvard University Press.

Willingham, D. T. (2021). Why don't students like school? A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom. Jossey-Bass

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x

Downloads

Published

2025-12-01

How to Cite

Artemova, I. (2025). A Critical Analysis of GAI Learning Research: From Theory to Implementation Risks . Online Learning, 29(4), 390–417. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v29i4.4895