Keywords
Learning alienation;
Cognitive delegation;
Overdependence;
Epistemic agency;
Higher education
Abstract
A polished assignment reveals little about what its author has learned. This conceptual article examines university students' relationship with academic work when generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) takes on part of it. Through purposive theory synthesis, it connects alienation with distributed cognition, self-regulation, and automation research. Delegating execution differs from delegating evaluation; either can support learning when the activities needed to develop the intended capability remain. Overdependence denotes persistent reliance despite demands or feedback calling for greater participation. The framework distinguishes four forms of estrangement: from reasoning, intellectual direction, developmental meaning, and warranted responsibility for an attributed contribution. Each requires the learner's experience and corroborating evidence, not simply usage counts, dependency scores, or assisted–unaided performance gaps. Nine propositions examine conditional pathways while allowing prior alienation, shared institutional causes, and recovery. The research agenda separates capability from learning relations and compares competing temporal explanations. Teaching proposals center on accessible explanation, revision, and transfer. The framework and its evidence rules remain unvalidated; they are not diagnostic criteria.
References
An, C., Lu, K., & Yang, J. (2026). The dependency trap: A systematic review of the contributing factors and consequences of student over-reliance on generative AI in higher education. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 13, Article 1604. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-08959-2
Bastani, H., Bastani, O., Sungu, A., Ge, H., Kabakcı, Ö., & Mariman, R. (2025). Generative AI without guardrails can harm learning: Evidence from high school mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(26), Article e2422633122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2422633122
Bearman, M., Tai, J., Dawson, P., Boud, D., & Ajjawi, R. (2024). Developing evaluative judgement for a time of generative artificial intelligence. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(6), 893–905. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2335321
Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), 132–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/02660830.2007.11661545
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871
Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
Di Santi, E., & Florida, C. (2026). Cognitive amplification vs cognitive delegation in human-AI systems: A metric framework (Version 4) [Preprint]. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.18677 Version 4: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.18677v4
Fan, Y., Tang, L., Le, H., Shen, K., Tan, S., Zhao, Y., Shen, Y., Li, X., & Gašević, D. (2025). Beware of metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative artificial intelligence on learning motivation, processes, and performance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(2), 489–530. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13544
Fawns, T. (2022). An entangled pedagogy: Looking beyond the pedagogy–technology dichotomy. Postdigital Science and Education, 4(3), 711–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-022-00302-7
Goh, A. Y. H., Hartanto, A., & Majeed, N. M. (2025). Generative artificial intelligence dependency: Scale development, validation, and its motivational, behavioral, and psychological correlates. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 20, Article 100845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100845
Guan, R., Raković, M., Chen, G., & Gašević, D. (2025). How educational chatbots support self-regulated learning? A systematic review of the literature. Education and Information Technologies, 30(4), 4493–4518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12881-y
Hamaker, E. L., Kuiper, R. M., & Grasman, R. P. P. P. (2015). A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychological Methods, 20(1), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038889
Hascher, T., & Hadjar, A. (2018). School alienation—Theoretical approaches and educational research. Educational Research, 60(2), 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2018.1443021
Hou, C., Zhu, G., Sudarshan, V., Lim, F. S., & Ong, Y. S. (2025). Measuring undergraduate students’ reliance on generative AI during problem-solving: Scale development and validation. Computers & Education, 234, Article 105329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105329
Howard, J. L., Slemp, G. R., & Wang, X. (2025). Need support and need thwarting: A meta-analysis of autonomy, competence, and relatedness supportive and thwarting behaviors in student populations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 51(9), 1552–1573. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231225364
Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10(1), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
Jaeggi, R. (2014). Alienation (F. Neuhouser, Ed.; F. Neuhouser & A. E. Smith, Trans.). Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/jaeg15198
Kestin, G., Miller, K., Klales, A., Milbourne, T., & Ponti, G. (2025). AI tutoring outperforms in-class active learning: An RCT introducing a novel research-based design in an authentic educational setting. Scientific Reports, 15, Article 17458. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-97652-6
Lee, H.-P., Sarkar, A., Tankelevitch, L., Drosos, I., Rintel, S., Banks, R., & Wilson, N. (2025). The impact of generative AI on critical thinking: Self-reported reductions in cognitive effort and confidence effects from a survey of knowledge workers. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Article 1121, pp. 1–22). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713778
Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50–80. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392
Lintner, T. (2024). A systematic review of AI literacy scales. npj Science of Learning, 9, Article 50. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-024-00264-4
Messeri, L., & Crockett, M. J. (2024). Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research. Nature, 627, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07146-0
Podsakoff, P. M., Podsakoff, N. P., Williams, L. J., Huang, C., & Yang, J. (2024). Common method bias: It's bad, it's complex, it's widespread, and it's not easy to fix. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 11, 17–61. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110721-040030
Risko, E. F., & Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 676–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002
Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2–9. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X020003002
Seeman, M. (1959). On the meaning of alienation. American Sociological Review, 24(6), 783–791. https://doi.org/10.2307/2088565
Stadler, M., Bannert, M., & Sailer, M. (2024). Cognitive ease at a cost: LLMs reduce mental effort but compromise depth in student scientific inquiry. Computers in Human Behavior, 160, Article 108386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108386
Tankelevitch, L., Kewenig, V., Simkute, A., Scott, A. E., Sarkar, A., Sellen, A., & Rintel, S. (2024). The metacognitive demands and opportunities of generative AI. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Article 680, pp. 1–24). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642902
Tetzlaff, L., Simonsmeier, B., Peters, T., & Brod, G. (2025). A cornerstone of adaptivity – A meta-analysis of the expertise reversal effect. Learning and Instruction, 98, Article 102142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102142
Vaccaro, M., Almaatouq, A., & Malone, T. (2024). When combinations of humans and AI are useful: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nature Human Behaviour, 8(12), 2293–2303. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02024-1
Wu, J.-Y., Lee, Y.-H., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C.-C. (2025). Strengthening human epistemic agency in the symbiotic learning partnership with generative artificial intelligence. Educational Researcher, 54(6), 358–368. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X251333628
Xu, X., Qiao, L., Cheng, N., Liu, H., & Zhao, W. (2025). Enhancing self-regulated learning and learning experience in generative AI environments: The critical role of metacognitive support. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(5), 1842–1863. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13599
Zhai, C., Wibowo, S., & Li, L. D. (2024). The effects of over-reliance on AI dialogue systems on students’ cognitive abilities: A systematic review. Smart Learning Environments, 11, Article 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7
Zhang, H., Yang, Y., Zhang, Y., Qiu, B., & Yang, J. (2026). Generative AI dependency on programming among university students: A scale development and validation study. BMC Psychology, 14, Article 1245. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-05011-5
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Chen Wang