PRESCHOOL AND PRIMARY EDUCATION IN THE ERA OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF COGNITIVE AUTONOMY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32999/ksu2413-1865/2026-115-2Keywords:
developmental substitution, meaning reconstruction, learner agency, authorial agency, sensorimotor experience, metacognition, trust calibration, pedagogical mediation.Abstract
To provide a theoretical justification for the growing strategic role of preschool and primary education amid the spread of generative systems, identify prerequisites for children’s later independent, critical, and productive interaction with algorithmic tools, and distinguish pedagogical enhancement from premature replacement of formative operations. Methods. The study is theoretical and conceptual. It combines an integrative review of recent empirical and theoretical research with comparative-theoretical and conceptual analysis, systematization, synthesis, and conceptual modelling. Causal claims are not treated as empirically established; the proposed framework requires further experimental and longitudinal verification. Results. The study differentiates performance enhancement from developmental enhancement: improvement in the external quality of a product is not sufficient evidence that the underlying human capability has been formed. The concept of developmental substitution is proposed for situations in which a system performs a formative operation before a child has acquired sufficient experience of carrying it out independently; the concept is distinguished from cognitive offloading and automation bias. The meanings of meaning-reconstructive ability, cognitive endurance, authorial agency, and epistemic autonomy are clarified. Prerequisites for productive interaction are organized into six interrelated domains: language-reconstructive, abstract-logical, creative-authorial, sensorimotor, executive-metacognitive, and socio-epistemic. Conclusions. A pedagogically meaningful criterion for introducing generative systems is neither chronological age nor the quality of an AI-supported product, but the level of formation of a specific human capability and the type of operation delegated to technology. In early development, children’s own linguistic, object-based, creative, sensorimotor, and social activity should precede its generative automation. Technological support is developmentally justified when it increases later independence, deepens understanding, supports transfer, and can be gradually reduced as competence grows rather than creating repeated dependence on external assistance
References
1. Baddeley A. D., Hitch G. Working memory. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation / ed. G. H. Bower. New York: Academic Press, 1974. Vol. 8. P. 47–89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1.
2. Barsalou L. W. Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology. 2008. Vol. 59. P. 617–645. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639.
3. Bastani H., Bastani O., Sungu A., Ge H., Kabakcı Ö., Mariman R. Generative AI without guardrails can harm learning: Evidence from high school mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2025. Vol. 122, No. 33. e2422633122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2422633122.
4. Bjork R. A., Bjork E. L. Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. Psychology and the Real World: Essays Illustrating Fundamental Contributions to Society /eds. M. A. Gernsbacher et al. New York: Worth Publishers,
2011. P. 56–64.
5. Dewey J. Democracy and Education. New York: Macmillan, 1916.
6. Doshi A. R., Hauser O. P. Generative AI enhances individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content. Science Advances. 2024. Vol. 10, No. 28. eadn5290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adn5290.
7. Gerlich M. AI tools in society: Impacts on cognitive offloading and the future of critical thinking. Societies. 2025. Vol. 15, No. 1. Art. 6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006.
8. Karpicke J. D., Roediger H. L. Repeated retrieval during learning is the key to long-term retention. Science. 2008. Vol. 319, No. 5865. P. 966–968. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152408.
9. Lin R., Chen Y., Guan M. Who do children trust? AI vs. human recommendations and the role of anthropomorphic design. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2026. Vol. 229. 124707. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2026.124707.
10. Ljungcrantz L. The interaction of AI and early childhood education: A state-of-the-art review 2020–2024. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2026. Vol. 54, No. 5. P. 3565–3581. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-025-02079-3.
11. OECD. Building Strong Foundations for Life: Results from the 2025 Early Learning and Child Wellbeing Study. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/02bf8efe-en.
12. OECD/European Union. Empowering Learners for the Age of AI: An AI Literacy Framework for Primary and Secondary Education. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/65cd27d4-en.
13. Risko E. F., Gilbert S. J. Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2016. Vol. 20, No. 9. P. 676–688.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002.
14. Sweller J. Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science. 1988. Vol. 12, No. 2. P. 257–285. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4.
15. Tian J., Zhang R. Learners’ AI dependence and critical thinking: The psychological mechanism of fatigue and the social buffering role of AI literacy. Acta Psychologica. 2025. Vol. 260. 105725. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105725.
16. UNESCO. AI and the Future of Education: Disruptions, Dilemmas and Directions. Paris: UNESCO Publishing, 2025.
17. UNICEF Innocenti. Guidance on AI and Children: Recommendations for AI Policies and Systems that Uphold Child Rights. Version 3.0. UNICEF, 2025.
18. Vygotsky L. S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978.
19. Wood D., Bruner J. S., Ross G. The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 1976. Vol. 17, No. 2. P. 89–100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x.
20. World Economic Forum. The Future of Jobs Report 2025. World Economic Forum, 2025a.
21. World Economic Forum. New Economy Skills: Unlocking the Human Advantage. World Economic Forum, 2025b.
22. Zhang Y., Halili S. H. B., Zainuddin Z. Applications of generative AI in early childhood education: A systematic review. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. 2026. Vol. 22, No. 3. em2793. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/18068.
