ReviewCommunications psychology2026
Educating minds with generative AI.
Review in Communications psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is rapidly entering education, framed as a tool for efficiency and personalization. In this Perspective, we argue this obscures a deeper transformation. Schools are cognitive ecologies in which tools and social practices actively shape learning. GenAI restructures this ecology, redistributing epistemic labour, consolidating pedagogical functions, and reorganizing how knowledge is accessed, produced, and evaluated. Unlike most educational technologies, it is active, persistent, and generalist. We identify two enduring misalignments: a pedagogical gap between learning sciences and AI design, and a goal gap between measurable performance and developmental aims. Both gaps reflect logics already embedded within existing educational systems organized around efficiency, standardization, and control. GenAI does not introduce but risks entrenching and amplifying these gaps. Rather than accommodating GenAI through technical adjustments, we propose treating it as a diagnostic opportunity to redesign schooling for embodied, collaborative, and distinctly human forms of learning.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.