Discover our other sites:

You might be looking for...

THIS CONTENT IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology - read more

Young users ditch Google for AI, but we know little about the consequences

Researchers reviewed nearly 200 studies on artificial intelligence and learning. One clear finding surprised them.

Young student in a pink jumper looks through a microscope beside a specimen dish.

Researchers warn that AI could weaken students’ development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills if the technology takes over too much of the thinking process.

(Stock photo: Colourbox)

Sølvi Normannsen Sølvi Normannsen Communications adviser

Presented by: Presented by: NTNU - Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Published 27 October 2026 - 00:02

“It's striking how little solid knowledge we have about how AI use affects basic skills in younger pupils. This is problematic because the influence occurs while schoolchildren are still developing,” says Hilde Storrøsæter.

She is a researcher at NTNU’s Department of Teacher Education.

Storrøsæter has analysed 173 international research articles on the use of generative artificial intelligence in schools and education.

This work was carried out together with a group of colleagues from Czech universities.

The aim was to find out whether AI tools strengthen or weaken children and youths’ ability to think critically and solve problems independently.

Many believe these skills have never been more important than they are now, in the 21st century.

Portrait of Hilde Storrøsæter — “The same technology can have both constructive and destructive effects. We were surprised that this came across so clearly,” says researcher Hilde Storrøsæter.

Researchers discovered the dual nature of AI

“The most important finding is that AI in and of itself does not make us any better or worse at thinking. It’s easy to believe that the tools will either strengthen or weaken learning. We found a clear dual effect. The same technology can do both,” says Storrøsæter.

When AI is used to challenge, ask questions, compare different perspectives, and develop one's own lines of reasoning, the tools support these important skills.

“But when AI becomes a shortcut to a ready-made answer, the chance of overdependence, more superficial thinking, and weakened independent problem-solving increases,” the researcher explains.

Students are abandoning Google and choosing AI

The Norwegian Media Authority’s survey (link in Norwegian) on the media habits of 9- to 18-year-olds shows that the use of Google searches fell from 72 per cent in 2024 to 47 per cent in 2026 for this age group.

The report shows that 39 per cent of Norwegian 11- to 12-year-olds use AI.

The website ung.no – Norway’s online information and communication channel for young people aged 13 to 20 – is also losing traffic because young people are switching to AI tools to find answers to their questions.

The number of visits to ung.no fell from 24 million to 18 million from 2024 to 2025. Google’s new AI summaries have also influenced the decline in traffic.

Knowledge is lacking in three areas

The researchers analysed studies from 2022, the year that AI language models swept onto the world stage, through to spring 2025.

Few predicted the power and speed with which technology would change society. AI affects how information is created, used, shared, and disseminated. The consequences are particularly significant in schools and educational settings.

Research into the use of AI in education is intended to help authorities and others determine the direction that teaching methods, policy, and research in the field should take.

Storrøsæter and her colleagues uncovered three major gaps in what we know about AI use.

Knowledge gap 1: Children and youths

In 80 per cent of the studies they analysed, the participants were university or college students.

This means that we know surprisingly little about the academic and cognitive effects of AI use on children and youths, at a time while they are still developing how they perceive, process, and evaluate information.

“We can’t simply assume that what applies to a 22-year-old university student also applies to a 10- or 14-year-old,” the researcher says.

If AI takes over the thinking process before students have had time to develop their own critical thinking and problem-solving skills, the consequences for them could be entirely different from those for adults, Storrøsæter emphasises.

Knowledge gap 2: Lack of objectivity

Most of the articles in the literature review are based on self-reporting.

This is considered a less reliable method than objective studies that examine changes over time.

Knowledge gap 3: Geographical bias

The researchers also uncovered a geographically skewed distribution in where the studies were done.

South Asia, Southeast Asia, and East Asia – primarily China – dominate with 28 studies. In Europe, Spain and the United Kingdom lead with nine studies each.

A total of 15 studies were conducted in the USA. Africa, South America, and Central Asia are seriously underrepresented. This creates a research gap that should be addressed.

Overall, the studies show positive effects more often than negative ones.

Mostly positive findings

Of 139 studies on the effect of AI on critical thinking, 67 reported only positive effects of AI use.
33 studies reported only negative effects, while 39 reported both positive and negative effects.
Of 103 studies that examined the effect of AI on problem-solving ability, 57 were exclusively positive.
23 reported negative effects.

The dual responsibility of teacher education

The researchers behind the new literature review highlight three crucial issues in particular:

How AI tools are used.
Teachers’ understanding of AI.
The demands teachers place on students and pupils.

“Teacher education has a dual task. We have to educate teachers who can use and relate critically to AI themselves. At the same time, our education students should also be able to teach children and young people how to use AI. It's not enough to just teach them to use some AI tools,” says Storrøsæter.

They also need to understand what the technology does to the learning process itself, she explains.

What happens when AI solves parts of an assignment? Which parts of the thinking process are important for the pupils to still do themselves? How do we design tasks where AI becomes a tool for thinking rather than a replacement for it?

Could increase disparities

Storrøsæter is not worried about students’ or pupils’ use of AI in and of itself.

“I support being restrictive in terms of not using AI with very young pupils. But when AI is used, it has to happen on the teacher’s terms,” she says.

If AI is used uncritically, students gain no skills from it and miss out on many learning opportunities.

As a result, the gap may simply widen between those who use AI critically and as a tool, and those who use it uncritically just to finish an assignment.

If that happens, it will place considerable demands on both schools and universities, the researcher points out.

We need to shape the use of AI, not the other way around

Technology will probably continue to develop faster than we can put curricula and regulations in place.

The researchers therefore believe that the number one priority is to protect and develop competence in critical thinking, problem-solving, critical evaluation of sources, and the ability to make independent assessments.

“The education sector is already strongly influenced and shaped by AI. The question is whether we can shape the use of AI so that it supports students’ thinking instead of taking it over,” says Storrøsæter.

She stresses that if we are to succeed with AI in schools, teacher education has to succeed.

Reference:

Bendl et al. Dual Nature of GenAI: Catalyst or Barrier for Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills? A systematic Review, Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 2026. DOI: 10.28945/5834

———

Read the Norwegian version of this article on forskning.no