Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates how secondary students in Hong Kong regulate their use of AI in learning, finding a disconnect between their stated beliefs about AI's role and their actual behavior. The study reveals that students often fail to translate their awareness that "AI should not replace thinking" into structured regulation during AI use. To address this, the authors propose the TACO framework (Think-Ask-Check-Own) as a process-oriented model for operationalizing the boundary between cognitive support and substitution.
Students already know AI shouldn't replace thinking, but the TACO framework provides a concrete way to help them actually *use* it as a cognitive partner, not a cognitive crutch.
As generative artificial intelligence becomes increasingly embedded in educational practice, a central concern is whether students use AI as cognitive support or as a substitute for thinking. Prior research shows that learners recognise this boundary conceptually and acknowledge that"AI should not replace thinking."However, whether such awareness translates into structured regulation during actual AI use remains unclear. Drawing on data from Hong Kong secondary students, this study examines how learners perceive their management of the boundary between assistance and outsourcing in practice. Findings show that awareness did not consistently translate into regulation; ethical belief did not necessarily lead to strategic execution; and conceptual endorsement did not guarantee operational behaviour. These findings suggest that the challenge is not teaching students that AI should not replace thinking, as they already know this, but providing them with structured mechanisms to regulate how AI is used within learning processes. In response, the study introduces the TACO framework (Think-Ask-Check-Own), a process-oriented model designed to operationalise the boundary between cognitive support and cognitive substitution. By shifting attention from ethical awareness to cognitive regulation, the study contributes a learner-grounded approach to sustaining AI as a dynamic cognitive partner in education.