Using generative AI as a dialogic partner for brainstorming, feedback, and co-construction can support constructive and interactive learning¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · theoretical r2 · q1
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? Generative AI can act as a 'sparring partner' stimulating critical engagement and helping learners develop and test their own ideas rather than simply consuming information (as argued by Kasneci et al., 2023). → Rummel 2026 q1 i? Interactive AI use situates learners in ongoing conversation where understanding is negotiated and refined in real time, aligning with the ICAP interactive mode and SAMR redefinition stage. → Rummel 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Rummel 2026¶

Rummel, N., Nachtigall, V., & Panadero, E. (2026). “With a Thermomix You Lose the Ability to Cook”: A Kitchen Machine Analogy for Applications of Generative AI in Education. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.09856 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.09856

q1 · i? · theoretical · r2

Attributed position reported in the constructive-use section: the article cites Kasneci et al. (2023) describing generative AI as a "sparring partner" that stimulates critical engagement. This is the reviewed work's argument as the article presents it, not a new empirical result.

"Kasneci et al. (2023), for instance, describe how generative AI can act as a “sparring partner” for learners, stimulating critical engagement and helping them to develop and test their own ideas rather than simply consuming information."

Rummel 2026 (2)¶

Rummel, N., Nachtigall, V., & Panadero, E. (2026). “With a Thermomix You Lose the Ability to Cook”: A Kitchen Machine Analogy for Applications of Generative AI in Education. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.09856. doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.09856

q1 · i? · theoretical · r2

Authors' interpretation in the interactive-use section: dialogue-partner uses of AI (citing Song et al., 2025 and Goda et al., 2025) move beyond passive or active engagement by situating the learner in ongoing conversation. Conceptual mapping, no data reported.

"Such use cases move beyond passive or active engagement by situating the learner in an ongoing conversation, where understanding is negotiated and refined in real time."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Scaffolded assistant support marks richer constructive participation at the conversation level across all six task settings — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Teachers find ChatGPT a creative, fast, iterative brainstorming partner that adds specific numbers and details when posing math questions from photos — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• AI-assisted ideation was conditionally acceptable when researchers retained decision-making authority, but problematic when it displaced conceptual labour — related
• Mathematics teachers appreciate ChatGPT-generated generative learning activities as hands-on, collaborative, engaging, open-ended, differentiated, and using multiple representations — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Critical Evaluation and Dependent reliance emerge as empirically distinct constructs, with near-zero correlation between the two facets — related
• Middle school students engaged directly and positively with AI-generated rubric feedback, including conversing with the AI — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• GenAI reconfigures group knowledge development from individual to distributed, AI-co-constructed processes — a broader claim this one bears on
• A secondary ENA adding ICAP engagement codes showed proactive interactions linked constructive engagement with adequate reasoning, while reactive dialogues emphasised procedural pairings — related
• Argumentative dialogs between humans and generative AI can support knowledge transformation when prompted appropriately — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Human-AI collaboration requires refined group-awareness concepts for asymmetrical relationships between users and AI partners — related
• Distributed epistemic agency emerges as learners attribute authority to AI outputs and shift responsibility for knowledge validation, though some engage dialogically — related
• Expert scenarios across educational sectors position students as critical, agentic partners with AI who question and critique AI-generated content — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Critical constructive feedback is neglected at multiple, independently measurable processing stages — related