Study: Young users (9 to 18Y) ditch Google for AI, with unknown consequences

Recorded: Sept. 22, 2026, 10:09 a.m.

Original

Summarized

Young users ditch Google for AI, with unknown consequences

Norwegian SciTech News

Newsletter
Podcasts
Archive

English
|
Norwegian

Research News from NTNU and SINTEF

Technology
Energy and environment
Natural science
Fish and aquaculture
Innovation
Health
Society
Humanities

Videos
Images
Viewpoints
Notes
Blog

About us
Contact
Archive
RSS-feeds

“If AI takes over the thinking process before students have had time to develop their own critical thinking and problem-solving skills, it could have completely different consequences for them than for adults,” say researchers who have investigated what is known about the use of AI in education. Illustration photo: Colourbox

Toggle image description

Young users ditch Google for AI, with unknown consequences

School researchers reviewed nearly 200 studies on how artificial intelligence affects children and young people’s ability to learn and think. They found that we know very little about how AI use impacts younger school children.

By Sølvi Normannsen
- Published 22.09.2026

Denne saken er også tilgjengelig på norsk

In briefResearchers wanted to find out how AI tools affect students' critical thinking and problem-solving abilities. They analysed 173 international studies that had looked at the use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in school and education.
Findings:

AI on its own neither strengthens nor weakens these abilities.
The researchers revealed that we still have limited understanding of school-age children.
The studies are not considered objective, and they have a strong regional imbalance.

“It is 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, PhD research fellow at NTNU’s Department of Teacher Education.
Storrøsæter has analysed 173 international research articles on the use of generative artificial intelligence (machine learning techniques where the goal is not only to analyse data, but also to create new data, for example in the form of text, images, audio, video or programming code. The most widespread use of generative AI is through chatbots, such as ChatGPT) in school work and education. Her study was conducted with a group of colleagues from Czech universities.
The goal of the literature review was to find out whether AI tools strengthen or weaken children and youths’ ability to think critically and solve problems independently. Many people believe that these skills have never been more important than now, in the 21st century.
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,” said Storrøsæter, who is also a geographer and teacher who focuses on subject-matter pedagogy.

“The study confirms the dual nature of AI. The same technology can have both constructive and destructive effects. We were surprised that this came across so clearly,” says Hilde Storrøsæter, a PhD research fellow at NTNU’s Department of Teacher Education. Photo: NTNU
SHOW MORE

AI tools support important skills when they are used to challenge, ask questions, compare different viewpoints and build one’s own line of reasoning.
“But when AI becomes a shortcut to a ready-made answer, the chance of overdependence, more superficial thinking and weakened independent problem solving increases,” Storrøsæter says.
Abandoning Google – choosing AI
The Norwegian Media Authority’s survey (in Norwegian) on the media habits of 9 to 18-year-olds shows that the use of Google searches fell from 72% in 2024 to 47% in 2026 for this age group.
The report shows that 39% 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.
A knowledge gap uncovered
The researchers analysed studies from 2022 – the year that AI language models swept onto the world stage – and up to the spring of 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.
The education sector has already been shaped by AI. The question is whether we can shape the use of AI.
Research on the use of AI in education should provide direction for pedagogy, policy and research in the field to help authorities and other institutions make decisions on AI use.
Storrøsæter and her colleagues uncovered three major gaps in what we know about AI use.
Knowledge gap 1: Children and youths
In 80% of the studies the researchers 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,” says Storrøsæter.
“If AI takes over the thinking process before pupils have had time to develop their own skills for critical thinking and problem solving, the consequences could be completely different for them than for adults,” she says.
You might also like: “We must develop thinkers. Not crammers and fact-experts”
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 of changes over time.
Knowledge gap 3: Geographic bias
The school 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 led 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 same number that reported both positive and negative effects.

The dual task 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, and 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 is not enough to just teach them to use some AI tools,” says Storrøsæter.
For us to succeed with AI in schools, teacher education has to succeed.
“Students need to understand what technology does to the learning process itself, such as what happens when AI solves parts of the task. 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, and not a replacement, for thinking?”
Can create increased 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, you don’t build any skills with it, and you miss out on a lot of learning situations. This will only increase disparities between those who use AI critically and as a tool, and those who use it uncritically simply to complete a task faster. If that happens, schools and universities will both face significant challenges.
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. Our number one task is therefore to cultivate AI literacy, by protecting and developing competence in critical thinking, problem solving, source criticism 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.”
Storrøsæter stresses that if we are to succeed with AI in schools, teacher education has to succeed.
Reference: Tomáš Bendl, Lenka Krajňáková, Hilde Storrøsæter, Emil Drápela, Martin Hanus: Dual Nature of GenAI: Catalyst or Barrier for Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills? A systematic Review, Journal of Information Technology Education: Research • Volume 25 • 2026 • https://doi.org/10.28945/5834

Contact
Hilde Storrøsæter

More from Norwegian SciTech News

LOADING CONTENT

Privacy Policy
The Privacy Statement is about how this website collects and uses visitor information. The statement contains information that you are entitled to when collecting information from our website, and general information about how we treat personal data.
The legal owner of the website is the processing officer for the processing of personal data. It is voluntary for those who visit the web sites to provide personal information regarding services such as receiving newsletters and using the sharing and tip services. The treatment basis is the consent of the individual, unless otherwise specified.
1. Web analytics and cookies (cookies)
As an important part of the effort to create a user-friendly website, we look at the user pattern of those who visit the site. To analyze the information, we use the Google Analytics analysis tool.
Google Analytics uses cookies (small text files that the site stores on the user's computer), which registers the users' IP address and provides information about the individual user's online movements. Examples of what the statistics give us answers to are; how many people visit different pages, how long the visit lasts, what websites users come from and what browsers are used. None of the cookies allow us to link information about your use of the site to you as an individual.
The information collected by Google Analytics is stored on Google servers in the U.S.. The information received is subject to the Google Privacy Policy.
An IP address is defined as a personal information because it can be traced back to a particular hardware and thus to an individual. We use Google Analytics's tracking code to anonymize the IP address before the information is stored and processed by Google. Thus, the stored IP address can not be used to identify the individual user.
2. Search
If the webpage has search function, it stores information about what keywords users use in Google Analytics. The purpose of the storage is to improve our information service. The search usage pattern is stored in aggregate form. Only the keyword is saved and they can not be linked to other information about the users, such as the IP addresses.
3. Share / Tips service
The "Share with others" feature can be used to forward links to the site by email, or to share the content of social networking. Tips for tips are not logged with us, but only used to add the tips to the community. However, we can not guarantee that the online community does not log this information. All such services should therefore be used wisely. If you use the email feature, we only use the provided email addresses to resend the message without any form of storage.
4. Newsletter
The website can send out newsletters by email if you have registered to receive this. In order for us to be able to send e-mail, you must register an e-mail address. Mailchimp is the data processor for the newsletter. The e-mail address is stored in a separate database, not shared with others and deleted when you unsubscribe. The e-mail address will also be deleted if we receive feedback that it is not active.
5. Registration, form
The website may have a form for registration, contact form or other form. These forms are available to the public to perform the tasks they are supposed to do.
Registration form is for visitors to sign up or register.
Contact form is for visitors to easily send a message to the website's contact person.
We ask for the name of the sender and contact information for this. Personal information we receive is not used for purposes other than responding to the inquiry.
The form is sent as email via Mailgun as a third party solution. The entire submission will be stored at Mailgun for 24 hours. Between 24 hours and 30 days, only mailheader is stored before the submission is deleted after 30 days. The reason for this storage is to confirm whether emails are sent from the website and forwarded to the correct recipient.
Once the email is received by the recipient, it is up to the recipient to determine the data processing needs of the email.
6. Page and service functionality
Cookies are used in the operation and presentation of data from websites. Such cookies may contain language code information for languages selected by the user. There may be cookies with information supporting the load balancing of the system, ensuring all users the best possible experience. For services that require login or search, cookies can be used to ensure that the service presents data to the right recipient.
7. How to manage cookies in your browser
On www.nettvett.no, read how to configure your browser to accept / reject cookies, and get tips for safer use of the internet.

Research news from NTNU and SINTEF

Research news written for the general public about technology, energy and environment, science, fish and aquaculture, innovation, health, the social sciences and humanities.
ISSN 2703-7029

Contact the editors

Nina Tveter, NTNU
Christina Benjaminsen, SINTEF
See Contact page

Built on WordPress by: Smart Media AS

Subscribe To Our NewsletterJoin our newsletter list to receive the latest news and updates.

Subscribe!

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Researchers analyzing nearly 200 international studies concerning the use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in schooling found that there remains a limited understanding of how its implementation impacts the critical thinking and problem-solving abilities of younger students. The investigation revealed a crucial dual nature of AI: the technology itself does not inherently strengthen or weaken cognitive skills; rather, its effect is contingent upon how it is utilized. AI tools can support the development of skills when employed to challenge assumptions, prompt inquiry, facilitate the comparison of diverse viewpoints, and encourage the construction of independent reasoning. Conversely, when AI serves as a mechanism to provide ready-made answers, it increases the risk of overdependence, superficial processing, and the weakening of independent problem-solving capabilities.

This finding highlights the necessity for careful pedagogical approaches. The study underscores that the impact of AI is complex, possessing both constructive and potentially destructive effects depending on the context of its application. To harness AI effectively in education, educators must focus on designing tasks where the technology functions as a supportive tool rather than a replacement for intellectual effort.

Further research into the topic encountered several significant knowledge gaps that impede a complete understanding of AI’s influence on youth cognition. First, the sample of the analyzed literature was predominantly composed of university or college students, which limits the generalizability of the findings regarding the academic and cognitive effects on younger pupils still in developmental stages of information processing and evaluation. As one researcher noted, the consequences of AI on skills development for schoolchildren might differ significantly from those experienced by adults if the influence occurs during formative years.

Second, the reliability of the existing evidence is compromised because most of the literature relies on self-reporting rather than objective measurements over time, and the studies exhibit significant regional imbalances. The geographical distribution of research is skewed, with a heavy concentration in South Asia, Southeast Asia, and East Asia, alongside fewer studies in Africa, South America, and Central Asia, creating an uneven research landscape.

Finally, the researchers emphasized the need to address the operational realities within educational settings. To successfully integrate AI, teacher education must possess a dual mandate: equipping teachers to critically engage with AI themselves while simultaneously teaching students how to use these tools responsibly. A critical focus must be placed on understanding precisely what cognitive processes are essential for pupils to perform themselves, and how educational tasks can be structured so that AI augments, rather than supplants, these essential skills. Consequently, cultivating AI literacy, critical thinking, and source criticism remains paramount, as the pace of technological advancement necessitates focusing on human competencies to ensure that the use of AI supports students’ thinking rather than superseding it.