Students Know AI Should Not Replace Thinking, but How Do They Regulate It? The TACO Framework for Human-AI Cognitive Partnership

TL;DR

This study investigates how secondary students manage the boundary between using AI as support or substitute for thinking, introducing the TACO framework to enhance regulation of AI use in learning.

Contribution

It reveals that awareness alone does not ensure proper regulation and introduces the TACO framework to operationalize cognitive boundary management in educational AI use.

Findings

Awareness of AI boundaries does not always lead to regulation.

Ethical beliefs do not necessarily result in strategic AI use.

The TACO framework offers a structured process for managing AI assistance.

Abstract

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.