CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2Artificial Intelligence in EducationEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

When AI Becomes a Reader and an Authority: A Systematic Review of Epistemic, Affective, and Moral Dimensions of AI-Mediated Reading

Susena, Yuda Sakti, Arianto, Fajar, Khotimah, Khusnul, Andrianto, Rico Eko, Syuhada’, Muchammad·2026·Reading Psychology
DOI 10.1080/02702711.2026.2644973
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Generative and conversational artificial intelligence (AI) has rapidly become embedded in everyday educational practices, including activities closely related to reading, text comprehension, and academic literacy. However, existing review literature remains conceptually fragmented, particularly regarding AI’s epistemic, dialogic, affective, and moral implications for learning. This systematic review synthesizes evidence from 80 review-level studies published between 2018 and 2025 to examine how generative AI functions as an epistemic authority, cognitive scaffold, dialogic participant, affective interlocutor, and moral reference point within educational contexts relevant to reading and literacy practices. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and meta-analyses were analyzed using thematic synthesis. Findings indicate that generative AI can support critical reading, reflective text engagement, and dialogic interpretation when integrated through intentional pedagogical design. Conversely, uncritical use is associated with automation bias, cognitive offloading, homogenized discourse, and attenuated evaluative judgment. These outcomes are shaped less by technology itself than by instructional design, assessment practices, and institutional governance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02702711.2026.2644973

Cites

105 of 105 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • GenAI systems are no longer perceived as occasional technological aids, but rather as normalized components of academic learning ecosystems integrated into writing, information retrieval, summarization, brainstorming, and assessment preparation processes.

    “Recent evidence suggests that these systems are no longer perceived as occasional technological aids, but rather as normalized components of academic learning ecosystems integrated into writing, information retrieval, summarization, brainstorming, and assessment preparation processes (Cooper et al., 2025;Susena et al., 2026).”

    From Between cognitive offloading and critical autonomy: A systematic review of the epistemic implications of generative AI in higher education. (2026) · cites this paper as Susena et al., 2026

  • GenAI systems are progressively functioning as epistemic authorities.

    “Recent scholarship further suggests that GenAI systems are progressively functioning as epistemic authorities.”

    From Between cognitive offloading and critical autonomy: A systematic review of the epistemic implications of generative AI in higher education. (2026) · cites this paper as Susena et al., 2026

  • Because AI-generated responses are frequently presented in fluent, coherent, and authoritative language, students may perceive them as neutral and reliable sources of knowledge even when outputs contain inaccuracies, hallucinations, or hidden biases.

    “Because AIgenerated responses are frequently presented in fluent, coherent, and authoritative language, students may perceive them as neutral and reliable sources of knowledge even when outputs contain inaccuracies, hallucinations, or hidden biases (Hanna and Yana, 2025;Susena et al., 2026).”

    From Between cognitive offloading and critical autonomy: A systematic review of the epistemic implications of generative AI in higher education. (2026) · cites this paper as Susena et al., 2026

  • Existing studies frequently examine isolated dimensions of AI use, including academic integrity, technology acceptance, assessment practices, or learning outcomes, while fewer investigations integrate epistemic trust, cognitive offloading, critical thinking, AI literacy, and educational governance within a unified analytical perspective.

    “Existing studies frequently examine isolated dimensions of AI use, including academic integrity, technology acceptance, assessment practices, or learning outcomes, while fewer investigations integrate epistemic trust, cognitive offloading, critical thinking, AI literacy, and educational governance within a unified analytical perspective (Raitskaya and Tikhonova, 2025;Susena et al., 2026).”

    From Between cognitive offloading and critical autonomy: A systematic review of the epistemic implications of generative AI in higher education. (2026) · cites this paper as Susena et al., 2026

  • Unguided use of AI-generated content may contribute to homogenized responses, reduced argumentative diversity, and more monologic forms of participation, particularly when students reproduce algorithmic outputs without reinterpretation or critique.

    “Research suggests that unguided use of AI-generated content may contribute to homogenized responses, reduced argumentative diversity, and more monologic forms of participation, particularly when students reproduce algorithmic outputs without reinterpretation or critique (Chase and Galvin, 2026;Susena et al., 2026).”

    From Between cognitive offloading and critical autonomy: A systematic review of the epistemic implications of generative AI in higher education. (2026) · cites this paper as Susena et al., 2026

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Susena, Y. S., Arianto, F., Khotimah, K., Andrianto, R. E., & Syuhada’, M.
Affiliations
Universitas Negeri Surabaya (ID)
Corresponding author
Susena, Yuda Sakti
ORCID
Venue
Reading Psychology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2026-03-18
Volume
47
Issue
7
Pages
1161-1194
ISSN
  • 0270-2711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1521-0685
DOI
10.1080/02702711.2026.2644973
OpenAlex
W7138880319
Cited by
1
References
105
Citations by year
2026: 1
FWCI
1.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
doi.org/10.1080/policies-text-data-mining (tdm)
Locations
Reading Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
generative AI, conversational AI, epistemic authority, emotional engagement, text comprehension, academic literacy, critical reading, dialogic interpretation, automation bias, cognitive offloading, evaluative judgments, instructional design, assessment practices, institutional governance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review