The emergence of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has introduced new opportunities to support students with learning disabilities (SWLDs) in educational settings. While interest in AI integration in classrooms continues to grow among educators and researchers, concerns persist regarding the potential to bypass essential cognitive processes and undermine learning when students are overreliant on GenAI. This conceptual review examines these tensions through the lens of cognitive offloading, the delegation of cognitive tasks to external tools. It synthesizes research on the cognitive challenges experienced by SWLDs, the benefits of GenAI as a compensatory aid, the risks of excessive cognitive offloading, and the cognitive and motivational factors that shape students’ offloading decisions, culminating in an initial conceptual model. The review concludes with implications for future research and practice to support strategic cognitive offloading, highlighting the need to investigate how SWLDs make offloading decisions and how these decisions influence learning in GenAI-supported contexts.
Acosta-EnriquezB. G.Arbulú BallesterosM. A.de los Angeles Guzman ValleM.Morales AngaspilcoJ. E.del Rosario Aquino LalupúJ.Bravo JaicoJ. L.Germán ReyesN. C.Alarcón GarcíaR. E.Janampa CastilloW. E. (2025). The mediating role of academic stress, critical thinking and performance expectations in the influence of academic self-efficacy on AI dependence: Case study in college students. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 8, 100381. https://doi.org/100381.10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100381
2.
ArmitageK. L.GilbertS. J. (2025). The nature and development of cognitive offloading in children. Child Development Perspectives, 19(2), 108–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12532
3.
ArmitageK. L.RedshawJ. (2022). Children boost their cognitive performance with a novel offloading technique. Child Development, 93(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13664
4.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.
5.
BauerE.GreiffS.GraesserA. C.ScheiterK.SailerM. (2025). Looking beyond the hype: Understanding the effects of AI on learning. Educational Psychology Review, 37(2), 45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10020-8
6.
BrownellM. T.CiulloS.KennedyM. J. (2020). High-leverage practices: Teaching students with disabilities and all students who need a learning boost. American Educator, 44(4), 12–19.
7.
ButterfussR.KendeouP. (2018). The role of executive functions in reading comprehension. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 801–826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9422-6
8.
CorbinT.DawsonP.LiuD. (2025). Talk is cheap: Why structural assessment changes are needed for a time of GenAI. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 50(7), 1087–1097. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2503964
9.
CosentinoG.AntonJ.SharmaK.GelsominiM.GiannakosM.AbrahamsonD. (2025). Generative AI and multimodal data for educational feedback: Insights from embodied math learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(5), 1686–1709. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13587
10.
De SmedtF.MerchieE.BarendseM.RosseelY.De NaeghelJ.Van KeerH. (2018). Cognitive and motivational challenges in writing: Studying the relation with writing performance across students’ gender and achievement level. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(2), 249–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.193
11.
DunnT. L.RiskoE. F. (2016). Toward a metacognitive account of cognitive offloading. Cognitive Science, 40(5), 1080–1127. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12273
12.
EvmenovaA. S.ReganK.MergenR.HrissehR. (2024). Improving writing feedback for struggling writers: Generative AI to the rescue?TechTrends, 68(4), 790–802. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-024-00965-y
13.
FanY.TangL.LeH.ShenK.TanS.ZhaoY.ShenY.LiX.GaševićD. (2025). Beware of metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative artificial intelligence on learning motivation, processes, and performance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(2), 489–530. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13544
14.
GerlichM. (2025). AI tools in society: Impacts on cognitive offloading and the future of critical thinking. Societies, 15(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006
15.
GilbertS. J. (2024). Cognitive offloading is value-based decision making: Modelling cognitive effort and the expected value of memory. Cognition, 247, 105783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105783
16.
GilbertS. J.BirdA.CarpenterJ. M.FlemingS. M.SachdevaC.TsaiP.-C. (2020). Optimal use of reminders: Metacognition, effort, and cognitive offloading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(3), 501–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000652
17.
GoldmanS. R.SmithS. J.CarreonA. (2025). Artificial intelligence to support writing outcomes for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 40(3), 418–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434251326328
18.
GrahamS.CollinsA. A.Rigby-WillsH. (2017). Writing characteristics of students with learning disabilities and typically achieving peers: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 83(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402916664070
19.
GrahamS.HarrisK. R. (2013). Designing an effective writing program. In GrahamS.MacArthurC. A.FitzgeraldJ. (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (2nd ed., pp. 3–28). Guilford Press.
20.
GrahamS.HarrisK. R.ChorzempaB. F. (2002). Contribution of spelling instruction to the spelling, writing, and reading of poor spellers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 669–686. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.669
21.
GrinschglS.NeubauerA. C. (2022). Supporting cognition with modern technology: Distributed cognition today and in an AI-enhanced future. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 5, Article 908261. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2022.908261
22.
JohnsonE.MasserJ. S.SpearsL. (2023). Self-regulated learners: A comprehensive, translational framework for students with learning disabilities. Exceptionality, 31(1), 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2021.1938063
23.
KendeouP.van den BroekP.HelderA.KarlssonJ. (2014). A cognitive view of reading comprehension: Implications for reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(1), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12025
24.
KhazanchiR.KhazanchiP. (2024). Generative AI to improve special education teacher preparation for inclusive classrooms. In SearsonM.LangranE.TrumbleJ. (Eds.), Exploring new horizons: Generative artificial intelligence and teacher education (pp. 159–177). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
25.
KlarinJ.HoffE.LarssonA.DaukantaitėD. (2024). Adolescents’ use and perceived usefulness of generative AI for schoolwork: Exploring their relationships with executive functioning and academic achievement. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 7, Article 1415782. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1415782
26.
KlassenR. M. (2010). Confidence to manage learning: The self-efficacy for self-regulated learning of early adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/073194871003300102
27.
LackayeT.MargalitM.ZivO.ZimanT. (2006). Comparisons of self-efficacy, mood, effort, and hope between students with learning disabilities and their non-LD-matched peers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21(2), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00211.x
28.
LawL. (2024). Application of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in language teaching and learning: A scoping literature review. Computers and Education Open, 6, 100174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100174
29.
León-DomínguezU. (2024). Potential cognitive risks of generative transformer-based AI chatbots on higher order executive functions. Neuropsychology, 38(4), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000948
30.
MariñasK. A.SaflorC. S.AlvaradoP.UmingadJ. M.VerdeN. A. (2025). Assessing the importance of variables from a revised technology acceptance model for the use of ChatGPT by university students. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 9, 100435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100435
31.
MarinoM. T.VasquezE.DiekerL.BashamJ.BlackorbyJ. (2023). The future of artificial intelligence in special education technology. Journal of Special Education Technology, 38(3), 404–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434231165977
MurnanR.CornellH. (2023). Digital tools to support self-regulation in the writing process for exceptional learners. Journal of Special Education Technology, 38(4), 547–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434231155936
34.
NgD. T. K.ChanE. K. C.LoC. K. (2025). Opportunities, challenges and school strategies for integrating generative AI in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 8, 100373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100373
35.
OakleyB.JohnstonM.ChenK.-Z.JungE.SejnowskiT. (2025). The memory paradox: Why our brains need knowledge in an age of AI. arXiv:2506.11015. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.11015
36.
PengJ.-L.YehS.-L. (2025). Cognitive offloading in short-term memory tasks: Trust toward tools as a moderator. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 41(21), 13382–13393. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2025.2474449
37.
PengP.WangT.WangC. (2022). A meta-analytic review of cognition and reading difficulties: Individual differences, moderation, and language development. Psychological Bulletin, 148(9–10), 738–774.
38.
RahmanM.WatanobeY. (2023). ChatGPT for education and research: Opportunities, threats, and strategies. Applied Sciences, 13(9), 5783. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13095783
Ronksley-PaviaM.NguyenL.WheeleyE.RoseJ.NeumannM. M.BigumC.NeumannD. L. (2025). A scoping literature review of generative artificial intelligence for supporting neurodivergent school students. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 9, 100437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100437
41.
SchunkD. H.DiBenedettoM. K. (2020). Social cognitive theory, self-efficacy, and students with disabilities: Implications for students with learning disabilities, reading disabilities, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. In MartinA. J.SperlingR. A.NewtonK. J. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology and students with special needs (pp. 243–261). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315100654
42.
SeungY.BashamJ. D.KimT.LohoefenerJ. (2025). Exploring artificial intelligence integration and student-AI interaction in K-12 education: A scoping review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 41(6), Article e70144. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.70144
43.
SparrowB.LiuJ.WegnerD. M. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science, 333(6043), 776–778. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207745
44.
SurianoR.PlebeA.AcciaiA.FabioR. A. (2025). Student interaction with ChatGPT can promote complex critical thinking skills. Learning and Instruction, 95, 102011.
45.
SwansonH. L. (2020). Specific learning disabilities as a working memory deficit. In MartinA. J.SperlingR. A.NewtonK. J. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology and students with special needs (pp. 19–51). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315100654
46.
TricotA.VandenbrouckeG.SwellerJ. (2020). Using cognitive load theory to improve text comprehension for students with dyslexia. In MartinA. J.SperlingR. A.NewtonK. J. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology and students with special needs (pp. 339–362). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315100654
47.
WalterY. (2024). Embracing the future of Artificial Intelligence in the classroom: The relevance of AI literacy, prompt engineering, and critical thinking in modern education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00448-3
48.
WeisP. P.WieseE. (2019a). Problem solvers adjust cognitive offloading based on performance goals. Cognitive Science, 43(12), Article e12802. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12802
49.
WeisP. P.WieseE. (2019b). Using tools to help us think: Actual but also believed reliability modulates cognitive offloading. Human Factors, 61(2), 243–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720818797553
XingW.SongY.LiC.LiuZ.ZhuW.OhH. (2025). Development of a generative AI-powered teachable agent for middle school mathematics learning: A design-based research study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(5), 2043–2077. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13586
52.
XuX.QiaoL.ChengN.LiuH.ZhaoW. (2025). Enhancing self-regulated learning and learning experience in generative AI environments: The critical role of metacognitive support. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(5), 1842–1863. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13599
53.
YakutA. D.AkgulS. (2024). A systematic literature review: The Self-concept of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 47(3), 182–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487231182407
54.
YanL.GreiffS.LodgeJ. M.GaševićD. (2025). Distinguishing performance gains from learning when using generative AI. Nature Reviews Psychology, 4, 435–436. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-025-00467-5
55.
YanL.GreiffS.TeuberZ.GaševićD. (2024). Promises and challenges of generative artificial intelligence for human learning. Nature Human Behaviour, 8(10), 1839–1850. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02004-5
56.
ZhangS.ZhaoX.ZhouT.KimJ. H. (2024). Do you have AI dependency? The roles of academic self-efficacy, academic stress, and performance expectations on problematic AI usage behavior. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00467-0
57.
ZhouL.WangM.ZhangZ. (2021). Intensive longitudinal data analyses with dynamic structural equation modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 24(2), 219–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428119833164
