Authors : Aparajita Banerjee; Richa Pathak

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 6 - June

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/8xr3d3tu

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/5n6svx2j

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26jun803

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : This paper investigates the critical intersection of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) integration and cognitive development within the Indian higher education ecosystem under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 framework. While the rapid democratization of Large Language Models (LLMs) across metropolitan hubs and Tier-2 cities has drastically eliminated resource accessibility gaps, it has simultaneously introduced severe cognitive vulnerabilities among young learners. This study examines how the exceptional textual fluency and lack of linguistic hedging in AI outputs function as a psychological camouflage, actively inducing automation bias the systemic tendency to uncritically accept automated suggestions even when they defy empirical facts or human logic. Utilizing a mixed-methods systematic literature review comprising high-impact academic sources, the research analyzes the phenomenon of "cognitive offloading," wherein students delegate core analytical tasks like literature synthesis, error detection, and data interpretation to conversational agents. This offloading fundamentally bypasses the essential phase of "productive failure," leading to an "epistemic squeeze" and the systematic erosion of metacognitive and independent judgment skills. In the context of Indian universities, these vulnerabilities are severely magnified by institutional pressures, such as high student-to-faculty ratios, exam-intensive curricula, a premium on grade scores for campus placements, and the reliance on language tools by regional-language speakers, which inadvertently facilitates epistemic colonization. To counteract this accelerating algorithmic conformism, this paper proposes a systemic shift toward Structured Epistemic Scaffolding. Actionable recommendations include redesigning evaluation architectures from output to process, integrating "friction-by-design" into early-stage curricula, institutionalizing mandatory epistemic literacy courses, and developing localized, bilingual scaffolding tools to preserve cognitive autonomy and foster AI-critical graduates.

Keywords : Automation Bias, Cognitive Offloading, Higher Education in India, Epistemic Literacy, Large Language Models (LLMs), Productive Failure.

References :

1. Parasuraman R, Manzey DH. Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional and cognitive analysis. Human Factors. 2010;52(3):381-410. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720810376055
2. Jose B. The cognitive paradox of AI in education: between enhancement and erosion. Journal of Educational Psychology and Technology. 2024;16(2):112-128.
3. Einstein A. Rethinking Critical Thinking (CT) in the Age of AI: Redesigning how/what Students Learn. Educational Development & Training - Utrecht University. 2025;8(1):45-59.
4. Skitka LJ, Mosier KL, Burdick M. Does automation bias decision-making? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 1999;51(5):991-1006. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1999.0252
5. Westbrook J, Exton C. Cognitive costs and UI design: Evaluating user friction in generative AI ecosystems. Computers in Human Behavior. 2025;142:107-121.
6. Rahyuni M, Ashadi A, Triastuti A, Hidayati S, Salido A, Ero PEL, Marlini C, Zefrin Z, Al Fuad Z. Critical Thinking in the Age of AI: A Systematic Review of AI's Effects on Higher Education. Educational Process International Journal. 2025;14(3):201-218.
7. Enqvist L. ‘Human oversight’ in the EU artificial intelligence act: what, when and by whom? Law, Innovation and Technology. 2023;15(2):508-535. https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2023.2245683
8. Gaudeul A. Understanding the Impact of Human Oversight on Discriminatory Outcomes in AI-Supported Decision-Making. Review of Behavioral Economics. 2024;11(2):143-165.
9. Abalos PNS. The Influence of Artificial Intelligence on Human Decision-Making, Productivity, and Safety in the Field of Education at Pangasinan State University. International Journal of Advances in Signal and Image Sciences. 2026;12(2s):78-92.
10. Passi S, Barocas S. Problem formulation and human oversight in automated systems. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. 2023;7(CSCW1):1-26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3579462
11. Vieriu AM. The Impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on Students' Academic Development. MDPI Education Sciences. 2025;15(3):343-361. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15030343
12. Kapur M. Productive failure in learning complexes: Designing for friction before fluency. Instructional Science. 2016;44(4):289-311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9376-6
13. Sharma R, Kumar A. Structural pressures and AI dependency: An empirical study of undergraduate digital workflows in Indian universities. Indian Educational Review. 2025;61(1):34-52.
14. Natarajan S, Pillai MV. Epistemic colonization or technological empowerment? Analyzing the cultural biases of LLMs in non-Western educational setups. Journal of Language and Postcolonial Studies. 2024;19(4):412-430.
15. Lodge JM, Thompson K, Corrin L. Mapping the hidden process: Assessment frameworks for an AI-saturated higher education sector. Higher Education Research & Development. 2024;43(2):189-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2023.2290111
16. Bender EM, Gebru T, McMillan-Major A, Shmitchell S. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM FAccT Conference. 2021;610-623. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
17. Colonna L. Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED): Towards More Effective Regulation. European Journal of Risk Regulation. 2024;15(1):74-91. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2023.89