The Illusion of Analytical Depth: AI-Mediated Responses and Contextual Reasoning Challenges in Early Childhood Teacher Education

Ratna Pangastuti; Mukhoiyaroh; Rina Insani Setyowati; Dedy Setyawan

doi:10.58421/gehu.v5i5.1606

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58421/gehu.v5i5.1606

Authors

Ratna Pangastuti Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Ampel Surabaya
Mukhoiyaroh Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Ampel Surabaya
Rina Insani Setyowati Universitas Nahdlatul Ulama Blitar
Dedy Setyawan STKIP Citra Bakti Ngada https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8033-5323

Keywords:

Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Disorientation, Contextual Reasoning, Illusion of Analytical Depth, Pedagogical Analysis

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in case-based learning, yet its implications for students’ analytical reasoning remain insufficiently examined. Previous studies have emphasized learning efficiency, user perception, and general performance outcomes, while less attention has been given to whether AI-mediated responses reflect independent analytical development or textual alignment with assessment structures. This study examined differences in students’ pedagogical analysis across unmediated and AI-mediated response conditions in early childhood teacher education. A one-group pretest-posttest design was employed involving 60 second-semester students in an Early Childhood Islamic Education Study Program. Data were collected through case-based essay tasks on child language development and assessed using an analytical rubric covering problem identification, theoretical use, language development analysis, impact analysis, and pedagogical recommendation. The posttest condition involved AI support and a mandatory prompt closely aligned with the rubric dimensions. Descriptive statistics and the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test were used to analyze score differences, while selected responses from cases of non-improvement or decline were examined to interpret possible changes in contextual reasoning. The mean score increased from 14.25 to 16.50 (Z = -6.280; p < .001; r = .81). Although 49 students improved, 7 showed no change, and 4 experienced score declines. These findings indicate that AI-mediated and prompt-structured conditions may support more organized written responses, but they do not necessarily demonstrate independently internalized analytical capacity. Selected response comparisons suggest that technical coherence may coexist with weakened contextual caution. The study highlights the limitation of product-based written assessment and the need for process-oriented assessment.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

S. A. Wati, “Teachers’ academic qualifications and their levels of proficiency on the essential teaching skills: A survey study among teachers of early childhood education programs,” mgs, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 75–85, May 2023, doi: 10.33508/mgs.v51i1.4234.

E. Pollarolo, I. Størksen, T. H. Skarstein, and N. Kucirkova, “Children’s critical thinking skills: perceptions of Norwegian early childhood educators,” European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 259–271, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.1080/1350293X.2022.2081349.

R. Rohita, E. Yetti, and T. Sumadi, “Exploring Teachers’ Views on Early Childhood Critical Thinking: Insights from Facione’s Framework,” The International Journal of Learning in Higher Education, Feb. 2026, doi: 10.18848/2327-7955/CGP/A323.

A. S. Fatimaningrum, “Analisis Tematik Permasalahan dalam Praktik Pengasuhan Anak yang Dilakukan oleh Guru Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini,” Diklus: Jurnal Pendidikan Luar Sekolah, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 128–144, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.21831/diklus.v5i2.43030.

I. Maria, S. Hartati, and N. Dhieni, “Analisis Pengembangan Profesional Pendidik Anak Usia Dini; Tren, Penelitian dan Praktik,” Jurnal Obsesi: Jurnal Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 4276–4286, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.31004/obsesi.v7i4.4567.

B. Bungatang, F. Filawati, and N. Fitrayani, “Pengaruh Metode Case Method terhadap Hasil Belajar Mahasiswa Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesia pada Materi Pemerolehan Bahasa Anak Universitas Negeri Makassar,” Jurnal Onoma: Pendidikan, Bahasa, dan Sastra, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 2409–2414, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.30605/onoma.v10i3.3839.

E. Silitubun, M. Mustaji, and U. Dewi, “The effectiveness of case-based learning in enhancing students’ critical thinking skills,” Journal of Neonatal Surgery, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 136–141, Feb. 2025, doi: 10.52783/jns.v14.1844.

D. P. Wijaya, T. Nurmasitoh, and M. D. Pramaningtyas, “The effectiveness of case-based learning for physiology practicum session,” JPKI, vol. 12, no. 3, p. 261, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.22146/jpki.46154.

L. S. Vygotsky, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978.

M. M. Y. Aseeri, “Abstract Thinking of Practicum Students at Najran University in Light of Piaget’s Theory and Its Relation to Their Academic Level,” Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 63–72, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.5430/jct.v9n1p63.

N. K. Pratiwi, B. Yulianto, M. Mintowati, H. Supratno, S. Sodiq, and M. Mulyono, “Persepsi Mahasiswa terhadap Penggunaan ChatGPT: Peluang dan Tantangan bagi Pembelajaran Bahasa Indonesia sebagai Mata Kuliah Wajib pada Kurikulum Perguruan Tinggi,” Jurnal Onoma: Pendidikan, Bahasa, dan Sastra, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 2727–2742, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.30605/onoma.v10i3.3931.

S. Rifky, “Dampak Penggunaan Artificial Intelligence Bagi Pendidikan Tinggi,” Indonesian Journal of Multidisciplinary Science and Technology, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 37–42, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.31004/ijmst.v2i1.287.

E. Kasneci et al., “ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education,” Learning and Individual Differences, vol. 103, p. 102274, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274.

J. Sweller, “Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning,” Cognitive Science, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 257–285, Apr. 1988, doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4.

G. Pitts, V. Marcus, and S. Motamedi, “Student perspectives on the benefits and risks of AI in education,” in 2025 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, Montreal, Quebec, Canada: ASEE Conferences, Jun. 2025, p. 57693, doi: 10.18260/1-2--57693.

S. Sathish Kumar, D. Kesavan, N. Marianand, and X. Naveen Raj, “Artificial intelligence and students learning: A study on outcome of technological usage (AI) in higher education platform,” in 2023 9th International Conference on Advanced Computing and Communication Systems (ICACCS), Coimbatore, India: IEEE, Mar. 2023, pp. 2077–2083, doi: 10.1109/ICACCS57279.2023.10113027.

O. Zawacki-Richter, V. I. Marín, M. Bond, and F. Gouverneur, “Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education: Where are the educators?,” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 39, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0.

I. Aprianto, S. Sofyan, S. Rahmawati, and S. Sufyadi, “Artificial intelligence and its effects on critical thinking and problem-solving abilities in higher education,” Indonesian Journal of Educational Development, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 704–719, Nov. 2025, doi: 10.59672/ijed.v6i3.5030.

A. Rahmawati, S. N. Amirah, and N. Wijaya, “Integrasi Kecerdasan Buatan dalam Pendidikan Tinggi Indonesia: Peluang, Tantangan, dan Kerangka Implementasi,” Jurnal Teknologi Sistem Informasi, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 114–126, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.35957/jtsi.v6i1.11329.

L. Rozenblit and F. Keil, “The misunderstood limits of folk science: an illusion of explanatory depth,” Cognitive Science, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 521–562, Sep. 2002, doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2605_1.

J. W. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2018.

J. R. Fraenkel, N. E. Wallen, and H. H. Hyun, How to design and evaluate research in education, 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages, 2012.

J. Pallant, SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS, 7th ed. London: McGraw-Hill Education, 2020.

A. Field, Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, 5th ed. London: SAGE Publications, 2018.

A. Demetriou, M. Shayer, and A. Efklides, Eds., Neo-Piagetian Theories of Cognitive Development: Implications and Applications for Education. London: Routledge, 2016.

W. Holmes et al., “Ethics of AI in Education: Towards a Community-Wide Framework,” International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 504–526, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s40593-021-00239-1.

P. Brazão and L. Tinoca, “Artificial intelligence and critical thinking: A case study with educational chatbots,” Frontiers in Education, vol. 10, p. 1630493, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1630493.

M. D. H. Rahiem, “Generative AI in higher education in Indonesia: Patterns of use and learning impact,” Social Sciences & Humanities Open, vol. 13, p. 102672, Jun. 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2026.102672.

M. Dgebuadze and K. Kenkebashvili, “Integrating artificial intelligence in academic writing and research methods courses for master students: A teaching model for responsible use,” International E-Journal of Advances in Education, 2025, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14719550.