- primarytechreview
- Jun 29
- 5 min read
Updated: Jul 11
One morning in mid-November, the South Korean nation falls silent. Flights are grounded to keep the skies quiet. Police motorbikes are on standby, ready to escort late-running teenagers through the traffic. This is the morning of the Seneung, an eight-hour college entrance exam that defines a Korean student's 12-year school journey.
To western observers, this intense ritual is often seen as a cautionary tale of a high-stress, "pressure cooker" culture. The reality I saw while living in Korea is more nuanced. The same, hyper-disciplined environment that has drawn criticism over the stresses it places on pupils has also contributed to an economic miracle, transforming South Korea from a war-torn nation into a global superpower.
To truly understand South Korea's education system, we have to consider the nuances of Korean society. We must explore a world where families strive for the top 1% of grades in a class, where teachers are highly-respected professionals and where late-night cram schools, known as hagwons, form a multi-billion dollar industry and illuminate the evening skyline.
The bright side: education as a national superpower
During my five years in Korea, one of the first cultural shocks I experienced was how highly teachers are regarded. In Korea, the word for teacher, 'seonsaengnim' carries an inherent weight of respect. (It is also frequently shortened to 'Sam', which confused me for about 6 months, as I thought the students had given me a nickname!) Teachers are viewed as pillars of society and teaching is a highly competitive profession, offering prestigious positions.
To understand why teachers are regarded in this way, you have to understand Confucian ideals, Korean history and where South Korea started.
Korean society has been heavily influenced by the teaching of Confucius. Under Confucian doctrine, a teacher is a moral guide and a facilitator of character development. Confucius pioneered the doctrine of teaching without classification, educating anyone willing to learn, regardless of social class. Students are expected to demonstrate respect, diligence, humility and obedience towards teachers, showing gratitude for the guidance that teachers provide. These things are all evident in the way that students speak to teachers, and I experienced them from when I arrived in Korea.
Following the Korean War, South Korea was one of the poorest countries on Earth, almost devoid of natural resources. The government decided to invest in its people as a resource, building an exceptional public school system and cultivating a literate, mathematically brilliant generation that propelled South Korea to being a leader in electronics, engineering, shipbuilding and manufacture.
The public school system was designed to be a social equaliser. Children in rural and urban areas were guaranteed high-quality schools, committed teachers and opportunities to develop. Programs like English Program in Korea (EPIK) aimed to place a native speaker teacher in all schools, lessening the need for private education. Korea operates a five year teacher rotation system, aimed at preventing schools from monopolising teaching talent, regardless of their location and the wealth of attending families. Inequalities persist, as evident in the clamour to attend schools in Seoul's wealthy Gangnam area, but students across Korea are guaranteed high-quality facilities and committed, well-trained teachers.
The Korean education system offers students amazing opportunities to better themselves and obtain roles in world-leading companies. Success is the result of grit, hard work and determination. However, the power of these opportunities has also created intense competition, as success is often defined by fine margins. To get ahead, families are forced to enter an educational 'arms race' and they look to the hagwon system.
The shadow reality: entering the parallel universe of hagwons
Walking around the streets of Seoul or Busan at 10:00pm, you will witness a mix of employees returning home, people leaving bars and restaurants and children boarding yellow buses as the hagwon curfew takes effect. These children have left school at 4:00pm, attended two or three different hagwons (from the words 'hag' = study and 'won' = room), eaten some Korean street food and are now returning home for dinner and to complete their homework. It is not uncommon for Korean children in middle school to go to bed at around midnight.
To understand why hagwons are so embedded in Korean society, you have to understand the role of the Suneung exam.
Because the state school system functions so effectively and study is so highly regarded in Korean society, basic maths and literacy skills are almost universal. As such, the margins for success become incredibly fine, with one mark on a test potentially meaning an entire percentage rank. Dropping a mark can lock students out of the prestigious "SKY" universities (Seoul, Korea and Yonsei Universities), precluding them from working for the top Korean companies such as Samsung, LG and Hyundai, and affecting social standing.
As the stakes are so high, study in public schools is rarely seen as enough. Children continue their study after school in hagwons, drilling test questions, knowledge, vocabulary and grammar. Some of the material covered in hagwons is years ahead of what is being taught in schools, creating situations where children enter school classrooms having already learned the content the teacher has prepared under the curriculum.
Some teachers are considered 'star lecturers', passing on techniques for helping children ace the Seneung exams in return for high private tuition fees. This is sometimes considered to be a 'shadow tax' on families, with parents desperate to ensure their children don't fall behind. The pressure is also felt by children, who become increasingly stresseed during the school year. Sociologists are now pointing to the pressure of Korea's education system as being a contributing factor to the county's low birth rate.
The modern shift: humanising the system
There is an active, passionate conversation taking place in Korea on how to protect the mental health and creativity of the younger generation. The South Korean government has initiated major reforms to shift the focus from rote memorisation to creative education, curiosity and well being.
One significant reform has been the 'Free Semester' system (Jaku-hakgu-je). For one full semester, standard mid-term and final exams are completely eliminated. Instead, the daily routine changes completely. Students spend their morning on core subjects and their afternoons practising hand-on, creative activities. This includes robotics, culinary arts, theatre or exploring future career interests.
More recently, the government has taken steps to address the hagwon industry's grip on the Suneung by banning so called 'killer questions'. These were complex, university-level logic and maths questions hidden inside the high-school exam. Because public school teachers were restricted to the school curriculum, preparing for these questions was exclusively the domain of hagwon lessons. The Ministry of Education is again trying to level the playing field, giving fairer opportunities to lower income families and giving children back aspects of their childhood.
Lessons from the Korean system
My five years living in Korea also taught me that there is a beautiful cultural belief present in Korea's education system, that every child, through grit, determination, focus and humility, supported by dedicated and talented teachers has the power to transform their own destiny. Korea's education system is built on incredible respect for educators and a national commitment to progress.
The lesson South Korea offers the world isn't that we should copy their competitive hagwon system. Instead, Korea serves as a case study for when a society values education above everything else. Teachers are viewed as experts, guides and mentors who are driven to improve society as a whole. Schools are well maintained, well equipped centres of community learning, offering a universal basis for learning and self-development. Gradually, Korean society is taking steps to maintain its drive for improvement, while removing some of the pressure felt by children and families, particularly in less affluent areas. If we can emulate the Korean drive for success and maintain children's balance and happiness, we can learn from Korea's fascinating education evolution.
We are witnessing strikingly different approaches from countries around the world to incorporating AI into the classroom.
Some countries, such as China, are fully embracing the power of AI in primary education, while others, such as the UK, are engaged in trials to explore the impact that this technology might have. Norway has recently made the news for placing strict restrictions on AI use for primary-aged children.
Much of the consideration behind these different approaches comes from desire to develop children's cognitive abilities. As we will see, while countries are approaching this in different ways, all agree that cognitive development is a crucial part of primary education.
In this post, we will explore the distinct approaches taken by Norway, the UK, Estonia and China towards primary children using AI in education. The discussion will consider both the practical implications of each approach, as well as the research and philosophy behind the differing approaches of each country.
Norway - Guarding child development and the cognitive struggle
Norway's policy towards generative AI in education is rooted in cognitive psychology, as well as broader psychological considerations around use of technology by young children.
In 2025, the Norwegian Government published the white paper, 'Safe upbringing in a digital society,' (link)
This report laid out the government's objectives for keeping children safe in a digital society. It included considerations around screentime, privacy, online content, bullying and pitfalls relating to use of artificial intelligence by children.
On the topic of artificial intelligence (pages 19-20), the report did not raise the issue of use of AI by children lessening cognitive challenges. Instead, the report discussed how children can attribute emotions and intentions to AI tools. The report stated that parasocial relationships can develop as children bond with AI tools. It stated that children were vulnerable to manipulation by AI tools and that children had developed relationships with AI tools which were incapable of empathy or understanding.
On 19th June 2026, the Norwegian government published a press release, stating concerns that use of generative AI by primary children was affective their cognitive abilities. (link)
The press release stated,
"Several rounds of international surveys such as PISA and PIRLS show large drops in Norwegian students' basic skills, such as reading, writing and arithmetic. Uncritical use of generative AI can lead to students skipping important stages of learning."
The release went on to state,
"Our children must learn to find their own answers, not have them ready made by AI. They do not have the academic foundation, the critical reflection and self-regulation needed to use AI in a good way. They must learn to read for themselves, write for themselves, do math for themselves and think for themselves."
Coupled with this, the Norwegian government is also legislating to provide access to physical books. The press release stated,
"We are now sending a clear signal to municipalities that they must prioritise physical books to a greater extent."
The situation in Norway does not equate to a ban of AI in schools. As the press release stated, children in grades 1-7 will not be generally be given access to AI. In grades 8 - 10, AI can be used cautiously and gradually, depending on teacher competence. In upper secondary education, students will use AI appropriately to prepare them for further education and work.
In fact, the aforementioned white paper, 'Safe upbringing in a digital society,' stated,
"Artificial intelligence (AI) will play a significant role in pupils' future. Schools must prepare them for this...Schools must equip pupils for a future involving AI, enabling them to act with ethical awareness and critically reflect on the consequences of technology for individuals and society."
The UK - Piloting AI tools for personalised support
The UK Department for Education (DfE) is currently engaged in research and consultation on pupils using AI tools in the classroom. The DfE recognises the potential for use of AI in education, but places a high threshold to be overcome if AI tools are used, in terms of protecting students' privacy, data and cognitive work.
In the UK government policy paper, 'Generative AI in Education', updated 2025, (link), the government recognised,
"We have limited evidence on the impact if AI use on learners' development, the relationship of AI use and educational outcomes and the safety implications of children and young people using this technology in the classroom."
In the same paper, the DfE recognised that generative AI can be used for outcomes including,
tailored feedback and revision activities
supporting personalised learning
If pupils use AI tools, the DfE states that,
"Pupils should only use generative AI with appropriate safeguards in place, such as close supervision and the use of tools with safety and filtering and monitoring features."
Furthermore, in the the 'Generative AI product safety standards' (link), the DfE states that developers and suppliers should,
"Make every effort to mitigate the potential for cognitive deskilling, or long term developmental harm to learners."
In 'Generative AI in Education' (2025), the DfE outlines the piloting of an edtech evidence board, which is a group of experts who are assessing and evaluating the evidence and quality that edtech tools have a positive impact on teaching and learning.
Much of the guidance from the DfE seems to currently focus on efficacy of AI tools in schools by teachers, with more references currently to teacher outcomes in descriptions of research and pilot projects than use by students.
The National Literacy Trust carried out research (link) which details young people's experience of using generative AI for support with writing. This research drew some interesting conclusions, including that,
Many young people used generative AI to support aspects of writing, from improving vocabulary (39.5%) to more creative or interactive purposes, such as asking for feedback on writing (20.7%) or to turn ideas into a story (19.3%).
1 in 5 (18%) young people who did not enjoy writing asked AI for feedback on their writing, indicating the potential of AI tools to support a broader range of learners
48.9% of young people who used AI added their own thoughts into it, 42.8% checked outputs as they could be wrong. 25.1% admitted to 'just copying' AI outputs when using it form homework.
The UK approach to children using AI in education is currently one of open minded research and data gathering, with an onus on providers of edtech products and ultimately schools, to check that AI tools do not harm students, including harming their cognitive development. As more data is gathered from focus groups and pilots, government policy and guidelines on provision of AI tools to students will develop further.
Estonia - Systematic adoption of AI tools for students
In contract to the UK's evolving strategy based on trials, input form expert panels and feedback from research organisations, Estonia's approach to AI is heavily formalised though a new, national strategy.
This strategy is called the AI Leap (TI Hupe) Initiative (link). The strategy, as reported by the European Commission (link), was designed to enhance personalised learning and improve efficiency in education. Under this strategy, in 2025, 20,000 students from grades 10-11 gained access to AI-powered learning applications. In 2026, this will be extended to vocational schools, giving an additional 38,000 students access to AI-powered learning applications.
To support this initiative, teacher training is already underway in Estonia and negotiations with Open AI and Anthropic have been initiated.
Interestingly, the cover page of the AI Leap website (link) recognises the risks to cognitive development that can be presented by use of AI tools. The website states,
"Delegating homework to machines is already common. Without intervention, the strongest would benefit from AI, but many students' critical thinking development would suffer."
The vision of the AI Leap program are stated as being,
Together with teachers, students and parents, we shape an education where AI support learning rather than threatens it
Estonian students and teachers have access to the best AI tools, as well as the skills and mindset for their smart and repsonsible use
Estonia is a global leader in rethinking learning in the age of AI
Students participating in the AI Leap program will gain access to an AI learning platform developed specifically for Estonian students. This is described as being different from regular Chat GPT, in that it does not give direct answers, but acts 'more like a teacher', helping students plan their learning and formulate their own conclusions.
The AI Leap program currently provides children in grades 10 - 11 with access to AI tools for education. However, as the E-Estonia summary of the AI Leap program (link) outlines, the program will be evaluated in 2027-28 with possible extension for grades 9 and younger.
China - Cultivating early computational thinking
China's Ministry of Education (link) has stated an overarching goal of AI-powered education being to,
"Cultivate innovative talent capable of dealing with future challenges."
The Ministry of Education describes the need to "ignite students' interest in science by extensively involving them in project-based learning." The Ministry also describes the need to coordinate planning between different government agencies and to implement pilot projects.
The guidance provided by the Ministry of Education suggests that AI-related courses should be included at different educational levels as a curriculum component.
At lower primary-level, this should include raising awareness among students and at upper-primary level, the focus should be on understanding and using AI technology.
Significantly, schools are encouraged to incorporate AI teaching modules across the curriculum, including in science, IT, practical activity and extracurricular activities.
The guidance stresses that high-quality AI resources should be shared and developed and that AI laboratories at universities, research institutes and high-tech companies should be available to primary and secondary school students.
In addition to this, teachers should be recruited from universities, research institutes and high-tech companies to serve as part time teacher. Schools in rural areas should engage in teacher exchanges and should engage in interconnectivity between AI-related courses.
The Australian Government Department of Education (link) reports China's AI Education goals for primary level as being:
Cognition | Spark interest through hands-on experiences with smart devices and basic AI concepts like speech and image recognition |
Skills | Develop basic AI skills by using simple tools, visual programming and practising data handling |
Thinking | Build foundational thinking by practising logical reasoning, task breakdown, and comparing AI with human behaviour |
Values | Deepen ethical understanding by recognising AI's strategic role in innovation and evaluating misinformation risks in generative technologies |
China's goals for using AI in primary education include allowing children to understand the computational power of this technology itself, as well as benefitting from its outputs for their work across the curriculum. China aims to enthuse children about this technology and spark their curiosity and imagination, preparing them for innovative use of AI tools in secondary education and beyond.
Conclusion - Are we asking the right question?
As we look at the global landscape of AI in education, from Norway's careful consideration of cognition and development, to China's ambition for children's discovery and innovation, it is easy to frame the question as,
"Should children use AI in primary education?"
Instead, the differences in global perspectives show us that we must focus on the needs of the child and not on the technology itself.
The question we should ask is:
"What do primary children fundamentally need to develop into healthy, capable thinkers and what are the right tools to achieve that?"
When we reframe the question like this answers become clear, nuanced and actionable.
Above all, children need to be safe and healthy. They should not be given access to tools that are not monitored and safe, whatever the perceived benefits.
Children need foundational cognitive architecture. They need to learn how to solve problems logically and independently. They need to realise that struggle is a necessary component to development and they need to learn to appreciate and celebrate mistakes as opportunities to learn and grow. Children should have the chance to develop physically, develop fine and gross motor skills and develop strong communication and social skills.
Children need equity and support. Children who have barriers to their learning should be provided with tools that enable them to overcome these barriers. These could be technological tools, educational resources, staff resources or taught strategies for coping.
Knowledge is fundamental. Children need to be taught the value of knowledge as a foundation for creative self-expression. While technology can help children acquire knowledge, it should never be a substitute for children obtaining their own knowledge and appreciating the value of knowledge.
The differences in approaches to AI in primary education are notable in the four countries that we looked at. Significantly, all four countries mention cognitive development in the consideration of their strategy for AI in primary education, but approach this from different angles.
By framing the discussion around children's needs, rather than technological tools, countries can ensure that the approach they take is grounded in consideration of what children need to grow healthily and academically. It is likely that all countries could learn from the approach and rationale of other countries, and international dialogue and cooperation on incorporation of AI into primary education is therefore essential.
- primarytechreview
- Jun 17
- 6 min read
The primary national curriculum for computing states,
'A high-quality computing education equips pupils to use computational thinking and creativity to understand and change the world.'
Computational thinking is a good example of metacognition, which requires children to be aware of the thinking process behind a problem, as well as the outcome itself.
Computational thinking is usually defined as:
1) Decomposition - Breaking a problem down into solvable parts
2) Pattern recognition - Looking for repetition within a problem
3) Abstraction - filtering out important information
4) Algorithm design - creating a process for solving a task
5) Debugging - fixing and correcting errors
I would also include elements like:
Task analysis - Being aware of the tools, information and support available
Generalisation - thinking about approaches that have worked in similar problems
Prioritisation - deciding on which aspects to focus first
The first five elements of computational thinking use language that is well-associated with computing, although, as we will explore, possibly also relevant to other subjects.
The second three elements are more obviously applicable to tasks across the whole curriculum.
Applying computational thinking in primary computing
Let's take a programming task and consider how computational thinking might enable students to solve it successfully.
Using Lego Spike Prime kits, we might ask students to build a robot that retrieves an object, possibly in the context of a rescue or retrieval of a hazardous material.
The first thing I would always encourage students to consider in a task like this is the task specification, including limitations, requirements, instructions, support and materials available. Consideration of these elements is a highly transferable, metacognitive skill.
Training pupils to consider the task specifications helps them become independent, successful problem solvers. Time is an important aspect of the available materials, one that pupils often fail to budget successfully without practice and scaffolding. The task specifications should include precise, measurable requirements, which the students will continuously self-assess their work against.
I would then encourage children to consider generalisation, thinking about where they have solved similar problem before. Making these connections can give them confidence and save them time.
I believe the next step of a problem like this would be decomposition. Children should break a problem like this down into elements like: 1) making the robot drive forwards the correct amount, 2) Making a 'grabber' arm lower, 3) Making the robot reverse the correct amount.
Pattern spotting would allow students to realise that the drive forward and drive backward amounts should be the same. Likewise, the amount that the grabber lowers would be the same as the amount that it raises.
Abstraction would allow the students to ignore aspects like the robots using sensors, or needing to turn (unless they opted for these things as a solution!)
Algorithm design might include them measuring the distances carefully. before creating a block-based program to control the robot. They should not expect it to be perfect first time, which is where debugging would form a natural part of the process.
Metacognition across the primary curriculum
What do subjects other than computing require in terms of awareness of metacognition?
Interestingly, metacognitive approaches are mentioned in almost all primary subjects.
In Maths, the national curriculum requires that students 'reason mathematically' and 'apply their thinking to a variety of routine and non-routine problems with increasing sophistication'. This requires children to justify their answers, think systematically and identify patterns.
In English, the terms 'self correction', 'proofreading' and 'evaluation' are used, requiring students to reflect upon their thought processes and to justify their choices of language.
In PE, children are required to 'recognise their own success' and 'develop an understanding of how to improve in physical activities'.
For primary history, children are required, under the 'sifting evidence' requirement, to ask, 'why was this written? Am I assuming this person was telling the truth because they lived back the? What are my biases?' Children are required to step outside their own 21st century mindset and evaluate how historical figures might have thought differently.
In geography, children are required to consider field data against their hypothesis, using metacognitive evaluation to ask questions like, 'Did we measure at the wrong time of day?' and 'How should we change out data collection strategy next time?'
Primary science heavily mentions metacognition, requiring children to 'ask relevant questions and use different types of scientific enquiries to answer them', set up 'simple and practical enquiries , comparative and fair tests', and 'make systematic and careful observations'. Pupils are asked to consider whether their original hypothesis was correct, thinking about their original thinking and considering whether misconceptions affected their original ideas.
Art is also heavily dependent on metacognition at primary level. A sketchbook is a visible record of children's thinking process and children should frequently evaluate the tools they use in their preliminary work. Children should be taught to consider the process as much as the outcome, dispelling conceptions that a child is 'bad at art' and focusing instead of effective steps and techniques.
A common metacognitive approach
It is clear from these examples that effective metacognition is an important part of success across the primary curriculum.
As well as enabling academic success, metacognition helps children to move from a fixed, to a growth mindset. Children start to associate success with the quality of their planning, discussion and strategy, instead of any perceived inherent abilities, or uncontrollable factors.
A question I would like to explore is,
Is it possible, and beneficial to develop a common metacognitive approach that children could use across the primary curriculum?
This questions is made of two aspects:
1) Is it possible? Are there enough similarities between subjects that common metacognitive language can be used?
2) Is it beneficial? Would creating a common metacognitive framework aid be a valuable resource for teachers and students, or would it risk becoming an oversimplified, extraneous document?
As a primary computing specialist, I would begin a common, metacognitive approach from the initial perspective of computational thinking, which provides a framework with potential for scope across the curriculum.
Tasks in any subject can be introduced with a precise specification, discussed with the students. This will include a success criteria, discussion of resources available, constraints, time and measurable goals. At the specification stage, children will consider they types of thinking that will enable success in a task - whether this is careful consideration of historical evidence or being aware of misconceptions in science.
Generalisation will help students identify where they have done this, or a similar activity before, saving them time and allowing them to draw on previous success and lessons. This satisfies the requirements in Maths, that children 'reason mathematically' and 'apply their thinking to a variety of routine and non-routine problems with increasing sophistication', as children make connections between practise work and application of Maths to problems.
Decomposing a task is an important aspect of tasks in all subjects. Through breaking a task down, children learn to tackle each aspect with precision and focus. They learn which aspects to prioritise and they learn the value of practising individual disciplines within a subject.
Pattern recognition is a vital part of subjects across the curriculum. When I taught primary English, I was a huge fan of Alan Peat, who provides common sentence patterns and structures to help children with writing in different genres. In English, children can learn patterns of writing like 'speech, action, speech, action' when they are writing dialogue. In Music, children will learn that certain rhythms or chords can create moods in Music, in PE, children can learn patterns of movements or patterns of play to help them succeed in games.
Abstraction, while a computing term, is applicable to other subjects, helping children 'rule out' information that they do not need to consider. Teaching children to do this helps them stay focused on the task and reduces their cognitive load. It also helps children manage their time effectively.
'Algorithm design' is also a term heavily associated with computing, but it essentially translates to a pupil's solution, including the recognition that this solution is usually a first draft. This could be a solution to a problem in Maths, a written argument or the method for a scientific experiment.
Debugging is the term used in computing for fixing errors, but realising that a piece of work has scope for improvement is a concept that is applicable in all subjects. As mentioned, English refers to 'self correction; and 'proofreading' and an important component of Maths lessons should be children identifying and fixing their errors. Creative subjects like Art and Music should involve time for students to reflects upon and improve their work, Science should involve children considering whether their results were reliable and precise.
Conclusions
I believe the foundations of a common metacognitive approach across primary subjects are there, although the wording and terminology of a common approach would need careful consideration.
Schools that could create such a resource could raise the profile of metacognition in school and produce a document that teachers and students could refer to in lessons.
Albert Einstein famously remarked,
"If I had an hour to solve a problem, I'd spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and five minutes thinking about the solution".
Thinking is clearly a vital part of subjects across the national curriculum. Developing a metacognitive framework would recognise the importance of thinking compared to the final product. This would benefit students' mindset, learning and success.
