Mathematical understanding in the age of artificial intelligence: risks and reconfiguration of mathematical competence
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64325/IJIP.v3i2.57Keywords:
Mathematics education, generative artificial intelligence, epistemology, epistemological risk, epistemic agencyAbstract
This article presents a theoretical-critical narrative review, supported by a structured literature search, of the epistemological implications of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) in mathematics education. The synthesis included 35 sources: 22 theoretical and foundational contributions and 13 recent studies or reviews on AI and learning. It argues that the availability of systems capable of producing plausible solutions, proofs, and explanations weakens the equivalence between a correct answer and genuine understanding. The notion of epistemic risk has precedents in philosophy of science; the specific contribution of this paper is to adapt it to mathematics education as a condition in which students obtain formally valid products while delegating reasoning, validation, and metacognitive regulation. Mathematical competence is reconceptualized as an integrated system of reasoning, modeling, judgment, and critical validation, organized around epistemic agency. Such agency becomes observable when learners justify decisions, make assumptions explicit, contrast sources, detect inconsistencies in AI-generated responses, and autonomously reformulate solutions. Finally, implications are derived for task design, teacher mediation, and the assessment of mathematical judgment.
Downloads
References
Artigue, M. (2002). Learning mathematics in a CAS environment. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7(3), 245–274. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022103903080
Artigue, M. (2014). Didactical engineering in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85(3), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-014-9548-0
Bastani, H., Bastani, O., Sungu, A., Ge, H., Kabakcı, Ö., & Mariman, R. (2025). Generative AI without guardrails can harm learning: Evidence from high school mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(26), e2422633122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2422633122
Bauer, E., Greiff, S., Graesser, A. C., Scheiter, K., & Sailer, M. (2025). Looking beyond the hype: Understanding the effects of AI on learning. Educational Psychology Review, 37, Article 45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10020-8
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 610–623). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
Biddle, J. B. (2020). On predicting recidivism: Epistemic risk, tradeoffs, and values in machine learning. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 52(3), 321–341. https://doi.org/10.1017/can.2020.27
Biddle, J. B., & Kukla, R. (2017). The geography of epistemic risk. In K. C. Elliott & T. Richards (Eds.), Exploring inductive risk: Case studies of values in science (pp. 215–238). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190467715.003.0011
Carnap, R. (1934). The logical syntax of language. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Chevallard, Y. (1998). La transposición didáctica: Del saber sabio al saber enseñado. Aique.
Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195333213.001.0001
Comte, A. (1853). The positive philosophy of Auguste Comte. Calvin Blanchard.
Ernest, P. (1991). The philosophy of mathematics education. Falmer Press.
Fan, Y., Tang, L., Le, H., Shen, K., Tan, S., Zhao, Y., Shen, Y., Li, X., & Gašević, D. (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
Floridi, L. (2014). The fourth revolution: How the infosphere is reshaping human reality. Oxford University Press.
Floridi, L., & Chiriatti, M. (2020). GPT-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. Minds and Machines, 30, 681–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09548-1
Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education: China lectures. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gravemeijer, K. (1994). Developing realistic mathematics education. Freudenthal Institute.
Hiebert, J. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 17(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00302375
Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65–97). Macmillan.
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., Stadler, M., Weller, J., Kuhn, J., & Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. National Academy Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9822
Lo, C. K. (2023). What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature. Education Sciences, 13(4), Article 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040410
Mollick, E. R., & Mollick, L. (2023). Using AI to implement effective teaching strategies in classrooms: Five strategies, including prompts. The Wharton School Research Paper. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4391243
Niss, M. (2003). Mathematical competencies and the learning of mathematics. In A. Gagatsis & S. Papastavridis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Mediterranean Conference on Mathematical Education (pp. 115–124). Hellenic Mathematical Society.
Niss, M., & Højgaard, T. (2019). Mathematical competencies revisited. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 102(1), 9–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-019-09903-9
Rabardel, P. (1995). Les hommes et les technologies: Approche cognitive des instruments contemporains. Armand Colin.
Risko, E. F., & Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 676–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Academic Press.
Selwyn, N. (2019). Should robots replace teachers? AI and the future of education. Polity Press.
Skemp, R. R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 20–26.
Skovsmose, O. (2011). An invitation to critical mathematics education. Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-442-3
Taani, O., & Alabidi, S. (2024). ChatGPT in education: Benefits and challenges of ChatGPT for mathematics and science teaching practices. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2024.2357341
Walter, Y. (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, Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00448-3
Yan, L., Greiff, S., Teuber, Z., & Gašević, D. (2024). Promises and challenges of generative artificial intelligence for human learning. Nature Human Behaviour, 8, 1839–1850. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02004-5
Yoon, H., Hwang, J., Lee, K., Roh, K. H., & Kwon, O. N. (2024). Students’ use of generative artificial intelligence for proving mathematical statements. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 56, 1531–1551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-024-01629-0
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Fernando José Hernández Gómez, Cliffor Jerry Herrera Castrillo, Teresa Hernández Castillo (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
a) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication, with the work licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license, which allows third parties to use the published work provided they attribute the authorship of the work and acknowledge its first publication in this journal.
b) Authors may enter into other independent and additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the version of the article published in this journal (e.g., including it in an institutional repository or publishing it in a book) provided they clearly indicate that the work was first published in this journal.
c) Authors are permitted and encouraged to share their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on personal websites) before and during the manuscript submission process, as this can lead to productive exchanges and greater and faster citation of the published work.
