<record>
  <header>
    <identifier>oai:eurokd.com:article/2078</identifier>
    <datestamp>2026-04-23</datestamp>
  </header>
  <metadata>
    <oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/">
      <dc:title>Toward Cognitively Grounded AI: Can a Working Memory Interface Bridge Individual Differences and System Design?</dc:title>
      <dc:relation>Volume 3</dc:relation>
      <dc:creator>Hassan Mohebbi</dc:creator>
      <dc:creator>Richard L. Sparks</dc:creator>
      <dc:creator>Zhisheng (Edward) Wen</dc:creator>
      <dc:subject>Working Memory</dc:subject>
      <dc:subject>Cognitive Load Theory</dc:subject>
      <dc:subject>Individual Differences</dc:subject>
      <dc:subject>Language Aptitude</dc:subject>
      <dc:subject>Artificial Intelligence in Education</dc:subject>
      <dc:subject>Instructional Design</dc:subject>
      <dc:subject>Ethics of Educational Technology</dc:subject>
      <dc:subject>Human–Computer Interaction</dc:subject>
      <dc:description>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;The rapid integration of generative AI into language education has exposed a dual challenge: a &amp;ldquo;grounding gap&amp;rdquo; in its cognitive shallowness, and a profound ethical peril that such technology may accommodate rather than empower learners. This editorial interrogates whether a bridge is possible. We argue that working memory (WM)&amp;mdash;empirically central to language aptitude and learning&amp;mdash;offers the most viable, if fraught, interface for such a bridge. We introduce the Cognitive Load&amp;ndash;WM Interaction (CLWM) Matrix not as a solution, but as a critical heuristic and necessary safeguard. It is designed to enforce a key distinction: between AI that grounds learning by managing cognitive load and AI that bypasses cognitive effort. From this, we derive a dual-path risk-aware research agenda, focused on developing WM-aware pedagogical specifications and probing hybrid AI architectures. The conclusion is not a blueprint, but a condition: progress in AI must be subordinated to progress in understanding and protecting the human cognitive processes it seeks to engage.&lt;/p&gt;</dc:description>
      <dc:publisher>Individual Differences in Language Education: An International Journal </dc:publisher>
      <dc:date>2026-04-23</dc:date>
      <dc:type>Text</dc:type>
      <dc:identifier>https://api.eurokd.com/Uploads/Article/2078/idle.2025.03.01.pdf</dc:identifier>
      <dc:identifier>https://doi.org/10.32038/idle.2025.03.01</dc:identifier>
      <dc:language>en</dc:language>
      <dc:coverage>Pages 1–13</dc:coverage>
    </oai_dc:dc>
  </metadata>
</record>