The UK education landscape is at a crossroads. As we move toward the ten-year vision outlined in the Department for Education’s (DfE) Every Child Achieving and Thriving White Paper, the focus is shifting towards “support-first” models. At the heart of this shift is the recognition that inclusion, belonging and relationships are central to short, medium and long term outcomes for our next generation.
However, the world has moved on rapidly, and policy is already struggling to keep pace. The rise of Artificial Intelligence has introduced a silent, additional threat not fully captured in the White Paper’s original scope: cognitive offloading. As AI agents become ubiquitous, young people face the temptation to outsource their thinking, believing everything that they are told by their AI companion of choice. In doing so, and unbeknown to them, they risk losing one of their most fundamental human traits. Curiosity.
This leaves educators with a dual challenge. How do we deliver on the ambitious, inclusive promises of the White Paper while simultaneously challenging the intellectual passivity posed by AI? To succeed, we must look beyond mere “support” and rebuild the relational architecture of our schools to defend humanity’s hunger for intrinsic inquiry over extrinsic enquiry.
This blog explores how the emerging science of listening and curiosity addresses both challenges simultaneously. By training staff in “radical curiosity” and “listening to learn,” we can provide the support-first environment the DfE demands whilst helping young people to become active, critical thinkers who are AI-enabled and not AI-enervated.
The Power of “Listening to Learn”
In our fast-paced classrooms, we often default to “listening to respond” where we wait for a gap to provide an answer or a correction. Real connection, however, requires what researchers Lyubomirsky and Reis (2026) refer to as “listening to learn” and “radical curiosity”.
Recent research involving over 600 participants found that high-quality listening behaviours (e.g. eye contact, verbal validation, and body posture) are consistently linked to deeper social connection. However, the most vital discovery was that follow-up questions are the single most reliable predictor of interpersonal connection. When a teacher or mentor uses the phrase “tell me more,” they aren’t simply gathering additional information. They are actively satisfying the young person’s fundamental basic needs of autonomy, agency and affinity.
Curiosity as a Trainable State
One of the most encouraging findings from research by Letendre Jauniaux and Lawford (2024) for the education sector is that interpersonal curiosity is not a fixed trait. Which means, like reading, writing and scrolling, it is trainable. We can explicitly teach mentors and teachers to move beyond cursory check-ins and instead practice observable behaviours like asking deep, searching and profound open-ended questions.
Furthermore, for children and young people who have experienced chronic rejection or have learned to be guarded around adults, a teacher or mentor who listens with genuine curiosity offers a “corrective relational experience”. This process builds a mechanism of trust that transactional conversations with Claude, Gemini or other chatbots simply cannot reach.
Curiosity versus Closure
This is where we must address the risk of cognitive offloading. As AI tools become ubiquitous, there is a temptation for students to accept the “answer-delivery” model of technology, which provides immediate results without the need for genuine understanding (closure) and further enquiry (curiosity).
The danger is twofold:
- The Erosion of Enquiry: If a student believes an AI agent has the final, objective truth, the drive to ask “why” or “how” will wither. Without knowledge of the process used to arrive at a chat response, how does one really trust the fast-food version of truth that is delivered to you even faster than your last Deliveroo order? If responsibility for critical thinking is abdicated in this way then truth becomes subjective and trust will atrophy at the same rate as our cognitive muscles.
- The Relational Void: While AI can generate follow-up questions, it cannot be genuinely curious about the answers. Words can express feelings but cannot truly communicate meaning, perspective, life experience, desires, motives, values or other aspects of the human condition. Reciprocity and mutuality are key concepts in the world of effective evidence-based mentoring and these form magical connections that cannot be mimicked by code, networks or data.
The true value and real power of AI within education lies not in the model itself, but in the “pedagogical architecture” we build around it. In other words, using AI as scaffolding to support the learning process, rather than accepting the delivered results as being gospel truths. We must ensure that this latest technology complements human ingenuity, just like its predecessors of the internet, calculators, cars, telephones, printing presses and the alphabet.
Safeguarding the Hunger for Connection
Even if they do not articulate this directly, young people today hunger for genuine human connection. The emergent societal risk is that these Relational Voids are quickly filled by Instagram influencers and, more recently, AI companions. In an era where digital information is a commodity and sustained focus a scarcity, the ability to command attention, cultivate curiosity, and forge connection is a superpower.
As we reform our schools into inclusive mainstream communities, we must prioritise training our staff in these uniquely human skills. By leveraging deep and trusted relationships to foster “radical curiosity,” we do more than just improve academic outcomes. We provide the relational safety nets that will allow all children and young people to truly thrive in the uncertain future that faces them.
As we navigate this technological frontier, we must acknowledge a fundamental truth that was recently highlighted in global discourse that was skillfully sparked by Pope Leo XIV. True development is the experience of those who allow themselves to be “shaped by life and grow over time through choices, mistakes, forgiveness and fidelity.” Put simply, AI does not undergo experiences, does not possess a body, and does not feel joy or pain. While it may imitate language and simulate empathy, it lacks the “affective, relational and spiritual perspective through which human beings grow in wisdom.”
Our goal is clear. We must teach young people not merely to find answers. We should cultivate their curiosity to question their answers and always seek more.