About this essay
- Author: Michael Rowe (ORCID)
- Affiliation: University of Lincoln (mrowe@lincoln.ac.uk)
- Created: April 08, 2025
- Version: 0.7 (last updated: Feb 13, 2026)
- Keywords: cognitive metaphor, container schema, graph-based interface, knowledge networks, learning, professional education
- License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Abstract
This essay critically examines the dominant interface paradigm for AI interaction — text-entry fields, chronological chat histories, and project folders — arguing that these interfaces reproduce a deeply embedded cognitive metaphor that misaligns with how expertise develops in professional domains. Drawing on Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980) concept of the container schema, I trace how a single organising metaphor has been uncritically reproduced across physical, digital, and now AI-mediated learning environments. In each case, knowledge is enclosed within bounded spaces that obscure the networked relationships practitioners must navigate in practice. This enclosure is especially problematic in health professions education, where even routine patient encounters demand integrative thinking across traditionally separated domains.
Rather than arguing that bounded learning spaces should be eliminated, this essay explores graph-based learning environments as an alternative paradigm in which bounded spaces become visible communities within a navigable knowledge network. In this model, novice learners work within densely connected clusters of concepts — their traversal constrained but the broader network always visible — while expertise develops through progressively expanding navigational freedom across communities. Conversations with AI occur within this visual landscape, spatially anchored to relevant concepts rather than isolated in chronological chat histories. The essay proposes that graph-based interfaces, where AI serves as both conversational partner and network weaver, could open productive new directions for AI-supported learning environments. While current technologies make such interfaces feasible, the primary contribution here is pedagogical rather than technical: an exercise in imagining what becomes possible when we replace one foundational metaphor with another.
…chatbots are an odd way to interact with an AI. It is as if the only way for us to do work is through texting an intern… except you are texting a different intern in every chat, one who forgets everything you had previously discussed, and whose memory starts to fail after just a couple of pages of text.
Key takeaways
- Drawing on Lakoff and Johnson’s container schema, educational systems have uncritically reproduced a single cognitive metaphor across physical (textbooks, classrooms), digital (LMS folders, modules), and AI-mediated (chat histories, project folders) learning environments — each enclosing knowledge within bounded spaces that obscure the networked relationships practitioners must navigate in practice.
- Chat-based AI interfaces are the latest reproduction of this schema: related concepts separated by when they were discussed rather than how they relate, imposing the same cognitive reintegration burden that characterises compartmentalised curricula.
- Bounded learning spaces serve legitimate purposes for novice learners, but the problem arises when they are presented as self-contained — severing the boundary-spanning connections where integrative insight develops.
- Graph-based interfaces offer an alternative where bounded spaces become visible communities within a navigable network. Novices work within densely connected clusters with constrained traversal; expertise develops through expanding navigational freedom.
- AI conversations spatially anchored to concept nodes — rather than isolated in chronological chat histories — could create learning environments where dialogue contributes to a visible, growing knowledge network.
- The barriers to exploring this direction are less technological than conceptual and institutional; the underlying technologies exist today.
The container schema in educational design
Our education systems are structured by a metaphor so deeply embedded that we rarely notice it operating. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) identified the container schema as one of the most fundamental structures in human cognition — the tendency to understand experiences, concepts, and categories as bounded spaces with interiors, exteriors, and boundaries. We speak of being “in” a field, of ideas “falling outside” a discipline, of knowledge that needs to be “covered.” This is not merely a quirk of language. Conceptual metaphors, as Lakoff and Johnson demonstrated, shape how we reason about and interact with the world. The container schema doesn’t just describe how we talk about education; it structures how we design it.
From scrolls to learning management systems, educational design has organised learning into bounded spaces that separate and compartmentalise what is naturally connected. Courses, modules, folders, and learning management systems all structure the learning environment as if education were a process of depositing information into containers and retrieving it when needed. Modern learning management systems essentially recreate filing cabinets in digital form, with folders organised hierarchically for efficient storage and retrieval. This schema is so deeply embedded that decades of digital transformation have produced remarkably little structural change — we have recreated pre-digital organisational structures in online environments with striking fidelity. For students, this creates a fragmented educational journey as they move between separate bounded spaces without seeing how different areas interconnect in practice.
Morris and Stommel (2015) identified this pattern in their analysis of the “course as container,” arguing that the bounded course structure limits the possibilities for distributed, networked learning. Cormier (2008) offered an alternative vision through rhizomatic education, where curriculum emerges from community interaction rather than predetermined structures. Siemens (2005) and Downes (2005) articulated connectivism and personal learning environments as networked alternatives to institutional enclosures. Wilson and colleagues (2007) extended this with a systems-design critique, arguing that educational architectures follow a consistent design pattern that is actively unsupportive of networked learning and disconnected from the wider ecology of services through which knowledge is actually created and shared. These critiques share a recognition that the dominant organising metaphor constrains what is pedagogically possible.
It is worth acknowledging that this metaphor has served legitimate purposes. In an era of information scarcity, bounded spaces solved real problems: they preserved and transmitted stable knowledge, made coverage demonstrable, reduced cognitive load for novices encountering unfamiliar domains, and enabled tractable assessment. The container schema persists not because educators lack imagination but because it addresses genuine organisational needs. The question is whether these needs can be met through alternative structures that don’t carry the schema’s limiting assumptions — particularly its tendency to obscure the connections between bounded spaces.
The fragmentation this creates is especially visible in professional education, where practice demands integrated knowledge that educational structures have separated. The connections between knowledge domains — particularly the complex, conditional relationships that characterise professional decision-making — remain invisible when learning is organised into bounded modules. Knowledge learned in disconnected contexts is significantly less likely to transfer to practice environments (Frenk et al., 2010). Situated learning theory offers a deeper explanation: Lave and Wenger (1991) demonstrated that knowledge is not a portable commodity but emerges through participation in communities of practice, gaining meaning from the social and contextual relationships in which it is used — relationships that bounded educational structures systematically obscure. Many graduates report a sense of “starting over” when entering professional settings, despite years of preparation, suggesting that the problem lies not in what was learned but in how it was structured.
Health professions education illustrates this challenge acutely. A physiotherapist assessing knee pain simultaneously draws on anatomical knowledge, biomechanical principles, pain science, communication skills, and ethical frameworks — yet their education likely presented each in separate modules with distinct assessments and perhaps without explicit connection. Patients present with complex, interconnected needs that rarely respect the boundaries of curricular structure. A patient with diabetes, depression, and chronic pain requires integrated care spanning multiple knowledge domains simultaneously. Assessment typically focuses on what can be easily measured within each bounded space rather than the ability to integrate across them. The result is education that is comprehensive in breadth but lacks the connective tissue that gives knowledge meaning and utility in practice.
Several characteristics of bounded educational spaces compound this problem. The focus tends toward completeness within each space rather than connection between them, creating a preoccupation with “covering” content at the expense of understanding how it relates to knowledge elsewhere. Bounded spaces create implied ownership and territoriality: “That’s not covered in my module” becomes a defence against addressing topics that don’t fit neatly into existing structures. Updating knowledge requires opening, modifying, and re-sealing each space — a slow process ill-suited to rapidly evolving fields. And the boundaries between spaces often become barriers to knowledge transfer, particularly when they are associated with different assessment methods, teaching styles, or disciplinary languages.
These limitations create a structural impediment to developing the integrative capabilities that define professional expertise. But the response need not be to abolish bounded learning spaces altogether. Rather, it may be to reconceive them — to make the network within which they sit visible, and to treat boundaries as navigational constraints rather than epistemic walls.
The text-box problem in AI-supported learning
The rise of generative AI has seen the text-entry field and its associated chat history emerge as the standard interface for interacting with language models. At first glance, these interfaces appear to transcend the organising metaphors of traditional education through their conversational nature. A student can ask about anything, traverse domains freely, and receive integrated responses that draw on knowledge across traditional boundaries. Yet closer examination reveals that chat-based AI interfaces reproduce the container schema in conversational form — and this is the extension of the existing critique that I want to make here. Research in embodied cognition suggests this matters beyond analogy: tools absorbed into habitual use reshape the body schema, altering how practitioners perceive and reason (Kirsh, 2013). The interface through which we interact with AI is not a neutral conduit but an active shaper of the cognition it mediates.
Chat histories have become temporal enclosures, with information trapped in linear conversational streams that must be scrolled through rather than navigated conceptually. When platforms organise these chats into folders, projects, or topics, they create a meta-structure that perpetuates fragmentation rather than resolving it. The chronological structure of chat interfaces reinforces the idea that learning is a series of discrete information exchanges rather than an evolving network of understanding. From the learner’s perspective, finding previously discussed concepts means searching through conversation histories rather than navigating relationships between ideas.
This problem stems from a fundamental mismatch between linear chat threads and the networked nature of professional knowledge. Ideas that are conceptually related may appear in different conversations separated by days or weeks, with no visual representation of their relationship. Chat histories create temporal boundaries that separate related ideas based on when they were discussed rather than how they relate to each other. The mental model suggested by chat interfaces — learning as a series of questions and answers — misaligns with how expertise actually develops. Experts don’t organise their knowledge as a sequence of conversation logs; they build rich, interconnected mental models where concepts gain meaning through their relationships with other concepts. Chat-based learning requires constant context-switching between different conversation threads, imposing significant cognitive load as learners attempt to mentally reconstruct the connections that the interface itself obscures.
The solution is not simply to build better text boxes. Adding features to text interfaces — improved search, expanded memory, larger context windows — doesn’t address the underlying metaphorical problem. More sophisticated text-entry fields with better persistence still reinforce the question-answer paradigm rather than supporting exploration and connection-making. Even AI systems with perfect memory and retrieval still interact through a medium that fragments rather than integrates knowledge. Features like chat history organisation, tagging, and search essentially apply patches to what remains, at its foundation, a schema of bounded spaces. The problem isn’t the quality of AI responses but the organising metaphor through which those responses are accessed and connected.
Perhaps most concerning is how text-based AI interfaces can create an illusion of learning without necessarily supporting deeper understanding. The immediate, authoritative responses create a sense of comprehension that may mask gaps in integration and application. The conversational format makes information feel personal and meaningful even when it isn’t being woven into the learner’s developing knowledge network. The apparent ease of access can bypass the productive friction that helps encode learning more deeply. Students may find themselves with archives of chat histories that feel like learning artefacts but function more as external reference materials — recreating the fundamental problem of enclosed, disconnected knowledge stores in a new technological medium. Emerging empirical evidence supports these concerns: studies of generative AI interaction document patterns of diminished epistemic vigilance and superficial learning alongside a tendency toward emotional dependence on AI interlocutors (Yan et al., 2025).
This analysis is not a rejection of conversational interaction with AI, which can be immensely valuable for learning. Rather, it highlights how the dominant interface paradigm — the text-entry field, sequential chat history, and organisational folders — reproduces in AI-mediated learning the same schema that previous authors identified in physical and digital educational environments. Cormier (2008), Morris and Stommel (2015), and Downes (2005) articulated this critique before generative AI existed. What I am suggesting here is that the latest wave of educational technology, despite its remarkable capabilities, has reproduced the same metaphorical structure once again. If language models demonstrate remarkable capabilities for making connections across knowledge domains, we might ask whether a different organising metaphor could better amplify this potential.
From enclosure to network
If the container schema fundamentally misaligns with the realities of professional knowledge, what alternative metaphor might better serve learning? Networks offer a compelling alternative that more accurately reflects how knowledge functions in practice. Knowledge in professional contexts operates as an interconnected web where concepts gain meaning through their relationships to other concepts. Understanding a medical diagnosis isn’t simply about retrieving its definition from a bounded space but activating a complex network of relationships — symptoms, underlying mechanisms, differential diagnoses, treatment approaches, contextual factors. Network-based thinking prioritises connections, relationships, and patterns rather than isolated facts or procedures.
Networks also better reflect how practitioners actually work. When assessing a patient with low back pain, a physiotherapist doesn’t mentally access separate domains labelled “anatomy,” “biomechanics,” and “pain science.” They activate an interconnected network of knowledge that spans these artificially separated areas. Clinical decision-making involves pattern recognition across complex, interconnected variables rather than sequential application of isolated facts. Expert practitioners develop knowledge networks that span traditional disciplinary boundaries, integrating biomedical, psychosocial, and systems perspectives. They follow the contours of problems rather than the boundaries of disciplines. This network-based conception of expertise has begun to find resonance in health professions education through connectivist frameworks (Goldie, 2016), even if the interface implications have yet to be fully explored.
Crucially, adopting a network metaphor does not require abolishing bounded learning spaces. Graph theory offers a more nuanced vocabulary. In network analysis, communities are clusters of densely connected nodes with sparser connections between them (Girvan & Newman, 2002). A module on anatomy, in this reconception, is not a sealed enclosure but a community of densely connected concepts — with visible edges connecting outward to biomechanics, pathology, clinical reasoning, and beyond. The problem with current educational design is not that it clusters related concepts together (this is pedagogically sensible, particularly for novices) but that it presents these clusters as self-contained, severing the boundary-spanning connections where integrative insight develops.
Granovetter (1973) identified these boundary-spanning connections — the “weak ties” between communities — as the most valuable links in social networks, because they are the channels through which novel information flows. A parallel holds for knowledge networks: the edges between knowledge communities are precisely where integrative professional reasoning happens. Current educational design effectively severs these edges for novices and then expects graduates to reconstruct them in practice. A network-based approach would instead make these connections visible from the outset, even when constraining how far a novice can traverse them.
This reframing — from enclosed spaces to constrained traversal within a visible network — shifts the argument in important ways. It is not that novices should be exposed to the full complexity of professional knowledge at once. A first-year student encountering anatomy for the first time benefits from working within a tightly clustered community of core concepts. But the interface should make visible that this community exists within a larger network — that anatomy connects to physiology, to clinical reasoning, to patient experience. The boundary-spanning edges are visible even when they are not yet the focus of learning. As learners develop expertise, their navigational freedom expands: more communities become accessible, more edges become traversable, and the conditional relationships that characterise expert reasoning become available. The underlying structure remains the same; what changes is the learner’s capacity to navigate it.
To give this idea a firmer shape, consider what we might call a Clinical Pathway Network. Instead of organising nursing education around discrete subjects (anatomy, pharmacology, ethics), the Clinical Pathway Network organises learning around authentic clinical situations that serve as the primary navigation structure. Students move along interconnected pathways representing patient journeys or care scenarios, encountering relevant knowledge in context rather than in artificial separation. Knowledge domains appear as interconnected nodes within these pathways rather than separate bounded spaces. Assessment could focus on the quality of navigation and integration rather than on recall within isolated domains. Complementary networks — a Physiological Systems Network connecting body systems, a Decision-Making Network mapping clinical reasoning processes, Community Health Networks extending beyond clinical settings — would overlap and interweave, creating a multi-dimensional learning space that more accurately represents the complexity of professional practice.
Exploring a graph-based learning environment
Knowledge graphs as the foundational interface metaphor
If we accept networks as a more appropriate metaphor for developing professional knowledge, what might the interface through which learners engage with AI-supported environments actually look like? This section is an exercise in pedagogical imagination — exploring what becomes possible when we replace one foundational metaphor with another. The specific interface elements described here are illustrative rather than prescriptive; the underlying technologies will evolve. What matters is the shift in organising principle.
Rather than text-entry fields, chat histories, and project folders, an interface could be built around an interactive knowledge graph that visualises relationships and makes connections explicit. The central visual metaphor shifts from linear conversations to spatial networks, with nodes representing concepts and edges representing relationships. Learners would move through knowledge spaces rather than search through chat histories, seeing their emerging understanding as a growing network rather than an accumulating transcript. The central view would be a dynamic knowledge map rather than a list of courses or conversation threads. For beginners, simplified views focusing on a single community of densely connected concepts would provide scaffolding without overwhelming complexity — but the broader network would remain visible at the periphery, signalling connections yet to be explored.
AI as dialogue partner within the knowledge landscape
Within this network environment, AI could serve as both conversational partner and active weaver of knowledge connections — combining the benefits of dialogue with spatial relationship-building. This is where the graph-based approach diverges most clearly from current paradigms.
Conversations with AI would occur within the context of the graph, spatially anchored to relevant concept nodes rather than isolated in chronological chat threads. When a learner engages in dialogue with AI about a concept, that conversation becomes embedded in the network node itself, maintaining context rather than disappearing into a separate history. As conversations develop, new connections emerge from the dialogue and become visible in the graph, making the knowledge-building process explicit rather than implied — an approach grounded in the principles of cognitive apprenticeship, where expert thinking is made visible and accessible to learners rather than simply transmitted (Collins et al., 1991). Instead of responding solely with text, AI responses could include visual extensions to the network — new connections, related concepts, alternative perspectives — that the learner can evaluate and accept, modify, or reject.
Learners could move between conversational exploration (“tell me more about this concept”) and spatial navigation (“show me how this connects to what I explored last week”). The visual context would ensure that dialogues remain grounded in the broader knowledge landscape, preventing the isolated question-answer patterns of chat interfaces. AI tutoring interactions would be spatially organised by concept rather than chronologically in conversation threads, allowing learners to revisit them in meaningful contexts. This approach preserves the Vygotskian benefits of dialogue with a “more knowledgeable other” while embedding those interactions in a visible network that supports integrative thinking.
Importantly, this positions AI differently in the learning relationship. In a chat interface, AI tends toward the role of an authority delivering answers. In a graph interface, AI becomes a guide through a knowledge landscape — suggesting connections, surfacing relationships, offering alternative routes through the network. The visual representation makes AI’s suggestions transparent and navigable rather than opaque and authoritative, allowing learners to see, evaluate, and potentially modify suggested connections rather than accepting them as given. AI could progressively recede as learners develop greater confidence in navigating knowledge graphs independently, providing scaffolding that gradually fades rather than creating dependency. This addresses common concerns about AI in education — that it might replace human judgement or create passivity — by explicitly designing for collaborative rather than hierarchical relationships between learner and AI.
Multimodal knowledge representation
Knowledge nodes within the graph need not be limited to text. They could be multimodal — containing images, video, audio, simulations, or interactive elements as appropriate to the concept they represent. Rather than conversations about anatomical structures, nodes might contain manipulable 3D models. Instead of describing procedures, nodes might contain interactive simulations or video demonstrations that capture the dynamic nature of clinical skills. Clinical reasoning could be represented through interactive decision pathways rather than textual explanations. Diagnostic patterns could be presented as visual comparison galleries, supporting the pattern recognition skills that characterise expert practice.
AI could dynamically generate appropriate representations based on the nature of the knowledge and the learner’s needs, selecting the modality that best communicates each concept. This multimodal approach acknowledges that professional knowledge encompasses multiple types — declarative, procedural, conditional, tacit — that require different representational forms. By moving beyond text as the primary knowledge representation, graph interfaces could support the development of the multifaceted knowledge structures that professional practice demands.
Collaborative graph-building as social learning
Shared knowledge graphs could allow multiple learners to collaboratively build and navigate public networks, supporting the social dimensions of learning. Learners might see where their personal knowledge graphs overlap with those of peers and experts, identifying opportunities for shared exploration and complementary expertise. Collaborative annotation could enable socially constructed understanding of complex concepts, with multiple perspectives enriching the graph beyond what any individual could contribute. Different professional perspectives on the same knowledge space could be toggled, revealing how different disciplines view the same concepts and supporting the development of interprofessional understanding. Graph visualisations could reveal patterns of consensus and productive disagreement that might remain invisible in sequential, text-based exchanges.
Progressive complexity through constrained traversal
This is where the reframing of bounded spaces as communities within a network has its most direct interface implications. Rather than presenting novice learners with a fundamentally different (and simpler) interface that reverts to an enclosed metaphor, the graph-based approach would adapt navigational freedom within the same underlying structure.
Novice learners would see a view focused on a single community of densely connected core concepts — a manageable entry point into the knowledge domain. But unlike a traditional module, this community would be visibly situated within the broader network. Boundary-spanning edges would be present at the periphery — dimmed, perhaps, or available on hover — signalling that connections exist without requiring immediate engagement. As learners develop understanding, the visible network progressively reveals greater complexity: more communities become accessible, more edges become traversable, and the conditional relationships that characterise expert reasoning come into view.
Visual indicators could help learners distinguish core pathways from specialised extensions, allowing them to focus on fundamental concepts while maintaining awareness of potential depth. The system might expand navigational freedom as learners demonstrate understanding, providing developmental scaffolding that adapts to individual progress. This could include elements of game mechanics — level unlocking, achievement markers — to motivate exploration and provide a sense of progression. The interface would support the transition from guided to self-directed learning through gradually increasing navigational freedom, mirroring the developmental trajectory from novice to expert practitioner.
This progressive approach addresses the legitimate concern that network complexity might overwhelm beginners while maintaining the graph as the foundational organising metaphor throughout. It adapts the presentation of the network rather than reverting to a different metaphorical structure for novices. The underlying message to the learner is consistent: knowledge is networked, your current view shows a portion of that network, and your growing expertise will open up more of it.
Feasibility with current technology
While this vision might appear aspirational, many of its components could be implemented with technologies available today. Knowledge graphs have already been deployed in educational contexts for concept mapping, personalised learning recommendations, and curriculum design, demonstrating the viability of the core approach (Abu-Salih & Alotaibi, 2024 Annotation). Contemporary web technologies already support sophisticated graph visualisations; modern graph databases provide back-end infrastructure for representing complex knowledge relationships; progressive web applications can deliver consistent experiences across devices; and current AI capabilities — particularly frontier language models — demonstrate the pattern recognition needed for suggesting meaningful connections. Mobile extensions using capabilities like camera-based augmented reality could extend knowledge graphs into practice contexts, helping bridge the theory-practice gap. The barriers to exploring this direction are less technological than conceptual and institutional — our collective attachment to the container schema and the organisational structures built around it.
Opening up the question
The vision presented here is not a blueprint. It is an exercise in asking what becomes possible when we take seriously the idea that the organising metaphor of an interface shapes the learning that occurs within it. If Lakoff and Johnson (1980) are right that conceptual metaphors structure how we reason about the world, then the choice between enclosed and networked organising principles for educational interfaces is not merely aesthetic or technical. It shapes how learners understand knowledge itself — as something stored in bounded spaces to be retrieved, or as something that emerges through connections to be navigated.
Graph-based interfaces, by making connections visible and navigable, could support the development of the pattern recognition and integrative thinking that define professional expertise. By positioning AI as a guide through knowledge landscapes rather than an authority delivering answers within chat boxes, they could foster collaborative rather than dependent relationships with technology. By treating bounded learning spaces as communities within a visible network rather than as sealed enclosures, they could accommodate the legitimate needs of novice learners without reproducing the metaphorical limitations that current approaches carry.
Several directions flow from this reconceptualisation. Assessment could shift from measuring retention within bounded spaces to evaluating how learners navigate knowledge networks — focusing on the quality of connections made rather than the quantity of information retained. Learning analytics could move beyond tracking completion metrics to analysing patterns of connection-making, identifying the emergent understanding that develops as learners traverse knowledge communities. Educational content creation could evolve from isolated learning objects to richly connected knowledge nodes that explicitly encode relationships. Knowledge graphs used in education could connect to clinical decision support systems used in practice, creating continuity between learning and application rather than treating them as separate domains. Continuing professional development could build upon existing personal knowledge graphs, creating lifelong learning trajectories rather than episodic educational experiences.
Perhaps most importantly, this reconceptualisation could help reduce the theory-practice gap that persists in professional education. The same graph navigation skills developed during education would apply directly to navigating complex clinical situations. Practice-based observations could enrich educational knowledge networks, creating bidirectional flow between education and practice. New research findings could be integrated by making their connections to existing knowledge explicit, facilitating the translation of evidence into practice.
These are possibilities, not predictions. The specific interface paradigm that will eventually succeed the text box is uncertain, and graph-based approaches carry their own risks — visual complexity, steep learning curves, the challenge of representing tacit knowledge spatially. But the question this essay aims to open is whether the current paradigm, for all its familiarity, is the best we can do. The container schema has structured educational design for centuries. The chat interface has reproduced it in AI-mediated learning. If we are genuinely interested in building AI-supported learning environments that develop integrative professional expertise, we might begin by questioning the metaphor that structures our imagination of what those environments could be.
Conclusion
The argument traced through this essay has followed a single thread: the organising metaphor of an educational interface shapes the learning that occurs within it. Drawing on Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980) container schema, I have traced how a single cognitive metaphor has been reproduced across physical, digital, and AI-mediated learning environments — from textbooks to learning management systems to chronological chat histories. In each case, knowledge is enclosed within bounded spaces that obscure the networked relationships practitioners must navigate in practice. This extends critiques made by Cormier (2008), Morris and Stommel (2015), Siemens (2005), and Downes (2005) into a domain they could not have anticipated: the AI interface itself.
The graph-based alternative explored here suggests a reconceptualisation rather than a wholesale replacement. Bounded learning spaces — reconceived as communities of densely connected concepts within a visible network — continue to serve legitimate purposes for novice learners. What changes is that the network is always present, the boundary-spanning connections are visible even when not yet traversable, and expertise develops through expanding navigational freedom rather than through escaping from one enclosed space into another. AI becomes a guide through knowledge landscapes rather than an authority confined to a chat box, with conversations spatially embedded in concept networks rather than sequenced chronologically.
This is an exercise in pedagogical imagination more than technological prescription. The specific interfaces described here will evolve as technology changes. But the underlying question — whether the metaphors that structure our educational interfaces are adequate to the kind of learning we aspire to support — will persist. The text box and the knowledge graph represent different conceptions of what learning is and how it works. As AI becomes increasingly integrated into education, we have an opportunity to examine not just what these systems say, but how the interfaces through which we access them shape what it is possible to learn.
References
Abu-Salih, B., & Alotaibi, S. (2024). A systematic literature review of knowledge graph construction and application in education. Heliyon, 10(3), e25383. Annotation
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator.
Cormier, D. (2008). Rhizomatic education: Community as curriculum. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 4(5).
Downes, S. (2005). Design elements in a personal learning environment. Presentation, Riyadh.
Frenk, J., Chen, L., Bhutta, Z. A., Cohen, J., Crisp, N., Evans, T., Fineberg, H., Garcia, P., Ke, Y., Kelley, P., Kistnasamy, B., Meleis, A., Naylor, D., Pablos-Mendez, A., Reddy, S., Scrimshaw, S., Sepulveda, J., Serwadda, D., & Zurayk, H. (2010). Health professionals for a new century: Transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. The Lancet, 376(9756), 1923–1958.
Girvan, M., & Newman, M. E. J. (2002). Community structure in social and biological networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(12), 7821–7826.
Goldie, J. G. S. (2016). Connectivism: A knowledge learning theory for the digital age? Medical Teacher, 38(10), 1064–1069.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
Kirsh, D. (2013). Embodied cognition and the magical future of interaction design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 20(1), 1–30.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
Morris, S. M., & Stommel, J. (2015). The course as container: Distributed learning and the MOOC. In P. C. Layne & P. Lake (Eds.), Global innovation of teaching and learning in higher education: Transgressing boundaries (pp. 145–160). Springer.
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning.
Wilson, S., Liber, O., Johnson, M., Sharples, P., & Milligan, C. (2007). Personal learning environments: Challenging the dominant design of educational systems. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 3(2).
Yan, L., Pammer-Schindler, V., Mills, C., Nguyen, A., & Gašević, D. (2025). Beyond efficiency: Empirical insights on generative AI’s impact on cognition, metacognition and epistemic agency in learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(5), 1675–1685.