Opportunities and risks in introducing seniors to the world of AI from the perspective of pre-service teachers: reports from the first stage of PRODIGI implementation in Poland

By Łukasz Tomczyk

2026/02/12

The next step in training future trainers (currently pre-service teachers) focused on how students participating in the PRODIGI project conceptualise the opportunities and risks of teaching seniors to use AI tools and what teaching mechanisms they identify as a way of incorporating them into the course. The collected material forms a coherent set of categories that correspond to the logic of didactic (geragogical) design based on usability, accessibility and participant agency, as presented in an earlier post from January 2026.

Opportunities

The first and most prominent category of opportunities is the increase in the independence and agency of seniors in the digital environment. The students' statements repeatedly express the belief that AI can become a tool that "lightens the load" in everyday tasks, i.e. supports them in matters ranging from navigating online services to solving minor practical problems. As the students point out, this can reduce dependence on third parties. From a course design perspective, this means that content must be embedded in real-life scenarios so that technology is not presented as an abstract innovation, but as a set of simple actions that simultaneously increase the user's autonomy in both the online and offline worlds. This approach is consistent with the theoretical principles presented in the course, which refer to the relational model of digital competences developed in Poland, among others, as part of the Digital Poland of Equal Opportunities Lighthouse Project.

The second category is the development of critical awareness of online content, including recognising the presence of AI in the information flow. Pedagogical scholars suggest that the introduction to generative tools can serve as a "vaccination" against misinformation. At this stage, seniors begin to understand that some messages may be synthetic and not "naturally" produced by humans. In the practical implementation of the course, this translates into a didactic obligation to build the habit of reflection. In other words, it is not so much a matter of teaching "how to use" as it is of teaching "how to recognise" AI-generated content, i.e. recognising that contemporary information is often produced, modified and distributed in an automated manner. This approach may come as a big surprise to older people who are accustomed to other ways of producing and distributing information content.

The third category of opportunities is the cognitive utility of AI, understood as faster access to information and support in comparing and organising data. The comments of course participants point to the pragmatic potential of courses for senior citizens, enabling more efficient searching, preliminary comparison of products and the generation of short summaries. From a methodological point of view, this is important in that it allows for the design of task-based exercises where the participant immediately sees the effect of their actions, and "competence" ceases to be a declaration and becomes measurable through the performance of a specific activity in a specific context.

Infographics prepared by students as part of PRODIGI on the structure of courses dedicated to seniors

The fourth category of opportunities highlighted by the course participants is creativity and the element of enjoyment, which serve as motivators. Respondents cite the creation of cards, pictures or recipes as examples of engaging activities that are also low-threshold in terms of digital competence, i.e. those that do not require extensive prior knowledge to be successful. In terms of designing and implementing courses for seniors, this means a conscious and appropriate selection of activities that allow for a quick "first victory", as this reduces anxiety, boosts self-esteem and encourages further exploration of AI-based tools.

The fifth category of opportunities identified during the first stage of PRODIGI in Poland is supporting communication and social relations, understood not as replacing bonds, but as facilitating everyday forms of contact. The statements show that even small actions mediated by new media, such as preparing graphics for greetings or content for messages, can be crucial in maintaining family and intergenerational relationships. In designing a course aimed at seniors, this theme emphasises the importance of selecting examples that are "close to experience", i.e. those that reinforce the meaning of learning. In this approach, the AI tool serves a purpose because it helps to maintain contact, and not just because "it is worth knowing the latest news".

The sixth category of opportunities concerns cognitive stimulation and mental well-being, seen as a consequence of learning new skills and building a sense of competence. Several statements suggest that learning AI can be an exercise in memory, attention and cognitive flexibility, as well as a source of satisfaction. From a teaching perspective, this implies the need to design experiences of success and reinforcing messages so that the course is not only a transfer of knowledge, but also a process of increasing confidence in the possibility of learning in late adulthood.

Risks

The first category of risks (and the most frequently emphasised) is misinformation, model hallucinations and the difficulty in assessing the reliability of AI-generated responses. Future teachers fear a situation in which a senior citizen (especially at the beginning of their educational journey) will attribute excessive authority to the tool and be inclined to consider the generated response correct "by definition". In the course for seniors designed by the students, this risk is minimised by introducing thematic blocks on verifying information and sources, as well as by developing simple control strategies (e.g. asking for sources, comparing information from more than one channel), which is an attempt to translate "critical thinking" into operational habits related to the everyday use of AI.

The second category of risks is data security and privacy, including the unintentional disclosure of sensitive information (personal data, photos, health and financial data) when interacting with the tool. There is a fear that seniors will treat conversations with AI as neutral and "private," not realising the consequences of their digital footprint. From the point of view of the course design, this means that it is necessary to clarify the boundaries in a normative way: what is safe to enter, what should not be disclosed, and how to understand the risks associated with transferring data to online systems.

The third category of risks identified by the course participants – future senior trainers – concerns excessive trust and anthropomorphisation of AI, manifested in treating the tool as a friend, therapist or doctor. This issue is particularly important because it is not just a matter of cognitive error, but can lead to real decision-making and social consequences, especially when technology begins to act as a substitute for relationships or expert consultation (e.g. replacing a doctor). In terms of teaching, this risk should be reduced by clearly defining the scope of AI applications, demonstrating the limitations of the tool, and providing exercises that teach users to maintain distance and take responsibility for their final decisions. The fact that students participating in the course have taken up this topic indicates a high level of anticipation of problematic situations.

The fourth category of risks is psychological and didactic in nature and includes learning difficulties, frustration, confusion, overstimulation and increased fear of technology. Students point out that confrontation with AI itself can paradoxically increase uncertainty and lead to withdrawal, especially if the message is too fast, too technical, or too cognitively demanding. In the course, this problem is reduced by teaching "from scratch", selecting simple tools, limiting unnecessary details and grading the difficulty, i.e. solutions consistent with the logic of accessible and non-infantilising design, which also appeared in the previous analysis of the teaching process (post from January 2026).

The fifth category of risks includes dependence on technology and replacing human contact with AI, which is sometimes presented as an extreme scenario, but is extremely important from a geragogical perspective. The statements of course participants suggest the possibility of "transferring" some emotional needs to the tool, as well as the risk of perpetuating isolation through the convenience of contact with a system that always responds (e.g. unlike close family members). Consequently, the course should not only warn, but also model healthy use in line with the principle of AI as a support in tasks, not as a substitute for relationships, and as an auxiliary tool, not a superior point of reference in matters requiring human presence or professional consultation.

A synthesised picture of the responses collected during the first stage of the course leads to the conclusion that students (when designing a course for seniors) intuitively strive to balance two orders: the practical usefulness of AI (independence, information, creativity, communication) and protecting participants from individual and social costs (misinformation, privacy, excessive trust, anxiety, potential replacement of relationships). In this sense, an analysis of the various contextual conditions of the teaching process confirms that the AI module cannot be solely a tool-based instruction. Activities of this type should be a teaching project in which technical competence (the development of digital and media skills) develops in parallel with critical competence, and implementation success depends equally on the quality of the exercises and the quality of support within the course addressed to seniors, while creating and adhering to clear e-safety rules.

Krakow, February 2026

Łukasz Tomczyk, Professor, Jagiellonian University

Institute of Pedagogy