GrantWise
HORIZON EUROPE TOPIC · Cluster 2 · Culture, Creativity and Inclusive Society

The effective use of artificial intelligence in learning environments in pre-primary and primary education

HORIZON-CL2-2027-01-TRANSFO-05 — the expected outcomes as checkable statements, what evaluators look for in this topic, and the conditions that shape the proposal.

Get the free Part B working draft for this topic ↓

ForthcomingRIA · lump sumDeadline 23 September 2027EUR 3 million to EUR 4 million per project

GrantWise › Horizon Europe topics › HORIZON-CL2-2027-01-TRANSFO-05

TopicHORIZON-CL2-2027-01-TRANSFO-05
StatusForthcoming
CallHORIZON-CL2-2027-01 — Culture, Creativity and Inclusive Society - 2027
DestinationInnovative Research on Social and Economic Transformations (2026-27)
Type of actionResearch and Innovation Actions · lump sum
Opening13 May 2027
Deadline23 September 2027
BudgetEUR 3 million to EUR 4 million per project · 3 projects expected · EUR 12 million in total
Part B page limit45 pages (standard application form; check your call)
TemplateWork Programme 2026–2027 application form

Expected outcomes

Projects should contribute to all of the expected outcomes. The topic says: “Projects should contribute to all of the following expected outcomes:”

  1. EO1 Provide policymakers and educators and parents with a solid understanding of the potential benefits, opportunities and challenges stemming from the use of artificial intelligence tools in learning environments in pre-primary and primary education, including with regard to their ethical dimension.
  2. EO2 Generate rigorous, policy-relevant evidence on the impact of use of artificial intelligence tools in learning environments on educational performance and youth well-being.
  3. EO3 Develop actionable advice to educators about how they can make an effective use of artificial intelligence tools in their work, including for the assessment of learning outcomes.

Expected impacts named in the destination

The wider, long-term effects the destination seeks. Your outcomes feed them; they are not project deliverables.

  1. EI1 Strengthening social and economic resilience and sustainability.
  2. EI2 Boosting inclusive growth and reducing vulnerabilities effectively.
  3. EI3 The European Pillar of Social Rights, and its Action Plan with its three ambitious targets (78% employment rate, 60% of population with yearly training, and reduction of the number of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion by at least 15 million by 2030)
  4. EI4 the European Education Area and its EU-level 2030 targets.
  5. EI5 The Union of Skills (including envisaged initiatives on skills portability and the European Strategy for Vocational Education and Training, the Pact for Skills and the Skills Agenda)
  6. EI6 the first-ever EU Anti-Poverty Strategy and the European Affordable Housing Plan.
  7. EI7 The Union of Equality policies and strategies, including: the Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021-2030 (in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities); the European Accessibility Act (Directive 2019/882), and the European Disability Card The Gender Equality Strategy 2020 – 2025 and the Directive combating violence against women and domestic violence EU Anti-racism Action Plan 2020-2025 The Strategic EU Framework for Roma Equality, Inclusion and Participation 2020-2030 The LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020-2025.
  8. EI8 The Communication on Demographic change in Europe: a toolbox for action.
  9. EI9 The EU’s just transition policy framework, in line with the 2040 Climate Target Plan, including the Just Transition Mechanism, the Social Climate Fund, and the Council Recommendation on ensuring a fair transition towards climate neutrality.
  10. EI10 The new Pact for European Social Dialogue and the Council Recommendation on strengthening social dialogue in the EU.
  11. EI11 The European Child Guarantee.
  12. EI12 The Council Recommendation on adequate minimum income.

What evaluators will look for in this topic

Expected outcomes

  • Projects should contribute to all of the expected outcomes.
  • For each outcome (EO1 to EO3), name who will use or adopt your results (a specific group, not “industry” or “society”), how they get them, and the indicator that shows the change, with baseline, target and date.
  • Use the topic's own words for each outcome, so the evaluator can tick it off.

What the scope asks for

Evaluators check the proposal against these sentences of the scope. Answer each one visibly, in the call's own words.

  • “There is also a need to better investigate the challenges that AI poses to teaching and learning as well as pupils’ well-being.”
  • “It should also consider the developmental appropriateness of AI tools for young learners, focusing on cognitive, emotional, and social growth.”
  • “Additionally, the research should emphasise the aspect of teacher support, including how AI can assist with lesson planning, assessment, and feedback.”
  • “It should also explore training programs to help educators use AI effectively.”
  • “Proposals should focus on the need to understand long-term cognitive, social, and emotional impacts, which requires sustained, multi-year investigations.”
  • “Furthermore, the role of media and digital tools requires attention.”
  • “Proposals should consider the devices and platforms through which children encounter AI (for example robots, tablets, smartphones etc) and how these shape interactions and learning outcomes.”
  • “What ethical considerations and potential risks, including in relation to wellbeing, should be taken into account when using AI in education to support teachers and students?.”
  • “What changes do educational programmes need to perform on a pedagogical level for the successful integration of AI?.”
  • “What do teachers need to implement the use of AI safely and effectively?.”
  • “Proposals should evaluate the costs associated with the policy measures or programmes analysed.”
  • “Proposals should look at different forms of AI tools, e.g. Generative AI, Intelligent Tutoring Systems etc. Proposals should also apply qualitative research methods to cover the ethical dimensions.”

Conditions that shape the proposal

  • Part B, sections 1–3: 45 pages (standard application form). Text beyond the limit is not read; tables and figures count.
  • Lump sum: the budget is fixed per work package and paid when each work package is completed. Every work package needs activities and deliverables an evaluator can verify, and the effort must match the money.
  • Other Eligible Conditions: “Subject to restrictions for the protection of European communication networks.”

Impact pathway and traps

  • The topic asks for social sciences and humanities (SSH) expertise. Evaluators look for SSH partners with a real role in the methodology, not a token task.
  • The topic expects cooperation with other projects or initiatives. Reserve effort and budget for it in the work plan.
  • Keep outputs, outcomes and impacts apart: what you deliver, what changes when others use it, and the long-term effect.
  • For each destination impact you claim, show which of your outcomes feeds it. Destination impacts are long-term effects, not project deliverables.
  • Name the barriers outside the project (regulation, markets, user behaviour) that could block uptake, and what you will do if they do.
  • Section 2.3 (the summary canvas) is optional on this call; the old split into scientific, economic and societal impact is no longer required.
The scope, as published

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in learning environments in pre-primary and primary education is rapidly growing. However, there is limited evidence on how AI can challenge and improve learning outcomes, enhance the teaching techniques and support the teaching profession and how automating administrative tasks helps teachers focus on pedagogy and teaching challenges. Most existing research is from extra-EU contexts, which significantly limits the transferability of findings to EU education and training systems and is often conducted on a limited number of participants and covering short-time spans, hindering the possibility of generalising its findings. Moreover, research on the implications of AI tools for equity and inclusion in education is lacking. There is also a need to better investigate the challenges that AI poses to teaching and learning as well as pupils’ well-being. AI is developed to increase human efficiency yet also comes with often unexpected risks and challenges, especially when being applied to child audiences. The research (including through SSH disciplines) could explore how AI can enhance curricula, improve teaching methods, and personalise learning through adaptive technologies. It should also consider the developmental appropriateness of AI tools for young learners, focusing on cognitive, emotional, and social growth. Research on AI’s impact on early childhood education and its role in supporting foundational skills would be valuable. Additionally, the research should emphasise the aspect of teacher support, including how AI can assist with lesson planning, assessment, and feedback. It should also explore training programs to help educators use AI effectively. Finally, inclusivity and accessibility are key angles to consider, ensuring AI tools are suitable for all students, including those with disabilities or from diverse backgrounds, and promoting multilingual and multicultural education. Longitudinal studies are also needed, as current research is fragmented and looking at the short term. Proposals should focus on the need to understand long-term cognitive, social, and emotional impacts, which requires sustained, multi-year investigations. Furthermore, the role of media and digital tools requires attention. Proposals should consider the devices and platforms through which children encounter AI (for example robots, tablets, smartphones etc) and how these shape interactions and learning outcomes. Relevant research questions to address include: How can AI-powered tools personalise learning experiences safely and effectively and support teachers in addressing diverse student needs? What are the potential benefits and challenges of integrating AI into initial teacher education and continuous professional development programmes? How can AI assist teachers in automating administrative tasks, allowing them to focus more on pedagogy and student engagement? What ethical considerations and potential risks, including in relation to wellbeing, should be taken into account when using AI in education to support teachers and students? What is the typical profile of teachers who are currently using AI-powered tools and which uses and perceived gratifications motivate using AI-powered tool? How can AI tools motivate children to learn? How can AI-based interventions address learning gaps based on individual students’ needs (including disabilities) and learning styles? What changes do educational programmes need to perform on a pedagogical level for the successful integration of AI? What do teachers need to implement the use of AI safely and effectively? Proposals can apply a variety of methods including rigorous experimental and/or quasi-experimental methods, but also experience sampling and general survey methods, to evaluate the effectiveness of existing AI tools or to test new AI tools. Proposals should evaluate the costs associated with the policy measures or programmes analysed. Proposals should look at different forms of AI tools, e.g. Generative AI, Intelligent Tutoring Systems etc. Proposals should also apply qualitative research methods to cover the ethical dimensions. Interdisciplinary approaches and close cooperation with educational institutions and educators are essential. Cooperation with media literacy organisations is encouraged. Clustering and cooperation among selected projects under this call topic and other relevant projects are strongly encouraged. Particular attention should be paid to identifying and mitigating biases in AI systems to ensure equity and inclusion in education systems.

Other topics in HORIZON-CL2-2027-01

Source and attribution

Topic text from the official topic page on the EU Funding & Tenders Portal, retrieved 19 October 2026. © European Union, reused under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (CC BY 4.0). Changes: the expected outcomes and impacts are split into numbered statements, long passages are shortened, and the evaluator checklist is GrantWise's own commentary. Your call and the Work Programme always win; check them before you submit. GrantWise is independent and not affiliated with, endorsed by, or acting on behalf of the European Commission.