Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly embedded in learning ecologies, reshaping how subjectivity – understood as the capacity of each participant to act as an agent in learning – is distributed among learners, educators, and AI. This article advances a tri-subjective perspective and proposes a four-state model of AI participation: S0 (instrument), S1 (assisting facilitator), S2 (active co-agent), and S3 (autonomous mediator). Across these states, we operationalize five components of subjectivity – motivation, activity, reflection, adaptability, and interactivity – and describe conditions that trigger transitions in the distribution of agency. Methodologically, the work combines conceptual synthesis with two applied cases. At the micro-level, we analyse a seminar scenario in which an AI assistant surfaces parallels between two independent learner analyses, thereby mediating dialogic exchange. At the macro-level, drawing on third-party case materials, we examine how an AI “facilitator” sustains group memory and consensus across iterative cycles over time. Results indicate that movement from S0 to S2 tends to expand learner agency when AI feedback is transparent and bounded, educator mediation remains active, and contextual memory is preserved. By contrast, S3 offers powerful personalization but risks over-optimization, educator disengagement, and learner passivity if human framing is not maintained. We distil design guardrails – bounded autonomy, provenance cues, reflective prompts, and orchestration protocols – that help support human subjectivity while leveraging AI’s adaptive capabilities. The contribution is threefold: (I) a state-based vocabulary for analysing AI’s pedagogical roles; (II) a separation between conditional AI “subjectivity” and human agency; and (III) actionable implications for curriculum design and facilitation. Limitations include reliance on conceptual modelling and case-based illustration rather than controlled trials. Future work will translate the model into evaluation rubrics and conduct empirical studies in diverse instructional settings.
References
[1] A. Sfard, “On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one,” Educational Researcher, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 4–13, 1998. doi: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X027002004. (in English)
[2] P. Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 30th anniversary ed. New York, NY, USA: Continuum, 2000. [Online]. Available: https://search.worldcat.org/title/43929806. Accessed: Sep. 29, 2025. (in English)
[3] G. Biesta, Good Education in an Age of Measurement: Ethics, Politics, Democracy. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2010. doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315634319. (in English)
[4] A. Spivakovskiy, L. Petukhova, E. Spivakovska, V. Kotkova, and H. Kravtsov, “Comparative Analysis of Learning in Three-Subjective Didactic Model,” in Proc. 9th Int. Conf. ICT in Education, Research and Industrial Applications (ICTERI 2013), CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1000, pp. 236–251, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1000/ICTERI-2013-p-236-251.pdf. Accessed: Sep. 29, 2025. (in English)
[5] A. Spivakovsky, L. Petukhova, V. Kotkova, and Y. Yurchuk, “Historical Approach to Modern Learning Environment,” in ICTERI 2019 Workshops, CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 2393, paper_420, 14 pp., 2019. [Online]. Available: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2393/paper_420.pdf. Accessed: Sep. 29, 2025. (in English)
[6] W. Holmes, M. Bialik, and C. Fadel, Artificial Intelligence in Education: Promises and Implications for Teaching and Learning. Boston, MA, USA: Center for Curriculum Redesign, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://curriculumredesign.org/wp-content/uploads/AIED-Book-Excerpt-CCR.pdf. Accessed: Sep. 29, 2025. (in English)
[7] K. VanLehn, “The Relative Effectiveness of Human Tutoring, Intelligent Tutoring Systems, and Other Tutoring Systems,” Educational Psychologist, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 197–221, 2011. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.611369. (in English).
[8] B. P. Woolf, Building Intelligent Interactive Tutors: Student-Centered Strategies for Revolutionizing e-Learning. Burlington, MA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann, 2009. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780123735942/building-intelligent-interactive-tutors. Accessed: Sep. 29, 2025. (in English).
[9] D. Diziol, E. Walker, N. Rummel, and K. R. Koedinger, “Using intelligent tutor technology to implement adaptive support for student collaboration,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 89–102, 2010. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9116-9. (in English)
[10] R. Kumar and C. P. Rosé, “Architecture for Building Conversational Agents that Support Collaborative Learning,” IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 21–34, 2011. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2010.41. (in English)
[11] K. Holstein, B. M. McLaren, and V. Aleven, “Designing for Teacher–AI Complementarity: Teacher Roles and Dashboard Design in an AI-Enhanced Classroom,” in Proc. 13th Int. Conf. Learning Sciences (ICLS 2018), vol. 3, pp. 1013–1020, London, U.K., 2018. [Online]. Available: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED594602.pdf. Accessed: Sep. 29, 2025. (in English).
[12] E. L. Deci and R. M. Ryan, Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York, NY, USA: Plenum, 1985. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7. (in English)
[13] B. J. Zimmerman, “Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview,” Theory Into Practice, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 64–70, 2002. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2. (in English)
[14] Y. Zhurat, V. Honcharuk, M. Zubal, N. Savchenko, M. Dubinka, and O. Yazlovetska, “Formation of the Subjectivity of the Future Teacher in the Educational Realities of Ukraine,” Revista Românească pentru Educație Multidimensională, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 434–460, 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.18662/rrem/14.2/589. (in English)
[15] A. Darvishi, H. Khosravi, S. Sadiq, D. Gašević, and G. Siemens, “Impact of AI assistance on student agency,” Computers & Education, vol. 210, art. 104967, 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104967. (in English)
[16] N. Ghamrawi, T. Shal, and N. A. Ghamrawi, “Exploring the impact of AI on teacher leadership: regressing or expanding?” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 8415–8433, 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12174-w. (in English)
[17] K. D’Amato, “ChatGPT: towards AI subjectivity,” AI & Society, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 1627–1641, 2025 (online first Apr. 9, 2024). doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-01898-z. (in English)
[18] G. Northoff and S. S. Gouveia, “Does artificial intelligence exhibit basic fundamental subjectivity? A neurophilosophical argument,” Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 1097–1118, 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-024-09971-0. (in English)
[19] Z. Zou, “Exploring the Impact of Using Chatbots on Teacher-Student Relationships in Today’s Higher Education,” Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences, no. 45, pp. 33–39, 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.54097/0pev3z68. (in English)
[20] R. Luckin, Ed., Enhancing Learning and Teaching with Technology: What the Research Says. London, U.K.: UCL IOE Press, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED582047. Accessed: Sep. 29, 2025. (in English)
[21] R. M. Ryan and E. L. Deci, Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York, NY, USA: The Guilford Press, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.guilford.com/books/Self-Determination-Theory/Ryan-Deci/9781462538966. Accessed: Sep. 29, 2025. (in English)
[22] P. Wouters, C. van Nimwegen, H. van Oostendorp, and E. D. van der Spek, “A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games,” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 105, no. 2, pp. 249–265, 2013. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031311. (in English)
[23] J. Danaher, “The Threat of Algocracy: Reality, Resistance and Accommodation,” Philosophy & Technology, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 245–268, 2016. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-015-0211-1. (in English)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Oleksandr Spivakovskiy, Stanislav Kalatskyi, Yevheniia Morozova, Oleksandr Soloveiko

