AI-SUPPORTED LEARNING AND HUMAN CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH STUDENT-NEGOTIATED INTELLIGENCE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62985/j.huit_ojs.vol26.no3E.467Keywords:
Artificial intelligence, epistemic agency, human–AI interaction, knowledge construction, digital economy.Abstract
This study examines how students work with artificial intelligence (AI) in learning, moving beyond the simple view of dependence versus control. It focuses on what students actually do when using AI and how they make decisions around it. The study is based on 18 in-depth interviews selected from more than 30 student responses. These were chosen for their clarity and detail, allowing a closer look at learning practices. The findings show that students rarely accept AI-generated content as it is. Instead, they check, adjust, and sometimes rewrite it before using it. In many cases, AI serves as a starting point rather than a final answer. This shifts cognitive effort toward evaluating, selecting, and making sense of information. To explain this, the study introduces the concept of negotiated intelligence, referring to how students regulate AI use while maintaining control over meaning. The results also highlight the role of contextual intelligence, especially when adapting content to local situations or specific audiences. These practices are linked to perceived development in critical evaluation, adaptive reasoning, and contextual understanding, which may be relevant for human capital formation in digital learning environments.
References
[1] O. Zawacki-Richter, V. I. Marín, M. Bond, and F. Gouverneur, "Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education," Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ., vol. 16, Art. no. 39, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
[2] E. Kasneci et al., "ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education," Learn. Individ. Differ., vol. 103, Art. no. 102274, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
[3] Y. K. Dwivedi et al., "So what if ChatGPT wrote it? Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy," Int. J. Inf. Manage., vol. 71, Art. no. 102642, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
[4] E. M. Bender, T. Gebru, A. McMillan-Major, and S. Shmitchell, "On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big?," in Proc. 2021 ACM Conf. Fairness, Accountability, Transparency, 2021, pp. 610–623, doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
[5] N. Selwyn, Should Robots Replace Teachers? AI and the Future of Education. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press, 2019.
[6] D. Long and B. Magerko, "What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations," in Proc. 2020 CHI Conf. Human Factors Comput. Syst., 2020, Art. no. 2, pp. 1–16, doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727
[7] J. G. Greeno, "Learning in activity," in The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, R. K. Sawyer, Ed. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006, pp. 79–96.
[8] E. Hutchins, Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 1995.
[9] B. Shneiderman, "Human-centered artificial intelligence: Reliable, safe & trustworthy," Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact., vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 495–504, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1741118
[10] P. Gupta, T. N. Nguyen, C. Gonzalez, and A. W. Woolley, "Fostering collective intelligence in human–AI collaboration: Laying the groundwork for COHUMAIN," Top. Cogn. Sci., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 189–216, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12679.
[11] S. Bankins, A. C. G. Ocampo, M. Marrone, S. L. D. Restubog, and S.-E. Woo, "A multilevel review of artificial intelligence in organizations: Implications for management research and practice," J. Organ. Behav., vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 159–182, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2735
[12] J. W. Creswell and C. N. Poth, Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2018.
[13] Y. S. Lincoln and E. G. Guba, Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA, USA: Sage, 1985.
[14] G. Guest, A. Bunce, and L. Johnson, "How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability," Field Methods, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 59–82, 2006, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
[15] S. Kvale and S. Brinkmann, InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2009.
[16] V. Braun and V. Clarke, "Using thematic analysis in psychology," Qual. Res. Psychol., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77–101, 2006, doi: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
