Human and artificial intelligence collaboration for socially shared regulation in learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) has generated a plethora of new opportunities, potential and challenges for understanding and supporting learning. In this paper, we position human and AI collaboration for socially shared regulation (SSRL) in learning. Particularly, this paper reflects on the intersection of human and AI collaboration in SSRL research, which presents an exciting prospect for advancing our understanding and support of learning regulation. Our aim is to operationalize this human‐AI collaboration by introducing a novel trigger concept and a hybrid human‐AI shared regulation in learning (HASRL) model. Through empirical examples that present AI affordances for SSRL research, we demonstrate how humans and AI can synergistically work together to improve learning regulation. We argue that the integration of human and AI strengths via hybrid intelligence is critical to unlocking a new era in learning sciences research. Our proposed frameworks present an opportunity for empirical evidence and innovative designs that articulate the potential for human‐AI collaboration in facilitating effective SSRL in teaching and learning. Practitioner notes What is already known about this topic For collaborative learning to succeed, socially shared regulation has been acknowledged as a key factor. Artificial intelligence (AI) is a powerful and potentially disruptive technology that can reveal new insights to support learning. It is questionable whether traditional theories of how people learn are useful in the age of AI. What this paper adds Introduces a trigger concept and a hybrid Human‐AI Shared Regulation in Learning (HASRL) model to offer insights into how the human‐AI collaboration could occur to operationalize SSRL research. Demonstrates the potential use of AI to advance research and practice on socially shared regulation of learning. Provides clear suggestions for future human‐AI collaboration in learning and teaching aiming at enhancing human learning and regulatory skills. Implications for practice and/or policy Educational technology developers could utilize our proposed framework to better align technological and theoretical aspects for their design of adaptive support that can facilitate students' socially shared regulation of learning. Researchers and practitioners could benefit from methodological development incorporating human‐AI collaboration for capturing, processing and analysing multimodal data to examine and support learning regulation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".