Pedagogical interaction as “polylogue” of meaning perspectives: revisiting the problem of personal agency in dealing with intelligent systems

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Importance. In the context of the new educational reality mediated by artificial intelligence tools, the key pedagogical category, that of pedagogical interaction, proves to be less and less in demand as focus of research, which makes it difficult to consider current educational practices and develop theory, particularly in fields connected with language, meaning-making, and verbal communication. The article aims to consider the specific features of modern educational process, pedagogical interaction in particular, mediated by artificial intelligence (AI) tools.

Materials and Methods. The research methods embrace a complex of instruments, namely: analysis of pedagogical science discourse, products of teaching and learning activities; comparison, synthesis, systematization, and interpretation of data obtained; monitoring the educational process, survey of participants in the pilot research, expert evaluation of the analysis results.

Results and Discussion. The study contributed to determining the functional capacity of the main agents of the AI-mediated educational process and discovering problem areas of pedagogical interaction as a meaning-making factor. Agency potentials in AI-mediated meaning-making interaction were assessed, with the theoretical findings checked in pilot teaching aimed at testing a “polylogue” of meaning perspectives scenario as meaning-making interaction. Two stable indicators were established: the number of participants who prefer the AI-mediated format of FL learning and believe AI can completely replace a FL professor at a university (20 %), and the number of those who exclude this possibility for themselves (36 %). The group of participants who initially could not make their choice (44 %) decreased by 24 % (to 20 %) during the pilot training – due to an increase in the number of those who do not consider the format of interaction with AI to be preferable for themselves.

Conclusion. Pedagogical “risks” for agents of AI-mediated meaning-making interaction are grouped around such areas as data unreliability, content bias in AI-generated products, and devaluation of pedagogical meanings. At the same time, the results of the study show that language pedagogy has a unique potential in producing multi-agent meaning-making interaction in the scope of AI, encouraging the “polylogue” of meaning perspectives, integrating and multiplying socially and personally relevant meanings on a broad interdisciplinary basis, which may be the focus of further research.

About the authors

L. V. Yarotskaya

National Research Nuclear University MEPhI (Moscow Engineering Physics Institute)

Author for correspondence.
Email: lvyar@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6539-3085

Dr. Sci. (Education), Professor at the  Linguistic Training for Special Purposes (No. 62) Department, Leading Expert of the Analysis and Forecasting of World Science and Technology Development Centre, International Relations Institute

Russian Federation, 31 Kashirskoe Rte., Moscow, 115409, Russian Federation

References

  1. Ashok M., Madan R., Joha A., Sivarajah U. (2022). Ethical framework for Artificial Intelligence and digital technologies. International Journal of Information Management, vol. 62, art. 102433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102433
  2. O’Dea X., O’Dea M. (2023). Is Artificial Intelligence really the next big thing in learning and teaching in higher education?. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, vol. 20, no. 5, art. 5. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.5.06
  3. Xu W., Ouyang F. (2022). A systematic review of AI role in the educational system based on a proposed conceptual framework. Education and Information Technologies, no. 27, pp. 4195-4223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10774-y
  4. Konstantinova L.V., Vorozhikhin V.V., Petrov A.M., Titova E.S., Shtykhno D.A. (2023). Generative Artificial Intelligence in education: discussions and forecasts. Otkrytoe obrazovanie = Open Education, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 36-48. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21686/1818-4243-2023-2-36-48, https://elibrary.ru/vpmizk
  5. Sysoyev P.V. (2023). Artificial Intelligence in education: awareness, readiness and practice of using Artificial Intelligence technologies in professional activities by university faculty. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia, vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 9-33. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2023-32-10-9-33, https://elibrary.ru/tzytkm
  6. Sysoyev P.V., Filatov E.M. (2023). Chatbots in teaching a foreign language: advantages and controversial is-sues. Vestnik Tambovskogo universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnye nauki = Tambov University Review. Series: Hu-manities, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 66-72. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20310/1810-0201-2023-28-1-66-72, https://elibrary.ru/pxgztj
  7. Berendt B., Littlejohn A., Blakemore M. (2020). AI in education: learner choice and fundamental rights. Learn-ing Media and Technology, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 312-324. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1786399
  8. Holmes W., Porayska-Pomsta K., Holstein K. et al. (2021). Ethics of AI in education: towards a community-wide framework. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, vol. 32, pp. 504-526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00239-1
  9. Malinka K. et al. (2023). On the educational impact of ChatGPT: is artificial intelligence ready to obtain a uni-versity degree? Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education “Proceedings of the 2023”, vol. 1, pp. 47-53. https://doi.org/10.1145/3587102.3588827
  10. Waltzer T., Cox R.L., Heyman G.D. (2023). Testing the ability of teachers and students to differentiate between essays generated by ChatGPT and high school students. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, no. 1, pp. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/1923981
  11. Klochikhin V.V. (2024). Application of AI-based corpora in identifying language patterns and students’ re-search. Inostrannye yazyki v shkole = Foreign Languages at School, no. 3, pp. 39-46. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/jfylhf
  12. Sysoyev P.V., Zolotov P.Yu. (2020). Development of students’ pragmatic competence using corpora. Yazyk i kul’tura = Language and Culture, no. 51, pp. 229-246. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17223/19996195/51/12, https://elibrary.ru/qmhhsr
  13. Yarotskaya L.V., Aleinikova D.V. (2024). Linguodidactic Projection of the Social and Humanitarian Sphere in the Contour of Artificial Intelligence. Moscow, Triumf Publ., 164 p. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.29039/978-5-94472-207-2-07-2024, https://elibrary.ru/eptcnv
  14. Levin B.A., Piskunov A.A., Polyakov V.Yu., Savin A.V. (2022). Artificial Intelligence in engineering education. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 79-95. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2022-31-7-79-95, https://elibrary.ru/kcnapj
  15. Feuerriegel S., Shrestha Y.R., von Krogh G., Zhang C. (2022). Bringing artificial intelligence to business man-agement. Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 4, pp. 611-613. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-022-00512-5

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).