Generative AI Personalization and Learner Autonomy: A Conceptual Framework for Agency-Preserving Adaptive Learning
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.57255/intellect.v5i2.1924Keywords:
Generative Artificial Intelligence, Adaptive Learning, Learner Agency, Self-Regulated Learning, Cognitive OffloadingAbstract
This conceptual review develops an agency-preserving framework for generative artificial intelligence (GenAI)-supported adaptive learning. Its starting problem is that personalized assistance and improved performance during AI use do not necessarily demonstrate greater learner autonomy. The analysis critically compares selected theoretical accounts, published educational studies, reviews, and human-centred governance guidance relevant to personalization, self-regulation, and human responsibility. It distinguishes conversational responsiveness from personalization and from instructional adaptation based on evidence of learners' needs. The proposed conditional loop connects diagnostic fit, graduated assistance, meaningful learner choice, verification of generated information, independent-transfer checks, and educator accountability. Contrasting published findings indicates why assisted task completion must be evaluated separately from learning that persists when support is withdrawn. The contribution is a testable conceptual decision criterion, not a validated intervention or estimate of effectiveness. Because the review did not use a documented exhaustive search or formal study appraisal, the conclusions are interpretive and context-bounded. Future research should examine the loop's mechanisms, moderating conditions, and measurable indicators of independent reasoning and self-regulated learning.
Abstrak
Kajian konseptual ini mengusulkan kerangka pembelajaran adaptif berbasis kecerdasan buatan generatif (GenAI) yang menjaga agensi peserta didik. Persoalan utamanya ialah bahwa personalisasi dan peningkatan kinerja ketika AI digunakan tidak otomatis menunjukkan kemandirian belajar. Kajian ini membandingkan secara kritis argumentasi teoretis, tinjauan pustaka, hasil penelitian pendidikan, dan panduan tata kelola yang dipilih karena relevansinya terhadap personalisasi, regulasi diri, dan tanggung jawab manusia. Analisis membedakan respons percakapan, bantuan yang dipersonalisasi, dan adaptasi yang didasarkan pada bukti kebutuhan belajar. Kontribusi yang diajukan berupa siklus bersyarat yang menghubungkan diagnosis kebutuhan, bantuan bertahap, pilihan peserta didik, verifikasi informasi, pengujian kemampuan mandiri, dan akuntabilitas pendidik. Sintesis menunjukkan bahwa keberhasilan tugas dengan bantuan GenAI perlu dibedakan dari transfer pengetahuan tanpa bantuan. Kerangka ini merupakan proposisi konseptual yang belum diuji secara empiris, bukan hasil penelusuran literatur sistematis atau estimasi efektivitas. Penelitian berikutnya perlu menguji mekanisme, batasan konteks, dan indikator kemandirian belajar dalam berbagai desain pembelajaran.
Downloads
References
[1] E. Kasneci et al., “ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for edu-cation,” Learning and Individual Differences, vol. 103, art. 102274, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274.
[2] A. Tlili et al., “What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in edu-cation,” Smart Learning Environments, vol. 10, art. 15, 2023, doi: 10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x.
[3] C. K. Lo, “What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature,” Education Sci-ences, vol. 13, no. 4, art. 410, 2023, doi: 10.3390/educsci13040410.
[4] H. Crompton and D. Burke, “Artificial intelligence in higher education: The state of the field,” Interna-tional Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 20, art. 22, 2023, doi: 10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8.
[5] B. Amofa, X. B. Kamudyariwa, F. A. P. Fernandes, O. A. Osobajo, F. Jeremiah, and A. Oke, “Navigating the complexity of generative artificial intelligence in higher education: A systematic literature review,” Education Sciences, vol. 15, no. 7, art. 826, 2025, doi: 10.3390/educsci15070826.
[6] Y. Qian, “Pedagogical applications of generative AI in higher education: A systematic review of the field,” TechTrends, vol. 69, no. 5, pp. 1105–1120, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s11528-025-01100-1.
[7] I. M. García-López, M. S. Ramírez-Montoya, and J. M. Molina-Espinosa, “Generative artificial intelligence in education: A systematic analysis of opportunities, challenges, and responses,” Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 1194–1217, 2026, doi: 10.1080/10494820.2025.2519133.
[8] H. Bastani, O. Bastani, A. Sungu, H. Ge, Ö. Kabakcı, and R. Mariman, “Generative AI without guardrails can harm learning: Evidence from high school mathematics,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 122, no. 26, art. e2422633122, 2025, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2422633122.
[9] M. Urban et al., “ChatGPT improves creative problem-solving performance in university students: An experimental study,” Computers & Education, vol. 215, art. 105031, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105031.
[10] R. Deng, M. Jiang, X. Yu, Y. Lu, and S. Liu, “Does ChatGPT enhance student learning? A systematic re-view and meta-analysis of experimental studies,” Computers & Education, vol. 227, art. 105224, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105224.
[11] G. Brod, “There are multiple paths to personalized education, and they should be combined,” Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 153–158, 2024, doi: 10.1177/09637214241242459.
[12] H. Farhood, M. Nyden, A. Beheshti, and S. Muller, “Artificial intelligence-based personalised learning in education: A systematic literature review,” Discover Artificial Intelligence, vol. 5, art. 331, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s44163-025-00598-x.
[13] Hariyanto, F. X. D. Kristianingsih, and R. Maharani, “Artificial intelligence in adaptive education: A sys-tematic review of techniques for personalized learning,” Discover Education, vol. 4, art. 458, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s44217-025-00908-6.
[14] I. Molenaar, “Towards hybrid human–AI learning technologies,” European Journal of Education, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 632–645, 2022, doi: 10.1111/ejed.12527.
[15] A. F. Haro-Sarango, “Generative AI in education: A Human–AI pedagogical agency framework for learning, cognition, and ethics,” Multidisciplinary Latin American Journal, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 1–17 (edito-rial), 2026, doi: 10.62131/MLAJ-V4-N3-editorial.
[16] G. Wang, W. Wang, D. Yang, and J. Ren, “Generative AI, cognitive offloading, and learner agency in higher education: A scoping review,” Behavioral Sciences, vol. 16, no. 7, art. 1150, 2026, doi: 10.3390/bs16071150.
[17] T. Fütterer, L. Bardach, J. Kuhn, S. D. Keller, and P. Gerjets, “Enhancing school students’ self-regulated learning through generative AI support: A randomized controlled trial,” Educational Psychology Re-view, vol. 38, art. 42, 2026, doi: 10.1007/s10648-026-10133-8.
[18] J. Chen, X. Tian, Y. Fu, and P. Liu, “How does GenAI support self-regulated learning? Evidence from learners’ questioning behavior analysis,” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, advance online publication, 2026, doi: 10.1057/s41599-026-08610-0.
[19] Z. F. Hashmi, J. Iqbal, M. Z. Asghar, and M. N. Abid, “Generative AI tool usage and perceived self-regulated learning: The mediating roles of technological self-efficacy and cognitive offloading in blend-ed learning,” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, vol. 13, art. 1618, 2026, doi: 10.1057/s41599-026-07924-3.
[20] T.-T. Wu, H.-Y. Lee, P.-H. Chen, C.-J. Lin, and Y.-M. Huang, “Integrating peer assessment cycle into ChatGPT for STEM education: A randomised controlled trial on knowledge, skills, and attitudes en-hancement,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 41, no. 1, art. e13085, 2025, doi: 10.1111/jcal.13085.
[21] R. Zhou et al., “Exploring ChatGPT-facilitated scaffolding in undergraduates’ mathematical problem solving,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 41, no. 4, art. e70077, 2025, doi: 10.1111/jcal.70077.
[22] E. Jaakkola, “Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches,” AMS Review, vol. 10, pp. 18–26, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0.
[23] E. Panadero, “A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 8, art. 422, 2017, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422.
[24] R. M. Ryan and E. L. Deci, “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being,” American Psychologist, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 68–78, 2000, doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.
[25] B. J. Zimmerman, “Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview,” Theory Into Practice, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 64–70, 2002, doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2.
[26] Z. Liang, K. Yang, L. Sha, D. Gašević, L. Yan, and G. Chen, “A systematic review of generative AI in edu-cation: Empirical insights from a human–AI interaction perspective,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 1221–1271, 2026, doi: 10.1111/bjet.70055.
[27] F. Miao and W. Holmes, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research. Paris: UNESCO, 2023.
[28] D. Wood, J. S. Bruner, and G. Ross, “The role of tutoring in problem solving,” Journal of Child Psychol-ogy and Psychiatry, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 89–100, 1976, doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x.
[29] R. Azevedo et al., “Lessons learned and future directions of MetaTutor: Leveraging multichannel data to scaffold self-regulated learning with an intelligent tutoring system,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 13, art. 813632, 2022, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.813632.
[30] J. Sardi et al., “How generative AI influences students’ self-regulated learning and critical thinking skills? A systematic review,” International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 94–108, 2025, doi: 10.3991/ijep.v15i1.53379.
[31] S. S. Lee and R. L. Moore, “Harnessing generative AI (GenAI) for automated feedback in higher educa-tion: A systematic review,” Online Learning, vol. 28, no. 3, 2024, doi: 10.24059/olj.v28i3.4593.
[32] A. Essien, O. T. Bukoye, X. O’Dea, and M. Kremantzis, “The influence of AI text generators on critical thinking skills in UK business schools,” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 865–882, 2024, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2024.2316881.
[33] A. K. Kofinas, C. H.-H. Tsay, and D. Pike, “The impact of generative AI on academic integrity of authen-tic assessments within a higher education context,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 2522–2549, 2025, doi: 10.1111/bjet.13585.
[34] D. Dinaloni, O. Faot, and A. I. Muzaqi, “Generative AI-enhanced adaptive learning for improving stu-dent learning outcomes: A systematic literature review,” Lentera Negeri, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1060–1068, 2026, doi: 10.29210/992670.
[35] S. Chakraborty, “Generative artificial intelligence in fifth-generation education systems: A systematic review,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 173, art. 114463, 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2026.114463.
[36] E. B. Cloude, R. Azevedo, P. H. Winne, G. Biswas, and E. E. Jang, “System design for using multimodal trace data in modeling self-regulated learning,” Frontiers in Education, vol. 7, art. 928632, 2022, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.928632.
[37] S. de Mooij et al., “A systematic review of self-regulated learning through integration of multimodal da-ta and artificial intelligence,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 37, art. 54, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10648-025-10028-0.
[38] B. B. Balayar, “AI-supported learning and student outcomes: A systematic review informed by self-determination theory (SDT),” Educational Psychology in Practice, advance online publication, 2026, doi: 10.1080/02667363.2026.2731550.
[39] X. Peng, K. Sun, X. Shan, and J. Zhang, “Empowerment or dependency? A systematic review of the im-pacts of intelligent assessment and generative AI on learners’ self-beliefs and cognitive agency in music education,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 17, art. 1776445, 2026, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1776445.
[40] J. Chen, “The effectiveness of self-regulated learning (SRL) interventions on L2 learning achievement, strategy employment and self-efficacy: A meta-analytic study,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 13, art. 1021101, 2022, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1021101.
[41] O. Gulich and V. Chetveryk, “Generative artificial intelligence as a tool for psychological and motiva-tional support in foreign language learning,” Educational Challenges, vol. 30, no. 2, 2025, doi: 10.34142/2709-7986.2025.30.2.19.
[42] D. F. Syarifah, B. Basyirun, M. B. R. Wijaya, D. Waskito, and D. Djuniadi, “Learners’ cognitive adaptation and engagement in generative AI-based vocational learning environments: A systematic literature re-view,” Psychological Science and Education, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 104–118, 2026, doi: 10.17759/pse.2026310308.
[43] B. Jose, A. M. Verghis, S. M. Varghese, S. Mumthas, and J. Cherian, “From tools to co-learners: Entangled humanism and the co-evolution of intelligence in AI education,” Frontiers in Education, vol. 10, art. 1632990, 2025, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1632990.
[44] G. Cosentino, J. Anton, K. Sharma, M. Gelsomini, M. Giannakos, and D. Abrahamson, “Generative AI and multimodal data for educational feedback: Insights from embodied math learning,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 1686–1709, 2025, doi: 10.1111/bjet.13587.
[45] L. Yan, V. Pammer-Schindler, C. Mills, A. Nguyen, and D. Gašević, “Beyond efficiency: Empirical in-sights on generative AI’s impact on cognition, metacognition and epistemic agency in learning,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 1675–1685 (editorial), 2025, doi: 10.1111/bjet.70000.
Downloads
Submitted
Accepted
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Hilalludin, Muzanni
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
