Transformation of University Students’ Educational Agency in the Era of AI Technologies

   The integration of generative artificial intelligence (AI) into education brings to the forefront the issue of keeping the human at the center of the educational process. A student’s traditional digital competence, focused on operational skills, does not ensure critical and ethically responsible interaction with AI.

   The aim of the research is to substantiate the principles of interaction within the human-AI system that contribute to the positive transformation of a university student’s educational subjectivity.

   The methodological foundation is formed by the socio-cultural and competence-based approaches, according to which the transformation of subjectivity in the university educational process is socio-culturally conditioned and requires the development of students’ meta-digital competence (MDC). The theoretical framework of this study is built upon the concept of distributed cognition, which posits a cognitive system spanning humans, technology, and the environment (Hutchins E.), and the concept of metacognition, defined as the capacity for reflection on one’s own thought processes (Flavell J.). As a result of the research, the core dimensions of MDC are defined: the hermeneutic dimension, requiring the interpretation of AI outcomes with consideration of their limitations, and the axiological dimension, pointing to the ethically responsible application of technologies. It is substantiated that meta-digital skills allow overcoming barriers that hinder the establishment of partnership interaction between humans and AI in education. These barriers include: the inability to trace the logic of AI’s result generation, the disparity between human understanding of meaning and computational data processing, and the risks of losing critical thinking due to over-reliance on technology. The research defines the concept of a university student’s “educational subjectivity” and substantiates the principles of partnership interaction with AI: critical reflection on AI outcomes, dialogue with the system to clarify responses, consideration of the technology’s cultural limitations, and ethical responsibility for the choice to use it.

   The novelty of the research lies in substantiating MDC as a means for the positive transformation of educational subjectivity, defining its hermeneutic and axiological dimensions, and, based on them, developing principles for partnership interaction with AI.

   The practical significance is that the identified principles can form the basis for educational standards and pedagogical practices within the university educational space.

1. Zhu, H., Sun, Y., Yang, J. (2025). Towards Responsible Artificial Intelligence in Education : A Systematic Review on Identifying and Mitigating Ethical Risks. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. Vol. 12, article no. 1111, doi: 10.1057/s41599-025-05252-6

2. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial Intelligence in Education: Promises and Implications for Teaching and Learning. Boston: Center for Curriculum Redesign. 228 p. Available at: https://curriculumredesign.org/wp-content/uploads/AI-in-Education.pdf (accessed 25. 01. 2026).

3. Selwyn, N. (2019). What’s the Problem with Learning Analytics? Journal of Learning Analytics. Vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 11-19, doi: 10.18608/jla.2019.63.3.

4. Raitskaya, L., Tikhonova, E. (2025). Enhancing Critical Thinking Skills in ChatGPT-Human Interaction : A Scoping Review. Journal of Language and Education. Vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 5-19, doi: 10.17323/jle.2025.27387.

5. Cotton, D.R.E., Cotton, P.A., Shipway, J.R. (2024). Chatting and Cheating: Ensuring Academic Integrity in the Era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. Vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 228-239, doi: 10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148.

6. Gerlich, M. (2025). AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the Future of Critical Thinking. Societies. Vol. 15, no. 6, doi: 10.3390/soc15010006.

7. Vuorikari, R., Kluzer, S., Punie, Y. (2022). DigComp 2.2: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens – With New Examples of Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC128415 (accessed 17. 12. 2025).

8. Kačinová, V. (2019). From a Reductionist to a Holistic Model of Digital Competence and Media Education. Communication Today. Vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 16-27. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337707174_FROM_A_REDUCTIONIST_TO_A_HOLISTIC_MODEL_OF_DIGITAL_COMPETENCE_AND_MEDIA_EDUCATION (accessed 17. 12. 2025).

9. Laupichler, M.C., Aster, A., Schirch, J., Raupach, T. (2022). Artificial Intelligence Literacy in Higher and Adult Education : A Scoping Literature Review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 3, article no. 100101, doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100101.

10. Miao, F., Shiohira, K., Lao, N. (2024). AI Competency Framework for Students. Paris: UNESCO. 80 p., doi: 10.54675/JKJB9835 (accessed 17. 12. 2025).

11. Miao, F., Cukurova, M. (2024). AI Competency Framework for Teachers. Paris: UNESCO. 52 p., doi: 10.54675/ZJTE2084 (accessed 17. 12. 2025).

12. Torkunov A.V. (2025). Digital Transformation and Artificial Intelligence in the Transformation of the Political World. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya = Polis. Political Studies. No. 5, pp. 24-35, doi: 10.17976/jpps/2025.05.03 (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

13. Shishlova E.E. (2021). Updating the Content of Higher Education in the Context of Modern Sociocultural Trends. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. Vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 70-79, doi: 10.31992/0869-3617-2021-30-6-70-79 (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

14. Shishlova E.E. (2020). Sociocultural Competence as an Indicator of the Quality of Specialist Training. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. Vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 95-102, doi: 10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-5-95-102 (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

15. Liao, Q.V., Wortman Vaughan, J. (2024). AI Transparency in the Age of LLMs: A Human-Centered Research Roadmap. Harvard Data Science Review. Special Issue 5, doi: 10.1162/99608f92.8036d03b.

16. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 181 p. Available at: https://mf.media.mit.edu/courses/2006/mas845/readings/files/bruner_Acts.pdf (accessed 17. 12. 2025).

17. Miller, T. (2019). Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences. Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 267, pp. 1-38, doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2018.07.007.

18. Gadamer H.-G. (1988). Istina i metod: Osnovy filosofskoj germenevtiki [Truth and Method: Foundations of Philosophical Hermeneutics]. Moscow: Progress. 704 p. (In Russ.).

19. Zhai, C., Wibowo, S., Li, L.D. (2024). The Effects of Over-Reliance on AI Dialogue Systems on Students’ Cognitive Abilities : A Systematic Review. Smart Learning Environments. Vol. 11, article no. 28, doi: 10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7.

20. Trust, T., Whalen, J., Mouza, C. (2023). ChatGPT: Challenges, Opportunities, and Implications for Teacher Education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education. Vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 1-23. Available at: https://citejournal.org/volume-23/issue-1-23/editorial/editorial-chatgpt-challenges-opportunities-and-implications-for-teacher-education/ (accessed 17. 12. 2025).

21. Elbow, P. (1998). Writing With Power: Techniques for Mastering the Writing Process. 2^nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press. 384 p. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/33785226/Writing_With_Power_Techniques_for_Mastering_the_Writing_Process_Peter_Elbow(accessed 17. 12. 2025).

22. Sullivan, M., Kelly, A., McLaughlan, P. (2023). ChatGPT in Higher Education: Considerations for Academic Integrity and Student Learning. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching. Vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.17.

23. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 381 p. Available at: https://uberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Edwin_Hutchins_Cognition_in_the_Wild.pdf (accessed 17. 12. 2025).

24. Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive-Developmental Inquiry. American Psychologist. Vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 906-911. Available at: https://jgregorymcverry.com/readings/flavell1979MetacognitionAndCogntiveMonitoring.pdf (accessed 17. 12. 2025).

25. Konkol, M.M. (2025). Metacifrovaja kompetentnost’ kak novaja paradigma obrazovanija v jepohu iskusstvennogo intellekta [Meta-Digital Competence as a New Paradigm of Education in the Era of Artificial Intelligence]. Uchenye zapiski Rossijskogo gosudarstvennogo social’nogo universiteta [Scientific Notes of the Russian State Social University]. Vol. 24, no. 2 (175), pp. 112-119. Available at: https://elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_82829064_12387826.pdf (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)

26. Konkol, M.M., Marina E.D. (2025). Methodological Foundations of the Meta-Digital Competence System (on the Example of Language Education). Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. Vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 9-29, doi: 10.17853/1994-5639-2025-9-9-29 (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

27. Tankelevitch, L., Kewenig, V., Simkute, A., Scott, A. E., Sarkar, A., et al. (2024). The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI. Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘24). Honolulu, HI, USA, May 11–16, 2024. ACM, doi: 10.1145/3613904.3642902.

28. Ben-David Kolikant, Y., Hadar, O., Salman, A. (2025). Talk to the Machine: Unleashing the Potential of AI to Scale Dialogic Education and Reduce Polarization. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Doi: 10.1007/s11412-025-09461-8.

29. Tang, K.S., Putra, G.B.S. (2025). Generative AI as a Dialogic Partner: Enhancing Multiple Perspectives, Reasoning, and Argumentation in Science Education with Customized Chatbots. Journal of Science Education and Technology. Doi: 10.1007/s10956-025-10240-1.

30. Yu, H., Jeong, S., Pawar, S., Shin, J., Jin, J. et al. (2025). Entangled in Representations: Mechanistic Investigation of Cultural Biases in Large Language Models. arXiv.org. arXiv:2508.08879v1. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.08879 (accessed 24. 01. 2026).

31. Holmes, W., Porayska-Pomsta, K., Holstein, K., Sutherland, E., Baker, T. et al. (2022). Ethics of AI in Education: Towards A Community-Wide Framework. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 504-526, doi: 10.1007/s40593-021-00239-1.