INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CHANGES IN EDUCATION
Research Article
May 26, 2025 1 0

Onto-epistemological Understandings of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education

Edwin Creely 1 * ,
Kitty Janssen 2
1 Faculty of Education, Monash University, Australia2 School of Social Sciences, Media, Film and Education, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia* Corresponding Author
International Journal of Changes in Education, 2(2), 2025, 55-65, https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE52024380
Publication date: May 26, 2025
Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

ver the past decade, the growth in generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is reshaping and changing how we interact, learn, and work and is likely to bring ongoing change in the future. However, current educational understandings, frameworks, and models concerning digital technologies and digital literacies are remaining relatively static and hierarchical and do not adequately accommodate GenAI’s unique learning capabilities, creative potential, and agency. In this conceptual article, we use critical dialogic inquiry and employ ecological thinking using the notion of symbiosis and posthuman perspectives to explore and speculate about the nature of GenAI and its potential impact on educators and learners. We offer a new way of conceptualizing human relationships with GenAI, which we call “symbi(AI)tic understandings.” Symbi(AI)tic understandings acknowledge the evolving and contextual relationships between partners: from balanced mutualism to one-sided commensalism to potentially harmful parasitism. Thus, we position human–GenAI relationships as part of change futures in which there are complex associations between technology and human endeavor. These understandings aim to foster more nuanced ways of being with and thinking about technology: ways which are vital for educators and learners as they transition into an era of education with AI.

KEYWORDS

AI generative AI symbi(AI)tic understandings education teacher education onto-epistemology

CITATION (APA)

Creely, E., & Janssen, K. (2025). Onto-epistemological Understandings of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education. International Journal of Changes in Education, 2(2), 55-65. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE52024380
Harvard
Creely, E., and Janssen, K. (2025). Onto-epistemological Understandings of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education. International Journal of Changes in Education, 2(2), pp. 55-65. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE52024380
Vancouver
Creely E, Janssen K. Onto-epistemological Understandings of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education. International Journal of Changes in Education. 2025;2(2):55-65. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE52024380
AMA
Creely E, Janssen K. Onto-epistemological Understandings of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education. International Journal of Changes in Education. 2025;2(2), 55-65. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE52024380
Chicago
Creely, Edwin, and Kitty Janssen. "Onto-epistemological Understandings of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education". International Journal of Changes in Education 2025 2 no. 2 (2025): 55-65. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE52024380
MLA
Creely, Edwin et al. "Onto-epistemological Understandings of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education". International Journal of Changes in Education, vol. 2, no. 2, 2025, pp. 55-65. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE52024380

REFERENCES

  1. McCarthy, J. (1987). Generality in artificial intelligence. Communications of the ACM, 30(12), 1030–1035. https://doi.org/10.1145/33447.33448
  2. Dobrin, S. I. (2023). Talking about generative AI: A guide for educators. Canada: Broadview Press.
  3. Biever, C. (2023). ChatGPT broke the Turing test – The race is on for new ways to assess AI. Nature, 619(7971), 686–689. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-02361-7
  4. Sabzalieva, E., & Valentini, A. (2023). ChatGPT and artificial intelligence in higher education: Quick start guide. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000385146
  5. Gozalo-Brizuela, R., & Merchan, E. E. G. (2024). A survey of generative AI applications. Journal of Computer Science, 20(8), 801–818. https://doi.org/10.3844/jcssp.2024.801.818
  6. Tzirides, A. O., Saini, A., Zapata, G., Searsmith, D., Cope, B., Kalantzis, M., ..., & Kastania, N. P. (2023). Generative AI: Implications and applications for education. arXiv Preprint: 2305.07605. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.07605
  7. Hitsuwari, J., Ueda, Y., Yun, W., & Nomura, M. (2023). Does human–AI collaboration lead to more creative art? Aesthetic evaluation of human-made and AI-generated haiku poetry. Computers in Human Behavior, 139, 107502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107502
  8. Bozkurt, A., Xiao, J., Lambert, S., Pazurek, A., Crompton, H., Koseoglu, S., ..., & Jandri´c, P. (2023). Speculative futures on ChatGPT and generative artificial intelligence (AI): A collective reflection from the educational landscape. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 53–130. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7636568
  9. Creely, E. (2024). Exploring the role of generative AI in enhancing language learning: Opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Changes in Education, 1(3), 158–167. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE42022495
  10. Pischetola, M. (2021). Re-imagining digital technology in education through critical and neo-materialist insights. Digital Education Review, (40), 154–171. https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2021.40.154-171
  11. Jauhiainen, J. S., & Garagorry Guerra, A. (2023). Generative AI and ChatGPT in school children’s education: Evidence from a school lesson. Sustainability, 15(18), 14025. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151814025
  12. Noroozi, O., Soleimani, S., Farrokhnia, M., & Banihashem, S. K. (2024). Generative AI in education: Pedagogical, theoretical, and methodological perspectives. International Journal of Technology in Education, 7(3), 373–385. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.845
  13. Press, N., Arumugam, P. P., & Ashford-Rowe, K. (2019). Defining digital literacy: A case study of Australian universities. In S. Y. W. Chew, K. M. Chan, & A. Alphonso (Eds.), Personalised learning. Diverse goals. One heart: 36th International Conference of Innovation, Practice and Research in the Use of Educational Technologies in Tertiary Education (pp. 255–263). Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education.
  14. Skantz-Åberg, E., Lantz-Andersson, A., Lundin, M., & Williams, P. (2022). Teachers’ professional digital competence: An overview of conceptualisations in the literature. Cogent Education, 9(1), 2063224. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2063224
  15. Mensonides, D., Smit, A., Talsma, I., Swart, J., & Broersma, M. (2024). Digital literacies as socially situated pedagogical processes: Genealogically understanding media, information, and digital literacies. Media and Communication, 12, 8174. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.8174
  16. Brown, J. P. (2015). Complexities of digital technology use and the teaching and learning of function. Computers & Education, 87, 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.022
  17. DeCoito, I., & Richardson, T. (2018). Teachers and technology: Present practice and future directions. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 18(2), 362–378.
  18. Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. USA: Indiana University Press.
  19. Blundell, C. N., Mukherjee, M., & Nykvist, S. (2022). A scoping review of the application of the SAMR model in research. Computers and Education Open, 3, 100093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100093
  20. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
  21. Mishra, P. (2019). Considering contextual knowledge: The TPACK diagram gets an upgrade. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(2), 76–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2019.1588611
  22. Mishra, P., Warr, M., & Islam, R. (2023). TPACK in the age of ChatGPT and generative AI. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 39(4), 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2023.2247480
  23. Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y
  24. Falloon, G. (2020). From digital literacy to digital competence: The teacher digital competency (TDC) framework. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(5), 2449–2472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09767-4
  25. Akram, H., Abdelrady, A. H., Al-Adwan, A. S., & Ramzan, M. (2022). Teachers’ perceptions of technology integration in teaching-learning practices: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 920317. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.920317
  26. Brenner, A. M., & Brill, J. M. (2016). Investigating practices in teacher education that promote and inhibit technology integration transfer in early career teachers. TechTrends, 60(2), 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0025-8
  27. Blannin, J., Redmond, P., McLeod, A., & Mayne, F. (2022). Positioning the technologies curriculum: A snapshot of Australian initial teacher education programs. The Australian Educational Researcher, 49(5), 979–999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-021-00473-5
  28. Williamson, J., Sprague, D. R., & Foulger, T. S. (2023). Characteristics and indicators of technology-infused programs: Supporting a paradigm shift in teacher preparation. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 31(2), 203–226.
  29. Department of Education. (2023). Australian framework for generative artificial intelligence (AI) in schools. Australian Government. https://www.education.gov.au/schooling/resources/australian-framework-generative-artificial-intelligence-ai-schools
  30. Lodge, J. M., Howard, S., Bearman, M., Dawson, P., Agostinho, S., Buckingham Shum, S., ..., & Slade, C. (2023). Assessment reform for the age of artificial intelligence. Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. https://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-09/assessment-reform-age-artificial-intelligence-discussion-paper.pdf
  31. European Commission. (2022). Ethical guidelines on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and data in teaching and learning for educators. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/153756.
  32. Miao, F., & Holmes, W. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://doi.org/10.54675/EWZM9535
  33. Ladjal, D., Joksimovi´c, S., Rakotoarivelo, T., & Zhan, C. (2022). Technological frameworks on ethical and trustworthy learning analytics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(4), 733–736. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13236
  34. Simbeck, K. (2024). They shall be fair, transparent, and robust: Auditing learning analytics systems. AI and Ethics, 4(2), 555–571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-023-00292-7
  35. Chan, C. K. Y. (2023). A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00408-3
  36. Vasoya, N. H. (2023). The role of parents and educators in managing the risks of artificial intelligence. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 41(4), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajess/2023/v41i4899
  37. Kirschner, S., Vidgen, R., & Wallace, C. (2022). Checkmate humanity: The how and why of responsible AI. Australia: Global Stories.
  38. Casal-Otero, L., Catala, A., Fernandez-Morante, C., Taboada, M., Cebreiro, B., & Barro, S. (2023). AI literacy in K-12: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00418-7
  39. Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021). Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041
  40. Markauskaite, L.,Marrone, R., Poquet, O., Knight, S.,Martinez-Maldonado, R., Howard, S., ..., & Siemens, G. (2022). Rethinking the entwinement between artificial intelligence and human learning: What capabilities do learners need for a world with AI? Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100056
  41. Wang, N., & Lester, J. (2023). K-12 education in the age of AI: A call to action for K-12 AI literacy. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 33(2), 228–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-023-00358-x
  42. Almatrafi, O., Johri, A., & Lee, H. (2024). A systematic review of AI literacy conceptualization, constructs, and implementation and assessment efforts (2019–2023). Computers and Education Open, 6, 100173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100173
  43. Hansen, M. B. N. (2000). Embodying technesis: Technology beyond writing. USA: University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.11092
  44. Russell, S., & Williams, R. (2002). Social shaping of technology: Frameworks, findings and implications for policy, with glossary of social shaping concepts. In K. H. Sørensen, & R. Williams (Eds.), Shaping technology, guiding policy: Concepts, spaces and tools (pp. 37–132). Edward Elgar.
  45. Ihde, D. (2010). Embodied technics. Denmark: Automatic Press.
  46. Ihde, D. (2012). Experimental phenomenology: Multistabilities (2nd ed.). USA: State University of New York Press.
  47. Watson, R. (2010). Future minds: How the digital age is changing our minds, why this matters, and what we can do about it. UK: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
  48. Korte, M. (2020). The impact of the digital revolution on human brain and behavior: Where do we stand? Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 22(2), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2020.22.2/mkorte
  49. Pacey, A. (1992). The maze of ingenuity: Ideas and idealism in the development of technology (2nd ed.). USA: MIT Press.
  50. Sommariva, A. (2018). The political economy of the space age: How science and technology shape the evolution of human society. USA: Vernon Press.
  51. Hoffman, R. (2023). Impromptu: Amplifying our humanity through AI. USA: Dallepedia.
  52. Boulus-Rødje, N., Cranefield, J., Doyle, C., & Fleron, B. (2024). GenAI and me: The hidden work of building and maintaining an augmentative partnership. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 28(6), 861–874. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-024-01810-y
  53. Bozkurt, A. (2024). GenAI et al.: Cocreation, authorship, ownership, academic ethics and integrity in a time of generative AI. Open Praxis, 16(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.16.1.654
  54. Osiurak, F., Navarro, J., & Reynaud, E. (2018). How our cognition shapes and is shaped by technology: A common framework for understanding human tool-use interactions in the past, present, and future. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 293. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00293
  55. Xiong, W., Wang, C., & Ma, L. (2023). Partner or subordinate? Sequential risky decision-making behaviors under human-machine collaboration contexts. Computers in Human Behavior, 139, 107556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107556
  56. Nah, F. F. H., Zheng, R., Cai, J., Siau, K., & Chen, L. (2023). Generative AI and ChatGPT: Applications, challenges, and AI-human collaboration. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 25(3), 277–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228053.2023.2233814
  57. Hurlburt, G. (2023). What if ethics got in the way of generative AI? IT Professional, 25(2), 4–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/MITP.2023.3267140
  58. Mikalef, P., Conboy, K., Eriksson Lundström, J., & Popovič, A. (2022). Thinking responsibly about responsible AI and ‘the dark side’ of AI. European Journal of Information Systems, 31(3), 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2022.2026621
  59. Nath, R., & Manna, R. (2023). From posthumanism to ethics of artificial intelligence. AI & Society, 38(1), 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01274-1
  60. Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. In C. D. Lee, & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp. 51–85). Cambridge University Press.
  61. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. USA: University of Texas Press.
  62. Selwyn, N. (2022). Education and technology: Key issues and debates (3rd ed.). UK: Bloomsbury.
  63. Koh, E., & Doroudi, S. (2023). Learning, teaching, and assessment with generative artificial intelligence: Towards a plateau of productivity. Learning: Research and Practice, 9(2), 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2023.2264086
  64. Kristensen, M. L. (2020). Introducing dialogic as a research methodology. International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy, 13(3), 196–216. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMCP.2020.111024
  65. Heitzmann, N., Opitz, A., Stadler, M., Sommerhoff, D., Fink, M. C., Obersteiner, A., ..., & Fischer, F. (2021). Cross disciplinary research on learning and instruction – Coming to terms. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 562658. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.562658
  66. Ejnavarzala, H. (2019). Epistemology–ontology relations in social research: A review. Sociological Bulletin, 68(1), 94–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038022918819369
  67. Geerts, E., & Carstens, D. (2019). Ethico-onto-epistemology. Philosophy Today, 63(4), 915–925. https://doi.org/10.5840/philtoday202019301
  68. Whatman, S., Wilkinson, J., Kaukko, M., Vedeler, G. W., Blue, L. E., & Reimer, K. E. (2023). Onto-epistemological and axiological considerations for researching practices. In S. Whatman, J. Wilkinson, M. Kaukko, G. W. Vedeler, L. E. Blue, & K. E. Reimer (Eds.), Researching practices across and within diverse educational sites: Onto-epistemological considerations (pp. 1–21). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80071-871-520231001
  69. Toohey, K. (2019). The onto-epistemologies of new materialism: Implications for applied linguistics pedagogies and research. Applied Linguistics, 40(6), 937–956. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy046
  70. Kant, S. L. (2014). The distinction and relationship between ontology and epistemology: Does it matter? Politikon: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science, 24, 68–85. https://doi.org/10.22151/politikon.24.4
  71. Ganguli, D., Hernandez, D., Lovitt, L., Askell, A., Bai, Y., Chen, A., ..., & Clark, J. (2022). Predictability and surprise in large generative models. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 1747–1764. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533229
  72. Hauhio, I., Kantosalo, A., Linkola, S., & Toivonen, H. (2023). The spectrum of unpredictability and its relation to creative autonomy. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computational Creativity, 148–152.
  73. Peschl, M. F. (2024). Human innovation and the creative agency of the world in the age of generative AI. Possibility Studies & Society, 2(1), 49–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/27538699241238049
  74. Sætra, H. S. (2023). Generative AI: Here to stay, but for good? Technology in Society, 75, 102372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102372
  75. Licklider, J. C. (1960). Man-computer symbiosis. IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, 1(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1109/THFE2.1960.4503259
  76. Gilbert, F., Ienca, M., & Cook, M. (2023). How I became myself after merging with a computer: Does human-machine symbiosis raise human rights issues? Brain Stimulation, 16(3), 783–789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2023.04.016
  77. Bronstein, J. L. (2012). Mutualism and symbiosis. In S. A. Levin (Ed.), The Princeton guide to ecology (pp. 233–238). Princeton University Press.
  78. Moran, N. A. (2007). Symbiosis as an adaptive process and source of phenotypic complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 8627–8633. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0611659104
  79. Aanen, D. K., & Hoekstra, R. F. (2007). The evolution of obligate mutualism: If you can’t beat’em, join’em. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 22(10), 506–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.08.007
  80. Shadbolt, N. (2022). “From so simple a beginning”: Species of artificial intelligence. Daedalus, 151(2), 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_01898
  81. Feuerriegel, S., Hartmann, J., Janiesch, C., & Zschech, P. (2024). Generative AI. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 66(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-023-00834-7
  82. Calverley, D. J. (2008). Imagining a non-biological machine as a legal person. AI & Society, 22(4), 523–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-007-0092-7
  83. Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. USA: Polity Press.
  84. Wolfe, C. (2010). What is posthumanism? USA: University of Minnesota Press.
  85. Lewis, P. M., Burns, G. L., & Jones, D. (2017). Response and responsibility: Humans as apex predators and ethical actors in a changing societal environment. Food Webs, 12, 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fooweb.2016.09.001
  86. Henriksen, D., Creely, E., & Mehta, R. (2022). Rethinking the politics of creativity: Posthumanism, indigeneity, and creativity beyond the western anthropocene. Qualitative Inquiry, 28(5), 465–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004211065813
  87. Hasse, C. (2019). Posthuman learning: AI from novice to expert? AI & Society, 34(2), 355–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-018-0854-4
  88. Ranjan, R. (2024). Beyond the ‘Anthropocene’ impasse: The Colonial past and dissenting futures in the era of climate crisis. Futures, 155, 103296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103296
  89. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. USA: Duke University Press.
  90. Haikonen, P. O. (2003). The cognitive approach to conscious machines. UK: Imprint Academic.
  91. Walter, Y., & Zbinden, L. (2022). The problem with AI consciousness: A neurogenetic case against synthetic sentience. arXiv Preprint: 2301.05397. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.05397
  92. Ferrara, E. (2024). Fairness and bias in artificial intelligence: A brief survey of sources, impacts, and mitigation strategies. Sci, 6(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/sci6010003
  93. Gelhaar, J., & Otto, B. (2020). Challenges in the emergence of data ecosystems. In PACIS 2020 Proceedings: Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, 1–14.
  94. Monteith, S., Glenn, T., Geddes, J. R.,Whybrow, P. C., Achtyes, E., & Bauer, M. (2024). Artificial intelligence and increasing misinformation. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 224(2), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2023.136
  95. Chen, W. Y. (2024). Intelligent tutor: Leveraging ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot Studio to deliver a generative AI student support and feedback system within teams. arXiv Preprint: 2405.13024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.13024
  96. Moorhouse, B. L., & Kohnke, L. (2024). The effects of generative AI on initial language teacher education: The perceptions of teacher educators. System, 122, 103290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103290
  97. Allen, D., & Weyl, E. G. (2024). The real dangers of generative AI. Journal of Democracy, 35(1), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2024.a915355
  98. White, J. (2019). Dreyfus on the “Fringe”: Information processing, intelligent activity, and the future of thinking machines. AI & Society, 34(2), 301–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-018-0837-5
  99. Matusov, E., von Duyke, K., & Kayumova, S. (2016). Mapping concepts of agency in educational contexts. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 50(3), 420–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-015-9336-0
  100. Rosenberger, R. (2017). Postphenomenological investigations: Essays on human-technology relations. USA: Lexington Books.
  101. Al-Zahrani, A. M. (2024). Balancing act: Exploring the interplay between human judgment and artificial intelligence in problem solving, creativity, and decision-making. IgMin Research, 2(3), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.61927/igmin158

LICENSE

Creative Commons License
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.