TRANSFORMATION OF PEDAGOGICAL ACTIVITY IN THE ERA OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: HUMAN AGENCY, TASK DISTRIBUTION, AND PEDAGOGICAL RESPONSIBILITY
Keywords:
generative artificial intelligence, pedagogical activity, human agency, distribution of intellectual tasks, pedagogical responsibility, technological support, independent thinking, pedagogical decision-making, activity-based approach, constructivist approach.Abstract
The article analyzes the changes occurring in the goals and content of pedagogical
activity, the distribution of tasks among participants in the educational process, and the
foundations of outcome assessment as a result of the introduction of generative artificial
intelligence into education. The study primarily focuses on the need to avoid automatically
equating technological capabilities with pedagogical effectiveness, preserve human
agency, ensure the purposeful distribution of intellectual activities, and maintain human
responsibility for final pedagogical decisions. Activity-based, constructivist, learner-
centered, and pedagogical support approaches are applied to the context of generative
artificial intelligence, revealing their theoretical continuity and the aspects that require
further clarification. As a result, pedagogical activity involving generative artificial
intelligence is interpreted as a managed distribution of intellectual tasks grounded in
human agency. The main pedagogical contradictions and possible directions for resolving
them are systematized.
References
1. Viberg O., Cukurova M., Kizilcec R. F. et al. Protecting and Promoting Human Agency in Education in the Age of
Artificial Intelligence. – 2026. – arXiv:2602.20014. – DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.20014.
2. Добрякова М. С. Ученик выигрывает: знания, грамотности и компетентности в школе. – Москва:
Издательский дом Высшей школы экономики, 2023. – DOI: 10.17323/978-5-7598-2954-6.
3. Muslimov N. A., Usmonboyeva M. H., Sayfurov D. M., To‘rayev A. B. Innovatsion ta’lim texnologiyalari: o‘quv-
metodik qo‘llanma. – Toshkent: Sano-standart, 2015.
4. Panadero E. A Review of Self-regulated Learning: Six Models and Four Directions for Research // Frontiers in
Psychology. – 2017. – Vol. 8. – Art. 422. – DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422.
5. Abdurahmonova Z. A. O‘qituvchi va o‘quvchining hamkorlik faoliyatini tashkil etishning pedagogik-psixologik
xususiyatlari // Zamonaviy ta’lim. – 2017. – № 9. – B. 17–21.
6. Sharples M. Towards Social Generative AI for Education: Theory, Practices and Ethics // Learning: Research and
Practice. – 2023. – Vol. 9, № 2. – P. 159–167. – DOI: 10.1080/23735082.2023.2261131.
7. UNESCO. Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research. – Paris: UNESCO, 2023.
8. Kasneci E., Sessler K., Küchemann S. et al. ChatGPT for Good? On Opportunities and Challenges of Large Language
Models for Education // Learning and Individual Differences. – 2023. – Vol. 103. – Art. 102274. – DOI:
10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274.
9. Tlili A., Shehata B., Adarkwah M. A. et al. What If the Devil Is My Guardian Angel: ChatGPT as a Case Study of Using
Chatbots in Education // Smart Learning Environments. – 2023. – Vol. 10. – Art. 15. – DOI: 10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x.
10. Soderstrom N. C., Bjork R. A. Learning versus Performance: An Integrative Review // Perspectives on
Psychological Science. – 2015. – Vol. 10, № 2. – P. 176–199. – DOI: 10.1177/1745691615569000.