Scholarlink

<p>Large Language Models (LLMs) are being rapidly deployed in higher education, yet institutions lack integrated, theoretically grounded frameworks to guide responsible adoption. While meta-analytic evidence reports large positive effects on academic performance (g = 0.867; Wang and Fan 2025), emerging research reveals a “cognitive paradox”: performance gains may coincide with diminished metacognitive accuracy and self-regulation—a gap no existing framework comprehensively addresses across adaptation design, data governance, pedagogical targeting, and learner agency simultaneously. Methodology. Through a targeted narrative synthesis of 35 empirical studies published between January 2024 and February 2025, supplemented by selected post-window studies incorporated during peer review, and grounded in four learning theories—Connectivism, Distributed Cognition, Cognitive Load Theory, and Self-Regulated Learning—this paper develops the Adaptive Learning Taxonomy for Educational Decision-Making (ALT-ED). The framework structures institutional decision-making across four operational dimensions: Adaptation Trigger, Data Granularity, Pedagogical Locus, and Agency. Key findings. Three central findings emerge: (1) the cognitive paradox requires shifting the pedagogical locus from cognitive scaffolding to metacognitive development; (2) high-resolution data collection amplifies algorithmic bias, supporting a default of progressive data minimisation; and (3) the policy-practice chasm demands transparent, auditable design frameworks rather than prohibition-based approaches. Recommendations. Institutions should prioritise a metacognitive pedagogical locus to foster “learning to learn” skills, employ progressive data granularity to balance personalisation with student privacy, and default to learner-negotiated agency as a structural safeguard against algorithmic determinism. Limitations. The framework has not yet been empirically validated through prospective institutional implementation. Additional limitations include reliance on predominantly short-term quasi-experimental evidence, the absence of standardised metrics for real-time metacognitive efficiency, and a literature base that is overwhelmingly English-language and Western-centric. Future research should focus on cross-institutional pilot validations, longitudinal studies of cognitive entrainment, and the development of standardised instruments for measuring metacognitive efficiency in AI-augmented environments.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The adaptive learning taxonomy for responsible large language model integration in higher education

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月3日

查看全文
  • Simon Baradziej,
  • Adrianna Kochanska

摘要

Large Language Models (LLMs) are being rapidly deployed in higher education, yet institutions lack integrated, theoretically grounded frameworks to guide responsible adoption. While meta-analytic evidence reports large positive effects on academic performance (g = 0.867; Wang and Fan 2025), emerging research reveals a “cognitive paradox”: performance gains may coincide with diminished metacognitive accuracy and self-regulation—a gap no existing framework comprehensively addresses across adaptation design, data governance, pedagogical targeting, and learner agency simultaneously. Methodology. Through a targeted narrative synthesis of 35 empirical studies published between January 2024 and February 2025, supplemented by selected post-window studies incorporated during peer review, and grounded in four learning theories—Connectivism, Distributed Cognition, Cognitive Load Theory, and Self-Regulated Learning—this paper develops the Adaptive Learning Taxonomy for Educational Decision-Making (ALT-ED). The framework structures institutional decision-making across four operational dimensions: Adaptation Trigger, Data Granularity, Pedagogical Locus, and Agency. Key findings. Three central findings emerge: (1) the cognitive paradox requires shifting the pedagogical locus from cognitive scaffolding to metacognitive development; (2) high-resolution data collection amplifies algorithmic bias, supporting a default of progressive data minimisation; and (3) the policy-practice chasm demands transparent, auditable design frameworks rather than prohibition-based approaches. Recommendations. Institutions should prioritise a metacognitive pedagogical locus to foster “learning to learn” skills, employ progressive data granularity to balance personalisation with student privacy, and default to learner-negotiated agency as a structural safeguard against algorithmic determinism. Limitations. The framework has not yet been empirically validated through prospective institutional implementation. Additional limitations include reliance on predominantly short-term quasi-experimental evidence, the absence of standardised metrics for real-time metacognitive efficiency, and a literature base that is overwhelmingly English-language and Western-centric. Future research should focus on cross-institutional pilot validations, longitudinal studies of cognitive entrainment, and the development of standardised instruments for measuring metacognitive efficiency in AI-augmented environments.