Entagogy: Developing a Systems-Theoretical Framework for Autopoietic Co-Construction Between Learners and AI in Posthumanist Education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58818/ijems.v5i1.215Keywords:
Developing Frameworks, Autopoietic Construction, Educational AI Learners, Post-HumanitiesAbstract
This article introduces Entagogy, a posthumanist, systems-theoretical framework for AI-integrated learning that addresses conceptual gaps left by traditional paradigms such as pedagogy, andragogy, and heutagogy. Drawing on Luhmann’s theory of structural coupling, Entagogy reconceptualises the interaction between the Human Cognitive System (HCS) and the AI Semantic Subsystem (AISS) as co-autopoietic, mutually adaptive, and structurally coupled processes occurring within an entangled Zone of Proximal Development (e-ZPD). Entagogy’s novel contributions include (i) the introduction of a measurable Coupling Index and clearly defined mechanical thresholds of adaptivity, latency responsiveness, and governance permeability, that determine when genuinely recursive and co-constructive learning emerges; (ii) the elaboration of the Entagogy Stack, an integrative schema connecting computational substrates, interface semantics, exogenous perturbations, and institutional policy; and (iii) a methodological roadmap structured around four analytical lenses: scenario-based reasoning, learning-analytics trace ethnography, longitudinal mixed-methods inquiry, and comparative multimodal analysis. The article explicitly addresses limitations, including systemic risks associated with digital inequality, bias propagation, and ethical oversight. Ultimately, Entagogy equips researchers, educators, and policymakers with actionable theoretical constructs, robust validation criteria, and equity-driven governance recommendations, guiding the development of ethically grounded, adaptive, and inclusive AI-enhanced learning environments.
Downloads
References
Anderson, T. and Shattuck, J., 2012. Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research. Educational Researcher, 41(1), pp.16–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11428813
Agonács, N., & Matos, J. F. (2019). Heutagogy and self-determined learning: A systematic review of the literature. Open Learning, 34(3), 223–240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2018.1562329
Alkhatlan, K. and Kalita, J., (2018). Intelligent Tutoring Systems: A Comprehensive Historical Survey with Recent Developments. [online] arXiv. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.09628 [Accessed 24 May 2025].
Baker, R.S. and Rodrigo, M.M.T., 2019. AI and emotion in education: Advancing scholarship with ecological momentary assessment. In: Artificial Intelligence in Education. Cham: Springer, pp.36–47.
Barab, S. and Squire, K., 2004. Design research for technology-mediated learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), pp.1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_1
Barad, K. (2007) Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv12101zq
Bayne, S. and Jandrić, P. (2020) ‘Postdigital education in the time of COVID-19 crisis’, Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), pp. 1063–1066. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00195-4
Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998) ‘Assessment and classroom learning’, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), pp. 7–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
Blaschke, L.M. (2021) Heutagogy: reframing the learner for the future. In: Naidu, S. (ed.) Open and Distance Education Theory Revisited. Singapore: Springer, 259–272.
Bloom, B.S., 1984. The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), pp.4–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X013006004
Bonabeau, E., 2002. Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(Suppl. 3), pp.7280–7287. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.082080899
Bozkurt, A. (2024). Postdigital Educational Technology. In P. Jandrić (ed.), Encyclopedia of Postdigital Science and Education. Cham: Springer. [online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35469-4_57-1 [Accessed 24 May 2025]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35469-4_57-1
Braidotti, R. (2013). The Posthuman. Cambridge: Polity Press
Burriss, S.K. and Leander, K.M., (2024). Critical posthumanist literacy: Building theory for reading, writing, and living ethically with everyday AI. Reading Research Quarterly, 59(1), pp.123–144.
Burriss, S.K. and Leander, K.M., 2024. Critical posthumanist literacy: Building theory for reading, writing, and living ethically with everyday AI. Reading Research Quarterly, 59(4), pp.560–569. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.565
Cadman, S., Tanner, C., & Pang, P. C. I. (2025). Humanism strikes back? A posthumanist reckoning with ‘self-development’ and generative AI. AI & Society (advance online publication) . DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02339-1
Chang, H., Ngunjiri, F.W. and Hernandez, K., 2013. Collaborative Autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Dawson, S., 2010. ‘Seeing’ the learning community: Analysing academic social networks. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), pp.16–31.
Design-Based Research Collective, 2003. Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), pp.5–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001005
D’Mello, S.K. and Graesser, A.C., 2012. Dynamics of affective states during complex learning. Learning and Instruction, 22(2), pp.145–157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.001
Dikker, S., Wan, L., Davidesco, I., et al., 2017. Brain-to-brain synchrony tracks real-world group interactions in the classroom. Current Biology, 27(9), pp.1375–1380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.04.002
Dunne, A. and Raby, F., 2013. Speculative Everything: Design, fiction, and social dreaming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ellis, C., Adams, T.E. and Bochner, A.P., 2011. Autoethnography: An overview. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12(1), Art. 10.
European Commission (2021) Proposal for a Regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Brussels: European Commission.
Fawns, T., (2022). An entangled pedagogy: Looking beyond the pedagogy–technology dichotomy. Postdigital Science and Education, 4(3), pp.711–728. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-022-00302-7
Fairclough, N., 2010. Critical Discourse Analysis: The critical study of language. 2nd ed. Harlow: Longman.
Fenwick, T., Edwards, R. and Sawchuk, P., 2011. Emerging Approaches to Educational Research: Tracing the sociomaterial. London: Routledge.
Foucault, M., 1977. Discipline and Punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Pantheon.
Floridi, L. and Cowls, J. (2019) ‘A unified framework of five principles for AI in society’, Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1). DOI:10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1
Gouzouasis, P. and Ryu, J.Y., 2015. A pedagogical tale from the piano studio: Autoethnography in music education and new technologies. Journal of Research in Music Education, 63(2), pp.139–155.
Haraway, D. (2016) Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11cw25q
Harley, J.M., Poitras, E. and Duffy, M.C., 2019. Ecological momentary assessment in education research: A practical introduction. Journal of Educational Research & Practice, 9(1), pp.101–120.
Hase, S. and Kenyon, C. (2000) From andragogy to heutagogy. Southern Cross University.
Holmes, W., Bialik, M. and Fadel, C. (2019) Artificial Intelligence in Education: Promises and Implications for Teaching and Learning. Boston: Center for Curriculum Redesign.
Holmes, W., Tuzun, H. and Fortune, M., 2021. Artificial intelligence in education: Simulation of learner dynamics. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 31(3), pp.480–499.
Holt, S., 2024. Balloon Theory. [online] Academia.edu. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/128872254/Balloon_Theory [Accessed 1 June 2025].
Holt, Stephanie L, and Alexander Harris. “Is Society Primed for Education's Evolution? Transitioning from Learning to Use AI, to Using AI for Learning, to Leveraging AI for Thinking.” Research MI Journal: Hong Kong 9.1 (2025): 33–35. Print.
Kohavi, R. and Longbotham, R., 2017. Online controlled experiments and A/B testing. In: C. Sammut and G.I. Webb, eds. Encyclopedia of Machine Learning and Data Mining. Boston, MA: Springer, pp.922–929. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7687-1_891
Kress, G., 2010. Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.
Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling the Social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199256044.001.0001
Liu, J., & Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2020). Comparing methods of policy borrowing: Human Capital Index and the externalization of education policy. Prospects, 51(1), 55–72 .
Loeng, S. (2023) ‘Pedagogy and andragogy in comparison – conceptions and perspectives’, Andragoška Spoznanja, 2023, 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4312/as/11482
Luhmann, N., (1997). Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The realization of the living. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8947-4
Meadows, D.H., 2008. Thinking in Systems: A primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Mondada, L., 2019. Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality. Language in Society, 48(4), pp.521–547.
Moore, R. L. (2020). Developing lifelong learning with heutagogy: contexts, critiques, and challenges. Distance Education, 41(3), 381–401 . DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1766949
Morales, L. and Zarabadi, S. (2024) Posthuman Educational Mappings: Agential Realism and Educational Practices. New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003365693-1
Nelson, L.K., 2017. Computational grounded theory: A methodological framework. Sociological Methods & Research, 49(1), pp.3–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124117729703
Norris, S., 2004. Analysing Multimodal Interaction: A methodological framework. New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203379493
Nicol, D. and Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006) ‘Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice’, Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), pp. 199–218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
Norman, D.A. (2013) The Design of Everyday Things. Revised and expanded edn. New York: Basic Books.
OECD, (2023). AI and the Future of Skills: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Education. [online] Paris: OECD Publishing. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/education/ai-and-the-future-of-skills.htm [Accessed 24 May 2025].
OECD, (2023b). OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023: Towards an Effective Digital Education Ecosystem. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Pasquale, F. (2015) The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674736061
Ralund, S. and Carlsen, H.B., 2022. Computational grounded theory revisited: From computer-led to computer-assisted text analysis. Big Data & Society, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517221106615 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517221080146
Rouvroy, A. and Berns, T., 2013. Algorithmic governmentality and prospects of emancipation: Disparateness as a precondition for individuation through relationships. Réseaux, 177(1), pp.163–196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/res.177.0163
Rosiek, J. L., Adkins-Cartee, M. J., & Pratt, S. L. (2024). A review of posthumanist education research: Expanded conceptions of research possibility and responsibility. Review of Research in Education, 48(1), 3–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X241265332
Schneider, B. and Kaufman, J., 2017. Trying it on for size: Instrumental variables and causal inference in education research. Educational Researcher, 46(6), pp.299–306.
Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T., 2002. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Shiffman, S., Stone, A.A. and Hufford, M.R., 2008. Ecological momentary assessment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, pp.1–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091415
Steiner-Khamsi, G., 2021. Externalisation and structural coupling: Applications in comparative policy studies in education. European Educational Research Journal, 20(6), pp.729–746.
Sterman, J.D., 2000. Business Dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
St Clair, R. (2024) ‘Andragogy: past and present potential’, New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2024(184), 7–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.20546
Steiner-Khamsi, G., (2021). Externalisation and structural coupling: Applications in comparative policy studies in education. European Educational Research Journal, 20(6), pp.806–820. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904120988394
UNESCO (2016) Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4. Paris: UNESCO.
Vanderstraeten, R. (2019) 'How Does Education Function?', European Educational Research Journal, 18(3), pp. 234–247.
Vanderstraeten, R. (2019). Systems Everywhere? Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 36(3), pp.255-262. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2596
Vanderstraeten, R. and Biesta, G. (2006). How is Education Possible? Pragmatism, Communication and the Social Organisation of Education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 54(2), pp.160-174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2006.00338.x
Vanderstraeten, R., (2021). How does education function? European Educational Research Journal, 20(6), pp.729–739. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904120948979
Varela, F.J., 1996. Neurophenomenology: A methodological remedy for the hard problem. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 3(4), pp.330–349.
Vanderstraeten, R., & Rudolph, H. (2020). Revisiting Luhmann’s ‘Education as a social system’. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 52(3), 360–375 .
Veale, M. and Edwards, L. (2018) ‘Clarity, surprises, and further questions in the Article 29 Working Party draft guidance on automated decision-making and profiling’, Computer Law & Security Review, 34(2), pp. 398–404. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2017.12.002
Vygotsky, L.S., (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weich, A. and Macgilchrist, F. (2023). Postdigital Participation in Education: An Introduction. In A. Weich and F. Macgilchrist (eds.), Postdigital Participation in Education. Palgrave Studies in Educational Media. [online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38052-5_1 [Accessed 24 May 2025]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38052-5
Williamson, B., 2017. Big Data in Education: The digital future of learning, policy and practice. London: SAGE. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529714920
Wilensky, U. and Rand, W., 2015. An Introduction to Agent-Based Modeling: Modeling natural, social, and engineered complex systems with NetLogo. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wright, J., Matuk, C. and Lutzenberger, M., 2023. Computational grounded theory in the learning sciences. Journal of Learning Analytics, 10(1), pp.50–66.
Zheng, Y. and Saunders, C., 2022. Anticipating the side effects of educational reform using system dynamics. In: M. A. Peters, ed. Global Education Reform. Singapore: Springer, pp.120–145.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Alexander Harris, Stephanie Holt (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright and License Statement
Authors who publish their manuscripts in this Journal agree to the following conditions:
The copyright for any article in The International Journal of Education Management and Sociology (IJEMS) is fully held by the author under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license:
- The author acknowledges The International Journal of Education Management and Sociology (IJEMS) has the right to publish for the first time with a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License / CC BY 4.0.
- Authors can enter writings separately, arrange non-exclusive distribution of manuscripts that have been published in this journal into other versions (eg sent to the author's institutional repository, publication in a book, etc.), by acknowledging that the manuscript has been published for the first time in The International Journal of Education Management and Sociology (IJEMS)
- The International Journal of Education Management and Sociology (IJEMS) published under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License / CC BY 4.0. This license permits anyone to copy and redistribute this material in any form or format, compose, modify, and make derivative works of this material for any purpose, including commercial purposes, so long as they include credit to the Author of the original work.
