厘清学习者自主性与能动性的三重维度，揭示教育AI研究盲区。
Large-scale semantic mapping of learner agency and autonomy reveals what measurement and generative AI research overlook
- 基于8954个定义和2700项量表，分析1.4万篇论文中的实际用法
- 发现三维度：学习调控（任务）、内在动机（个体）、社会互动（文化）
- 指出当前教育AI聚焦调控维度，忽视社会文化层面
学习者自主性与能动性是个人发展的基础，但长期存在的“同名异义”与“异名同义”谬误严重阻碍了知识积累。本文以语言实践中的意义建构为出发点，从超过1.4万篇文献中提取8,954个定义和2,700项量表条目，通过语义分析流程探究研究者对这两个概念的实际使用。结果表明，两者的定义景观可归纳为三个维度：学习的调控与控制（任务）、内在动机与内部决策（个体）、社会关系性行动（社会文化），从而实证量化了同名异义现象。然而，现有量表系统性地低估了社会文化维度。关键的是，当前教育生成式AI研究主要集中于学习调控与控制，压缩了人工智能支持的学习环境所应培养的行为范畴。本研究不仅推动概念澄清，更对概念构建、测量与实践具有直接启示，助力发展多维度的学习者自主性与能动性支持体系。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Learner agency and autonomy are foundational to personal development, yet a pervasive "jingle-jangle" fallacy (i.e. identical terms denoting different constructs, distinct terms denoting identical ones) has substantially hindered cumulative knowledge. Treating meaning as a phenomenon constituted through use in linguistic practice, we extracted 8,954 definitions and 2,700 scale items from over 14,000 publications, to investigate how researchers actually used learner agency and autonomy with a semantic analysis pipeline. The definitional landscape of two constructs resolves into three dimensions: regulation and control of learning (task), intrinsic motivation and internal decision-making (person), and social-relational action (sociocultural), thereby empirically quantifying the jingle-jangle fallacy. Existing scales, however, systematically underrepresent the sociocultural dimension. Critically, current generative AI research in education concentrates on learning regulation and control, narrowing the behavioral repertoire that AI-mediated learning environments are designed to cultivate. Beyond conceptual clarification, this work carries direct implications for conceptualization, measurement, and practice towards supporting the multidimensional learner agency and autonomy.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品；中文卡片由大模型生成，请以原文为准。