Learning with machines: Toward a theory of epistemic co-agency

Synthesis: Samuel (2026) introduces the Epistemic Entanglement Framework, a theory-informed model for understanding how learners engage with generative AI (GenAI) systems. Arguing that existing learning theories (constructivism, sociocultural theory, connectivism) presume human-centered epistemic agency and cannot account for the ways GenAI simulates reasoning, reframes arguments, and co-constructs meaning, the paper proposes epistemic co-agency — a reflexive stance in which learners engage AI outputs dialectically, challenging assumptions, surfacing contradictions, and asserting epistemic sovereignty. The central claim is that the real challenge of AI in education is not technological fluency but cultivating learners who can reason with, through, and against generative systems.

Key Findings

The paper identifies three epistemic configurations of human-AI interaction: Epistemic Augmentation (EA) — learners treat AI as a content generator, adopting a low-interrogation posture that improves surface productivity but leaves knowledge construction passive; Epistemic Integration (EI) — learners strategically prompt, refine, and coordinate AI outputs into evolving reasoning, managing knowledge production without interrogating the epistemic status of claims; and Epistemic Co-Agency (EC) — learners treat AI outputs as epistemically contestable contributions, engaging them dialectically while maintaining epistemic sovereignty and accountability for warranting knowledge.

These configurations are not stages of maturity but patterned epistemic relationships that vary by task, design, and learner posture; the task of learning design is to help learners recognize which configuration they are in, understand its limits, and develop agility to shift postures as needed.

Epistemic entanglement refers to the condition where knowledge construction emerges through reciprocal interaction between human reasoning and AI-generated contributions, such that the boundaries of authorship, authority, and justification become hard to disentangle.

Epistemic co-agency explicitly rejects "AI partner"/"co-author" metaphors (which imply mutuality and shared intention); it focuses instead on the learner's capacity to maintain epistemic sovereignty while navigating an entangled system of influence and response.

The framework warns against current AI-in-education tools that prioritize efficiency and risk reinforcing passive epistemic postures and overtrust, calling for design that embeds "epistemic friction" (prompt templates requiring justification, multiple-output displays, confidence visualizations, critique scaffolds like "What's missing?" and "Whose perspective is absent?").

Study Design & Method

This is a conceptual/theoretical paper proposing a framework, not an empirical study. Drawing on distributed cognition, sociomaterialism, posthumanist theory, and the concept of relational agency, the author develops the Epistemic Entanglement Framework and articulates the three configurations (EA, EI, EC) in terms of distinct human postures, cognitive demands, and design implications. The configurations are also mapped onto analytic dimensions from Thürmel's (2015) graduated agency framework (activity level, adaptivity, interaction potential, personification, joint agency). The paper concludes with pedagogical and assessment implications for scaffolding learners toward co-agency, and acknowledges the author used ChatGPT as a supplementary writing/ideation tool during manuscript development.

Implications for AI in Education

The paper reframes the learner-AI relationship as a developmental epistemic process rather than static tool-use or naive collaboration. For instructional design, it argues current tools (SchoolAI, Curipod, ChatGPT) prioritize efficiency in ways that risk reinforcing passive epistemic postures, and calls for embedding epistemic friction and critique scaffolds. For assessment, it argues traditional assessments of correctness/coherence are poorly suited to capture epistemic shifts; instead, assessments should measure the reasoning trajectory (how the learner moved from question to insight and how AI figured in that arc), with reflective prompts, process explanations, and evidence of revision — while protecting against superficial "AI detection" that reduces engagement to surveillance. It positions GenAI not as an "assistant" but as an object of inquiry and a new epistemic actor, connecting to AI Literacy, Critical Thinking, Metacognition, and Cognitive Offloading, and cautioning against Over Reliance.

Limitations

As a conceptual paper, the framework has not been empirically tested; the author explicitly calls for future research to test and refine the model. The framework's configurations are theoretical constructs without operationalized measures. The paper does not provide concrete curriculum designs, only illustrative examples. The context is higher education, and the author notes disciplinary norms vary in how knowledge is validated, which may affect how the framework applies across fields.

Connected Concepts

Connected Articles

Posthumanist AI Literacy 2025 — A Posthumanist Approach to AI Literacy

Metacognitive AI Literacy Beyond Skills Gap 2026 — Metacognitive AI Literacy: Beyond the Skills Gap

GenAI Over Reliance Learning 2026 — Generative AI and Over-Reliance

AI Metacognition STEM Review — AI Tools Scaffolding Metacognition in STEM

Learning To Learn In The Age Of Generative AI A Scoping Review And Conceptual Fr — Learning-to-Learn in the Age of Generative AI

Citation

Samuel, A. (2026). Learning with machines: Toward a theory of epistemic co-agency. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence.