R.001Paper
Reading — placeholder record
Placeholder for a research paper entering the archive: what it argues, where it resists the current line of inquiry, and which thread it is filed under. Text to be supplied.
05 — Research
Research
Learning · Creative Practice · Generative AI
01 — Learning + AI
How should learning be designed when generative AI can perform parts of the thinking and decision making that learning is intended to develop?
A living,
growing archive.
Sources, working propositions, applied resources and questions
R.002Artwork
Research material to be supplied
Plate R.002 — material to be supplied. Medium and source pending.
S.001Signal
R.003Quotation
Placeholder quotation. The passage that will sit here is being selected; it is held in the archive because it complicates the argument rather than confirming it.
R.004Observation
Teaching observation — placeholder
Placeholder for a short observation from teaching practice. Anonymised and consented material only. Text to be supplied.
R.005Studio
Studio experiment — placeholder
Placeholder for a studio experiment: the constraint set, what the material refused, and what had to be decided. Documentation to be supplied.
E.001Essay
Interruption — 01
Creative practice↓Friction↓Learning / Imagination / Judgement / Agency
Keep scrolling — the page moves sidewaysFriction
Materials resist. Ideas fail. Decisions carry consequences. Skills have to be built, work has to be revised, and uncertainty has to be tolerated long enough for judgement to form.
Note — friction is not a research territory. It is a condition under which the four territories are formed.
The research question underneath the archive: what happens to learning, judgement and agency when generative systems remove, shift or disguise that resistance?
Archive resumes ↓
R.006Question
Question raised — placeholder
A question the archive has produced rather than answered. Wording to be supplied.
R.007Book
Book — placeholder record
Placeholder bibliographic record. The public archive carries the reference and the reading note; the copy itself stays in the private research library.
R.008Diagram
Research material to be supplied
Plate R.008 — working diagram to be supplied.
R.009Writing
Fragment of writing — placeholder
A short fragment of my own writing sits here. The full text is not placed in the archive; it is filed under Writings and read on its own page.
R.010Cultural
Cultural research — placeholder
Placeholder for cultural research on generative systems in making: what is being automated, what is being displaced, and where the resistance has gone.
SignalsCultural research
What is shifting in culture?
ObservationsArtistic research
What becomes visible through practice?
What I am looking for
- Commitment
- Latency
- Dwelling
- Externalisation
- Learning Sequence
- Judgement
- Revision
- Reversibility
- Rhythm
- AI entry
Applied
ResearchFrom inquiry to practical application
A working lens for learning design
Where Does the Thinking Still Happen?
A working decision lens for examining which parts of a learning process remain with the learner when generative AI is used.
- Intend
- Attempt
- Encounter
- Notice
- Judge
- Revise
This is a recurring cycle of reflective making, not a universal sequence for all learning. It is used here as a lens for identifying where AI supports learning and where it may perform the cognitive work on the learner’s behalf.
Transfer test
Can the learner use what they have developed in a changed context or without equivalent AI assistance?
Use the lens
- Identify the intended learning.
- Locate the thinking and decision making students need to practise.
- Examine which parts AI could perform for them.
- Redesign the task so that consequential attempts, interpretation, judgement and revision remain visible.
- Test whether the resulting understanding transfers.
Writings
Longer texts read on their own page
Writing / 001
Essay title to be supplied
Date pending
Imagination / Judgement
Writing / 002
Essay title to be supplied
Date pending
Agency
Writing / 003
Essay title to be supplied
Date pending
Judgement / Agency
Sources
Bibliographic index — no copies hosted
S.001
Risko, E. F., & Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 676–688.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002 ↗
Explains how people use external tools to reduce cognitive demand. Offloading is not inherently harmful; the learning-design question is whether students are offloading a capability they are expected to develop.
Cognitive offloading / AI support / Learner responsibility
S.002
Soderstrom, N. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2015). Learning versus performance: An integrative review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 176–199.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615569000 ↗
Distinguishes successful task performance from durable learning. AI may improve immediate output without establishing that understanding can transfer.
Learning / Performance / Transfer
S.003
Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823 ↗
Provides a framework for distinguishing passive, active, constructive and interactive engagement. It supports asking what intellectual activity the learner still performs.
Cognitive engagement / Construction / Interaction
S.004
Bearman, M., Tai, J., Dawson, P., Boud, D., & Ajjawi, R. (2024). Developing evaluative judgement for a time of generative artificial intelligence. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(6), 893–905.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2335321 ↗
Positions the ability to judge quality as an essential capability when students work with generative AI.
Evaluative judgement / Generative AI / Assessment
S.005
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Describes professional knowing as an iterative conversation with an uncertain situation: acting, noticing consequences and adjusting while working.
Reflection in action / Professional practice / Revision
S.006
Miao, F., & Cukurova, M. (2024). AI competency framework for teachers. UNESCO.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000391104 ↗
Frames educator AI capability across human-centred, ethical, technical, pedagogical and professional-learning dimensions.
Educator capability / AI pedagogy / Human agency
S.001
Author to be supplied. Title to be supplied. Publication and year pending. DOI / external link to be supplied.
Tags pending
S.002
Author to be supplied. Title to be supplied. Publication and year pending. DOI / external link to be supplied.
Tags pending
S.003
Author to be supplied. Title to be supplied. Publication and year pending. DOI / external link to be supplied.
Tags pending
S.004
Author to be supplied. Title to be supplied. Publication and year pending. DOI / external link to be supplied.
Tags pending
S.005
Author to be supplied. Title to be supplied. Publication and year pending. DOI / external link to be supplied.
Tags pending
S.006
Author to be supplied. Title to be supplied. Publication and year pending. DOI / external link to be supplied.
Tags pending
Copies of papers and books remain in the private research library.
Emerging
Questions
Developing, revised in place
Q.01 / LEARNING
What must learners still do for themselves when generative AI becomes part of the learning process?
Q.02 / TRANSFER
How can we distinguish AI-supported performance from knowledge that learners can use and transfer independently?
Q.03 / CREATIVE PRACTICE
What does reflective making reveal about how understanding develops through attempts, consequences and revision?
Q.04 / IMAGINATION
What happens to learners' capacity to imagine possibilities when generative AI can generate possibilities for them?
Q.05 / JUDGEMENT
How do learners develop the capacity to recognise, question and improve AI-generated work?
Q.06 / AGENCY
How can learners retain direction, choice and responsibility when generative AI participates in the process?