Don't Ban It, Don't Just Use It—Raise It: Raised Learning Companion Agents (RLCA) for AI-Era Education
Description
This paper proposes the Raised Learning Companion Agent (RLCA), a conceptual and design-science framework for AI-era education. The central problem addressed is not whether AI can explain, tutor, or generate feedback, but whether students can repeatedly return to AI as a guided learning practice rather than use it episodically as an answer machine.
The framework identifies six structural lock-ins of contemporary education: memorization-centered learning, rank-based comparison, credential-first evaluation, lecture-only teaching, AI prohibition, and digital inequality. RLCA responds by translating digital-pet and companion-interface mechanisms—persistent identity, care, visible growth, ownership, and return motivation—into a teacher-mediated educational architecture focused on questioning, verification, expression, reflection, and offline learning.
An RLCA is defined by five minimum criteria: persistent companion identity, student-shaped learning growth, questioning and verification support, teacher-mediated governance, and offline learning re-anchoring. The paper explicitly rejects teacher replacement, screen-time maximization, and unconstrained emotional companionship. Retention is treated only as a mediator of repeated learning opportunity, not as proof of learning.
The paper does not report completed classroom validation. Instead, it defines the RLCA design category, safety boundaries, system architecture, governance requirements, and a staged evaluation protocol. Future pilots should compare tool-based AI, AI tutors, full RLCAs, and ablation conditions across question quality, verification behavior, expression, secondary academic outcomes, teacher trust, equity, privacy comprehension, and dependency risk.
In short, the paper reframes AI-era education from “ban AI or use AI” to “raise safe learning companions that help students become better questioners, verifiers, and self-directed learners.”
Files
1. Lee_2026_Raised_Learning_Companion_Agents_v1.pdf
Files
(3.2 MB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:0bc2ff5d6680551ce69bde34532f92e1
|
2.3 MB | Preview Download |
|
md5:c557eacad45a6102940ee940a2a8409a
|
886.3 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Related works
- Cites
- Preprint: 10.5281/zenodo.20552328 (DOI)
References
- [1] F. Miao and W. Holmes, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research, UNESCO, Paris, 2023.
- [2] E. Kasneci et al., "ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education," Learning and Individual Differences, vol. 103, 102274, 2023.
- [3] M. Polanyi, The Tacit Dimension, Doubleday, 1966.
- [4] L. S. Vygotsky, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Harvard University Press, 1978.
- [5] B. S. Bloom, "The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring," Educational Researcher, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 4-16, 1984.
- [6] R. M. Ryan and E. L. Deci, "Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being," American Psychologist, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 68-78, 2000.
- [7] S. Deterding, D. Dixon, R. Khaled, and L. Nacke, "From game design elements to gamefulness: defining gamification," in Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference, pp. 9-15, 2011.
- [8] J. Hamari, J. Koivisto, and H. Sarsa, "Does gamification work?—A literature review of empirical studies on gamification," in Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 3025-3034, 2014.
- [9] D. Long and B. Magerko, "What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations," in Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1-16, 2020.
- [10] J. Hattie and H. Timperley, "The power of feedback," Review of Educational Research, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 81-112, 2007.
- [11] C. S. Dweck, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, Random House, 2006.
- [12] E. L. Thorndike, "A constant error in psychological ratings," Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 25-29, 1920.
- [13] R. E. Nisbett and T. D. Wilson, "The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 250-256, 1977.
- [14] C. Goldin and C. Rouse, "Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of blind auditions on female musicians," American Economic Review, vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 715-741, 2000.
- [15] A. Bandura, Social Learning Theory, Prentice Hall, 1977.
- [16] M. Warschauer, Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide, MIT Press, 2003.
- [17] B. S. Bloom, "Learning for mastery," Evaluation Comment, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 1-12, 1968.
- [18] D. Wood, J. S. Bruner, and G. Ross, "The role of tutoring in problem solving," Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 89-100, 1976.
- [19] A. Allison, Millennial Monsters: Japanese Toys and the Global Imagination, University of California Press, 2006.
- [20] S. Turkle, Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other, Basic Books, 2011.
- [21] L. Yan, L. Sha, L. Zhao, Y. Li, R. Martinez-Maldonado, G. Chen, X. Li, Y. Jin, and D. Gašević, "Practical and ethical challenges of large language models in education: A systematic scoping review," British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 90-112, 2024.
- [22] L. Krupp, S. Steinert, M. Kiefer-Emmanouilidis, K. E. Avila, P. Lukowicz, J. Kuhn, S. Küchemann, and J. Karolus, "Challenges and opportunities of moderating usage of large language models in education," in Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 257, pp. 9-18, 2024.
- [23] P. Black and D. Wiliam, "Assessment and classroom learning," Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 7-74, 1998.
- [24] D. J. Nicol and D. Macfarlane-Dick, "Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice," Studies in Higher Education, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 199-218, 2006.
- [25] K. Verbert, E. Duval, J. Klerkx, S. Govaerts, and J. L. Santos, "Learning analytics dashboard applications," American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 57, no. 10, pp. 1500-1509, 2013.
- [26] National Institute of Standards and Technology, Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0), NIST AI 100-1, 2023.
- [27] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence, OECD/LEGAL/0449, 2019.
- [28] IEEE Standards Association, IEEE Std 7000-2021: IEEE Standard Model Process for Addressing Ethical Concerns during System Design, IEEE, 2021.
- [29] International Organization for Standardization, ISO/IEC 42001:2023, Information technology—Artificial intelligence—Management system, ISO/IEC, 2023.
- [30] UNICEF, Policy Guidance on AI for Children 2.0, UNICEF Office of Global Insight and Policy, 2021.
- [31] UNICEF Innocenti, Guidance on AI and Children 3.0, UNICEF Innocenti Global Office of Research and Foresight, 2025.
- [32] R. Alfredo, V. Echeverria, Y. Jin, L. Yan, Z. Swiecki, D. Gašević, and R. Martinez-Maldonado, "Human-Centered Learning Analytics and AI in Education: a Systematic Literature Review," Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 6, 100215, 2024.
- [33] U.S. Department of Education, Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Teaching and Learning: Insights and Recommendations, Office of Educational Technology, 2023.
- [34] Federal Trade Commission, Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA), 16 C.F.R. Part 312, United States, 2013; final rule amendments published 2025.
- [35] U.S. Department of Education, Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 34 C.F.R. Part 99, United States.
- [36] European Union, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act), Official Journal of the European Union, 2024.
- [37] UNESCO, Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, UNESCO, Paris, 2021.
- [38] W. R. Shadish, T. D. Cook, and D. T. Campbell, Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference, Houghton Mifflin, 2002.
- [39] S. Brookhart, How to Create and Use Rubrics for Formative Assessment and Grading, ASCD, 2013.
- [40] American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, AERA, 2014.
- [41] D. L. Kirkpatrick and J. D. Kirkpatrick, Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels, 3rd ed., Berrett-Koehler, 2006.
- [42] L. W. Anderson and D. R. Krathwohl, eds., A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Longman, 2001.
- [43] The Design-Based Research Collective, "Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry," Educational Researcher, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 5-8, 2003.
- [44] S. Barab and K. Squire, "Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground," Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1-14, 2004.
- [45] A. Druin, "Cooperative inquiry: Developing new technologies for children with children," in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 592-599, 1999.
- [46] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, AI and the Future of Skills, Volume 1: Capabilities and Assessments, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2021.
- [47] S. Slade and P. Prinsloo, "Learning analytics: Ethical issues and dilemmas," American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 57, no. 10, pp. 1510-1529, 2013.
- [48] A. Markus, A. Carolus, and C. Wienrich, "Objective Measurement of AI Literacy: Development and Validation of the AI Competency Objective Scale (AICOS)," Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 6, 100267, 2025.
- [49] M. Sailer and L. Homner, "The gamification of learning: a meta-analysis," Educational Psychology Review, vol. 32, pp. 77-112, 2020.
- [50] C. Almeida, M. Kalinowski, A. Uchôa, and B. Feijó, "Negative effects of gamification in education software: Systematic mapping and practitioner perceptions," Information and Software Technology, vol. 156, 107142, 2023.
- [51] J. A. Kulik and J. D. Fletcher, "Effectiveness of Intelligent Tutoring Systems: A Meta-Analytic Review," Review of Educational Research, vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 42-78, 2016.
- [52] G. Kestin, K. Miller, A. Klales, T. Milbourne, and G. Ponti, "AI tutoring outperforms in-class active learning: an RCT introducing a novel research-based design in an authentic educational setting," Scientific Reports, vol. 15, 17458, 2025.
- [53] E. Alemdag, "The effect of chatbots on learning: a meta-analysis of empirical research," Journal of Research on Technology in Education, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 459-481, 2025.
- [54] M. Laun and F. Wolff, "Chatbots in education: Hype or help? A meta-analysis," Learning and Individual Differences, vol. 119, 102646, 2025.
- [55] A. R. Liu, P. Pataranutaporn, and P. Maes, "The Heterogeneous Effects of AI Companionship: An Empirical Model of Chatbot Usage and Loneliness and a Typology of User Archetypes," Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1585-1597, 2025.
- [56] C. M. Fang, A. R. Liu, V. Danry, E. Lee, S. W. T. Chan, P. Pataranutaporn, P. Maes, J. Phang, M. Lampe, L. Ahmad, and S. Agarwal, "How AI and Human Behaviors Shape Psychosocial Effects of Extended Chatbot Use: A Longitudinal Randomized Controlled Study," arXiv:2503.17473, 2025.
- [57] J. Sweller, "Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning," Cognitive Science, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 257-285, 1988.
- [58] M. Gerlich, "AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the Future of Critical Thinking," Societies, vol. 15, no. 1, 6, 2025.
- [59] C. H. Lawshe, "A quantitative approach to content validity," Personnel Psychology, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 563-575, 1975.
- [60] K. Krippendorff, "Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations," Human Communication Research, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 411-433, 2004.
- [61] 1EdTech Consortium (formerly IMS Global Learning Consortium), "Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) Core Specification, version 1.3," 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.imsglobal.org/spec/lti/v1p3/
- [62] Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) Initiative, "Experience API (xAPI), version 1.0.3," 2017. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/adlnet/xAPI-Spec
- [63] IMS Global Learning Consortium (1EdTech), "Caliper Analytics Specification, version 1.1," 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.imsglobal.org/spec/caliper/
- [64] J. Venable, J. Pries-Heje, and R. Baskerville, "FEDS: a Framework for Evaluation in Design Science Research," European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 77-89, 2016.
- [65] T. P. Morris, I. R. White, and M. J. Crowther, "Using simulation studies to evaluate statistical methods," Statistics in Medicine, vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 2074-2102, 2019.
- [66] Z.-H. Chen, H.-L. Hsu, C.-F. Huang, C.-Y. Liao, and C.-Y. Chou, "Pet-like learning companions: past research and future directions," Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, vol. 20, art. 33, 2025.
- [67] Z.-H. Chen, C. C. Y. Liao, T.-C. Chien, and T.-W. Chan, "Animal companions: fostering children's effort-making by nurturing virtual pets," British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 166-180, 2011.
- [68] T.-W. Chan and A. B. Baskin, "'Studying with the prince': the computer as a learning companion," in Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS'88), Montreal, Canada, 1988, pp. 194-200.
- [69] P. Bourdieu, "The forms of capital," in Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, J. G. Richardson, Ed. New York: Greenwood Press, 1986, pp. 241-258.
- [70] S. Bowles and H. Gintis, Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life. New York: Basic Books, 1976.
- [71] R. Collins, The Credential Society: An Historical Sociology of Education and Stratification. New York: Academic Press, 1979.
- [72] OECD, PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2023.
- [73] OECD, To Have and Have Not: How to Bridge the Gap in Opportunities. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2025.
- [74] U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee, Losing Our Minds: Brain Drain across the United States. Washington, DC: JEC, 2019.
- [75] Statistics Korea and Ministry of Education, 2024 Survey of Private Education Expenditures of Elementary, Middle and High School Students. Daejeon, Republic of Korea: Statistics Korea, 2025.
- [76] S. K. Kwon, M. Lee, and D. Shin, "Educational assessment in the Republic of Korea: Lights and shadows of high-stake exam-based education system," Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 60-77, 2017.
- [77] J. Yang and C. Tan, "Advancing student-centric education in Korea: Issues and challenges," The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 483-493, 2019.
- [78] T. Lee, "Adoption Is a Relationship, Not a Capability: Raised Companion Agents and the IP-Agnostic Platform for Everyday AI," Zenodo, 2026, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20552328.