A HUMAN-CENTERED AI PEDAGOGY FRAMEWORK FOR K–12 LEARNING


Authors

(1) * Trifina Sartamti   (Universitas Esa Unggul)  
        Indonesia
(2)  Gerry Firmansyah   (Universitas Esa Unggul)  
        Indonesia
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in K–12 digital learning environments has increased the potential for adaptive and personalized instruction.However, many AI-driven educational studies still focus on analytical outcomes without clearly translating learner data into pedagogically meaningful instructional decisions. Addressing this gap, this study proposes a human-centered AI pedagogy grounded in learner profiling and instructional interpretation within K–12 English digital learning contexts. A quantitative, data-driven approach was employed using questionnaire data collected from K–12 students across elementary, middle, and high school levels. Learner profiles were identified using Fuzzy C-Means clustering to capture overlapping learner characteristics and transitional learning stages, which were then interpreted pedagogically to examine differences in learning autonomy, instructional support needs, and English learning orientations. Based on this interpretation, an AI-supported instructional decision framework was developed to translate learner profiles into adaptive instructional recommendations while maintaining teacher agency. The findings reveal three distinct yet overlapping learner profiles, highlighting the limitations of rigid, grade-based instructional design and demonstrating how learner profiles can inform differentiated English learning strategies. By positioning AI as an instructional decision-support tool rather than an autonomous teaching agent, this study contributes a practical and ethical approach to AI-driven pedagogy and offers conceptual and practical insights for educators, curriculum designers, and educational technology developers seeking to implement adaptive, teacher-guided AI solutions in K–12 English digital learning environments



Full Text: PDF



References


Balaji, V., Ogange, B. O., & Mays, T. (2025).Teacher in the Loop AI (TiL-AI): A strategy for empowering educators in developing countries through OER adaptation. Journal of Learning for Development, 12(2), 439–445

Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester, & I. L. McClelland (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp. 189–194). London: Taylor & Francis.

Chuenyindee, T., Montenegro, L. D., Ong, A. K. S., Prasetyo, Y. T., Nadlifatin, R., Ayuati, I. D., Sittiwatethanasiri, T., & Robas, K. P. E. (2022).The perceived usability of the learning management system during the COVID-19 pandemic: Integrating system usability scale, technology acceptance model, and task-technology fit. Work, 73, 41–58.

Davis, F. D. (1989).Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.

Gligorea, I., Cioca, M., Oancea, R., Gorski, A.-T., Gorski, H., & Tudorache, P. (2023). Adaptive learning using artificial intelligence in e-learning: A literature review. Education Sciences, 13, 1216.

Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 213–236

Khosravi, H., Sadiq, S., & Knight, S. (2022).Mapping learning analytics to teaching practice: A systematic review of teacher-focused analytics. Computers & Education, 178, 104385

Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. London: Pearson.

Mailizar, Almanthari, A., Maulina, S., & Bruce, S. (2020).Secondary school mathematics teachers’ views on e-learning implementation barriers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1521, 042027

Memarian, B., & Doleck, T. (2024). Human-in-the-loop in artificial intelligence in education: A review and entity-relationship (ER) analysis. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 2, 100053. Elsevier

Ngampornchai, A., & Adams, J. (2016). Students’ acceptance and readiness for e-learning in Northeastern Thailand. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13, 34

Salloum, S. A., Al-Emran, M., Shaalan, K., & Tarhini, A. (2019). Factors affecting the E-learning acceptance: A case study from UAE. Education and Information Technologies, 24(1), 509-530.

Strielkowski, W., Volkova, E., & Pushkareva, L. (2024). Artificial intelligence driven adaptive learning: Implications for educational design and pedagogy. Sustainability, 16, 684.

Šumak, B., Heričko, M., & Pušnik, M. (2011). A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance: The role of user types and e-learning technology types. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2067–2077.

Tarun, K., Du, H., Kannan, A., & Gehringer, E. F. (2025). Human-in-the-loop adaptive learning systems: Design and evaluation perspectives. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 18(1), 1–14

Wang, X., Zhong, Y., Huang, C., & Huang, X. (2024). ChatPRCS: A personalized support system for English reading comprehension based on ChatGPT. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 17(4), 623–635.

Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education: Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, 39.




Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2026 Trifina Sartamti, Gerry Firmansyah