Beyond AI Teammates: Collective Vicarious Cognition as a Framework for Educational Multi-Agent Systems
Parole chiave:
Collective Vicarious Cognition; Educational Multi-Agent Systems; Social Learning Theory; Collective Agency; Vicarious Learning; Human–AI CollaborationAbstract
Artificial intelligence is assuming an increasingly prominent role in educational contexts, yet the notion of the “AI teammate” is often reduced to the generative capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). Such a view preserves a tool-centred logic in which AI supports individual productivity without substantially contributing to collaborative learning processes. This paper argues that meaningful forms of human–AI collaboration in education require socio-technical architectures capable of organizing cognitive plurality and making reasoning processes visible, interpretable and open to evaluation. Drawing on Social Learning Theory, the concept of vicariousness, and perspectives on collective agency, the paper introduces the concept of Collective Vicarious Cognition (CVC) as a pedagogical framework for understanding learning as engagement with multiple, interacting cognitive trajectories. Within this perspective, learning emerges not simply through exposure to information, but through the observation, comparison, interpretation, and regulation of distributed forms of reasoning. Multi-agent systems based on LLMs (LLM-MAS) are examined as a possible educational infrastructure capable of supporting these conditions by distributing cognitive roles across interacting agents and rendering epistemic plurality observable. The paper argues that the educational significance of AI teammates lies less in their capacity to generate responses than in their potential to support organized cognitive diversity, reflective judgment, collective agency, and collaborative knowledge construction within hybrid human–AI learning environments.
Riferimenti bibliografici
Anthropic. (2024). Claude [Large language model]. Anthropic.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Berthoz, A. (2013). La vicariance: Le cerveau créateur de mondes. Odile Jacob.
Biesta, G. J. J. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315634319
Edelman, G. M., & Gally, J. A. (2001). Degeneracy and complexity in biological systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(24), 13763–13768. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.231499798
Flathmann, C., McNeese, N. J., Schelble, B., Knijnenburg, B., & Freeman, G. (2024). Understanding the impact and design of AI teammate etiquette. Human–Computer Interaction, 39(5–6), 444–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2023.2189595
Gajewska, E., Wawer, M., Budzynska, K., & Chudziak, J. A. (2025). Leveraging a multi-agent LLM-based system to educate teachers in hate incidents management. In A. I. Cristea, E. Walker, Y. Lu, O. C. Santos, & S. Isotani (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education: 26th International Conference, AIED 2025, Palermo, Italy, July 22–26, 2025, Proceedings, Part I (pp. 332–339). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-98462-4_42
Greene, J. A., Sandoval, W. A., & Bråten, I. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of epistemic cognition. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315795225
Harbar, Y., & Chudziak, J. A. (2025). Simulating Oxford-style debates with LLM-based multi-agent systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 286–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-96-6008-7_21
Hou, X., Forsyth, C., Andrews-Todd, J., & Graesser, A. C. (2025). An LLM-enhanced multi-agent architecture for conversation-based assessment. In A. I. Cristea, E. Walker, Y. Lu, O. C. Santos, & S. Isotani (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education: 26th International Conference, AIED 2025, Palermo, Italy, July 22–26, 2025, Proceedings, Part III (pp. 119–134). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-98417-4_9
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. MIT Press.
Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). New frontiers: Regulating learning in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.748006
Lo Presti, F., Gentile, M., Mangione, G. R. J., & Zampolini, L. (2025). Reimagining AI agents for education: The evolution towards collaborative large language model multi-agent systems. In ICERI2025 Proceedings (pp. 6936–6944). https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2025.1903
Luzolo, P. H., Elrawashdeh, Z., Tchappi, I., Galland, S., & Outay, F. (2024). Combining multi-agent systems and artificial intelligence of things: Technical challenges and gains. Internet of Things, 28, 101364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iot.2024.101364
McNeese, N. J., Schelble, B. G., Canonico, L. B., & Demir, M. (2021). Who/what is my teammate? Team composition considerations in human–AI teaming. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 51(4), 288–299. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2021.3071180
Morin, E. (1999). Les sept savoirs nécessaires à l’éducation du futur. UNESCO.
Muis, K. R., Psaradellis, C., Lajoie, S., Di Leo, I., & Chevrier, M. (2015). The role of epistemic emotions in mathematics problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 172–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.06.003
Mushtaq, A., Naeem, M. R., Ghaznavi, I., Taj, M. I., Hashmi, I., & Qadir, J. (2025). Harnessing multi-agent LLMs for complex engineering problem-solving: A framework for senior design projects. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2501.01205
OpenAI. (2026). ChatGPT (GPT-5) [Large language model]. OpenAI. https://chat.openai.com/
Park, B., & Seo, K. (2025). Assessing critical thinking through a multi-agent LLM-based debate chatbot. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706599.3721207
Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2003). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. Prentice Hall.
Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 101832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832
Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., & Sears, D. (2005). Efficiency and innovation in transfer. In J. P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 1–51). Information Age Publishing.
Seeber, I., Bittner, E., Briggs, R. O., de Vreede, T., de Vreede, G. J., Elkins, A., Maier, R., Merz, A. B., Oeste-Reiß, S., Randrup, N., Schwabe, G., & Söllner, M. (2020). Machines as team-mates: A research agenda on AI in team collaboration. Information & Management, 57(2), 103174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.103174
Stone, P., & Veloso, M. (2000). Multiagent systems: A survey from a machine learning perspective. Autonomous Robots, 8(3), 345–383. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008942012299
Volet, S., Vauras, M., & Salonen, P. (2009). Self- and social regulation in learning contexts: An integrative per-spective. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903213584
Zampolini, L., Gentile, M., & Mangione, G. R. J. (2025). Empowering teachers’ creativity: Agentification for design thinking and school innovation. In ICERI2025 Proceedings (pp. 7185–7193). https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2025.1970
Zampolini, L., Mangione, G. R. J., & Gentile, M. (2025). Structured roles in design thinking to foster school innovation: A pilot study in small Italian schools. In EDULEARN25 Proceedings (pp. 6491–6500). https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2025.1597
Zhang, G., Chong, L., Kotovsky, K., & Cagan, J. (2023). Trust in an AI versus a human teammate: The effects of teammate identity and performance on human–AI cooperation. Computers in Human Behavior, 139, 107536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107536
##submission.downloads##
Pubblicato
Come citare
Fascicolo
Sezione
Licenza
Copyright (c) 2026 Lydia Zampolini, Giuseppina Rita Jose Mangione, Fabrizio Lo Presti, Manuel Gentile

Questo lavoro è fornito con la licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate 4.0 Internazionale.