隨著科技進步，數位學習工具日益多元，在數位學習轉型過程中，人工智慧技術的導入提供了即時反饋與客製化內容生成的功能，使數位學習環境從傳統的單向資訊傳遞，逐步轉向人類與AI協作的互動模式。然而，當前AI的普及卻成為一把雙面刃，學習者雖然能藉由AI提升效率，卻也陷入了學習自主性降低的危機，導致在學習中難以發揮獨立思考與創意。有鑑於此，本研究使用行動鷹架理論為基礎，並採用行動設計研究法，試圖重新思考在AI時代下，人類與學習者在學習上的平衡點，並產出適用於AI環境下的數位學習流程。本研究以閱讀學習為情境，透過理解參與者在探索、提煉與內化三個學習階段中的實際經驗，分析學習者所面臨的挫折與障礙，以及學習者與AI如何在互動過程中逐步形成兼顧效率與自主性的AI使用原則。綜整研究發現，本研究進一步提出AI輔助學習系統的設計原則，期能促進學習者與AI之間兼具互補性與自主性的共生關係。

With the advancement of technology, digital learning tools have become increasingly diverse. In the process of digital learning transformation, the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) has provided real-time feedback and customized content generation. This has gradually shifted the digital learning environment from traditional, one-way information transmission to an interactive, human-AI collaborative mode.
However, the current ubiquity of AI has become a double-edged sword. While learners can improve their efficiency through AI, they also face a crisis of reduced learning autonomy, which hinders their ability to exercise independent thinking and creativity during the learning process.
In light of this, this study utilizes Mobile Scaffolding Theory as its foundation and adopts Action Design Research (ADR) to rethink the balance between humans and learners in the AI era, aiming to generate design principles for digital learning platforms applicable to AI environments. This study identifies the obstacles learners encounter during the three stages of reading—exploration, refinement, and internalization—as well as the areas where AI can assist, the challenges learners can overcome on their own, and how the scaffolding guidance provides assistance throughout.
The design principles derived from this study aim to leverage appropriate external assistance and scaffolding guidance to lead learners in a digital environment away from improper dependence on AI toward a symbiotic relationship with AI that maintains autonomous construction. Ultimately, this research hopes to achieve a balance between deep learning and technology-assisted education.

Al-Fraihat, D., Joy, M., Masa'deh, R. e., & Sinclair, J. (2020). Evaluating E-learning systems success: An empirical study. Computers in human behavior, 102, 67–86.
Baidoo-Anu, D., & Ansah, L. O. (2023). Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. Journal of AI, 7(1), 52–62.
Balaskas, S., Tsiantos, V., Chatzifotiou, S., & Rigou, M. (2025). Determinants of ChatGPT adoption intention in higher education: Expanding on TAM with the mediating roles of trust and risk. Information, 16(2), 82.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Macmillan.
Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational researcher, 13(6), 4–16.
Bouillion, L. M., & Gomez, L. M. (2001). Connecting school and community with science learning: Real world problems and school–community partnerships as contextual scaffolds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 878–898.
Brand-Gruwel, S., Wopereis, I., & Vermetten, Y. (2005). Information problem solving by experts and novices: Analysis of a complex cognitive skill. Computers in human behavior, 21(3), 487–508.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context, 1(2), 39–64.
Choi, H.-H., Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. (2014). Effects of the physical environment on cognitive load and learning: Towards a new model of cognitive load. Educational psychology review, 26(2), 225–244.
Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2023). Artificial intelligence in higher education: the state of the field. International journal of educational technology in higher education, 20(1), 1–22.
Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91–142.
Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., & Ahuja, M. (2023). So what if ChatGPT wrote it? Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International journal of information management, 71(102642), 1–63.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American psychologist, 34(10), 906.
Fu, S., Gu, H., & Yang, B. (2020). The affordances of AI‐enabled automatic scoring applications on learners’ continuous learning intention: An empirical study in China. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(5), 1674–1692.
Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2005). ‘Distance education’and ‘e-learning’: Not the same thing. Higher education, 49(4), 467–493.
Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (2013). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In Instructional-design theories and models (pp. 115–140). Routledge.
Hwang, G.-J., & Chang, C.-Y. (2023). A review of opportunities and challenges of chatbots in education. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(7), 4099–4112.
Jose, B., Cherian, J., Verghis, A. M., Varghise, S. M., S, M., & Joseph, S. (2025). The cognitive paradox of AI in education: Between enhancement and erosion. Frontiers in psychology, 16, 1550621.
Kabudi, T., Pappas, I., & Olsen, D. H. (2021). AI-enabled adaptive learning systems: A systematic mapping of the literature. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100017.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56(2), 403–417.
Kirschner, P., Hendrick, C., & Heal, J. (2022). How teaching happens: Seminal works in teaching and teacher effectiveness and what they mean in practice. Routledge.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge university press.
Lin, X., Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C. K., & Secules, T. J. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection. Educational technology research and Development, 47(3), 43–62.
Luckin, R. (2018). Machine Learning and Human Intelligence. The future of education for the 21st century. UCL institute of education press.
Marchionini, G. (1995). Information seeking in electronic environments. Cambridge university press.
Miya, T. K., & Govender, I. (2022). UX/UI design of online learning platforms and their impact on learning: A review. International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science, 11.
Molenaar, I. (2022). The concept of hybrid human-AI regulation: Exemplifying how to support young learners’ self-regulated learning. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100070. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100070
Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science education, 86(4), 548–571.
Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational psychologist, 40(1), 1–12.
Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., Kyza, E., Edelson, D., & Soloway, E. (2018). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. In Scaffolding (pp. 337–386). Psychology Press.
Ravšelj, D., Keržič, D., Tomaževič, N., Umek, L., Brezovar, N., Iahad, N. A., Abdulla, A. A., Akopyan, A., Segura, M. W. A., & AlHumaid, J. (2025). Higher education students’ perceptions of ChatGPT: A global study of early reactions. PloS one, 20(2), e0315011.
Rosiek, J. (2003). Emotional scaffolding: An exploration of the teacher knowledge at the intersection of student emotion and the subject matter. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(5), 399–412.
Sein, M. K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R. (2011). Action Design Research1. MIS quarterly, 35(1), 37–56.
Suthers, D. D. (2003). Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 27–46). Springer.
Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 3(2), 19–30.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (Vol. 86). Harvard university press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1984). The zone of proximal development: Some conceptual issues. New directions for child development.
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(1), 39.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Elsevier.