The defense is complete. The instruments now move through revision and review.
The completed qualifying paper developed the conceptual argument: under tertiary algorithmicity, generative systems can make polished academic performance easier to produce while displacing the noetic, rhetorical, and existential work through which durable learning develops. The post-defense dissertation proposal turns that argument toward an empirical question. It examines how classroom-facing educators, school-system leaders, and adult university students make sense of those conditions across classrooms, buildings, systems, and learner experience.
Completed Qualifying Paper
Provides the theoretical apparatus: algorithmic secondary orality, tertiary algorithmicity, three media-ecological pressures, and the Pedagogical Friction Framework. It is the conceptual foundation for the study, not a report of empirical findings.
Chapters 1–3 Proposal Defense Passed
The proposal defense was passed on August 13, 2026. The proposal defines the problem, literature, research questions, evidence plan, analysis, integration, and protections.
Current Gate: Instruments and IRB
Interview-question wording is being revised for committee review. A three-educator flow rehearsal is planned before the IRB materials are updated. IRB approval, formal recruitment, main-study data collection, analysis, and findings remain future gates.
Chapters 1–3 Proposal Architecture
- Chapter One: Establishes the problem of practice, purpose, constructivist stance, research questions, significance, and proposal-stage scope.
- Chapter Two: Connects media ecology, learning science, equity, AI governance, and K-12 research to the framework and empirical gap.
- Chapter Three: Specifies a constructivist, qualitative-dominant convergent mixed methods design and the safeguards governing collection, analysis, integration, and interpretation.
Problem of Practice
K-12 schools are adopting generative AI while still lacking a precise empirical and conceptual language for distinguishing forms of ease that support access from forms of ease that bypass learning. The study begins from a pattern visible in practice: student work can become cleaner and more fluent while student understanding becomes less secure.
Purpose
The study examines how classroom-facing educators, building-level administrators, district or system-level leaders, and adult university students make sense of pedagogical friction, and what policy, assessment, professional learning, leadership, and governance conditions shape their responses.
Constructivist Stance
Meaning is treated as situated and co-constructed. Participants notice cues in ambiguous conditions, interpret them through professional, educational, and institutional frames, and act on the accounts they find plausible.
Research Design
The proposal uses a qualitative-dominant convergent mixed methods design grounded in constructivism. Qualitative and quantitative evidence are analyzed according to their distinct purposes and then brought together to clarify convergence, divergence, expansion, and silence. If scope must be reduced, supplementary streams are scaled before the analytic core, while at least one bounded agentic-artifact task remains in the nonparticipant comparison.
Framework
The Pedagogical Friction Framework responds to tertiary algorithmicity by naming three learner-facing dimensions of productive resistance, noetic, rhetorical, and existential friction, and treating infrastructural friction as the institutional condition that enables or constrains them. The institutional environment is not a neutral backdrop; its active constraints and supports are part of the design problem the study examines.
Primary Perspectives
- Classroom-facing educators
- Building-level administrators
- District or system-level leaders
- Adult university students
Qualitative Core and Participant Evidence
- Role-based interviews with all participant groups
- Card sorts that make professional judgment visible
- Institutional and public documents
- Open-ended survey responses
Supporting and Nonparticipant Evidence
- Closed-ended educator survey items
- NCES School Pulse Panel and RAND American Educator Panel (structural context)
- AI-generated text and agentic-artifact comparison as distinct nonparticipant evidence, retaining at least one bounded, prespecified agentic-artifact task
Equity Guardrail
The framework distinguishes productive friction, which supports learning, from exclusionary friction, which blocks access or participation without educational benefit.
Primary Research Questions
The dissertation web ecosystem, indexed.
This dashboard gathers the live public pages that support the post-defense dissertation proposal and its completed qualifying-paper foundation: the theoretical companions for tertiary algorithmicity and pedagogical friction, the literature review, the mixed methods proposal, the planning tools, the participant-facing instrument suite, and the prospective outcomes-and-action artifacts that model what responsible interpretation and community return could look like after analysis. The catalog should be read through the post-defense Chapters 1-3 frame above: a K-12 study of educator and institutional sensemaking about when generative AI supports learning and when it bypasses the work learning requires.
Open ecosystem
Browse every public dissertation-related resource, or choose a path to narrow the catalog around a specific reader need.
Not a file cabinet. A research constellation.
Researcher Note
Use this page as the public-facing map of the dissertation web ecosystem. It is safe for public links, descriptions, review navigation, and route selection. It is not a place for participant uploads, interview transcripts, audio files, coded data, or anything private.
Suggested Reading Path
- Start with the post-defense Chapters 1–3 study frame and current instrument-revision gate.
- Return to the completed qualifying paper and conceptual companions for the theory that grounds the proposal.
- Move through the literature review, methodology alignment, mixed methods plan, and measures studio to inspect the study architecture.
- Use the instrument suite only for reviewed, IRB-aligned participant workflows.
- Explore the potential-outcomes artifacts to rehearse responsible interpretation, community return, interventions, and evidence-proportionate action before findings exist.