Convivial or Manipulative Tools? LLMs in Russian Higher Education (The Case of the School of Advanced Studies)

This article examines the integration of large language model based chatbots into educational practices in Russian higher education through the lens of critical theory and curriculum ideologies. Drawing on Ivan Illich’s concept of convivial tools and Jürgen Habermas’s distinction between instrumental and communicative rationality, the authors conceptualize large language models as technologies capable of operating either within a manipulative logic, reinforcing hierarchies, technocratic rationality, and domination, or within a convivial logic, fostering autonomy, collective reasoning, and communicative action. The mode of implementation and functioning of these technologies largely depends on the underlying curriculum ideology, whether it is grounded in hierarchical principles of knowledge production and transmission (Scholar Academic ideology) or in pedagogical constructivism and individual self-actualization (Learner Centered ideology). The empirical component is based on the experience of the School of Advanced Studies at the University of Tyumen. The analysis draws on thematic examination of 20 semi structured interviews with second to fourth year students who participated in experimental courses featuring AI personas designed to substitute for certain instructor functions.

These courses involved a shift toward interactive learning formats and the introduction of a mediator role inspired by the notion of the ignorant schoolmaster. The findings indicate that compulsory and instrumentalist deployment of chatbots is perceived by students as manipulative. It elicits resistance, feelings of dehumanization, diminished motivation, and disappointment over the loss of direct human interaction. In contrast, voluntary and reflexive uses of large language models unlock their potential as convivial tools, enabling the co-production of knowledge and enhancing epistemic agency. In conclusion, the authors outline the conditions under which large language models can function as genuine tools of conviviality in university education: voluntary adoption, transparency in design and operation, rejection of total instrumentalization, and embedding within genuinely communicative practices that respect participants’ autonomy and foster negotiated, collective meaning-making.

1. Bearman M., Ryan J., & Ajjawi R. (2023). Discourses of artificial intelligence in higher education: a critical literature review. Higher Education, 86(2), pp. 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00937-2

2. Beinsteiner A. (2020). Conviviality, the internet, and AI. Ivan Illich, Bernard Stiegler, and the question concerning information-technological self-limitation. Open Cultural Studies, 4(1), pp. 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1515/culture-2020-0013

3. Biesta G. (1998). Pedagogy without humanism: Foucault and the subject of education. Interchange, 29(1), pp. 1–16.

4. Compagnucci L., & Spigarelli F. (2020). The Third Mission of the university: A systematic literature review on potentials and constraints. Technological Forecasting and 241 Social Change, 161, p. 120284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120284.

5. Dyson M. (2007). My Story in a Profession of Stories: Auto Ethnography — an Empowering Methodology for Educators. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 32(1), pp. 36-48. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2007v32n1.3.

6. Floridi L. (2018). Semantic Capital: Its Nature, Value, and Curation. Philosophy & Technology, 31, pp. 481-497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-018-0335-1.

7. Fowler D. S. (2023). AI in Higher Education. Journal of Ethics in Higher Education, 3, pp. 127-143. https://doi.org/10.26034/fr.jehe.2023.4657.

8. Freire P. (2005). Pedagogy of the oppressed. 30th anniversary ed. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group.

9. Habermas J. (1986). Technology and Science as “Ideology”. In Toward a Rational Society: Student Protest, Science, and Politics. Cambridge: Polity. pp. 81-122.

10. Hsu H. (2025). What happens after A. I. destroys college writing? The demise of the English paper will end a long intellectual tradition, but it’s also an opportunity to reexamine the purpose of higher education. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-happens-after-ai-destroys-college-writing Accessed 15 December 2025.

11. Illich I. (1971). Deschooling society. New York: Harper & Row.

12. Illich I. (1973). Tools for conviviality. Glasgow: Calder & Boyars.

13. Illich I. (1977). Disabling professions. London: Marion Boyars.

14. Kahn R., & Kellner D. (2007). Paulo Freire and Ivan Illich: technology, politics and the reconstruction of education. Policy Futures in Education, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2007.5.4.431

15. Kirschner P. A., Sweller J., & Clark R. E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), pp.75–86.

16. Knox J. (2019). What Does the ‘Postdigital’ Mean for Education? Three Critical Perspectives on the Digital, with Implications for Educational Research and Practice. Postdigital Science and Education, 1, pp. 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-019-00045-y

17. Lee S. J., & Branch R. M. (2022). Students’ Reactions to a Student-Centered Learning Environment in Relation to Their Beliefs about Teaching and Learning. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 33(3), pp. 298-305.

18. Lindsay J., & Jacka L. (2024). The Footsteps on the Sands of AI for Higher Education: Moving Beyond Ad-Hoc. Journal of Ethics in Higher Education, 5, pp. 51–77. https://doi.org/10.26034/fr.jehe.2024.6863

19. Pandey Ch. Sh., Patanjali M., Pandey Sh., et al. (2025). Epistemic trust in generative AI for higher education scale (ETGAI-HE scale). AI & Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02566-6

20. Poole M. S., & DeSanctis G. (1990). Understanding the use of Group Decision Support Systems: The Theory of Adaptive Structuration. In Organizations and Communication Technology, edited by Janet Fulk and Charles Steinfield, Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. pp. 173–193. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483325385.n8

21. Qutieshat A. (2025). Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: A Contemporary Examination of Illich’s Theories. Singapore: Springer.

22. Rancière J. (1991). The ignorant schoolmaster: Five lessons in intellectual emancipation (K. Ross, Trans.). Stanford University Press.

23. Schiro M. (2013). Curriculum Theory: Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

24. Sembey R., Hoda R, & Grundy J. (2024). Emerging technologies in higher education assessment and feedback practices: A systematic literature review. Journal of Systems and Software, 211, p. 111988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2024.111988.

25. Starr L. J. (2010). The Use of Autoethnography in Educational Research: Locating Who We Are in What We Do. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education, 3(1).

26. Tharayil S., Borrego M., Prince M., et al. (2018). Strategies to mitigate student resistance to active learning. International Journal of STEM Education, 5, p. 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0102-y

27. Tilak Sh., & Glassman M. (2020). Alternative lifeworlds on the Internet: Habermas and democratic distance education. Distance Education, 41(3), pp. 326-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1763782

28. T-universitety (transformiruyushchiesya universitety). (2019). Skolkovo. https://www.skolkovo.ru/public/media/documents/research/sedec/SKOLKOVO_S... Accessed 10 December 2025. (in Russ.)