Human-Machine Collaboration: Boundaries and Practical Paths of Generative AI in Spoken English Teaching

Authors

  • Xiaolan He School of Foreign Languages, China West Normal University, China Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63313/IJSSEH.9034

Keywords:

Generative AI, Oral English Teaching, Application Boundaries, Human-Machine Collaboration

Abstract

Grounded in the philosophy of technology and humanistic pedagogy, this study focuses on the application boundaries of generative AI in oral English teaching, aiming to clarify the division-of-labor logic in human-machine collaboration. Based on Stiegler’s “technological prosthetics” and “pharmacology” models, as well as humanistic teacher-centered theory, the study reveals that the auxiliary value of generative AI lies in mechanical, standardized, and low-culture-loaded tasks. In contrast, the uniqueness of human teachers is rooted in domains beyond AI’s reach, such as transmitting emotional resonance, deeply interpreting cultural contexts, and guiding dynamic thinking. A three-dimensional boundary criterion and a four-quadrant model are proposed to define the practical scope of collaboration, where technical proficiency determines the feasibility of AI intervention, while the irreplaceability of teachers defines the necessity of their roles. Additionally, a dual-path approach is proposed: developing teachers’ critical AI and cultural pedagogies, and designing tools with cultural diversity to mitigate bias. The study concludes that the the essential boundary is ethical, safeguarding “human subjectivity and cultural nature,” thus offering a framework for responsible integration.

References

[1] Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Complete Edition. New York: Longman.

[2] Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code.Polity.

[3] Feng, Y. G., & Zhang, L. (2024). The spatial dimension of moral education in the era of generative artificial intelligence. China Educational Technology, (5), 45-52.

[4] Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed.New York: Continuum.

[5] Gay, G. (2018). Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice (3rd ed.).Teachers College Press.

[6] Gu, X. W. (2018, April 27). Technology as both antidote and poison: A dialogue with French philosopher Bernard Stiegler. Jiefang Daily, p. 09.

[7] Hou, H. X., & Wang, D. (2025). Risks, concerns and avoidance paths of teachers’ teaching innovation in the era of generative artificial intelligence. China Educational Technology, (3), 20-26.

[8] Huang, L., Baker, J., & Reddy, R. (2022). A historical perspective of speech recognition. Communications of the ACM, 57(1), 94-103.

[9] Mandinach, E.B., & Gummer, E.S. (2016). What does it mean for teachers to be data literate: Laying out the skills, knowledge, and dispositions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 366-376.

[10] Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

[11] Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today. Cambridge University Press.

[12] Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to Learn: A View of What Education Might Become. Columbus, OH: Merril Pub. Co.

[13] Stiegler, B. (1998). Technics and Time, 1: The Fault of Epimetheus. Stanford University Press.

[14] Stiegler, B. (2013). What Makes Life Worth Living: On Pharmacology. Polity Press.

[15] Vygotsky, L. S. (1978).Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.

Downloads

Published

2026-05-14

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Human-Machine Collaboration: Boundaries and Practical Paths of Generative AI in Spoken English Teaching. (2026). International Journal of Social Science, Education and Humanities, 2(2), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.63313/IJSSEH.9034