外语学习者AI辅助写作认知研究
Cognitive Processes of Foreign Language Learners in AI-Assisted Second Language Writing
摘要: 本研究以意义建构理论为框架,通过对外语专业本科生进行半结构式访谈,探讨生成式人工智能辅助下的第二语言写作过程。研究聚焦学生在不同写作阶段的行为模式、策略选择及认知反应,旨在揭示AI介入后学习者的意义建构机制。结果表明:大多数学生对AI辅助写作持积极态度,认为其在语法纠错、内容扩充和写作效率方面具有明显优势;但同时保持较强的批判意识和主动性,不盲目接受AI输出。学生普遍倾向于自主构思文章结构,仅在内容填充和语言润色时借助AI工具,并对AI生成的模板化、错误信息保持警惕。这些发现与意义建构理论中“注意–知觉–加工”的认知路径一致,说明学习者在与AI协作中主动筛选和重组信息,而非被动接收技术输入。本研究丰富了AI辅助写作的理论视角,并为高校外语写作教学提供了有益的启示。
Abstract: This study, grounded in sensemaking theory, investigates the cognitive processes of foreign language learners during second language writing assisted by generative artificial intelligence (AI). Through semi-structured interviews with undergraduate students majoring in foreign languages, the study explores students’ behavioral patterns, strategic choices, and cognitive responses at different stages of the writing process, aiming to uncover sensemaking mechanisms of learners with AI intervention. The findings reveal that most students maintain a positive attitude toward AI-assisted writing, recognizing its benefits in grammar correction, content enrichment, and writing efficiency. However, they also exhibit critical awareness and maintain autonomy, selectively integrating AI-generated content and resisting over-reliance. Students tend to independently structure their essays and use AI primarily for language polishing and idea supplementation, while remaining cautious of AI’s limitations, such as template-style content and occasional inaccuracies. These behaviors align with the attention-perception-processing pathway described in sensemaking theory, indicating that learners actively reconstruct meaning in collaboration with AI. The study offers theoretical insights and pedagogical implications for the integration of AI tools in second language writing instruction.
文章引用:赵雨, 胡甜甜, 周新亚, 孙志琳. 外语学习者AI辅助写作认知研究[J]. 教育进展, 2025, 15(7): 995-1008. https://doi.org/10.12677/ae.2025.1571315

参考文献

[1] Barrot, J.S. (2023) Using ChatGPT for Second Language Writing: Pitfalls and Potentials. Assessing Writing, 57, Article 100745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[2] Imran, M. and Almusharraf, N. (2023) Analyzing the Role of ChatGPT as a Writing Assistant at Higher Education Level: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15, ep464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[3] Song, C. and Song, Y. (2023) Enhancing Academic Writing Skills and Motivation: Assessing the Efficacy of ChatGPT in AI-Assisted Language Learning for EFL Students. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1260843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[4] Lo, C.K. (2023) What Is the Impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the Literature. Education Sciences, 13, Article 410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[5] Ng, D.T.K., Tan, C.W. and Leung, J.K.L. (2024) Empowering Student Self-Regulated Learning and Science Education through ChatGPT: A Pioneering Pilot Study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55, 1328-1353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[6] Yan, D. (2023) Impact of ChatGPT on Learners in a L2 Writing Practicum: An Exploratory Investigation. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 13943-13967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[7] Currie, G.M. (2023) Academic Integrity and Artificial Intelligence: Is ChatGPT Hype, Hero or Heresy? Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, 53, 719-730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[8] Evans, A.E. (2007) School Leaders and Their Sensemaking about Race and Demographic Change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 159-188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[9] Weick, K.E. (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations. Nachdr., Sage Publishing.
[10] Klein, G., Moon, B. and Hoffman, R.R. (2006) Making Sense of Sensemaking 2: A Macrocognitive Model. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21, 88-92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[11] Spillane, J.P., Reiser, B.J. and Reimer, T. (2002) Policy Implementation and Cognition: Reframing and Refocusing Implementation Research. Review of Educational Research, 72, 387-431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[12] Spillane, J.P. and Anderson, L. (2014) The Architecture of Anticipation and Novices’ Emerging Understandings of the Principal Position: Occupational Sense Making at the Intersection of Individual, Organization, and Institution. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 116, 1-42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[13] Poquet, O. (2024) A Shared Lens around Sensemaking in Learning Analytics: What Activity Theory, Definition of a Situation and Affordances Can Offer. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55, 1811-1831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[14] Rudolph, J., Tan, S. and Tan, S. (2023) ChatGPT: Bullshit Spewer or the End of Traditional Assessments in Higher Education? Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6, 342-362+263.
https://journals.sfu.ca/jalt/index.php/jalt/article/view/689
[15] Strzelecki, A. (2023) To Use or Not to Use ChatGPT in Higher Education? A Study of Students’ Acceptance and Use of Technology. Interactive Learning Environments, 32, 5142-5155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[16] Koltovskaia, S. (2020) Student Engagement with Automated Written Corrective Feedback (AWCF) Provided by Grammarly: A Multiple Case Study. Assessing Writing, 44, Article 100450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[17] Ray, P.P. (2023) ChatGPT: A Comprehensive Review on Background, Applications, Key Challenges, Bias, Ethics, Limitations and Future Scope. Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems, 3, 121-154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[18] Su, Y., Lin, Y. and Lai, C. (2023) Collaborating with ChatGPT in Argumentative Writing Classrooms. Assessing Writing, 57, Article 100752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[19] Jeon, J. (2021) Chatbot-Assisted Dynamic Assessment (CA-DA) for L2 Vocabulary Learning and Diagnosis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36, 1338-1364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[20] Pandarova, I., Schmidt, T., Hartig, J., Boubekki, A., Jones, R.D. and Brefeld, U. (2019) Predicting the Difficulty of Exercise Items for Dynamic Difficulty Adaptation in Adaptive Language Tutoring. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 29, 342-367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[21] Huang, W., Hew, K.F. and Fryer, L.K. (2021) Chatbots for Language Learning—Are They Really Useful? A Systematic Review of Chatbot-Supported Language Learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38, 237-257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[22] Bahari, A. (2020) Computer-Mediated Feedback for l2 Learners: Challenges versus Affordances. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37, 24-38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[23] Gayed, J.M., Carlon, M.K.J., Oriola, A.M. and Cross, J.S. (2022) Exploring an Ai-Based Writing Assistant’s Impact on English Language Learners. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, Article 100055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[24] Huallpa, J.J., Arocutipa, J.P.F. and Panduro, W.D. (2023) Exploring the Ethical Considerations of Using ChatGPT in University Education. Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences (PEN), 11, 105-115.
[25] Lund, B.D., Wang, T., Mannuru, N.R., Nie, B., Shimray, S. and Wang, Z. (2023) ChatGPT and a New Academic Reality: Artificial Intelligence-Writtenresearch Papers and the Ethics of the Large Language Models in Scholarly Publishing. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74, 570-581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[26] Zimmerman, A. (2023) A Ghostwriter for the Masses: ChatGPT and the Future of Writing. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 30, 3170-3173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[27] Kohnke, L., Moorhouse, B.L. and Zou, D. (2023) Exploring Generative Artificial Intelligence Preparedness among University Language Instructors: A Case Study. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, Article 100156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[28] Memarian, B. and Doleck, T. (2023) Fairness, Accountability, Transparency, and Ethics (FATE) in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Higher Education: A Systematic Review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, Article 100152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[29] Ranalli, J. (2021) L2 Student Engagement with Automated Feedback on Writing: Potential for Learning and Issues of Trust. Journal of Second Language Writing, 52, Article 100816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[30] Cardon, P., Fleischmann, C., Aritz, J., Logemann, M. and Heidewald, J. (2023) The Challenges and Opportunities of Ai-Assisted Writing: Developing AI Literacy for the AI Age. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 86, 257-295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[31] Abdul Rahman, N.A., Zulkornain, L.H. and Hamzah, N.H. (2022) Exploring Artificial Intelligence Using Automated Writing Evaluation for Writing Skills. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 7, 547-553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[32] Liu, C., Hou, J., Tu, Y., Wang, Y. and Hwang, G. (2021) Incorporating a Reflective Thinking Promoting Mechanism into Artificial Intelligence-Supported English Writing Environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 31, 5614-5632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[33] Abdel Latif, M.M.M. (2021) Remodeling Writers’ Composing Processes: Implications for Writing Assessment. Assessing Writing, 50, Article 100547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[34] Khuder, B. and Harwood, N. (2015) Writing in Test and Non-Test Situations: Process and Product. Journal of Writing Research, 6, 233-278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[35] Mohsen, M.A. (2021) L1 versus L2 Writing Processes: What Insight Can We Obtain from a Keystroke Logging Program? Language Teaching Research, 28, 2251-2275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[36] Atkinson, D. (2003) L2 Writing in the Post-Process Era: Introduction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 3-15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[37] Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications.
[38] Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C. and Walter, F. (2016) Member Checking: A Tool to Enhance Trustworthiness or Merely a Nod to Validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26, 1802-1811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[39] Smith, J., Flowers, P. and Larkins, M. (2022) Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research. 2nd Edition, Sage.
[40] Bergen, N. and Labonté, R. (2019) “Everything Is Perfect, and We Have No Problems”: Detecting and Limiting Social Desirability Bias in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Health Research, 30, 783-792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[41] Creswell, J.W. (1998) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Traditions. Nachdr., Sage.
[42] Mills, A.J., Durepos, G. and Wiebe, E. (2010) Encyclopedia of Case Study Research. Sage. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[43] Wicks, D. (2017) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (3rd Edition). Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 12, 169-170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[44] Erdmann, A. and Potthoff, S. (2023) Decision Criteria for the Ethically Reflected Choice of a Member Check Method in Qualitative Research: A Proposal for Discussion. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 1-11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef