Qualitative and quantitative analyses reveal changes in learner engagement and agency with ChatGPT in L2 writing.
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools such as ChatGPT are increasingly being used in L2 writing classrooms; yet research has prioritized perceptions or performance gains, with limited attention given to how interactions with AI evolve and shape writer agency. Guided by sociocultural theory, this qualitatively driven mixed-methods study examines Japanese university EFL learners’ changing engagement with ChatGPT in a semester-long academic writing course. Qualitative data included a teacher-provided model prompt, students’ self-generated prompts and justifications, and end-of-semester reflections. A supplementary quantitative strand compared changes in complexity, accuracy, and fluency between the focal group and a control group that completed the same course prior to the availability of ChatGPT. Thematic analyses show that early prompting closely mirrored the model and emphasized external norms such as native-like expression, whereas later prompts shifted toward learner-defined goals, including clarity and readability. Learners’ reflections further revealed contrasting orientations toward GenAI: roughly half of the participants described ChatGPT as a thinking partner that required selective uptake, while others expressed concern about diminished cognitive engagement, perceiving ChatGPT as a surrogate thinker. These patterns suggest that GenAI engagement depends on how decision-making responsibility is negotiated between writer and AI. Quantitatively, only fluency showed significant gains. Overall, the findings indicate that learners appropriated ChatGPT as a mediational tool while increasingly asserting agency and resisting standardization, underscoring the pedagogical value of fostering critical prompting and reflective, agency-aware AI use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sasaki et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: