Examines AI agents improving pragmatic skills and motivation in English learners, suggesting effective language education enhancements.
Purpose: This study examines how AI conversational agents function as innovative tools for enhancing both pragmatic skills and motivational outcomes in language education, addressing the challenge that second language learners frequently struggle to develop pragmatic competence—vital for creative language use—due to the artificial constraints of traditional classroom environments.Design/Methodology/Approach: The 16-week mixed-methods investigation engaged 128 intermediate English learners across four universities in systematic interactions with an AI agent designed to stimulate creative language applications through diverse contextual scenarios.Findings: Results revealed significant improvements in pragmatic performance among the experimental group compared to controls, with substantial effect sizes for receptive awareness (d = 1.36) and productive performance (d = 1.55-1.66). Path analysis confirmed both direct intervention effects on pragmatic development (β = .31) and indirect effects mediated through engagement (β = .47) and motivational constructs (β = .28). Qualitative data from interviews and reflective journals identified five key motivational themes, with 87.5% of participants reporting enhanced psychological safety that facilitated creative language experimentation. The AI-mediated environment provided a low-stakes space for testing complex pragmatic functions without anxiety, while its adaptability significantly enhanced intrinsic motivation, autonomy, and metacognitive awareness. Engagement analysis identified three distinct learner profiles (high sustained, progressive, and minimal compliance) that strongly correlated with development outcomes (R2 = .74).Originality/Value: These findings demonstrate that AI conversational agents offer a scalable, pedagogically sound complement to traditional instruction, particularly valuable for developing the creative aspects of language competence in contexts with limited authentic language exposure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mohamed et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: