Generative AI tools and empowerment in L2 academic writing

IF 4.9 1区 文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Benjamin Luke Moorhouse , Yuwei Wan , Chenze Wu , Meixin Wu , Tsz Ying Ho
{"title":"Generative AI tools and empowerment in L2 academic writing","authors":"Benjamin Luke Moorhouse ,&nbsp;Yuwei Wan ,&nbsp;Chenze Wu ,&nbsp;Meixin Wu ,&nbsp;Tsz Ying Ho","doi":"10.1016/j.system.2025.103779","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) developments have ignited interest in how they will impact L2 writers' agency over their academic writing processes. At the same time, higher education (HE) institutions have responded to GenAI by devising policies on their use. Recognizing that L2 writers' processes can be shaped by GenAI, as well as their institutions and instructors' policies, there is a need to understand how L2 writers engage with GenAI tools and negotiate agency as they transition into their studies and find themselves within the boundaries of their HE institution's policies. Through the lens of critical digital literacies (CDL), agency and empowerment, this qualitative study adopted in-depth focus group interviews with a preference selection task to explore how twenty-one post-graduate L2 writers position themselves in relation to GenAI tools and how they and GenAI have been positioned by their instructors. Data were collected within the first month of their post-graduate studies. The findings show that the L2 writers have integrated GenAI into various aspects of their academic writing processes. Their responses suggest that the L2 writers believe the tools empower them and augment their writing abilities. Yet, from a CDL perspective, this may be false empowerment, as the writers showed little critical awareness of how the tools work. At the same time, tensions exist between their perceptions of agency and some of their instructors' GenAI policies. The L2 writers prefer GenAI policies that give them the autonomy to use GenAI flexibly. However, they recognize the need to be accountable for their academic writing and transparent in their GenAI use. Bans on GenAI use were perceived as unfair, restricted agency, and not reflective of GenAI affordances. The findings can inform academic writing training and instructors' policies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48185,"journal":{"name":"System","volume":"133 ","pages":"Article 103779"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"System","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0346251X25001897","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) developments have ignited interest in how they will impact L2 writers' agency over their academic writing processes. At the same time, higher education (HE) institutions have responded to GenAI by devising policies on their use. Recognizing that L2 writers' processes can be shaped by GenAI, as well as their institutions and instructors' policies, there is a need to understand how L2 writers engage with GenAI tools and negotiate agency as they transition into their studies and find themselves within the boundaries of their HE institution's policies. Through the lens of critical digital literacies (CDL), agency and empowerment, this qualitative study adopted in-depth focus group interviews with a preference selection task to explore how twenty-one post-graduate L2 writers position themselves in relation to GenAI tools and how they and GenAI have been positioned by their instructors. Data were collected within the first month of their post-graduate studies. The findings show that the L2 writers have integrated GenAI into various aspects of their academic writing processes. Their responses suggest that the L2 writers believe the tools empower them and augment their writing abilities. Yet, from a CDL perspective, this may be false empowerment, as the writers showed little critical awareness of how the tools work. At the same time, tensions exist between their perceptions of agency and some of their instructors' GenAI policies. The L2 writers prefer GenAI policies that give them the autonomy to use GenAI flexibly. However, they recognize the need to be accountable for their academic writing and transparent in their GenAI use. Bans on GenAI use were perceived as unfair, restricted agency, and not reflective of GenAI affordances. The findings can inform academic writing training and instructors' policies.
第二语言学术写作中的生成人工智能工具和授权
生成式人工智能(GenAI)的发展引发了人们对它们将如何影响第二语言作家在学术写作过程中的代理的兴趣。与此同时,高等教育机构通过制定使用GenAI的政策来回应GenAI。认识到第二语言作者的过程可以由GenAI以及他们的机构和教师的政策来塑造,有必要了解第二语言作者在过渡到学习阶段并发现自己处于高等教育机构政策的范围内时如何使用GenAI工具和协商代理。通过批判性数字素养(CDL)、代理和授权的视角,本定性研究采用深入的焦点小组访谈和偏好选择任务,探讨21名研究生第二语言作者如何定位自己与GenAI工具的关系,以及他们的导师如何定位他们和GenAI。数据是在他们研究生学习的第一个月内收集的。研究结果表明,第二语言作者已经将GenAI整合到他们学术写作过程的各个方面。他们的回答表明,第二语言写作者相信这些工具赋予了他们权力,增强了他们的写作能力。然而,从CDL的角度来看,这可能是错误的授权,因为作者对工具的工作方式没有表现出批判性的认识。与此同时,他们对代理的看法与他们的一些导师的基因政策之间存在紧张关系。L2编写者更喜欢GenAI政策,因为它赋予他们灵活使用GenAI的自主权。然而,他们认识到需要对他们的学术写作负责,并在使用GenAI时保持透明。禁止使用基因人工智能被认为是不公平的、受限制的代理,并不能反映基因人工智能的功能。研究结果可以为学术写作培训和教师政策提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
System
System Multiple-
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
8.30%
发文量
202
审稿时长
64 days
期刊介绍: This international journal is devoted to the applications of educational technology and applied linguistics to problems of foreign language teaching and learning. Attention is paid to all languages and to problems associated with the study and teaching of English as a second or foreign language. The journal serves as a vehicle of expression for colleagues in developing countries. System prefers its contributors to provide articles which have a sound theoretical base with a visible practical application which can be generalized. The review section may take up works of a more theoretical nature to broaden the background.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信