Beyond the interface: Supporting beginner-level CEFR mediation and learner autonomy with ChatGPT
Open accessAbstract
This study explores how ChatGPT, used as a dialogic mediator, supports CEFR-based mediation and learner autonomy among multilingual university students at A1 to A2 proficiency levels in Spanish. A key finding is the contrast between learners’ observable autonomy during AI-mediated tasks and the deeper strategic awareness revealed in post-task reflections. Grounded in sociocultural theory and the CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages) Companion Volume (2020), the study examines how learners used ChatGPT to interpret texts, clarify vocabulary, and engage in structured argumentation. All tasks were conducted in Spanish, which was neither the students’ native language nor the primary language in which ChatGPT was trained. Twenty-four students completed structured Spanish-language tasks with ChatGPT and submitted written reflections in their native languages. Qualitative content analysis, guided by CEFR mediation descriptors, revealed frequent use of strategies related to Mediating Texts and Facilitating Communication. During the tasks, students often relied on ChatGPT for linguistic support. However, their reflections demonstrated higher levels of metacognitive autonomy, including goal-setting, critical evaluation of AI feedback, and comparison of digital tools. These findings highlight the importance of combining AI-supported interaction with structured reflection to promote communicative competence and digital agency. The study also points to the need for adapting CEFR mediation frameworks to better capture the dynamics of AI-mediated language learning.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
These approaches keep students cognitively engaged and make it more difficult for them to drift into passive acceptance or superficial completion.
“These approaches keep students cognitively engaged and make it more difficult for them to drift into passive acceptance or superficial completion (Lee et al., 2024; Joo et al., 2026; Lukešová & Jennings, 2025; Sun et al., 2026; R. Zhou et al., 2025).”
From Generative AI, Cognitive Offloading, and Learner Agency in Higher Education: A Scoping Review (2026) · cites this paper as Lukešová & Jennings, 2025
The Discussion reports cognitive engagement and critical evaluation in students’ post-task reflections, and the recommendations in “Rethinking CEFR mediation and plurilingualism in AI-enhanced contexts” call for structured reflection and scrutiny of AI-generated language (pages unavailable). But the paper does not establish that these approaches prevent passive acceptance or superficial completion; it notes that learners often relied on ChatGPT during tasks. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002) · Theory Into Practice · doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2 · Cited by 7,305 · see citing works
Artificial intelligence in higher education: the state of the field
Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8 · Cited by 2,010 · see citing works
Are We There Yet? - A Systematic Literature Review on Chatbots in Education
Wollny, S., Schneider, J., Di Mitri, D., Weidlich, J., Rittberger, M., & Drachsler, H. (2021) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2021.654924 · Cited by 557 · see citing works
Imran, M., & Almusharraf, N. (2023) · Contemporary Educational Technology · doi:10.30935/cedtech/13605 · Cited by 421 · see citing works
ChatGPT: not all languages are equal
Seghier, M. L. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00680-3 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Lin, C.-H., Zhou, K., Li, L., & Sun, L. (2025) · Computers and Composition · doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2024.102895 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Generative AI, Cognitive Offloading, and Learner Agency in Higher Education: A Scoping Review
Wang, G., Wang, W., Yang, D., & Ren, J. (2026) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs16071150 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
“These approaches keep students cognitively engaged and make it more difficult for them to drift into passive acceptance or superficial completion (Lee et al., 2024; Joo et al., 2026; Lukešová & Jennings, 2025; Sun et al., 2026; R. Zhou et al., 2025).”
- Authors
- Lukešová, A., & Jennings, P. J.
- Affiliations
- Czech Technical University in Prague (CZ)
- Corresponding author
- Lukešová, Alice
- Venue
- Language Teaching Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2025-12-23
- ISSN
- 1362-1688 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-0954
- OpenAlex
- W7116862006
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4
- FWCI
- 14.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Language Teaching Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, AI-assisted language learning, learner autonomy, Spanish as a foreign language, metacognitive strategies, digital agency, communicative competence, sociocultural theory
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review