CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 536EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningEnglish Language Learning and TeachingArtificial Intelligence in Education

Artificial intelligence in language instruction: impact on English learning achievement, L2 motivation, and self-regulated learning

Open access
Wei, Ling·2023·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1261955PMC PMC10658009
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Introduction: This mixed methods study examines the effects of AI-mediated language instruction on English learning achievement, L2 motivation, and self-regulated learning among English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners. It addresses the increasing interest in AI-driven educational technologies and their potential to revolutionize language instruction. Methods: Two intact classes, consisting of a total of 60 university students, participated in this study. The experimental group received AI-mediated instruction, while the control group received traditional language instruction. Pre-tests and post-tests were administered to evaluate English learning achievement across various domains, including grammar, vocabulary, reading comprehension, and writing skills. Additionally, self-report questionnaires were employed to assess L2 motivation and self-regulated learning. Results: Quantitative analysis revealed that the experimental group achieved significantly higher English learning outcomes in all assessed areas compared to the control group. Furthermore, they exhibited greater L2 motivation and more extensive utilization of self-regulated learning strategies. These results suggest that AI-mediated instruction positively impacts English learning achievement, L2 motivation, and self-regulated learning. Discussion: Qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with 14 students from the experimental group shed light on the transformative effects of the AI platform. It was found to enhance engagement and offer personalized learning experiences, ultimately boosting motivation and fostering self-regulated learning. These findings emphasize the potential of AI-mediated language instruction to improve language learning outcomes, motivate learners, and promote autonomy. Conclusion: This study contributes to evidence-based language pedagogy, offering valuable insights to educators and researchers interested in incorporating AI-powered platforms into language classrooms. The results support the notion that AI-mediated language instruction holds promise in revolutionizing language learning, and it highlights the positive impact of AI-driven educational technologies in the realm of language education.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1261955

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • AI-based tools function as dynamic mediators, continuously assessing learner input and offering ZPD-sensitive feedback, guidance, and modeling.

    “In recent research, AI-based tools have been shown to function as dynamic mediators, continuously assessing learner input and offering ZPD-sensitive feedback, guidance, and modeling (Mingyan et al., 2025;Wei, 2023).”

    From Integrating ChatGPT for vocabulary learning and retention: A classroom-based study of Saudi EFL learners (2025) · cites this paper as Wei, 2023

    The Theoretical framework describes the AI tool as a collaborative partner helping learners advance toward their ZPD, and the Discussion reports adaptive support, feedback tailored to learners’ written texts, guidance, and alternative sentences. The paper does not establish that the tool continuously assessed learner input or calibrated its feedback specifically to each learner’s ZPD. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 62

  1. Ahmadi D. M. R. (2018). The use of technology in English language learning: a literature review. Int. J. Res. English Educ. 3, 115– 125. doi: 10.29252/ijree.3.2.115 · DOI
  2. Akata Z. Balliet D. De Rijke M. Dignum F. Dignum V. Eiben G.. (2020). A research agenda for hybrid intelligence: augmenting human intellect with collaborative, adaptive, responsible, and explainable artificial intelligence. Computer 53, 18– 28. doi: 10.1109/MC.2020.2996587 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Balyen L. Peto T. (2019). Promising artificial intelligence-machine learning-deep learning algorithms in ophthalmology. Asia Pac. J. Ophthalmol. 8, 417– 272. doi: 10.1097/01.APO.0000586388.81551.d0 31149787 · DOI
  4. Boekaerts M. Corno L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: a perspective on assessment and intervention. Appl. Psychol. 54, 199– 231. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00205.x · DOI · Paper page
  5. Brown J. M. Miller W. R. Lawendowski L. A. (1999). “ The self-regulation questionnaire” in Innovations in clinical practice: A source book. eds. Vande Creek L. Jackson T. L., vol. 17 (Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press/Professional Resource Exchange), 281– 292.
  6. Carpio Cañada J. Mateo Sanguino T. J. Merelo Guervós J. J. Rivas Santos V. M. (2015). Open classroom: enhancing student achievement on artificial intelligence through an international online competition. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 31, 14– 31. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12075 · DOI
  7. Chen X. Xie H. Zou D. Hwang G. J. (2020). Application and theory gaps during the rise of artificial intelligence in education. Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell. 1: 100002. doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100002 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Chen X. Zou D. Xie H. Cheng G. Liu C. (2022). Two decades of artificial intelligence in education: contributors, collaborations, research topics, challenges, and future directions. Educ. Technol. Soc. 28, 1323– 1358. doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11209-y · DOI
  9. Chun D. Kern R. Smith B. (2016). Technology in language use, language teaching, and language learning. Mod. Lang. J. 100, 64– 80. doi: 10.1111/modl.12302 · DOI
  10. Davis E. A. Miyake N. (2018). “ Explorations of scaffolding in complex classroom systems” in Scaffolding (New York: Psychology Press), 265– 272.
  11. Devi J. S. Sreedhar M. B. Arulprakash P. Kazi K. Radhakrishnan R. (2022). A path towards child-centric artificial intelligence based education. Int. J. Early Childhood 14, 9915– 9922. doi: 10.9756/INT-JECSE/V14I3.1145 · DOI
  12. Divekar R. R. Drozdal J. Chabot S. Zhou Y. Su H. Chen Y.. (2022). Foreign language acquisition via artificial intelligence and extended reality: design and evaluation. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 35, 2332– 2360. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2021.1879162 · DOI
  13. Ebadi S. Amini A. (2022). Examining the roles of social presence and human-likeness on Iranian EFL learners’ motivation using artificial intelligence technology: a case of CSIEC chatbot. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2022, 1– 19. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2022.2096638 · DOI
  14. El Shazly R. (2021). Effects of artificial intelligence on English speaking anxiety and speaking performance: a case study. Expert. Syst. 38: e12667. doi: 10.1111/exsy.12667 · DOI
  15. Fang T. Yang S. Lan K. Wong D. F. Hu J. Chao L. S.. (2023). Is chatgpt a highly fluent grammatical error correction system? A comprehensive evaluation. ar Xiv. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.01746 · DOI
  16. Fathi J. Ahmadnejad M. Yousofi N. (2019). Effects of blog-mediated writing instruction on L2 writing motivation, self-efficacy, and self-regulation: a mixed methods study. J. Res. Appl. Linguist. 10, 159– 181. doi: 10.22055/RALS.2019.14722 · DOI
  17. Fathi J. Arabani A. S. Mohamadi P. (2021). The effect of collaborative writing using Google Docs on EFL learners’ writing performance and writing self-regulation. Lang. Relat. Res. 12, 333– 359. doi: 10.29252/LRR.12.5.12 · DOI
  18. Fathi J. Rahimi M. (2022). Electronic writing portfolio in a collaborative writing environment: its impact on EFL students’ writing performance. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2022, 1– 39. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2022.2097697 · DOI
  19. Fitria T. N. (2023). Artificial intelligence (AI) technology in Open AI Chat GPT application: a review of Chat GPT in writing English essay. ELT J. English Lang. Teach. 12, 44– 58. doi: 10.15294/elt.v12i1.64069 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Haristiani N. (2019). Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot as language learning medium: an inquiry. J. Phys. 1387: 012020. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1387/1/012020 · DOI
  21. Hsu T. C. Chang C. Jen T. H. (2023). Artificial intelligence image recognition using self-regulation learning strategies: effects on vocabulary acquisition, learning anxiety, and learning behaviours of English language learners. Interact. Learn. Environ. 1– 19. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2023.2165508 · DOI
  22. Huang J. Tan M. (2023). The role of Chat GPT in scientific communication: writing better scientific review articles. Am. J. Cancer Res. 13, 1148– 1154. PMID: 37168339 PMC10164801
  23. Hwang G. J. Xie H. Wah B. W. Gašević D. (2020). Vision, challenges, roles and research issues of artificial intelligence in education. Comput. Educ. 1: 100001. doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100001 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Jin S. H. Im K. Yoo M. Roll I. Seo K. (2023). Supporting students’ self-regulated learning in online learning using artificial intelligence applications. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 20, 1– 21. doi: 10.1186/s41239-023-00406-5 · DOI
  25. Khosravi H. Shum S. B. Chen G. Conati C. Tsai Y. S. Kay J.. (2022). Explainable artificial intelligence in education. Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell. 3: 100074. doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100074 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Lai Y. Saab N. Admiraal W. (2022). University students’ use of mobile technology in self-directed language learning: using the integrative model of behavior prediction. Comput. Educ. 179: 104413. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104413 · DOI
  27. Lau K. L. Jong M. S. Y. (2022). Acceptance of and self-regulatory practices in online learning and their effects on the participation of Hong Kong secondary school students in online learning. Educ. Inf. Technol. doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11546-y, [Online ahead of print] PMC9793378 36589517 · DOI
  28. Lee J. H. Shin D. Noh W. (2023). Artificial intelligence-based content generator technology for young English-as-a-foreign-language learners’ reading enjoyment. RELC J. 54, 508– 516. doi: 10.1177/00336882231165060 · DOI
  29. Lei X. Fathi J. Noorbakhsh S. Rahimi M. (2022). The impact of mobile-assisted language learning on English as a foreign language learners’ vocabulary learning attitudes and self-regulatory capacity. Front. Psychol. 13: 872922. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.872922, PMID: 35800918 PMC9255592 · DOI
  30. Levine G. S. (2004). Global simulation: a student-centered, task-based format for intermediate foreign language courses. Foreign Lang. Ann. 37, 26– 36. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2004.tb02170.x · DOI
  31. Loncar M. Schams W. Liang J. S. (2023). Multiple technologies, multiple sources: trends and analyses of the literature on technology-mediated feedback for L2 English writing published from 2015-2019. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 36, 722– 784. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2021.1943452 · DOI
  32. Lu X. (2018). “ Natural language processing and intelligent computer-assisted language learning (ICALL)” in The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching. ed. Liontas J. I. (Chichester: Wiley Blackwell), 1– 6.
  33. Malik G. Tayal D. K. Vij S. (2019, 2017). “ An analysis of the role of artificial intelligence in education and teaching” in Recent findings in intelligent computing techniques: Proceedings of the 5th ICACNI. eds. Sa P. Bakshi S. Hatzilygeroudis I. Sahoo M., vol. 1 (Singapore: Springer), 407– 417.
  34. Michalski R. S. Carbonell J. G. Mitchell T. M. (2013). Machine learning: an artificial intelligence approach. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
  35. Moyer A. (2014). Exceptional outcomes in L2 phonology: the critical factors of learner engagement and self-regulation. Appl. Linguis. 35, 418– 440. doi: 10.1093/applin/amu012 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Nemorin S. Vlachidis A. Ayerakwa H. M. Andriotis P. (2023). AI hyped? A horizon scan of discourse on artificial intelligence in education (AIED) and development. Learn. Media Technol. 48, 38– 51. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2022.2095568 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Nguyen L. Q. Le H. V. (2023). Enhancing L2 learners’ lexical gains via Quizlet learning tool: the role of individual differences. Educ. Inf. Technol. 28, 12143– 12167. doi: 10.1007/s10639-023-11673-0 · DOI
  38. Ouyang F. Jiao P. (2021). Artificial intelligence in education: the three paradigms. Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell. 2: 100020. doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100020 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Pikhart M. (2020). Intelligent information processing for language education: the use of artificial intelligence in language learning apps. Proc. Comput. Sci. 176, 1412– 1419. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2020.09.151, PMID: 33042299 PMC7531981 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Rahimi M. Fathi J. (2022). Exploring the impact of wiki-mediated collaborative writing on EFL students’ writing performance, writing self-regulation, and writing self-efficacy: a mixed methods study. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 35, 2627– 2674. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2021.1888753 · DOI
  41. Roll I. Wylie R. (2016). Evolution and revolution in artificial intelligence in education. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 26, 582– 599. doi: 10.1007/s40593-016-0110-3 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Schmidt-Fajlik R. (2023). Chat GPT as a grammar checker for Japanese English language learners: a comparison with Grammarly and pro writing aid. Asia CALL Online J. 14, 105– 119. doi: 10.54855/acoj.231417 · DOI
  43. Shadiev R. Wen Y. Uosaki N. Song Y. (2023). Future language learning with emerging technologies. J. Comput. Educ. 10, 463– 467. doi: 10.1007/s40692-023-00285-9 · DOI
  44. Shadiev R. Yang M. (2020). Review of studies on technology-enhanced language learning and teaching. Sustainability 12: 524. doi: 10.3390/su12020524 · DOI
  45. Shatri Z. G. (2020). Advantages and disadvantages of using information technology in learning process of students. J. Turk. Sci. Educ. 17, 420– 428. doi: 10.36681/tused.2020.36 · DOI
  46. Soleimani H. Mohammaddokht F. Fathi J. (2022). Exploring the effect of assisted repeated reading on incidental vocabulary learning and vocabulary learning self-efficacy in an EFL context. Front. Psychol. 13: 851812. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.851812, PMID: 35250786 PMC8894658 · DOI
  47. Spector J. M. Ma S. (2019). Inquiry and critical thinking skills for the next generation: from artificial intelligence back to human intelligence. Smart Learn. Environ. 6, 1– 11. doi: 10.1186/s40561-019-0088-z · DOI
  48. Spiro R. J. Bruce B. C. Brewer W. F. (2017). Theoretical issues in reading comprehension: perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence and education. Hillsdale, NJ: Routledge.
  49. Steffens K. (2006). Self-regulated learning in technology-enhanced learning environments: lessons of a European peer review. Eur. J. Educ. 41, 353– 379. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-3435.2006.00271.x · DOI
  50. Su Y. Lin Y. Lai C. (2023). Collaborating with chat GPT in argumentative writing classrooms. Assess. Writ. 57: 100752. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2023.100752 · DOI
  51. Suryana I. Asrianto A. Murwantono D. (2020). Artificial intelligence to master English listening skills for non-English major students. J. Lang. Lang. Teach. 8, 48– 59. doi: 10.33394/jollt.v8i1.2221 · DOI
  52. Tafazoli D. María E. G. Abril C. A. H. (2019). Intelligent language tutoring system: integrating intelligent computer-assisted language learning into language education. Int. J. Inform. Commun. Technol. Educ. 15, 60– 74. doi: 10.4018/IJICTE.2019070105 · DOI
  53. Utami S. P. T. Andayani, Winarni R. Sumarwati. (2023). Utilization of artificial intelligence technology in an academic writing class: How do Indonesian students perceive? Contemp. Educ. Technol. 15:ep450. doi: 10.30935/cedtech/13419 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Vygotsky L. S. (1984). “ The problem of age” in The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 5. Child psychology. ed. Rieber R. W. (New York: Plenum)
  55. Vygotsky L. S. Cole M. (1978). Mind in society: development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  56. Vygotsky L. S. Rieber R. W. Hall M. J. (1997). The collected works of LS Vygotsky: the history of the development of higher mental functions. New York: Plenum Press.
  57. Wang C. Y. Lin J. J. (2023). Utilizing artificial intelligence to support analyzing self-regulated learning: a preliminary mixed-methods evaluation from a human-centered perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. 144: 107721. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2023.107721 · DOI
  58. Weng X. Chiu T. K. (2023). Instructional design and learning outcomes of intelligent computer assisted language learning: systematic review in the field. Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell. 4: 100117. doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100117 · DOI
  59. Williams E. N. Morrow S. L. (2009). Achieving trustworthiness in qualitative research: a pan-paradigmatic perspective. Psychother. Res. 19, 576– 582. doi: 10.1080/10503300802702113, PMID: 19579089 · DOI · Paper page
  60. Xia Q. Chiu T. K. Chai C. S. (2022a). The moderating effects of gender and need satisfaction on self-regulated learning through artificial intelligence (AI). Educ. Inf. Technol. 28, 8691– 8713. doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11547-x · DOI
  61. Xu X. Dugdale D. M. Wei X. Mi W. (2022). Leveraging artificial intelligence to predict young learner online learning engagement. Am. J. Dist. Educ. 37, 185– 198. doi: 10.1080/08923647.2022.2044663 · DOI
  62. Zhang R. Zou D. (2020). Types, purposes, and effectiveness of state-of-the-art technologies for second and foreign language learning. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 35, 696– 742. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2020.1744666 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wei, L.
Affiliations
Chongqing College of Mobile Communication (CN)
Corresponding author
Wei, Ling
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2023-11-06
Volume
14
Pages
1261955-1261955
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1261955
PMC
PMC10658009
OpenAlex
W4388424540
Cited by
536
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 202 · 2025: 246 · 2024: 87 · 2023: 1
FWCI
601.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
Keywords
English as a foreign language, English achievement, second language motivation, student self-regulation, personalized learning, learner autonomy, university students

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