L2 Learner Cognitive Psychological Factors About Artificial Intelligence Writing Corrective Feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the study of artificial intelligence (AI) used in language teaching and learning is increasingly prevailing, research on language two (L2) learner cognitive psychological factors about AI writing corrective feedback (WCF) is scarce. This paper explores L2 learner cognitive psychology of pigai, an AI evaluating system for English writings in China, from perspectives of perception, noticing, uptake, initiative, retention and emotion. It investigates the consistency between learner cognitive psychology about AI WCF and the expected one and probes into the correlation of learner cognitive psychological factors about AI WCF, aiming at bridging the gap between the research of AI WCF and that of L2 learner cognitive psychology. After a 5-point Likert anonymous questionnaire survey of 1952 undergraduate L2 learners in Anhui University of Finance and Economics (AUFE), the statistical data of Pearson correlation coefficient indicate that learner perception, noticing, uptake, initiative, retention and emotion are positively related in the context of AI WCF, which conforms to the early research of learner cognitive psychology about WCF. But one sample t-test reveals that learner cognitive psychology of AI WCF only occasionally or sometimes consists with the expected one. The subsequent random interviews with 15 respondents suggest that pigai WCF is beneficial to L2 writing, yet there is still much room for it to improve to be deeply integrated with human WCF.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".