MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414149828 · doi:10.1111/ejed.70241

Exploring Chinese Secondary <scp>EFL</scp> Students' Self‐Regulated Learning and Task Engagement in <scp>AI</scp> ‐Assisted Classrooms: A Latent Growth Curve Modelling Study

2025· article· en· W4414149828 on OpenAlexaff
Liu Shi, Shengji Li

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersEducation Department of Henan Province
KeywordsLatent growth modelingTask (project management)MetacognitionReciprocalStructural equation modelingTask analysisComprehensionLongitudinal study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The growing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) tools into English as a foreign language (EFL) instruction presents new opportunities for fostering students' self‐regulated learning (SRL) and task engagement (TE). While prior research has shown that AI‐assisted environments can enhance metacognitive monitoring and learning motivation, longitudinal evidence on how SRL and TE develop in tandem remains limited. To address this void, this study employed a parallel‐process latent growth curve modelling (LGCM) approach to investigate the co‐developmental trajectories of SRL and TE among 334 Chinese secondary school students enrolled in a semester‐long AI‐assisted EFL programme. Results indicated modest but significant growth in both SRL and TE, with substantial inter‐individual variability. Positive correlations were found between the intercepts and slopes of the two constructs, supporting a dynamic reciprocal relationship. However, cross‐domain negative effects suggested potential ceiling constraints among highly self‐regulated or highly engaged learners. These findings underscore the importance of designing adaptive AI tools that account for diverse learner profiles and sustain long‐term engagement and regulation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of EducationSame topicOnline Learning and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207