12,637 papers · updated 18 Sept 2026livingmeta.ai
← Browse all papers
AI evidence extraction

Learner Engagement & Motivation in EFL Higher Education : The Pedagogical Role of Generative AI Tools in Educational Ecosystems

Abubaker Alhitty, Julie‐Ann Sime, Brett Bligh · Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) · 2026

AI-generated evidence extraction, verified across multiple analytical personas. Not a substitute for the peer-reviewed original.

6/10
Relevance
E
Evidence
0
Citations

Methodology & findings

Study design

Descriptive case study design involving 167 undergraduate learners with open-ended survey responses analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis

Sample

N = 167, 1 group

Primary method

Reflexive thematic analysis of qualitative survey responses; informed by UTAUT-2 and Self-Determination Theory frameworks. No quantitative statistical tests are mentioned.

Main result

Findings indicate that students perceived notable improvements in areas such as "writing, vocabulary development, and grammatical awareness, reporting a shift from passive reception of corrective feedback to more autonomous, iterative interaction with GenAI tools." Additionally, "Learners described heightened intrinsic motivation and self-regulation, often engaging with AI tools beyond formal course requirements."

Reports effect sizes.

Research paradigm

Interpretivist/Qualitative

Author conclusions

The authors conclude that "the study contributes to technology-enhanced language learning by offering empirically grounded insights and actionable recommendations for the ethical, balanced, and pedagogically sound integration of GenAI into EFL curricula." They emphasize that the research develops "the Generative AI Engagement and Motivation (GAIEM) Framework that captures four interrelated dimensions, Enabling Environment, Mediated Engagement, Internalisation Mechanisms, and Learner Agency, illustrating how GenAI use is embedded within broader educational ecosystems."

Risk of bias

Single institutional context may introduce selection bias; Self-reported survey responses vulnerable to social desirability bias; Lack of control group for comparison; Potential attrition bias not mentioned in abstract; Self-selection bias: Open-ended survey responses may attract motivated respondents; Attrition not addressed: No mention of response rates or attrition analysis; Potential social desirability bias: Students may overstate positive experiences with emerging technology; No blinding possible in qualitative design; Selection bias: single institution, non-randomized participants; Self-selection bias: participants choosing to engage with GenAI tools

Limitations

  • The research is situated within a single institutional context, which limits generalizability
  • As stated by the authors: "While the research is situated within a single institutional context, it identifies avenues for future work, including longitudinal studies, cross-institutional comparisons, and investigations incorporating teacher perspectives."

Open questions raised

  • Longitudinal studies, cross-institutional comparisons, and investigations incorporating teacher perspectives
Data: not_statedCode: not_statedExtracted from: pdf

Explore related topics

AI Literacy TrainingHuman-AI CollaborationCase Study

Related papers

← Browse all papers