Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42183550›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

How AI literacy predicts L2 Chinese writing engagement: the mediating roles of anxiety and enjoyment.

Chenrui Miao, Jingyao Shi, Jili Jiang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Chenrui MiaoThe School of Education, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Jingyao ShiUniversity International College, Macau University of Science and Technology, Macao, Macao SAR, China.
Jili JiangMental Health Education and Counseling Center of the Student Affairs Office, Hezhou University, Hezhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: In the era of Generative AI, the focus of second language (L2) writing research has shifted toward how learners' AI literacy shapes their affective experiences and engagement. Drawing upon the Control-Value Theory (CVT), this study investigated the mechanisms underlying the relationship between L2 Chinese Writing AI Literacy and L2 Engagement, with L2 Writing Anxiety and L2 Writing Enjoyment as mediating variables. Methods: The study employed an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design. In the quantitative phase, structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted with 408 L2 Chinese learners. In the subsequent qualitative phase, Stimulated Recall Diaries (SRD) and Stimulated Recall Interviews (SRI) were conducted with eight participants to gain an in-depth understanding of their emotional trajectories. Results: Quantitative results confirmed that L2 Chinese Writing AI Literacy significantly predicted L2 Engagement both directly and indirectly. Specifically, AI literacy served as a powerful affective regulator, significantly reducing L2 anxiety by enhancing learners' perceived control and thereby boosting writing engagement. Qualitative findings revealed that AI literacy empowered learners to transition from anxious novices to confident editors, where the exercise of selective agency became a primary source of control. Discussion: Overall, the study highlights the role of L2 Chinese Writing AI Literacy as an emotional buffer for creative agency in technologically enhanced writing environments. The findings offer critical pedagogical implications for fostering AI literacy and developing differentiated scaffolding strategies to optimize L2 Chinese writing development.

Indexed as

AI literacyL2 anxietyL2 Chinese learnersL2 engagementL2 enjoyment

Identifiers

PMID42183550
PMCPMC13195749

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.