Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42277095›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

The impact of large language models on collaborative learning processes and outcomes in higher education for English translation.

Xunlian Quan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 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

1 author.

Xunlian QuanSchool of Foreign Languages, Anqing Normal University, Anqing, 246133, Anhui, China. quanxl@aqnu.edu.cn.

Funding

Key Humanities and Social Sciences Program of Anhui Province (CN) SK2021A0376Key Teaching Research Program of Anqing Normal University in Anhui Province (CN) 2023aqnuxxkc06
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Collaborative learning is an important teaching method in English translation in Chinese higher education and is affected by the development of Large Language Models (LLMs). Previous studies mainly focus on the application of LLMs by individual students, but there is a lack of information about the influence of these models on the group dynamics when they are used in collaborative work. To fill this gap, our research examines the effect of an LLM, as a third participant, on the collaborative learning procedures and results. A comparative experimental design is conducted, involving 372 undergraduate and graduate students majoring in English in China, who are randomly divided into two groups: a control group working together without the LLM and an experimental group where the LLM is included in a human-human-AI collaboration team. The translation quality, questionnaire data and process records of both groups are analyzed by a mixed-method approach to make a comparison. The findings show that there is no significant difference in the final translation quality between the two groups, but the experimental group reports a significantly higher perceived efficiency and task satisfaction. A qualitative analysis clarifies this result, indicating that the participation of the LLM changes the collaborative procedure. This change involves a transition from a generative to an evaluative negotiation in the decision-making process, and also leads to the formation of informal roles. The study concludes that in collaborative learning, LLMs affect the process rather than enhance the content directly. These findings are of great importance for the design of effective human-ai English translation teaching in the Chinese higher education environment.

Indexed as

Collaborative learningEnglish translationHigher educationLarge Language modelsMixed-method

Identifiers

PMID42277095
PMCPMC13263322

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.