SavedAdd your journal

Journals / The Literacy Trek / 2026 / Volume: 12 Issue: 1

A Hermeneutic Approach to Reconsidering the CEFR’s Overall Language Proficiency within the Context of Generative Artificial Intelligence

İbrahim Halil Topal(GAZI UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-4220-3706
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The CEFR characterises the overall language proficiency (OLP) through general and communicative language competencies, activities, and strategies.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The Council of Europe’s (2001, 2020) internationally recognised framework (i.e., the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, CEFR) has been influential in language learning, teaching, and assessment.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The CEFR characterises the overall language proficiency (OLP) through general and communicative language competencies, activities, and strategies.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The recommendations remain interpretive and call for empirical corroboration.
🔬Design:Review
📍Scope:2001 Verileri
⚙️Variables:CEFR · communicative language competence · generative artificial intelligence

Abstract

The Council of Europe’s (2001, 2020) internationally recognised framework (i.e., the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, CEFR) has been influential in language learning, teaching, and assessment. The CEFR characterises the overall language proficiency (OLP) through general and communicative language competencies, activities, and strategies. This study critically and systematically re-evaluates the CEFR’s overall language proficiency (OLP) framework in the context of generative artificial intelligence (GAI), aiming to clarify how the OLP components—general competences, communicative language competences, activities, and strategies—should be interpreted, operationalized, and assessed in GAI-assisted language education. Employing a conceptual analysis grounded in a hermeneutic approach, the study’s purpose is to bridge the existing gap between the CEFR and rapidly advancing GAI practices by offering an interpretive framework for both unaided and GAI-augmented language competences. The findings highlight the urgent need for dual competence assessment, the development of critical GAI literacy for learners and teachers, and institutional guidelines for transparent evaluation. This purpose-driven analysis aligns directly with the research aims stated in the Introduction and is further reflected in the study’s conclusions, ensuring a unified narrative and clear focus throughout. The recommendations remain interpretive and call for empirical corroboration.

🔖

Cite This Article

Topal, İ. H. (2026). A Hermeneutic Approach to Reconsidering the CEFR’s Overall Language Proficiency within the Context of Generative Artificial Intelligence. The Literacy Trek, Volume: 12 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.47216/literacytrek.1884648

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (110)

  1. Ajeesh K. G,, & Joseph, J. (2025). The compassion illusion: Can artificial empathy ever be emotionally authentic?. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1723149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1723149
  2. Aljohani, N. J. (2026). ChatGPT in language learning: A systematic review of applications and challenges. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 13, 102357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.102357
  3. Alter, G., & Ratheiser, U. (2019). A new model of literary competences and the revised CEFR descriptors. ELT Journal, 73(4), 377-386. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccz024
  4. Anggoro, K. J., & Nguyen, A. N. (2021). Students’ perceptions with different CEFR levels on foreign teachers using L1 in EFL instruction. Studies in English Language and Education, 8(3), 1177-1193. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v8i3.19629
  5. Arora, J., Elgort, I., & Zhao, J. (2025). Content adaptation for language learning: A hybrid AI approach. The EuroCALL Review, 32(2), 169-182. https://doi.org/10.4995/eurocall.2025.23898
  6. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford University Press.
  7. Baidoo-Anu, D., & Ansah, L. O. (2023). Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. Journal of AI, 7(1), 52-62. https://doi.org/10.61969/jai.1337500
  8. Bamford, J., & Day, R. R. (Eds.). (2004). Extensive reading activities for teaching language. Cambridge University Press.
  9. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2017). Acquisition of L2 pragmatics. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 224–245). Routledge.
  10. Burstein, J., Tetreault, J., & Madnani, N. (2013). The e-rater® automated essay scoring system. In M. D. Shermis & J. Burstein (Eds.), Handbook of automated essay evaluation (pp. 55-67). Routledge.
  11. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual Matters.
  12. Celik, B., Yildiz, Y., & Kara, S. (2025). Using ChatGPT as a virtual speaking tutor to boost EFL learners’ speaking self-efficacy. Australian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 102418. https://doi.org/10.29140/ajal.v8n1.102418
  13. Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112-130. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061
  14. Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023). Students' voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8
  15. Chapelle, C. A. (2025). Generative AI as game changer: Implications for language education. System, 132, 103672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2025.103672
  16. Chen, A., Zhang, Y., Jia, J., Liang, M., Cha, Y., & Lim, C. P. (2025). A systematic review and meta‐analysis of AI‐enabled assessment in language learning: Design, implementation, and effectiveness. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 41(1), e13064. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.13064
  17. Chen, C., & Gong, Y. (2025). The role of AI-assisted learning in academic writing: A mixed-methods study on Chinese as a second language students. Education Sciences, 15(2), 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020141 Chen, X., Li, J., & Ye, Y. (2024). A feasibility study for the application of AI-generated conversations in pragmatic analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 223, 14-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2024.01.003
  18. Clifford, J., Merschel, L., & Munné, J. (2013). Surveying the landscape: What is the role of machine translation in language learning?. @tic. revista d'innovació educativa, 10, 108-121. https://doi.org/10.7203/attic.10.2228
  19. Coelho, L., & Reis, S. (2025). Transforming teaching and learning with natural language processing. In R. Queirós, M. Cruz & D. Mascarenhas (Eds.), Integrating artificial intelligence in education: Enhancing teaching practices for future learning (pp. 119-152). IGI Global.
  20. Cohen, A. D. (2011). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Routledge. Cooper, C. R. (2025). Predicting the CEFR level of English listening texts with machine learning methods. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 4(3), 100234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2025.100234
  21. Council of Europe. (2020). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume. Council of Europe.
  22. Council of Europe. Council for Cultural Co-operation. Education Committee. Modern Languages Division. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.
  23. Crawford, J., Cowling, M., & Allen, K. A. (2023). Leadership is needed for ethical ChatGPT: Character, assessment, and learning using artificial intelligence (AI). Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 20(3), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.3.02
  24. Cushner, K. (2011). Intercultural research in teacher education: An essential intersection in the preparation of globally competent teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 33(5-6), 601-614. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2011.627306
  25. Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241-266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315306287002
  26. DeKeyser, R. (Ed.). (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge University Press.
  27. Derakhshan, A. (2025). EFL students’ perceptions about the role of generative artificial intelligence (GAI)-mediated instruction in their emotional engagement and goal orientation: A motivational climate theory (MCT) perspective in focus. Learning and Motivation, 90, 102114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2025.102114
  28. Devlin, J., Chang, M. W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019). Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In J. Burstein, C. Doran & T. Solorio (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2019 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies, volume 1 (long and short papers) (pp. 4171-4186). Association for Computational Linguistics.
  29. Díez-Bedmar, M. B., & Byram, M. (2019). The current influence of the CEFR in secondary education: teachers’ perceptions. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 32(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2018.1493492
  30. Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986). “Information gap” tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition?. TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 305-325. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586546
  31. Ellis, R. (2003). Designing a task-based syllabus. RELC Journal, 34(1), 64-81. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368820303400105
  32. Figueras, N. (2012). The impact of the CEFR. ELT Journal, 66(4), 477-485. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccs037
  33. Fryer, L., & Carpenter, R. (2006). Bots as language learning tools. Language Learning & Technology,10(3), 8-14. https://doi.org/10.64152/10125/44068
  34. Gadamer, H.-G. (1976). Philosophical hermeneutics. University of California Press.
  35. Galaczi, E. D. (2014). Interactional competence across proficiency levels: How do learners manage interaction in paired speaking tests?. Applied Linguistics, 35(5), 553-574. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt017 Grassini, S. (2023). Shaping the future of education: Exploring the potential and consequences of AI and ChatGPT in educational settings. Education Sciences, 13(7), 692. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13070692
  36. Hall, J. K. (1993). The role of oral practices in the accomplishment of our everyday lives: The sociocultural dimension of interaction with implications for the learning of another language. Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 145-166. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/14.2.145
  37. Harsch, C. (2018). How suitable is the CEFR for setting university entrance standards?. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(1), 102-108. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2017.1420793
  38. Harsch, C., & Hartig, J. (2015). What are we aligning tests to when we report test alignment to the CEFR?. Language Assessment Quarterly, 12(4), 333-362. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2015.1092545
  39. Heidegger, M. (2010). Being and time. State University of New York Press.
  40. Huang, A. Y., Lu, O. H., & Yang, S. J. (2023). Effects of artificial Intelligence–Enabled personalized recommendations on learners’ learning engagement, motivation, and outcomes in a flipped classroom. Computers & Education, 194, 104684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104684 Hulstijn, J. H. (2007). The shaky ground beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of language proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 663-667. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00627_5.x Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 148-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.005
  41. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students' writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83-101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399
  42. Ijiri, A., & Marette, C. (2026). Human–AI co-agency in peer-based collaborative pedagogies for education 5.0. In A. Bozkurt (Ed.), Rethinking education and agency in the age of human-generative AI interaction (pp. 221-246). IGI Global Scientific Publishing.
  43. Jiang, L., & Lai, C. (2025). How did the generative artificial intelligence‐assisted digital multimodal composing process facilitate the production of quality digital multimodal compositions: Toward a process‐genre integrated model. TESOL Quarterly, 59(s1), S52-S85. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3390 Johns, A. M. (2001). Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives. Routledge.
  44. Karjagdi Çolak, M. (2024). Enhancing speaking skills through task repetition and ChatGPT integration in remedial EFL lessons: An action research approach. Focus on ELT Journal, 6(4), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.14744/felt.6.4.1
  45. Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T.,. Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Blackwell.
  46. Khushik, G. A. (2025). Examining the effects of alternate prompts on syntactic complexity in EFL learners’ essays at CEFR levels A1, A2, and B1. Language Assessment Quarterly, 22(3), 283-305. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2025.2528019
  47. Kılınç, H. K., & Keçecioğlu, Ö. F. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence: a historical and future perspective. Academic Platform Journal of Engineering and Smart Systems, 12(2), 47-58. https://doi.org/10.21541/apjess.1398155 Koch, T., & Harrington, A. (1998). Reconceptualizing rigour: the case for reflexivity. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(4), 882-890. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00725.x
  48. Kohnke, L., Moorhouse, B. L., & Zou, D. (2023). ChatGPT for language teaching and learning. RELC Journal, 54(2), 537-550. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882231162868
  49. Lam, D. M. (2019). Interactional competence with and without extended planning time in a group oral assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly, 16(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2019.1602627
  50. Levine, S., Beck, S. W., Mah, C., Phalen, L., & Pittman, J. (2025). How do students use ChatGPT as a writing support?. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 68(5), 445-457. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1373
  51. Liddicoat, A. J., & Scarino, A. (2013). Intercultural language teaching and learning. Wiley Blackwell.
  52. Little, D. (2007). Language learner autonomy: Some fundamental considerations revisited. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 14–29. https://doi.org/10.2167/illt040.0
  53. Liu, X. J., Wang, J., & Zou, B. (2025). Evaluating an AI speaking assessment tool: Score accuracy, perceived validity, and oral peer feedback as feedback enhancement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 75, 101505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101505
  54. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research on language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press.
  55. Lopez-Gazpio, I. (2025). Integrating large language models into accessible and inclusive education: access democratization and individualized learning enhancement supported by generative artificial intelligence. Information, 16(6), 473. https://doi.org/10.3390/info16060473
  56. Lowell, V. L., & Tagare, D. (2023). Authentic learning and fidelity in virtual reality learning experiences for self-efficacy and transfer. Computers & Education: X Reality, 2, 100017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cexr.2023.100017
  57. Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Retrieved, 7.2.2026, from https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1475756/
  58. Lukešová, A., & Jennings, P. J. (2025). Beyond the interface: Supporting beginner-level CEFR mediation and learner autonomy with ChatGPT. Language Teaching Research (Online First), 13621688251393481. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688251393481
  59. Luu, T. M. V., & Doan, Q. V. (2025). ChatGPT’s impact on listening comprehension: Perspectives from Vietnamese EFL university learners. Computer-Assisted Language Learning Electronic Journal, 26(3), 43-63. https://doi.org/10.54855/callej.252633
  60. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034
  61. McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M., & Cai, Z. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge University Press.
  62. Mekheimer, M. (2025). Generative AI-assisted feedback and EFL writing: a study on proficiency, revision frequency and writing quality. Discover Education, 4(1), 170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00602-7
  63. Meyer, J. G., Urbanowicz, R. J., Martin, P. C., O’Connor, K., Li, R., Peng, P. C.,. & Moore, J. H. (2023). ChatGPT and large language models in academia: opportunities and challenges. BioData Mining, 16(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13040-023-00339-9
  64. Mohebbi, A. (2025). Enabling learner independence and self-regulation in language education using AI tools: a systematic review. Cogent Education, 12(1), 2433814. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2433814
  65. Mohsen, M. (2024). Artificial intelligence in academic translation: a comparative study of large language models and google translate. Psycholinguistics, 35(2), 134-156. https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797-2024-35-2-134-156
  66. Mompean, J. A. (2024). ChatGPT for L2 pronunciation teaching and learning. ELT Journal, 78(4), 423-434. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccae050
  67. Moorhouse, B. L., & Wong, K. M. (2025). Generative artificial intelligence and language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
  68. Nedungadi, P., Tang, K. Y., & Raman, R. (2024). The transformative power of generative artificial intelligence for achieving the sustainable development goal of quality education. Sustainability, 16(22), 9779. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229779
  69. Nguyen, K. V. (2025). The use of generative AI tools in higher education: Ethical and pedagogical principles. Journal of Academic Ethics, 23, 1435-1455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-025-09607-1
  70. Nguyen, V. H., & Hamid, M. O. (2021). The CEFR as a national language policy in Vietnam: Insights from a sociogenetic analysis. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 42(7), 650-662. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2020.1715416
  71. North, B., & Piccardo, E. (2016). Developing illustrative descriptors of aspects of mediation for the CEFR. Council of Europe.
  72. O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
  73. Oxford, R. (2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self-regulation in context. Routledge.
  74. Pérez-Núñez, A. (2024). ChatGPT in Spanish language instruction: exploring AI-driven task generation and its implications for teaching practices. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching, 11(1), 61-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/23247797.2024.2366053
  75. Perkins, M. (2023). Academic Integrity considerations of AI Large Language Models in the post-pandemic era: ChatGPT and beyond. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 20(2), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.02.07
  76. Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second‐language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes?. Language Learning, 44(3), 493-527. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01115.x
  77. Piccardo, E. (2017). Plurilingualism as a catalyst for creativity in superdiverse societies: A systemic analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2169. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02169
  78. Piccardo, E., & North, B. (2019). The action-oriented approach: A dynamic vision of language education (Vol. 72). Multilingual Matters.
  79. Punar Özçelik, N., & Yangın-Ekşi, G. (2024). Cultivating writing skills: the role of ChatGPT as a learning assistant—a case study. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00296-8
  80. Radford, A., Wu, J., Child, R., Luan, D., Amodei, D., & Sutskever, I. (2019). Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI Blog, 1(8), 9. https://storage.prod.researchhub.com/uploads/papers/2020/06/01/language-models.pdf
  81. Rasul, T., Nair, S., Kalendra, D., Robin, M., de Oliveira Santini, F., Ladeira, W.,. & Heathcote, L. (2023). The role of ChatGPT in higher education: Benefits, challenges, and future research directions. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6(1), 41-56. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.29 Roever, C. (2011). Testing of second language pragmatics: Past and future. Language Testing, 28(4), 463-481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210394633 Sengar, S. S., Hasan, A. B., Kumar, S., & Carroll, F. (2025). Generative artificial intelligence: a systematic review and applications. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 84(21), 23661-23700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-024-20016-1
  82. Seong, Y. P. (2025). Assessing strategic competence as a cognitive dimension of L2 academic speaking: A scenario-based language assessment approach. Language Assessment Quarterly, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2025.2575491
  83. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
  84. Sullivan, M., Kelly, A., & McLaughlan, P. (2023). ChatGPT in higher education: Considerations for academic integrity and student learning. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6(1), 31-40. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.17
  85. Sun, T. X., Liu, X. Y., Qiu, X. P., & Huang, X. J. (2022). Paradigm shift in natural language processing. Machine Intelligence Research, 19(3), 169-183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11633-022-1331-6
  86. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford University Press.
  87. Tai, T. Y., & Chen, H. H. J. (2024). Improving elementary EFL speaking skills with generative AI chatbots: Exploring individual and paired interactions. Computers & Education, 220, 105112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105112
  88. Treffers-Daller, J., Parslow, P., & Williams, S. (2018). Back to basics: How measures of lexical diversity can help discriminate between CEFR levels. Applied Linguistics, 39(3), 302-327. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw009 Uchida, S. (2025). Generative AI and CEFR levels: Evaluating the accuracy of text generation with ChatGPT-4o through textual features. Vocabulary Learning and Instruction, 14(1), 2078. https://doi.org/10.29140/vli.v14n1.2078
  89. Uchida, S., & Negishi, M. (2025). Assigning CEFR-J levels to English learners’ writing: An approach using lexical metrics and generative AI. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 100199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2025.100199
  90. Urban, M., Brom, C., Lukavský, J., Děchtěrenko, F., Hein, V., Svacha, F.,. & Urban, K. (2025). “ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.” Epistemic beliefs and metacognitive accuracy in students' integration of ChatGPT content into academic writing. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(5), 1897-1918. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13591
  91. Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition in action. Routledge.
  92. Wang, J., & Zheng, Y. (2026). Assessing intelligibility as conceptualised within the CEFR-companion volume (CV) framework using adaptive comparative judgement. Language Testing, 43(1), 9-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322251338605
  93. Wang, Y., Zhang, T., Yao, L., & Seedhouse, P. (2025). A scoping review of empirical studies on generative artificial intelligence in language education. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2025.2509759
  94. Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2008). Automated writing assessment in the classroom. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 3(1), 22-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800701771580
  95. Warschauer, M., Tseng, W., Yim, S., Webster, T., Jacob, S., Du, Q., & Tate, T. (2023). The affordances and contradictions of AI-generated text for writers of English as a second or foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 62, 101071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2023.101071
  96. Webb, P., & Pollard, C. (2006). Demystifying a hermeneutic approach to IS research. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 13(2), 31-48. https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v13i2.39
  97. Wu, W. C. V., Ting, K. Y., & Lin, P. H. (2025). The impact of generative AI tools on language teaching and learning: investigating prospective teachers’ self-directed learning. European Journal of Teacher Education, 48(5), 987-1012. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2025.2554682
  98. Xiao, F., Zhu, S., & Xin, W. (2025). Exploring the landscape of generative AI (ChatGPT)-powered writing instruction in English as a foreign language education: A scoping review. ECNU Review of Education, 20965311241310881. https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311241310881
  99. Yan, D. (2023). Impact of ChatGPT on learners in a L2 writing practicum: An exploratory investigation. Education and Information Technologies, 28(11), 13943-13967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11742-4
  100. Yeh, H. C. (2024). Revolutionizing language learning. Educational Technology & Society, 27(3), 335-353. https://doi.org/10.30191/ETS.202407_27(3).TP01
  101. Yeşil, Ş. (2026). Fostering learner autonomy in AI-mediated language learning environments: A review of literature. ELT Research Journal, 14(2), 243-259. https://doi.org/10.71362/eltrj.1817405
  102. Yu, H., Guo, Y., Yang, H., Zhang, W., & Dong, Y. (2025). Can ChatGPT revolutionize language learning? Unveiling the power of AI in multilingual education through user insights and pedagogical impact. European Journal of Education, 60(1), e12749. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12749
  103. Yüzlü, M. Y. (2024). The impact of ChatGPT on vocabulary learning in L3 German class. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 14(2), 339-348. https://doi.org/10.5961/higheredusci.1417301
  104. Zhang, X., & Lu, X. (2025). Aligning linguistic complexity with the difficulty of English texts for L2 learners based on CEFR levels. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 47(5), 1407-1434. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263125101125
  105. Zou, B., Du, Y., Wang, Z., Chen, J., & Zhang, W. (2023). An investigation into artificial intelligence speech evaluation programs with automatic feedback for developing EFL learners’ speaking skills. Sage Open, 13(3), 21582440231193818. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231193818
  106. Zou, B., Wang, C., Yan, Y., Du, X., & Ji, Y. (2025). Exploring English as a foreign language learners’ adoption and utilisation of ChatGPT for speaking practice through an extended technology acceptance model. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 689-704. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12658
  107. Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T.,. Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Blackwell.
  108. Meyer, J. G., Urbanowicz, R. J., Martin, P. C., O’Connor, K., Li, R., Peng, P. C.,. & Moore, J. H. (2023). ChatGPT and large language models in academia: opportunities and challenges. BioData Mining, 16(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13040-023-00339-9
  109. Rasul, T., Nair, S., Kalendra, D., Robin, M., de Oliveira Santini, F., Ladeira, W.,. & Heathcote, L. (2023). The role of ChatGPT in higher education: Benefits, challenges, and future research directions. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6(1), 41-56. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.29 Roever, C. (2011). Testing of second language pragmatics: Past and future. Language Testing, 28(4), 463-481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210394633 Sengar, S. S., Hasan, A. B., Kumar, S., & Carroll, F. (2025). Generative artificial intelligence: a systematic review and applications. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 84(21), 23661-23700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-024-20016-1
  110. Urban, M., Brom, C., Lukavský, J., Děchtěrenko, F., Hein, V., Svacha, F.,. & Urban, K. (2025). “ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.” Epistemic beliefs and metacognitive accuracy in students' integration of ChatGPT content into academic writing. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(5), 1897-1918. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13591