展示你的工作：学生对Turnitin Clarity体验的探索性研究

中文摘要 AI 辅助

过程捕获平台承诺使评估作品背后的写作过程可见，供应商越来越多地将其作为公平性措施而非检测工具进行营销。然而，学生对这些平台的接受程度在很大程度上未经测试。这项探索性定性研究考察了学生对其中一个平台Turnitin Clarity的期望与其使用体验之间的比较。英国一所大学的七名学生，在未接受平台入门培训的情况下，参加了使用前焦点小组。随后，六名学生完成了为期五天的500字未评估写作任务，之后所有七名学生返回参加使用后焦点小组。数据采用反思性主题分析进行分析，以期望确认理论作为导向框架。总体模式是混合确认。参与者的功能期望基本得到满足，他们预期中的被监视感在使用后持续存在：对一些人来说，这种被监视感被感知到的公平性所抵消，而对另一些人来说，它加剧了自我监控。有界AI助手使他们产生分歧：其限制因标记出可接受的使用而受到欢迎，但一些人觉得它削弱了他们对工作的所有权，并担心它会扁平化他们产出的内容。在两个阶段中，参与者权衡了观察的成本与感知到的公平性收益，并要求透明度双向运行。一些人描述说，他们已经在预期AI滥用指控的情况下进行防御性写作。据报道，对过程技术的接受取决于练习时间、双向透明度和明确的数据治理。参与者还质疑单一的线性文档能否代表他们描述为混乱和多模态的写作过程。在这些叙述中，过程捕获并非置身于其记录的写作之外，而是重组了它旨在观察的实践。

英文摘要

Process-capture platforms promise to make the writing behind an assessed artefact visible, and vendors increasingly market them as a fairness measure rather than a detection tool. Their acceptability to the students who must write within them, however, is largely untested. This exploratory qualitative study examines how students' expectations of one such platform, Turnitin Clarity, compared with their experience of using it. Seven students at a UK university, given no onboarding to the platform, took part in pre-use focus groups. Six then completed an unassessed 500-word writing task over five days, before all seven returned for a post-use focus group. Data was analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, with Expectation-Confirmation Theory as an orienting frame. The overall pattern was one of mixed confirmation. Participants' functional expectations were largely met, and the sense of being watched that they had anticipated persisted after use: for some it was offset by perceived fairness, while for others it heightened self-monitoring. The bounded AI assistant divided them: its limits were welcomed for marking out acceptable use, but some felt it weakened their ownership of the work and worried it would flatten what they produced. Across both phases, participants weighed the costs of observation against perceived gains in fairness and asked for transparency to run in both directions. Several described already writing defensively in anticipation of accusations of AI misuse. Acceptance of process technologies was reported as being conditional on practice time, two-way transparency, and explicit data governance. Participants also questioned whether a single linear document can represent a writing process they described as messy and multimodal. Across these accounts, process capture did not sit outside the writing it recorded but reorganised the practice it set out to observe.

发表机构

• School of Education, Durham University（杜伦大学教育学院）
• Centre for Research and Innovation, British University Vietnam（越南英国大学研究与创新中心）

机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。