发表机构
Institute for Transdisciplinary Graduate Degree Programs, The University of Osaka; Comparative and International Development Education, University of Minnesota; Institute for Global Initiatives, The University of Osaka; Center for Higher Education Studies, Waseda University; Graduate School of Informatics, Kyoto University; National Institute of Informatics（大阪大学跨学科研究生院项目; 明尼苏达大学比较与国际发展教育; 大阪大学全球倡议研究所; 早稻田大学高等教育研究中心; 京都大学信息学研究科；日本国立情报学研究所）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本研究通过中、日、蒙三国42名大学生的比较质性访谈，揭示语言与社会技术条件如何塑造GenAI的获取与使用，并提出以情境化、中介化、实践性和评价性为核心的整合框架，强调技术可及性不等于教育可用性。
AI 中文摘要
生成式人工智能（GenAI）日益融入大学生的学术工作，然而对学生参与的研究往往侧重于采用情况、使用频率或一般性看法，较少关注其如何受到语言和社会技术条件的塑造。这项比较性定性研究考察了中国、日本和蒙古三个对比鲜明的高等教育环境中大学生如何获取、整合和评估GenAI。研究对每个环境中一所大学的42名本科生进行了半结构化访谈，并通过KH Coder辅助的共现网络和对应分析支持的定性解释对数据进行了分析。在三个样本中，GenAI被整合到涵盖探索、产出和完善的学术实践中。然而，获取路径在三个情境中存在差异。中国的参与者在国内和全球GenAI之间进行切换，日本的参与者主要通过日语使用全球GenAI，而蒙古的参与者当蒙古语输出被认为不太满意时，更频繁地转向英语。在使用GenAI的过程中，学生评估了其准确性、隐私影响、依赖可能性以及对批判性思维的影响。研究结果表明，仅凭技术可及性并不能确保在不同语言和社会技术情境中具有同等的教育可用性。基于实证发现和分析视角，本研究构建了一个经验信息化的整合框架，在该框架中，学生的GenAI参与被理解为情境化的、中介化的、实践性的和评价性的。该框架将实现性可供性概念化为通过社会技术条件、语言资源、学术实践和评价判断的相互作用而变得实际可用的教育可能性。
英文摘要
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly embedded in university students' academic work, yet student engagement is often examined through adoption, frequency of use, or general perceptions, with less attention to how it is shaped by linguistic and sociotechnical conditions. This comparative qualitative study examines how university students access, incorporate, and evaluate GenAI across three contrasting higher education settings in China, Japan, and Mongolia. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 42 undergraduates from one university in each setting, and the data were analyzed through qualitative interpretation supported by co-occurrence network and correspondence analyses using KH Coder. Across the three samples, GenAI was incorporated into academic practices spanning exploration, production, and refinement. However, access pathways differed across the three contexts. Participants in China navigated between domestic and global GenAIs, those in Japan predominantly used global GenAIs through Japanese, and those in Mongolia more frequently shifted to English when Mongolian outputs were perceived as less satisfactory. During their use of GenAI, students evaluated its accuracy, privacy implications, potential for dependence, and effects on critical thinking. The findings suggest that technological access alone does not ensure equivalent educational usability across linguistic and sociotechnical contexts. Building on the empirical findings and the analytical perspectives, an empirically informed integrative framework is developed in which student GenAI engagement is understood as situated, mediated, enacted, and evaluated. The framework conceptualizes realized affordances as educational possibilities that become practically usable through the interplay of sociotechnical conditions, linguistic resources, academic practices, and evaluative judgments.
CommentsWork in Progress
