Comparing AI chatbots and web-based synchronous collaborative writing tools, leveraging group cohesion, motivation, and performance
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22409935 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Rong Han (0000-0002-3902-9834, Xi'an Medical University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 268 |
| Pages | 107355 |
| Publication date | 2026-08-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Acta Psychologica (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0001-6918 • E-ISSN: 1873-6297 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.107355 |
| PMID | 42430970 |
| OpenAlex | W7167910391 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 31 |
This study examines the effects of generative AI (GenAI) chatbots versus traditional web-based resources (TWRs) on group cohesion, motivation, and writing performance during face-to-face synchronous collaborative writing (SCW) tasks among L2 learners. Despite growing adoption of AI in language education, key gaps remain: limited psychological research on AI-supported collaborative writing, scarce attention to motivation and self-efficacy in group contexts, and absence of direct comparisons between AI chatbots and conventional tools in real-time, in-class settings. Sixty-three English-major sophomore students at a Chinese university were randomly assigned to two classes: an experimental cohort (n = 33) using Kimi AI chatbot and a control cohort (n = 30) using TWRs (e.g., dictionaries, search engines). Both groups worked in teams of 5–6 on a shared cloud document to revise a 500-word descriptive essay. Mixed-methods data included screen recordings, writing assessments, typing speed measures, pre/post motivation, perception questionnaires, and individual notes on team cohesion. Quantitative results showed the AI group completed writing and proofreading significantly faster (EWT: M = 24:20 vs. 41:10; EPT: M = 9:33 vs. 15:25), achieved higher essay scores (M = 90.28 vs. 81.11, p = .001, d = 2.43), and reported substantially greater post-task motivation (ANCOVA, p < .001, η 2 = 0.888). Qualitative analysis of the cohesion notes suggested that AI helped streamline communication, reduce information overload, and support engagement, but it also introduced challenges, as its rapid and uniform responses could reduce discussion, limit exploration of alternatives, and encourage over-reliance on the tool. From a Group Cohesion Theory (GCT) perspective, AI appeared to strengthen task cohesion more than social cohesion, improving coordination and performance, though it did not always deepen peer interaction or shared meaning-making.
Asynchronous communication · Chatbot · Cohesion (chemistry) · Cohort · Collaborative writing · Group cohesiveness · Perception · Task (project management) · AI in Service Interactions · Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods · Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
The Development of an Instrument to Assess Cohesion in Sport Teams
The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students’ writing
A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research
Assessing collaborative writing in the digital age
The effects of AWE and peer feedback on cohesion and coherence in continuation writing
Roles and research foci of artificial intelligence in language education
Collaborative activities recommendation based on students’ collaborative learning styles using ANN and WSM
Impacts of an AI-based chabot on college students’ after-class review, academic performance, self-efficacy, learning attitude, and motivation
Timing AI intervention in the writing process for low proficiency learners
Promoting students' learning achievement and self‐efficacy
Group interaction patterns in generative AI ‐supported collaborative problem solving
Reliability and Predictive Validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Mslq)
Cohesion
Assessing Motivation and Learning Strategies Using the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire in a Foreign Language Learning Context
Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms
An Educational Psychology Success Story
| Highly cited | No |
|---|