With the continuous development of technological and educational innovation, learners nowadays can obtain a variety of support from agents such as teachers, peers, education technologies, and recently, generative artificial intelligence such as ChatGPT. The concept of hybrid intelligence is still at a nascent stage, and how learners can benefit from a symbiotic relationship with various agents such as AI, human experts and intelligent learning systems is still unknown. The emerging concept of hybrid intelligence also lacks deep insights and understanding of the mechanisms and consequences of hybrid human-AI learning based on strong empirical research. In order to address this gap, we conducted a randomised experimental study and compared learners' motivations, self-regulated learning processes and learning performances on a writing task among different groups who had support from different agents (ChatGPT, human expert, writing analytics tools, and no extra tool). A total of 117 university students were recruited, and their multi-channel learning, performance and motivation data were collected and analysed. The results revealed that: learners who received different learning support showed no difference in post-task intrinsic motivation; there were significant differences in the frequency and sequences of the self-regulated learning processes among groups; ChatGPT group outperformed in the essay score improvement but their knowledge gain and transfer were not significantly different. Our research found that in the absence of differences in motivation, learners with different supports still exhibited different self-regulated learning processes, ultimately leading to differentiated performance. What is particularly noteworthy is that AI technologies such as ChatGPT may promote learners' dependence on technology and potentially trigger metacognitive laziness.

翻译：随着技术与教育创新的持续发展，当代学习者可从教师、同伴、教育技术以及近期兴起的生成式人工智能（如ChatGPT）等多种智能体获得多样化支持。混合智能的概念仍处于萌芽阶段，学习者如何从与人工智能、人类专家及智能学习系统等多智能体的共生关系中获益尚不明确。这一新兴概念亦缺乏基于坚实实证研究的、关于人机混合学习机制与后果的深层洞见。为填补此研究空白，我们开展了一项随机对照实验，比较了在写作任务中获得不同智能体支持（ChatGPT、人类专家、写作分析工具、无额外工具）的学习者在动机、自我调节学习过程及学习绩效上的差异。研究共招募117名大学生，收集并分析了其多通道学习数据、绩效数据及动机数据。结果显示：获得不同学习支持的学习者在任务后内在动机上无显著差异；各组在自我调节学习过程的频率与序列上存在显著差异；ChatGPT组在论文分数提升方面表现更优，但其知识获取与迁移能力未呈现显著优势。本研究发现，在动机无差异的情况下，获得不同支持的学习者仍展现出不同的自我调节学习过程，并最终导致差异化绩效。尤其值得注意的是，以ChatGPT为代表的人工智能技术可能助长学习者对技术的依赖，并可能诱发元认知惰性。