Writing about a subject enriches writers' understanding of that subject. This cognitive benefit of writing -- known as constructive learning -- is essential to how students learn in various disciplines. However, does this benefit persist when students write with generative AI writing assistants? Prior research suggests the answer varies based on the type of AI, e.g., auto-complete systems tend to hinder ideation, while assistants that pose Socratic questions facilitate it. This paper adds an additional perspective. Through a case study, we demonstrate that the impact of genAI on students' idea development depends not only on the AI but also on the students and, crucially, their interactions in between. Students who proactively explored ideas gained new ideas from writing, regardless of whether they used auto-complete or Socratic AI assistants. Those who engaged in prolonged, mindless copyediting developed few ideas even with a Socratic AI. These findings suggest opportunities in designing AI writing assistants, not merely by creating more thought-provoking AI, but also by fostering more thought-provoking writer-AI interactions.

翻译：围绕某一主题进行写作能够深化作者对该主题的理解。写作的这种认知益处——被称为建构性学习——是学生在各学科领域学习的关键所在。然而，当学生使用生成式AI写作助手进行写作时，这种益处是否依然存在？先前研究表明答案因AI类型而异，例如自动补全系统往往会阻碍构思，而提出苏格拉底式问题的助手则能促进构思。本文提供了一个补充视角。通过一项案例研究，我们证明生成式AI对学生创意发展的影响不仅取决于AI本身，还取决于学生，以及至关重要的——两者之间的交互。那些主动探索想法的学生能够通过写作获得新创意，无论他们使用的是自动补全还是苏格拉底式AI助手。而那些进行长时间无意识文字编辑的学生，即使使用苏格拉底式AI也几乎未能产生新想法。这些发现为AI写作助手的设计提供了启示：不仅需要设计更具启发性的AI，更应着力培育更具启发性的作者-AI交互模式。