ELT TEACHERS’ ACCEPTANCE OF CHATGPT AS A WRITING ASSISTANT IN GENERAL ENGLISH COURSES

Phạm Minh Toàn; Bùi Thị Thục Quyên; Lê Thị Hằng; Đào Thị Hồng Hạnh

doi:10.34238/tnu-jst.12060

ELT TEACHERS’ ACCEPTANCE OF CHATGPT AS A WRITING ASSISTANT IN GENERAL ENGLISH COURSES

About this article

Received: 15/02/25 Revised: 19/03/25 Published: 21/03/25

Authors

1. Pham Minh Toan, Van Hien University, Ho Chi Minh City
2. Bui Thi Thuc Quyen , Open University Ho Chi Minh City
3. Le Thi Hang, TNU - School of Foreign Languages
4. Dao Thi Hong Hanh, College of Technology and Industrial Management

Abstract

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence has introduced innovative tools like ChatGPT, which are increasingly supporting English language teachers in teaching languages. Writing skills have become a key area where the potential of ChatGPT can be effectively harnessed. Its ability to assist teachers in delivering structured and systematic writing lessons makes it a valuable asset in modern classrooms. Despite its benefits, concerns about academic honesty, data privacy, feedback accuracy, and reliability affect teacher readiness and the integration of ChatGPT as a writing assistant in general English courses. This paper aimed to explore ELT teachers’ acceptance of ChatGPT in teaching writing. This study employed a qualitative research design in which six teachers at College A in Ho Chi Minh City participated in semi-structured interviews. The collected data was analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis to examine their acceptance of ChatGPT. Findings reveal that teachers generally held positive attitudes toward ChatGPT, as they appreciated its ease of use and usefulness, which are two key factors in the Technology Acceptance Model. The study recommends further research on institutional support, professional training, and contextual factors influencing teacher acceptance to enhance the effective integration of ChatGPT in teaching writing.

Keywords

Artificial intelligence; ChatGPT; English language teachers; Writing assistant; General English courses

Full Text:

PDF

References

[1] R. Luckin, W. Holmes, M. Griffiths, and L. B. Forcier, Intelligence Unleashed: An Argument for AI in Education. Pearson, 2016.

[2] J. P. Nudell, “A student’s guide to writing with ChatGPT,” Noodlings, Nov. 17, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://joshuapnudell.com/2024/11/17/a-students-guide-to-writing-with-chatgpt/. [Accessed: Dec. 2, 2024].

[3] E. Kurt, “Enhancing L2 writing skills: ChatGPT as an automated feedback tool,” J. Inf. Technol. Educ.: Res., vol. 23, pp. 393–406, 2023.

[4] H. T. Do, “Solutions for applying Industry 4.0 technology in education for students at the Faculty of Tourism - Phenikaa University,” TNU J. Sci. Technol., vol. 229, no. 08, pp. 211–219, 2024.

[5] S. Khabib, “Introducing artificial intelligence (AI)-based digital writing assistants for teachers in writing scientific articles,” Teaching English as a Foreign Language Journal, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 114–124, 2022.

[6] D. Wood, J. S. Bruner, and G. Ross, “The role of tutoring in problem-solving,” J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 89–100, 1976.

[7] A. Ghanizadeh, A. H. Al-Hoorie, and S. Jahedizadeh, Higher Order Thinking Skills in the Language Classroom: A Concise Guide. Springer, 2020.

[8] X. Cheng and L. J. Zhang, “Teachers helping EFL students improve their writing through written feedback: The case of native and non-native English-speaking teachers’ beliefs,” Front. Psychol., vol. 13, 2022, Art. no. 804313.

[9] Z. Wu, J. Qie, and X. Wang, “Using model texts as a type of feedback in EFL writing,” Front. Psychol., vol. 14, 2023, Art. no. 1156553.

[10] H. M. Kassem, “Training EFL learners on debating: Effects on their oral and written performance, ideal L2 self, and communication apprehension,” MEXTESOL J., vol. 45, no. 4, 2021, doi: 10.61871/mj.v45n4-13.

[11] T. V. N. Nguyen, “Using ChatGPT in teaching English for specific purposes: Teachers’ perspectives,” TNU J. Sci. Technol., vol. 229, no. 12, pp. 362–369, 2024.

[12] T. P. H. Nguyen, “Students’ usage of ChatGPT for writing practice,” TNU J. Sci. Technol., vol. 229, no. 12, pp. 260–269, 2024.

[13] A. Karakaş and Y. E. Yesilyurt, “The use of ChatGPT for lesson planning,” in Transforming the Language Teaching Experience in the Age of AI, G. Kartal, Ed. IGI Global, 2023, pp. 111–130.

[14] A. Dillon and M. G. Morris, “User acceptance of new information technology: Theories and models,” in Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, vol. 31, M. Williams, Ed. Medford, NJ: Information Today, 1996, pp. 3–32.

[15] J. Schade and B. Schlag, “Acceptability of urban transport pricing strategies,” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 45–61, Mar. 2003.

[16] E. Adell, “Acceptance of driver support systems,” in Proc. European Conf. on Human Centred Design for Intelligent Transport Systems, Berlin, Germany, 2010, pp. 475–486.

[17] E. Proctor et al., “Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda,” Adm. Policy Ment. Health Ment. Health Serv. Res., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 65–76, 2011.

[18] N. Martin, S. Erhel, E. Jamet, and G. Rouxel, “What links between user experience and acceptability?” in Proc. 27th Conf. on l’Interaction Homme-Machine (IHM’15), Toulouse, France, Oct. 27–30, 2015, doi: 10.1145/2820619.2825015.

[19] V. Distler, C. Lallemand, and T. Bellet, “Acceptability and acceptance of autonomous mobility on demand: The impact of an immersive experience,” in Proc. 2018 CHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’18), Montreal, QC, Apr. 21–26, 2018, pp. 1-10.

[20] M. Overdijk and W. van Diggelen, “Technology appropriation in face-to-face collaborative learning,” in Workshop Proc. EC-TEL 2006, W. van Diggelen and V. Scarano, Eds. Utrecht University, 2006, pp. 1–8.

[21] F. D. Davis, “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology,” MIS Q., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 319–340, 1989.

[22] V. Venkatesh and F. D. Davis, “A theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies,” Manag. Sci., vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 186–204, 2000.

[23] H. Mutammimah, S. Rejeki, S. Kustini, and R. Amelia, “Understanding teachers’ perspective toward ChatGPT acceptance in English language teaching,” Int. J. Technol. Educ., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 290–307, 2024.

[24] A. Strzelecki, K. Cicha, M. Rizun, and P. Rutecka, “Acceptance and use of ChatGPT in the academic community,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 22943–22968, May 2024.

[25] F. Har, “Teaching English as a second language amid a paradigm shift: An exploration of students’ and teachers’ perception of ChatGPT,” in Teaching English as a Second Language in the Midst of a Paradigm Shift. Springer, 2023, pp. 23–45.

[26] H. Dehghani and A. Mashhadi, “Exploring Iranian English as a foreign language teachers' acceptance of ChatGPT in English language teaching: Extending the technology acceptance model,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 29, pp. 19813–19834, 2024.

[27] M. Imran and N. Almusharraf, “Analyzing the role of ChatGPT as a writing assistant at the higher education level: A systematic review of the literature,” Contemp. Educ. Technol., vol. 15, no. 2, 2023, Art. no. 464.

[28] B. Dilzhan, “Teaching English and Artificial Intelligence: EFL Teachers' Perceptions and Use of ChatGPT,” M.S. thesis, SDU University, 2024.

[29] A. M. H. Alrishan, “Determinants of intention to use ChatGPT for professional development among Omani EFL pre-service teachers,” Int. J. Learn. Teach. Educ. Res., vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 187–209, Dec. 2023.

[30] T. T. H. Nguyen, “EFL teachers’ perspectives toward using ChatGPT in writing classes: A case study at Van Lang University,” Int. J. Lang. Instr., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1–47, 2023.

[31] R. P. Gephart, C. Cassell, and A. L. Cunliffe, “Qualitative research as interpretive social science,” in The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods: History and Traditions. SAGE Publications, 2018, pp. 33–53.

[32] J. W. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th ed. SAGE Publications, 2014.

[33] J. C. Richards and D. Bohlke, Four Corners, 2nd ed. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

[34] A. J. Onwuegbuzie and K. M. T. Collins, “A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research,” The Qualitative Report, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 281-316, Jun. 2007.

[35] F. Fylan, “Semi-structured interviewing,” in A Handbook of Research Methods for Clinical and Health Psychology, J. Miles and P. Gilbert, Eds. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 65–78.

[36] A. A. Darayseh, “Acceptance of artificial intelligence in teaching science: Science teachers' perspective,” Comput. Educ.: Artif. Intell., vol. 4, 2023, Art. no. 100132.

[37] J. W. Creswell and C. N. Poth, Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches, 4th ed. SAGE Publications, 2018.

[38] V. Minichiello, R. Aroni, and T. N. Hays, In-Depth Interviewing: Principles, Techniques, Analysis, 3rd ed. Pearson Education Australia, 2008.

[39] D. M. Mertens, Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods, 4th ed. SAGE Publications, 2015.

[40] G. Guest, E. E. Namey, and M. L. Mitchell, Collecting Qualitative Data: A Field Manual for Applied Research. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE Publications, 2013.

[41] J. Saldaña, The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 3rd ed. London, U.K.: SAGE Publications, 2016.

[42] V. Braun and V. Clarke, “Using thematic analysis in psychology,” Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77–101, 2006.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.34238/tnu-jst.12060

Refbacks

There are currently no refbacks.



Remember me