Technological advancement has enabled language educators to employ AI virtual humans as online instructors by customizing their characteristics, such as English varieties, to meet learners’ needs and preferences. As AI instructors become a viable option in classrooms, how they affect language learners’ learning warrants investigation. Building upon social presence theory regarding interpersonal relationships in an online environment, this study aimed to examine the role of social presence and AI instructors’ credibility in fostering learner engagement. Additionally, it examined the effects of variables within instructors on instructor credibility and learner engagement. In the study, a 2 (human or AI) x 2 (native or non-native English-speaking teacher) between-subjects design was utilized in an online experiment with 120 English learners. Regression and mediation analyses revealed, in AI-led classes, social presence positively influenced learner engagement, with instructor credibility fully mediating this relationship. According to a two-way MANOVA analysis used to examine the effects of humanness and nativeness on credibility and engagement, no evidence was found to support a difference between AI instructors and their human counterparts when observing learners’ perceptions and engagement, regardless of whether the instructors were NESTs or NNESTs. The results show that AI instructors can be a viable alternative in language classes.
AhnS-YKangH-S (2017) South Korean University students’ perceptions of different English varieties and their contribution to the learning of English as a foreign language. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development38(8): 712–725.
2.
AllardAHolmstromAJ (2023) Students’ perception of an instructor: The effects of instructor accommodation to student swearing. Language Sciences99: 101562.
3.
AmerstorferCMFreiin von Münster-KistnerC (2021) Student perceptions of academic engagement and student-teacher relationships in problem-based learning. Frontiers in Psychology12: 713057.
4.
AnXChaiCSLiY, et al. (2023) Modeling students’ perceptions of artificial intelligence assisted language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2023.2246519.
5.
BioccaFHarmsCBurgoonJK (2003) Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments12(5): 456–480.
6.
CorneliusSLeidnerDE and BenbyaH (2023) Credibility of virtual influencers: The role of design stimuli, knowledge cues, and user disposition. In: Proceedings of the 56th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (ed TX Bui), Honolulu, US, 3-6 January 2023, pp. 3401–3410. Honolulu: Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
7.
CraigSDSchroederNL (2017) Reconsidering the voice effect when learning from a virtual human. Computers and Education114: 193–205.
8.
DerakhshanA (2021) The predictability of Turkman students’ academic engagement through Persian language teachers’ nonverbal immediacy and credibility. Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages10(21): 3–26.
9.
DoTDAkterMChoudharyZ, et al. (2022) The effects of an embodied pedagogical agent’s synthetic speech accent on learning outcomes. In: ICMI '22: International conference on multimodal interaction (eds R Tumuluri et al.), Bengaluru, India, 7–11 November 2022, pp.198-206. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
10.
ErnstAFAlbersCJ (2017) Regression assumptions in clinical psychology research practice—A systematic review of common misconceptions. PeerJ5(e3323): 1–16.
11.
FaulFErdfelderELangA-G, et al. (2007) G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods39(2): 175–191.
12.
GreeneBA (2015) Measuring cognitive engagement with self-report scales: Reflections from over 20 years of research. Educational Psychologist50(1): 14–30.
13.
HanzlíkováDSkarnitzlR (2017) Credibility of native and non-native speakers of English revisited: Do non-native listeners feel the same?Research in Language15(3): 285–298.
14.
HiverPAl-HoorieAHVittaJP, et al. (2024) Engagement in language learning: A systematic review of 20 years of research methods and definitions. Language Teaching Research28(1): 201–230.
15.
HuangTHWangLZ (2021) Artificial intelligence learning approach through total physical response embodiment teaching on French vocabulary learning retention. Computer Assisted Language Learning36(8): 1608–1632.
16.
IsaacsTRoseH (2022) Redressing the balance in the native speaker debate: Assessment standards, standard language, and exposing double standards. TESOL Quarterly56(1): 401–412.
17.
IsbellDRCrowtherDNishizawaH (2024) Speaking performances, stakeholder perceptions, and test scores: Extrapolating from the Duolingo English test to the university. Language Testing41(2): 233–262.
18.
JiangYPengJE (2023) Exploring the relationships between learners’ engagement, autonomy, and academic performance in an English language MOOC. Computer Assisted Language Learning. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2164777.
19.
KachruBB (1985) Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In: QuirkRWiddowsonHG (eds) English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.11–30.
20.
KimJMerrillK Jr XuK, et al. (2022) Perceived credibility of an AI instructor in online education: The role of social presence and voice features. Computers in Human Behavior136: 107383.
21.
LasagabasterDSierraJM (2002) University students’ perceptions of native and non-native speaker teachers of English. Language Awareness11(2): 132–142.
22.
LeeBJBaileyJL (2023) Assumptions of speaker ethnicity and the effect on ratings of accentedness, comprehensibility, and intelligibility. Language Awareness32(2): 301–322.
23.
LeeKMPengWJinS-A, et al. (2006) Can robots manifest personality? An empirical test of personality recognition, social responses, and social presence in human–robot interaction. Journal of Communication56(4): 754–772.
24.
LeeSJeonJ (2024) Visualizing a disembodied agent: Young EFL learners’ perceptions of voice-controlled conversational agents as language partners. Computer Assisted Language Learning37(5–6): 1048–1073.
25.
LiJKizilcecRBailensonJ, et al. (2016) Social robots and virtual agents as lecturers for video instruction. Computers in Human Behavior55: 1222–1230.
26.
LiL (2022) Students’ isolation challenges in blended EFL learning during COVID-19: How can social presence and interaction help develop sense of community?Psychology Research and Behavior Management15: 3117–3131.
27.
McCroskeyJCTevenJJ (1999) Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs66(1): 90–103.
28.
NicklinCVittaJP (2021) Effect-driven sample sizes in second language instructed vocabulary acquisition research. The Modern Language Journal105(1): 218–236.
29.
PiZDengLWangX, et al. (2022) The influences of a virtual instructor’s voice and appearance on learning from video lectures. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning38(6): 1703–1713.
30.
PlonskyL (2013) Study quality in SLA: An assessment of designs, analyses, and reporting practices in quantitative L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition35(4): 655–687.
31.
PodlipskýVJŠimáčkovአPetrážD (2016) Is there an interlanguage speech credibility benefit?Topics in Linguistics17(1): 30–44.
32.
RezvaniRMiriP (2021) The impact of gender, nativeness, and subject matter on the English as a second language university students’ perception of instructor credibility and engagement: A qualitative study. Frontiers in Psychology12: 702250.
33.
SantilliVMillerANKattJ (2011) A comparison of the relationship between instructor nonverbal immediacy and teacher credibility in Brazilian and U.S. classrooms. Communication Research Reports28(3): 266–274.
34.
SchrodtPWittPLTurmanPD, et al. (2009) Instructor credibility as a mediator of instructors’ prosocial communication behaviors and students’ learning outcomes. Communication Education58(3): 350–371.
35.
ShortJWilliamsEChristieB (1976) The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. London: Wiley.
36.
SuartaIMNoortyaniRYarsamaK, et al. (2022) The role of teachers’ indigenous knowledge and cultural competencies in enhancing students’ engagement and learning outcomes. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies9(1): 244–264.
37.
SunYShiWFuL (2023) Improving Chinese EFL learners’ engagement in online classes: the role of teacher scaffolding and teacher respect. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2023.2180009.
38.
TeoTKhazaieSDerakhshanA (2022) Exploring teacher immediacy-(non)dependency in the tutored augmented reality game-assisted flipped classrooms of English for medical purposes comprehension among the Asian students. Computers and Education179: 104406.
39.
WalkinshawIOanhDH (2014) Native and non-native English language teachers: Student perceptions in Vietnam and Japan. SAGE Open4(2): 1–9.
40.
WangMTFredricksJAYeF, et al. (2016) The math and science engagement scales: Scale development, validation, and psychometric properties. Learning and Instruction43: 16–26.
41.
WilliamsMNGrajalesCAGKurkiewiczD (2013) Assumptions of multiple regression: Correcting two misconceptions. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation18(11): 1–14.
42.
YangHKimHLeeJH, et al. (2022) Implementation of an AI chatbot as an English conversation partner in EFL speaking classes. ReCALL34(3): 327–343.
43.
YuZGaoM (2022) Effects of video length on a flipped English classroom. SAGE Open12(1): 1–14.
44.
ZhengJ (2021a) A functional review of research on clarity, immediacy, and credibility of teachers and their impacts on motivation and engagement of students. Frontiers in Psychology12: 712419.
45.
ZhengJ (2021b) The role of Chinese EMI teachers’ clarity and credibility in fostering students’ academic engagement and willingness to attend classes. Frontiers in Psychology12: 756165.
46.
ZhongQWangYLvW, et al. (2022) Self-regulation, teaching presence, and social presence: Predictors of students’ learning engagement and persistence in blended synchronous learning. Sustainability14(9): 5619.
