The field of computer-assisted language learning has recently brought about a notable change in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing. Starting from October 2022, students across different academic fields have increasingly depended on ChatGPT-4 as a helpful resource for addressing particular challenges in EFL writing. This study aimed to investigate the use and acceptance of ChatGPT-4 in students’ EFL writing. To this end, an experiment was conducted with 76 undergraduate students from a private school in Algeria. The participants were randomly allocated into two groups: experimental group (n = 37) and control group (n = 39). Additionally, a questionnaire was administered. The results showed that the experimental group (EG) outperformed the control group (CG). Besides, the findings revealed that students in the EG in post-test outperformed their pre-test scores. The findings also revealed substantial improvements in the EG’s views of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitudes, and behavioral intention. According to the results, ChatGPT-4 helped boost students' EFL writing skills, which ultimately led to their acceptance. Students appear particularly interested in ChatGPT-4 because of its potential usefulness in putting what they learn about EFL writing into practice. Some suggestions and recommendations were provided.
AbunamousM. O.BoudouaiaA.JebrilM.DiafiS.ZreikM. (2022). The decay of traditional education: A case study under covid-19. Cogent Education, 9(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2022.2082116
2.
AhmedM. A. (2023). ChatGPT and the EFL classroom: Supplement or substitute in Saudi Arabia’s eastern region. Information Sciences Letters, 12(7), 2727–2734. https://doi.org/10.18576/isl/120704
3.
Al-AshwalF. Y.ZawiahM.GharaibehL.Abu FarhaR.BitarA. N. (2023). Evaluating the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of chatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, bing AI, and bard against conventional drug-drug interactions clinical tools. Drug, Healthcare and Patient Safety, 15, 137–147. https://doi.org/10.2147/dhps.s425858
4.
AliJ. K.ShamsanM. A.HezamT. A.MohammedA. A. (2023). Impact of chayGPT on learning motivation. Journal of English Studies in Arabia Felix, 2(1), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.56540/jesaf.v2i1.51
5.
BarrotJ. S. (2021). Using automated written corrective feedback in the writing classrooms: Effects on L2 writing accuracy. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(4), 584–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1936071
6.
BarrotJ. S. (2023). Using chatGPT for second language writing: Pitfalls and potentials. Assessing Writing, 57, Article 100745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100745
7.
BoudouaiaA.MiqdadK.AL-QadriA. H.SaraaN.BelmamouneS.Bariu NtorukiriT.XingfangY.Oda AbunamousM.MouissiM. (2024). The effect of empowerment on English language teachers’ commitment to schools: The mediation of teachers’ attitudes towards curriculum reform. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2024.2302978
8.
CaiQ.Yu-pengL.YuZ. (2023). Factors influencing learner attitudes towards ChatGPT-assisted language learning in higher education. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2261725
9.
ChangY. C.ChangJ. S.ChenH. J.LiouH. C. (2008). An automatic collocation writing assistant for Taiwanese EFL learners: A case of corpus-based NLP technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 283–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220802090337
10.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quartely, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
11.
DayT. (2023). A preliminary investigation of fake peer-reviewed citations and references generated by chatGPT. The Professional Geographer, 75(6), 1024–1027. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2023.2190373
12.
DwivediY. K.KshetriN.HughesL.SladeE. L.JeyarajA.KarA. K.BaabdullahA. M.KoohangA.RaghavanV.AhujaM.AlbannaH.AlbashrawiM. A.Al-BusaidiA. S.BalakrishnanJ.BarletteY.BasuS.BoseI.BrooksL.BuhalisD.WrightR. (2023). Opinion paper: “so what if ChatGPT wrote it?” multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
FanC. (2023). English learning motivation with TAM: Undergraduates’ behavioral intention to use Chinese indigenous social media platforms for English learning. Cogent Social Sciences, 9(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2260566
15.
FianuE.BlewettC.AmpongG.OforiK. (2018). Factors affecting MOOC usage by students in selected ghanaian universities. Education Sciences, 8(2), 70. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8020070
16.
FryerL. K.NakaoK.ThompsonA. (2019). Chatbot learning partners: Connecting learning experiences, interest and competence. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.023
17.
FuchsK. (2023). Exploring the opportunities and challenges of NLP models in Higher Education: Is chat GPT a blessing or a curse?Frontiers in Education, 8, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1166682
18.
GayedJ. M.CarlonM. K. J.OriolaA. M.CrossJ. S. (2022). Exploring an AI-based writing assistant’s impact on English language learners. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, Article 100055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100055
19.
GengF.YuS.LiuC.LiuZ. (2021). Teaching and learning writing in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) school education contexts: A thematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 66(3), 491–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2021.1897872
20.
GriffithsL.NicollsB. (2010). E-support4U: An evaluation of academic writing skills support in practice. Nurse Education in Practice, 10(6), 341–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2010.02.005
21.
GuoK.WangD. (2023). To resist it or to embrace it? Examining ChatGPT’s potential to support teacher feedback in EFL writing. Education and Information Technologies, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12146-0
22.
GuoK.WangJ.ChuS. K. W. (2022). Using chatbots to scaffold EFL students’ argumentative writing. Assessing Writing, 54, 100666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2022.100666
23.
HanT.SariE. (2022). An investigation on the use of automated feedback in Turkish EFL students’ writing classes. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2067179
24.
HanZ.BattagliaF.UdaiyarA.FooksA.TerleckyS. R. (2023). An explorative assessment of ChatGPT as an aid in medical education: Use it with caution. Medical Teacher, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159x.2023.2271159
25.
HuangS.RenandyaW. A. (2018). Exploring the integration of automated feedback among lower-proficiency EFL learners. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 14(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2018.1471083
26.
HuangW.HewK. F.FryerL. K. (2022). Chatbots for language learning – are they really useful? A systematic review of chatbot-supported language learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(1), 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12610
27.
ImranM.AlmusharrafN. (2023). Analyzing the role of ChatGPT as a writing assistant at higher education level: A systematic review of the literature. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(4), ep464. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13605
28.
İpekZ. H.GözümA. İ. C.PapadakisS.KallogiannakisM. (2023). Educational applications of the ChatGPT AI system: A systematic review research. Educational Process International Journal, 12(3), 26–55. https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2023.123.2
29.
JavaidM.HaleemA.SinghR. P.KhanS.KhanI. H. (2023). Unlocking the opportunities through CHATGPT tool towards ameliorating the education system. BenchCouncil Transactions on Benchmarks, Standards and Evaluations, 3(2), 100115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbench.2023.100115
30.
JeonJ.LeeS. (2023). Large language models in education: A focus on the complementary relationship between human teachers and ChatGPT. Education and Information Technologies, 28(12), 15873–15892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11834-1
31.
KasneciE.SesslerK.KüchemannS.BannertM.DementievaD.FischerF.GasserU.GrohG.GünnemannS.HüllermeierE.KruscheS.KutyniokG.MichaeliT.NerdelC.PfefferJ.PoquetO.SailerM.SchmidtA.SeidelT.KasneciG. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
LauriolaI.LavelliA.AiolliF. (2021). An introduction to deep learning in natural language processing: Models, techniques, and tools. Neurocomputing, 470, 443–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2021.05.103
34.
LiawS. S. (2008). Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the blackboard system. Computers & Education, 51(2), 864–873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.005
35.
LimJ.NewbyT. J. (2020). Preservice teachers’ web 2.0 experiences and perceptions on web 2.0 as a personal learning environment. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 32(2), 234–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-019-09227-w
36.
LinM. P. C.ChangD. (2020). Enhancing post-secondary writers’ writing skills with a chatbot. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 23(1), 78–92. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26915408
37.
LinkS.MehrzadM.RahimiM. (2020). Impact of automated writing evaluation on teacher feedback, student revision, and writing improvement. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(4), 605–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1743323
38.
LiuG.MaC. (2023). Measuring EFL learners’ use of ChatGPT in informal digital learning of English based on the technology acceptance model. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 18(2), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2023.2240316
39.
LiuL. E. (2002). A corpus-based lexical semantic investigation of verb-noun miscollocations in Taiwan learners’ English (Master’s thesis). Tamkang University.
40.
Mac CallumK.KinshukL. J. (2014). Factors impacting teachers’ adoption of mobile learning. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 13, 141–162. https://doi.org/10.28945/1970
41.
MarzukiUtami W.RusdinD.DarwinD.IndaI. (2023). The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students’ writing: EFL teachers’ perspective. Cogent Education, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2023.2236469
42.
Montenegro-RuedaM.Fernández-CereroJ.Fernández-BataneroJ. M.López-MenesesE. (2023). Impact of the implementation of ChatGPT in education: A systematic review. Computers, 12(8), 153. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers12080153
43.
NgoT. T. (2023). The perception by university students of the use of chatgpt in Education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 18(17), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v18i17.39019
44.
NtorukiriT. B.ChunX.BoudouaiaA. (2022). Influence of teachers’ competencies on ICT implementation in Kenyan universities. Education Research International, Article, 1370052. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1370052
45.
NugrohoA.AndriyantiE.WidodoP.MutiaraningrumI. (2024). Students’ appraisals post-ChatGPT use: Students’ narrative after using ChatGPT for writing. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2024.2319184
46.
Ofosu-AmpongK.AcheampongB.KevorM.-O.Amankwah-SarfoF. (2023). Acceptance of artificial intelligence (ChatGPT-4) in education: Trust, innovativeness and psychological need of students. Information and Knowledge Management, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.7176/ikm/13-4-03
47.
ParkS. Y.NamM. W.ChaS. B. (2012). University students’ behavioral intention to use mobile learning: Evaluating the technology acceptance model. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 592–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01229.x
48.
PengR.HuQ.KouiderB. (2023). Teachers’ acceptance of online teaching and emotional labor in the EFL context. Sustainability, 15(18), 13893. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813893
49.
RahimiM.YadollahiS. (2011). Computer anxiety and ICT integration in English classes among Iranian EFL teachers. Procedia Computer Science, 3, 203–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2010.12.034
50.
RahmanM. M.WatanobeY. (2023). ChatGPT for education and research: Opportunities, threats, and strategies. Applied Sciences, 13(9), 5783. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13095783
51.
RasulT.NairS.KalendraD.RobinM.De Oliveira SantiniF.Junior LadeiraW.SunM.DayI.Ahmad RatherR.HeathcoteL. (2023). The role of ChatGPT in higher education: Benefits, challenges, and future research directions. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.29
52.
RawasS. (2023). ChatGPT: Empowering lifelong learning in the digital age of higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12114-8
53.
RezaeiA. R.LovornM. (2010). Reliability and validity of rubrics for assessment through writing. Assessing Writing, 15(1), 18–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2010.01.003
54.
RudolphJ.TanS.TanS. (2023). Chatgpt: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education?Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 342–363. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9
55.
SánchezR. A.HuerosA. D. (2010). Motivational factors that influence the acceptance of Moodle using TAM. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1632–1640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.011
56.
ShadievR.FengY. (2023). Using automated corrective feedback tools in language learning: A review study. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2153145
57.
ShaikhS.YayilganS. Y.KlimovaB.PikhartM. (2023). Assessing the usability of chatgpt for formal English language learning. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 13(9), 1937–1960. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe13090140
58.
SharmaS.YadavR. (2022). ChatGPT – A technological remedy or challenge for education system. Global Journal of EIS, 14(4). https://doi.org/10.18311/gjeis/2022
SongC.SongY. (2023). Enhancing academic writing skills and motivation: Assessing the efficacy of ChatGPT in AI-assisted language learning for EFL students. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1260843. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1260843
61.
StrzeleckiA. (2023). To use or not to use ChatGPT in higher education? A study of students’ acceptance and use of technology. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2209881
62.
SunD.BoudouaiaA.ZhuC.LiY. (2024). Would ChatGPT-facilitated programming mode impact college students' programming behaviors, performances, and perceptions? An empirical study. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00446-5
TeoT.LuanW. S.SingC. C. (2008). A cross-cultural examination of the intention to use technology between Singaporean and Malaysian pre-service teachers: An application of the technology acceptance model (TAM). Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 265–280. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.11.4.265
65.
TianL.ZhouY. (2020). Learner engagement with automated feedback, peer feedback and teacher feedback in an online EFL writing context. System, 91, 102247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102247
66.
UllaM. B.PeralesW. F.BusbusS. O. (2023). To generate or stop generating response: Exploring EFL teachers’ perspectives on ChatGPT in English language teaching in Thailand. Learning: Research and Practice, 9(2), 168–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2023.2257252
67.
VenkateshV.ThongJ. Y.XuX. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412
68.
WangY.YuL.YuZ. (2022). An extended CCtalk technology acceptance model in EFL education. Education and Information Technologies, 27(5), 6621–6640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10909-9
69.
WangY.-J.ShangH.-F.BriodyP. (2013). Exploring the impact of using automated writing evaluation in English as a foreign language university students’ writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(3), 234–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2012.655300
70.
XiaoY.ZhiY. (2023). An exploratory study of EFL learners’ use of CHATGPT for language learning tasks: Experience and perceptions. Languages, 8(3), 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8030212
71.
XieY.BoudouaiaA.XuJ.AL-QadriA. H.KhattalaA.LiY.AungY. M. (2023). A study on teachers’ continuance intention to use technology in English instruction in western China junior secondary schools. Sustainability, 15(5), 4307. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054307
72.
YanD. (2023). Impact of ChatGPT on learners in a L2 writing practicum: An exploratory investigation. Education and Information Technologies, 28(11), 13943–13967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11742-4
73.
YangF.-Y.TsaiC.-C. (2008). Investigating university student preferences and beliefs about learning in the web-based context. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1284–1303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.12.009
YinQ.SatarM. (2020). English as a foreign language learner interaction with chatbots: Negotiation for meaning. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 7(2), 390–410. https://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/707
ZhangD.HennessyS.Pérez-ParedesP. (2023). An investigation of Chinese EFL learners’ acceptance of mobile dictionaries in English language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2023.2189915
78.
ZhangZ. V.HylandK. (2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.02.004
79.
ZhouS.McKinleyJ.RoseH.XuX. (2021). English medium higher education in China: Challenges and ELT support. ELT Journal, 76(2), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccab082
