This study investigates the effects of generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) generated vs. human-written moral dilemma stories on English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ speaking skills, storytelling ability, and behavioral regulation, framed within the theoretical context of embodied cognition. A total of 120 university students were divided into two groups: the experimental group, which engaged with GPT-generated moral dilemma stories, and the control group, which worked with human-authored moral dilemma stories. Over an 11-week experimental period (including pre-test, 10-week intervention, and post-test), each group was exposed to weekly dilemma stories, followed by speaking assessments using IELTS Part 2 tasks. Analysis of covariance results demonstrated that the GPT group significantly outperformed the control group in fluency, lexical use, and grammar. Furthermore, participants in the GPT group exhibited higher levels of intrinsic motivation and reduced amotivation compared to their counterparts. The GPT-generated stories also enhanced storytelling ability, particularly in the dimensions of content, organization, and innovation. These findings suggest that AI-generated content, specifically using large language models like GPT, can be an effective tool for improving both language proficiency and behavioral regulation in EFL learners, providing valuable insights into the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in language education.
AlharbiH.A. (2015). Improving students’ English speaking proficiency in Saudi public schools. International Journal of Instruction, 8, 105–116.
2.
AlterioM.McDruryJ. (2003). Learning through storytelling in higher education: Using reflection and experience to improve learning. Routledge.
3.
AmoahS.YeboahJ. (2021). The speaking difficulties of Chinese EFL learners and their motivation towards speaking the English language. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 17, 56–69.
4.
AndersonL.W.KrathwohlD.R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (Complete edition). Addison Wesley Longman.
5.
AnjumF.RaheemB.R.GhafarZ.N. (2024). The impact of ChatGPT on enhancing students’ motivation and learning engagement in second language acquisition: Insights from students. Journal of E-Learning Research, 3, 1–11.
6.
AnuradhaV. (2022). Digital short stories and narrative approach: A great combo in developing cognitive abilities and skills. ECS Transactions, 107, Article 2759.
7.
AudiR. (2015). Cambridge dictionary of philosophy (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
8.
BahufiteE.Kasonde Ng’anduS.AkakandelwaA. (2023). The relationships between learners’ academic achievement due to the use of constructivist methods in physical science and their self-esteem in Zambian secondary schools. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 8, Article 100632.
9.
BarsalouL.W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.
10.
BianJ.LiL.SunJ.DengJ.LiQ.ZhangX.YanL. (2019). The influence of self-relevance and cultural values on moral orientation. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 292.
11.
BinzM.SchulzE. (2022). Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 120, Article e2218523120.
12.
BorensteinJ.HowardA. (2021). Emerging challenges in AI and the need for AI ethics education. AI and Ethics, 1, 61–65.
13.
BouzianeK.BouzianeA. (2024). AI vs. human effectiveness in essay evaluation. Discover Education, 3, Article 201.
Cegarra-NavarroJ.BratianuC.Martínez-MartínezA.VătămănescuE.DabijaD. (2023). Creating civic and public engagement by a proper balance between emotional, rational, and spiritual knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 27, 2113–2135.
16.
ChenX.J.HuZ.B.WangC.L. (2024). Empowering education development through AIGC: A systematic literature review. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 17485–17537.
17.
ChungH.H.ChungF.L.LinS.M.LanY.J. (2023). Tools and approaches of generative artificial intelligence used in education. In ShihJ.-L.KashiharaA.ChenW.OgataH. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Conference on Computers in Education, ICCE 2023 (pp. 17–26). Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.
18.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
CoplandF.GartonS.BurnsA. (2014). Challenges in teaching English to young learners: Global perspectives and local realities. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 738–762.
20.
CortazziM. (1999). Cultural mirrors: Materials and methods in the EFL classroom. In HinkelH. (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 196–219). Cambridge University Press.
21.
DamasioA.R. (2000). A second chance for emotion. In LaneR.D.NadelL. (Eds.), Cognitive neuroscience of emotion (pp. 12–23). Oxford University Press.
22.
DashtiL.RazmjooS.A. (2020). An examination of IELTS candidates’ performances at different band scores of the speaking test: A quantitative and qualitative analysis. Cogent Education, 7, Article 1770936.
23.
De KlerkV. (2001). The cross-marriage language dilemma: His language or hers? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4, 197–216.
24.
DeciE.L.RyanR.M. (1985). Conceptualizations of intrinsic motivation and self-determination. In RyanR.M.DeciE.L. (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior (pp. 11–40). Springer.
25.
FiedlerA.DöpkeJ. (2025). Do humans identify AI-generated text better than machines? Evidence based on excerpts from German theses. International Review of Economics Education, 49, Article 100321.
26.
GalleseV.LakoffG. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 455–479.
27.
GaoX.XuH. (2014). The dilemma of being English language teachers: Interpreting teachers’ motivation to teach, and professional commitment in China’s hinterland regions. Language Teaching Research, 18, 152–168.
28.
GarelloS.FerroniF.GalleseV.MolinariC.CandidiM.ScorolliC. (2024). The role of embodied cognition in action language comprehension in L1 and L2. Scientific Reports, 14, Article 12781.
29.
GilmoreA. (2007). Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 40, 97–118.
30.
GlenbergA.M.GoldbergA.B.ZhuX. (2011). Improving early reading comprehension using embodied CAI. Instructional Science, 39, 27–39.
31.
GrahamJ.MeindlP.BeallE.JohnsonK.M.ZhangL. (2015). Cultural differences in moral judgment and behavior, across and within societies. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, 125–130.
32.
GrahamJ.NosekB.A.HaidtJ.IyerR.KolevaS.DittoP.H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366–385.
33.
GuanJ.HuangF.ZhaoZ.ZhuX.HuangM. (2020). A knowledge-enhanced pretraining model for commonsense story generation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8, 93–108.
34.
HauserM.CushmanF.YoungL.Kang-Xing JinR.MikhailJ. (2007). A dissociation between moral judgments and justifications. Mind & Language, 22, 1–21.
35.
HavenK.DuceyM.G. (2007). Crash course in storytelling. Greenwood Publishing Group.
36.
HellmichE.A.VinallK.BrandtZ.M.ChenS.SparksM.M. (2024). ChatGPT in language education: Centering learner voices. Technology in Language Teaching & Learning, 6, Article 1741.
37.
HeungY.M.E.ChiuT.K. (2025). How ChatGPT impacts student engagement from a systematic review and meta-analysis study. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 8, Article 100361.
38.
HinoN. (2009). The teaching of English as an international language in Japan: An answer to the dilemma of indigenous values and global needs in the Expanding Circle. AILA Review, 22, 103–119.
39.
IsbellR.SobolJ.LindauerL.LowranceA. (2004). The effects of storytelling and story reading on the oral language complexity and story comprehension of young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32, 157–163.
40.
JanuarizaY.HendrianiS. (2016). Student anxiety in learning speaking. Proceedings of ISELT FBS Universitas Negeri Padang, 4, 468–474.
41.
JeonJ.LeeS.ChoeH. (2023). Beyond ChatGPT: A conceptual framework and systematic review of speech-recognition chatbots for language learning. Computers & Education, 206, Article 104898.
42.
JinF.SunL.PanY.LinC.H. (2025). High heels, compass, Spider-Man, or drug? Metaphor analysis of generative artificial intelligence in academic writing. Computers & Education, 228, Article 105248.
43.
JusslinS.KorpinenK.LiljaN.MartinR.Lehtinen-SchnabelJ.AnttilaE. (2022). Embodied learning and teaching approaches in language education: A mixed studies review. Educational Research Review, 37, Article 100480.
44.
KalaitziC.TheocharisD. (2024). A creative writing intervention for second language acquisition development in multilingual students. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 12, 35–43.
45.
KälvemarkS.HöglundA.T.HanssonM.G.WesterholmP.ArnetzB. (2004). Living with conflicts: Ethical dilemmas and moral distress in the health care system. Social Science & Medicine, 58, 1075–1084.
46.
KohnkeL.MoorhouseB.L.ZouD. (2023a). ChatGPT for language teaching and learning. RELC Journal, 54, 537–550.
47.
KohnkeL.MoorhouseB.L.ZouD. (2023b). Exploring generative artificial intelligence preparedness among university language instructors: A case study. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, Article 100156.
48.
KramschC. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford University Press.
49.
KurthL.A.AndersonC.W.PalincsarA.S. (2002). The case of Carla: Dilemmas of helping all students to understand science. Science Education, 86, 287–313.
50.
LaiC.Y.CheungK.Y.ChanC.S. (2023). Exploring the role of intrinsic motivation in ChatGPT adoption to support active learning: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, Article 100178.
51.
LawL. (2024). Application of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in language teaching and learning: A scoping literature review. Computers and Education Open, 6, Article 100174.
52.
LiQ.ChanK.K. (2024). Test takers’ attitudes of using exam-oriented mobile application as a tool to adapt in a high-stakes speaking test. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 219–237.
53.
LiangJ.-C.HwangG.-J. (2023). A robot-based digital storytelling approach to enhancing EFL learners’ multimodal storytelling ability and narrative engagement. Computers & Education, 201, Article 104827.
54.
LimoF.A.F.TizaD.R.H.RoqueM.M., et al (2023). Personalized tutoring: ChatGPT as a virtual tutor for personalized learning experiences. Przestrzeń Społeczna (Social Space), 23, 293–312.
55.
LinY.YuZ. (2025). Learner perceptions of artificial intelligence-generated pedagogical agents in language learning videos: Embodiment effects on technology acceptance. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 41, 1606–1627.
56.
LinY.NiuR.YuZ. (2023). Roles of ambiguity tolerance and learning effectiveness: Structural equation modeling evidence from EFL students’ perceptions of factors influencing peer collaboration. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688231216201
57.
LiuM. (2006). Anxiety in Chinese EFL students at different proficiency levels. System, 34, 301–316.
58.
LuoJ.YuY. (2019). Application of embodied cognition theory in the education and management of college students’ mental health based on ‘Internet+’. In SugumaranV.XuZ.ZhouS.P., & H. (Eds.), Application of intelligent systems in multi-modal information analytics (Vol. 929, pp. 842–849). Springer.
59.
MaQ.CrosthwaiteP.SunD.ZouD. (2024). Exploring ChatGPT literacy in language education: A global perspective and comprehensive approach. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, Article 100278.
60.
MacMahonS.CarrollA.GilliesR.M. (2020). Capturing the ‘vibe’: An exploration of the conditions underpinning connected learning environments. Learning Environments Research, 23, 379–393.
61.
MaftunaA. (2023). Developing EFL students speaking skills through task-based instructions, importance of dialogues to develop students speaking skills. Journal of Education, Ethics and Value, 2, 48–50.
62.
MalinverniL.ParesN. (2014). Learning of abstract concepts through full-body interaction: A systematic review. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17, 100–116.
63.
MarklandD.TobinV. (2004). A modification to the behavioural regulation in exercise questionnaire to include an assessment of amotivation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26, 191–196.
64.
McDonoughK. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32, 207–224.
65.
MeşeE.KuruÖ.AtayD. (2025). Facilitating student engagement through ChatGPT. The Journal of Educational Research, 118, 632–642.
66.
MikeladzeT. (2023, May). Creating teaching materials with ChatGPT. In Proceedings of IRCEELT –Thirteenth International Research Conference on Education. IRCEELT.
67.
MisbahN.MohamadM.YunusM.Ya’acobA. (2017). Identifying the factors contributing to students’ difficulties in the English language learning. Creative Education, 8, 1999–2008.
68.
MokhtarN.H.HalimM.F.A.KamarulzamanS.Z.S. (2011). The effectiveness of storytelling in enhancing communicative skills. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 18, 163–169.
69.
MorovatE. (2014). Effects of reflectivity/impulsivity on IELTS candidates’ band scores in the speaking module of the test. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1232–1239.
70.
MusaM.K.IsmailR. (2021). Low proficiency students: Can we help them to speak confidently?Journal of English Language Teaching Innovations and Materials (JELTIM), 3, 1–14.
71.
NguyenL.BarrotJ.S. (2024). Detecting and assessing AI-generated and human-produced texts: The case of second language writing teachers. Assessing Writing, 62, Article 100899.
72.
PatacL.P.PatacA.V.Jr. (2025). Using ChatGPT for academic support: Managing cognitive load and enhancing learning efficiency – A phenomenological approach. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 11, Article 101301.
73.
QiaoH.ZhaoA. (2023). Artificial intelligence-based language learning: Illuminating the impact on speaking skills and self-regulation in Chinese EFL context. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1255594.
74.
QiuY.Isusi-FagoagaR.García-AracilA. (2023). Perceptions and use of metaverse in higher education: A descriptive study in China and Spain. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, Article 100185.
75.
RahmawatiY.NurbaityM.MarheniM. (2014). Engaging students in social emotional learning: The role of dilemma stories in chemistry learning. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Research, Implementation, and Education of Mathematics And Sciences 2014 (pp. 18–20). Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta.
76.
RaiS.ShapsoughS.ZualkernanI. (2024, July). Measuring fluency, coherency and logicality of GPT-4 generated EGRA comprehension stories. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) (pp. 201–203). IEEE.
77.
RegginL.D.FrancoL.E.G.HorchakO.V., et al, (2023). Consensus paper: Situated and embodied language acquisition. Journal of Cognition, 6, 1–16.
78.
RezaiA.SoyoofA.ReynoldsB.L. (2024). Disclosing the correlation between using ChatGPT and well-being in EFL learners: Considering the mediating role of emotion regulation. European Journal of Education, 59, Article e12752.
79.
SaitoK. (2019). Individual differences in second language speech learning in classroom settings: Roles of awareness in the longitudinal development of Japanese learners’ English/ɹ/pronunciation. Second Language Research, 35, 149–172.
80.
SatrianiI.N.RazaqY.WidistariS.KafrawiM. (2022). The use of dilemma story to enhance speaking skill at third semester of IAI As’adiyah Sengkang. ETDC: Indonesian Journal of Research and Educational Review, 1, 176–183.
81.
SeedhouseP.EgbertM. (2006). The interactional organization of the IELTS speaking test. IELTS Research Reports, 6, 161–205.
82.
SertN. (2008). The language of instruction dilemma in the Turkish context. System, 36, 156–171.
83.
SteissJ.TateT.GrahamS.CruzJ.HebertM.WangJ.MoonY.TsengW.WarschauerM.OlsonC.B. (2024). Comparing the quality of human and ChatGPT feedback of students’ writing. Learning and Instruction, 91, Article 101894.
84.
SunY.-C.YangF.-Y. (2015). I help, therefore, I learn: Service learning on Web 2.0 in an EFL speaking class. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28, 202–219.
85.
SuyitnoI.FawziA.SusantoG.AnggariP.D.AristaH.D. (2019). Designing Indonesian learning materials for communicative purposes for foreign learners. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 18, 112–127.
86.
TaylorE.TaylorP.C.ChowM. (2013). Diverse, disengaged and reactive: A teacher’s adaptation of ethical dilemma story pedagogy as a strategy to re-engage learners in education for sustainability. In MansourN.WegerifR. (Eds.), Science education for diversity (Vol. 8, pp. 203–219). Springer.
87.
TomaselloM. (2016). Cultural learning redux. Child Development, 87, 643–653.
88.
UmarjiO.McPartlanP.MoellerJ.LiQ.ShafferJ.EcclesJ. (2021). The motivational system of task values and anticipated emotions in daily academic behavior. Motivation and Emotion, 45, 599–616.
89.
WanY.MoorhouseB.L. (2024). Using Call Annie as a generative artificial intelligence speaking partner for language learners. RELC Journal, 56, 489–498.
90.
WangL.ColemanJ.A. (2009). A survey of internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education in China. ReCALL, 21, 113–129.
91.
WilsonM. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 625–636.
92.
YakhiyarovA.DoganayY. (2023). Storytelling as a pedagogical technique in improving students’ speaking skills in suburban secondary schools. Pedagogy and Psychology, 55, 253–260.
93.
ZhangX.Romero-FortezaF. (2024). Social media as a tool for informal Spanish learning: A phenomenological study of Chinese students’ behaviour in Spain. Behavioral Sciences, 14, Article 584.
94.
ZhangY.ElderC. (2011). Judgments of oral proficiency by non-native and native English speaking teacher raters: Competing or complementary constructs?Language Testing, 28, 31–50.
95.
ZhengY.(D.)StewartN. (2024). Improving EFL students’ cultural awareness: Reframing moral dilemmatic stories with ChatGPT. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, Article 100223.
96.
ZhengY.ZhangJ.YangY., et al (2025). Neural representation of sensorimotor features in language-motor areas during auditory and visual perception. Communications Biology, 8, Article 41.
