Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Artificial intelligence-driven chatbots have sparked significant changes in English education, which is challenging for pre-service teachers. To date, it remains unclear what are pre-service English teachers’ perceptions of and needs in integrating chatbots into English education. This study, therefore, explored Chinese pre-service English teachers’ (1) basic understanding of and attitudes toward chatbots, (2) perceptions of chatbots in English education, (3) perceptions of chatbots’ advantages and challenges and (4) needs in integrating chatbots into English teaching. From June to September 2023, 12 Chinese pre-service English teachers were purposefully sampled for semi-structured interviews, and thematic analysis was employed to identify key themes. The findings revealed generally positive attitudes toward chatbots, though teachers had limited understanding. Most teachers believed chatbots could improve language skills, but noted concerns like plagiarism. They emphasized human teachers’ irreplaceability in moral, emotional, and individualized teaching. Teachers also sought policy, training, and social support. These findings will not only help to better understand pre-service teachers’ views concerning integrating chatbots into English education internationally but also shed light on pre-service teacher education and chatbot development.

Keywords

chatbots pre-service English teachers perceptions and needs teacher education human-bot coordination

Introduction

In recent years, rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) technology have boosted the capability of chatbots and have accelerated their integration into education (Okonkwo & Ade-Ibijola, 2020; Smutny & Schreiberova, 2020). The Open University’s recent release of Innovating Pedagogy 2023 ranked the use of AI tools as the top 10 innovative methods, convincing the potential to trigger significant changes in educational practice in the next 5 to 10 years (Kukulska-Hulme et al., 2023). A typical example of applying AI in the educational area is the utilization of chatbots for teaching and learning. Chatbots are computer agents or programs that process the users’ input and give output by utilizing AI technology (Okonkwo & Ade-Ibijola, 2020). In English education field, chatbots can satisfy the students’ demands by offering personalized, interactive, and attractive learning experiences (Mohamed, 2023) and help enhance English listening (N. Y. Kim, 2018a), reading (Liu et al., 2022), writing (Guo & Wang, 2023), and speaking (Hwang et al., 2022; H. Yang et al., 2022) skills. Although quantities of chatbots’ advantages are mentioned, teachers lack the necessary competencies to apply chatbots in educational practice. Teachers are important mediums for integrating learning technologies (Saltan & Arslan, 2017). Notably, pre-service teachers are in a transitional stage and are at the stage of developing technological skills and knowledge (Valtonen et al., 2020). What they perceive and believe will directly influence their future teaching performance and practice (Istenic et al., 2021; T. C. Yang & Chen, 2023).

Although studies have noticed the English teachers’ perceptions of integrating chatbots into English teaching and learning (Bayram & Baturay, 2022; Nguyen, 2023), related studies on pre-service teachers’ perceptions of chatbots, and their needs in chatbots’ application in English education are lacking. Curriculum planners and training experts face challenges in developing and facilitating pre-service teachers with chatbot knowledge and skills. Since pre-service teachers are essential in teacher education, paying more attention to their perceptions can provide trajectories for integrating chatbots into English education.

Hence, this study aims to examine pre-service English teachers’ (1) basic understanding of and attitudes toward chatbots, (2) perceptions of chatbots in English education, (3) perceptions of chatbots’ advantages and challenges and (4) needs in integrating chatbots into English teaching. The findings can contribute to the international understanding of pre-service teachers’ views of and needs in using AI-powered tools to facilitate English education. Meanwhile, the exploration and analysis will provide implications for the design of pre-service training programs and therefore contribute to the enhancement of teachers’ digital literacy from a global view. It can also provide possible development directions for chatbots regarding the improvement of the functions.

Literature Review

What is an AI Chatbot

The advancement of AI has led to the proliferation of pre-trained Large Language Models (LLMs) represented by intelligent agents and their embeddedness in human beings’ lives (Guo & Wang, 2023). Chatbot, one of the most popular LLMs, is a system applied in various contexts including commerce, research, and education (C.-C. Lin et al., 2023; Okonkwo & Ade-Ibijola, 2020). An AI chatbot is a conversational or interactive software program that provides instant responses on given topics to users with the assistance of natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning or deep learning (Okonkwo & Ade-Ibijola, 2021; Zhai & Wibowo, 2022). AI chatbot has three major features: instant response, data support and multiple input and output (see Table 1). Hence, this personalized, on-demand and instant assistance will help individuals bridge the learning gaps, strengthen comprehension and acquire knowledge wherever and whenever they like (Chan & Lee, 2023). Large data support gives chatbots better capability to handle tasks, comprehend dialogs, and therefore can fulfill the requirements of users in a humorous and empathetic way (Zhai & Wibowo, 2022). The text-to-image or image-to-image chatbots can present the information in a more vivid way.

Table 1.

The Characteristics of Chatbots.

Characteristic	Example	Sample studies
Instant response	Chatbots have instant interactivity without space and time limitations.	Okonkwo and Ade-Ibijola (2021), Smutny and Schreiberova (2020)
Data support	Chatbots have innumerable amounts of data and huge size of parameters.	C.-C. Lin et al. (2023), Wu et al. (2023), Zhai and Wibowo (2022)
Multiple input and output	There are many types of chatbots, including text-based, voice-to-voice, text(image)-to-image.	Rzepka et al. (2022), Smutny and Schreiberova (2020)

For example, ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2023a), the generative pre-trained transformer in the LLM field, has gained great popularity across the globe since its release. Compared with its previous versions, ChatGPT is now equipped with more powerful functions. It can provide human-like textual responses to a wide range of inquiries in a variety of languages (Ibrahim et al., 2023) and generate more truthful and less toxic prompts conversationally (Guo & Wang, 2023). So far, ChatGPT has rolled out voice and visual capability (OpenAI, 2023a). Becoming a versatile tool, ChatGPT has profound utility in numerous aspects, such as writing articles of all types (Taecharungroj, 2023), marketing and offering services (George & George, 2023), summarizing literature and improving papers (van Dis et al., 2023), etc. Furthermore, in 2023, GPT-4 appeared with higher accuracy, greater NLP ability, broader application scenarios and better human-bot interaction experience (OpenAI, 2023b), signifying the extensive potential of chatbots in the future.

AI Chatbots in English Teaching and Learning

Previous research shows that there are several technological affordances of AI chatbots in language teaching and learning such as timeliness, ease of use and personalization (W. Huang et al., 2022). Owing to these characteristics, chatbots are able to offer smooth and real-time interaction. This helps facilitating an authentic learning environment for language learners, and fosters synergies for interaction and communication, thereby assisting them in effectively addressing language communication and usage challenges (Z. Zhang & Hong, 2023). A review by Ji et al. (2023) provided possible roles that AI chatbots may serve in language education, including evaluator, resource evaluator, and need analyst, etc. In sum, chatbots have several utilities in English teaching and learning.

It is indicated that chatbots have been employed in English teaching and learning in three stages: (a) pre-class stage, (b) while-class stage, and (c) post-class stage. These are given in Table 2, along with representative usages and sample studies.

Table 2.

Chatbots in English Teaching and Learning.

Stage	Usage	Sample studies
Pre-class	Collecting resources	Hsu et al. (2021), C. J. Lin and Mubarok (2021)
	Simulating scenarios	Hassani et al. (2016), W. Huang et al. (2022)
	Writing instructional designs	Z. Zhang and Hong (2023)
While-class	Setting contexts	Hwang et al. (2016), Wang et al. (2017), H. C. Yang and Zapata-Rivera (2010)
	Promoting activities	Kohnke (2022)
	Encouraging expression	H. Yang et al. (2022)
Post-class	Fostering cognitive process	W. Huang et al. (2022), Mohamed (2023), Jeon (2021)
	Caring socio-emotional state	Liu et al. (2022), H. Yang et al. (2022), Fryer et al. (2019)
	Familiarizing oneself with AI	J. Kim et al. (2022)

Pre-Class Stage

In this stage, students and teachers are in need of abundant learning resources. Chatbots can search for information about unknown words and provide videos, pictures, memos, and songs to the learners (Hsu et al., 2021; J. Lin and Mubarok, 2021). In this scenario, chatbots serve as the resource provider. In addition, before the class, text analysis and student analysis are a must as they directly influence the teaching approach teachers adopt. Chatbots can be employed here in the following ways: simulation (W. Huang et al., 2022), estimating learners’ language proficiency level (Hassani et al., 2016) and making teachers well-prepared for the possible key and difficult points in the teaching process (Z. Zhang & Hong, 2023). Also, since chatbots can generate texts according to the prompts, it may help teachers write instructional designs as well (Z. Zhang & Hong, 2023).

While-Class Stage

During the class, the functions of chatbots can be exerted in more profound types. Studies demonstrated the possibility of integrating chatbots in real classes (Jia & Chen, 2008; N. Y. Kim, 2016). Firstly, since students get higher motivation and perform better if they learn in authentic contexts (Hwang et al., 2016), chatbots, equipped with the affordance of simulation, are able to help teachers by designing multiple scenarios, providing opportunities for learners to practice specific knowledge or words (Wang et al., 2017) and able to disguise as a specific interlocutor (e.g., waiter) to improve students’ expression (H. C. Yang & Zapata-Rivera, 2010). Another utilization is to promote teaching activities, such as searching for answers to teachers’ questions, making oral communications, etc. (Kohnke, 2022). While there is a time limitation of class, teachers are in urgent need of an assistant to solve frequently asked questions. Chatbots can liberate teachers from repeated questions, giving them more time to conduct teaching (Kohnke, 2022). Additionally, the conversational exchanges by chatbots provide students with more opportunities to express their points of view (H. Yang et al., 2022). Encouraging the expression of students not only helps to enhance students’ language capability but also liven up the class atmosphere.

Post-Class Stage

Owing to the timeliness and ease of use (W. Huang et al., 2022), chatbots can be applied in more after-class scenarios. It is in this stage that students can tightly interact with the AI chatbots. Student-AI interaction includes three types, namely cognitive, socio-emotional, and artifact-mediated interaction (J. Kim et al., 2022). For the cognitive part, when students are learning and reviewing individually, AI chatbots provide learners with explicit answers and personalized guidance (Huang et al., 2022; Mohamed, 2023). Chatbots can tailor the instructions based on the needs of learners and their language level (Jeon, 2021), which may offer an optimal learning experience for learners. For example, chatbots evaluate the students’ writing works and give improvement suggestions. Students may select whatever style and difficulty of language and grammar they like. For the socio-emotional part, studies proved the affordance of chatbots in increasing students’ motivation and interests (Liu et al., 2022; H. Yang et al., 2022) and reducing language anxiety when using chatbots (Fryer et al., 2019), enabling higher learning efficiency and better achievements. For the artifact-mediated interaction part, students can perceive the interfaces of AI chatbots and coordinate with them, thereby adapting to the presence of AI (J. Kim et al., 2022).

Teachers’ Perceptions of and Needs in Applying AI Chatbots in Education

According to Davis (1989), the successful adoption of technological innovations hinges on user acceptance. Two important determinants, namely perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, weigh the most. The two determinants can be concluded as the cognitive process of users, or the users’ perceptions. Perception is a process in which organisms interpret and organize sensations to produce a meaningful experience of the world (Norman, 1977). Notably, how the individual interprets or perceives may be quite different from the reality and impact their action (Pickens, 2005). In the field of education, Choi et al. (2023) identified that teachers’ beliefs and perceptions are the decisive factors in maximizing the use of chatbots.

Previous studies investigated teachers’ perceptions of AI in education. T. C. Yang and Chen (2023) pointed out that whether integrating chatbots into instruction or not was strongly related to teachers’ perceptions and intentions. In the realm of English teaching, studies mainly highlighted the perceptions of the specific chatbots in English teaching. Chuah and Kabilan (2021) and Ulla et al. (2023) investigated English teachers’ perspectives on using ChatGPT in English teaching, indicating both the recognition and concerns of in-service teachers. However, only a limited number of studies related to pre-service English teachers have been conducted. Among them, J. Yang (2022) examined the English pre-service primary teachers’ perceptions of the potential benefits of employing AI chatbots, concluding that chatbots have high affordance in English language classes and more training is needed to compromise pre-service teachers’ lack of English education competency.

Compared with perceptions, needs are more practical and concrete. Needs refers to the basic substance (food, etc.) that is physiologically required by the body, or some social and personal factors as well as things derived from complex learning (knowledge, skills, achievements, prestige, etc.; Reber, 1985). The analysis of needs was first proposed by Michael West in the 1920s (West, 1994) and later formed the concept and was adopted in English special purpose (ESP) research (Richterich, 1980). There are four main models for needs analysis: (1) Target Situation analysis (TSA) by Munby (1981) or the Communication Needs Processor (CNP), which focuses on the learners’ communication needs in future career or learning scenarios. (2) Present Situation Analysis (PSA) by Allwright (1982) or the Deficiency Analysis, which focuses on the gap between learners’ present knowledge and the language needs of the targeted situation. (3) The model by Hutchinson and Waters (1987) put learners at the center and analyzed both target needs and learning needs. (4) Dudley-Evans and St John (1998) adopted means analysis and ecological approach and gave seven folds of needs analysis model to facilitate curriculum development.

Conducting the needs analysis in the language teaching and learning field is greatly beneficial to all facets including curriculum design, syllabus construction, class opening, curriculum evaluation, etc. (Chen, 2009). As integrating cutting-edge AI chatbots into teaching brings great challenges to teachers, it is necessary to analyze the needs of future English teachers so as to help them improve relevant knowledge and competencies. Yet the studies are rare, and thus there is an urgent need to identify them. For the current study, the second model Present Situation Analysis would be adopted.

Pre-Service Teacher Education in the AI Era

Teachers play a vital role in the application of new educational technology in the curriculum. Nevertheless, previous studies indicated that various factors (i.e., learning dimensions, job replacement, sociotechnical blindness, and the configuration of AI systems) will affect the AI anxiety of teacher candidates (Hopcan et al., 2023), which will accordingly exert a negative impact on chatbot applications in English class. Thus, it is necessary to promote AI-supported pre-service teacher education in many forms as they will be at the forefront of education in the future (C. Zhang et al., 2023).

Previous literature noted the significance of developing the training program as it is helpful for pre-service teachers to develop a more sophisticated conception of digital literacy (Lim, 2023), and improve innovation and collaboration. Notably, the designers of the program should customize the program to meet diverse needs, interests, and concerns (Hopcan et al., 2023). Research demonstrated technological and pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework may be suitable to better improve pre-service teachers’ technical and ethical skills to master the AI-based tools with high pedagogical and technological affordances (Celik, 2023; Rets et al., 2023).

TPACK is a framework used to understand teacher knowledge with the integration of technology and seven knowledge domains: Content Knowledge (CK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), Technological Knowledge (TK), Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). It is useful for teachers to think, analyze and evaluate their necessary integrated knowledge to integrate technology into teaching (Baran et al., 2011). For pre-service teachers’ development in TPACK, Koh and Divaharan (2011) revealed the situation that pre-service teachers mainly developed TK (Technological Knowledge) and TPK (Technological Pedagogical Knowledge), but more emphasis should be laid on TCK (Technological Content Knowledge) and TPACK.

Additionally, as pre-service teachers have less requisite knowledge and mental representation, open educational resources (OERs) should be offered during and after education to facilitate their self-regulated learning (L. Huang et al., 2022).

To sum up, previous studies show that the perceptions of pre-service teachers will exert a direct impact on their future teaching performance and practice (Istenic et al., 2021; T. C. Yang & Chen, 2023). Although research indicates various applications of chatbots in English teaching and learning, showing the immeasurable potential in English education, few studies explore how pre-service English teachers perceive chatbots and their functions in English education, where they acquire such knowledge, and what are the challenges and needs in their integrating chatbots into English education. Focusing on teachers’ perceptions of and needs in their pre-service stage will help them to handle the challenges and obstacles in their practicing instruction (Sorge et al., 2019), at the same time, enhancing their technological literacy in their teaching (Ye et al., 2021). Hence, this exploratory study aims to investigate Chinese pre-service English teachers’ perceptions of and needs in integrating chatbots into English teaching and learning. The following two research questions are set for the study:

RQ1: What are the participating Chinese pre-service English teachers’ perceptions of integrating AI chatbots into English teaching and learning?

RQ2: What are their needs in using AI chatbots to enhance English teaching and learning?

Methods

Participants

The participants were sampled from a provincial normal university in Zhejiang province, China to eliminate the influence of geographical variables. Altogether, 12 Chinese pre-service English teachers were recruited purposefully controlling their gender, grade level, and teaching experience. The demographic profile of participants is summarized in Table 3.

Table 3.

Demographic Profile of the Participating Pre-Service English Teachers.

Participants	Gender	Age	Grade	Teaching experience	Frequency of chatbot use
P1	F	20	3	Experienced	Sometimes
P2	M	21	3	Experienced	Often
P3	F	19	2	Novice	Usually
P4	M	19	2	Novice	Often
P5	M	19	2	Novice	Often
P6	F	21	3	Experienced	Sometimes
P7	F	20	2	Novice	Often
P8	M	22	4	Experienced	Often
P9	M	20	1	Novice	Sometimes
P10	M	22	4	Experienced	Usually
P11	F	22	4	Experienced	Sometimes
P12	F	20	2	Novice	Often

Data Collection

In the present study, semi-structured interviews were adopted to explore pre-service English teachers’ perceptions of and needs in integrating chatbots into English education (Weiss, 1994). The interview questions were developed based on literature review and pre-service English teachers’ real practice. The questions were primarily open-ended and primarily focused on seven topics (See Appendix 1) to ensure the flexibility (Merriam, 2009). An academic colleague who was not involved in the research was invited as an external auditor to review the questions and provided comments to enhance validity.

The interviews were conducted from June to September 2023 via videoconferencing to eliminate the limitation of time and space. To make sure the participants express themselves freely, the interviews were conducted in their mother tongue, Chinese. The pilot study was conducted with one participant to check the design of the interview guidelines, the online facilities and the interview time. Based on the result of the pilot study, we refined the description of some questions to ensure that the participants’ understanding is aligned with the targeted meaning.

Each formal interview lasted for approximately 50 minutes. To establish a positive relationship with the participants, the researchers began each session by introducing themselves and expressing their gratitude for the interviewees’ participation as suggested by Denzin and Lincoln (2005). Before the interview, the interviewees’ informed consent was obtained and they were informed of their basic rights. To ensure the confidentiality of the participants’ identities, pseudonyms were used throughout the reporting of research findings, as recommended by Miles and Huberman (1994). The interviews were recorded so the responses could be transcribed and analyzed.

Data Analysis

In this study, the process of analyzing interview data adhered to the fundamental steps involved in qualitative research data processing. To begin, we converted the audio data obtained from the interviews into written texts. We then assigned names to each of these text documents and read the transcripts to highlight and label the sections of interest. Furthermore, we read each interview text thoroughly, refining the text and clarifying the detailed information based on the interview questions. This process helped us identify the primary themes that emerged from the data. Additionally, we generalized the detailed original data and transformed it into aggregate coding. This step involved summarizing and grouping similar information into broader categories to facilitate analysis. Finally, we reviewed the research questions and literature, refined and integrated the codes, developed the spindle code, and began preliminary writing.

Through this process, six categories were generated to clarify research questions, including: basic understanding, experience and attitudes; impact of chatbots on English teaching and learning; advantages and challenges of integrating chatbots; sources of chatbot knowledge and skills; external needs and future advancement needs of chatbots. And a final set of 17 themes were identified. For example, the first category “Basic understanding, experience and attitudes” include two themes: “Pre-service English teachers’ understanding and experience (Theme 1)” and “Pre-service English teachers’ attitudes toward chatbot application and human-bot coordination (Theme 2)”. Sub-themes were also generated to further illustrate the points. For instance, for Theme 1, there are four sub-themes: “Chatbots’ popularity”, “Chatbots’ diversity”, “Pre-service English teachers’ understanding”, and “Pre-service English teachers’ frequency of chatbot use” (See the summary of emergent themes attached as the Supplemental Information). To ensure rigor, member checking with several participants were conducted to ensure the accuracy and relevance of the themes to their experiences and perceptions.

Findings and Discussion

Perceptions Regarding Chatbots in English Teaching and Learning

Basic Understanding, Experience and Attitudes

Unsurprisingly, chatbots have gained great popularity among the participants. All the participants acknowledged the popularity of chatbots and had heard of chatbots.

When asked to list some usual chatbots in their daily lives, approximately all the participants considered ChatGPT as the first example. Also, some participants listed the voice assistants on mobile phones such as Siri (the voice assistant on iPhone), Little Yi (the voice assistant on Huawei), etc. The process of enumeration indicates the diversity of chatbots, showing that chatbots have several types in different fields. For instance, P12 commented:

First, there’s ChatGPT; it has different versions like 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0. Also, Siri is an Apple mobile phone with a chatbot. Similarly, there may be domestic chatbots, like Baidu developed one called ERNIE Bot, Little Yi and so on. AI chatbots are now on our mobile phones, for example, some apps can also carry AI chatbots, for example, WeChat public subscription accounts seem to have an AI oral chat study room, like, I do not remember, anyway. There are also some oral English chatbots on some apps. You can try it. (P12)

Then we investigated the participants’ basic understanding of chatbots. The participants used specific words to describe functions of chatbots and exemplified their perspectives. P4 commented:

Take ChatGPT as an example. I know ChatGPT can help collect information. First, you raise a question to it, and then it will help you collect various resources online, and then help you organize. Therefore, I think the function of chatbots is to collect data first, and then organize and arrange these data to form a logical answer, and then present it. (P4)

Though the participants had some basic understanding of chatbots, there exist misunderstandings about chatbots that are not aligned with reality. The misunderstandings mainly include incomplete understanding and delayed understanding. Firstly, the incomplete understanding happened most frequently. Almost all the participants had a limited knowledge of chatbots as they just used general words to describe the nature and functions of chatbots, which is also found by research of Belda-Medina and Calvo-Ferrer (2022). A few participants could come up with one conclusive feature while others could not. P8 made a brief introduction and illustrated one characteristic from his point of view:

First of all, it is a language model trained with the algorithm, which can generate a natural language text and communicate according to the information of related problems provided by me. I think one of its biggest characteristics is that it uses a lot of data training, including textbooks on the Internet. But it has a disadvantage, that is, it is easier to identify, and sometimes the answer is not right. (P8)

However, most participants just listed a lot of application scenarios without being able to express clearly the nature and working mechanism of chatbots. P3 is a typical example:

Like asking the chatbot to come up with some exercises for students. Does that count? Then for example, sometimes I want to be lazy, so I make chatbots to help me write an introduction to a certain topic, and some of its expressions are great, so they can be used in some works. And as I mentioned earlier, I used chatbots to practice speaking, and they would talk to me and I could practice speaking. (P3)

Parallel to the incomplete understanding, the participants had a delayed understanding of chatbots that do not conform to reality owing to the disconnection with the forefront of technological development. For instance, since ChatGPT has developed an empathetic tone and human-like voice as well as an artificial image in the new version, some participants’ conceptions still stayed in the primitive stage. P3 & P6 commented:

Chatbots may not convey the emotions as people, and it can be seen from the lines. The words are not so special and rich, that is, not as close as a real person when communicating with you. (P3)

In terms of spoken language, I think it is possible to design some images for chatbots, and it is best that users can design these images themselves. In this way, whether we are speaking or listening, we will have a stronger sense of presence, and it feels like we are really chatting with people. (P6)

Additionally, some participants indicated the low efficiency of chatbots and expressed the chatbots’ ill performance negatively from their perspectives, which is aligned with the findings of Limna et al. (2023). As P9 commented:

For example, when I chat with it in oral communication, it may not be able to grasp the key point I want to express at once, and the focus will be one-sided. And it may not be able to accurately identify the central meaning of what I am saying. (P9)

In addition, we examined the users’ frequency of chatbot use. The results indicated that the frequency varied according to their grade levels. For example, P8 was in Grade Four and was experienced in teaching while P9 was in lower grade without enough teaching experience. There may exist a correlation between the pre-service development stage and the frequency of chatbot use.

If the lesson preparation is also counted, I use it more frequently. I can use chatbots to roughly understand some ideas of the course design process, but if it is said in the teaching process, it may not be used because of the constraints. (P8)

Relatively few, because I have not yet reached the stage of junior or senior year, and I am only a freshman, so I only use chatbots for learning, such as ChatGPT, and I will ask more questions for homework completion. (P9)

The quote from P8 demonstrates that the pre-service teacher has begun to use chatbots to prepare for lessons. Evidence could also be found in P11.

I have only used ChatGPT once so far when I was an intern some time ago, and I wanted it to generate a writing sample for students. This is the purpose for which I use it. (P11)

Although only used ChatGPT for once, P11 used it for the purpose of teaching, which again shows the pre-service teachers’ awareness of using chatbots to enhance teaching.

Another important finding is the pre-service English teachers’ attitudes toward chatbots. Firstly, participants conveyed strong support for the integration of chatbots into English teaching and learning. Almost all the participants (N = 11) directly expressed a supportive attitude and were in urgent need of further action. This result aligns with the study by Tlili et al. (2023), who examined the public discourse in social media about ChatGPT and got a generally positive comment.

Second, as we asked if chatbots can be a substitute for human teachers, all the participants gave a straightforward negation that is in accordance with the study by Edwards and Cheok (2018). They listed some traits of human teachers, such as moral education, teaching methods, and emotional support to certify human teachers’ irreplaceability. Some typical responses are as follows.

Moral Education: Human teachers also bear the responsibility for the moral education of human beings. Chatbot has no educational function, and it is difficult to guide students with the correct values. (P2)

Teaching methods: The role of human teachers is not only to pass on knowledge, but more importantly, to enlighten students on how to solve problems, and to solve some psychological problems that students may have in the learning process, but the chatbot can only tell students the answer. (P3)

Emotional support: One of the biggest differences between chatbots and human teachers is emotional output. Chatbots are unable to empathize with people or detect students’ psychological changes through their micro-expressions. (P4)

Finally, in terms of human-bot coordination, all the participants acknowledged the necessity of human-bot coordination, and some of them posed feasible application scenarios (Edwards & Cheok, 2018; Pérez et al., 2020) and needs.

Division of labor: Chatbots are more responsible for more mechanical work, such as finding some data, and humans may be more responsible for some experiential or creative work. (P1)

Difference in order: Chatbots can first display the most essential things or the most important things, and if human teachers observe that students have problems, they can timely adjust, further explain or supplement. (P4)

Needs: I will learn more about chatbot theory. I also hope to have the intervention of school forces to carry out more training. In addition, I think our students and parents, they need to have a certain understanding of human-bot collaboration. (P11)

Impact of Chatbots on English Teaching and Learning

To ensure the feasibility of integrating chatbots into English teaching and learning, we should clarify the pre-service teachers’ perceptions of whether chatbots exert impact on multiple English skills. Specifically, we focus on chatbots’ impact on listening, speaking, reading, writing, vocabulary, grammar and comprehensive English skills. In this category, we asked 12 participants about the pros and cons from their perspectives of using chatbots as an aid for English teaching and learning. Table 4 illustrates their perspectives on the supportive points and concerning points of different English skills. To make it clearer, we selected some excerpted quotes that are on behalf of similar views.

Table 4.

Pre-Service English Teachers’ Perceptions of Impact of Chatbots on English Teaching and Learning in Seven Skills.

Skills	Supportive points	Concerning points
Listening	Chatbot is error-free, which is helpful for students to develop a sense of language. (P3) The chatbot matches corresponding exercises to students according to their listening level, which is more suitable for students. (P8)	Chatbots’ speech is not as vivid and authentic as our own oral speech. Its tone is not so lively. (P6)
Speaking	As long as students have a mobile phone, they can practice at home what they have learned in school at any time. (P1) When children talk to chatbots, they will be more relaxed, not afraid of making mistakes, and will be brave enough to speak out. (P6) Teachers may not be able to take care of every student in class, but chatbots can give every student a chance to participate in oral practice. (P7)	Chatbot does not have a virtual character to give students a kind of communication, but just gives a rule to teach students what the rule is like, without a real person to practice or correct, the effect may not be so good. (P8)
Reading	The chatbot can select reading material for students to read at their current level. (P2) There is no problem with the chatbot’s grammar and some logic. This can develop students’ reading ability. (P3) If encounter some long and difficult sentences while reading, students can ask the chatbot and it will analyze the text. (P7)	Students may rely too much on robots to read, for example, chatbots can provide translation when students read, so students will rely too much. (P2) I think the improvement in reading ability may not be apparent. Reading mainly depends on your vocabulary and your understanding, these are what AI cannot help you. (P5)
Writing	In the process of writing, the chatbot can collect information about the student’s writing and provide more creative suggestions. (P2) Chatbots can provide real-time feedback, which is more helpful and efficient compared to going to the office to ask the teacher. (P8)	Students may be locked in their thinking, and sometimes they don’t think freely. They may rely on chatbots, and they don’t want to think. (P1) The sentences written by the chatbot can only be expressed in the simplest way, and will not deliberately use a metaphor or personification of this technique, unless you tell it to. (P3)
Vocabulary	The chatbot provides a practice for students to improve their vocabulary. Students can have a conversation with the chatbot directly after reciting words to practice. (P2) Chatbots are more detailed in explaining morphology, principles, roots and affixes. (P3) Chatbots can provide a personalized learning experience that matches students’ abilities to provide them with exercises accordingly. (P8)	Chatbots may explain the vocabulary rather boring, which will not be very attractive to students. (P4)
Grammar	The efficiency of asking for help from chatbots will certainly be higher than that of asking for help from teachers offline. (P4) It can provide students with a real context, so students exposed to such a context should have a more profound understanding of grammar. (P10)	I found that AI can write the correct sentences, but sometimes it was impossible for him to explain the grammar well. (P5)
Comprehensive skills	Chatbots provide students with multi-faceted learning materials, which can be cross-cultural, critical and dialectical, cultivating students’ cultural awareness and thinking quality. (P2) It can expose students to different cultures and perspectives. This will help students to increase their understanding of and respect for different cultures, and further improve the ability of cross-cultural communication skills. (P8)	A chatbot is something that comes to you when you go to it. I think chatbot is more of a tool to accomplish tasks efficiently. (P5) Chatbots may lack some monitoring functions. For example, human teachers may be better in this section, which is more conducive to the improvement of students’ comprehensive English ability. (P10)

As displayed in the table, the findings highlight the potential impact of chatbots application in seven aspects. For English listening and speaking, participants (N = 8) believed that chatbots can exert a positive impact on their conversational skills, which is also supported by N. Y. Kim (2018a) and Muhammad et al. (2020). Especially speaking, they noted chatbots can reduce the negative impact of shyness (Chien et al., 2022). For reading skills, previous studies highlighted the utility of enhancing students’ reading interest (Liu et al., 2022), whereas the participants of the present study mainly focused on the functions of selecting and providing reading material as well as comprehension. For English writing, 10 participants mentioned the function of providing resources in the pre-writing stage (Guo et al., 2022) and polishing the articles in the post-writing stage (Guo & Wang, 2023). Concerns on dependence (N = 3) and logic restraint (N = 2; Mohamed, 2023) drew our attention, while the previous study demonstrated the possibility of training students’ logic by chatbots (R. Zhang et al., 2023). Participants offered several utilities for enhancing students’ vocabulary (N. Y. Kim, 2018b) and grammar skills (N. Y. Kim, 2019). However, they questioned if chatbots can present the knowledge interestingly.

To conclude, supportive points include accurate feedback, instant response, personalized instruction (Ait Baha et al., 2023; Kuhail et al., 2023), and a profound knowledge base. Nevertheless, the concerning points lie in the possibility of inappropriate feedback, defects in pronunciation, student dependence, limitations of thoughts and lack of interest. The participants have different supportive perceptions and concerns about each skill.

Advantages and Challenges of Using Chatbots in English Teaching and Learning

Furthermore, to ensure the smooth integration of chatbots into English teaching and learning, exploring the advantages and challenges from the users’ perspective is of great significance. Table 5 illustrates their perceptions.

Table 5.

Pre-Service English Teachers’ Perceptions of Chatbots’ Advantages and Challenges in English Teaching and Learning.

Advantages	Challenges
Providing experience: I think pre-service English teachers lack experience, and chatbots can make it up. (P2)	Values concerns: Chatbots may act as a cultural “invasion,” potentially implanting values in their answers. (P1)
Providing accurate language: The chatbot is more accurate in some terms, and its language is more official. (P3)	Cultural gap: For example, I use ChatGPT, produced abroad, and the data they feed is English, but our students are from China, so sometimes it is difficult for me to use that information to teach students. (P1)
Saving time: Chatbots help us to save time as they can do some repetitive work. (P3)	Unsatisfactory results: Chatbots sometimes give unsatisfactory results. I asked it questions, it may not be able to give me an answer that is close to my expectation, I need to further modify it. (P2)
Updating mindset: I think teaching is a profession that needs to keep pace with the times, you need to update your own thinking all the time, and the chatbot is one representative of new technology. (P4)	Public opinion: Perhaps from the aspect of public opinion, there will be parents who will feel that teachers might not be competent enough. So they use chatbots to help teaching. (P2)
Collecting material: Chatbots can collect more extensive and comprehensive literature and English materials. (P4)	Humanistic care: Chatbots may lack humanistic care and may not pay much attention to the psychology of users. (P3)
Reducing cost: If the chatbot can pay once and for all, then it will answer you whatever you ask. I think it is cost-effective. (P5)	Hard to access: As the current domestic research and development of chatbots is not as advanced as foreign countries, it is often difficult for us to access better chatbots. (P4)
Providing instant response: I think chatbots have strong database and language analysis capabilities. So you just give a topic and it will write it for you in seconds. (P8)	Educational inequality: For those students in big cities, they may have access to chatbots early and conveniently. But it may be inconvenient for students in underdeveloped regions to access. (P6)
Improving confidence: It helps to enhance the self-confidence of pre-service English teachers, because it can help pre-service English teachers practice and show their English expression ability. (P8)	Privacy and security: I am concerned about data privacy and security issues with chatbots, which process users’ personal information and the content of conversations. (P8)
Promoting interaction: Chatbots can be used as interactive resources; we can have a discussion in class, and the classroom can have a more coordinated human-bot interaction. (P11)	Reducing job opportunities: Chatbots may replace certain occupations, so when it conflicts with the interests of the industry, there will be opposition to it. (P10)
	Plagiarism and academic integrity:Students using chatbots may cheat or plagiarize, which is a point that I think may be quite worrying. (P11)

The advantages include providing experience, providing accurate language, updating mindset, collecting material, reducing cost, providing instant response (Pérez et al., 2020), improving confidence (Song et al., 2022), and promoting interaction (Ait Baha et al., 2023). They mentioned the chatbots’ usefulness in pre-, while-, and post-class stages from several perspectives (Gonda & Chu, 2019). However, there are apparent disadvantages mentioned by the participants, including values concerns, cultural gap, unsatisfactory results, public opinion, humanistic care, hard to access, educational inequality, privacy and security (Sharkey, 2016), reducing job opportunities (Reich-Stiebert & Eyssel, 2016), and plagiarism and academic integrity (Okonkwo & Ade-Ibijola, 2021).

Since the participants offered lots of pros and cons of chatbots in English teaching and learning, the approaches to solving the concerns are valuable to explore. They gave possible solutions to the concerns. P1 admitted the necessity to get acquainted with the chatbots (Cheng et al., 2020), and P7 advised to strengthen the supervision during the process. Some participants also emphasized the standard use of chatbots as suggested by Mendoza et al. (2022). Exemplary quotes are as follows:

First you have to contact the chatbot; you must not avoid it, that is, you have to use it, and then you know where its weaknesses are, you know where its strengths are. (P1)

Students should learn some rules, such as how to use the robot, and how often. For teachers, how they use chatbots to assist English teaching every day should be regulated. (P11)

Sources of Chatbot Knowledge and Skills

To probe deeper, we further investigated how participants gained the relevant knowledge and skills. Among the 12 participants, the Internet was mentioned 11 times, which is the primary source of acquiring chatbot knowledge. Also, some participants (N = 3) claimed that they acquired the knowledge by chatting with friends and classmates. A few participants (N = 2) noted the usage of journals and academic papers in spreading relevant knowledge. Furthermore, we examined how pre-service English teachers obtained skills in operating chatbots. The results are similar to the previous question. Half of the participants mentioned the use of the Internet. The rest is searching on social software (N = 3), attending lectures (N = 2), asking friends (N = 2), and reading relevant books (N = 2).

It is manifested in the findings that the Internet is the primary source that the participants acquired chatbot knowledge and how-to skills, which clearly demonstrates the urgent need of formal education of AI and AI-based tools, and of designing and developing training programs for pre-service English teachers to enhance their digital literacy. Additionally, a wealth of relevant material shall be uploaded to the web or social platforms so that pre-service teachers will have more access to the resources concerning chatbot knowledge and usage.

Needs Regarding Integrating Chatbots Into English Teaching and Learning

Apart from the perceptions of the pre-service English teachers in various facets, we further investigated the needs regarding integrating chatbots into English teaching and learning. The following aspects were highlighted by the participants.

External Needs

Participants proposed some external needs to promote the chatbot application in English teaching and learning. Specifically, the needs mainly focus on the following parts: policy support, equipment support, financial support, practice support, training support, and social consciousness support. Table 6 illustrates the needs and the representative quotes.

Table 6.

Pre-Service English Teachers’ External Needs.

Needs	Quotes
Policy support	If the policy can be inclined to support this artificial intelligence industry, chatbots will have more and more functions in the future and will be more convenient to use. (P2)
Equipment support	Schools should first provide chatbots, which should be equipped with appropriate equipment. (P4)
Financial support	Governments should spend more expenditure on promoting chatbots and more funding for teachers to use in daily classes. (P7)
Practice support	I think it is necessary to provide more cases of the use of chatbots in English classes and more practical papers. (P10)
Training support	Courses or training can be offered to teach the use of chatbots so that pre-service English teachers can be very skilled in the use of chatbots. Colleges and universities can offer such courses. (P10)
Social consciousness support	It also needs the common understanding of society, especially the students and parents, who previously think that it is unreasonable and irresponsible to use chatbots to promote teaching. I think it needs to be promoted by social consciousness. (P12)

It is noticeable that the participants are in the most urgent need of policy support (N = 7) and training support (N = 7). Calls for policy support from the government gained high frequency as some participants conveyed that only the government has the power to promote the application domestically. Additionally, the participants also mentioned the necessity to offer equipment support (N = 4) from both the research and development organization and the schools, and financial support (N = 4). Some participants noted they needed the practice support (N = 2) and the social consciousness support (N = 3). More sample applications should be offered and the parents’ approval should be ensured.

Policy support in AI-assisted education was the most-frequent mentioned aspect by the participants. However, their statements did not involve much detail, Schiff (2022) noted that the national education agencies should enact the policy from three aspects, including developing more AI experts, preparing the workforce for AI and arousing public AI literacy, especially the students and teachers. Endris et al. (2024) proposed that the policy regarding AI-assisted education should be contextual, consultative, dynamic, implementable and measurable and gave the seven steps for policy development. Hence, it is advisable for policymakers to consider the perspectives of teachers and the recommendations of researchers when making decisions about integrating AI into education.

From an individual perspective, several participants pointed out the importance of attending some training courses, which is also mentioned by Chuah and Kabilan (2021). We conducted further research to determine their specific training program needs, particularly regarding the content that should be covered during any training sessions. The results mainly include teacher ethics (N = 4), human-bot cooperation (N = 1), scenario training (N = 7), emergency processing (N = 1), and chatbot selection (N = 1). Table 7 shows the need for training content.

Table 7.

Pre-Service English Teachers’ Needs for Training Content.

Needs	Quotes
Teacher ethics	I think it is also necessary to train the teachers’ ethics and attitudes when using such chatbots. (P2)
Human-bot cooperation	I think it is necessary to train how to use chatbots in class, because the proportion of using chatbots in class may be greater than the proportion of lectures, and I think it is necessary to train how to balance this degree. (P3)
Scenario training	I think we need training on how to use it. For example, how should teachers teach students to use chatbots to learn, how should teachers use chatbots to correct homework, write lesson plans and so on. (P5)
Emergency processing	I think it is necessary to train teachers to have an emergency handling ability, because it is likely that teachers send a wrong instruction to chatbots, or accidentally appear some situation, it is still necessary to guide teachers how to use it correctly. (P8)
Selecting chatbots	Since there are many chatbots on the market that are not very standardized, we need to be trained on how to choose a suitable and standard chatbot. (P11)

It is noted that more than half of the participants said they needed some scenario training. To be specific, the participants mainly focused on how to use chatbots to facilitate class preparation, how to conduct class activities with chatbots, and how to evaluate students by using chatbots.

When teachers use chatbots to teach listening, speaking, viewing, reading and writing, as well as cultivate students’ comprehensive quality, I think teachers should be trained in different skill types. (P2)

I think teachers need some training in the process of guiding students to give feedback after class. (P4)

For example, how should the teacher guide the student to use the chatbot to hand in the homework and correct the homework, and then how to ask the chatbot questions. How to make chatbots help teachers correct the homework and so on. (P5)

The findings are aligned with the statements by Novella-García and Cloquell-Lozano (2021). The training programs should include basic instrumental practice so that teachers are able to handle technology. In this process, they can reach a better level of digital competency (Fernández-Batanero et al., 2020). If we examine closer the participants’ needs within the TPACK framework, they were mostly in need of training in TPK, PCK, and CK. For example, human-bot cooperation primarily involves the integration of TK and PK, that is, knowing how to effectively use chatbots to collaborate with humans and improve the teaching and learning experience. And scenario training is connected with PCK because it encompasses designing and implementing strategies for situational learning that enhance student engagement and comprehension, often grounded in the specific subject matter. It is very likely that they may also need a systematic training of the whole TPACK framework as their responses were very limited, which reflected their lack of general knowledge of the framework.

In addition, the training programs should also focus on the ethical and critical dimensions and therefore, teachers can solve the social, psychological, or educational problems in the classroom (Torres-Hernández & Gallego-Arrufat, 2022).

Future Advancement Needs of Chatbots

Moreover, the participants envision the future improvement of chatbots from several perspectives, namely improving language processing and information retrieval abilities (N = 2), ameliorating oral output (N = 4), enhancing humanistic care (N = 2), promoting cross-platform support (N = 1), integrating VR technology (N = 2), and developing diverse and specialized chatbots (N = 4). Table 8 illustrates the results.

Table 8.

Pre-Service English Teachers’ Needs of Chatbots’ Future Development.

Needs	Quotes
Language processing and information retrieval abilities	In the language processing dialog, it is hoped that the chatbot can handle more complex language content, rather than irrelevant, and improve its information retrieval ability. (P4)
Oral output	For speaking, I think the chatbot can design some simulated images so that whether we are speaking or listening, we will have a sense of participation, and feel as if we are chatting with people. We also need to further improve our voice and intonation. (P6)
Humanistic care	Chatbots need to be more humane. For example, students may have some mental trouble such as the loss of study confidence and interests. I hope chatbots can give some decent answers to comfort students with psychological and pedagogical knowledge. (P6)
Cross-platform support	Cross-device support needs to be developed. For example, ChatGPT is still not available in China, and there are some chatbots that are limited to this platform and cannot be used elsewhere. (P8)
Integrating VR technology	I hope that chatbot can be combined with VR in the future to create a more realistic environment, and I think students may be more interested in using it. (P11)
Diverse and specialized chatbots	It is hoped that the categories of chatbots will be more detailed, such as for specific groups of people, for specific education stages, or for academic English, medical English, technological English and so on. (P12)

Specifically, some participants suggested the technological improvement of chatbots to offer more reasoning and handle more complex questions, which is in line with the findings of Chuah and Kabilan (2021). Regarding the awkward pronunciation of chatbots, participants also envision a more fluent and human-like voice. It is recommended that chatbots incorporate more humanistic care (Belda-Medina & Calvo-Ferrer, 2022) and integrate VR technology with more accessible platforms. Additionally, developing diverse and specific chatbots was also mentioned since different chatbots have different utilities (Pérez et al., 2020).

Conclusion

Theoretical and Practical Implications

In the present study, we elaborated on the participating pre-service English teachers’ perceptions of and needs in integrating chatbots into English teaching and learning. The findings corroborate the previous studies that revealed the potential of LLM-based tools, especially chatbots, to enhance the efficiency of English teaching and learning and to blaze a trail of human-bot coordination. The study, therefore, steps into a point for discussion and suggestions to better facilitate chatbot-powered English teaching and learning.

To sum up, from the perspective of perceptions, the findings show that participants have an incomplete and delayed understanding of chatbots, and their knowledge and how-to skills about chatbots mainly come from the Internet. Their application frequency varies with their grade level. In addition, the participants held supportive attitudes toward chatbots but strongly believed that they could not replace human teachers. They also envisioned the possibility of human-bot coordination in future English teaching and learning. From the perspective of needs, the study revealed six external needs: policy support, equipment support, financial support, practice support, training support, and social consciousness support. Meanwhile, they looked forward to the future development of chatbots from six aspects.

On the basis of the findings of the study, there emerged two important implications. Firstly, it is necessary to raise awareness and enhance knowledge of chatbots among pre-service English teachers. As the present research revealed that the participants obtained most of the information about chatbots from the Internet, which might lead to their misunderstandings, the formal training is in urgent need. Training programs specifically focused on chatbots shall be provided to help pre-service English teachers to better understand their nature, functions, applications, and limitations within the TPACK framework. In particular, the following shall be highlighted: TK, such as knowledge about diverse chatbots and their working principles; TCK, such as knowledge about chatbot selection for teaching oral English; and TPACK, such as using chatbots to design a project-based learning project where students research a topic on English festival, create a PowerPoint presentation in English, and then present it to the class using digital presentation tools. In addition, teacher ethics, human-bot cooperation, teaching scenarios, emergency processing shall be important contents in the program. This can help teachers integrate chatbots into their teaching practice more effectively. In addition to providing training for pre-service English teachers, other external support, specifically, policy support, equipment support, financial support, practice support, and social consciousness support shall be strengthened. This will provide them with necessary resources, which can boost their confidence and comfort in using chatbots in English teaching and learning.

Secondly, to keep up with the rapid development of technology in the era of AI, it is essential to continuously improve and innovate chatbots to meet the evolving needs of English teaching and learning. In particular, advancements including improving language processing and information retrieval abilities, ameliorating oral output, enhancing humanistic care, promoting cross-platform support, integrating VR technology, and developing diverse and specialized chatbots shall be anticipated. Therefore, it is crucial to continue to invest in research and development in chatbot technology to improve its functionality and applications in English teaching and learning.

Limitations and Further Directions

Although this study explored the perceptions of and needs in pre-service English teachers regarding the integration of chatbots into English teaching and learning, which could contribute to the understanding of pre-service English teachers’ perceived knowledge of AI-based tools, and could shed light on pre-service teacher education and integration of chatbots into English education, there are several limitations which should also be addressed. Firstly, the findings were produced by qualitative analysis using in-depth interviews with a small number of participants. Future studies could adopt mixed methods with larger samples to better elaborate their perceptions and needs. Secondly, our study investigated pre-service English teachers’ perceptions and needs cross-sectionally. As chatbot technology advances with such an unbelievable speed, a longitudinal study that tracks their cognitive change would be valuable to provide a more complete insight into the field.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440251321853 – Supplemental material for To Chat or Not: Pre-Service English Teachers’ Perceptions of and Needs in Chatbot’s Educational Application

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440251321853 for To Chat or Not: Pre-Service English Teachers’ Perceptions of and Needs in Chatbot’s Educational Application by Yilong Su, Meina Luo and Chenyin Zhong in SAGE Open

Footnotes

Appendix 1 Author Contributions

Yilong Su contributed to the literature review, collected the data, performed the analysis, and drafted the manuscript. Meina Luo conceived the main conceptual ideas, supervised the research process and contributed to the material preparation, data collection, and the interpretation of findings. Chenyin Zhong contributed to data analysis and the interpretation of findings. All authors discussed the results and commented on the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research is supported by funding from Zhejiang Province Education Science Planning Project (2022SCG376). It is also supported by Tsinghua University 2023 Visiting Scholar Program.

Ethics Approval

Although there are no mandatory ethical checks required by the university, the authors have voluntarily adhered to strict ethical guidelines and practices throughout the entire research process.

Consent to Participant

This study received informed consent from all participants.

Consent for Publication

The authors accept responsibility for releasing this material to be published.

Code Availability

N/A

Data Availability Statement

The summary of emergent themes is attached as the Supplemental Information.

ORCID iD

Meina Luo

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Ait Baha

El Hajji

Es-Saady

Fadili

(2023). The impact of educational chatbot on student learning experience. Education and Information Technologies, 29(8), 10153–10224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12166-w

Allwright

R.L.

(1982). Perceiving and pursuing learners’ needs, in Geddes

Sturtridge

(Eds.), Individualisation (pp. 24–31) , Oxford, Modern English Publications

Baran

Chuang

H. H.

Thompson

(2011). TPACK: An emerging research and development tool for teacher educators. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(4), 370–377. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ946646

Bayram

İ.

Baturay

M. H.

(2022). Pre-service EFL teachers’ perceptions of online instructional tools. Journal of English Teaching, 8(1), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.33541/jet.v8i1.3548

Belda-Medina

Calvo-Ferrer

J. R.

(2022). Using chatbots as AI conversational partners in language learning. Applied Sciences, 12(17), 8427. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12178427

Celik

(2023). Towards intelligent-TPACK: An empirical study on teachers’ professional knowledge to ethically integrate artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools into education. Computers in Human Behavior, 138, 107468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107468

Chan

C. K. Y.

Lee

K. K. W.

(2023). The AI generation gap: Are Gen Z students more interested in adopting generative AI such as ChatGPT in teaching and learning than their Gen X and millennial generation teachers? Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), 60. https://doi.org/10.11 86/s40561-023-00269-3

Chen

B. B.

(2009). Guowai xuqiu yanjiu shuping [Review of foreign demand analysis and research]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 2(2), 125–130.

Cheng

S. L.

Xie

Vongkulluksn

V. W.

(2020). Understanding teacher technology integration from expectancy-value perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 91, 103062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103062

10.

Chien

Y. C.

T. T.

Lai

C. H.

Huang

Y. M.

(2022). Investigation of the influence of artificial intelligence markup language-based LINE ChatBot in contextual English learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 785752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103062

11.

Choi

Jang

Kim

(2023). Influence of pedagogical beliefs and perceived trust on teachers’ acceptance of educational artificial intelligence tools. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 39(4), 910–922. https://doi.Org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2049145

12.

Chuah

K. M.

Kabilan

M. K.

(2021). Teachers’ views on the use of chatbots to support English language teaching in a mobile environment. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 16(20), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i20.24917

13.

Davis

F. D.

(1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

14.

Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.). (2005). The handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Sage.

15.

Dudley-Evans

St John

M. J.

(1998). Developments in English for specific purposes: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge University Press.

16.

Edwards

B. I.

Cheok

A. D.

(2018). Why not robot teachers: Artificial intelligence for addressing teacher shortage. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 32(4), 345–360. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints201712.0022.v1

17.

Endris

Tlili

Huang

Chang

Mishra

(2024). Features, Components and Processes of Developing Policy for Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED): Toward a Sustainable AIED Development and Adoption. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 24(1), 233–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2024.2312999

18.

Fernández-Batanero

J. M.

Montenegro-Rueda

Fernández-Cerero

García-Martínez

(2020). Digital competences for teacher professional development. Systematic review. European Journal of Teacher Education, 45(4), 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1827389

19.

Fryer

L. K.

Nakao

Thompson

(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

20.

George

A. S.

George

A. H.

(2023). A review of ChatGPT AI’s impact on several business sectors. Partners Universal International Innovation Journal, 1(1), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7644359.

21.

Gonda

D. E.

Chu

(2019, December). Chatbot as a learning resource? Creating conversational bots as a supplement for teaching assistant training course [Conference session]. 2019 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Education (TALE) (pp. 1–5). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/tale48000.2019.9225974

22.

Guo

Wang

(2023). To resist it or to embrace it? Examining ChatGPT’s potential to support teacher feedback in EFL writing. Education and Information Technologies, 29(7), 8435–8463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12146-0

23.

Guo

Wang

Chu

S. K. W.

(2022). Using chatbots to scaffold EFL students’ argumentative writing. Assessing Writing, 54, 100666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2022.100666

24.

Hassani

Nahvi

Ahmadi

(2016). Design and implementation of an intelligent virtual environment for improving speaking and listening skills. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(1), 252–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.846265

25.

Hopcan

Türkmen

Polat

(2023). Exploring the artificial intelligence anxiety and machine learning attitudes of teacher candidates. Education and Information Technologies, 29(6), 7281–7321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12086-9

26.

Hsu

H. L.

Chen

H. H. J.

Todd

A. G.

(2021). Investigating the impact of the Amazon Alexa on the development of L2 listening and speaking skills. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(9), 5732–5745. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.2016864

27.

Huang

Dias

Nelson

Liang

Lajoie

S. P.

Poitras

E. G.

(2022). The role of self-improving tutoring systems in fostering pre-service teacher self-regulated learning. Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 4, 769455. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2021.769455

28.

Huang

Hew

K. F.

Fryer

L. 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

29.

Hutchinson

Waters

(1987). English for specific purposes. Cambridge University Press.

30.

Hwang

W. Y.

Guo

B. C.

Hoang

Chang

C. C.

N. T.

(2022). Facilitating authentic contextual EFL speaking and conversation with smart mechanisms and investigating its influence on learning achievements. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37(7), 1632–1727. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2095406

31.

Hwang

W. Y.

Shih

T. K.

Z. H.

Shadiev

Chen

S. Y.

(2016). Evaluating listening and speaking skills in a mobile game-based learning environment with situational contexts. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 639–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2015.1016438

32.

Ibrahim

Liu

Asim

Battu

Benabderrahmane

Alhafni

Adnan

Alhanai

AlShebli

Baghdadi

Bélanger

J. J.

Beretta

Celik

Chaqfeh

Daqaq

M. F.

Bernoussi

Z. E.

Fougnie

de Soto

B. G.

Gandolfi

… Zaki

(2023). Perception, performance, and detectability of conversational artificial intelligence across 32 university courses. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 17101. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-43998-8

33.

Istenic

Bratko

Rosanda

(2021). Are pre-service teachers disinclined to utilise embodied humanoid social robots in the classroom? British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(6), 2340–2358. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13144

34.

Jeon

(2021). Chatbot-assisted dynamic assessment (CA-DA) for L2 vocabulary learning and diagnosis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(7), 1338–1364. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1987272

35.

Jia

Chen

(2008). Motivate the learners to practice English through playing with chatbot CSIEC. In Technologies for E-Learning and Digital Entertainment: Third International Conference, Edutainment 2008 Nanjing, China, June 25–27, 2008 Proceedings 3 (pp. 180–191). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

36.

Han

(2023). A systematic review of conversational AI in language education: Focusing on the collaboration with human teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 55(1), 48–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2022.2142873

37.

Kim

Lee

Cho

Y. H.

(2022). Learning design to support student-AI collaboration: Perspectives of leading teachers for AI in education. Education and Information Technologies, 27(5), 6069–6104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10831-6

38.

Kim

N. Y.

(2016). Effects of voice chat on EFL Learners’ speaking ability according to proficiency levels. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 19(4), 63. https://doi.org/10.18095/meeso.2017.18.1.03

39.

Kim

N. Y.

(2018a). A study on chatbots for developing Korean college students’ English listening and reading skills. Journal of Digital Convergence, 16(8), 19. https://doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2018.16.8.019

40.

Kim

N. Y.

(2018b). Chatbots and Korean EFL students’ English vocabulary learning. Journal of Digital Convergence, 16(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2018.16.2.001

41.

Kim

N. Y.

(2019). A study on the use of artificial intelligence chatbots for improving English grammar skills. Journal of Digital Convergence, 17(8), 37. https://doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2019.17.8.037

42.

Koh

J. H. L.

Divaharan

(2011). Developing pre-service teachers’ technology integration expertise through the TPACK-developing instructional model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(1), 35–58. https://doi.org/10.2190/ec.44.1.c

43.

Kohnke

(2022). A pedagogical chatbot: A supplemental language learning tool. RELC Journal, 54(3), 828–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882211067054

44.

Kuhail

M. A.

Alturki

Alramlawi

Alhejori

(2023). Interacting with educational chatbots: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 28(1), 973–1018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11177-3

45.

Kukulska-Hulme

Bossu

Charitonos

Coughlan

Deacon

Deane

Whitelock

(2023). Innovating pedagogy 2023: Open university innovation report 11. The Open University.

46.

Lim

E. M.

(2023). The effects of pre-service early childhood teachers’ digital literacy and self-efficacy on their perception of AI education for young children. Education and Information Technologies, 28(10), 12969–12995. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11724-6

47.

Limna

Kraiwanit

Jangjarat

Klayklung

Chocksathaporn

(2023). The use of ChatGPT in the digital era: Perspectives on chatbot implementation. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.32

48.

Lin

C.-C.

Huang

A. Y. Q.

Yang

S. J. H.

(2023). A review of AI-driven conversational chatbots implementation methodologies and challenges (1999–2022). Sustainability, 15(5), 4012. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054012

49.

Lin

C. J.

Mubarok

(2021). Learning analytics for investigating the mind map-guided AI chatbot approach in an EFL flipped speaking classroom. Educational Technology & Society, 24(4), 16–35. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48629242

50.

Liu

C. C.

Liao

M. G.

Chang

C. H.

Lin

H. M.

(2022). An analysis of children’interaction with an AI chatbot and its impact on their interest in reading. Computers & Education, 189, 104576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104576

51.

Mendoza

Sánchez-Adame

L. M.

Urquiza-Yllescas

J. F.

González-Beltrán

B. A.

Decouchant

(2022). A model to develop chatbots for assisting the teaching and learning process. Sensors, 22(15), 5532. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22155532

52.

Merriam

S. B.

(Ed.). (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

53.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(Eds.). (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expand sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage.

54.

Mishra

Koehler

M. J.

(2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

55.

Mohamed

A. M.

(2023). Exploring the potential of an AI-based chatbot (ChatGPT) in enhancing English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teaching: Perceptions of EFL faculty members. Education and Information Technologies, 29(3), 3195–3223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11917-z

56.

Muhammad

A. F.

Susanto

Alimudin

Adila

Assidiqi

M. H.

Nabhan

(2020, September). Developing English conversation chatbot using dialogflow[Conference session]. 2020 International Electronics Symposium (IES) (pp. 468–475). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IES50839.2020.9231659

57.

Munby

(1981). Communicative syllabus design: A sociolinguistic model for designing the content of purpose-specific language programmes. Cambridge University Press.

58.

Nguyen

T. T. H.

(2023). EFL teachers’ perspectives toward the use of ChatGPT in writing classes: A case study at Van Lang University. International Journal of Language Instruction, 2(3), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.54855/ijli.23231

59.

Norman

D. A.

(1977). Human information processing: An introduction to psychology. Academic Press.

60.

Novella-García

Cloquell-Lozano

(2021). The ethical dimension of digital competence in teacher training. Information Technologies in Education, 26(3), 3529–3541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10436-z

61.

Okonkwo

C. W.

Ade-Ibijola

(2020). Python-Bot: A chatbot for teaching python programming. Engineering Letters, 29(1), 25.

62.

Okonkwo

C. W.

Ade-Ibijola

(2021). Chatbots applications in education: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 2, 100033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100033

63.

OpenAI. (2023a). ChatGPT (November 2023 version) [Large language model]. Retrieved November 21, 2023, from https://openai.com/chatgpt

64.

OpenAI. (2023b). GPT-4 (November 2023 version) [Large language model]. Retrieved November 21, 2023, from https://openai.com/gpt-4.

65.

Pérez

J. Q.

Daradoumis

Puig

J. M. M.

(2020). Rediscovering the use of chatbots in education: A systematic literature review. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 28(6), 1549–1565. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22326

66.

Pickens

(2005). Attitudes and perceptions. Organizational behavior in health care, 4(7), 43–76.

67.

Reber

A. S.

(1985). The Penguin dictionary of psychology. Shanghai Translation Publishing House.

68.

Reich-Stiebert

Eyssel

(2016). Robots in the classroom: What teachers think about teaching and learning with education robots. In Agah

Cabibihan

J. J.

Howard

Salichs

(Eds.), Social Robotics. ICSR 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 671–680). Springer.

69.

Rets

Rienties

Lewis

(2023). Transforming pre-service teacher education through virtual exchange: A mixed-methods analysis of perceived TPACK development. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(3), 1229–1241. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1826983

70.

Richterich

(1980). Definition of language needs and types of adults. Systems development in adult language learning, 19731980.

71.

Rzepka

Berger

Hess

(2022). Voice assistant vs. chatbot–examining the fit between conversational agents’ interaction modalities and information search tasks. Information Systems Frontiers, 24(3), 839–856. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-021-10226-5

72.

Saltan

Arslan

(2017). A comparison of in-service and pre-service teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge self-confidence. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1311501. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1311501

73.

Schiff

(2022). Education for AI, not AI for Education: The Role of Education and Ethics in National AI Policy Strategies. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32(3), 527–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00270-2

74.

Sharkey

A. J. C.

(2016). Should we welcome robot teachers? Ethics and Information Technology, 18(4), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-016-9387-z

75.

Smutny

Schreiberova

(2020). Chatbots for learning: A review of educational chatbots for the Facebook Messenger. Computers & Education, 151, 103862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103862

76.

Song

E. Y.

Hong

(2022). The impact of teaching simulation using student chatbots with different attitudes on preservice teachers’ efficacy. Educational Technology & Society, 25(3), 46–59. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48673723

77.

Sorge

Kröger

Petersen

Neumann

(2019). Structure and development of pre-service physics teachers’ professional knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 41(7), 862–889. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1346326

78.

Taecharungroj

(2023). “What can ChatGPT Do?” Analyzing early reactions to the innovative AI chatbot on Twitter. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 7(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.3390/b dcc7010035

79.

Tlili

Shehata

Adarkwah

M. A.

Bozkurt

Hickey

D. T.

Huang

Agyemang

(2023). What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x

80.

Torres-Hernández

Gallego-Arrufat

M. J.

(2022). Indicators to assess preservice teachers’ digital competence in security: A systematic review. Information Technologies in Education, 27(6), 8583–8602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10978-w

81.

Ulla

M. B.

Perales

W. F.

Busbus

S. 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

82.

Valtonen

Leppänen

Hyypiä

Sointu

Smits

Tondeur

(2020). Fresh perspectives on TPACK: Pre-service teachers’ own appraisal of their challenging and confident TPACK areas. Education and Information Technologies, 25(4), 2823–2842. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10092-4

83.

van Dis

E. A. M.

Bollen

Zuidema

van Rooij

Bockting

C. L.

(2023). ChatGPT: Five priorities for research. Nature, 614(7947), 224–226. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00288-7

84.

Wang

Y. F.

Petrina

Feng

(2017). VILLAGE—Virtual immersive language L earning and gaming environment: Immersion and presence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 431–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12388

85.

Weiss

R. S.

(1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. Free Press.

86.

West

(1994). Needs analysis in language teaching. Language Teaching, 27(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444800007527

87.

Liu

Sun

Liu

Han

Q. L.

Tang

(2023). A brief overview of ChatGPT: The history, status quo and potential future development. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 10(5), 1122–1136. https://doi.org/10.1109/jas.2023.123618

88.

Yang

Kim

Lee

J. H.

Shin

(2022). Implementation of an AI chatbot as an English conversation partner in EFL speaking classes. ReCALL, 34(3), 327–343. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344022000039

89.

Yang

H. C.

Zapata-Rivera

(2010). Interlanguage pragmatics with a pedagogical agent: The request game. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(5), 395–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2010.520274

90.

Yang

(2022). Perceptions of preservice teachers on AI chatbots in English education. International Journal of Internet, Broadcasting and Communication, 14(1), 44–52. https://doi.org/10.7236/IJIBC.2022.14.1.44

91.

Yang

T. C.

Chen

J. H.

(2023). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions and intentions regarding the use of chatbots through statistical and lag sequential analysis. Computers & Education, 4, 100119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100119

92.

Liu

P. F.

Lee

X. Z.

Zhang

Y. Q.

Chiu

C. K.

(2021). Classroom misbehaviour management: An SVVR-based training system for preservice teachers. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(1), 112–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1579235

93.

Zhai

Wibowo

(2022). A systematic review on cross-culture, humor and empathy dimensions in conversational chatbots: The case of second language acquisition. Heliyon, 8(12), e12056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12056

94.

Zhang

Schießl

Plößl

Hofmann

Gläser-Zikuda

(2023). Acceptance of artificial intelligence among pre-service teachers: A multigroup analysis. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00420-7

95.

Zhang

Zou

Cheng

(2023). Chatbot-based training on logical fallacy in EFL argumentative writing. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 17(5), 932–945. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2023.2197417

96.

Zhang

Hong

(2023). ChatGPT zhichi de waiyu jiaoxue: Funeng, wenti yu celue. [ChatGPT and foreign language teaching: Empowerment, issues and strategies]. Foreign Language World, 44(2), 38–44.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.05 MB