Student Perceptions of ChatGPT in Mandatory EFL Writing Classes at a Korean University : A Case Study
한국 대학의 필수 영어 작문 수업에서 ChatGPT에 대한 학생들의 인식 －사례 연구
Article information
Abstract
This study explored to what extent students at a Korean university perceive ChatGPT as useful in mandatory university EFL writing classes. In addition, preferences regarding methods of instruction and the outlook for future classes of a similar nature in the era of ChatGPT were also examined. 239 students enrolled at a university located on the outskirts of Seoul responded to a survey questionnaire consisting of a combination of multiple choice, 10-point Likert scale, and open-ended questions, which was used as the primary data collection method. Data analysis was conducted using general qualitative analysis for open ended questions and descriptive statistics for multiple choice and 10-point Likert scale questions. In addition, if consent was given, survey participants were contacted by e-mail to discuss responses in further detail. Despite concerns relating to ownership of learning and overreliance, the findings indicate generally positive perceptions of ChatGPT in terms of assisting with grammar, vocabulary, brainstorming, and proofreading. Conventional approaches (e.g., human teacher, in person lessons, and inter student / teacher communication) are still highly desired although the increasing influence of ChatGPT cannot be ignored. There is a belief that mandatory EFL writing classes currently play a vital role at Korean universities, and there is a strong preference for them to continue. Administrational and educational implications are also discussed.
Trans Abstract
본 연구의 목적은 한국 대학의 학생들이 필수 대학 영어 작문 수업에서 ChatGPT를 얼마나 유용하게 인식하는지를 탐구하는 것입니다. 또한, 교육 방법에 대한 선호도와 ChatGPT 시대에 유사한 성격의 미래 수업에 대한 전망도 조사되었습니다. 서울 외곽에 위치한 대학에 재학 중인 239명의 학생들이 설문 조사를 통해 응답했으며, 설문지는 객관식, 10점 척도 리커트 방식, 그리고 주관식 질문들로 구성되어 주요 자료 수집 방법으로 사용되었습니다. 데이터 분석은 주관식 질문에 대해 일반적인 질적 분석을, 객관식 및 10점 척도 리커트 질문에 대해 기술 통계를 사용하여 수행되었습니다. 추가로, 동의가 있는 경우 설문 참가자들에게 이메일로 연락하여 응답에 대해 자세히 논의했습니다. 학습의 주체성 및 과도한 의존에 대한 우려에도 불구하고, 연구 결과는 문법, 어휘, 아이디어 발상, 교정에 있어서 ChatGPT를 보조 도구로 긍정적으로 인식하는 경향이 있음을 나타냅니다. 전통적인 접근 방식(예: 인간 교사, 대면 수업, 학생/교사 간 의사소통)도 여전히 매우 선호되지만, ChatGPT의 영향력이 증가하고 있음을 무시할 수는 없습니다. 현재 한국 대학에서 필수 영어 작문 수업이 중요한 역할을 하고 있으며, 이러한 수업이 지속되기를 강력히 선호하는 의견이 많습니다. 행정적 및 교육적 시사점도 논의되었습니다.
1. Introduction
First coined by Klaus Schwab (2016), the term Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) refers to how emergent technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, and the Internet of Things have begun to revolutionize how people live and work. Arguably, all of these 4IR technologies have impacted people’s lives in a number of ways; however, there is a strong argument (Datta, 2023; French et al., 2023) that AI has become the driving force behind the continuing rapid progression of the 4IR and that it now “Sits at the top of a ‘pyramid’ of 4IR technologies”—it is playing the role of conductor for 4IR technologies, which together perform a symphony of impact” (Bristol et al., 2023, p. 4).
According to Malik (2023) AI “involves the replication and enhancement of specific human cognitive processes. It is the field of computer science that focuses on creating systems capable of carrying out tasks that typically require human intelligence, such as learning, problem solving, or decision making” (para. 4). The initial concept of AI can be traced back several decades beginning with ‘The Turing Test’ in 1950. Since then, it has seen several significant advancements including the world’s first natural language processing program in 1966, IBM’s Deep Blue defeating the world chess champion in 1997, Apple introducing Siri in 2011, and AlphaGo triumphing against the world champion of the Chinese strategy game ‘GO’ in 2016. However, in November 2022, AI saw arguably its biggest development to date with the release of ChatGPT, an intelligent chatting robot which can provide detailed responses according to a prompt and can generate data such as multilingual machine translation, code debugging and story writing (Wu et al., 2023). Interest in this new form of AI was significant with a reported 100 million regular users within 2 months of its initial launch earning it the title of the fastest growing application ever. Furthermore, with its ease of access and user-friendly interface, it has both markedly expanded the capabilities of AI and introduced novel applications. It can be asserted with confidence that this development represents a pivotal moment in AI history, delineating a clear divide between the pre-ChatGPT era and the advancements that followed (Malik, 2023).
Naturally, this will greatly affect an array of differing fields, including education. Students having easy access to an AI program that can generate human-like responses to questions and prompts within seconds has significant implications. This is particularly relevant when considering second language classes of which one of the most common is English as a foreign language (EFL). These types of courses are commonplace in Korean university curricula and are often mandatory. They focus on improving students’ language output by teaching skills such as speaking and writing. With ChatGPT translating texts and producing written answers prompts almost immediately, there is concern that this technology will impact the effectiveness and viability of the mandatory EFL writing classes in the future. Furthermore, it is clear that it is here to stay which is going to have pedagogical implications for both students and teachers. Given these developments, there is clear scope for a more detailed understanding of how ChatGPT is influencing these classes at Korean universities. Further, student perceptions of any pedagogical implications could prove valuable in the structure and implementation of future courses. In order to do this, a case study was designed to investigate these areas in more detail.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Current Perceptions of ChatGPT
Whilst still a relatively new type of AI to be introduced into the field of language learning, there is a body of research which has examined how students view its usefulness. Syahid et al. (2023) focused on the perceived usefulness of ChatGPT in EFL writing classes from the perspective of Indonesian university students. He found that while this technology has the potential to aid student learning in certain aspects, there was some reluctance to rely on it. A further study also done in Indonesia (Zebua & Ketemba, 2024) found that 82 university students had overall positive perceptions learning writing using ChatGPT and felt it can help with improving the motivation to learn and help to correct grammatical errors. These results were mirrored in a different study (Rahim, 2023) which collected data from 181 students across various university campuses in Malaysia concluding most respondents felt ChatGPT can help to improve writing skills and that it adds an extra level of interest to their learning experience. In addition, they also felt ChatGPT to be helpful with writing specific skills of refining vocabulary usage, correcting grammatical errors, and getting personalized feedback.
In Vietnam, Phan (2023), conducted a study on 100 university students’ perceptions of general AI technology use in writing classes. This research included discussions on several different AI technologies, including Google Translate, Grammarly, and Paraphrasing Tool and there was no mention of ChatGPT. The results showed overall feelings towards AI were positive. However, a lack of learning opportunities combined with limited instructional variety and inhibitions related to the use of technology meant perceptions were not as high as they could have been. Also in Vietnam, and more specific to ChatGPT, Vo & Nguyen (2024) surveyed 369 students across several different universities and found that due to its ease of use, ChatGPT was a useful tool for language learning. This study did not focus solely on writing, instead choosing to examine the effectiveness of ChatGPT in relation to the four main language skills. Specifically, they felt this technology is limited in improving the oral skills of speaking and listening. Interestingly, they had more positive perceptions in terms of developing reading and writing skills, although these skills were not discussed in any detail.
In Korea, Van Horn (2024) explored the perceptions of university students towards the use of ChatGPT in EFL classes. Similar to the studies discussed above, perceptions were high and led to increased collaboration amongst students along with higher levels of autonomous learning. There were still some persistent technical challenges among some of the participants as well as lingering skepticism on the benefits of using ChatGPT to learn English. However, this study focused on conversation-based classes instead of writing-based ones. Bok and Cho, (2023), explored the perceptions of university students of using ChatGPT but solely as a tool for revising work rather than including as part of the instructional process. These results once again reveal positive perceptions based on ease of use, unrestricted use across time and space, and accuracy in terms of vocabulary, grammar, and written cohesion.
2.2. ChatGPT vs Traditional Methods of Instruction
One way to understand the effectiveness and potential benefits and drawbacks of ChatGPT, is to compare it to learning in a traditional classroom. Conventional EFL instruction, which normally relies on textbooks, tools such as PowerPoint files, videos, classroom discussions, and direct interactions between teachers and students. However, integrating ChatGPT changes this traditional method by adding a dynamic and interactive aspect to language learning. One study (Shahid et al., 2023) looked at a comparative analysis of a traditional EFL class and one incorporating ChatGPT. The study suggested both ethical considerations and the responsible use of ChatGPT are needed to offer a balanced view of the implications of integrating this technology into EFL instruction. The study also discovered EFL learners using ChatGPT showed a statistically significant improvement in writing skills compared to those using traditional teaching methods. However, vocabulary acquisition showed a statistically significant difference favoring the traditional method. Likewise, a study (Boudouaia, 2024) with 76 undergraduate students from a private school in Algeria divided participants into an experimental group who were allowed access to ChatGPT and a control group who were not. The results showed that the former outperformed the latter and demonstrated significant improvements in post-test scores, perceived usefulness, ease of use, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. ChatGPT was found to enhance students’ EFL writing skills, leading to its acceptance and interest due to its practical applications.
However, in a more specific study (Niloy et al., 2023) regarding learners’ creative ability in writing proved that using ChatGPT was detrimental to students’ creative learning skills. The study involved 600 students from the top 10 ranked universities in Bangladesh divided into a control group taught without the aid of ChatGPT and an experimental group who could use it in their creative writing process. It evaluated originality, content presentation, accuracy, and elaboration through the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test. The results indicated a negative link between ChatGPT use and university students’ creative writing abilities. Both machine-generated and human-generated assessments confirmed qualitative observations on ChatGPT’s adverse impact on creative writing. The research showed the need for a cautious approach to AI integration in creative writing, considering both benefits and drawbacks. These insights provide guidance for future research and education to effectively integrate AI while nurturing students’ writing skills.
Moving away from the classroom and learning and not specific to writing, a study from the Netherlands (De Winter, 2013) compared ChatGPT and high school students that completed the English national high school exam focusing on English reading comprehension. The same exam questions were entered through the ChatGPT and according to official standards, ChatGPT achieved an average score of 7.3 on the Dutch grading scale of 1 to 10, which is similar to the average score of all students who took the exam in the Netherlands, which was 6.99. However, ChatGPT sometimes needed additional prompts to provide a clearer definitive answer. Without these prompts, the overall grade was 6.5. Although this study is a reference to testing it could be applied in a comparable manner to that of learning, whereby ChatGPT will not solely take over the traditional classroom room setting but would rather help to assist language learners and use it as a supporting tool by incorporating it into the traditional classroom way of learning.
2.3. The Future of Mandatory EFL Writing Classes in the Era of ChatGPT
The final part of this project attempts to understand how ChatGPT will affect the need for and design of EFL classes at Korean universities. A limited amount of work has been done regarding this issue in Korea. As a result, existing research done on other countries was examined. In Vietnam (Nguyen, 2023) explored the insights of university EFL language teachers on how ChatGPT could be implemented concluding professional training for both teachers and students for ChatGPT to play a more effective role in the classroom. However, exactly what training is needed and how that should be done was unclear. Madhi (2023) in Saudi Arabia found that college freshman enrolled in EFL writing classes felt ChatGPT to be helpful in terms of grammar usage, vocabulary choice, and syntax clarity. However, they felt it should be a tool that both students and teachers can look towards only as a supplemental resource in the future and should not be relied on for any more than that. Other key factors in the writing classroom such as engaging learners, managing classrooms, and choosing appropriate learning methods cannot be handled well enough by ChatGPT for it to assume a greater role. These results are mirrored in a different study (Meniado, 2023) which expanded on the potential limitations of greater reliance on ChatGPT to include issues such as inaccurate responses, plagiarism, skill deterioration, and generic responses. One study done in Korea (Cho, Richards, & Jones, 2019) gathered university students’ perceptions on how 4IR technology could impact EFL classes of the future. This study found that 4IR technology would undoubtedly be a driving factor behind changes in this field. Despite this, it also discovered a desire for mandatory classes to continue in the future and elements such as having a human teacher, classes being conducted offline, and student ownership of the learning process should be valued. However, it should be noted that this study was done several years before the release of ChatGPT, and it could be interesting to gauge if any of these perceptions have changed since then.
While all the above research provides valuable insight into how university students based both inside and outside of Korea feel about using ChatGPT in writing classes, there is some scope to clarify how Korean university students feel about using this technology as part of their day-to-day writing lessons. Consequently, this study will attempt to answer the following research questions:
To what extent do students generally perceive ChatGPT as useful in mandatory EFL writing classes at Korean universities?
In mandatory EFL writing classes, how do Korean University students perceive ChatGPT as a learning option compared to traditional methods of instruction?
How do students view the future of mandatory EFL writing classes in the era of ChatGPT?
3. Methods
3.1. Research Context and Participants
Research for this study was conducted in the spring/ summer of 2024 and focused on students enrolled in mandatory EFL writing classes at one university in the greater Seoul area. 247 people participated in a survey, 44.4% of whom were female and 55.6% male. 9.6% of respondents indicated they were aged 19, 51.5% were aged 20, 25.9% were aged 21, 6.7% were 22, and the remaining 6.3% were aged 23 or older. 97.9% of respondents were in their freshman year of university and the other 2.1% were either sophomore or senior students. The data were collected from students of varying English ability with 55.2% of respondents saying they were in basic level classes, 35.1% were in intermediate classes, and 9.6% were enrolled in advanced level classes. The vast majority of respondents indicated their major was either in the field of engineering or economics (36.6% and 26.4% respectively). The remaining respondents were studying a variety of other areas, including but not limited to humanities, law, social sciences, and computer science.
3.2. Data Collection
Data was collected between June 4th and July 10th, 2024, through a survey questionnaire (Appendix A) designed and written by the research team using Google Forms. This method was chosen for several reasons as outlined by Evans and Mather (2005). It provided flexibility for the project and enabled data collection without being limited by space and time. Additionally, it allowed the inclusion of various question types to obtain a wide range of responses and facilitated the collection of a large dataset. Furthermore, given that survey questionnaires are highly effective in gauging perceptions on specific topics or situations (Young, 2016), the research team determined it was an appropriate choice for this project.
The target respondents were enrolled in a mandatory EFL writing class, named College English 1 (CE1) at this university. These classes were all conducted in-person, and the focus of the course was to improve students’ paragraph / essay writing skills. The survey was distributed via a hyperlink and QR code posted to the announcements section of the learning management system (LMS) for each CE1 class taught by the research team. Students were then requested to complete the survey on their own outside of class time. They were clearly informed that it would have no effect on any class grades or scores and they were under no obligation to complete it. In addition, a total of 6 colleagues of the research team who were also teaching CE1 classes were contacted via email and requested to share the survey with their students by following the same procedure outlined above.
The initial survey item was designed as a control question to ensure all respondents were enrolled in a CE1 class at the time they took the survey. 99.2% responded affirmatively while data from the 2 respondents who answered negatively was discarded. Furthermore, the final survey question requested permission from respondents to use their responses as part of this research. Data from those who rejected this request (6) was also discarded, leaving data from 239 respondents to be used in the analysis phase. The remaining survey items were made up of a diverse range of questions, including short and long answer questions, multiple choice questions, and 5-point Likert scale questions. They were designed to focus on students’ experience of using ChatGPT, if and how they incorporated it into their EFL writing classes, their perceptions of how ChatGPT could influence EFL writing classes of the future, and potential pedagogical implications. A Cronbach Alpha test was applied to the data from the multiple-choice Likert scale questions and a score of 0.96 indicates an excellent level of internal consistency. The final survey question asked respondents if they would be willing to discuss their responses in more detail. Those who responded positively were asked to leave their email addresses and were contacted in early July for a more in-depth discussion of responses that the research team felt relevant.
3.3. Data Analysis
During the data analysis phase of the study, the researchers systematically organized and scrutinized survey responses, which included both Likert scale and multiple-choice questions, using descriptive statistical methods. For short and long-answer questions that provided deeper insights into participant opinions, the researchers employed a general analysis of qualitative research. Initially, they individually reviewed the data, identifying recurring themes. Following this, they convened several times to compare findings, exchange notes, and identify overarching trends and patterns. These meetings included discussions to refine the overall results and resolve any discrepancies that arose.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Current Perceptions of ChatGPT
Question 7 asked how often the participants used ChatGPT to learn English. A substantial proportion of the participants (63.2%) said they have never used ChatGPT to learn English. 42 respondents (17.6%) used it only once a month, whereas 23 (9.6%) mentioned they used it several times a month. 29 (9.6%) respondents used it approximately once a week with 14 (5.9%) using the tool several times per week, only 1 (0.4%) participant used it once a day with 3 (1.3%) participants using ChatGPT several times a day.
More specifically, survey question 8 asked if the participants ever used ChatGPT to assist them in their CE1 class. Again, a sizable portion of the total respondents, 164 out of 239 (68.6%) said they never used it while the remaining 75 respondents (31.4%) said they did use it to assist them.
Those 75 respondents were then guided to a section of the survey designed to analyze specifically how ChatGPT assisted them. For question 9, respondents were asked to select which aspects of writing ChatGPT helped them with. The options of vocabulary and grammar were the most frequently selected (49.3% and 48%) respectively which could indicate a lack of confidence when tackling these aspects of writing. This notion was confirmed during follow-up email discussions from which the quotes in Table 1 have been taken.
Comments relating to how ChatGPT helps with grammar and vocabulary
The remaining responses were mixed with and can be seen listed in Table 2. Interestingly, only 10 respondents indicated they found ChatGPT assisted them with spelling although this could be explained by the ‘vocabulary’ option which also provided the correct spelling if needed.
Aspect of writing that ChatGPT assisted with
Following on from this, question 10 asked the same 75 respondents to what extent they felt ChatGPT helped with learning EFL writing compared to what they covered in their CE1 classes and why or why not. A relatively small percentage indicated they either found it very helpful or extremely helpful, 14.4% and 6.7%, respectively. 21 (28%) selected somewhat helpful, 25 (33.3%) selected slightly helpful, and 13 (17.3%) said they found it extremely unhelpful. It could be logical to suggest these responses were based on everyone’s English proficiency level. However, an in-depth analysis of these data points shows no clear related pattern. Students from advanced classes commonly selected each of the options multiple times, likewise students from beginner classes did the same. This demonstrates ChatGPT is not particularly helpful or unhelpful for any specific ability group.
As a follow-up, question 11 asked respondents to clarify why or why not, in addition to helping with grammar and vocabulary as discussed earlier, and there were several other emergent positive themes including help choosing topics / brainstorming, teacher-like interactions, speed and ease of use, getting feedback, and help with written organization. Table 3 summarizes these themes and includes a selection some of the corresponding comments:
Positive themes and comments for question 11
One interesting point from the above data points regards how students deem ChatGPT to be quick and easy to use. However, the comments provided suggest some of the respondents used it to produce writing which they claimed as their own which surely raises questions about plagiarism and authenticity. This may indicate students require further clarification on the acceptable uses of ChatGPT and how it can be used as a learning resource.
On the other hand, there were also negative themes. The first of which suggests that students do not trust ChatGPT. One participant wrote: “ChatGPT is often wrong or conveys different content.” A different student wrote: “Sometimes there’s false information, and if you don’t actively check it, you can write the wrong thing and maybe lose points.” In a follow up email with one of these respondents elaborated:
When I was writing one of my assignments for my College English 1 class, I translated some sentences from Korean into English using ChatGPT, but they did not feel correct. After checking several times, it appeared ChatGPT had translated it differently each time. Also, ChatGPT suggested using grammar and punctuation that was very different from what I learned from my CE1 professor.
Another negatively perceived aspect of ChatGPT was students seeing no purpose behind using it. There were several comments suggesting that over-reliance on it would result in a decreased ability to learn and understand English independently of using AI. “I think that if you use ChatGPT, you can depend on ChatGPT. So, your English skill cannot be developed.;’ “College English 1 classes are far more useful to develop English skills than ChatGPT.”; “My professor is much better at helping me to improve my writing than ChatGPT will ever be”. This suggests that ownership of the learning process is important to these students, and it is not something ChatGPT can help with.”
The final negative aspect is surprising in that several respondents suggested other AI technology is preferable to ChatGPT when it comes to learning English. One respondent wrote: “I think the translator like Papago or Google translate is better, and there seems to be no reason to use GPT instead of a translator.” Another stated: “For learning writing there are other AIs which are much more suitable. ChatGPT is better for other subjects like math or coding.” Although this type of comment was not as prevalent as others, it does reveal an underlying feeling that this type of 4IR technology may not be the most suited to help with EFL writing.
4.2. ChatGPT vs Traditional Instruction
For the second research question, the researchers hoped to generate some information on how to determine the participants’ perceptions of ChatGPT as a learning option compared to traditional methods of instruction in a mandatory EFL writing class. Survey Question 12 asked if they felt ChatGPT had any advantages over traditionally taught English writing classes such as CE1 with question 13 asking for more details in the form of short responses. 239 participants answered this question with only 105 (43.9%) answering that it did. Several participants stated reasons due to class size and not fully understanding what the professor taught, and the speed and ease of using ChatGPT were beneficial in a writing class. Responses from participants: “It is fast, convenient, and saves time on writing;” “It has the advantage of being able to get an immediate answer” and one saying “ChatGPT doesn’t make mistakes or errors compared to humans.” In a longer correspondence regarding this, one respondent said:
There are multiple students, but there is only one professor who teaches them, so it can be difficult to receive and answer detailed questions, but using ChatGPT can answer questions about things your professor did not teach you and help you understand things you did not understand.
However, the majority, 134 (56.1%) answered negatively, stating there were no benefits, and a traditionally taught class is still preferred as ChatGPT may provide incorrect information and answers. Examples from the respondents included, “I think it would be more helpful to learn from a native professor than ChatGPT’. This is because ChatGPT still provides a lot of inaccurate information, and I think it is more beneficial to discuss and teach classes directly with the social community” and one respondent stating “This is because ChatGPT still provides a lot of inaccurate information, and I think it is more beneficial to discuss and teach classes directly with the social community”.
Question 14 was the opposite of the previous one and asked the participants if they felt traditionally taught English writing classes such as CE1 have any advantages over using ChatGPT to learn English. Remarkably, out of the 239 who responded to this question, 206 (86.2%) answered yes to this question and a deeper investigation into why (question 15) revealed an obvious reason. Despite the numerous perceived benefits to ChatGPT discussed earlier, many respondents indicated the human element of traditionally taught writing classes is something they strongly desire. This includes being taught by a human teacher, communicating with them, and discussing and comparing ideas with their peers. A selection of such related comments can be seen in Table 4.
Comments relating to why students prefer traditional classes
Comments regarding why mandatory EFL classes are needed in the future
Data from the 33 respondents who answered negatively to question 15 showed no clear identifiable patterns and consisted of noticeably short, often obscure answers; thus, it was hard to establish why they felt this way. Further studies might be needed to explore this area in more detail.
The 5-point Likert scale in question 16 asked the participants if they felt mandatory English writing classes such as CE1 are still necessary in the current era of ChatGPT. Figure 1 shows 186 (77.9%) respondents selected agree or strongly agree in response to this question. Despite having access to ChatGPT, over three quarters of the pool of respondents still believe CE1 classes and those similar should still be mandatory at university.
![[Figure 1]](/upload//thumbnails/kjge-2024-18-5-323-gf1.jpg)
Are mandatory English writing classes such as CE1 necessary in the current era of ChatGPT
4.3. Mandatory EFL Writing Classes of the Future
The final research question aimed to assess opinions on how ChatGPT might impact the future of EFL writing classes. Survey question 17 asked respondents to select their preferred type of class based on their experience with CE1 and using ChatGPT: The data shows that almost half of the participants (116 respondents, 48.5%). prefer a face-to-face class while also having access to ChatGPT for support. The second most preferred option (84 respondents, 35.1%) was an in-person class only without any AI influence. Fewer respondents favored a combination of ChatGPT and an online class (28 respondents, 11.7%), while only 11 respondents (4.6%) preferred solely to just use ChatGPT. Further studies are needed to explore the reasons behind these preferences.
The participants were asked (Question 18) if they felt eventually ChatGPT could replace the need for English writing classes such as CE1. The overall response to this question was clear with 166 (69.4%) indicating they either disagreed or strongly disagreed (Figure 2). Interestingly, almost one-fifth of participants gave a neutral response indicating some feeling of hesitation relating to this question. One possible consideration that should be given to the results of both survey question 16 and 18 is that the participants may have been reluctant to express their negative feeling both their CE1 course and their instructor leading to them indicating more favorably in terms of maintaining the mandatory status of CE1 classes and less favorably in terms of greater AI adoption.
![[Figure 2]](/upload//thumbnails/kjge-2024-18-5-323-gf2.jpg)
Do students feel ChatGPT could replace EFL writing classes such as CE1
Survey question 19 continued by asking participants to explain why or why not. The main trend of these responses mirror those discussed in question 15 in that there was strong desire for human interaction which cannot be replicated by ChatGPT: “You can’t learn the format of writing in English from ChatGPT, which is mainly used by native speakers, you need CE1 to learn this unique English skill”. Another participant stated, “Communication and learning writing skills are most helpful when they are cultivated through direct contact with people.” A more detailed comment from a different participant:
I felt ChatGPT was not as useful as a face-to-face class, even when I was in a completely online class due to the coronavirus, but people, including myself, as well as other students, felt the advantages of face-to-face classes which included concentration, interaction with the teacher and social communication. This cannot be replaced by ChatGPT.
However, the few participants who felt ChatGPT could replace English writing classes all commented about the development of AI technology and ChatGPT could one day substitute traditionally taught writing classes:
This is because the learning ability and information transmission ability of ChatGPT is satisfactory, and it is likely that the development of ChatGPT will surpass the excellent teaching ability in the future” and “With the development of AI, it will be possible to replace it one day.
Participants were then asked if they thought CE1 teachers should integrate ChatGPT into their weekly lessons (Question 20). Continuing with a reluctance to fully embrace ChatGPT as seen in previous questions, slightly over half (53.3%) indicated negative feelings towards this potential pedagogical modification (Figure 3). It is significant to note that almost as many participants indicated a neutral response which could indicate a level of indecision on this issue. Question 21 gave the participants the opportunity to express themselves in more detail. Once again, as discussed previously, it was clear participants seemed to embrace not only the human element of having face to face classes but also the possibility over overreliance on ChatGPT: “If GPT is integrated, it will be difficult to develop students’ independent power, so GPT isn’t necessary” and “In order to improve your skills, it is better not to use ChatGPT.” One other respondent elaborated in greater detail:
![[Figure 3]](/upload//thumbnails/kjge-2024-18-5-323-gf3.jpg)
Should CE1 teachers integrate ChatGPT in their lessons
This is because they believe that what they learn in college English 1 is far better from what they can learn in ChatGPT. Of course, you can refer to ChatGPT for grammatical content, but I do not think you should use ChatGPT in college English class because English writing requires a variety of things other than grammatical elements, and the professors’ information is the most accurate and practical. Personally, I believe that if students use and rely on ChatGPT as a necessity, their own language skills will not improve.
Interestingly, those who believe teachers should integrate ChatGPT in the lessons all noted the same concern along with the feeling the it will inevitably have some effect of the education of the future: “Now that artificial intelligence has penetrated deeply into our lives, I don’t think we can unconditionally exclude it”; “With the development of artificial intelligence, I think it is necessary to use something like ChatGPT in class so that students can use it as well” and finally,
College English 1 has the advantage of face-to-face classes where you actually meet and communicate with people, so I think it would be a shame to get rid of it. However, I think that ChatGPT should be introduced in a class because it is a trend in the world.
If ChatGPT were to be introduced, survey question 22 (Figure 4) asked if students should receive training on how to it to improve their English writing skills. Almost half (45.2%) selected strongly agree or agree when answering this question, meaning 55% of the participant pool were either undecided or responded negatively. This shows that training students on how this technology could be integrated into traditionally taught classes is not as urgent as some would suggest.
![[Figure 4]](/upload//thumbnails/kjge-2024-18-5-323-gf4.jpg)
Should students receive training on how to use AI tool such as ChatGPT to improve their English Writing
Survey question 23 (Figure 5) asked if teachers should receive training on how to incorporate AI tools like ChatGPT into writing classes. The data somewhat mirrors that of the previous question with 93 (38.9%) responding with strongly agree or agree, 67 (28%) selecting strongly disagree or disagree. Once again, the neutral option was selected the most often meaning 112 (46.8%) were indifferent on this matter.
![[Figure 5]](/upload//thumbnails/kjge-2024-18-5-323-gf5.jpg)
Should CE1 teachers receive training on how to incorporate ChatGPT in classes
![[Figure 6]](/upload//thumbnails/kjge-2024-18-5-323-gf6.jpg)
Should CE 1 classes continue to be a required subject in the future
Some of the most interesting data from this study was extracted from question 24 which asked if they believed English writing classes such as College English 1 should continue to be a required subject in future semesters. The results were conclusive with 200 (83.7%) either answering strongly agree or agree and only 13 (5.5%) answering strongly disagree or disagree. Despite developments of AI technology and ChatGPT and it being more accessible, the participants still perceive courses such as CE1 should play an integral role in Korean university programs of the future. However, one caveat to this is the potential for the data from this question to be slightly skewed based on the participants’ intention not to offend or upset their instructor by responding to this question in a negative way.
The final question asked the respondents to elaborate on their answer to question 24 by asking why or why not. Analysis of these responses show three clearly identifiable themes. Firstly, students value the knowledge and experience of learning English in a traditional setting as opposed to using ChatGPT and seem to believe English is going to continue to be important for both their life at university and beyond. A considerable number of comments noted how English is important not only for other courses / university life but also for life after graduation. In a brief discussion relating to this via email, one participant commented:
English writing is indirectly incorporated into all disciplines, so it is difficult to do other classes without learning writing through College English 1. Even though I may not have to write English essays in other classes. Other skills that I have learned such as grammar, organization, referencing and writing patterns help me read textbooks and understand ideas in my major lessons.
The second theme relates to the perceived limitations of using ChatGPT to learn EFL writing and indicates that respondents do not believe they can be solved anytime soon. The final theme re-visits a previously mentioned idea that students desire human interaction from both teacher and classmates when taking EFL writing classes. A selection of further comments linked to each of them can be seen in Table 4.
5. Conclusion, Implications and Limitations
There are several conclusions that can be drawn from this study. First, there is still a strong preference for mandatory EFL writing classes at Korean universities. This study shows that students still favor conventional face-to-face instruction which confirms the results of the study by Cho, Richards, and Jones (2019) are still valid despite the advancement of 4IR technology, in particular ChatGPT in the intervening 5 years. However, this study does appear to uncover the growing desire for this technology to be incorporated into EFL writing lessons. A factor which underscores a solid endorsement for maintaining traditional teaching methods while acknowledging the potential complementary role of AI. This aligns with a number of previous studies (Syahid et al., 2023; Van Horn 2024; Bok and Cho, 2023) whereby ChatGPT has the potential to assist students with specific aspects of writing, although there was noticeable hesitation to depend on it fully. Consequently, careful consideration should be given before fully replacing mandatory EFL writing classes with AI-driven alternatives.
In terms of ChatGPT’s role as a method of instruction compared to traditional approaches, there is a clear indication that it is viewed as helpful for specific aspects of writing, namely vocabulary, grammar, brainstorming, and proofreading which mirrors previous studies (Zebua & Ketemba, 2024; Rahim, 2023; Madhi, 2023). These findings indicate there is a compelling argument for teachers allowing ChatGPT to be part of the EFL writing learning process. However, despite it being convenient and efficient, caution is needed not to allow ChatGPT to override other crucial elements of these classes including human to human interactions / discussions and ownership of the learning process as previously discussed (Niloy et al., 2023). In this research context, there is a strong indication that mandatory EFL writing classes at Korean universities should maintain their position in the curriculum due to how beneficial students feel they are. Therefore, university administration should continue to consider them as a key part of the current educational structure.
Further, this study also has implications regarding mandatory EFL writing classes of the future. Most importantly, ChatGPT is highly unlikely to be able to replace an EFL writing courses such as CE1 and, due to benefits relating to both academic proficiency and global competence, this type of class should continue to be offered to students of the future. Therefore, it is recommended that university administration secure the place of such classes when planning future semesters. A secondary implication concerns ChatGPT’s inability to handle essential classroom factors such as student/teacher engagement, classroom management, and choosing appropriate learning methods. These skills can only be implemented by a human teacher and appear highly valued. A final implication relates to how future classes should be conducted. (Nguyen, 2023), suggested more training for both teacher and students is needed to harness the power of ChatGPT in the writing classroom. However, this study found that training for both teachers and students on how to integrate it into classes is not urgent as suggested. A significant number of respondents felt neutral on this issue meaning further studies on this would be required. This aspect warrants further exploration to determine if enhanced training and awareness could shift perceptions and increase the acceptance of AI in EFL writing education.
Despite the number of interesting data points relating to ChatGPT and its influence on EFL writing classes at a Korean university, the researchers are conscious of the number of limitations. First, every attempt was made to obtain the largest data set possible. The survey link was accessible by upwards of 600 students, yet only 239 participants opted to respond. This was deemed satisfactory enough to continue with this project by the research team; however, a greater amount of data may have revealed an increased number of discussion points which could have improved this study. In addition, 97.9% of the respondents were freshman and in their first semester at university. Data from older students who will have more experience of university life could have revealed some different perspectives. Furthermore, this case study was conducted at one university in one country. Students at other Korean universities or those based overseas may have different perceptions relating to this topic. Consequently, a larger study which includes more students from a wider variety of educational contexts could be more effective. Finally, most of the data came from multiple choice or short answer questions which are limited in scope. A more in-depth qualitative approach involving data collection techniques such as interviews, focus groups, and observations could potentially reveal findings not initially obvious during this study. Likewise, applying a more statistical based approach to the data analysis may have revealed some noteworthy results and this is something being considered as a future project by the research team.
References
Appendix
Appendix A
1. Did you take college English 1 this semester? 이번 학기에 대학 영어 1을 수강하셨습니까? O Yes / 네 O No / 아니요
2. Gender (성별) O Male (남) O Female (여)
3. Grade (학년) O Freshman (1학년) O Sophomore (2학년) O Junior (3학년) O Senior (4학년)
4. Age (나이) O 19 O 20 O 21 O 22 O 23 이상
5. Major/College 소속대학을 알려주세요. O 문과대학 O 법과대학 O 사회과학대학 O 상경대학 O 공과대학 O 자연과학대학 O 건축대학 O SW융합대학 O 사범대학 O 예술디자인대학 O 음악대학 O 국제대학 O Other:
6. English Level (현재 교양영어 분반 레벨?) O Beginner (초급) O Intermediate (중급) O Advanced (고급)
7. How often do you use ChatGPT to learn English? 영어를 배우기 위해 얼마나 자주 ChatGPT를 사용합니까? O Never 절대 O Once a month 한달에 한번 O Approximately three times per month 한 달에 약 3회 O Approximately once a week 대략 일주일에 한 번 O Several times per week 일주일에 여러번 O Once a day 1일 1회 O Several times a day 하루에 몇번씩
8. Have you ever used ChatGPT to assist you with College English 1? ChatGPT를 이용하여 대학영어 1 을 도와본 적이 있습니까? O Yes / 네 O No / 아니요
PARTICIPANTS WHO ANSWERED ‘NO’ TO QUESTION 8 WERE NOT REQUIRED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS 9-11
9. Specifically, what aspects of writing did you feel ChatGPT helped you with? (You can choose more than one) 구체적으로 채팅 GPT가 어떤 측면에서 도움이 되었다고 느끼셨습니까? (여러 개를 선택할 수 있습니다) O Grammar 문법 O Vocabulary 어휘 O Organizing Ideas 아이디어 조직화 O Choosing a topic 주제 선택 O Brainstorming 아이디어 발산 O Paragraph / Essay Structure 문단 / 에세이 구조 O Spelling 철자 O Sentence structure 문장 구조 O Proofreading 교정
10. To what extent did you feel ChatGPT helped you improve your English writing skills compared to your college English 1 class? ChatGPT가 대학 영어 1 수업에 비해 글쓰기 능력 향상에 어느 정도 도움이 되었다고 느끼셨습니까? O Not very helpful 별로 도움이 되지 않습니다 O Slightly helpful 약간 도움이 됩니다 O Somewhat helpful 어느 정도 도움이 됩니다 O Very helpful 매우 도움이 됩니다 O Extremely helpful 매우 도움이 됩니다
11. Could you briefly explain why or why not? 왜 그런지 설명해 주실 수 있나요 (한국어로 쓰거나 영어로 쓰세요)
12. Do you feel ChatGPT has any advantages over a traditionally taught English writing classes such as College English 1 ChatGPT이 전통적으로 가르치는 영어 쓰기 수업인 College English 1에 비해 장점이 있다고 생각하십니까 O Yes / 네 O No / 아니요
13. Could you briefly explain why / how? 왜 / 어떻게 간단히 설명해 주실 수 있나요? (한국어로 쓰거나 영어로 쓰세요)
14. Do you feel traditionally taught English writing classes such as College English 1 have any advantages over using ChatGPT to learn English? 전통적인 영어 작문 수업, 예를 들어 대학 영어 1과 같은 수업이 ChatGPT를 사용하여 영어를 배우는 것보다 더 나은 점이 있다고 생각하십니까? O Yes / 네 O No / 아니요
15. Could you briefly explain why / how? 왜 / 어떻게 간단히 설명해 주실 수 있나요? (한국어로 쓰거나 영어로 쓰세요)
16. Mandatory English writing classes such as College English 1 are still necessary in the current era of ChatGPT? 현재의 ChatGPT 시대에도 대학 영어 1과 같은 필수 영어 쓰기 수업이 여전히 필요한가요? O Completely Disagree 전적으로 동의하지 않습니다 O Completely Agree 전적으로 동의함
17. Based on your experience of both College English 1 and using ChatGPT, which of the following would you choose: 대학 영어 1 수업과 ChatGPT 사용 경험을 바탕으로 다음 중 어떤 것을 선택하시겠습니까? O Only use ChatGPT to learn English writing 영어 작문을 배우는 데 오직 ChatGPT만 사용한다
O A combination of ChatGPT and an online class English writing course? ChatGPT와 온라인 영어 작문 수업을 병행합니다.
O A combination of ChatGPT and a face-to-face class such as College English 1 ChatGPT와 대학 영어 1과 같은 대면 수업을 병행합니다.
O Only a face-to-face class English writing class such as College English 1 대학 영어 1과 같은 대면 영어 작문 수업만 수강합니다.
18. Do you feel that eventually ChatGPT could replace the need for English writing classes such as College English 1? 결국 ChatGPT가 대학 영어 1과 같은 글쓰기 수업의 필요성을 대체할 수 있다고 생각하십니까? O Completely Disagree 전적으로 동의하지 않습니다 O Completely Agree 전적으로 동의함
19. Could you explain why? 이유를 설명해 주실 수 있나요? (한국어로 쓰거나 영어로 쓰세요)
20. Do you feel College English 1 teachers should integrate ChatGPT in their weekly lessons? 대학 영어 1 교수들이 주간 수업에 ChatGPT를 통합해야 한다고 생각하십니까? O Completely Disagree 전적으로 동의하지 않습니다 O Completely Agree 전적으로 동의함
21. Could you explain why or why not? 그 이유나 이유를 설명해 주시겠습니까? (한국어로 쓰거나 영어로 쓰세요)
22. Do you think students should receive training on how to use AI tools such as ChatGPT to improve their English writing skills? 학생들이 영어 작문 능력을 향상시키기 위해 ChatGPT와 같은 AI 도구 사용법에 대한 교육을 받아야 한다고 생각하십니까? O Completely Disagree 전적으로 동의하지 않습니다 O Completely Agree 전적으로 동의함
23. Do you think teachers should receive training on how to incorporate AI tools like ChatGPT into their writing classes? 교수님들이 ChatGPT 와 같은 AI 도구를 글쓰기 수업에 통합하는 방법에 대한 교육을 받아야한다고 생각합니까? O Completely Disagree 전적으로 동의하지 않습니다 O Completely Agree 전적으로 동의함
24. Based on your experience of both taking college English 1 classes and using ChatGPT, do you agree or disagree with the following statement: English writing classes such as College English 1 should continue to be a required subject in future semesters 대학 영어 1 수업을 듣는 것과 ChatGPT를 사용하는 것 모두에 대한 경험을 바탕으로, 당신은 다음 진술에 동의합니까, 반대합니까: 대학 영어 1과 같은 영어 작문 수업은 앞으로도 필수 과목으로 계속되어야 합니다. O Completely Disagree 전적으로 동의하지 않습니다 O Completely Agree 전적으로 동의함
25. Could you explain why? 이유를 설명해 주실 수 있나요? (한국어로 쓰거나 영어로 쓰세요)
26. Would you be willing to discuss some of your responses in this survey with a member of the research team? 이 설문 조사에서 응답한 내용 중 일부를 연구팀 과 상의할 의향이 있으십니까? O Yes / 네