Synergizing Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (GPT) Chatbots in a Process-Based Writing Paradigm to Enhance University Students’ Writing Skills

Обложка

Цитировать

Полный текст

Аннотация

Background: The combination of the process-based writing framework and GPT-based chatbots establishes a dynamic and interactive environment, leading students through the stages of planning, drafting, revising, and editing. This collaborative approach not only elevates writing skills but also cultivates critical thinking and self-reflection, thereby transforming the writing process into a more effective and engaging learning experience. Despite the potential synergy to revolutionize the writing process, there exists a surprising lack of research within the educational domain exploring the impact of this innovative approach.

Purpose: This study investigates the influence of a GPT-based chatbot within a process-based writing framework on university EFL students’ writing skills, specifically focusing on components such as organization, content, coherence-cohesion, logical connection, and argumentation.

Method: Employing a sequential mixed methods type of research with a pre- and post-test design, 30 university EFL students were selected via purposive sampling technique. They engaged in 10 sessions that incorporated GPT-based chatbots within a process-based writing framework. Data collections were through pre-and post- writing tests, writing quizzes, and semi-structured interviews.

Results: The results highlighted substantial improvements in participants’ writing performance, evident through a noteworthy increase in post-writing test scores (x̄=17.03) in comparison to pre-writing test scores (x̄=9.13). The study identified a progressive enhancement in four out of five writing components - organization, content, coherence-cohesion, and argumentation - across the 1st to 4th quizzes. However, the ‘logical connection’ component experienced a temporary decline during the 2nd and 3rd writing quizzes, rebounding significantly in the 4th quiz. Notably, the most improved writing components were ‘content’ and ‘argumentation,’ while the component related to ‘logical connection’ exhibited the least improved one. Qualitative findings further underscored participants’ acknowledgment of the effectiveness of the strategy in facilitating their writing tasks.

Conclusion: The integration of chatbots within a writing framework was concluded as a facilitative pedagogical approach, fostering a dynamic, personalized, and effective learning experience, contributing to the multifaceted improvement of their writing skills. As educators and practitioners consider innovative approaches, this study provides a compelling case for the effective utilization of GPT-based chatbots in fostering language proficiency and a more engaging learning experience.

Об авторах

Roderick Robillos

Khon Kaen University

Email: rodero@kku.ac.th
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7190-7679
Khon Kaen, Thailand

Список литературы

  1. Bayat, N. (2014). The effect of the process writing approach on writing success and anxiety. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(3), 1133-1141.https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2014.3.1720
  2. Best, J.W., & Khan, J.V. (2012). Research in Education. Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
  3. Coffin, C., Curry, M., Goodman, S., Herwings, A., Lillis, M., & Swann, I. (2003). Teaching Academic Writing. Routledge. httBayat, N. (2014). The effect of the process writing approach on writing success and anxiety. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(3), 1133-1141. DOI:https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2014.3.1720
  4. Best, J.W., & Khan, J.V. (2012). Research in education. Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
  5. Coffin, C., Curry, M., Goodman, S., Herwings, A., Lillis, M., & Swann, I. (2003). Teaching academic writing. Routledge. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203994894
  6. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. SAGE Publications.
  7. Diliduzgun, S. (2013). The effect of process writing activities on the writing skills of prospective Turkish teachers. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 52, 189-210.
  8. Evmenova, A. S., & Regan, K. (2019). Supporting the writing process with technology for students with disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 55(2), 78-85. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451219837636
  9. Fitria, T. N. (2023). Artificial intelligence (AI) technology ino Open AI ChatGPT application: A review of chatGPT in writing English essay. In ELT Forum: Journal of English Language Teaching, 12(1), 44-58. DOI:https://doi.org/10.15294/elt.v12i1.64069
  10. Karatay, H. (2011). Process-based writing models: Planning, writing, and assessment. In M. Ozbay (Ed.), Within writing i nstruction (p. 21-43). Pegem Academy.
  11. Kanlapan, T. C. E., & Velasco, J. C. (2009). Constructing a self-regulation scale contextualized in writing. TESOL Journal, 1(1), 79-94.
  12. Kitajroonchai, N., Kitjaroonchai, T., & Sanitchai, P. (2022). The effects of process genre-based writing and process writing approaches on Asian EFL pre-university students' writing performance. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 13(4), 860-871. DOI:https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1304.19
  13. Lapan, R. T., Kardash, C. M., & Turner, S. (2002). Empowering students to become self-regulated learners. Professional School Counselling, 5(4), 257.
  14. Li, Z., Dursun, A., & Hegelheimer, V. (2017). Technology and L2 writing. The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 77-92). Wiley-Blackwell.
  15. Malmir, A., & Khosravi, F. (2018). The effect of argument mapping instruction on L2 writing achievement across writing task and writing components: A case study of Iranian EFL Learners. Applied Research on English Language, 7(4), 514-538. DOI:https://doi.org/10.22108/ARE.2018.111870.1318
  16. Moqbel, M. S. S., & Al-Kadi, A. M. T. (2023). Foreign language learning assessment in the age of ChatGPT: A theoretical account. Journal of English Studies in Arabia Felix, 2(1), 71-84. DOI:https://doi.org/10.56540/jesaf.v2i1.62
  17. Morphy, P., & Graham, S. (2012). Word processing programs and weaker writers/readers: A meta-analysis of research findings. Reading and Writing, 25, 641-678. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9292-5
  18. Okonkwo, C. W., & Ade-Ibijola, A. (2021). Chatbots applications in education: A systematic review.Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100033. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100033
  19. Onozawa, C. (2010). A study of the process writing approach: A suggestion for an eclectic writing approach. In Proceedings of Kyoai Gakuen Maebashi International University (vol. 10, pp. 153-163). Kyoai Gakuen Maebashi International University.
  20. Pahlavani, P., & Maftoon, P. (2015). The impact of using computer-aided argument mapping (CAAM) on the improvement of Iranian EFL learners' writing self-regulation. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 7(2), 127-152. DOI:https://doi.org/10.22099/JTLS.2015.3528
  21. Phillips, T., Saleh, A., Glazewski, K. D., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Mott, B., & Lester, J. C. (2022). Exploring the use of GPT-3 as a tool for evaluating text-based collaborative discourse. In Companion Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knwoledge (pp.1-3). SOLAR.
  22. Robillos, R. J. (2022). Impact of LoilooNote digital mapping on university students' oral presentation skills and critical thinking dispositions.International Journal of Instruction, 15(2), 501- 518. DOI:https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.15228a
  23. Robillos, R. J. & Namwong, O. (2021). Thai tertiary learners' composition writing performance and self-regulation towards EFL writing using process-oriented approach. TESOL International Journal, 16(7), 87-103.
  24. Robillos, R. J., & Bustos, I. G. (2022). Learners' listening skill and metacognitive awareness through metacognitive strategy instruction with pedagogical cycle.International Journal of Instruction, 15(3), 393-412. DOI:https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.15322a
  25. Robillos, R. J. (2023). The impact of the FlipGrid application within the genre-based framework on students' writing skills and self-regulation of learning awareness. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 14(4), 456-475. DOI:https://doi.org/10.37237/140404
  26. Robillos, R. J. (2021). Learners' writing skill and self-regulation of learning awareness using computer-assisted argument mapping (CAAM). Teaching English with Technology, 21(4), 76-93.
  27. Tanmongkol, N., Moonpim, R., Vimonvattaraveete, S., Suteerapornchai, T., & Kaniyoa, W. (2020). The main reason that Thailand's high school students are not adapting in the English language.International Journal of Research and Review, 7(6), 247-253.
  28. Shibani, A., Koh, E., Lai, V., & Shim, K. J. (2017). Assessing the language of chat for teamwork dialogue. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 224-237.
  29. Sinha, S., Basak, S., Dey, Y., & Mondal, A. (2020). An educational chatbot for answering queries. In Emerging Technology in Modelling and Graphics: Proceedings of IEM Graph 2018 (pp. 55-60). Springer Singapore.
  30. Su, Y., Lin, Y., & Lai, C. (2023). Collaborating with ChatGPT in argumentative writing. Assessing Writing, 57, 100752. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100752
  31. Wang, C., Kim, D.H., Bong, M., & Ahn, H.S. (2013). Korean college students' self-regulated learning strategies and self-efficacy in learning English as a second language. Asian EFL Journal, 15(3), 81-112.
  32. White, R. & Arndt, V. (1991). Process writing. Longman.
  33. Wonglakorn, P., & Deerajviset, P. (2023). The effects of collaborative process writing approach on Thai EFL secondary school students' writing skills. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 16(1), 495-522.
  34. Wuttiphan, N. (2023). Process-based writing approach: A panacea to improve Thai Chinese as a Foreign Language (TCFL) learners' writing skill and to eradicate writing block. EDKKU Journal, 46(1), 20-41.
  35. Zhai, X. (2022). ChatGPT user experience: Implications for education. Available at SSRN 4312418. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4312418
  36. Zhang, M. (2021). Understanding L1 and L2 interaction in collaborative writing: A lexico-grammatical analysis. Language Teaching Research, 25(3), 338-359. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819859911
  37. Zoherey, M. (2023). ChatGPT in academic writing and publishing: A comprehensive guide. In Artificial Intelligence in Academia, Research and Science: ChatGPT as a case Study (1st ed). Achtago Publishing. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7803703
  38. ps://doi.org/10.4324/9780203994894 doi: 10.4324/9780203994894
  39. Evmenova, A. S., & Regan, K. (2019). Supporting the writing process with technology for students with disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 55(2), 78-85.https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451219837636
  40. Fitria, T. N. (2023). Artificial intelligence (AI) technology ino Open AI ChatGPT application: A review of chatGPT in writing English essay. In ELT Forum: Journal of English Language Teaching, 12(1), 44-58.https://doi.org/10.15294/elt.v12i1.64069
  41. Karatay, H. (2011). Process-based writing models: Planning, writing, and assessment. In M. Ozbay (Ed.), Within writing instruction (s. 21-43). Pegem Academy.
  42. Kitajroonchai, N., Kitjaroonchai, T., & Sanitchai, P. (2022). The effects of process genre-based writing and process writing approaches on Asian EFL pre-university students’ writing performance. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 13(4), 860-871.https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1304.19
  43. Malmir, A., & Khosravi, F. (2018). The effect of argument mapping instruction on L2 writing achievement across writing task and writing components: A case study of Iranian EFL Learners. Applied Research on English Language, 7(4), 514-538.https://doi.org/10.22108/ARE.2018.111870.1318
  44. Moqbel, M. S. S., & Al-Kadi, A. M. T. (2023). Foreign language learning assessment in the age of ChatGPT: A theoretical account. Journal of English Studies in Arabia Felix, 2(1), 71-84.https://doi.org/10.56540/jesaf.v2i1.62
  45. Morphy, P., & Graham, S. (2012). Word processing programs and weaker writers/readers: A meta-analysis of research findings. Reading and Writing, 25, 641–678.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9292-5
  46. Okonkwo, C. W., & Ade-Ibijola, A. (2021). Chatbots applications in education: A systematic review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100033.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100033
  47. Pahlavani, P., & Maftoon, P. (2015). The impact of using computer-aided argument mapping (CAAM) on the improvement of Iranian EFL learners’ writing self-regulation. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 7(2), 127-152.https://doi.org/10.22099/JTLS.2015.3528
  48. Robillos, R. J. (2022). Impact of LoilooNote digital mapping on university students’ oral presentation skills and critical thinking dispositions. International Journal of Instruction, 15(2), 501- 518.https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.15228a
  49. Robillos, R. J. & Namwong, O. (2021). Thai tertiary learners’ composition writing performance and self-regulation towards EFL writing using process-oriented approach. TESOL International Journal, 16(7), 87-103.
  50. Robillos, R. J., & Bustos, I. G. (2022). Learners’ listening skill and metacognitive awareness through metacognitive strategy instruction with pedagogical cycle. International Journal of Instruction, 15(3), 393-412.https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.15322a
  51. Robillos, R. J. (2023). The impact of the FlipGrid application within the genre-based framework on students’ writing skills and self-regulation of learning awareness. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 14(4), 456–475.https://doi.org/10.37237/140404
  52. Robillos, R. J. (2021). Learners’ writing skill and self-regulation of learning awareness using computer-assisted argument mapping (CAAM). Teaching English with Technology, 21(4), 76-93.
  53. Tanmongkol, N., Moonpim, R., Vimonvattaraveete, S., Suteerapornchai, T., & Kaniyoa, W. (2020). The main reason that Thailand’s high school students are not adapting in the English language. International Journal of Research and Review, 7(6), 247-253.
  54. Su, Y., Lin, Y., & Lai, C. (2023). Collaborating with ChatGPT in argumentative writing. Assessing Writing, 57, 100752.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100752
  55. Wang, C., Kim, D.H., Bong, M., & Ahn, H.S. (2013). Korean college students’ self-regulated learning strategies and self-efficacy in learning English as a second language. Asian EFL Journal, 15(3), 81-112.
  56. Wonglakorn, P., & Deerajviset, P. (2023). The effects of collaborative process writing approach on Thai EFL secondary school students’ writing skills. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 16(1), 495-522.
  57. Wuttiphan, N. (2023). Process-based writing approach: A panacea to improve Thai Chinese as a Foreign Language (TCFL) learners’ writing skill and to eradicate writing block. EDKKU Journal, 46(1), 20-41.
  58. Zhai, X. (2022). ChatGPT user experience: Implications for education. Available at SSRN 4312418.http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4312418 doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4312418
  59. Zhang, M. (2021). Understanding L1 and L2 interaction in collaborative writing: A lexico-grammatical analysis. Language Teaching Research, 25(3), 338-359.https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819859911
  60. Zoherey, M. (2023). ChatGPT in academic writing and publishing: A comprehensive guide. In Artificial Intelligence in Academia, Research and Science: ChatGPT as a case Study (1st ed). Achtago Publishing.https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7803703

Дополнительные файлы

Доп. файлы
Действие
1. JATS XML


Creative Commons License
Эта статья доступна по лицензии Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Согласие на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика»

1. Я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных»), осуществляя использование сайта https://journals.rcsi.science/ (далее – «Сайт»), подтверждая свою полную дееспособность даю согласие на обработку персональных данных с использованием средств автоматизации Оператору - федеральному государственному бюджетному учреждению «Российский центр научной информации» (РЦНИ), далее – «Оператор», расположенному по адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А, со следующими условиями.

2. Категории обрабатываемых данных: файлы «cookies» (куки-файлы). Файлы «cookie» – это небольшой текстовый файл, который веб-сервер может хранить в браузере Пользователя. Данные файлы веб-сервер загружает на устройство Пользователя при посещении им Сайта. При каждом следующем посещении Пользователем Сайта «cookie» файлы отправляются на Сайт Оператора. Данные файлы позволяют Сайту распознавать устройство Пользователя. Содержимое такого файла может как относиться, так и не относиться к персональным данным, в зависимости от того, содержит ли такой файл персональные данные или содержит обезличенные технические данные.

3. Цель обработки персональных данных: анализ пользовательской активности с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика».

4. Категории субъектов персональных данных: все Пользователи Сайта, которые дали согласие на обработку файлов «cookie».

5. Способы обработки: сбор, запись, систематизация, накопление, хранение, уточнение (обновление, изменение), извлечение, использование, передача (доступ, предоставление), блокирование, удаление, уничтожение персональных данных.

6. Срок обработки и хранения: до получения от Субъекта персональных данных требования о прекращении обработки/отзыва согласия.

7. Способ отзыва: заявление об отзыве в письменном виде путём его направления на адрес электронной почты Оператора: info@rcsi.science или путем письменного обращения по юридическому адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А

8. Субъект персональных данных вправе запретить своему оборудованию прием этих данных или ограничить прием этих данных. При отказе от получения таких данных или при ограничении приема данных некоторые функции Сайта могут работать некорректно. Субъект персональных данных обязуется сам настроить свое оборудование таким способом, чтобы оно обеспечивало адекватный его желаниям режим работы и уровень защиты данных файлов «cookie», Оператор не предоставляет технологических и правовых консультаций на темы подобного характера.

9. Порядок уничтожения персональных данных при достижении цели их обработки или при наступлении иных законных оснований определяется Оператором в соответствии с законодательством Российской Федерации.

10. Я согласен/согласна квалифицировать в качестве своей простой электронной подписи под настоящим Согласием и под Политикой обработки персональных данных выполнение мною следующего действия на сайте: https://journals.rcsi.science/ нажатие мною на интерфейсе с текстом: «Сайт использует сервис «Яндекс.Метрика» (который использует файлы «cookie») на элемент с текстом «Принять и продолжить».