Research Article

University students’ perceptions of artificial intelligence-based tools for English writing courses

Yong-Jik Lee 1 , Robert O. Davis 2 * , Sun Ok Lee 2
More Detail
1 The Institute of Educational Research, Chonnam National University, Gwangju City, SOUTH KOREA2 Department of Education, Chonnam National University, Gwangju City, SOUTH KOREA* Corresponding Author
Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 14(1), January 2024, e202412, https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/14195
Published: 10 February 2024
OPEN ACCESS   4785 Views   4633 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

This research explores the perceptions of Korean university students regarding artificial intelligence (AI)-based writing tools that include tools guided by machine learning, such as Google Translate and Naver Papago, and generative AI tools, such as Grammarly. A mixed methodology was used, including both quantitative and qualitative data. Among students who have taken English writing courses, 80 Korean university students volunteered for the online survey. After the survey, the research team recruited interview participants, and five volunteered participants joined the focus group interview. The study results indicate that these AI-based writing tools could improve English language learners (ELLs) writing skills. ELLs also noted the strengths and weaknesses of each AI-based tool, including the accessibility of translation machine learning and the error-checking capabilities of generative AI. However, interview data analysis indicates that the excessive use of AI-based writing tools could interfere with ELLs’ English writing process. This study highlights the need to effectively integrate AI-based tools in English language teaching for adult ELLs worldwide.
Keywords: AI, AI-based writing tools, machine translation, generative AI, Naver Papago, Google Translate, Grammarly

CITATION (APA)

Lee, Y.-J., Davis, R. O., & Lee, S. O. (2024). University students’ perceptions of artificial intelligence-based tools for English writing courses. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 14(1), e202412. https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/14195

REFERENCES

  1. Ahn, S., & Chung, E. S. (2020). Students’ perceptions of the use of online machine translation in L2 writing. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 23(2), 10-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1871029
  2. Bahri, H., & Mahadi, T. S. T. (2016). Google Translate as a supplementary tool for learning Malay: A case study at Universiti Sains Malaysia. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 7(3), 161-167. https://doi.org/10.7575/aac.alls.v.7n.3p.161
  3. Beiler, I. R., & Dewilde, J. (2020). Translation as translingual writing practice in English as an additional language. The Modern Language Journal, 104(3), 533-549. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12660
  4. Briggs, N. (2018). Neural machine translation tools in the language learning classroom: Students’ use, perceptions, and analyses. Jalt Call Journal, 14(1), 2-24. https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v14n1.221
  5. Castleberry, A., & Nolen, A. (2018). Thematic analysis of qualitative research data: Is it as easy as it sounds? Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 10(6), 807-815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2018.03.019
  6. Chen, H. H. J., Yang, C. T. Y., & Lai, K. K. W. (2023). Investigating college EFL learners’ perceptions toward the use of Google Assistant for foreign language learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(3), 1335-1350. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1833043
  7. Chon, Y., Shin, D., & Kim, G. E. (2021). Comparing L2 learners’ writing against parallel machine-translated texts: Raters’ assessment, linguistic complexity, and errors. System, 96, 102408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102408
  8. Fithriani, R. (2023). Utilizing artificial intelligence-based paraphrasing tool in EFL writing class: A focus on Indonesian university students’ perceptions. Scope: Journal of English Language Teaching, 7(2), 210-218. https://doi.org/10.30998/scope.v7i2.14882
  9. Gayed, J. M., Carlon, M. K. J., Oriola, A. M., & Cross, J. S. (2022). Exploring an AI-based writing assistant’s impact on English language learners. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100055
  10. Huang, X., Zou, D., Cheng, G., Chen, X., & Xie, H. (2023). Trends, research issues and applications of artificial intelligence in language education. Educational Technology & Society, 26(1), 112-131. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48707971
  11. Im, H. J. (2017). The university students’ perceptions or attitudes on the use of the English automatic translation in a general English class: Based on English writing lessons. Korean Journal of General Education, 11(6), 727-751. https://j-kagedu.or.kr/upload/pdf/kagedu-11-6-727.pdf
  12. Jeong, N. S. (2021). A study on the effects of machine translators on college students’ writing proficiency and affective attitude. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 24(1), 134-157. https://doi.org/10.15702/mall.2021.24.1.134
  13. Kim, H, K, & Han, S, M. (2021). College students’ perceptions of AI-based writing learning tools: With a focus on Google Translate, Naver Papago, and Grammarly. Modern English Education, 22(4), 90-100. https://doi.org/10.18095/meeso.2021.22.4.90
  14. Kim, J, K, & Song, K, S. (2012). A comparison of web-based and mobile-assisted English writing using smart media. Korean Institute of Information Technology, 10(12), 197-204. https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/ sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART001721045
  15. Klekovkina, V., & Denié-Higney, L. (2022). Machine translation: Friend or foe in the language classroom? L2 Journal, 14(1), 105-135. https://doi.org/10.5070/L214151723
  16. Lee, S. M. (2019). Korean college students’ perceptions toward the effectiveness of machine translation on L2 revision. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 22(4), 206-225. https://doi.org/10.15702/mall.2019.22.4.206
  17. Lee, S. M. (2020). The impact of using machine translation on EFL students’ writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(3), 157-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1553186
  18. Lee, S. M., & Briggs, N. (2021). Effects of using machine translation to mediate the revision process of Korean university students’ academic writing. RECALL, 33(1), 18-33. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344020000191
  19. Murtisari, E. T., Widiningrum, R., Branata, J., & Susanto, R. D. (2019). Google Translate in language learning: Indonesian EFL students’ attitudes. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 16(3), 978. https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2019.16.3.14.978
  20. O’Neill, R., & Russell, A. (2019). Stop! Grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Grammarly. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1), 42-56. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3795
  21. Qassemzadeh, A., & Soleimani, H. (2016). The impact of feedback provision by Grammarly software and teachers on learning passive structures by Iranian EFL learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(9), 1884-1894. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0609.23
  22. Stapleton, P., & Kin, B. L. K. (2019). Assessing the accuracy and teachers’ impressions of Google Translate: A study of primary L2 writers in Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes, 56, 18-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2019.07.001
  23. Tao, Y., & Zou, B. (2023). Students’ perceptions of the use of Kahoot! in English as a foreign language classroom learning context. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(8), 1668-1687. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.2011323
  24. Tsai, S. C. (2019). Using Google Translate in EFL drafts: A preliminary investigation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(5-6), 510-526. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1527361
  25. Yoon, C. W., & Chon, Y. V. (2022). Machine translation errors and L2 learners’ correction strategies by error type and English proficiency. English Teaching, 77(3), 153-175. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.77.3.202209.153