INVESTIGATING THE ADAPTABILITY OF CHATGPT FOR GENERATING REFERENCE DIALOGUES FOR HIGHER-LEVEL ENGLISH LEARNERS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26618/exposure.v14i1.16702Keywords:
ChatGPT, Reference Dialogue, Higher-Level Learner, Prompting TechniqueAbstract
English proficiency can enhance non-native speakers' educational experience by providing them access to a wide range of materials, international conferences, and chances for collaboration. However, acquiring a language can present significant challenges, especially for people who are not native English speakers and those who enter the education system from other nations. The utilization of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and fully automated interactive spoken language (SDS) has the potential to enhance student engagement and facilitate improvements in oral contact and communication. The Chatbot feature of ChatGPT, an AI website, has the potential to enhance language learning by promoting active participation and improving educational achievements. Nevertheless, the efficacy of ChatGPT in catering to the needs of second language (L2) learners can be constrained by their distinct linguistic demands. This project aims to investigate the capacity of ChatGPT to produce reference dialogues tailored for advanced English learners and examine the potential enhancement of dialogue quality through prompting strategies. This study used a mixed method study, which distributed a survey questionnaire and conducted semi-structured interviews with the responders to determine the best prompting technique used in ChatGPT for generating reference dialogue. Then, the finding of this research showed that most students had a positive perception of using ChatGPT to generate dialogue references. However, some of them had a negative perception in some parts of using ChatGPT to generate dialogue references. Furthermore, ChatGPT was valuable and helpful in generating dialogue references, which helped the students be more confident when they wrote a conversational dialogue.
References
Alawida, M., Mejri, S., Mehmood, A., Chikhaoui, B., & Isaac Abiodun, O. (2023). A Comprehensive Study of ChatGPT: Advancements, Limitations, and Ethical Considerations in Natural Language Processing and Cybersecurity. In Information (Switzerland) (Vol. 14, Issue 8). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI). https://doi.org/10.3390/info14080462
Annamalai, N., Rashid, R. A., Munir Hashmi, U., Mohamed, M., Harb Alqaryouti, M., & Eddin Sadeq, A. (2023). Using chatbots for English language learning in higher education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100153
Baskara, R. FX. (2023). Chatbots and Flipped Learning: Enhancing Student Engagement and Learning Outcomes through Personalised Support and Collaboration. IJORER : International Journal of Recent Educational Research, 04(02), 223–238.
Cameron, R., & Bentahar, O. (2013). Design and Implementation of a Mixed Method Research Study in Project Management. In Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods (Vol. 13). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299736667
Chang, D. H., Lin, M. P. C., Hajian, S., & Wang, Q. Q. (2023). Educational Design Principles of Using AI Chatbot That Supports Self-Regulated Learning in Education: Goal Setting, Feedback, and Personalization. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(17). https://doi.org/10.3390/su151712921
Chen, J., Chen, L., Huang, H., & Zhou, T. (2023). When do you need Chain-of-Thought Prompting for ChatGPT? http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.03262
Doshi, R. H., Bajaj, S. S., & Krumholz, H. M. (2023). ChatGPT: Temptations of Progress. The American Journal of Bioethics, 23(4), 6–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2180110
Fried, D., Chiu, J. T., & Klein, D. (2021). Reference-Centric Models for Grounded Collaborative Dialogue. http://arxiv.org/abs/2109.05042
Gao, M., Wan, X., Su, J., Wang, Z., & Huai, B. (2023). Reference Matters: Benchmarking Factual Error Correction for Dialogue Summarization with Fine-grained Evaluation Framework. http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.05119
Harris, L. R., Brown, G. T. L., & Harris, L. R. (2010). Mixing interview and questionnaire methods: Practical problems in aligning data A peer-reviewed electronic journal. Mixing interview and questionnaire methods: Practical problems in aligning data. 15(1). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233871179
Kim, H. S., Cha, Y., & Kim, N. Y. (2021). Effects of ai chatbots on efl students’ communication skills. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 2021(21), 712–734. https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.21..202108.712
Küchemann, S., Steinert, S., Revenga, N., Schweinberger, M., Dinc, Y., Avila, K. E., & Kuhn, J. (2023). Physics task development of prospective physics teachers using ChatGPT. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020128
Kumar, A., Di Eugenio, B., Bhattacharya, A., Aurisano, J., & Johnson, A. (2022). Reference Resolution and Context Change in Multimodal Situated Dialogue for Exploring Data Visualizations. http://arxiv.org/abs/2209.02215
Pereira, N., & de Oliveira, L. C. (2015). Meeting the Linguistic Needs of High-Potential English Language Learners. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 47(4), 208–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059915569362
Punar Özçelik, N., & Yangın Ekşi, G. (2024). Cultivating writing skills: the role of ChatGPT as a learning assistant—a case study. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00296-8
Rodríguez-Arancón, P. (2023). Developing L2 Intercultural Competence in an Online Context through Didactic Audiovisual Translation.
Languages, 8(3), 160. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8030160
Roy-Campbell, Z. M. (n.d.). Teaching English as a “Second Language” In Kenya and the United States: Convergences and Divergences Keywords.
Shaikh, S., Yayilgan, S. Y., Klimova, B., & Pikhart, M. (2023). Assessing the Usability of ChatGPT for Formal English Language Learning. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 13(9), 1937–1960. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe13090140
Shin, D., Kim, H., Lee, J. H., & Yang, H. (2021). Exploring the use of an artificial intelligence chatbot as second language conversation partners*. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 2021(21), 375–391. https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.21..202104.375
Timpe-Laughlin, V., & Dombi, J. (2020). Exploring L2 learners’ request behavior in a multi-turn conversation with a fully automated agent. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(2), 221–257. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2020-0010
Vency, H. J., & Ramganesh, E. (2013). Is Language Proficiency Taken Care of at Higher Education Level? Need for Self Efficacy of Post Graduate Students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(6). https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.4.6.1176-1183
Xiao, Y., & Zhi, Y. (2023). An Exploratory Study of EFL Learners’ Use of ChatGPT for Language Learning Tasks: Experience and Perceptions. Languages, 8(3), 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8030212
Yang, Z., Li, L., Wang, J., Lin, K., Azarnasab, E., Ahmed, F., Liu, Z., Liu, C., Zeng, M., & Wang, L. (2023). MM-REACT: Prompting ChatGPT for Multimodal Reasoning and Action. http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11381
Young, J. C., & Shishido, M. (n.d.). Investigating OpenAI’s ChatGPT Potentials in Generating Chatbot’s Dialogue for English as a Foreign Language Learning. In IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications (Vol. 14, Issue 6). www.ijacsa.thesai.org
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
In order to assure the highest standards for published articles, a peer review policy is applied. In pursue of the compliance with academic standards, all parties involved in the publishing process (the authors, the editors and the editorial board and the reviewers) agree to meet the responsibilities stated below in accordance to the Journal publication ethics and malpractice statement.
Duties of Authors:
- The author(s) warrant that the submitted article is an original work, which has not been previously published, and that they have obtained an agreement from any co-author(s) prior to the manuscript’s submission;
- The author(s) should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal;
- The authors(s) make certain that the manuscript meets the terms of the Manuscript Submission Guideline regarding appropriate academic citation and that no copyright infringement occurs;
- The authors(s) should inform the editors about any conflict of interests and report any errors they subsequently, discover in their manuscript.
Duties of Editors and the Editorial Board:
- The editors, together with the editorial board, are responsible for deciding upon the publication or rejection of the submitted manuscripts based only on their originality, significance, and relevance to the domains of the journal;
- The editors evaluate the manuscripts compliance with academic criteria, the domains of the journal and the guidelines;
- The editors must at all times respect the confidentiality of any information pertaining to the submitted manuscripts;
- The editors assign the review of each manuscript to two reviewers chosen according to their domains of expertise. The editors must take into account any conflict of interest reported by the authors and the reviewers.
- The editors must ensure that the comments and recommendations of the reviewers are sent to the author(s) in due time and that the manuscripts are returned to the editors, who take the final decision to publish them or not.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
