CHATGPT IN LEARNING ENGLISH, IS IT POSSIBLE?

Authors

  • Yulia Pagansa Putri Universitas Mahaputra Muhammad Yamin
  • Fitri Handayani Universitas Mahaputra Muhammad Yamin
  • Riyen Permata Universitas Mahaputra Muhammad Yamin

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36665/elp.v10i1.1010

Abstract

          The integration of artificial intelligence in education has sparked discussions on its effectiveness, particularly in language learning. This study examines students' perceptions of ChatGPT in English language learning using a quantitative descriptive approach. The research involved 63 students from the English Education Study Program at Mahaputra Muhammad Yamin University, Solok, during the 2023/2024 academic year, selected through a total sampling technique. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire consisting of 20 statements, administered via Google Forms. Students rated their responses on a five-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." The results indicate that 58.6% of students expressed agreement with the use of ChatGPT in English learning, suggesting a generally positive perception. These findings highlight the potential of AI-driven tools in enhancing language learning, emphasizing the need for strategic implementation to maximize their benefits in English education.

References

Alrasheedi, M., & Capretz, L. F. (2015). Determination of critical success factors affecting

mobile learning: A meta-analysis approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 150–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.048

Beatty, K. (2013). Teaching & researching: Computer-assisted language learning (2nd ed.).

Routledge.

Brown, T., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., ... & Amodei, D.

(2020). Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 33, 1877–1901.

Chapelle, C. A., & Voss, E. (2017). 20 years of CALL research: A critical review of the

language learning & technology journal. Language Learning & Technology, 21(2), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.10125/44647

Creswell, John. W. (2012). Educational Research. Boston: Pearson Education.

Creswell, J. W. (2021). A Concise Introduction To Mixed Methods Research. SAGE Publications.

Higgins, S., Xiao, Z., & Katsipataki, M. (2012). The impact of digital technology on learning:

A summary for the education endowment foundation. Education Endowment Foundation.

Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Kübler, S., Kasneci, G., & Bannert, M. (2023). ChatGPT for good?

On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Instruction, 85, 101732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2023.101732

Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An

argument for AI in education. Pearson Education.

Malmström, H., Pecorari, D., & Gustafsson, M. (2023). Chatbots in Higher Education:

Student Perceptions and Learning Outcomes. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 26(2), 45-58.

Riduwan. (2009). Skala Pengukuran Variabel-Variabel Penelitian. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2021). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach (4th ed.).

Pearson.

Salmi, S., Nurhayati, I., & Pratama, R. (2023). Artificial Intelligence in Education 4.0:

Students’ Perceptions of ChatGPT as a Learning Tool. International Journal of Educational Research, 15(1), 112-130.

Selwyn, N. (2016). Education and technology: Key issues and debates. Bloomsbury

Publishing.

Setiawan, R., & Luthfiyani, L. (2023). Using ChatGPT for Education in the Era of Education

4.0: Proposed Innovations to Improve Writing Skills. Indonesian Institute of Technology, South Tangerang, Banten.

Sugiyono. (2008). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Sugiyono. (2018). Metode Penelitian Kualitatif, Kuantitatif dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Downloads

Published

2025-01-31

How to Cite

Pagansa Putri, Y., Fitri Handayani, & Riyen Permata. (2025). CHATGPT IN LEARNING ENGLISH, IS IT POSSIBLE?. ELP (Journal of English Language Pedagogy), 10(1), 86–95. https://doi.org/10.36665/elp.v10i1.1010