Cited by 12Natural Language Processing TechniquesSecond Language Acquisition and LearningArtificial Intelligence in Education

Integrating AI technology into corpus-based language learning through ChatAI

Open access
Anthony, Laurence·2025·Computer Assisted Language Learning

Abstract

This paper proposes a novel solution to the problem of integrating AI technology with traditional corpus methods through the introduction of a ChatAI tool within the AntConc corpus analysis toolkit. ChatAI is designed to simplify both the management and use of large language models (LLMs) in classroom settings. On the management side, the tool allows teachers and learners to easily access and use powerful propriety LLMs, such as OpenAI’s GPT5 models. It also allows them to download and run open access and open weight LLMs, such as Llama models, on their own computers, while keeping their data completely private. On the language learning side, ChatAI offers users a way to directly interact with LLMs both when creating corpus queries and also when analyzing or interpreting the results generated from corpus queries. As a result, teachers and learners can begin a lesson by querying a corpus with natural language using a full range of traditional corpus methods (e.g. Key-Word-In-Context, Dispersion Plots, Clusters, N-Grams, Collocates, Word/Keyword, and Wordclouds), and then pipe the results of their analyses to an LLM for further insights and discussion. Importantly, in contrast to online services like ChatGPT, ChatAI improves transparency by allowing users to see and edit important LLM settings, such as the system and user prompts as well as the temperature setting. These features not only lead to a smooth and intuitive lesson flow, but also improve the authenticity and replicability of results, while at the same time greatly reducing the possibility of LLM hallucinations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09588221.2025.2589747

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Johns, T. (1991). Should you be persuaded: Two samples of data-driven learning materials. ELR Journal, 4, 1-16.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Anthony, L.
Affiliations
Waseda University (JP)
Corresponding author
Anthony, Laurence
Venue
Computer Assisted Language Learning
Published
2025-11-21
Pages
1-19
ISSN
  • 0958-8221 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-3210
OpenAlex
W4416508416
Cited by
7
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 7
FWCI
2.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Computer Assisted Language Learning (publishedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
Keywords
AntConc, large language models, corpus-based language learning, LLM hallucination mitigation, open-source LLMs, classroom language teaching

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review