CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 511English Language Learning and TeachingTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning

Measuring EFL learners’ use of ChatGPT in informal digital learning of English based on the technology acceptance model

Liu, Guangxiang, Ma, Chaojun·2024·Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching
DOI 10.1080/17501229.2023.2240316
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to generate empirical insights into the extent to which ChatGPT, a highly capable AI chatbot building on OpenAI's GPT family, is perceived and leveraged by EFL learners beyond the classroom.Design/Methodology This quantitative cross-sectional investigation draws upon the technology acceptance model (TAM) as developed by (Davis, F. D. 1989. “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology.” Management Information System Quarterly 13 (3): 983–1003) to conceptualize EFL learners’ attitudes, intentions, and actual behaviors of using ChatGPT in their informal digital learning of English. A total of 405 EFL learners answered the revised TAM questionnaire with scales including Perceived Ease of Use, Perceived Usefulness, Attitude, Behavioral Intention, and Actual Use.Findings The results of structural equation modeling analyses indicated that while Perceived Ease of Use fails to predict learners’ Attitude directly, it can influence Attitude through the full mediator Perceived Usefulness. It was also found that learners who take positive attitudes toward the usefulness of ChatGPT tend to demonstrate a higher level of Behavioral Intention, which positively and strongly predicts their Actual Use of ChatGPT in English learning outside the classroom.Originality/value This study provides empirical evidence that supports the potential of ChatGPT as a powerful language-learning tool that EFL learners should utilize to partic…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17501229.2023.2240316

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, G., & Ma, C.
Affiliations
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • City University of Hong Kong (HK)
Corresponding author
Liu, Guangxiang
ORCID
Venue
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2023-07-26
Volume
18
Issue
2
Pages
125-138
ISSN
  • 1750-1229 (ISSN-L)
  • 1750-1237
DOI
10.1080/17501229.2023.2240316
OpenAlex
W4385293522
Cited by
511
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 144 · 2025: 198 · 2024: 155 · 2023: 14
FWCI
120.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Keywords
ChatGPT, EFL learners, informal digital learning, technology acceptance model, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, student attitudes, behavioral intention, CALL, English as a foreign language

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