Cited by 69Artificial Intelligence in EducationEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningEnglish Language Learning and Teaching

Using ChatGPT to promote research competency: English as a Foreign Language undergraduates' perceptions and practices across varied metacognitive awareness levels

Abdelhalim, Safaa M.·2024·Journal of Computer Assisted Learning

Abstract

Background: Introducing new technologies in education sparks debates, disrupting traditional practices, and requiring teacher adaptation. ChatGPT is an example. Research explores its benefits and concerns in education, with recommendations for classroom use. Nevertheless, limited evidence supports ChatGPT as a tool for supporting English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students' research competency. Moreover, while the literature primarily focuses on the perspectives of scholars and teachers, it is essential to incorporate students' viewpoints in order to maximize the potential of this technology. Objectives: The present study investigated EFL undergraduates' perceptions and practices of ChatGPT as a tool for promoting their research competency. Additionally, the study examined the potential influence of metacognitive awareness (MA) levels in this context. Methods: The study utilized a mixed‐method research design, collecting quantitative and qualitative data from 27 EFL undergraduates (12 with low MA and 15 with high MA) over one semester. Data sources included a self‐report questionnaire, self‐study log, and semi‐structured interviews. Results and conclusions: Quantitative analysis showed significant differences between low and high MA groups in their perceptions of ChatGPT ( U = 37.500, Z = 2.570). Regression analysis revealed a positive correlation between MA scores and students' perceptions and practices of ChatGPT. Qualitative analysis revealed diverse perceptions and practices of ChatGPT between the high MA and low MA groups, showcasing behaviours ranging from replication to using ChatGPT as a thought‐stimulating and supportive tool, accessing supplementary information, and seeking guidance. Key factors for effective ChatGPT use included prompt formulation, systematic thinking, self‐regulation strategies, and trust in AI.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jcal.12948

Cites

46 of 46 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
Abdelhalim, S. M.
Affiliations
Imam Mohammad ibn Saud Islamic University (SA)
Corresponding author
Abdelhalim, Safaa M.
Venue
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-02
Volume
40
Issue
3
Pages
1261-1275
ISSN
  • 0266-4909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2729
OpenAlex
W4391481596
Cited by
69
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 5
FWCI
25.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
Keywords
ChatGPT, research skills, EFL learners, metacognitive awareness, student perceptions, AI-assisted research, prompt formulation, self-regulation, trust in AI, undergraduate students

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