The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Effect of ChatGPT-Integrated English Teaching on High School EFL Learners’ Writing Skills and Vocabulary Development
Open accessAbstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) has gained importance and popularity in education recently. As an AI-based chatbot, ChatGPT has attracted the attention of educators and researchers from different fields, as well. The present study aims to explore the effect of ChatGPT-integrated English lessons on the 10th grade Turkish EFL learners’ writing skill and vocabulary development. Additionally, it attempts to gather the perceptions of the participant students about ChatGPT-integrated language teaching. This research is a mixed-method study which combines both quantitative and qualitative data. 66 students who study at two different classes participated in the study by taking place in experimental phase and completing pre-and post-tests. 7 students took place in semi-structured interview at the end of the implementation. Throughout the implementation, the experimental group took ChatGPT-integrated vocabulary and writing instruction whereas the control group took traditional instruction which lasted for 5 weeks. Quantitative data were calculated statistically by using SPSS 29 and qualitative data were investigated by conducting thematic analysis via MaxQDA24. The results of pre- and post-tests showed that the traditional instruction had more effect on writing and vocabulary development of the participant students. The findings gained from semi-structured interviews revealed that students consider mostly positively ChatGPT and they reflected some concerns about academic integrity and ethics and laziness in learning. There are some pedagogical implications recommended for teachers, students and researchers at the end of the study.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Studies used AI interventions to address common barriers such as limited teacher feedback, low student motivation for revision, or insufficient opportunities for creative expression.
“These studies used AI interventions to address common barriers such as limited teacher feedback, low student motivation for revision, or insufficient opportunities for creative expression [81-87].”
From A Systematic Review of Generative AI in K–12: Mapping Goals, Activities, Roles, and Outcomes via the 3P Model (2025) · cites this paper as [85]
In school settings, students repeatedly interact with AI assistants across English writing, reading comprehension, mathematics problem-solving, physics, quantum, and cognitive science, and computer programming.
“In school settings, students repeatedly interact with AI assistants (such as ChatGPT, custom bots, and social robots) across English writing [85], reading comprehension [76,79,80,107,109], mathematics problem-solving [99,105], physics, quantum, and cognitive science [78,91,104,127], and computer programming [97,98,140,141].”
From A Systematic Review of Generative AI in K–12: Mapping Goals, Activities, Roles, and Outcomes via the 3P Model (2025) · cites this paper as [85]
In some contexts, traditional instruction outperforms AI-integrated courses on writing and vocabulary.
“in some contexts, traditional instruction even outperforms AI-integrated courses on writing and vocabulary [85]”
From A Systematic Review of Generative AI in K–12: Mapping Goals, Activities, Roles, and Outcomes via the 3P Model (2025) · cites this paper as [85]
Roles are reshaped: learners move from passive consumers of knowledge to active creators of learning experiences, strengthening autonomy and agency.
“Roles are also reshaped: learners move from passive consumers of knowledge to active creators of learning experiences [116], strengthening autonomy and agency [85,147].”
From A Systematic Review of Generative AI in K–12: Mapping Goals, Activities, Roles, and Outcomes via the 3P Model (2025) · cites this paper as [85]
Learner differences-cultural background, personal interests-and concerns about academic integrity further shape uptake.
“Learner differences-cultural background, personal interests [129,132]-and concerns about academic integrity [85] further shape uptake.”
From A Systematic Review of Generative AI in K–12: Mapping Goals, Activities, Roles, and Outcomes via the 3P Model (2025) · cites this paper as [85]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lin, X., & Tan, H. (2025) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems13100840 · Cited by 22
Deng, L., & Jamaludin, K. A. (2026) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440261418315 · Cited by 24
“…may lead to over-reliance, ethical risks, and reduced student creativity (Hieu & Thao, 2024; Song & Song, 2023; Stewart & Zheng, 2024), resulting in smaller gains in vocabulary, writing, and learner satisfaction compared to teacher-led instruction (Ahmed, 2023; Sapan & Uzun, 2024; Sawangwan, 2024).”
Saarela, M., Gunasekara, S., & Kumarage, P. M. (2026) · Discover Computing · doi:10.1007/s10791-026-10015-1 · Cited by 28
Meta-analysis on the influence of AI agents on K-12 student cognitive performance
Liu, J., Mbowe, A. E., Tahri, D., & Aziku, M. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2026.100973 · Cited by 4
Transforming Learning or Empty Promise? A Meta-Analysis of Generative AI in EducationPreprint
Tang, X., Wang, X., Dong, L., & Zhang, J. C. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-7577394/v1 · Cited by 2
Does ChatGPT-Integrated Learning Affect Indonesian EFL Learners’ Grammar Achievement?
Azwar, T. A., & Sujarwati, I. (2025) · ELE Reviews English Language Education Reviews · doi:10.22515/elereviews.v5i1.10425 · Cited by 6
“…selecting this school as the research setting was to address the gap in the literature since there was a limited body of research on the use of ChatGPT in grammar learning, particularly involving secondary-level EFL students (Aldowsari & Aljebreen, 2024; Jamshed et al., 2024; Sapan & Uzun, 2024).”
InfluentialKhodjaev, B. K., Masalimova, A. R., Chistyakov, A. A., & Ay, Y. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1971476
Metadata
- Authors
- Sapan, M., & Uzun, L.
- Venue
- International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology
- Publisher
- ISTES Organization
- Published
- 2024-12-29
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1679-1699
- ISSN
- 2147-611X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4408525596
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 3
- FWCI
- 2.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Education in Mathematics Science and Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Bursa Uludag University - AVESIS (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Education › English Language Learning and Teaching
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, artificial intelligence in language teaching, English as a foreign language, writing skills, vocabulary development, high school students, student perceptions, academic integrity, ethics of AI use, conventional instruction comparison
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
