CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 335Artificial Intelligence in EducationEnglish Language Learning and TeachingEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning

Impact of ChatGPT on Learning Motivation: Teachers and Students' Voices

Open access
Ali, Jamal Kaid Mohammed, Shamsan, Muayad Abdulhalim Ahmad, Hezam, Taha Ahmed, Mohammed, Ahmed A. Q.·2023·Journal of English Studies in Arabia Felix
DOI 10.56540/jesaf.v2i1.51
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Motivation drives most human activities, including foreign language learning, and it is affected by several intrinsic and extrinsic factors. This study investigated how ChatGPT impacts learning English. A quantitative research design was used to collect data from 80 teachers and students who had access to the ChatGPT in its very beginning phase in early 2023. The sample, selected in a non-probability sampling technique, responded to an online questionnaire. Findings showed that ChatGPT generally motivates learners to develop reading and writing skills. The respondents had neutral attitudes towards the effect of ChatGPT on developing listening and speaking skills. The findings suggest that ChatGPT-based teaching is motivational. ChatGPT should be used as a learning tool instead of fearing its negative impacts, which require further detailed investigations. Further research is required to explore more advantages of ChatGPT for other aspects of the language and illuminate its negative effects to help educators reduce them in English programs.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This quantitative survey of 80 English teachers and students in early 2023 found that ChatGPT was generally perceived to motivate learners to develop reading and writing skills, while attitudes toward listening and speaking were neutral. It reports positive perceptions of ChatGPT’s motivational effects and significant differences by teaching experience for listening and interest.

Key findings

  • Participants thought ChatGPT could motivate EFL learners to develop reading (M = 4.02, SD = 1.28) and writing (M = 3.92, SD = 1.016), but showed neutral attitudes toward listening (M = 3.32, SD = 1.28) and speaking (M = 3.25, SD = 1.28).
  • For micro skills, participants favored motivation to learn grammar (M = 3.9, SD = 0.9648) and vocabulary (M = 4.45).
  • Motivation-type items showed positive views: independent learning (M = 4.025, SD = 0.8263), self-confidence (M = 3.97, SD = 0.8263), fun/enjoyment (M = 4, SD = 0.9546), interest (M = 3.55), interaction (M = 3.8, SD = 0.9328), and eagerness to get a job (M = 4, SD = 0.8714).
  • ANOVA found significant differences among high experience, low experience, and students for listening (F = 4.57817, Sig. = 0.0132231) and interest in learning (F = 8.04608, Sig. = 0.00067103); Tukey showed high-experience participants differed from low-experience participants on listening, and high-experience participants differed from both low-experience and student participants on interest.

Methods

  • Quantitative design using an online questionnaire distributed via email and WhatsApp to 80 English language students and instructors selected by non-probability sampling, conducted about two months after ChatGPT launched in early 2023.
  • Instrument was a five-point Likert scale questionnaire with two sections: six statements on micro and macro language skills, and six statements on motivation types; it was reviewed by expert referees in applied linguistics and modified.
  • Data were analyzed with SPSS version 23 using descriptive and inferential statistics, including validity and reliability tests and ANOVA; Tukey HSD post hoc tests were used for multiple comparisons.

Limitations

  • The paper states a limitation: “the lack of supportive qualitative data that would have enriched the investigation.”
  • Evident from the text: the sample was non-probability and relatively small (80), and the study relies on self-reported perceptions rather than direct measures of learning or motivation outcomes.
  • Evident from the text: data were collected only in the early phase of ChatGPT in 2023, and some reported values are inconsistent between the narrative and tables (e.g., interest SD differs).

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.56540/jesaf.v2i1.51

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 1 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Most educators and ELT practitioners agreed on the positive effect of ChatGPT on motivating learners.

    “Clearly, the analysis of the attitude questionnaire showed that most of the educators and ELT practitioners agreed on the positive effect of ChatGPT on motivating learners.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Participants' attitudes toward ChatGPT's effect on fun and enjoyment had mean 4, SD 0.9546.

    “get fun and enjoyment (M 4, SD 0.9546)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Participants' attitudes toward ChatGPT's effect on gaining self-confidence had mean 3.97, SD 0.8263.

    “gain self-confidence (M3.97,SD 0.8263)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Participants' attitudes toward ChatGPT's effect on managing learning independently had mean 4.025, SD 0.8263.

    “to manage their learning independently (M4.025,SD 0.8263)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    There are significant differences among the three levels of teaching experience regarding attitudes toward ChatGPT's effect on creating interest in learning English.

    “Table 3 shows that there are significant differences among the three levels of teaching experience (high experience, low experience and students) regarding their attitudes toward the effect of ChatGPT on motivating learners to develop their listening and creating interest in learning English.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 6
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 4

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For interest, there were significant differences between high and low experience and between high and students.

    “though all participants agreed on the positive effect of ChatGPT on creating interest within learners, there were significant differences between high and low experience from one side and high and students from another.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For listening, high experience significantly differed from low experience, but no difference between high and students.

    “It revealed that the attitude of high experience significantly differed from low experience but no difference between high and students.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study lacked supportive qualitative data.

    “A limitation that should be stated is the lack of supportive qualitative data that would have enriched the investigation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    ChatGPT increases students' intrinsic, extrinsic and autonomous motivation.

    “It increases their intrinsic, extrinsic and autonomous motivation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The sample of 80 teachers and students is representative of English language teachers and students generally.
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reported attitudes and perceptions accurately reflect ChatGPT's actual impact on learning motivation.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The SPSS was used to operate descriptive and inferential statistical tests, including validity and reliability of the questionnaire and collected data.

    “The SPSS (version 23) was used to operate descriptive and inferential statistical tests, including the validity and reliability of the questionnaire and the collected data.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The questionnaire was reviewed by expert referees and modified based on their comments.

    “The questionnaire was sent to expert referees in applied linguistics to be reviewed and based on their comments and suggestions, and the questionnaire was modified.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The output of ChatGPT is not complete and final and may contain incorrect output that always requires human intervention.

    “It should not be taken for granted because it is not complete and final and may contain incorrect output that always requires human intervention.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jillian et al., 2023

      Not checked in the free run.

7 of 7

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The sample of 80 teachers and students is representative of English language teachers and students generally.

    “The sample, selected in a non-probability sampling technique, responded to an online questionnaire.”
    “The participants of this study were all students and instructors of the English language, whose total number was 80.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Participants' self-reported attitudes and perceptions accurately reflect ChatGPT's actual impact on learning motivation.

    “This study investigated how ChatGPT impacts learning English.”
    “The questionnaire included six statements about the participants' views on whether ChatGPT motivates students to learn micro language skills (vocabulary and grammar) and macro language skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing).”
2 of 2

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Interaction mean differs from Table 2

    Minor

    The results text gives a mean of 3.8 for interaction, but Table 2 gives 3.875, which rounds to 3.9 at one decimal place.

  • Interest-in-learning standard deviation differs from Table 2

    Minor

    The results text reports an SD of 0.9328 for interest in learning English, whereas Table 2 reports 1.123962 for that item.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ali, J. K. M., Shamsan, M. A. A., Hezam, T. A., & Mohammed, A. A. Q.
Affiliations
  • University of Bisha (SA)
  • Taiz University (YE)
  • University of Kerala (IN)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of English Studies in Arabia Felix
Publisher
Arabia Felix Academy
Published
2023-03-07
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
41-49
ISSN
2957-515X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.56540/jesaf.v2i1.51
OpenAlex
W4323568782
Semantic Scholar
ede5e50fdf7c5006e7259b98b28934012a0d0894
Cited by
335
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 56 · 2025: 115 · 2024: 118 · 2023: 46
FWCI
78.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Journal of English Studies in Arabia Felix (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Keywords
ChatGPT, student motivation, English as a foreign language, reading and writing skills, listening and speaking skills, teacher and student attitudes, AI-assisted language learning

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

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