UKRAINIAN PHD STUDENTS' ATTITUDES TOWARD AI LANGUAGE PROCESSING TOOLS IN THE CONTEXT OF ENGLISH FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.305061

Keywords:

AI language processing tools, English for Academic Purposes, writing enhancement tools, online translators, ChatGPT

Abstract

Mastering academic writing skills in English is essential for future researchers. At present, AI language processing tools provide high-quality, accessible, and fast assistance for translation, editing, and stylistic enhancement of scientific texts. However, their use within English for Academic Purposes (EAP) courses generates mixed reactions among educators and raises ethical concerns. Our study aimed to explore the predominant perceptions of AI language processing tools by PhD students of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (NASU) from the viewpoint of their integration into the academic English course taught in the first year of their PhD studies. The study involved 52 PhD students from various NASU institutes. They completed a survey with both closed-ended and open-ended questions regarding their previous and expected use of online translators, writing enhancement tools, and ChatGPT for research writing purposes. The results of the survey show that NASU PhD students have extensive experience with online translators, but are less familiar with writing enhancement tools and less certain about their potential use in the future. Almost a third of the respondents expressed reservations about using ChatGPT for academic writing due to academic integrity concerns. Most of the respondents (66%) agree that the basics of ethical use of AI writing and editing tools should be incorporated into EAP courses. One subgroup of the participants (n = 11) took part in a small-scale additional intervention focused on writing enhancement tools. They were asked to apply Grammarly, QuillBot, and ChatGPT to edit their course projects (presentations of the current state of their dissertation research) and compare these tools according to various criteria. The feedback provided by this subgroup indicates that they were most satisfied with the quality of editing provided by ChatGPT but found Grammarly and QuillBot easier to use and more suitable for superficial grammar checks. We found out that the AI tools helped participants achieve improvements primarily in such aspects as the use of articles, punctuation, use of prepositions, and elimination of redundancy. The study has significant pedagogical implications, promoting the wider use of AI tools in the context of teaching English for Academic Purposes and addressing appropriate teaching techniques and methods. 

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Natalie Kramar, Research and Educational Center of Foreign Languages, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv

Research and Educational Center of Foreign Languages,

PhD student in English philology

Yaroslava Bedrych, Research and Educational Center of Foreign Languages, NASU

senior lecturer at the Department of Foreign Languages

Zinaida Shelkovnikova, Research and Educational Center of Foreign Languages, NASU

senior lecturer at the Department of Foreign Languages

References

  1. Ariyaratne, S., Iyengar, K. P., & Botchu, R. (2023). Will collaborative publishing with ChatGPT drive academic writing in the future? British Journal of Surgery, 110(9), 1213-1214. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znad295
    | |
  2. Barrot, J. S. (2022). Integrating technology into ESL/EFL writing through Grammarly. RELC Journal, 53(3), 764-768. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220966632
    | |
  3. Calma, A., Cotronei-Baird, V., & Chia, A. (2022). Grammarly: An instructional intervention for writing enhancement in management education. The International Journal of Management Education, 20(3), 100704. 10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100704
    |
  4. Cancino, M., & Panes, J. (2021). The impact of Google Translate on L2 writing quality measures: Evidence from Chilean EFL high school learners. System, 98, 102464. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2021.102464
    |
  5. Cavaleri, M. R., & Dianati, S. (2016). You want me to check your grammar again? The usefulness of an online grammar checker as perceived by students. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 10(1), A223-A236. Retrieved 13 November, 2023 from https://journal.aall.org.au/index.php/jall/article/view/393
  6. Dergaa I., Chamari K., Zmijewski P., & Ben Saad, H. (2023). From human writing to artificial intelligence generated text: examining the prospects and potential threats of ChatGPT in academic writing. Biology of Sport, 40(2), 615-622. doi: 10.5114/biolsport.2023.125623.
    | |
  7. Dong, Y., & Shi, L. (2021). Using Grammarly to support students’ source-based writing practices. Assessing Writing, 50(7),100564. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2021.100564.
    |
  8. Ellerton, W. (2023). The Human and Machine: OpenAI, ChatGPT, QuillBot, Grammarly, Google, Google Docs, & humans. Visible Language, 57(1), 38-52. https://www.muse.jhu.edu/article/893661.
  9. Fiialka, S., Kornieva, Z., & Honcharuk, T. (2023). ChatGPT in Ukrainian education: Problems and prospects. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 18(17), 236-250. doi: 10.3991/ijet.v18i17.42215.
  10. Fitria, T. N. (2021). QuillBot as an online tool: Students’ alternative in paraphrasing and rewriting of English writing. Englisia: Journal of Language, Education, and Humanities, 9(1), 183-196. https://doi.org/10.22373/ej.v9i1.10233
  11. Ghufron, M. A., & Rosyida, F. (2018). The role of Grammarly in assessing English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing. Lingua Cultura, 12 (4), 395-403.
  12. Gokgoz-Kurt, Burcu. (2022). Using machine translation in EFL writing: A Scoping Review. In J.Qin & P.Stapleton, Technology in Second Language Writing Advances in Composing, Translation, Writing Pedagogy and Data-Driven Learning (pp. 45-62). Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781003279358-4.
  13. Grammarly (2023). GrammarlyGO brings personalized Generative AI to your writing process. https://www.grammarly.com/blog/grammarlygo-personalized-ai-writing/
  14. Grammarly (n.d.). About Us. https://www.grammarly.com/about
  15. Grassini, S. (2023). Shaping the Future of Education: Exploring the Potential and Consequences of AI and ChatGPT in Educational Settings. Education Sciences,13(7), 692. doi: 10.3390/educsci13070692
    |
  16. Hanauer D.I., Sheridan C.L., & Englander K. (2019). Linguistic injustice in the writing of research articles in English as a Second Language: Data from Taiwanese and Mexican researchers. Written Communication, 36(1):136–154. doi: 10.1177/0741088318804821
    | |
  17. Huang J., & Tan M. (2023). The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: writing better scientific review articles. Am J Cancer Res.,13(4):1148-1154.
  18. Kol, S., Schcolnik, M., & Spector-Cohen, E. (2018). Google Translate in academic writing courses? The EuroCALL Review, 26(2), 50-57. doi: 10.4995/eurocall.2018.10140
  19. Koltovskaia, S. (2023). Postsecondary L2 writing teachers’ use and perceptions of Grammarly as a complement to their feedback. ReCALL, 35(3), 290-304. doi:10.1017/S0958344022000179
    |
  20. Kurniati, E. Y., & Fithriani, R. (2022). Post-graduate students’ perceptions of QuillBot utilization in English academic writing class. Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics, 7(3), 437-451.
  21. Leahy, S. & Mishra, P. (2023). TPACK and the Cambrian explosion of AI. In E. Langran, P. Christensen & J. Sanson (eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2465-2469). New Orleans, LA, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved September 5, 2023 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/222145/.
  22. Lingard, L. (2023). Writing with ChatGPT: An illustration of its capacity, limitations & implications for academic writers. Perspectives on Medical Education, 12(1), 261-270. doi: 10.5334/pme.1072.
    |
  23. Lo, C.K. (2023). What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature. Education Sciences,13(4), 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040410
  24. Marchandot, B., Matsushita, K., Carmona, A., Trimaille, A., Morel, O. (2023). ChatGPT: the next frontier in academic writing for cardiologists or a pandora’s box of ethical dilemmas, European Heart Journal Open, 3(2), oead007, https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjopen/oead007
  25. Mundt, K., & Groves, M. (2016). A double-edged sword: the merits and the policy implications of Google Translate in higher education. European Journal of Higher Education, 6(4), 387-401. doi: 10.1080/21568235.2016.1172248
    |
  26. Nurmayanti, N., & Suryadi, S. (2023). The effectiveness of using QuillBot in improving writing for students of English education study program. Jurnal Teknologi Pendidikan: Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pembelajaran, 8(1), 32-40. https://doi.org/10.33394/jtp.v8i1.6392
  27. O’Brien, S., Simard, M., & Goulet, M.-J. (2018). Machine translation and self-post-editing for academic writing support: quality explorations. Translation Quality Assessment,1, 237–262. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-91241-7_11
  28. O’Neill, R., & Russell, A. (2019). Stop! Grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Grammarly. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1). doi: 10.14742/ajet.3795
  29. QuillBot (n.d.). QuillBot. https://QuillBot.com/
  30. Roscoe, R. D., Wilson, J., Johnson, A. C., & Mayra, C. R. (2017). Presentation, expectations, and experience: Sources of student perceptions of automated writing evaluation. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 207-221. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.076.
    |
  31. Sok, S. & Heng, K. (2023). ChatGPT for education and research: A review of benefits and risks. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4378735
  32. Tsai, S. C. (2019). Using google translate in EFL drafts: a preliminary investigation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(5-6), 510-526. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1527361
    |
  33. van Dis E.A., Bollen J., Zuidema W., van Rooij R., & Bockting C.L. (2023). ChatGPT: five priorities for research. Nature, 614(7947):224–226. doi: 10.1038/d41586-023-00288-7.
    |
  34. Walston, J., Redford, J., & Bhatt, M. P. (2017). Workshop on survey methods in education research: Facilitator’s guide and resources (REL 2017–214). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest. Retrieved November 15, 2023 from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/projects/project.asp?projectID=4544
  35. Wilson, J. (2016). Associated effects of automated essay evaluation software on growth in writing quality for students with and without disabilities. Reading and Writing, 30(4), 691-718. doi: 10.1007/s11145-016-9695-z
    |
  36. Wilson, J., & Andrada, G. N. (2016). Using automated feedback to improve writing quality: opportunities and challenges. In Rosen, Y., Ferrara, S., Mosharraf, M. (eds.), Handbook of Research on Technology Tools for Real-World Skill Development (pp. 678-703). IGI Global: US. doi: 10.4018/978-1-4666-9441-5
  37. Yousofi, R. (2022). Grammarly deployment (in)efficacy within EFL academic writing classrooms: an attitudinal report from Afghanistan. Cogent Education, 9(1), DOI: 10.1080/2331186X.2022.2142446
    |
  38. Zheng, H., & Zhan, H. (2023). ChatGPT in scientific writing: a cautionary tale. The American Journal of Medicine, 136(8), P725-726.E6. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2023.02.011
    |

Downloads

Published

2024-08-14

How to Cite

Kramar, N., Bedrych, Y. ., & Shelkovnikova, Z. (2024). UKRAINIAN PHD STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD AI LANGUAGE PROCESSING TOOLS IN THE CONTEXT OF ENGLISH FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES. Advanced Education, 12(24), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.305061

Issue

2024: Issue 24

Section

ARTICLES

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Natalie Kramar, Yaroslava Bedrych, Zinaida Shelkovnikova. Article cover was generated by Magic Media tool on Canva

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

    1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  1. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).