We find ourselves at a pivotal moment where the role of generative AI and other technological tools is reshaping the way we teach and learn languages. The question that lies before us is not whether these innovations will shape the future, but rather how we, as educators, will harness their potential to create meaningful and effective language instruction.
The title of our conference, No Fate: The Future is Not Set, underscores our belief that the future is not predetermined. We hope that our conference will serve both as a platform for collaboration and a catalyst for change as it is via the collective effort of educators, researchers, and innovators that the trajectory of language teaching and learning will be determined. By fostering collaboration, sharing insights, and pushing the boundaries of what is possible, we can shape the future of language education.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is poised to upend common understandings of writing processes. Students’ embrace of Generative AI tools like Chat GPT follows the less disruptive but more widespread adoption of Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) programs like Grammarly. Students use AWE tools mainly with "lower-level" writing skills (Link et al., 2022) but find Chat GPT capable of not only generating ideas but also recasting entire pieces by register and genre, improving their consistency (Imran & Almusharraf, 2023). In terms of assisting students to revise, how does feedback available through AI compare with feedback offered by writing instructors?
This presentation shares qualitative findings from undergraduate research into AI use at Wenzhou-Kean University, a Chinese American English-medium institution. It summarizes a range of student orientations to AI and then offers a detailed comparison between ELL students’ use of AWE tools and generative AI as sources of feedback on their writing. Chat GPT was found to be useful to provide advice concerning "higher-level" writing skills (Link et al., 2022). Chat GPT's feedback can complement teachers' feedback when does not meet student needs, perhaps due to cultural or linguistic barriers. Strategic questioning with accurate metalanguage, which was observed to be missing in some participants, was fundamental to receiving an ideal response.
The results show that, unlike AWE tools, ChatGPT concentrates on content, logic, and structure rather than grammar in students' writing; thus, although it cannot replace teachers' professional and individualized feedback, students find it helpful to combine both during the revision process.
References
Imran, M., & Almusharraf, N. (2023). Analyzing the role of ChatGPT as a writing assistant at higher education level: A systematic review of the literature. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(4), ep464. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13605
Link, S., Mehrzad, M., & Rahimi, M. (2022). Impact of automated writing evaluation on teacher feedback, student revision, and writing improvement. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(4), 605-634. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1743323
