University Students’ Perceptions on ChatGPT Usage in English Learning

This study explores undergraduate university students’ perceptions of generative technologies, such as ChatGPT, in higher education, focusing on their familiarity, willingness to engage, potential benefits and challenges, and effective integration. A survey of 107 undergraduate students from various courses examined their attitudes toward using ChatGPT to learn English. The study focuses on accuracy, privacy, ethical issues, and the impact on personal development. The online questionnaire data were analysed using descriptive statistics in SPSS, reliability testing, mean score analysis, and one-sample t-tests. The results revealed that students generally hold positive perceptions of ChatGPT, acknowledging its effectiveness in improving writing skills, grammar understanding, and vocabulary acquisition. Students viewed ChatGPT as a motivating confidence building tool that complements, rather than replaces, traditional English learning methods. Attitudinal findings showed that students perceive ChatGPT as reliable and useful for academic tasks while maintaining awareness of academic integrity and ethical considerations. They rejected the idea that AI-generated work would pass undetected by lecturers and acknowledged that using ChatGPT for submitted coursework amounts to academic malpractice. Overall, the study concludes that students are optimistic about the future integration of ChatGPT in education, provided it is used responsibly and ethically

ChatGPT, Artificial Intelligence (AI), AI-generated content

1. Andrew, S. N., Santamaria, P. V., & Javens, J. S. & Ricaute M. (2025). Students' perceptions of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) use in academic writing in English as a Foreign Language. Education Sciences. Volume 15. Issue 5. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/15/5/611 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Albayati, H., Kim, S. K., & Rho, J. J. (2021). A study on the use of cryptocurrency wallets from user experience perspective. Human Behaviour and Emerging Technologies. Volume 3, Issue 5/ pp. 720-738 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/hbe2.313 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Abdaljaleel, M., Barakat, M., Alsanafi, M. & Salim, N., (2023). Factors influencing attitudes of university students towards ChatGPT and its Usage: A multi-national study validating the TAME-ChatGPT survey instrument. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs3400248/v1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Baidoo-Anu, D., & Owusu Ansah, L. (2023). Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. SSRN Electronic Journal, 7(1), 52–62. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4337484 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bitzenbauer, P. (2023). ChatGPT in physics education: A pilot study on easy-toimplement activities. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(3), ep430. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369947849_ChatGPT_in_physics_education_A_pilot_study_on_easy-to-implement_activities [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Doty, K., & Lipien, L. (2024). Student perceptions and attitudes about the usage of ChatGPT in Online K-12 education and student preferences about learning to use artificial Intelligence from teachers. American Journal of Educational Research, Vol 12, No.9,348-355. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384053081_Student_Perceptions_and_Attitudes_About_the_Usage_of_Chatgpt_in_Online_K12_Education_and_Student_Preferences_About_Learning_to_Use_Artificial_Intelligence_from_Teachers#pf8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Dwivedi, Y. K., et al. (2023). So what if ChatGPT wrote it? Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268401223000233 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Elkhodr, M., Gide, E., Wu, R., & Darwish, O. (2023). ICT students’ perceptions towards ChatGPT: An experimental reflective lab analysis. STEM Education, 3(2), 70–88. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371673219_ICT_students'_perceptions_towards_ChatGPT_An_experimental_reflective_lab_analysis [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Fitria, T. (2021). Grammarly as AI-powered English writing assistant: Students’ alternative for writing English. Metathesis: Journal of English Language, Literature and Teaching, 5(1), 65-78. https://doi.org/10.31002/metathesis.v5i1.3519 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Kasneci, E., et al. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Person Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Mollick, E. R., & Mollick, L. (2022). New modes of learning enabled by AI chatbots. Three methods and assignments. Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania & Wharton Interactive. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/hbe2.313 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Nelson, A. S., Santamaria, P. V., Javens, J. S. & Ricaurte, M., (2025). Student's perceptions of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) use in academic writing in english as a foreign language. Education Sciences 15, 611. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/15/5/611 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(5), 625–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Selwyn, N. (2019). Should robots replace teachers?: AI and the future of education. Polite Press. ISBN-12: 978-1-5095-2898-1. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Taber, K. S. (2018). The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Takona, J. P. (2024). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches / sixth edition. Quality & Quantity, 58(1), 1011–1013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-023-01798-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Xiao, Y., & Zhi, Y. (2023). An exploratory study of EFL learners’ use of ChatGPT for language learning tasks: Experience and perceptions. Languages, 8(3), 212. https://www.mdpi.com/2226-471X/8/3/21 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Yilmaz, H., Maxutov, S., Baitekov, A., & Balta, N. (2023). Student Attitudes towards ChatGPT: A Technology Acceptance Model Survey. International Educational Review, 1(1), 57–83. https://doi.org/10.58693/ier.114 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Revolutionizing Library Services in Nairobi: Ethical Implications and Future Trends in User Interaction
• ESPYREAL: A Mobile Based Multi-Currency Identifier for Visually Impaired Individuals Using Convolutional Neural Network
• Comparative Analysis of AI-Driven IoT-Based Smart Agriculture Platforms with Blockchain-Enabled Marketplaces
• AI-Based Dish Recommender System for Reducing Fruit Waste through Spoilage Detection and Ripeness Assessment
• SEA-TALK: An AI-Powered Voice Translator and Southeast Asian Dialects Recognition