Exploring Transactional Communication Processes in Student–ChatGPT Interactions: A Case Study of St. Paul University Manila Undergraduates’ Essay Writing on Pakikisama

This qualitative case study explored the transactional communication processes between undergraduate students and ChatGPT at St. Paul University Manila. Anchored in Transactional Communication Theory, the research shifts the focus from technical performance to meaning-centered interactions, viewing AI as an active communicative participant. The study utilized screen recordings of academic tasks, semi-structured interviews, and guided reflections to analyze how five female students interacted with ChatGPT version 5. The findings reveal that students encode learning intentions by seeking conceptual clarification, source validation, and writing assistance while preserving personal authorship. Participants interpreted AI-generated responses not as static data, but as simplified guides, cultural commentaries, and personalized feedback. Continuous feedback loops influenced subsequent messaging by encouraging deeper refinement and modeling structured analytical communication. To manage communication "noise" or ambiguity, students adjusted strategies by increasing prompt specificity, imposing instructional constraints, and contextualizing questions. Ultimately, the study indicated that student–AI interaction is an iterative meaning-making process that enhances writing confidence and research evaluation skills. The researchers argue that communication education must move beyond technical AI tool usage to develop critical communication literacy. This involves training students to strategically negotiate, evaluate, and critique AI-generated discourse to maintain intellectual agency and authentic rhetorical voice in an AI-mediated academic landscape.

Transactional Communication Theory, Generative AI, Prompt Engineering

1. Alam, A. (2023). ChatGPT for learning: A review of the state-of-the-art and future directions. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Barnlund, D. C. (1970/2025). A transactional model of communication. In C. D. Mortensen (Ed.), Communication theory (2nd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Barnlund, D. C. (2008). A transactional model of communication. In C. D. Mortensen (Ed.), Communication theory (2nd ed., pp. 47-57). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Clark, R. C., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2023). Efficiency in learning: Evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9(2), 119-161. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Gastineau, K. (2024). Prompt engineering as a new literacy: Enhancing critical thinking in the AI era. Journal of Digital Literacy, 12(2), 45-58. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Guzman, A. L., & Lewis, S. C. (2020). Artificial intelligence and communication: A Human–Machine Communication research agenda. New Media & Society, 22(1), 70-86. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Lee, J., & Koh, K. (2020). The role of AI in personalized learning: A review of the literature. Educational Technology Research and Development. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Lee, S., & Palmer, A. (2025). AI-driven lesson planning: Efficiency and personalization. Journal of Educational Technology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Littlejohn, S. W., Foss, K. A., & Oetzel, J. G. (2021). Theories of human communication (12th ed.). Waveland Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Liu, C., Meng, H., Zhu, H., & Rong, C. (2026). Does AI-assisted learning improve students’ learning outcomes? Evidence from a meta-analysis. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Marasigan, C. L. B., Angeles, S. J. D., Cabigan, P. C. R., & Tobias, K. B. C. (2026). Exploring transactional communication processes in student–AI chatbot interactions: A case study of St. Paul University Manila undergraduates [Unpublished bachelor's thesis]. St. Paul University Manila. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Park, S., & Choo, H. (2024). The art of the prompt: Strategies for prompt engineering in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Walter, Y. (2024). The shift toward AI-mediated education: Personalized learning pathways. Journal of Education and Learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Zhai, X., Chu, X., Chai, C. S., Jong, M. S. Y., Istenic, A., Spector, M., Liu, J. B., Yuan, J., & Li, Y. (2024). ChatGPT for education: Opportunities and challenges. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study