View in EDS PDF Full Text

Student vs. ChatGPT in Rogerian Argument: A Reader-Based Evaluation of Rogerian Tone.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Student vs. ChatGPT in Rogerian Argument: A Reader-Based Evaluation of Rogerian Tone.
Authors: Fredrick, Daniel R.1 dfredrick@aus.edu, Sulaiman, Thuraya1 g00099709@aus.edu, Abouelasaad, Shaymaa1 sabouelasaad@aus.edu, Alrudaini, Aden1 g00106140@aus.edu
Source: Journal of Language Teaching & Research. Jul2026, Vol. 17 Issue 4, p1516-1526. 11p.
Subject Terms: *Empathy, *Content analysis, *Teaching methods, *Evaluation methodology, Argument, Essays, ChatGPT
Abstract: Building on a prior DICTION 7.2 analysis of Optimism, Commonality, and related subfeatures, this study reports blind reader evaluations of 36 anonymized essays (24 student; 12 ChatGPT-4) responding to identical prompts. Three trained graduate reviewers rated each essay on a five-item Rogerian rubric (Fair Summary, Legitimate Concession, Clarity of the Writer's View, Effort to Find Common Ground, Respectful, Dialogue-Oriented Tone). Quantitatively, ChatGPT-4 scored higher on four of the five rubric features (all except Tone) and on total score, with the largest gaps in Concession and Clarity; student essays showed wider variance. Qualitatively, reviewers praised student work for authentic voice and context-specific concessions, and described AI essays as consistently balanced and respectful but sometimes emotionally distant or "procedurally polite." We frame these as synthetic empathy (AI: steady tone and balance) versus dynamic empathy (students: situated, lived-context engagement). Pedagogically, ChatGPT-4 can model fair summary and tone, while students supply audience-aware concessions and real-world specificity. Findings suggest that Rogerian success is conferred by readers: empathy is as an ethical perception readers make about a writer's presence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Journal of Language Teaching & Research is the property of Academy Publication Co., LTD and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Education Research Complete
Description
Abstract:Building on a prior DICTION 7.2 analysis of Optimism, Commonality, and related subfeatures, this study reports blind reader evaluations of 36 anonymized essays (24 student; 12 ChatGPT-4) responding to identical prompts. Three trained graduate reviewers rated each essay on a five-item Rogerian rubric (Fair Summary, Legitimate Concession, Clarity of the Writer's View, Effort to Find Common Ground, Respectful, Dialogue-Oriented Tone). Quantitatively, ChatGPT-4 scored higher on four of the five rubric features (all except Tone) and on total score, with the largest gaps in Concession and Clarity; student essays showed wider variance. Qualitatively, reviewers praised student work for authentic voice and context-specific concessions, and described AI essays as consistently balanced and respectful but sometimes emotionally distant or "procedurally polite." We frame these as synthetic empathy (AI: steady tone and balance) versus dynamic empathy (students: situated, lived-context engagement). Pedagogically, ChatGPT-4 can model fair summary and tone, while students supply audience-aware concessions and real-world specificity. Findings suggest that Rogerian success is conferred by readers: empathy is as an ethical perception readers make about a writer's presence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:17984769
DOI:10.17507/jltr.1704.35