View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Examining the Use of ChatGPT in Argumentative Writing: A Mixed Methods Study

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Examining the Use of ChatGPT in Argumentative Writing: A Mixed Methods Study
Language: English
Authors: Nagaletchimee Annamalai (ORCID 0000-0002-8600-5624), Arulselvi Uthayakumaran, Brandford Bervell, Ramesh Kumar
Source: Journal of Advanced Academics. 2025 36(3):521-550.
Availability: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 30
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Artificial Intelligence, Persuasive Discourse, Writing (Composition), Technology Uses in Education, Student Attitudes, Expectation, Social Influences, Self Efficacy, Habit Formation, Writing Skills, Program Effectiveness, Essays, Foreign Countries, College Students
Geographic Terms: Malaysia
DOI: 10.1177/1932202X251333859
ISSN: 1932-202X
2162-9536
Abstract: The study explored the adoption of ChatGPT in argumentative writing among students using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology model as a framework. A mixed methods study was employed, and data were collected from surveys, interviews and document analysis (essays). The study revealed that participants' acceptance of ChatGPT is linked to performance expectancy, effort expectancy, facilitation conditions, social influence, self-efficacy, and habit. However, establishing habitual use is still in its initial phases, and social influences are not the primary drivers behind students' adoption of the tool. Participants reported improved organization, expanded vocabulary, and valuable writing prompts, enhancing their learning experience in argumentative writing. Participants intended to continue using ChatGPT for essay writing, acknowledging its significant contribution to argumentative writing.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1477043
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHRaswBNrOWfVvkXF7Z0YmXAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDP-IrPlJesz0gS1JUAIBEICBmwUzdUWB3croSpvAf3pCH5IUt1R95B9xap-QbJ0o_Odj7GjbWigNtbeOJpGhUMCVP0zN4fhJzSuoDIrmKiHYWJtUWUPDT9z33Vd2axx4SkkHYngz9fS6ICNr3hQWLqFv33LL3yRQ8GZosNXYEdJDig1n_s6yx8Tg7d4xqRjw85fKxvUYryMXFFXkvVeO0JXwUryaPxD1VINYc-sh
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0186620144;[261p]01aug.25;2025Jul16.01:32;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186620144-1">Examining the use of ChatGPT in Argumentative Writing: A Mixed Methods Study </title> <p>The study explored the adoption of ChatGPT in argumentative writing among students using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology model as a framework. A mixed methods study was employed, and data were collected from surveys, interviews and document analysis (essays). The study revealed that participants' acceptance of ChatGPT is linked to performance expectancy, effort expectancy, facilitation conditions, social influence, self-efficacy, and habit. However, establishing habitual use is still in its initial phases, and social influences are not the primary drivers behind students' adoption of the tool. Participants reported improved organization, expanded vocabulary, and valuable writing prompts, enhancing their learning experience in argumentative writing. Participants intended to continue using ChatGPT for essay writing, acknowledging its significant contribution to argumentative writing.</p> <p>Keywords: ChatGPT; argumentative writing; UTAUT model; language learning; mixed methods</p> <hd id="AN0186620144-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The ability to compose an effective argumentative essay is an essential skill for learners in higher education; however, it continues to be a challenging and complex learning endeavor ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref1">17</reflink>]). Moreover, ChatGPT can serve as a valuable tool for gifted or advanced learners by providing quality feedback on their argumentative writing. These learners, who often seek more intellectually stimulating can leverage AI-generated feedback to refine their arguments, enhance their critical thinking, and develop deeper analytical reasoning. By providing suggestions and alternative perspectives, ChatGPT fosters a more dynamic and autonomous learning experience, aligning with the needs of high-achieving students in higher education.</p> <p>Research suggests that a significant number of students either lack the necessary knowledge to effectively employ argumentation or struggle to do so in their essays ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref2">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref3">22</reflink>]). This implies that the process of writing high-quality essays is complex, and educators frequently express their dissatisfaction with the argumentation skills of their students. Recent research has demonstrated that peer feedback strategies are an effective method for improving the argumentative essay writing skills of students in higher education ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref4">21</reflink>]). Nevertheless, peer feedback is frequently perceived as a sophisticated learning process that necessitates advanced cognitive abilities despite its advantages. This complexity is especially apparent when students perceive the quality of peer feedback as inadequate ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref5">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>Given these challenges and the inadequate quality of students' argumentative essays, there is a pressing need for additional assistance in guiding students in composing high-quality essays that demonstrate structured argumentation, sound reasoning, and adherence to fundamental qualities. This includes developing pedagogical strategies that equip students with the tools to construct stronger, evidence-based arguments and improve their overall proficiency in argumentative writing ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref6">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>As outlined above, the challenges in argumentative writing could be solved through the assistance of ChatGPT. The launch of ChatGPT by OpenAI in November 2022 has sparked debates about using AI chatbots in educational settings. ChatGPT, which operates as a generative AI chatbot powered by a substantial language model (LLM) trained on vast amounts of data from the Internet text, is expected to surpass the limitations of previous chatbot technologies, potentially have a positive impact on the learners' experiences ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref7">16</reflink>]). ChatGPT can offer real-time assistance in the structuring of arguments, including the provision of thesis statements, counterarguments, and evidence, thereby ensuring that students adhere to logical reasoning patterns. It simplifies the intricacy of argumentative writing by breaking it down into manageable steps.</p> <p>Recently, there has been growing research attention on ChatGPT and the tasks that can be performed with its assistance. For example, it has been used for generating research ideas ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref8">9</reflink>]), enhancing writing abilities ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref9">6</reflink>]), crafting Boolean queries for systematic reviews ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref10">40</reflink>]), and assisting in the composition of research papers ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref11">27</reflink>]). Meanwhile, the limitations of studies on ChatGPT have also been brought to attention, including concerns about academic integrity ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref12">16</reflink>]) and potential risks of bias and discrimination ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref13">35</reflink>]). These concerns and apprehensions underscore the need to critically evaluate ChatGPT's implementation in educational settings. However, it is important to recognize that research on ChatGPT in education is still in its infancy, with limited empirical studies examining the effectiveness of learning designs incorporating ChatGPT ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref14">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref15">41</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref16">42</reflink>] have pointed out that despite the growing popularity and widespread use of ChatGPT in writing assistance, adequate research is still needed on its application in second-language writing classrooms. In this context, exploring theoretical frameworks that can help understand and predict the adoption and effective use of ChatGPT in educational settings becomes essential.</p> <p>The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) is a valuable theoretical framework for studying the adoption of ChatGPT in argumentative writing. By examining constructs such as performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, habit, and self-efficacy, this model provides a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing the relationship between argumentative writing and ChatGPT and the impact of these variables on students' acceptance and sustained use of ChatGPT for argumentative writing.</p> <p>The insights derived from applying the UTAUT model can guide educators, curriculum developers, and policymakers in optimizing the integration of ChatGPT into educational practices.</p> <hd id="AN0186620144-3">Literature Review</hd> <p>The UTAUT is a conceptual framework designed to facilitate the acceptance and utilization of emerging information technologies. It incorporates well-established theories such as the Theory of Reasoned Action and the Technology Acceptance Model. The utilization of the UTAUT model within the framework of an investigation into the incorporation of ChatGPT for argumentative writing instructions entails examining how the following constructs influence students' adoption and implantation of technology. UTAUT identifies four fundamental constructs influencing users' acceptance and utilization of technology.</p> <hd id="AN0186620144-4">Performance Expectancy</hd> <p>Performance Expectancy refers to how users believe that employing a specific technology will enhance their performance or improve job-related tasks. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref17">38</reflink>]). If students can readily comprehend the functionality of a particular tool's system and grasp its potential, there is a high likelihood that they will employ it in their learning endeavors ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref18">26</reflink>]). In this study, it refers to students' expectations regarding the influence of ChatGPT on their performance in argumentative writing. This entails examining their experience of potential enhancements in essay quality, logical reasoning, and communication effectiveness facilitated by ChatGPT. For high-performing students, ChatGPT can be leveraged to refine critical thinking and analytical writing skills, particularly in advanced courses. By engaging with AI-generated content, students can critically evaluate arguments, detect biases, and construct more sophisticated counterarguments.</p> <hd id="AN0186620144-5">Effort Expectancy</hd> <p>The perceived ease of using a technology is gauging users' perceptions of its simplicity or complexity ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref19">38</reflink>]). This study investigated students' experience of the ease of incorporating ChatGPT into their argumentative writing process. This includes evaluating their views on the simplicity of interacting with ChatGPT and its ability to streamline the argumentative writing process essay. For gifted students who need greater autonomy in writing skills, ChatGPT provides differentiation strategies by offering AI-assisted research and feedback loops. Also, high-performing students can utilize AI-generated suggestions to refine their writing structures, improve coherence, and enhance their academic tone. By experimenting with ChatGPT's advanced writing prompts, they can push beyond basic writing proficiency, engaging in self-directed learning that fosters deeper analytical skills.</p> <hd id="AN0186620144-6">Social Influence</hd> <p>The impact of social elements, encompassing the influence of peers, family, and colleagues, is on an individual's choice to adopt a particular technology. Examine the role of social factors in students' decision to adopt ChatGPT for argumentative writing. This involves exploring the influence of educators, peers, or other influential figures in the academic community who support or encourage the use of ChatGPT. Research has shown that social influence substantially shapes behavioral intentions ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref20">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref21">38</reflink>]). For advanced learners, social influence can also manifest in collaborative learning environments where AI is used to facilitate peer reviews and structured academic discussions.</p> <hd id="AN0186620144-7">Facilitating Conditions</hd> <p>The degree to which users perceive the presence of essential infrastructure and support systems to use the technology effectively. Assess students' beliefs about the availability of necessary infrastructure and support systems for effectively using ChatGPT in their argumentative writing tasks ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref22">38</reflink>]). Considerations may encompass technological support, training, and access to resources. Providing access to AI-powered writing platforms with iterative feedback mechanisms can enable gifted students to refine their work through continuous self-improvement. Two additional constructs were added to the model. They are habit and self-efficacy.</p> <hd id="AN0186620144-8">Habit</hd> <p>Habit is the degree to which individuals automatically engage in behaviors, such as using information systems, due to learned patterns ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref23">24</reflink>]). According to [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref24">25</reflink>], habit plays a significant moderating role, influencing 20% of the variance in system use and 50% in the intention to use a Learning Management System. The integration of habit into the UTAUT model recognizes that repetitive and automatic engagements with technology can shape acceptance and usage patterns. Users who consistently use ChatGPT for argumentative writing may develop a sense of familiarity and ease, impacting their sustained use. Habitual use can contribute to the enduring acceptance and assimilation of the technology into users' routines.</p> <p>For high-achieving students, the habit of using ChatGPT was developed strategically rather than passively relying on it. Furthermore, it can lead to more effective learning outcomes. Encouraging students to engage with ChatGPT for brainstorming complex ideas, refining thesis statements, and structuring intricate arguments ensures that AI serves as a cognitive enhancer rather than a substitute for independent thinking.</p> <hd id="AN0186620144-9">Self-Efficacy</hd> <p>Self-efficacy is essential in online learning ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref25">33</reflink>]). In the context of mobile learning, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref26">2</reflink>] defined self-efficacy as rooted in the principles of social cognitive theory. Individuals with strong self-efficacy are inclined to view ChatGPT as a user-friendly tool for argumentative writing. Including self-efficacy within the UTAUT model enables a more detailed comprehension of how users' confidence shapes their perspectives on the system's usability<bold>.</bold></p> <p>In conclusion, these constructs augment the UTAUT model by capturing additional dimensions of user behavior and behavior that extend beyond the conventional focus on performance, effort, social influence and facilitating conditions. Incorporating habit acknowledges the impact of repetitive interactions, and self-efficacy reflects users' confidence in their capabilities. This comprehensive approach ensures a more nuanced understanding of user acceptance and usage patterns, particularly in contexts where technology use involves creative and subjective tasks, such as argumentative writing with ChatGPT. For students in advanced academic settings, high self-efficacy in using AI tools can promote self-directed learning. ChatGPT can be employed as a personalized writing mentor, guiding students through complex analytical writing tasks.</p> <p>This literature review explores the Behavioral Intention to Use (BIU) ChatGPT under the UTAUT framework. The core of this model centers on the idea of BIU. This crucial element shapes users' choices to embrace and incorporate technology into their daily routines. Given that the adoption process had already occurred, we found using the original outcome construct, "intention to use," from the UTAUT model in the current study context was inappropriate. Instead, we deemed it more fitting to explore users' inclination to persist in using the technology. Consequently, we substituted the construct "intention to use" with "Intention to continue use" (ICU) as defined by [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref27">12</reflink>].</p> <hd id="AN0186620144-10">Previous Studies Related to ChatGPT</hd> <p>The emergence of ChatGPT has introduced novel approaches to human–computer interaction, especially in language generation and educational support. Several studies have explored its application and demonstrated its potential benefits while identifying certain concerns. For example, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref28">42</reflink>] found that ChatGPT aids in L2 writing by supporting the writing process at various stages, but they also raised concerns about potential learning loss and challenges in maintaining an authorial voice. Similarly, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref29">1</reflink>] showed that Japanese learners of English preferred using ChatGPT-3.5 for editing and proofreading due to the effective feedback it provides, which enhances clarity and cohesion.</p> <p>Other research has focused on factors influencing students' intentions to use ChatGPT. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref30">28</reflink>] discovered that while user-friendliness significantly drives adoption, perceived usefulness impacts adoption indirectly through personalization and interactivity. This highlights the complexity of student engagement with ChatGPT. Furthermore, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref31">14</reflink>] discussed the complementary roles of ChatGPT and teachers, positioning ChatGPT as a versatile tool in educational contexts. Labadze et al. (2023) emphasized its broader advantages in enhancing personalized learning experiences and pedagogical efficiency.</p> <p>Despite these findings, there remains a research gap regarding the specific application of ChatGPT in developing argumentative writing skills. While [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref32">5</reflink>] addressed this to some extent by comparing ChatGPT's feedback with peer feedback on students' argumentative essays, the study was primarily focused on feedback quality rather than the broader impact of ChatGPT on the development of argumentative writing skills over time. This gap underscores the need for further research on how ChatGPT can be utilized not just as a feedback tool but as an integrated part of the argumentative writing process, particularly in educational settings where the investigation of performance, effort, facilitating condition, social influence, self-efficacy, and habit is crucial. There is a clear need to investigate how ChatGPT can support the argumentative writing process. This would provide deeper insights into how such AI tools can enhance students' argumentative skills. Therefore, the research questions for this study are as follows:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What are the factors that influence the use of ChatGPT by students in argumentative writing?</item> <p></p> <item> How does the use of ChatGPT enhance different aspects of argumentative writing?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0186620144-11">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186620144-12">Research Design</hd> <p>This research employed a mixed methods approach, encompassing the collection and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data. This methodology allows for a thorough and detailed comprehension of the practical situation under investigation ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref33">8</reflink>]). Specifically, an explanatory mixed-method design was utilized when there was a need to interpret quantitative data with qualitative insights ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref34">8</reflink>]). The initial phase of the study focused on gathering descriptive quantitative data without hypotheses and testing, aiming to establish a broad understanding of students' experiences related to Chat GPT in argumentative writing.</p> <hd id="AN0186620144-13">Participants</hd> <p>Convenience sampling was chosen due to the accessibility and willingness of participants, making it a practical approach for gathering data within a limited timeframe. Participants were familiar with ChatGPT 3.5 and the experience of using ChatGPT for academic purposes outside the classroom. However, they have not used ChatGPT for English language learning, particularly argumentative essays. They were selected based on their course enrollment and consent to participate. However, they had yet to use ChatGPT specifically for English language learning, particularly in the context of writing argumentative essays. A total of 120 participants were invited, but only 78 took part. They were between the ages of 22 and 30 and were enrolled in a General English language course at the School of Engineering in a Malaysian public university. The gender distribution included 43 female participants (55%) and 35 male participants (45%), all in their third year of study. A total of 20 participants were interviewed. The nature of the study was explained to the students, and they were assured that their confidentiality and anonymity would be protected. Pseudonyms were used to maintain participants' anonymity. P1, P2, and P3 are pseudonyms given to the students.</p> <p>Additionally, participants were informed that they could withdraw from the research at any time without any obligation to continue. The study did not test the demographic variables as the study employed descriptive statistics that focused on a phenomenon being investigated and not on specific relationships of hypotheses. Demographic factors may not be the focus of such investigations, resulting in their exclusion from testing.</p> <p>Data were collected over 6 weeks through online surveys and in-depth interviews, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of their experiences. The study took place in a traditional classroom teaching during the second semester of the 2023 academic year. The nature of the study was explained.</p> <hd id="AN0186620144-14">Ethical Consideration</hd> <p>Before the study began, participants were thoroughly informed about the study's objectives. They were provided with a consent form detailing the purpose of the study and the potential benefits of their participation. The form also clearly stated that there were no risks involved in their participation. The study took careful steps to prevent any risks that might cause discomfort, embarrassment, or harm to the participants' emotional well-being. Prior to the interviews, participants were briefed on the confidentiality of the discussions and reassured that their teaching and learning activities would not be subject to judgment.</p> <hd id="AN0186620144-15">Data Collection</hd> <p>The study comprised three phases. In the first phase, a survey was administered to 78 students to collect quantitative data on using Chat GPT in argumentative writing. The questionnaire comprised two sections with a total of 28 items. The initial section (four items) gathered demographic details, encompassing gender, age, and the frequency of ChatGPT usage in daily life and for educational purposes. The second section centered on the UTAUT model. Participants rated each item on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The questionnaire was administered to participants through a Google Form, ensuring easy accessibility and wide reach. Statistical analysis was carried out using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 27.0. Questionnaire reliability, assessed via Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency, yielded the following scores for items related: performance effort, 0.90; effort expectancy, 0.80; facilitating condition, social influence, 0.85; 0.80; habit, 0.75; self-efficacy, 0.85 and ICU, 0.90<bold>.</bold> Content validity was established through expert review, where two professors from the field of education and technology validated the survey questions.</p> <p>In the second phase, semi-structured interviews were conducted with a subset of survey participants expressing interest. Following questionnaire analysis, an email was sent to participants inquiring about their interest in interviews to gain a deeper understanding of the use of ChatGPT in argumentative writing. Thirty students expressed interest, but 20 were selected based on data saturation. Each interview lasted about 40 to 80 min per participant. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Follow-up questions were asked when further clarification was needed, specifically focusing on "How?" and "Why?"</p> <p>The decision to employ manual coding over automated software, such as ATLAS.ti or NVivo, was deliberate. Although software tools are effective in administering large datasets, manual coding was more appropriate for the phenomenological nature of our study, which necessitates the researcher's extensive interaction with the text to interpret its meaning. This method guaranteed a more profound contextual comprehension and conformity with the qualitative methodology of the investigation.</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref35">7</reflink>] six-step thematic analysis guided the categorization of emerging themes for the interview. The steps involved familiarizing oneself with the data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing the themes, defining and naming the themes, and finally, producing reports.</p> <p>The process involved several steps. Initially, the first author extensively read the transcripts in coding notes to familiarize them with the dataset. Subsequently, the author manually generated initial codes by carefully examining the line-by-line transcripts. All codes were then compiled, and those with similar concepts were grouped into categories. This phase shifted the focus from individual codes to broader themes, involving the organization of different codes into potential themes and collating relevant coded data extracts within these identified themes. Two coders were trained to code the interview data, and a tiebreaker was employed to solve disagreements between coders. Deductive analysis was employed to categorize themes based on performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, habit, self-efficacy and ICU.</p> <p>The third phase was document analysis, which involved analyzing the initial and final essay scores using a university-validated rubric, as illustrated in the Appendix. The final phase includes analyzing the argument essay writing (document analysis). The essays were evaluated by two experienced teachers who specialize in teaching English language courses, and a tiebreaker was employed to solve disagreements between raters. The scores were assigned based on the university's established rubric for creative writing, which a panel of expert teachers has validated. Figure 1 illustrates the data collection process. The quantitative findings were triangulated with the qualitative data from the interview to further enhance the findings, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon investigated.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Data collection process.</p> <hd id="AN0186620144-16">Trustworthiness</hd> <p>In this study, member checking was involved asking participants to review the interview transcriptions and provide feedback on their accuracy. Any misinterpretations identified by participants resulted in removing the relevant ideas or sentences ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref36">29</reflink>]). Independent coders were trained and coded the interview data individually, and the consistency ratio was calculated to assess inter-rater reliability. Following the method recommended by [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref37">30</reflink>], inter-rater reliability was determined using a raw percentage. Miles and Huberman suggest that there should be at least 70% agreement among coders to ensure the validity of the findings. In this study, the calculated agreement was 85%. Audit trails were considered essential in maintaining inter-rater reliability, as they implemented a transparent record of coding decisions, revisions, and the underlying rationale.</p> <p>Furthermore, the interview schedule was pretested to improve the quality of the interview questions. The validity and appropriateness of the questions were confirmed by testing them with other educators who were not part of this study. Transferability was established by providing detailed descriptions of the participants and settings. A systematic explanation of the data collection tools, and research procedures was also provided ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref38">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 1 illustrates the research procedure in which students begin by writing an initial task related to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Week 1. This is followed by an intervention from Week 2 to Week 5. After the intervention, students are required to complete a final task. The learning outcomes and instructions for this process are detailed in Table 1.</p> <p>Table 1. Research Procedure.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Week 1 (Initial Task)</td><td>Students are asked to write an SDG that appeals to them the most.</td></tr><tr><td>Week 2 (Intervention)</td><td><bold>Learning Outcome:</bold> Identifying main ideas and supporting details <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Students were taught commands on ChatGPT.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Students identified keywords, e.g., <bold>argumentative essay, zero hunger (SDG topic), undergraduate engineering topic.</bold></p></list-item><list-item><p>Students were asked to string a command to be included in ChatGPT: e.g., Create/Write/Generate an argumentative essay based on the SDG theme, zero hunger, writing like an undergraduate engineering student.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Once the essay was generated, students were asked to identify the main ideas and supporting ideas in the essay generated in ChatGPT.</p></list-item></list><bold>Teacher's Role:</bold><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Scaffolded students on the structure of an argumentative essay.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Taught identifying keywords to be included as commands from ChatGPT.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Week 3 (Intervention)</td><td><bold>Learning Outcome:</bold> Vocabulary <bold>(</bold>CEFR B1 high-C2) <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Students were taught commands on CHATGPT.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Students identified keywords, e.g., <bold>argumentative essay, decent work and economic growth (SDG topic), undergraduate engineering topic.</bold></p></list-item><list-item><p>Students were asked to string a command to be included in ChatGPT: e.g., Create/Write/Generate an argumentative essay based on the SDG theme, <bold>decent work, and economic growth</bold>; writing like an undergraduate engineering student.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Once the essay was generated, students were asked to identify the vocabulary used (CEFR B1 high-C2) in the essay generated from ChatGPT.</p></list-item></list><bold>Teacher's Role:</bold><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Scaffolded students on the structure of an argumentative essay.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Taught identifying vocabulary used (CEFR B1 high-C2) by using CEFR <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://www.englishprofile.org/wordlists/evpfrom" /> ChatGPT.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Taught identifying keywords to be included as commands from ChatGPT.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Week 4 (Intervention)</td><td><bold>Learning Outcome:</bold> Sentence structure <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Students were taught commands on ChatGPT.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Students identified keywords, e.g., <bold>argumentative essay, clean water, and sanitation</bold>. <bold>(SDG topic), undergraduate engineering topic.</bold></p></list-item><list-item><p>Students were asked to string a command to be included in ChatGPT: e.g., Create/Write/Generate an argumentative essay based on the SDG theme, <bold>clean water and sanitation</bold>, writing like an undergraduate engineering student.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Once the essay was generated, students were asked to identify <bold>simple, compound and complex sentences</bold> in the essay generated from ChatGPT.</p></list-item></list><bold>Teacher's Role:</bold><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Scaffolded students on the structure of an argumentative essay.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Taught identifying sentence structure from the essay generated from ChatGPT (simple, compound and complex sentences).</p></list-item><list-item><p>Taught identifying keywords to be included as commands from ChatGPT.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Week 5 (Intervention)</td><td><bold>Learning Outcome:</bold> Writing a counterargument <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Students were taught commands on ChatGPT.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Students identified keywords, e.g., <bold>argumentative essay, climate change (SDG topic), undergraduate engineering topic.</bold></p></list-item><list-item><p>Students were asked to string a command to be included in ChatGPT: e.g., Create/Write/Generate an argumentative essay based on the SDG theme, climate change, and writing like an undergraduate engineering student.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Once the essay was generated, students were asked to <bold>analyze and counter</bold> analyze the counterargument generated in ChatGPT.</p></list-item></list><bold>Teacher's Role:</bold><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Scaffolded students on the structure of an argumentative essay.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Taught different writing structures on counterargument.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Week 6 (Final task)</td><td>Students are asked to write the final task based on the SDGs that appeal to them the most.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 SDG—Sustainable Development Goals.</p> <hd id="AN0186620144-17">Research Procedure</hd> <p>The study's 6-week intervention is aimed at improving students' academic writing skills, focusing on SDGs such as Zero Hunger, Decent Work and Economic Growth, Clean Water, and Climate Action. ChatGPT is used as a learning tool to help students achieve specific outcomes, including identifying main ideas and supporting details, acquiring vocabulary, understanding sentence structures, and crafting counterarguments. The teacher plays a key role in guiding, scaffolding, and teaching the necessary skills for each outcome, ensuring students can effectively incorporate ChatGPT into their writing processes. The teacher's involvement is essential for instructing students on using ChatGPT and helping them apply these tools to improve their writing. Each week of the intervention builds on the previous one, gradually enhancing the students' ability to produce well-argued, coherent, and technically proficient essays on SDG-related topics. Students completed initial and final tasks, both scored, to assess the improvement in their argumentative writing skills facilitated by ChatGPT. Table 1 illustrates the research procedure for 6 weeks.</p> <hd id="AN0186620144-18">Data Analysis</hd> <p>The findings from the survey demonstrate that students generally perceive ChatGPT as highly beneficial for argumentative writing. The mean scores for items related to Performance Expectancy are quite high, ranging from 4.2 to 4.9, indicating a strong agreement that ChatGPT is useful, helps them achieve course-related tasks more quickly, and enhances their learning. In this construct, the item that received the highest rating is "Using ChatGPT increases my learning in argumentative writing," with a mean score of 4.9. This indicates that students place a high value on the tool's ability to improve their academic performance and offer valuable learning support and the lowest mean score of 4.2 for the item "My interaction with ChatGPT is clear and understandable for argumentative writing essays<emph>.</emph>" This is probably because students might have experienced challenges or inconsistencies in their interactions with ChatGPT.</p> <p>For the construct related to effort expectancy, the students find ChatGPT relatively easy to use, with mean scores between 4.2 and 4.4. The highest agreement, as illustrated in Table 1, is related to the item "ChatGPT is easy to use for argumentative writing." However, there is a slightly lower agreement on the item related to "easy for me to become skilful at using ChatGPT for argumentative writing," with a score of 4.2, which might indicate some challenges in mastering the technical aspects of using ChatGPT effectively.</p> <p>For constructs related to social influence, the influence of peers and valued opinions on using ChatGPT for argumentative writing appears moderate, with mean scores hovering around 3.89–4.05. This suggests that while students recognize some social pressure to use ChatGPT, it may not be the primary driver of their behavior. Students feel well-supported in using ChatGPT for facilitating conditions, with mean scores ranging from 3.98 to 4.37. A significant majority agree that they have the resources necessary for participation and can get help when needed. The slightly lower score for the enjoyment of using ChatGPT compared to traditional classrooms (mean of 3.98) may reflect mixed feelings about the shift to AI-based tools in education.</p> <p>The habit-related items have the lowest mean scores, between 3.41 and 3.70. This suggests that while some students are beginning to integrate ChatGPT into their regular practices, it has not yet become a strong habit for the majority. For instance, the item "Using ChatGPT becomes addictive for argumentative writing" received a score of 3.41, suggesting that a small number of students rely on ChatGPT extensively. The item "Using ChatGPT has become natural to me" has a slightly higher mean of 3.70, which indicates a gradual transition towards habitual utilization. The concept of addiction, with a mean of 3.41, indicates that a minority of students feel compelled to use ChatGPT extensively, though this is not a widespread concern. Students display confidence in using ChatGPT independently, with mean scores around 4.0.</p> <p>As for the construct related to self-efficacy, participants' confidence persists even when relying solely on online instructions or without direct assistance, with a mean score of 4.7, a positive indicator of their self-sufficiency in leveraging AI tools for academic tasks.</p> <p>Finally, the students' intentions to continue using ChatGPT are relatively strong, with mean scores between 3.83 and 4.0. The data shows that many students plan to use ChatGPT frequently in the future, reflecting a generally positive outlook on its continued application in their academic work. The highest-rated item in this category, "I intend to continue using ChatGPT in the future for argumentative writing," scored 4.0, underscoring students' long-term commitment to integrating ChatGPT into their academic routines. Table 2 provides a comprehensive overview of students' experiences concerning Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Social Influence, Habit, Self-efficacy, and Intention to use in their interactions with ChatGPT.</p> <p>Table 2. Students Experience Related to Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Social Influence, Habit, Self-Efficacy, and Intention to use.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Items</th><th align="center">Strongly disagree (%)</th><th align="center">Disagree (%)</th><th align="center">Moderately disagree (%)</th><th align="center">Agree (%)</th><th align="center">Strongly agree (%)</th><th align="center">Mean</th><th align="center"><italic>STD</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="8">Performance expectancy</td></tr><tr><td>1. I find ChatGPT useful in argumentative writing.</td><td>1.3</td><td>0</td><td>3.8</td><td>35.9</td><td>59.0</td><td>4.5</td><td>0.697</td></tr><tr><td>2. Using ChatGPT enables me to achieve course-related tasks more quickly.</td><td>1.3</td><td /><td>5.1</td><td>37.2</td><td>56.4</td><td>4.5</td><td>.715</td></tr><tr><td>3. Using ChatGPT increases my learning in argumentative writing.</td><td>1.3</td><td>1.3</td><td>2.6</td><td>37.2</td><td>57.7</td><td>4.9</td><td>.734</td></tr><tr><td>4. If I use ChatGPT, I will increase my chances of passing the argumentative writing task.</td><td>2.6</td><td /><td>7.7</td><td>37.2</td><td>52.6</td><td>4.4</td><td>.839</td></tr><tr><td>5.My interaction with ChatGPT is clear and understandable for writing argumentative essays.</td><td>1.3</td><td>1.3</td><td>15.4</td><td>39.7</td><td>42.3</td><td>4.2</td><td>.842</td></tr><tr><td colspan="8">Effort expectancy (EE)</td></tr><tr><td>6. It is easy for me to become skilfull at using ChatGPT for argumentative writing.</td><td>1.3</td><td>1.3</td><td>15.4</td><td>39.7</td><td>42.3</td><td>4.2</td><td>.842</td></tr><tr><td>7. I find ChatGPT easy to use for argumentative writing.</td><td>1.3</td><td>1.3</td><td>7.7</td><td>26.9</td><td>62.8</td><td>4.4</td><td>.801</td></tr><tr><td>8. It is easy to construct commands in ChatGPT for argumentative writing.</td><td>0</td><td>2.6</td><td>29.5</td><td>29.5</td><td>52.6</td><td>4.3</td><td>.829</td></tr><tr><td>9. My learning activities with ChatGPT are clear and understandable for argumentative writing.</td><td>1.3</td><td>1.3</td><td>10.3</td><td>33.3</td><td>53.3</td><td>4.3</td><td>.823</td></tr><tr><td colspan="8">Social influence (SI)</td></tr><tr><td>10. My peers who influence my behavior think that I should use ChatGPT for argumentative writing.</td><td>0</td><td>2.6</td><td>28.2</td><td>46.2</td><td>23.1</td><td>3.89</td><td>.782</td></tr><tr><td>11. Other people whose opinions I value prefer that I use ChatGPT for argumentative writing.</td><td>0</td><td>3.8</td><td>26.9</td><td>43.6</td><td>25.6</td><td>3.90</td><td>.824</td></tr><tr><td>12. I have the resources necessary to participate in ChatGPT for argumentative writing.</td><td>0</td><td>2.6</td><td>19.2</td><td>48.7</td><td>29.5</td><td>4.05</td><td>.771</td></tr><tr><td colspan="8">Facilitating conditions (FC)</td></tr><tr><td>13. I know necessary to participate in ChatGPT for argumentative writing.</td><td>1.3</td><td>0</td><td>9.0</td><td>39.7</td><td>50</td><td>4.37</td><td>.757</td></tr><tr><td>14. I can get help from others when I have difficulties while using ChatGPT for argumentative writing.</td><td>0</td><td>1.3</td><td>9.0</td><td>51.3</td><td>38.5</td><td>4.26</td><td>.677</td></tr><tr><td>15.Using ChatGPT is fun, compared to traditional classrooms for argumentative writing.</td><td>1.3</td><td>2.6</td><td>32.1</td><td>32.1</td><td>35.9</td><td>3.98</td><td>.932</td></tr><tr><td colspan="8">Habit</td></tr><tr><td>16. Using ChatGPT has become a habit for me to complete argumentative writing.</td><td>3.8</td><td>7.7</td><td>42.3</td><td>25.6</td><td>20.5</td><td>3.50</td><td>1.02</td></tr><tr><td>17.Using ChatGPT for argumentative writing has become natural to me.</td><td>2.6</td><td>2.6</td><td>35.9</td><td>39.7</td><td>19.2</td><td>3.70</td><td>.898</td></tr><tr><td>18.Using ChatGPT becomes addictive for argumentative writing.</td><td>5.1</td><td>11.5</td><td>38.5</td><td>26.9</td><td>17.9</td><td>3.41</td><td>1.07</td></tr><tr><td>19.I feel that I must use ChatGPT for argumentative writing.</td><td>2.6</td><td>9.0</td><td>37.2</td><td>32.1</td><td>19.2</td><td>3.56</td><td>.988</td></tr><tr><td colspan="8">Students' self-efficacy</td></tr><tr><td> 20.I feel confident in the utilization of ChatGPT even when no one is there for assistance in argumentative writing.</td><td>0</td><td>1.3</td><td>23.1</td><td>48.7</td><td>26.9</td><td>4.0</td><td>.747</td></tr><tr><td> 21. I am confident when using ChatGPT, even if I have only the online instructions.</td><td>0</td><td>1.3</td><td>23.1</td><td>48.7</td><td>26.9</td><td>4.01</td><td>.747</td></tr><tr><td>22. I feel confident when using the ChatGPT even if no one is there for assistance</td><td>0</td><td>1.3</td><td>24.4</td><td>39.7</td><td>34.6</td><td>4.07</td><td>.802</td></tr><tr><td colspan="8">Behavioral intention to use</td></tr><tr><td>23.I intend to continue using ChatGPT in the future for argumentative writing.</td><td>1.3</td><td>1.3</td><td>23.6</td><td>39.7</td><td>32.1</td><td>4.0</td><td>.867</td></tr><tr><td>24. I will always try to use ChatGPT for argumentative writing.</td><td>2.6</td><td>2.6</td><td>26.9</td><td>44.9</td><td>23.1</td><td>3.83</td><td>.903</td></tr><tr><td>25.I plan to continue to use ChatGPT frequently.</td><td>1.3</td><td>2.6</td><td>30.8</td><td>41.0</td><td>24.4</td><td>3.84</td><td>.869</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0186620144-19">Performance Effort</hd> <p>The interviews contributed to and reinforced the Performance Effort concept by providing qualitative data, manifested in two different aspects: organizing ideas related to argumentative writing and a wide range of perspectives about argumentative writing. The study participants recognized that the utilization of ChatGPT enabled them to "organise thoughts related to argumentative writing clearly" (G2), "gives what exactly I want," and enhance "vocabularies related to the essay" (G5). G17 explained, "ChatGPT provided me writing prompts and suggestions for ideas to help me practice and improve my writing skills." G5 opined, "I think that ChatGPT provides me a direction about how to write the essay and format." This is because "a dynamic learning experience is made possible by the content interaction, which also led me to ask follow-up questions and seek out additional explanations for any issues that may have developed." G12 highlighted that Chat GPT gave "a lot of examples that are difficult to experience with other technology tools. It helps us to get the data immediately, although it is not 100% accurate. Therefore, it is easy to use to construct sentences for my essay<emph>.</emph>" Similarly, G7 found that:</p> <p>it can generate a wide range of ideas and develop a strong thesis statement and supporting agreement. For example, if I am writing an argumentative essay about the importance of education. ChatGPT might suggest the following ideas: education helps people get better jobs, and education allows people to be more responsible citizens. Lastly, education helps people be more creative and innovative. (G7, interview)</p> <hd id="AN0186620144-20">Effort Expectancy</hd> <p>Most participants highlighted ChatGPT's ease of use, underscoring the simplicity of interaction through specific commands. ChatGPT's capability to respond to any question is a valuable tool for facilitating efficient writing and task completion. This is particularly advantageous in meeting deadlines, as the ChatGPT can swiftly provide relevant information related to the posed queries. G1, in her words "Since it can answer any question, it helps us write quickly and complete the task before the deadline. The reason is that the activity can provide information related to our question" (G1, interview).</p> <p>Participants found that when confronted with specific questions or the need for information on a particular topic, ChatGPT proved to be a time-saving resource. Therefore, when one "needs information on a particular topic, one can get the immediate answers or explanation instead of searching for relevant information in a textbook or online" (G11, interview). Also, participants mentioned that they had to be specific in their request, and the outcome would be good and minimize errors or interpretations. G13 said<emph>,</emph> "It was easy to use ChatGPT, and I just need to be very specific in my request and manage the outcome as best as I can. This will minimize the error or interpretation that changeability can have and provide better end results" (G13, interview).</p> <p>The accessibility of ChatGPT across various devices, including phones, tablets, and laptops, underscores its versatility. The requirement for Internet connectivity ensures seamless access to ChatGPT, facilitating usage in different languages, as observed with instances like the use of the Malay language. Overall, users find ChatGPT to be user-friendly and accommodating to diverse needs. The following excerpts exemplified the above idea:</p> <p>We can use chat GPT through any device like a phone, tablet, or laptop? We only need to have the Internet so we can access ChatGPT. We can use different languages, and it is normal to use English. I have used the Malay language. Overall, ChatGPT is user-friendly. (G8 interview)</p> <hd id="AN0186620144-21">Facilitating Condition</hd> <p>One of the participants shared his initial experience, stating, "When I first heard about GP1, I did not know how to use it, but I Googled to learn. Later, my English language lecturer used it in the classroom" (G16, interview)<emph>.</emph> This highlights the process of self-learning and subsequent exposure to ChatGPT in an educational setting. In contrast, G19 found ChatGPT straightforward and beneficial, expressing that "using Chat GPT is very simple, and it helps in essay writing<emph>.</emph>" G7 attributed their ease of use to prior knowledge of AI, stating<emph>,</emph> "my prior knowledge related to AI made me use ChatGPT easily."</p> <p>Another participant mentioned, "I Googled and used YouTube to understand how to use ChatGPT" (G12, interview), showcasing individuals' diverse avenues to familiarize themselves with the tool. Additionally, G8 sought assistance from friends, stating, "I ask my friends for help when I have a problem, and they correct me where I might be wrong<emph>.</emph>" This collaborative approach underscores the role of peer support in overcoming challenges and enhancing understanding. Despite the straightforward experience of using ChatGPT, some participants expressed dissatisfaction. The sentiment revolves around the belief that traditional classroom methods are superior due to the presence of friends and the avoidance of boredom. G13, for instance, conveyed, "Chat GPT is fun, but I don't think it's like a classroom because sometimes ChatGPT doesn't give the right answer, or I don't get all the answers. We need to Google or ask friends or teachers<emph>.</emph>" This highlights a preference for the interactive and social aspects of traditional learning environments. G17 concluded that "learning with ChatGPT is interesting, but I believe a balanced approach combining digital tools and traditional classroom methods is essential for a well-rounded and enjoyable learning experience<emph>.</emph>"</p> <hd id="AN0186620144-22">Social Influence</hd> <p>The findings regarding social Influence and integration of ChatGPT into their academic journey provide valuable insights into the factors influencing their decision-making process. The initial encounter with their lecturer, who guided them in learning how to write comments, reflects the significance of hands-on instruction in acquiring new skills. P6 stated that the "lecturer taught me how to write the comments, and as I am a slow learner, I took some time." The subsequent regular utilization of assignments suggests a seamless integration into their academic workflow, emphasizing the practical impact of peer recommendations on technology adoption. G12 elaborated that, "My friends introduced me to it and told me it helps with assignments. So, I tried to do it the first time and was surprised with the outcome. Now, I use it often to do my assignments" (G12, interview).</p> <hd id="AN0186620144-23">Habit</hd> <p>Participants highlighted that in the realm of problem-solving and knowledge acquisition, ChatGPT has seamlessly woven itself into the fabric of their daily routine, becoming a habitual resource in moments of uncertainty. This habitual reliance on ChatGPT has evolved into a nuanced pattern, reflecting convenience and accessibility. Several participants described how ChatGPT's accessibility has led them to integrate it into their daily routines, reinforcing its role as an essential tool in their academic and personal tasks. G3 clarified that:</p> <p>Using ChatGPT became a habit and a regular part of my routine. Because it can be easily accessed and available online, I have created a habit of accessing it whenever I need information support or just want to start a discussion due to its accessibility and convenience. (G3, interview)</p> <p>Several participants described how ChatGPT's accessibility has led them to integrate it into their daily routines, reinforcing its role as an essential tool in their academic and personal tasks. This habitual use of ChatGPT is not limited to information retrieval but also extends to idea generation and creative inspiration. Similarly, G18 said, <emph>"</emph>I will also use ChatGPT as a tool to generate ideas and as an inspiration for me to get my work done<emph>.</emph>" It seems that the spontaneous activation of ChatGPT in students' minds when faced with uncertainties has become an instinctive response, symbolizing its status as a readily available problem-solving tool. Furthermore, some students described their use of ChatGPT as a strategic habit, where they resort to it only, when necessary, rather than as an immediate solution.</p> <p>G14 said, "I think it is a habit for me, but ChatGPT is my last choice. I will try to attempt the question first, but if I am really lost, I will choose to use ChatGPT." The habit of engaging with ChatGPT extends beyond problem-solving to include its application in the creative process<bold>.</bold> Some students view it as an interactive and intelligent companion that enhances their learning experience. ChatGPT, described as a "smart friend always ready with answers<emph>"</emph> (G17)<emph>,</emph> "has become a regular companion in my writing endeavours<emph>.</emph>" This habitual use adds an element of enjoyment to the learning experience, showcasing the versatility of ChatGPT as a tool for both information retrieval and creative inspiration.</p> <hd id="AN0186620144-24">Self-Efficacy</hd> <p>The theme of self-efficacy takes center stage in exploring how the use of ChatGPT has empowered the individual, fostering confidence, independence, and continuous self-improvement. G3 expressed adaptability and critical thinking, underscoring that proficiency with ChatGPT is not merely a static skill but a dynamic capacity cultivated over time. This speaks to the individual's belief in their ability to navigate and utilize the tool effectively. G3 said, "I feel confident when using ChatGPT. I have developed certain skill and approaches that enable me to use ChatGPT effectively. For writing. I have adapted well and am able to think critically" (G3, interview).</p> <p>G11 stated, "I can work independently and develop innovative ideas in my essay as a result of using ChatGPT. This is because ChatGPT helped me combine my ideas with ideas generated by ChatGPT" (G11, interview). Participants reported a progression in skills and techniques as their experience with ChatGPT grew. G15 claimed:</p> <p>As I gained more ChatGPT experience, I discovered effective techniques to enhance my interactions. I learned to provide clearer instructions, break down complex questions into smaller parts, and use specific examples for prompts. Understanding this interactive process allowed me to improve the quality of the responses and work independently. (G15, interview)</p> <hd id="AN0186620144-25">Intention to Continue Use</hd> <p>The findings demonstrated that the participants intended to use ChatGPT in future argumentative essays. The prospect of utilizing ChatGPT to identify potential counterarguments and alternative perspectives demonstrates an awareness of the model's capability to enhance the depth and breadth of the essay. By engaging in conversation with ChatGPT, users can refine their reasoning, gain new insights, and explore different angles, ultimately strengthening their overall argument. The following are excerpts from participants indicating their intention to continue using ChatGPT. For example, G5 stated that "ChatGPT can be a valuable resource when writing argumentative essays because I have already tried it, and it assists me with generating ideas, providing information, and offering different perspectives for my writing."</p> <p>Similarly, G18 said, "I am planning to use ChatGPT to write argumentative essays in the future. ChatGPT can be more helpful in identifying potential counter-arguments and offering alternative perspectives, enabling the writer to address potential objections and strengthen their argument" (G18, interview).</p> <hd id="AN0186620144-26">Argumentative Essay Scores</hd> <p>It is evident from the scores that the students understood the basic obligatory structure of argumentative writing with the help of ChatGPT. This is evident in students' scores in their initial and final tasks. The scores for main ideas, counterarguments, vocabulary, and sentence structures increased after the use of ChatGPT. Table 3 illustrates ten students' scores for the argumentative essays before and after the use of ChatGPT. Each criterion is scored on a scale of 1 to 5. The total score for each story can be calculated by summing the scores for all criteria. The maximum score is 20. Twenty percent of the marks are for their coursework component. The rubrics for the scores are illustrated in the Appendix.</p> <p>Table 3. Initial Task Scores and Comments Before the use of ChatGPT.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="center" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="center" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="center" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="2">Counterarguments</th><th align="left" colspan="2">Vocabulary</th><th align="left" colspan="2">Sentence structure</th><th align="left" colspan="2">Refutation</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Participants</th><th align="left">Initial task</th><th align="left">Final task</th><th align="left">Initial task</th><th align="left">Final task</th><th align="left">Initial task</th><th align="left">Final task</th><th align="left">Initial task</th><th align="left">Final task</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>P1</td><td>2.5</td><td>4.5</td><td>2.5</td><td>4.5</td><td>2.5</td><td>4.5</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.5</td></tr><tr><td>P2</td><td>2.5</td><td>3.5</td><td>1.5</td><td>3.5</td><td>1.5</td><td>3.5</td><td>1.5</td><td>2.5</td></tr><tr><td>P3</td><td>3.5</td><td>3.5</td><td>1.5</td><td>3.5</td><td>3.5</td><td>2.5</td><td>3.5</td><td>3.5</td></tr><tr><td>P4</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.5</td><td>1.5</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.5</td><td>2</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.5</td></tr><tr><td>P5</td><td>2.5</td><td>3</td><td>2.5</td><td>3</td><td>2.5</td><td>3</td><td>2.5</td><td>3.5</td></tr><tr><td>P6</td><td>2.5</td><td>3</td><td>2.5</td><td>3</td><td>2.5</td><td>3</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.5</td></tr><tr><td>P7</td><td>2.5</td><td>4</td><td>1.5</td><td>4</td><td>2.5</td><td>4</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.5</td></tr><tr><td>P8</td><td>1.5</td><td>3</td><td>1.5</td><td>3</td><td>2.5</td><td>3</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.5</td></tr><tr><td>P9</td><td>1.5</td><td>3</td><td>1.5</td><td>3</td><td>2.5</td><td>3</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.5</td></tr><tr><td>P10</td><td>1.5</td><td>3</td><td>1.5</td><td>3</td><td>1.5</td><td>3</td><td>1.5</td><td>1.5</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>GPT had enhanced their argumentative skills in aspects related to main ideas and supporting details, counterargument and refutation, vocabulary, and sentence structure.</p> <hd id="AN0186620144-27">Discussion</hd> <p>The findings of this research indicate that the UTAUT model serves as a valuable framework for comprehending students' willingness to adopt ChatGPT in argumentative writing. The results indicate that students hold positive perceptions of ChatGPT, particularly regarding its Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Facilitation Conditions, and Social Influence. However, the process of forming habitual use is still in its early stages, and social influences are not the predominant factor in students' adoption of the tool. The strong intention to continue using ChatGPT suggests that it has the potential to become a more integral part of students' academic routines, contributing to a more sustained and effective use of AI in education. The findings are consistent with prior research ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref39">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref40">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref41">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>Participants reported improved clarity in organizing their thoughts, expanded vocabularies, and valuable writing prompts, ultimately fostering a dynamic learning experience. The capability of ChatGPT to answer any question efficiently was identified as a valuable tool in meeting deadlines and facilitating their argumentative writing task. Participants recognized the time-saving aspect of ChatGPT, particularly in obtaining immediate answers to specific questions, minimizing the need for extensive searches. According to Labadze et al. (2023), the main benefits of ChatGPT involve receiving time-saving assistance and enhancing pedagogical approach. To illustrate the application of UTAUT constructs in the intervention's design, the findings show that facilitating conditions, such as instructional guidance and individual learning preferences, significantly influenced how effectively students were able to integrate ChatGPT into their academic endeavors. The findings are also supported by previous studies highlighting ChatGPT as a beneficial companion and instrument for enhancing the process and outcome of writing ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref42">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref43">34</reflink>]). As for items related to social influence, lecturers' hands-on instruction plays a pivotal role, emphasizing the need for educators to actively guide students in utilizing new technologies.</p> <p>Additionally, peer recommendations emerge as a powerful catalyst, highlighting the role of social networks in influencing technology adoption. Previous studies have demonstrated the significant role of Social Influence in influencing behavioral intentions ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref44">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref45">38</reflink>]). The study also highlights the importance of adapting the intervention for various educational contexts, suggesting that tailored training sessions for educators could help maximize the benefits of ChatGPT across different levels of education. For Facilitating Conditions, the findings highlight the interplay of instructional guidance, individual learning preferences, and peer influence in successfully integrating ChatGPT into students' academic endeavors. Previous studies have concluded that Facilitating Conditions influence the actual use of technologies ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref46">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>The study reflects diverse pathways individuals take to familiarize themselves with ChatGPT, ranging from self-learning through online resources to seeking assistance from friends. However, some participants preferred traditional classroom methods because of the accuracy of information and lack of interaction. The findings are consistent with previous studies that have pointed out that ChatGPT also carries the risk of disrupting writing exercises by offering inaccurate information and promoting plagiarism ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref47">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref48">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref49">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>The overall sentiment is that ChatGPT is user-friendly, accessible across various devices, and accommodates diverse needs. ChatGPT has become a habitual resource for participants, seamlessly integrated into their daily routines. The ease of access, availability online, and versatility in problem-solving contribute to the habitual reliance on ChatGPT. The habit item has been recognized as a significant factor affecting behavioral intention ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref50">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Participants also view ChatGPT as a regular companion, both in information retrieval and as a source of creative inspiration, adding an element of enjoyment to their learning experience. The findings underscore the theme of self-efficacy, with participants expressing confidence, independence, and continuous self-improvement in utilizing ChatGPT for argumentative writing. This self-efficacy is nurtured with ChatGPT over time, contributing to adaptability and critical thinking skills. Therefore, participants expressed their intention to continue using ChatGPT in future argumentative essays. Recognizing its value in generating ideas, providing information, and offering different perspectives, participants believe that ChatGPT can contribute to the depth and breadth of their essays, ultimately strengthening their overall argument.</p> <hd id="AN0186620144-28">Pedagogical Implications</hd> <p>The findings from this study have several pedagogical implications for educators and instructional designers. The strong intention among students to continue using ChatGPT suggests that the tool can become an integral part of students' learning processes with appropriate facilitation and guidance. The emphasis on hands-on instruction by lecturers underscores the need for active educator involvement in effectively guiding students to use new technologies. Since participants reported improved clarity in organizing their thoughts, thesis statements, arguments, sentence structures, and expanded vocabularies, educators can consider integrating ChatGPT as a writing aid in instructional settings. Furthermore, ChatGPT can be used as an effective tool for information retrieval. This is because ChatGPT is efficient in answering questions and facilitating task completion. Educators can emphasize information retrieval skills in their curriculum. The pedagogical strategies should be consistent with UTAUT's key constructs to ensure the effective integration of ChatGPT.</p> <p>Performance Expectancy can be improved by demonstrating the tool's ability to improve writing outcomes while Facilitating Conditions can be strengthened by providing necessary infrastructure and training. Effort Expectancy can be implemented through user-friendly interfaces and guided learning opportunities, while Social Influence can be encouraged through peer collaboration and instructor guidance.</p> <p>Teachers should provide resources and assistance for self-learning while offering guidance for those who prefer more traditional classroom methods, ensuring inclusivity in the learning process. This includes the integration of flipped classrooms and blended learning approaches. It is also wise for students to encourage habitual use of ChatGPT. Emphasizing the ease of access, availability online, and versatility in problem-solving can contribute to habitual reliance, fostering a positive learning experience. The findings highlight a theme of self-efficacy, with participants expressing confidence, independence, and continuous self-improvement through ChatGPT. Educators can design activities that promote these qualities, cultivating adaptability and critical thinking skills. Given participants' belief that ChatGPT can offer different perspectives, educators can encourage using such tools to broaden students' understanding of various topics, fostering a more comprehensive and well-rounded education.</p> <p>The findings suggest that incorporating tools like ChatGPT into educational practices can enhance students' writing skills, information retrieval, and overall learning experiences. The emphasis should be on balancing traditional teaching methods and innovative technological resources to cater to diverse learning preferences. Educators can optimize ChatGPT's capacity to effectively address students' academic and individual requirements by aligning pedagogical strategies with UTAUT constructs.</p> <hd id="AN0186620144-29">Limitations and Future Research</hd> <p>Despite this study's careful design and methodology selection, certain limitations should be acknowledged. This study is based on self-reported data, which carries certain limitations. Self-reported data can be subject to various biases, particularly social desirability bias, where participants may provide responses that they believe are socially acceptable rather than their true thoughts or behaviors (Krumpal, 2024). This can affect the accuracy of the findings, as participants may overstate or understate their experiences. Furthermore, the study's sample size (78 participants) meets the data analysis requirements. However, the relatively small sample size limits the generalizability of the UTAUT model. The model can be more extensively applied in future research to investigate the impact of demographic moderators, such as age, gender, or prior technological experience, on the adoption and habitual use of ChatGPT.</p> <hd id="AN0186620144-30">Conclusion</hd> <p>The findings of this study align with the theoretical underpinnings of the UTAUT model, providing a nuanced understanding of students' adoption and habitual use of ChatGPT in argumentative writing within a Malaysian higher education context. In the specific context of engineering students in Malaysian higher education, the findings reveal that students hold positive perceptions of ChatGPT, particularly regarding its efficiency, ease of use, and supportive conditions for its adoption. The early stages of habitual use and the role of social influences further contextualize the unique dynamics of ChatGPT integration in this setting.</p> <hd id="AN0186620144-31">Appendix</hd> <hd1 id="AN0186620144-32">Argumentative Writing Rubric.</hd1> <p></p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Marking Criteria</th><th align="left">1 (Poor)</th><th align="left">2 (Fair)</th><th align="left">3 (Good)</th><th align="left">4 (Very Good)</th><th align="left">5 (Excellent)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Main Ideas and Supporting Details</td><td>The essay lacks clear main ideas, and the supporting details are minimal, irrelevant, or missing</td><td>The essay presents vague or poorly defined main ideas, with weak or insufficient supporting details that do not effectively enhance the argument</td><td>The essay presents identifiable main ideas, but the supporting details may be somewhat underdeveloped or only partially relevant</td><td>The essay presents clear main ideas with well-developed supporting details, though some details may be less relevant or not fully developed</td><td>The essay presents clear, insightful, and well-developed main ideas, with strong and relevant supporting details that effectively enhance the argument</td></tr><tr><td>Counterargument and Refutation</td><td>The essay lacks a counterargument and refutation, or they are presented in a very unclear and ineffective manner</td><td>The essay presents a weak or unclear counterargument, with a minimal or ineffective refutation</td><td>The essay includes a counterargument and refutation, but they may be superficial or only partially address the opposing view</td><td>The essay presents a clear counterargument with a good refutation, though the refutation may lack some depth or effectiveness</td><td>The essay presents a clear and well-reasoned counterargument, followed by a strong and effective refutation that reinforces the main argument</td></tr><tr><td>Vocabulary</td><td>The essay demonstrates poor vocabulary usage, with numerous inappropriate or incorrect word choices that significantly impede understanding</td><td>The essay has limited vocabulary, with frequent repetition or inappropriate word choices that may hinder understanding</td><td>The essay uses adequate vocabulary, but word choices may be repetitive or occasionally imprecise, leading to some lack of clarity</td><td>The essay uses a good range of vocabulary, with generally appropriate and varied word choices, though there may be occasional minor errors</td><td>The essay demonstrates a rich and precise use of vocabulary, with varied and appropriate word choices that enhance the clarity and persuasiveness of the argument</td></tr><tr><td>Sentence Structure</td><td> The essay has numerous sentence structure errors, with little variety and frequent confusion, making the argument difficult to follow</td><td> The essay uses simple and repetitive sentence structures, with frequent errors that hinder clarity and flow</td><td>The essay uses mostly correct but simple sentence structures, with some variety; occasional errors may cause minor confusion</td><td>The essay uses varied sentence structures that are generally well-constructed, though there may be minor errors that do not detract significantly from the argument</td><td>The essay features a variety of complex and well-constructed sentences that contribute to a clear and engaging argument</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ref id="AN0186620144-33"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref29" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Allen T. J., Mizumoto A. (2024). ChatGPT over my friends: Japanese English-as-a-foreign-language learners' preferences for editing and proofreading strategies. RELC Journal, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882241262533</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref26" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Almaiah M. A., Alamri M. M., Al-Rahmi W. (2019). Applying the UTAUT model to explain the students' acceptance of mobile learning system in higher education. IEEE Access, 7, 174673–174686. https://doi.org/10.1109/access. 2019.2957206</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref39" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Amadin F. I., Obienu A. C., Osaseri R. O., Omputer D. E. O. F. C., Cience S., Enin U. N. O. F. B., et al. (2018). Main barriers and possible enablers of Google apps for education adoption among university staff members. Nigerian Journal of Technology (NIJOTECH), 37(2), 432–439.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref6" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Andrews C. D. (2020). Why major in writing? Hyperpragmatism and writing program websites. Computers and Composition, 58, 102603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2020.102603</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref32" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Banihashem S. K., Kerman N. T., Noroozi O., Moon J., Drachsler H. (2024). Feedback sources in essay writing: Peer-generated or AI-generated feedback? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00455-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref9" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Barrot J. S. (2023). Using ChatGPT for second language writing: Pitfalls and potentials. Assessing Writing, 57, 100745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100745</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref35" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Braun V., Clarke V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref33" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Creswell J., Poth C. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref8" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Dowling M., Lucey B. (2023). ChatGPT for (finance) research: The Bananarama conjecture. Finance Research Letters, 53, 103662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2023.103662</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erlandson D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garone A., Pynoo B., Tondeur J., Cocquyt C., Vanslambrouck S., Bruggeman B., Struyven K. (2019). Clustering university teaching staff through UTAUT: Implications for the acceptance of a new learning management system. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2466–2483. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12867</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hsieh J. J. P.-A., Rai A., Keil M. (2008). Understanding digital inequality: Comparing continued use behavioral models of the socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged. MIS Quarterly, 32(1), 97–126. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148830</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huang F., Teo T., Zhao X. (2023). Examining factors influencing Chinese ethnic minority English teachers' technology adoption: An extension of the UTAUT model. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2023.2239304</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jeon J., Lee S. (2023). Large language models in education: A focus on the complementary relationship between human teachers and ChatGPT. Education and Information Technologies, 28(12), 15873–15892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11834-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jeon J., Lee S., Choe H. (2023). Beyond ChatGPT: A conceptual framework and systematic review of speech-recognition chatbots for language learning. Computers & Education, 104898.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kasneci E., Seßler K., Küchemann S., Bannert M., Dementieva D., Fischer F., Kasneci G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/5er8f</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kerman N. T., Noroozi O., Banihashem S. K., Karami M., Biemans H. J. (2024). Online peer feedback patterns of success and failure in argumentative essay writing. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(2), 614–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2093914</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kohnke L., Moorhouse B. L., Zou D. (2023). ChatGPT for language teaching and learning. RELC Journal, 54(2), 537–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882231162868</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krumpal I. (2024). Social desirability bias and context in sensitive surveys. In Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 6527–6532). Springer International Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Labadze L., Grigolia M., Machaidze L. (2023). Role of AI chatbots in education: Systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023- 00426-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Latifi S., Noroozi O. (2021). Supporting argumentative essay writing through an online supported peer-review script. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 58(5), 501–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.1961097</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Latifi S., Noroozi O., Talaee E. (2023). Worked example or scripting? Fostering students' online argumentative peer feedback, essay writing and learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(2), 655–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1799032</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Limayem M., Cheung C. M. K. (2010). Predicting the continued use of internet-based learning technologies: The role of habit. Behaviour & Information Technology, 30(1), 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2010.490956</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Limayem M., Hirt S. G., Cheung C. M. (2007). How habit limits the predictive power of intention: The case of information systems continuance. MIS quarterly, 31(4), 705–737. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148817</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Limayem M., Cheung C. M. (2011). Predicting the continued use of Internet-based learning technologies: The role of habit. Behaviour & Information Technology, 30(1), 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2010.490956</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lwoga E. T., Komba M. (2015). Antecedents of continued usage intentions of web based learning management system in Tanzania. Education Training, 57(7), 738–756. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-02-2014-0014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Macdonald C., Adeloye D., Sheikh A., Rudan I. (2023). Can ChatGPT draft a research article? An example of population-level vaccine effectiveness analysis. Journal of Global Health, 13, 01003. https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.13.01003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maheshwari G. (2023). Factors influencing students 'intention to adopt and use ChatGPT in higher education: A study in the Vietnamese context. Education and Information Technologies, 29(10). 0123456789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12333-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maxwell J. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miles M. B., Huberman A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Misiejuk K., Wasson B., Egelandsdal K. (2021). Using learning analytics to understand student perceptions of peer feedback. Computers in Human Behavior, 117, 106658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106658</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Noroozi O., Banihashem S. K., Biemans H. J., Smits M., Vervoort M. T., Verbaan C. L. (2023). Design, implementation, and evaluation of an online supported peer feedback module to enhance students' argumentative essay quality. Education and Information Technologies, 28(10), 12757–12784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11683-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shen D., Cho M. H., Tsai C. L., Marra R. (2013). Unpacking online learning experiences: Online learning self-efficacy and learning satisfaction. The Internet and Higher Education, 19, 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.04.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Su Y., Lin Y., Lai C. (2023). Collaborating with ChatGPT in argumentative writing classrooms. Assessing Writing, 57, Article 100752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100752</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teubner T., Flath C. M., Weinhardt C., van der Aalst W., Hinz O. (2023). Welcome to the era of chatgpt et al. the prospects of large language models. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 65(2), 95–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-023-00795-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tian S., Yang W. (2024). Modeling the use behavior of interpreting technology for student interpreters: An extension of UTAUT model. Education and Information Technologies, 29(9), 10499–10528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12225-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tseng T. H., Lin S., Wang Y. S., Liu H. X. (2022). Investigating teachers' adoption of MOOCs: the perspective of UTAUT2. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(4), 635–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1674888</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Venkatesh V., Morris M. G., Davis G. B., Davis F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036540">www.jstor.org/stable/30036540</ulink>. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Venkatesh V., Thong J. Y. L., Xu X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang S., Scells H., Koopman B., Zuccon G. (2023). Wang, S., Scells, H., Koopman, B., & Zuccon, G. (2023, July). Can ChatGPT write a good boolean query for systematic review literature search? In Proceedings of the 46th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval (pp. 1426–1436).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yan D. (2023). Impact of ChatGPT on learners in a L2 writing practicum: An exploratory investigation. Education and Information Technologies, 28(11), 13943–13967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11742-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zou M., Huang L. (2023). To use or not to use? Understanding doctoral students' acceptance of ChatGPT in writing through technology acceptance model. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1259531</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0186620144-34"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> NA wrote the method, collected the data, and analyzed. RK wrote the introduction. BB and AU wrote the literature review and edited the paper.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The author declares no competing interests.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the author on reasonable request.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Not Applicable.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by an external grant, TRIP GUARD SDN BHD under USM (grant number (304/PJJAUH/6501284/T159)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nagaletchimee Annamalai https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8600-5624</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Nagaletchimee Annamalai; Arulselvi Uthayakumaran; Brandford Bervell and Ramesh Kumar</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Nagaletchimee Annamalai is a visiting associate professor at the Department of Languages and Culture, College of Humanities and Sciences, Ajman University, Ajman, UAE.</p> <p>Arulselvi Uthayakumaran is a English language teachers at Centre of Modern Languages, University of Malaysia Pahang, Pekan, Malaysia.</p> <p>Brandford Bervell had both his postdoctoral and PhD training at the Centre for Instructional Technology and Multimedia, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Penang, Malaysia.</p> <p>Ramesh Kumar currently is an Assistant professor for the Faculty of Business & Finance, University Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR) Malaysia. He has more than10 years of progressive Human Resource Executives experience and 14 years of teaching experience.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref50"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1477043
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Examining the Use of ChatGPT in Argumentative Writing: A Mixed Methods Study
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nagaletchimee+Annamalai%22">Nagaletchimee Annamalai</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8600-5624">0000-0002-8600-5624</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Arulselvi+Uthayakumaran%22">Arulselvi Uthayakumaran</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Brandford+Bervell%22">Brandford Bervell</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ramesh+Kumar%22">Ramesh Kumar</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Advanced+Academics%22"><i>Journal of Advanced Academics</i></searchLink>. 2025 36(3):521-550.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 30
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Artificial+Intelligence%22">Artificial Intelligence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Persuasive+Discourse%22">Persuasive Discourse</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+%28Composition%29%22">Writing (Composition)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology+Uses+in+Education%22">Technology Uses in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Expectation%22">Expectation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Influences%22">Social Influences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Efficacy%22">Self Efficacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Habit+Formation%22">Habit Formation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Skills%22">Writing Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Essays%22">Essays</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Malaysia%22">Malaysia</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/1932202X251333859
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1932-202X<br />2162-9536
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The study explored the adoption of ChatGPT in argumentative writing among students using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology model as a framework. A mixed methods study was employed, and data were collected from surveys, interviews and document analysis (essays). The study revealed that participants' acceptance of ChatGPT is linked to performance expectancy, effort expectancy, facilitation conditions, social influence, self-efficacy, and habit. However, establishing habitual use is still in its initial phases, and social influences are not the primary drivers behind students' adoption of the tool. Participants reported improved organization, expanded vocabulary, and valuable writing prompts, enhancing their learning experience in argumentative writing. Participants intended to continue using ChatGPT for essay writing, acknowledging its significant contribution to argumentative writing.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1477043
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1477043
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/1932202X251333859
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 30
        StartPage: 521
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Artificial Intelligence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Persuasive Discourse
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing (Composition)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technology Uses in Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Expectation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Influences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Efficacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Habit Formation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Essays
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Malaysia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Examining the Use of ChatGPT in Argumentative Writing: A Mixed Methods Study
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nagaletchimee Annamalai
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Arulselvi Uthayakumaran
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Brandford Bervell
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ramesh Kumar
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1932-202X
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2162-9536
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 36
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Advanced Academics
              Type: main
ResultId 1