The Role of Digital Literacy in Mediating ChatGPT’s Impact on Writing Abilities and Perceptions of Iranian EAP Students

Shabani, Karim; Rashidi, Kosar

Volume 10, Issue 2 (6-2025) IJREE 2025, 10(2): 99-113 | Back to browse issues page

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Shabani K, Rashidi K. (2025). The Role of Digital Literacy in Mediating ChatGPT’s Impact on Writing Abilities and Perceptions of Iranian EAP Students. IJREE. 10(2),
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-994-en.html

The Role of Digital Literacy in Mediating ChatGPT’s Impact on Writing Abilities and Perceptions of Iranian EAP Students

Karim Shabani ^*

, Kosar Rashidi

English Department, Allameh Mohaddes Nouri University, Mazandaran,

Abstract: (2073 Views)

Academic writing has emerged as a central area of inquiry among researchers specializing in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing. Utilizing a mixed-methods research design, the current study aimed to explore the mediatory role of digital literacy in the writing improvement of EAP learners in a ChatGPT-supported writing course. Following the administration of the Oxford Placement Test (OPT) and digital literacy questionnaire, a cohort of 100 upper-intermediate learners from a non-profit university in Mazandaran, Iran was randomly selected. The participants were then split into two experimental groups (high vs. low digital literacy) and two control groups (high vs. low digital literacy), with each group consisting of 25 participants. The experimental groups received writing instruction that incorporated ChatGPT, while the control groups were taught implementing traditional pedagogical methods devoid of ChatGPT. Data were gathered through pre- and post-writing assessments along with semi-structured interviews. Results from the pre- and post-tests indicated that the experimental groups with either high or low digital literacy exhibited significantly superior academic writing outcomes compared to the control groups. However, no notable disparity was evidenced between the two experimental groups. Analysis of the interviews revealed that ChatGPT contributed greatly to their writing accuracy and fluency, while creating several challenges namely the generation of inappropriate responses and limited access. On implication side, suggestions are offered for prospective EAP students, teachers, teacher educators, and syllabus designers along with a sketch of possible avenues for further exploration.

Keywords: English for academic purposes (EAP), L2 writing, ChatGPT, digital literacy

Full-Text [PDF 608 kb] (1577 Downloads)

Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special

References

1. Abdel Latif, M. M. M. (2013). What do we mean by writing fluency and how can it be validly measured? Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 99-105. [DOI:10.1093/applin/ams073]

2. Ahmed, S. T., & Roche, T. (2021). Making the connection: Examining the relationship between undergraduate students' digital literacy and academic success in an English medium instruction (EMI) university. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4), 4601-4620. [DOI:10.1007/s10639-021-10443-0]

3. Arianmanesh, M., & Khani, R. A. (2019). Comparative study of actual and perceived academic competence of Iranian EAP postgraduate students. IJREE, 4(1), 47-68. [DOI:10.29252/ijree.4.1.47]

4. http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-137-en.html

5. Azadnia, M. (2024). ChatGPT-assisted language learning and teaching: A scoping review of research on ChatGPT use in L2 pedagogy and education. Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills), 43(2), 49-85. doi: 10.22099/tesl.2024.49169.3250

6. Bailey, S. (2003). Academic writing. A practical guide for students. London and New York: Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9780203464120]

7. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. [DOI:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191]

8. Barrot, J. S. (2023). Using ChatGPT for second language writing: Pitfalls and potentials. Assessing Writing, 57(1), 1-6. [DOI:10.1016/j.asw.2023.100745]

9. Baskara, F. R. (2023). Integrating ChatGPT into EFL writing instruction: Benefits and challenges. International Journal of Education and Learning, 5(1), 44-55. [DOI:10.31763/ijele.v5i1.858]

10. Bibi, Z., & Atta, A. (2024). The role of ChatGPT as AI English writing assistant: A study of student's perceptions, experiences, and satisfaction. Annals of Human and Social Sciences, 5(1), 433-443. [DOI:10.35484/ahss.2024(5-I)39]

11. Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023). Students' voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(43), 1-18. [DOI:10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8]

12. Danilov, A. V., Zaripova, R. R., Salekhova, L. L., & Anyameluhor, N. (2020). Developing computer literacy of bilingual students via CLIL methodology. International Journal of Higher Education, 9(8), 19-23. [DOI:10.5430/ijhe.v9n8p19]

13. Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.

14. Du, J., & Alm, A. (2024). The impact of ChatGPT on English for academic purposes (EAP) students' language learning experience: A self-determination theory perspective. Education Sciences, 14(7), 1-17. doi:10.3390/educsci14070726 [DOI:10.3390/educsci14070726]

15. Durall, E., & Kapros, E. (2020). Co-design for a competency self-assessment chatbot and survey in science education. Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 455-471). Springer. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-50506-6_2]

16. Farhady, H., Jafarpour, A., & Birjandi, P. (1994). Testing language skills. Tehran: SAMT Publications.

17. Fathi, J., & Rahimi, M. (2024). Utilising artificial intelligence-enhanced writing mediation to develop academic writing skills in EFL learners: a qualitative study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-40. [DOI:10.1080/09588221.2024.2374772]

18. Fitria, T. N. (2023). Artificial intelligence (AI) technology in open AI ChatGPT application: a review of ChatGPT in writing English essay. ELT forum. Journal of English Language Teaching, 12(1), 44-58. doi:10.15294/elt.v12i1.64069 [DOI:10.15294/elt.v12i1.64069]

19. Geranpayeh, A. (2003). A quick review of the English Quick Placement Test. Research Notes, 12(3), 8-10.

20. Guo, K., & Wang, D. (2024). To resist it or to embrace it? Examining ChatGPT's potential to support teacher feedback in EFL writing. Education and Information Technologies, 29(7), 8435-8463. [DOI:10.1007/s10639-023-12146-0]

21. Harunasari, S. Y. (2023). Examining the effectiveness of AI-integrated approach in EFL writing: A case of ChatGPT. International Journal of Progressive Sciences and Technology (IJPSAT), 39(2), 357-368. [DOI:10.52155/ijpsat.v39.2.5516]

22. Hasan, M. K., & Akhand, M. M. (2010). Approaches to writing in EFL/ESL context: balancing product and process in writing class at tertiary level. Journal of NELTA, 15(1-2), 77-88. doi: 10.3126/nelta.v15i1-2.4612 [DOI:10.3126/nelta.v15i1-2.4612]

23. Hashemzadegan, A., & Gholami, A. (2022). Internet censorship in Iran: An inside look. Journal of Cyberspace Studies, 6(2), 183-204. [DOI:10.22059/jcss.2022.349715.1080]

24. Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching academic ESL writing. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [DOI:10.4324/9781410609427]

25. Hong, W. C. H. (2023). The impact of ChatGPT on foreign language teaching and learning: Opportunities in education and research. Journal of Educational Technology and Innovation, 5(1), 37-45. doi: 10.61414/jeti.v5i1.103 [DOI:10.61414/jeti.v5i1.103]

26. Hyland, K. (2006). English for Academic purposes: An advanced resource book. London: Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9780203006603]

27. IELTS (2005). IELTS and the CEFR. https://ielts.org/organisations/ielts-for-organisations/compare-ielts/ielts-and-the-cefr

28. Jalilifar, A., & Hemmati, A. (2013). Construction of evaluative meanings by Kurdish-speaking learners of English: A comparison of high- and low-graded argumentative essays. Issues in Language Teaching, 2(2), 57-84.

29. Karunarathne, W., Selman, C., & Ryan, T. (2023). Evaluating student feedback literacies: A study using first-year business and economics students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(4), 471-484. [DOI:10.1080/02602938.2023.2267803]

30. Lingard, L. (2023). Writing with ChatGPT: An illustration of its capacity, limitations & implications for academic writers. Perspectives on Medical Education, 12(1), 1-18. doi: 10.5334/pme.1072 [DOI:10.5334/pme.1072]

31. Little, T., Dawson, P., Boud, D., & Tai, J. (2024). Can students' feedback literacy be improved? A scoping review of interventions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(1), 39-52. [DOI:10.1080/02602938.2023.2177613]

32. Mahapatra, S. (2024). Impact of ChatGPT on ESL students' academic writing skills: a mixed methods intervention study. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1), 1-18. [DOI:10.1186/s40561-024-00295-9]

33. Mohamed, A. M. (2023). Exploring the potential of an AI-based Chatbot (ChatGPT) in enhancing English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teaching: perceptions of EFL faculty members. Education and Information Technologies, 29(3), 3195-3217. [DOI:10.1007/s10639-023-11917-z]

34. Mohammadyari, S., & Singh, H. (2015). Understanding the effect of e-learning on individual performance: The role of digital literacy. Computers & Education, 82(1), 11-25. [DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.025]

35. Nabavi, R. T., Bijandi, M. S. (2012). Bandura's social learning theory & social cognitive learning theory. Theory of Developmental Psychology, 1(1), 1-24. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267750204_Bandura's_Social_Learning_Theory_Social_Cognitive_Learning_Theory

36. Ndoricimpa, C., & Nduwimana A. (2023). The impact of genre-based pedagogy in the development of critical stance in MBA students' writing. IJREE, 8(2), 67-81. http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-776-en.html

37. Nguyen, T. T. H. (2023). EFL teachers' perspectives toward the use of ChatGPT in writing classes: A case study at Van Lang University. International Journal of Language Instruction, 2(3), 1-47. [DOI:10.54855/ijli.23231]

38. Oskoui, K., Mirzaeian, V. R., & Nafissi, Z. (2024). AI-assisted EAP Testing: A Case of Academic IELTS Writing by Iranian EFL Learners. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 16(34), 307-330. [DOI:10.22034/elt.2024.63345.2691]

39. Oz, H., Demirezen, M., & Pourfeiz, J. (2015). Digital device ownership, computer literacy, and attitudes toward foreign and computer-assisted language learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, 359-366. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.028]

40. Petrova, M. G., & Mikheeva, N. F. (2021). Artificial intelligence in academic writing teaching. 4th sintok international conference on social science and management, (pp. 37-47). [DOI:10.17632/4mygjn3j4g.1]

41. Rahimi, M., (2011). Discourse markers in argumentative and expository writing of Iranian EFL learners. World Journal of English Language, 1(2), 68-78. [DOI:10.5430/wjel.v1n2p68]

42. Ray, P. P. (2023). ChatGPT: A comprehensive review on background, applications, key challenges, bias, ethics, limitations and future scope. Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems, 3, 121-154. [DOI:10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.04.003]

43. Roche, T. B. (2017). Assessing the role of digital literacy in English for Academic Purposes university pathway programs. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 11(1), A71-A87. https://journal.aall.org.au/index.php/jall/article/view/439

44. Sakirin, T., & Said, R. B. (2023). User preferences for ChatGPT-powered conversational interfaces versus traditional methods. Mesopotamian Journal of Computer Science, 2023(1), 22-28. [DOI:10.58496/MJCSC/2023/004]

45. Şengel, E., Öncü, S., & Göktalay, Ş. B. (2014). Achievement in language learning: Effects of various computer assisted activities and computer literacy. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 29(29-1), 267-279.

46. Su, Y., Lin, Y., & Lai, C. (2023). Collaborating with ChatGPT in argumentative writing classrooms. Assessing Writing, 57, 100752. [DOI:10.1016/j.asw.2023.100752]

47. Zhang, Y. (2024). Incorporating ChatGPT as an automated written corrective feedback tool into L2 writing class. Journal of Language Teaching, 4(4), 22-34. [DOI:10.54475/jlt.2024.024]