Developing Critical Thinking in Second Language Learners: Exploring Generative AI like ChatGPT as a Tool for Argumentative Essay Writing

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.17013v1
• Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 10:22:58 GMT
• Title: Developing Critical Thinking in Second Language Learners: Exploring Generative AI like ChatGPT as a Tool for Argumentative Essay Writing
• Authors: Simon Suh, Jihyuk Bang, Ji Woo Han,
• Abstract summary: This study employs the Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Model and Tan's argumentative writing framework to create a structured methodology.<n>It integrates the models with ChatGPT's capabilities to guide L2 learners in utilizing ChatGPT to enhance their critical thinking skills.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This study employs the Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Model and Tan's argumentative writing framework to create a structured methodology. This methodology, ChatGPT Guideline for Critical Argumentative Writing (CGCAW) framework, integrates the models with ChatGPT's capabilities to guide L2 learners in utilizing ChatGPT to enhance their critical thinking skills. A quantitative experiment was conducted with 10 participants from a state university, divided into experimental and control groups. The experimental group utilized the CGCAW framework, while the control group used ChatGPT without specific guidelines. Participants wrote an argumentative essay within a 40-minute timeframe, and essays were evaluated by three assessors: ChatGPT, Grammarly, and a course instructor. Results indicated that the experimental group showed improvements in clarity, logical coherence, and use of evidence, demonstrating ChatGPT's potential to enhance specific aspects of argumentative writing. However, the control group performed better in overall language mechanics and articulation of main arguments, indicating areas where the CGCAW framework could be further refined. This study highlights the need for further research to optimize the use of AI tools like ChatGPT in L2 learning environments to enhance critical thinking and writing skills.

Related papers

• Utilizing ChatGPT in a Data Structures and Algorithms Course: A Teaching Assistant's Perspective [1.0650780147044159]
  This study examines ChatGPT as a supplementary tool for teaching assistants (TAs) to enhance instruction and student outcomes.<n>A controlled experiment compared traditional TA-led instruction with a hybrid approach where TAs used ChatGPT-4o and ChatGPT o1 to generate exercises, clarify concepts, and provide feedback.<n>Results demonstrated the hybrid approach's efficacy, with students in the ChatGPT-assisted group scoring 16.50 points higher on average and excelling in advanced topics.<n>This framework highlights the dual role of LLMs: augmenting TA efficiency while ensuring accuracy through human oversight, offering a scalable solution for human-AI
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-11T15:18:48Z)
• Emergent AI-Assisted Discourse: Case Study of a Second Language Writer Authoring with ChatGPT [5.8131604120288385]
  This study investigates the role of ChatGPT in facilitating academic writing, especially among language learners. Using a case study approach, this study examines the experiences of Kailing, a doctoral student, who integrates ChatGPT throughout their academic writing process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-17T00:22:10Z)
• Chatbot-supported Thesis Writing: An Autoethnographic Report [0.0]
  ChatGPT might be applied to formats that require learners to generate text, such as bachelor theses or student research papers. ChatGPT is to be valued as a beneficial tool in thesis writing. However, writing a conclusive thesis still requires the learner's meaningful engagement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-14T09:09:26Z)
• Is ChatGPT Involved in Texts? Measure the Polish Ratio to Detect ChatGPT-Generated Text [48.36706154871577]
  We introduce a novel dataset termed HPPT (ChatGPT-polished academic abstracts) It diverges from extant corpora by comprising pairs of human-written and ChatGPT-polished abstracts instead of purely ChatGPT-generated texts. We also propose the "Polish Ratio" method, an innovative measure of the degree of modification made by ChatGPT compared to the original human-written text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-21T06:38:37Z)
• On the Detectability of ChatGPT Content: Benchmarking, Methodology, and Evaluation through the Lens of Academic Writing [10.534162347659514]
  We develop a deep neural framework named CheckGPT to better capture the subtle and deep semantic and linguistic patterns in ChatGPT written literature. To evaluate the detectability of ChatGPT content, we conduct extensive experiments on the transferability, prompt engineering, and robustness of CheckGPT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-07T12:33:24Z)
• ChatCoT: Tool-Augmented Chain-of-Thought Reasoning on Chat-based Large Language Models [125.7209927536255]
  We propose ChatCoT, a tool-augmented chain-of-thought reasoning framework for chat-based LLMs. In ChatCoT, we model the chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning as multi-turn conversations, to utilize tools in a more natural way through chatting. Our approach can effectively leverage the multi-turn conversation ability of chat-based LLMs, and integrate the thought chain following and tools manipulation in a unified way.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T17:54:33Z)
• Uncovering the Potential of ChatGPT for Discourse Analysis in Dialogue: An Empirical Study [51.079100495163736]
  This paper systematically inspects ChatGPT's performance in two discourse analysis tasks: topic segmentation and discourse parsing. ChatGPT demonstrates proficiency in identifying topic structures in general-domain conversations yet struggles considerably in specific-domain conversations. Our deeper investigation indicates that ChatGPT can give more reasonable topic structures than human annotations but only linearly parses the hierarchical rhetorical structures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-15T07:14:41Z)
• Exploring the Efficacy of ChatGPT in Analyzing Student Teamwork Feedback with an Existing Taxonomy [0.0]
  ChatGPT can achieve over 90% accuracy in labeling student comments. This study contributes to the growing body of research on the use of AI models in educational contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-09T19:55:50Z)
• ChatGraph: Interpretable Text Classification by Converting ChatGPT Knowledge to Graphs [54.48467003509595]
  ChatGPT has shown superior performance in various natural language processing (NLP) tasks. We propose a novel framework that leverages the power of ChatGPT for specific tasks, such as text classification. Our method provides a more transparent decision-making process compared with previous text classification methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-03T19:57:43Z)
• ChatGPT Beyond English: Towards a Comprehensive Evaluation of Large Language Models in Multilingual Learning [70.57126720079971]
  Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as the most important breakthroughs in natural language processing (NLP) This paper evaluates ChatGPT on 7 different tasks, covering 37 diverse languages with high, medium, low, and extremely low resources. Compared to the performance of previous models, our extensive experimental results demonstrate a worse performance of ChatGPT for different NLP tasks and languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-12T05:08:52Z)
• A Multitask, Multilingual, Multimodal Evaluation of ChatGPT on Reasoning, Hallucination, and Interactivity [79.12003701981092]
  We carry out an extensive technical evaluation of ChatGPT using 23 data sets covering 8 different common NLP application tasks. We evaluate the multitask, multilingual and multi-modal aspects of ChatGPT based on these data sets and a newly designed multimodal dataset. ChatGPT is 63.41% accurate on average in 10 different reasoning categories under logical reasoning, non-textual reasoning, and commonsense reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-08T12:35:34Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.