ChatGPT affordance for logic learning strategies and its usefulness for developing knowledge and quality of logic in English argumentative writing

IF 5.6 1区 文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH System Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.system.2024.103561
Ruofei Zhang , Di Zou , Gary Cheng
{"title":"ChatGPT affordance for logic learning strategies and its usefulness for developing knowledge and quality of logic in English argumentative writing","authors":"Ruofei Zhang ,&nbsp;Di Zou ,&nbsp;Gary Cheng","doi":"10.1016/j.system.2024.103561","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Logic learning is essential for developing knowledge and quality of logic in English argumentative writing. Its main strategies include gathering logic instructions (Gathering), understanding logical concepts (Understanding), exercising knowledge of logic (Exercising), analysing logic in authentic writings (Analysing), and revising and creating logical links under guidance (Crafting) – which ChatGPT may afford. However, there has been limited exploration of ChatGPT-based logic learning. To address this gap, we developed a GPT-4-based logic learning bot and engaged 40 EFL university students, exploring ChatGPT's affordance for logic learning strategies and its usefulness for developing logical knowledge and quality of logic in English argumentative writing. We measured ChatGPT affordance by analysing learner-bot conversations and evaluated the usefulness of ChatGPT affordance through pre-post knowledge tests and essay writing tasks. Semi-structured interviews were also conducted. Our findings revealed that ChatGPT afforded 12 sub-strategies of logic learning, with Gathering and Exercising strategies being the most frequently used. ChatGPT-based logic learning strategies, especially Gathering and Exercising strategies, significantly developed knowledge and quality of logic in English argumentative writing. Through analysing the results, we identified ChatGPT features influencing the frequency and effectiveness of logical learning strategies and offered implications for implementing ChatGPT-based logic learning.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48185,"journal":{"name":"System","volume":"128 ","pages":"Article 103561"},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"System","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0346251X24003439","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Logic learning is essential for developing knowledge and quality of logic in English argumentative writing. Its main strategies include gathering logic instructions (Gathering), understanding logical concepts (Understanding), exercising knowledge of logic (Exercising), analysing logic in authentic writings (Analysing), and revising and creating logical links under guidance (Crafting) – which ChatGPT may afford. However, there has been limited exploration of ChatGPT-based logic learning. To address this gap, we developed a GPT-4-based logic learning bot and engaged 40 EFL university students, exploring ChatGPT's affordance for logic learning strategies and its usefulness for developing logical knowledge and quality of logic in English argumentative writing. We measured ChatGPT affordance by analysing learner-bot conversations and evaluated the usefulness of ChatGPT affordance through pre-post knowledge tests and essay writing tasks. Semi-structured interviews were also conducted. Our findings revealed that ChatGPT afforded 12 sub-strategies of logic learning, with Gathering and Exercising strategies being the most frequently used. ChatGPT-based logic learning strategies, especially Gathering and Exercising strategies, significantly developed knowledge and quality of logic in English argumentative writing. Through analysing the results, we identified ChatGPT features influencing the frequency and effectiveness of logical learning strategies and offered implications for implementing ChatGPT-based logic learning.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
ChatGPT对逻辑学习策略的启示及其对英语议论文写作中逻辑知识和质量发展的有用性
逻辑学习是英语议论文写作中逻辑知识和逻辑素质发展的基础。它的主要策略包括收集逻辑指令(gathering),理解逻辑概念(understanding),练习逻辑知识(exercise),分析真实作品中的逻辑(analysis),以及在指导下修改和创建逻辑链接(Crafting)——ChatGPT可以提供这些策略。然而,基于chatgpt的逻辑学习的探索有限。为了解决这一差距,我们开发了一个基于gpt -4的逻辑学习机器人,并招募了40名英语大学生,探索了ChatGPT对逻辑学习策略的支持,以及它在英语议论文写作中发展逻辑知识和逻辑质量的有用性。我们通过分析学习者与机器人的对话来衡量ChatGPT的可用性,并通过前后知识测试和论文写作任务来评估ChatGPT的可用性。还进行了半结构化访谈。我们的研究结果表明,ChatGPT提供了12个子逻辑学习策略,其中最常用的是收集和练习策略。基于chatgpt的逻辑学习策略,尤其是Gathering和exercise策略,极大地提高了英语议论文写作的逻辑知识和逻辑素质。通过分析结果,我们确定了影响逻辑学习策略频率和有效性的ChatGPT特征,并为实现基于ChatGPT的逻辑学习提供了启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
System
System Multiple-
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
8.30%
发文量
202
审稿时长
64 days
期刊介绍: This international journal is devoted to the applications of educational technology and applied linguistics to problems of foreign language teaching and learning. Attention is paid to all languages and to problems associated with the study and teaching of English as a second or foreign language. The journal serves as a vehicle of expression for colleagues in developing countries. System prefers its contributors to provide articles which have a sound theoretical base with a visible practical application which can be generalized. The review section may take up works of a more theoretical nature to broaden the background.
期刊最新文献
Multimodal teacher collaboration in L2 vocabulary instruction Breaking the either-or myth: How growth and fixed language mindsets interact to shape student engagement in EFL classrooms Teacher enthusiasm and EFL students' psychological well-being: the role of basic psychological needs and self-determined motivation Teacher professional development in focus: Dealing with students’ chat-based contributions in online teaching Editorial Board
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1