The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics

Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 23
[Paper List] [Goto Volume List]

[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 23, No. 0, pp. 741-767
Abbreviation: KASELL
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Received 18 Aug 2023 Revised 16 Sep 2023 Accepted 18 Sep 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.23..202309.741

ChatGPT와 Google Bard를 활용한 Critical-PBLL 중심 대학영어 개발과 적용
김미경
초당대학교

Towards a Critical-PBLL utilizing ChatGPT and Google Bard within college English education
Kim, Mi Kyong
Assistant Professor, Chodang University, Tel: 061 450-1614 (mikyongkim@cdu.ac.kr)

© 2023 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract

In alignment with the increasing importance of critical thinking skills and the transformative potential of text-based generative AI as educational tools within Project-Based Language Learning, this study aims to develop and explore a Critical-PBLL framework utilizing ChatGPT and Google Bard. This encompasses a comprehensive understanding of students' English learning experiences by implementing this framework over a six-week period, embedded into a college English class. The study involved a total of 20 students divided into four groups. Data from five sources, including 16 post-questionnaires, 16 reflection notes, 4 sets of group journals, 4 sets of group Social Network Service (SNS) communications, and 13 interviews, were analyzed. The findings of the study revealed that students had positive English learning experiences in various aspects: Constructing knowledge related to project topics and the English language; promoting reflective thinking; engaging in playful learning; and recognizing the teacher's role as a facilitator. On the other hand, students also reported negative learning experiences: Overreliance on ChatGPT and Google Bard, leading to reduced discussions; initial learning anxiety due to unfamiliarity with prompt literacy and critical thinking-based tasks; and technical limitations associated with ChatGPT. Some pedagogical implications include the collaborative development of prompt literacy guidelines with learners; the active utilization of English outputs generated by ChatGPT and Google Bard as valuable language learning resources within language learning models; and the collaborative establishment of guidelines with learners for the appropriate use of ChatGPT and Google Bard.

Keywords: Critical-PBLL, ChatGPT, Google Bard, knowledge construction, reflective thinking skills, prompt literacy, playful learning, teacher as facilitator
References
1. 강동훈(Kang, D.). 2023. 챗지피티(ChatGPT)의 등장과 국어 교육의 대응(The advent of ChatGPT and the response of Korean language education). 국어문학(Korean Journal of General Education) 82, 469-496.
2. 강인애(Kang, I.) 2017. 4차 산업혁명 시대에 PBL의 재조명(In the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, a reexamination of PBL). 서울교육(Seoul Education) 59-4, Retrieved 10 August. 2023 from <https://webzine-serii.re.kr/>.
3. 김미경(Kim, M.). 2021. 프로젝트기반학습을 통한 문제제기식 교육—대학영작문 수업모형 개발과 적용(Developing problem-posing education through project-based learning in an English writing course). 영어영문학21(English 21) 34-1, 109-136.
4. 김미경(Kim, M.). 2023. 인공지능기술 학습도구와 PBL중심 교양영어 교과목 개발 및 적용(PBL using AI technology-based learning tools in a college English class). 교양교육연구(Korean Journal of General Education) 17-2, 169-183.
5. 신동광, 정혜경, 이용상(Shin, D., H. Jung and Y. Lee). 2023. 내용중심 영어 교수 학습의 도구 로서 ChatGPT의 활용 가능성 탐색(Exploring the potential of using ChatGPT as a content-based English learning and teaching tool). 영어교과교육(Journal of the Korea English Education Society) 22-1, 171-192.
6. 오선경(Oh, S.). 2023. 대학 교양 글쓰기에서의 챗GPT 활용 사례와 학습자 인식 연구(A study on the case of using ChatGPT & learners' perceptions in college liberal arts writing). 교양교육연구(Korean Journal of General Education) 17-3, 11-23.
7. 이혜진, 신동광(Lee, H. and D. Shin). (2022). 게이미피케이션과 메타버스를 적용한 수업 모형: 뇌의 장기기억 형성이론 및 가상 방탈출 게임을 중심으로(A class model with gamification and metaverse: Focused on long-term memory formation theory and virtual escape room game). 한국현대언어학회(The Journal of Studies in Language) 38-1, 33-52.
8. 장성민(Chang, S.). 2023. 챗GPT가 바꾸어 놓은 작문교육의 미래-인공지능시대, 작문교육의 대응을 중심으로(ChatGPT has Changed the Future of Writing Education: Focusing on the response of writing education in the era of artificial intelligence). 작문연구(Writing Research) 56, 7-34.
9. 정숙희(Jung, S.). 2019. 프로젝트 기반 교양영어 수업운영사례(A Case Study of Project-Based Learning in Undergraduate General English Class). 교육문화연구(Journal of Education & Culture) 25-5, 325-347.
10. 황요한(Hwang, Y.). 2023. PROMPT 리터러시 시대의 도래에 관한 고찰: 영어교육을 위한 ChatGPT와 DALL·E의 활용을 중심으로(The emergence of generative AI and PROMPT literacy: Focusing on the use of ChatGPT and DALL-E for English education). 영어교과교육(Journal of the Korea English Education Society) 22-2, 263-288.
11. Bazeley, P. and K. Jackson. 2013. Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
12. Beckett, G. and P. Miller. (Eds.). 2006. Project-based Second and Foreign Language Education: Past, Present, and Future. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
13. Beckett, G. and T. Slater. 2005. The project framework: A tool for language, content and skills integration. ELT Journal 59(2), 108-116.
14. Braun, V. and V. Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2), 77-101.
15. Buruk, O. 2023. Academic writing with GPT-3.5: Reflections on practices, efficacy and transparency. Available online at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.11079.
16. Clifford, J., L. Merschel and J. Munne. 2013. Surveying the landscape: What is the role of machine translation in language learning? Research in Education and Learning Innovation Archives 10, 108-121.
17. Cook, G. 1997. Language play, language learning. English Language Teaching Journal 51(3), 224–231.
18. Creswell, J. and J. Creswell. 2018. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.
19. Dewey, J. 1910. How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to educative process. New York: Heath and Co.
20. Figueroa, J. 2015. Using gamification to enhance second language learning. Digital Education Review 27, 32-54.
21. Ennis, R. 1996. Critical Thinking. NJ: Prentice Hall.
22. Freire, P. 1993. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Victoria: Penguin.
23. García, O., S. Johnson and K. Seltzer. 2017. The Translanguaging Classroom. Leveraging Student Bilingualism for Learning. Philadelphia: Caslon.
24. Groves, M. and K. Mundt. 2021. A ghostwriter in the machine? Attitudes of academic staff towards machine translation use in internationalized Higher Education. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 50(1), 1-11.
25. Halpern, D. 2014. Thought and knowledge: an introduction to critical thinking (5th ed.). New York: Psychology Press.
26. Hatton, N. and D. Smith. 1995. Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education 11(1), 33-49.
27. Jackson, L. 2023. Revolutionizing academic writing: Exploring the transformative potential of ChatGPT chatbots for students and instructors. Paper presented at the 2023 AsiaTEFL International Conference.
28. Jay, J. and K. Johnson. 2002. Capturing complexity. A typology of reflective practice for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education 18(1), 73-85.
29. Kim, M. 2006. The iron lady and the angry students: project-based learning using the internet critically in a Korean ELT university setting. Doctoral dissertation, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
30. Kim, M. 2015. Students’ and teacher’s reflections on project-oriented learning: A critical pedagogy for Korean ELT. English Teaching 70(3), 73-99.
31. Kim, M. 2019. Reflective practice in project-based culture learning: content and quality of reflection. English Language Teaching 31(4), 67-94.
32. Kim, M. and V. Pollard. 2017. A modest critical pedagogy for English as a foreign language education. Education as Change 21(1), 50-72.
33. Lee, S. 2020. The impact of using machine translation on EFL students’ writing. Computer-Assisted Language Learning 33(3), 157-175.
34. Lee, S. and N. Briggs. 2021. Effects of using machine translation to mediate the revision process of Korean university students’ academic writing. ReCALL 33(1), 18-33.
35. Lee, Y. 2021. Still taboo? Using machine translation for low-level EFL writers. ELT Journal 75(4), 432-441.
36. Legutke, M. and H. Thomas. 1991. Process and experience in the language classroom. London: Longman.
37. McCurry, J. 2023. South Korea’s birthrate sinks to fresh record low as population crisis deepens. The Guardian, February 22, 2023. Available online at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/22/south-koreas-birthrate-sinks-to-fresh-record-low-as-population-crisis-deepens
38. Moss, D. and V. Duzer. 1998. Project-based learning for adult English language learners (ED427556). ERIC. Available online at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED427556.pdf
39. Nixon-Ponder, S. 1995. Using problem-posing dialogue in adult literacy education: Teacher to teacher (ED381677). ERIC. Available online at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED381677.pdf
40. Roehr, K. 2007. Metalinguistic knowledge and language ability in university-level L2 learners. Applied Linguistics 29(2), 173-99.
41. Shin, M. 2018. Effects of project-based learning on students’ motivation and self-efficacy. English Teaching 73(1), 95-114.
42. Shin, M. 2019. Study of English teaching method by convergence of project-based learning and problem-based learning for English communication. Journal of Korea Convergence Society 10(2), 82-88.
43. Stapleton, P. and B. Kin. 2019. Assessing the accuracy and teachers’ impressions of Google translate: A study of primary L2 writers in Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes 56, 18-34.
44. Sudajit-apa, M. 2023. The intersection of artificial intelligence and ESP: From linguistic analysis to implications for ESP pedagogy. Paper presented at the Asia TEFL Webinar Series.
45. Stoller, F. 1997. Project work: A means to promote language content. Forum 35(4), 1-10.
46. Tardy, C. 2021. The potential power of play in second language academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 53, 1-10.
47. Tsai, S. 2019. Using Google Translate in EFL drafts: A preliminary investigation. Computer Assisted Language Learning 32(5-6), 510-526.
48. Van Manen, M. 1977. Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry 6(3), 205-228.
49. Vogel, S., L. Ascenzi-Moreno and O. García. 2018. An expanded view of translanguaging: Leveraging the dynamic interactions between a young multilingual writer and machine translation software. In J. Choi and S. Ollerhead, eds., Plurilingualism in Teaching and Learning: Complexities Across Contexts, 89-106. London: Taylor & Francis.
50. Yang, H. 2018. Efficiency of online grammar checker in English writing performance and students’ perceptions. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 18(3), 328-348.
51. Yang, H., H. Kim, J. Lee and D. Shin. 2022. Implementation of an AI chatbot as an English conversation partner in EFL speaking classes. ReCALL 34(3), 327-343.