Enhancing English Learning Autonomy through ChatGPT: Teachers' and Students' Perceptions in Banda Aceh
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study aims to explore the potential of ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence-powered chatbot, in enhancing student motivation and engagement in English language learning in high schools in Banda Aceh, Indonesia. Using a qualitative research approach, this study analyzes data from in-depth interviews with three teachers and three students, as well as log data, surveys, and reflections. The results show that school policy, teacher support, and the diverse functions of ChatGPT play a crucial role in shaping the effectiveness of ChatGPT in promoting student autonomy, motivation, and confidence. Flexible school policies and active teacher support enable students to use ChatGPT more effectively, while strict policies and lack of teacher support can limit the potential benefits of ChatGPT. Additionally, ChatGPT can be used not only for academic purposes but also for personal interests, which can increase students' intrinsic motivation. The findings suggest that optimizing the role of ChatGPT in education requires a balance between supportive institutional policies, active teacher involvement, and flexible use that integrates both academic and personal learning goals. Thus, ChatGPT can serve as a cognitive tool and a catalyst for affective and motivational growth in language learning.
Article Details
References
Benson, P. (2013). Teaching and researching: Autonomy in language learning. Routledge.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Cárcamo Morales, B. E., & Pérez, C. (2022). Toward autonomous learning: Exploring the impact of participating in an online second language learning course.
Chapelle, C. A. (2006). English language learning and technology: Lectures on applied linguistics in the age of information and communication technology. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2002). Research methods in education. routledge.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 319–340.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
Egbert, J., & Hanson-Smith, E. (1999). CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Alexandria, VA.
Holec, H. (1979). Autonomy and foreign language learning. ERIC.
Holmes, A. G. D. (2021). Can We Actually Assess Learner Autonomy? The Problematic Nature of Assessing Student Autonomy. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 9(3), 8–15.
Shin, D., & Lee, J. H. (2024). Exploratory study on the potential of ChatGPT as a rater of second language writing. Education and Information Technologies, 29(18), 24735–24757.
Smith, R. (2008). Learner autonomy. ELT Journal, 62(4), 395–397.
Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, instructional design, and technology: Implications for transforming distance learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 3(2), 50–60.
Wang, Y. (2025). A study on the efficacy of ChatGPT-4 in enhancing students’ English communication skills. Sage Open, 15(1), 21582440241310644.
Warschauer, M. (2002). A developmental perspective on technology in language education. TESOL Quarterly, 36(3), 453–475.
Xiao, Y., & Zhi, Y. (2023). An exploratory study of EFL learners’ use of ChatGPT for language learning tasks: Experience and perceptions. Languages, 8(3), 212.
Yang, B., Xie, C., Liu, T., Xu, J., & Li, W. (2024). Exploring the relationship between teacher talk supports and student engagement from the perspective of students’ perceived care. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(10), 6393–6412.