Chinese University Students’ Attitudes and Perceptions in Learning English Using ChatGPT


  • Binghan Liu The University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom



ChatGPT, Chinese Higher Education, English Teaching and Learning


Since its release into the public domain, the generative AI tool - ChatGPT has arisen wide attention by its sophisticated capacity to carry out complex tasks. Many educators have researched the advanced tool in offering potential benefits for language teaching and learning. This research is designed for assessing Chinese university students’ attitudes towards using ChatGPT to improve their English learning and their perceptions regarding the advantages and disadvantages of ChatGPT. In this study, data were collected from 109 undergraduate Chinese students, using a questionnaire consisting of 5-point Likert scale questions. The findings of the study show that the students believe ChatGPT is an effective tool to support them in learning English but information security should be taken into further consideration. Policymakers, technology experts, researchers, and educators could work together on how ChatGPT and other evolving generative AI tools could be used safely and effectively in English teaching and learning

Author Biography

Binghan Liu, The University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom




Abdelghani, R., et al. (2022). GPT-3- driven pedagogical agents for training children’s curious question-asking skills. Available online at:

Baidoo-Anu, D., & Owusu Ansah, L. (2023). Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. Available online at SSRN:

Bao, M. (2019). Can home use of speech-enabled artificial intelligence mitigate foreign language anxiety–investigation of a concept. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Special Issue on CALL, 5.

Bolukbasi, T., Chang, K., Zou, J., Saligrama, V., & Kalai, A. (2016). Man is to computer programmer as woman is to homemaker? Debiasing word embeddings. Available online at:

Cotton, D., Cotton, P., & Shipway, J. R. (2023). Chatting and cheating. Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. EdArXiv. Available online at:

Elkins, K., & Chun, J. (2020). Can GPT-3 pass a writer’s turing test? Journal of Cultural Analytics, 5:17212.

D’Agostino, S. (2023). Academics work to detect ChatGPT and other AI writing. Available online at:

Dehouche, N. (2021). Plagiarism in the age of massive Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPT-3). Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 21: 17-23.

Gabajiwala, E., Mehta, P., Singh, R., & Koshy, R. (2022). Quiz maker: Automatic quiz generation from text using NLP. In Futuristic Trends in Networks and Computing Technologies (pp. 523–533). Singapore: Springer.

Gao, J. (2021). Exploring the feedback quality of an automated writing evaluation system Pigai. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 16(11), 322-330.

Gao, C. A., et al. (2022). Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to original abstracts using an artificial intelligence output detector, plagiarism detector, and blinded human reviewers. bioRxiv.

Graham, F. (2022). Daily briefing: Will ChatGPT kill the essay assignment? Nature.

Hasan, M. (2019). Portfolio assessment in writing courses: Attitudes of students from the Department of English, University of Dhaka. The Warwick ELT. Available online at:

Jiao, W., Wang, W., Huang, J., Wang, X., & Tu, Z. (2023). Is ChatGPT a good translator? A preliminary study. Available online at: chatgpt_arxiv.pdf

Kasneci, E., et al. (2023). Chatgpt for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. EdArXiv. Available online at:

McCue, T. (2023). ChatGPT success completely depends on your prompt. Available online at:

Nassim, D. (2021). Plagiarism in the age of massive Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPT-3). Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 21, 17–23.

Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS Survival Guide: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows (3rd ed.). NewYork: Open University Press.

Pavlik, J. V. (2023). Collaborating with ChatGPT: Considering the implications of generative artificial intelligence for journalism and media education. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 78(01).

Perez, S., et al. (2017). Identifying productive inquiry in virtual labs using sequence mining. In E. André, R. Baker, X. Hu, M. M. T. Rodrigo, & B. du Boulay (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10 (331): 287–298. 61425-0_24.

Roscoe, R. D., Wilson, J., Johnson, A. C., & Mayra, C. R. (2017). Presentation, expectations, and experience: Sources of student perceptions of automated writing evaluation. Computers in Human Behavior, 70: 207-221.

Rudolph, J., Tan, S., & Tan, S. (2023). ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education? Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1).

Stokel-Walker, C. (2022). AI bot ChatGPT writes smart essays — Should academics worry? Nature.

Tai, T., & Chen, H. (2020). The impact of Google assistant on adolescent EFL learners’ willingness to communicate. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–18.

Tangermann, V. (2023). College student caught submitting paper using ChatGPT. Available online at:

Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education–where are the educators?. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1): 1-27.




How to Cite

Liu, B. (2023). Chinese University Students’ Attitudes and Perceptions in Learning English Using ChatGPT. International Journal of Education and Humanities, 3(2), 132–140.