EFL Students’ Use, Perceptions, and Reliance on Chat-GPT for Editing and Proofreading: A Technology Acceptance Model Perspective

Authors

  • Endang Setyaningsih Sebelas Maret University, Indonesia
  • Hasan Zainnuri University of Leeds, United Kingdom
  • Dewi Sri Wahyuni Sebelas Maret University, Indonesia
  • Yuni Hariyanti UPN Veteran, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v13i3.13484

Keywords:

Artificial intelligence, Chat-GPT, Editing, EFL writing, Technology acceptance model

Abstract

Rapid growth of studies on Chat-GPT acceptance within the broader context of AI in education (AIEd) has provided valuable insights into how participants across settings perceive and use this tool for teaching and learning. This study replicates earlier investigations on AI acceptance but narrows the focus to a specific task: editing and proofreading. It also expands the inquiry to address ethical concerns and overreliance—two recurring themes in AIEd research. A modified extended TAM questionnaire covering seven aspects was distributed to 71 first-year EFL university students enrolled in a writing course that permitted Chat-GPT only for editing and proofreading, with clear restrictions. Group interviews were also conducted. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics; qualitative data were examined thematically. Findings reveal a consistent three-step use of Chat-GPT: prompting, pasting the manuscript, and reviewing. Students treated AI output as a draft for enhancement, not as final work. Variation emerged in how much students revised AI-suggested edits, suggesting differing levels of reliance. The study confirms that perceived usefulness and ease of use contribute to students’ attitudes and intentions, moderated by self-image and subjective norms. While long-term dependency remains unclear, students appeared cautious when boundaries were set. This study suggests that when lecturers provide clear guidelines, students tend to view Chat-GPT as a learning aid and show awareness of academic integrity and authorship. The findings underline the need for well-defined institutional policies on AI use in writing instruction, while acknowledging the study’s contextual limitations and the need for further research.

Author Biographies

Endang Setyaningsih, Sebelas Maret University

Assistant Professor at the Department of English Education, Teacher Training and Education Faculty,  Sebelas Maret University.

Hasan Zainnuri, University of Leeds

Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Leeds, School of Education, United Kingdom

Dewi Sri Wahyuni, Sebelas Maret University

English Teacher Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta, Indonesia

Yuni Hariyanti, UPN Veteran

International Relations, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, UPN Veteran, Jakarta

References

Al-Hattami, H. M. (2023). Understanding perceptions of academics toward technology acceptance in accounting education. Heliyon, 9(1), e13141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13141

Buell, M.Z and Park, S.J., (2008). “Positioning expertise: The shared journey of a South Korean and a North American doctoral student†In C.P. Casanave, X. Li (Eds.), Learning the literacy practices of graduate school: Insiders' reflections on academic enculturation, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 201-217

Chang, H., Liu, B., Zhao, Y., Li, Y., & He, F. (2024). Research on the acceptance of ChatGPT among different college student groups based on latent class analysis. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2024.2331646

Choudhury, A., & Shamszare, H. (2023). Investigating the Impact of User Trust on the Adoption and Use of ChatGPT: Survey Analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25, e47184. https://doi.org/10.2196/47184

Conrad, N.L. (2020). Proofreading revisited: Interrogating assumptions about postsecondary student users of proofreading. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 46 (2020)

Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–339

Floris, F.D. (2024). AI ethics 101: Pedagogical. Modern English Teacher, Vol. 33 (2). Available online at https://www.modernenglishteacher.com/ai-ethics-101-pedagogical

Floris, F.D., Widiati, U., Renandya, W.A., Busthomi, Y. (2024). Artificial intelligence in English language teaching: Fostering joint enterprise in online communities. Journal of English Educators Society, 9(1).12-21. https://jees.umsida.ac.id/index.php/jees/article/view/1825

Harwood, N. (2022). Teaching the writer to fish so they can fish for the rest of their lives’: Lecturer, English language tutor, and student views on the educative role of proofreading. English for Specific Purposes. Vol. 68, October 2022, pp. 116-130

Ibrahim, K., & Kirkpatrick, R. (2024). Potentials and implications of ChatGPT for ESL writing instruction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 25(3), 394–409. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v25i3.7820

Liu, G. L., Darvin, R., & Ma, C. (2024). Exploring AI-mediated informal digital learning of English (AI-IDLE): A mixed-method investigation of Chinese EFL learners’ AI adoption and experiences. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2024.2310288

Malinka, K., Perešíni, M., Firc, A., Hujňák, O., & Januš, F. (2023). On the Educational Impact of ChatGPT: Is Artificial Intelligence Ready to Obtain a University Degree? arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2303.11146

Mennella, T. (2024). Student usage and perceptions of ChatGPT: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Biophysical Journal, 123(3), 334a. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2023.11.2035

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (1988). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. http://cds.cern.ch/record/2261864

Strzelecki, A., Cicha, K., Rizun, M., & Rutecka, P. (2024). Acceptance and use of ChatGPT in the academic community. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12765-1

Teng, M. F. (2023). Scientific writing, reviewing, and editing for open-access TESOL journals: The role of ChatGPT. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 5, 87-91

Teng, M. F. (2024). “ChatGPT is the companion, not enemiesâ€: EFL learners’ perceptions and experiences in using ChatGPT for feedback in writing. Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100270

Van Den Berg, G., & Du Plessis, E. (2023). ChatGPT and Generative AI: Possibilities for its contribution to lesson planning, critical thinking and openness in teacher education. Education Sciences, 13(10), 998. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13100998

Venkatesh, V & Bala, H. (2008). Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions. Decision Sciences - DECISION SCI. 39. 273-315. 10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x.

Zhang, X., Jiang, H., Qiao, Z., & Li, P. (2024). Students’ Response to ChatGPT: An Adaptive Technology-To-Performance Model. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2024.2386546

Downloads

Published

2025-07-18

How to Cite

Setyaningsih, E., Zainnuri, H., Wahyuni, D. S., & Hariyanti, Y. (2025). EFL Students’ Use, Perceptions, and Reliance on Chat-GPT for Editing and Proofreading: A Technology Acceptance Model Perspective. Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 13(3), 1367–1379. https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v13i3.13484

Issue

Vol. 13 No. 3 (2025)

Section

Articles

Citation Check

License

License and Publishing Agreement
In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:

  1. They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
  2. The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
  3. That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
  4. That its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
  5. They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
  6. They agree to the following license and publishing agreement.

Copyright
Authors who publish with JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. 
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

Licensing for Data Publication

JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching uses a variety of waivers and licenses, that are specifically designed for and appropriate for the treatment of data:
Other data publishing licenses may be allowed as exceptions (subject to approval by the editor on a case-by-case basis) and should be justified with a written statement from the author, which will be published with the article.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.