A Study of Ho Chi Minh City Tertiary Students’ Perceptions and Intentions on Chatgpt’s Usage for English Language Learning
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study investigated the perceptions of 428 first-year tertiary students from 17 universities in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, representing public, private, and international institutions across different regions. Guided by the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), a quantitative survey using
a 22-item Likert-scale questionnaire examined two key dimensions: Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) and Perceived Usefulness (PU). Results revealed high overall agreement, with students recognizing ChatGPT as a convenient and effective tool for language learning, particularly in writing tasks, idea organization, and summarization of complex texts. Students valued its ability to enhance productivity, autonomy, and engagement in their learning. However, concerns emerged regarding overdependence, potential reduction in critical thinking, and long-term academic integrity issues, as students prioritized immediate benefits over sustained learning outcomes. These findings suggest that while ChatGPT holds significant promise in supporting tertiary-level language education, its integration should
be accompanied by structured guidance, digital literacy training, and clear ethical frameworks to ensure responsible, effective, and sustainable use.
Article Details
References
Anderson, M. (2023). Ethical implications of AI in academic writing. Journal of Higher Education Ethics, 48(2), 124-135.
An, N. T. T. (2023). The Perception by University Students of the Use of ChatGPT in Education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 18(17), 4–19, https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v18i17.39019
Bok, E., & Cho, Y. (2023). Examining Korean EFL college students’ experiences and perceptions of using ChatGPT as a writing revision tool. Journal of English Teaching through Movies and Media.
Buolamwini, J., & Gebru, T. (2018). Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 81, 77-91.
Brynjolfsson, E. (2022). The Role of AI in Education: Opportunities and Ethical Challenges. Harvard University Press.
Duong, L. T. T., Dung, L. V., Ha, N. T., Sang, H. M., & Hien, T. T. (2025). Factors influencing the intention to use ChatGPT in education: An integrated TAM-TPB approach. VNU Journal of Economics and Business, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.57110/vnu-jeb.v5i3.447
Elali, A., & Rachid, M. (2023). Detecting AI-Generated Text: Challenges and Solutions. International Journal of Educational Technology, 15(2), 45-60.
Huang, J., & Mizumoto, A. (2024). Examining the relationship between the L2 motivational self system and technology acceptance model post ChatGPT introduction and utilization. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, 100302.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: issues and implications. London: Longman.
Klimova, B., Pikhart, M., & Al-Obaydi, L. H. (2024). Exploring the potential of ChatGPT for foreign language education at the university level. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1269319.
Kohnke, L., Moorhouse, B. L., & Zou, D. (2023). ChatGPT for language teaching and learning. RELC Journal, 54(2), 1–14.
Oates, A., Johnson, D. (2025). ChatGPT in the Classroom: Evaluating its Role in Fostering Critical Evaluation Skills. Int J Artif Intell Educ.
Maheshwari, G. (2024). Factors influencing students' intention to adopt and use ChatGPT in higher education: A study in the Vietnamese context. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 12167–12195.
McCabe, D. (2023). AI and academic integrity: An evolving challenge. International Journal of Plagiarism Studies, 27(1), 15-25.
Mhlanga, D. (2023). Open AI in education, the responsible and ethical use of ChatGPT towards lifelong learning. Social Science Research Network.
Mogavi, R. H., Deng, C., Kim, J. J., Zhou, P., Kwon, Y. D., Metwally, A. H. S., ... & Hui, P. (2024). ChatGPT in education: A blessing or a curse? A qualitative study exploring early adopters’ utilization and perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 2(1), 100027
Neville, C. (2010). The Complete Guide to Referencing and Avoid Plagiarism. Open University Press.
Pardos, Z. A., & Bhandari, S. (2023). Learning gain differences between ChatGPT
and human tutor generated algebra hints.
Quintans-Júnior, L. J., Gurgel, R. Q., Araújo, A. A. S., Correia, D., & Martins-Filho, P. R. (2023). ChatGPT: the new panacea of the academic world. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical, 56, e0060.
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), 342-363
Shaengchart, Y. (2023). A conceptual review of TAM and ChatGPT usage intentions among higher education students. Advance Knowledge for Executives, 2(3), 1-7.
Strzelecki, A., Cicha, K., Rizun, M., & Rutecka, P. (2024). Acceptance and use of ChatGPT in the academic community. Education and Information Technologies, 29(17), 22943-22968.
Su, J., & Yang, W. (2023). Unlocking the power of ChatGPT: A framework for applying generative AI in education. ECNU Review of Education, 6(3), 355-366.
Taecharungroj, V. (2023). “What Can ChatGPT Do?” Analyzing Early Reactions to the Innovative AI Chatbot on Twitter. Big Data and Cognitive Computing 7(1), 35,
Tomasi, C. (2024, April 3). AI lacks emotional intelligence: Navigating complexities & bridging gaps. MorphCast.
Zou, M., & Huang, L. (2023). The impact of ChatGPT on L2 writing and expected responses: Voice from doctoral students. Education and Information Technologies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12397-x
