Scaffold or Shortcut? How Non-English-Major Students Use ChatGPT for Grammar Learning
Authors
-
Dinh Thi Cam Loan
https://orcid.org/0009-0001-9124-4320 (unauthenticated)
Keywords:
ChatGPT, grammar learning, AI in education, Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Constructivist Learning Theories (CLT)Abstract
The rise of ChatGPT as a popular tool among EFL learners has become a subject in recent studies. Preliminary classroom observations reveal that many students use ChatGPT to scan texts to retrieve immediate answers to grammar-related tasks rather than engaging in analytical and reflective practice. Moreover, while scholarship mainly explores the impacts of ChatGPT on writing and vocabulary learning of English majors, there are limited studies on how ChatGPT is actually used by non-English-major students in grammar learning. To fill this gap, this study investigates how students perceive and actually use ChatGPT as a scaffolding for understanding or a shortcut for task completion. Drawing upon the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and social constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978), a questionnaire was delivered to 239 non-major university students. Cronbach’s alpha, descriptive statistics, and regression analyses were used to analyze data. Findings indicate that students hold a positive perception of ChatGPT's ease of use and usefulness. Perceived usefulness predicts not only students’ intention to use ChatGPT and their tendency to engage with explanations and learning support, but also students’ reliance on ChatGPT for obtaining quick answers and completing tasks. These findings reveal that ChatGPT has dual impacts on students’ constructive and convenience-driven learning. Pedagogical guidance is needed to foster critical and reflective engagement with ChatGPT.
References
Albayati, H. (2024). Investigating undergraduate students' perceptions and awareness of using ChatGPT as a regular assistance tool: A user acceptance perspective study. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, Article 100203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100203
Behforouz, B., & Ghaithi, A. A. (2024). Grammar gains: Transforming EFL learning with ChatGPT. Educational Process International Journal, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2024.134.2
Börjars, K., & Burridge, K. (2019). Introducing English Grammar (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429023293
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Duong, T. T. U., & Nguyen, M. H. (2024). Students’ perspective on applying AI in English learning and teaching: A study at UEH. ICTE Conference Proceedings, 5, 91–102. https://doi.org/10.54855/ictep.2458
Green, S. B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis? Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26(3), 499-510. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2603_7
Gunawan, F. C., & Susanto, A. I. F. (2025). Investigating the impacts of ChatGPT on students motivation in learning English grammar. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 146-157. https://doi.org/10.18860/jetle.v6i2.32397
Kucuk, T. (2023). AI integrated grammar teaching in language preparatory school. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.23918/ijsses.v11i1p1
Kucuk, T. (2024). ChatGPT integrated grammar teaching and learning in EFL classes: A study on Tishk International University students in Erbil, Iraq. Arab World English Journal (Special Issue on ChatGPT), 100–111. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/ChatGPT.6
Lai, T. K. L., & Trinh, H. L. (2025). The effects of ChatGPT on academic writing proficiency among English-majored undergraduates at a university. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 41(3), 92-109. https://doi.org/10.63023/2525-2445/jfs.ulis.5514
Luu, D.K.C, & Bui, D.B.H. (2025). The Utilization of Chat-GPT 3.5 for Vocabulary Learning: A Study on Students’ Perceptions. AsiaCALL Online Journal, 16(1), 226-252. https://doi.org/10.54855/acoj.2516111
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I — Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x
Ng, J., Tong, M., Tsang, E. Y. M., Chu, K., & Tsang, W. (2025). Exploring students’ perceptions and satisfaction of using GenAI-ChatGPT tools for learning in higher education: A mixed methods study. SN Computer Science, 6(5). Article 476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-025-04010-4
Ngo, T. T. A. (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
Nguyen, M. A. (2024). Leveraging ChatGPT for enhancing English writing skills and critical thinking in university freshmen. Journal of Knowledge Learning and Science Technology, 3(2), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.60087/jklst.vol3.n2.p62
Nguyen, T. V. N. (2024). Using ChatGPT in teaching English for specific purposes: Teachers’ perspectives. TNU Journal of Science and Technology, 229(12), 362–369. https://doi.org/10.34238/tnu-jst.10838
Nguyen, T. P. L. (2026). Vietnamese EFL lecturers’ perspectives on leveraging AI tools to enhance students’ autonomous learning. International Journal of Language Instruction, 5(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.54855/ijli.26511
Nopita, M., & Dangin, D. (2025). The threats and mitigation of ChatGPT on academic writing in higher education: Educators’ view. Jurnal Penelitian Humaniora, 26(2), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.23917/humaniora.v26i2.11035
Patrick, P. M., Yip, S. Y., & Campbell, C. (2025). Artificial intelligence and higher-order thinking: A systematic review of educator and student experiences and perspectives in higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 79(4), Article e70069. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.70069
Pham, V. T. T., & Pham, A. T. (2025). Investigating EFL students’ attitudes towards AI-powered tools in English language learning. In 2025 13th International Conference on Information and Education Technology (ICIET) (pp. 192–196). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIET66371.2025.11046282
Phieanchang, T. (2024). Using ChatGPT to improve English grammar skills for EFL learners. Journal of Rajabhat Thonburi University, 18(1), 223–240. https://so02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/journaldru/article/view/268054
Singh, H., Tayarani-Najaran, M.-H., & Yaqoob, M. (2023). Exploring computer science students’ perception of ChatGPT in higher education: A descriptive and correlational study. Education Sciences, 13(9), Article 924. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13090924
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, L., & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 5998–6008. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2017/hash/3f5ee243547dee91fbd053c1c4a845aa-Abstract.html
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Zhai, X. (2022). ChatGPT user experience: Implications for education. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4312418
Zhao, W. X., Zhou, K., Li, J., Tang, T., Wang, X., Hou, Y., Min, Y., Zhang, B., Zhang, J., Dong, Z., Du, Y., Yang, C., Chen, Y., Chen, Z., Jiang, J., Ren, R., Li, Y., Tang, X., Liu, Z., … Wen, J.-R. (2026). A survey of large language models. Frontiers of Computer Science, 20(1), Article 2012627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-026-60308-3
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Dinh Thi Cam Loan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the picte the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the proceedings' published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository, in a journal, or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this proceedings.
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.
