From Tool Utilization to Paradigm Shift: Reflections and New Directions in ESP Teaching Research in the AIGC Era
Abstract
is especially pressing under professional accreditation because measurable gains in applied English proficiency are required. But it must
be noted that present research on AIGC tends to treat it either as a student tool (evaluating effectiveness) or a risk (expressing concerns),
both of which ignore the teacher. This paper gives a thorough, logical review of two ESP principles: competence orientation and situated
learning, and first explains why pre-AIGC attempts were inadequate, then positions AIGC as a " context generator " and " personalized
learning aid, " while honestly pointing out that the teacher is currently marginalized in most discussions. From there, it makes a compelling case for redirecting research attention to teachers' cognitive processes as curriculum designers. Thus, qualitative research should
explore how AIGC influences teachers' pedagogical content knowledge and course design practices, forming a solid basis for ESP transformation.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
[1] Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 3242.
[2] Burstein, J. (2003). The e-rater scoring engine: Automated essay scoring with natural language processing. In M. D. Shermis & J.
Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 113-121). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[3] Cai, J. G. (2023). ChatGPT dui waiyu jiaoxue de tiaozhan yu jiyu [Challenges and opportunities of ChatGPT for foreign language teaching]. Technology Enhanced Foreign Language Education, (1), 1-6.
[4] Dai, W., Lin, J., Jin, H., Li, T., Tsai, Y.-S., Gaevi?, D., & Chen, G. (2023). Can large language models provide feedback to students? A
case study on ChatGPT. 2023 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 323-325.
[5] Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes: A learning-centred approach. Cambridge University Press.
[6] Hwang, W. Y., Manabe, K., Cai, D. J., & Ma, Z. H. (2020). Collaborative kinesthetic English learning with recognition technology.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(5), 946-977.
[7] Kasneci, E., Seler, K., Kchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., & Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274.
[8] Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
[9] Molenaar, I. (2022). The concept of hybrid human-AI regulation: Exemplifying how to support young learners' self-regulated learning.
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100070.
[10] Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
[11] Spady, W. G. (1994). Outcome-Based Education: Critical Issues and Answers. American Association of School Administrators.
[12] UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO.
[13] VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational
Psychologist, 46(4), 197221.
[14] Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
[15] Zhai, X. (2023). ChatGPT for next generation science learning. Scientific Reports, 13, 1-8.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.70711/eer.v3i5.9361
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
