Journal of Languages & Translation

P-ISSN: 2716-9359 E-ISSN: 2773-3505

Volume 05 Issue 01 January 2025 pp.01-21

Exploring Algerian EFL Students’ Familiarity, Use and Attitudes towards

Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools in Education

Loubna SEBBAH1
University of Algiers 2– Algeria
[email protected]
https://orcid.org/0009-0007-9215-3846

Received 25/07/2024 Accepted 22/11/2024 Published 01/01/2025

Abstract
It is agreed nowadays that Artificial intelligence (AI) has gained wider acclamation in various
sectors, including education. The integration of AI in education has unveiled an array of AI-powered
tools, revolutionizing teaching and learning and equipping both students and teachers to navigate
the demands of the digital era. Within the framework of the Technology Acceptance Model, the
present study aims to explore Algerian EFL students’ familiarity, use and attitudes towards artificial
intelligence tools and chatbots in the learning process. To this end, an exploratory study involving a
mixed-methods design was conducted with 305 graduate and undergraduate EFL subjects in the
Department of English of the University of Algiers 2. The results emerging from the quantitative and
qualitative analysis of the questionnaire revealed that the subjects were familiar with different AI
tools, such as Chatbots and generative tools, mainly using them to complete tasks requiring both
lower and higher-order thinking skills. The subjects generated positive attitudes towards the use of
AI, favouring their efficiency and support but expressing concerns about potential over-reliance and
impacts on their motivation, critical thinking skills and creativity. The study concludes with
suggestions for future research on the ethical implications and best practices for AI use in higher
education.

Keywords: Artificial intelligence, attitudes, EFL students, familiarity, higher education

1
Corresponding author: Loubna SEBBAH/[email protected]
Journal of Languages & Translation © 2025, Published by University of Chlef, Algeria.
This is an open access article under the CC BY license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

1
Exploring Algerian EFL Students’ Familiarity, Use and Attitudes towards Generative Artificial
Intelligence Tools in Education
Loubna SEBBAH

Introduction

In this era of tremendous technological developments, it is agreed nowadays that Artificial

Intelligence (henceforth, AI) has become increasingly prominent in different sectors, such as
healthcare, engineering, and education, aiming at simulating human problem-solving abilities and
increasing optimization. The implementation of AI in the educational field has brought to light the
design of varied AI-powered tools that have recently revolutionized teaching and learning,
enabling students and teachers to cope with this digital age. The use of AI chatbots and tools has
been viewed as double-pronged since some universities around the world have acknowledged the
pedagogic benefits of AI in providing engaging learning experiences for students, while others
seem to undermine its adoption as an instructional tool for ethical reasons (Gilissen et al., 2022).
However, one cannot ignore the fact that the use of internet technologies in general and AI-
powered tools in particular seems to be highly popular among students and young adults as they
often use them to learn, to interact with information and to solve all types of everyday problems
(Sallam, 2023), and Algeria is no exception. Given this fact, it was felt appropriate to explore
Algerian EFL students’ familiarity, use and attitudes towards the use of AI tools in the learning
process in the Department of English of the University of Algiers 2. To fulfill the study’s
objectives, this study seeks to address the following research questions:

RQ 1: What AI tools are Algerian EFL students familiar with?

RQ 2: How do Algerian EFL students use AI tools in the learning process?
RQ 3: What are the students’ attitudes towards the use of AI chatbots and tools?

The present study can provide important insights into EFL students’ familiarity, use and
attitudes towards generative AI chatbots and tools in the learning process. The findings of this
study can inform practitioners about how this new generation of technology is embraced and
perceived by students and how it may affect EFL students’ learning outcomes and engagement in
the learning process. Findings of this study can be exploited to shape policy decisions and
educational practices regarding the integration of AI in the Algerian University.

1. Literature review
1.1. Defining artificial intelligence

Artificial intelligence is part of computer science and is defined as the science of creating
smart machines (Mertala et al., 2022). The purpose of artificial intelligence is to create intelligent
machines that can learn and process information, imitating human behavior. Among AI
technologies, we mention chatbots whose history is traced back to the 1960s, where the very first
chatbots, called Eliza and ALICE (Artificial Linguistic Internet Computer Entity), were created
based on natural language processing to emulate human-like conversations and provide answers
which are triggered by users’ inquiries (Weizenbaum, 1966; Wallace, 1995). Thus, the term
“robots” describes any device that functions independently to a certain degree, guided by
computer control (Labadze et al., 2023). However, with the rapid technological developments that
artificial intelligence has witnessed, a new generation of chatbots has been brought to light to
process more advanced human-machine interaction, whose execution is achieved by using natural
language analysis systems, leading to precision in giving ubiquitous answers and information.
This is fully presented in the subsequent section.

2
Journal of Languages & Translation Vol 05 Issue 01 / January 2025

1.2. The rise of generative AI chatbots in education

With the advancement of artificial intelligence, new sophisticated and rigorous chatbots have
been launched to perform complex tasks. Among the eminent chatbots we mention ChatGPT,
Google Bard or Gemini, Ada, and Socratic, which have gained wider acceptance in the
educational field. ChatGPT was launched in 2022 by Open AI, with the aim to produce text and
interactive content based on human-machine interaction that answers users’ questions and
inquiries. Although it has been the subject of considerable criticism for its lack of reliability and
potential for academic misconduct, ChatGPT’s interactive features can facilitate problem solving
through follow-up questions that are stimulated by dialoguing, leading to a natural flow of
responses (Mai et al., 2024). Google Bard is also an advanced AI-powered chatbot that was
created in 2022 by Google AI for educational purposes. Quite similar to the features of ChatGPT,
Google Bard is introduced to help students and educators generate updated text, create content,
do language-related tasks, and engage in machine-human interaction to answer questions. As
envisaged by Labadze et al. (2023), the key difference between Google Bard and ChatGPT is that
“Google Bard is trained on a dataset that includes text from the internet, while ChatGPT is
trained on a dataset that includes text from books and articles” (p.2). Thus, while both chatbots
hold vastly more information, the rift between ChatGPT and Google Bard lies in the former’s
tendency to provide succinct responses to factual queries, whereas the latter excels in
maintaining with the latest developments and updates. Ada is another generative Chabot that
was launched in 2017 to provide personalized learning. As noted by Konecki et al. (2023) the
major aim of the system is for Ada Chabot to give students feedback immediately; however, it may
generate disproportionately false answers and get information wrongly interpreted due to its
incapability of responding appropriately to difficult questions.
Artificial intelligence also encompasses learning platforms, such as Socratic, that facilitate
the involvement of a community of learners, including teachers and students. An example of an
AI learning platform is Socratic, which was introduced in 2013 and later powered by Google AI in
2018 (St-Hilaire et al., 2022). Its objective is to provide students with comprehensive
explanations of new concepts, with the support of learning resources, visual materials and teacher
feedback tailored to students’ learning needs. Nevertheless, one could argue that over-reliance on
such AI tools can limit students’ critical thinking and creativity, and encourage them to be more
passive recipients of knowledge rather than active producers of it. This passive outcome may
challenge the real purpose of the twenty-first century pedagogy that calls for the use of higher
order thinking skills in the learning process to synthesise, analyse, evaluate and construct
knowledge. Yet, the use of AI-powered tools is contingent upon the implementation of specific
pedagogical strategies that are designed to create a supporting learning environment for students.
These strategies are presented and discussed in the forthcoming section.

1.3. Pedagogical underpinning of generative AI tools

On the periphery, AI-powered tools and chatbots seem to be designed to provide answers
based on individuals’ queries or prompts as mentioned in the previous section. However, central
to these tools are different theories that were to intertwine to give rise to pedagogical strategies
that facilitate the learning process.
According to Chan and Hu (2023), AI-powered tools can provide a personalized learning
experience for students, enabling them to study at their own pace and customize learning to
encompass students’ preferred learning styles. With the feature of immediate feedback that AI
tools offer, students can be engaged in the learning process and triggered to seek consolidation
and recommendations when needed to improve their learning. This embedded scaffolding
(Vygotsky, 1978) is reflected in the provisional instructional support that AI offers to students to

3
Exploring Algerian EFL Students’ Familiarity, Use and Attitudes towards Generative Artificial
Intelligence Tools in Education
Loubna SEBBAH

help them gradually reinforce specific skills. On this point, it may be noted that this digital
scaffolding can be observed in providing modeling or guidance on solving complex tasks,
watching tutorials, and matching resources, such as videos, articles and books, to students’
learning needs.
Interactive learning is also emphasized in AI as the different chatbots are created to simulate
human-like conversations, offering students seamless engagement with the content and leading to
a better sense of inclusion (Mai et al., 2024). Central to interactive learning is collaborative
learning, an aspect that occurs within students’ zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978)
and that leads to advanced performance. AI tools when adopted properly by teachers can foster a
community of learning that promotes three types of interaction, viz. student-student interaction,
student-teacher interaction and student-material interaction (Sallam, 2023).
Although the different pedagogical strategies embedded in AI-powered tools are founded on
different traditional theories, a modern learning theory has been advanced for this digital age to
explain the underpinnings of these tools. Connectivism, advanced by Siemens (2005), is a
learning theory that highlights the salience of technological networks in the teaching-learning
process. According to Connectivism, knowledge construction in the context of the digital age
needs to be founded on meaningful connections and interactions with diverse information sources
or networks. As referred to Siemens (2005), in this digital driven era, knowledge is disseminated
across a network of connections, which necessitates digital literacy for students to be able to
construct knowledge from these networks. Thus, learning does not only mean gaining knowledge,
but it also means being able to understand and use information networks adequately. This process
also requires diversity of opinions to be able to analyze and evaluate the efficiency of information
and higher-order mental functioning to differentiate between salient and disproportionate
information, leading to knowledge construction shaped by academic integrity and independent
learning (Gilissen et al., 2022). By adopting this pathway, teachers can mitigate students’ over-
reliance on AI-chatbots to copy and paste ready-made information, which results in decreased
learner agency that may lead to a minimal use of critical thinking skills and autonomy.
As noted by Sallam (2023), teachers, who are seen as catalysts, are therefore encouraged to
create a learning environment that embraces the use of AI in a systematic way, with the objective
of raising students’ awareness of how to use it effectively and ethically for collaborative learning,
knowledge acquisition and knowledge construction. In order for a new technology to be accepted
and normalized in a particular context, its users need first to demonstrate a certain level of
acceptance and integration. This perspective is reflected in the technology acceptance model,
which is fully presented in the subsequent section.

1.4. Technology acceptance model: Students’ use and attitudes towards AI tools

Grounded on reasoned action theory suggesting that individuals’ actions are influenced by
their attitudes, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), which owes its genesis to Davis (1986),
is a theoretical framework that explains how individuals accept and use technology. The TAM
model is built on the premise that when students are presented with a new technology, their
choice about how and when they will use it is influenced by two main factors. These two factors
are: perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU). The figure below illustrates
Davis’ (1986) technology acceptance model:

4
Journal of Languages & Translation Vol 05 Issue 01 / January 2025

Figure 1: Technology Acceptance Model

Source: (Davis, 1986, p. 24)

Directly affecting the individual’s attitude towards using technology, perceived usefulness
and perceived ease of use are used to explain the influence of individuals’ behavioral intention on
using technology, ultimately determining their actual use. On the one hand, perceived usefulness
represents the extent to which a student perceives the use of a certain technology as beneficial to
their learning process, thereby adopting it to perform their tasks better or more efficiently. On the
other hand, perceived ease of use is based on self-efficacy theory and emphasizes the degree to
which the individual considers the use of a specific technology as easy and accessible. These two
TAM factors influence individuals’ attitudes towards using the technology, which in turn affects
their behavioral intention to use it. According to this model, the intention to use then directly
influences the actual usage behavior. This model, which will be used in the present study, can
provide insights into the cognitive and affective factors mediating and influencing the effect of
the features of AI on technology acceptance. It also helps explain why students accept or
reject the integration of AI tools into higher education, and assesses their willingness to
continue using such technologies in the future.
Reference to studies such as Ajlouni et al.’s (2023), Freeman’s (2024) and Al-Tkhayneh et
al.’s (2023), for instance, suggests that students generally generate positive attitudes towards the
use of AI-powered tools for learning. This is due to the instructional support these tools provide,
such as immediate feedback, information accessibility, and personalized learning. However, the
researchers warned against a few drawbacks, concluding that AI-powered tools can lead to over-
reliance and inaccurate information, and can affect students’ self-efficacy, making them more
anxious, addicted, and demotivated. As a recommendation, training can be provided to students
to address student concerns and improve their ability to use AI successfully, thereby avoiding
issues related to academic integrity.
Moreover, in 2023, Alzahrani conducted a study to explore students’ attitudes and behavior
towards artificial intelligence in university. The results of the study indicated that the
participants’ attitudes towards AI tools had an influential role on their behavior to use AI in
university. What is more interesting in these findings is that perceived risks and effort expectancy
were found to have a direct bearing on shaping students’ attitudes, thereby influencing the way
students accepted and used AI in the learning process. Reflecting perceived use and perceived
usefulness, Stohr et al.’s (2024) study found that the use of AI was embraced and accepted by the
participants across different demographics. This technology acceptance led the participants to
acknowledge its potential in enhancing their learning; however, some negative attitudes were also
generated, reflecting the participants’ concerns about the negative impact that AI tools might have
on their learning process, including biased information and academic dishonesty.

5
Exploring Algerian EFL Students’ Familiarity, Use and Attitudes towards Generative Artificial
Intelligence Tools in Education
Loubna SEBBAH

2. Methodology

An exploratory study involving a mixed-method design was conducted in the Department of

English of the University of Algiers 2 in the academic year 2023-2024. The aim was to explore
EFL students’ familiarity, use, and attitudes towards AI-chatbots and tools in the learning process.
The sample consisted of 305 subjects who were randomly selected from different educational
levels: first year, second year, third year, master 1 and master 2.
To gather a sufficient and relevant amount of information, an online questionnaire, including
28 closed and open-ended questions, was administered to the subjects. The questionnaire
consists of four sections. Section 1 seeks to elicit demographic information on the participants,
focusing on their gender and educational level. Section 2 aims to depict students’ familiarity with
AI chatbots and tools. In addition to one close-ended question and one open-ended question, the
second section provides 7 Likert-scale items with options to select and rate from “Unfamiliar” to
“Familiar and regularly use it”. Section 3 aims to find out EFL students’ use of generative AI
tools in the learning process; it consists of 8 Likert-scale items and 2 open-ended questions.
Section 4 is meant to unveil students’ attitudes towards the use of AI tools. It comprises 15
Likert-scale items and one open-ended question. The close-ended questions and the Likert-scale
items were analyzed descriptively using frequency analysis, and the open-ended questions were
analyzed qualitatively using thematic analysis. The next section presents the results of the present
study.

3. Results

This section presents the analysis of the questionnaire results. The results are displayed in
diagrams and tables for better visualization. The following section displays the findings related to
the first section of the questionnaire.
3.1. Demographic Information

The results related to section one of the questionnaire are presented in the figures below:
Figure 2: Subjects’ distribution according to gender

Figure 2 presents the results related to the subjects’ distribution according to gender. The
total number of the subjects is 305, among which there are 247 females and 58 males. This
indicates that female students constitute approximately 80.91% of the sample, while males make
up about 19.01%. The gender distribution highlights a significant predominance of females over
males in this sample.

6
Journal of Languages & Translation Vol 05 Issue 01 / January 2025

Figure 3: Subjects’ educational levels

Figure 3 demonstrates the results related to the subjects’ educational levels. As shown in
the figure above, the results indicate that 9 students are in the first year, and 135 subjects are
second year EFL students. The findings also reveal that 57 subjects are third year students while
82 subjects are Master 1 students. There are 22 subjects who are Master 2 students. They are all
EFL students studying English in the Department of English of the University of Algiers 2. The
results of the second questionnaire section are displayed in the subsequent section.
3.2. EFL Students’ Familiarity with AI-Chatbots

The first research question aimed to explore EFL students’familiarity with AI chatbots. The
results related to the first research question are displayed below:

a. Are you familiar with AI Chatbots and tools?

The subjects’ answers to question 1 from section two of the questionnaire are
displayed in the figure below:

Figure 4: EFL Students’ familiarity with AI-chatbots

Figure 4 displays the results of students’ familiarity with AI-chatbots and tool. The results
in the diagram above show that a significant majority of students are familiar with chatbots. Out of
the total sample, 263 students, accounting for 86.22%, reported being familiar with the use of AI
tools. However, 42 students, representing 13.77%, indicated that they are not familiar with AI

7
Exploring Algerian EFL Students’ Familiarity, Use and Attitudes towards Generative Artificial
Intelligence Tools in Education
Loubna SEBBAH

chatbots. This distribution demonstrates a high level of familiarity with chatbots among the
student population, suggesting widespread exposure and potential usage of chatbot technology in
their daily lives or educational environments.

b. Are you familiar with the following AI chatbots and tools? Please indicate your level of
familiarity.
The results of the aforementioned question are presented in the table below:

Table 1: EFL students’ familiarity with well-known AI-chatbots

N AI Chatbots and Unfamiliar Familiar and Familiar but Familiar and
tools: Items never use it rarely use it regularly use it
N % N % N % N %
15 4.91% 45 14.75% 142 46.55 103 33.77%
1 ChatGPT %
2 Quillbot 237 77.70% 32 10.49% 26 8.52% 10 3.27%
3 Grammarly 105 34.42% 80 26.22% 75 24.59 45 14.75%
%
4 SlidesAI 248 81.31% 45 14.75% 10 3.27% 2 0.65%
5 Bard 270 88.52% 28 9.18% 5 1.63% 2 0.65%
6 Talkpal AI 255 83.60% 26 8.52% 20 6.55% 4 1.31%
7 Socratic 270 88.52% 20 6.55% 12 3.93% 3 0.89%

Table 1 illustrates the different levels of familiarity and usage among students for different
AI chatbots and tools. Based on the results shown in the table above, ChatGPT stands out as the
most familiar and regularly used tool, with 33.77% of students using it regularly and 46.55%
using it rarely. However, Bard and Socratic are the least familiar, with 88.52% of students being
unfamiliar with these tools. Grammarly also shows a relatively balanced distribution, with
26.22% of students familiar but never using it, and 24.59% using it rarely. Tools, such as
Quillbot, SlidesAI, Talkpal AI, and Bard, have high unfamiliarity rates, indicating limited
exposure or usage among students. These findings point to the different levels of popularity and
use of AI tools among students. They suggest that while ChatGPT and Grammarly are preferred
and used, others like Bard and Socratic are less known and less used.

c. What other tools are you familiar with?

The results of question 3 from section two of the questionnaire are illustrated in the
table below:

8
Journal of Languages & Translation Vol 05 Issue 01 / January 2025

Table 2: EFL students’ familiarity with other AI-tools

Other AI tools EFL students are familiarized with

Category Count Percentage %
1 Adobe AI 2 0.65%
3 Microsoft Copilot 16 5.24%
4 Snapchat AI 16 5.24%
5 Reverso 5 1.63%
6 Duolingo 7 2.29%
7 Youtube 12 3.93%
8 Perplexity 25 8.19%
9 Sparknotes 54 17.70%
10 Crash Course 19 6.22%
11 AI Chat 5 1.63%
12 Writesonic 41 13.44%
13 Chat PDF 23 7.54%
14 Aithor 37 12.13%

Table 2 shows the results of EFL students’ familiarity with other AI tools. As mentioned in
the table above, Sparknotes is the most familiar tool, recognised by 54 students (17.70%).
Writesonic and Aithor also have significant familiarity with 41 (13.44%) and 37 (12.13%)
students respectively. Perplexity is known by 25 students (8.19%), Chat PDF by 23 students
(7.54%) and Crash Course by 19 students (6.22%). Other tools such as Microsoft Copilot are
familiar to 16 students (5.24%); Youtube is used by 12 students (3.93%) and Duolingo by 7
students (2.29%). Reverso and AI Chat are each utilized by 5 students (1.63%). Adobe AI is
preferred by 2 students (0.65%). This distribution reflects the different exposure and use of AI
tools among the subjects, with a notable preference for educational and writing support tools.

3.3. EFL students’ use of generative AI tools in learning

The second research question aimed to find out how EFL students use generative AI tools in
the learning process. The results of question 1 from section three of the questionnaire regarding
students’ use of AI tools in the learning process are displayed in the table below:
a. Please decide how often you have used the following tools.

Table 3: EFL students’ use of generative AI tools in learning

N Items Never Rarely Sometimes Often

I have used AI tools to AF % AF % AF % AF %
complete my assignments
1 75 24.59 82 26.88 127 41.63% 21 6.88%
and tasks.
% %
2 I have used AI tools to 102 33.44 85 27.86 90 29.50% 28 9.18%
translate passages. % %
I have used AI tools to 125 40.98 77 25.24 72 23.60% 31 10.16
3 complete my writing % % %
projects.
4 I have used AI tools to get 92 30.16 60 19.67 102 33.44% 51 16.72

9
Exploring Algerian EFL Students’ Familiarity, Use and Attitudes towards Generative Artificial
Intelligence Tools in Education
Loubna SEBBAH

some help in understanding % % %

lessons.
5 I have used AI tools to 61 20% 76 24.91 85 27.86% 83 27.21
synthesize information. % %

6 I have used AI tools for 55 18.03 62 20.32 172 56.39% 16 5.24%

summarizing lessons. % %
7 I have used AI tools, such 128 41.96 55 18.03 82 26.88% 40 13.11
as Quillbot, and % % %
Grammarly, to enhance my
writing.
8 I have used AI tools to 158 51.80 66 21.63 65 21.31% 16 5.24%
create presentations. % %

Table 3 displays the results of the subjects’ use of generative AI tools in learning. The
results reveal that a notable 41.63% of the subjects sometimes use AI-chatbots and tools for
completing their assignments and tasks (item 1), indicating a significant reliance on these
technologies for instructional support. However, 24.59% of the subjects never use these tools for
this purpose. Besides, while 33.44% of students never use AI-chatbots for translation, 29.50%
sometimes use them, showing moderate usage for translation tasks (item 2). As seen in the table
above, 40.98% of students report that they never use AI-chatbots and tools for writing projects,
but 33.76% of them use these tools at least occasionally (item 3). When it comes to item number
4, AI-chatbots are sometimes relied on by 33.44% of the subjects to help them understand the
lessons adequately, with an additional 16.72% using them often. Furthermore, the usage of AI
tools for synthesizing information is fairly balanced (item 5), with 27.86% of students using them
sometimes and 27.21% using them often. More than half of the subjects (56.39%) sometimes use
AI tools to summarize lessons, indicating that summarization is a common application of these
technologies (item 6). AI-powered tools such as Quillbot and Grammarly are sometimes used by
26.88% of students and often used by 13.11% to improve their writing quality (item 7). However,
41.96% of the respondents report that they never use these tools to enhance their writing. As far
as item 8 is concerned, more than half of the students (51.80%) never use AI tools for creating
presentations, suggesting that other methods or tools are preferred for this task. Nonetheless,
21.31% of students sometimes use these tools for presentations.

b. What benefits do you experience from using AI-chatbots and tools?

This open-ended question was analyzed using thematic analysis to extract categories and
sub-categories emerging from the subjects’ responses to the question. The findings are
summarized in the table below:

10
Journal of Languages & Translation Vol 05 Issue 01 / January 2025

Table 4: Advantages of generative AI tools

Theme Categories Sub-categories

 Minimizing working time
Time saving  Providing quick answers
 Saving time during exams by
summarizing lessons.
 Helping in completing assignments.
 Summarizing short stories and handouts.
Scaffolding  Facilitating understanding of lessons.
Advantages of  Brainstorming ideas for writing projects
generative AI and assignments.
tools  Providing detailed, specific answers
Information accessibility  Offering information that is not easily
found elsewhere
 Enhancing general language ability
 Facilitating difficult lessons
Personalized learning  Enhancing writing skills
 Improving vocabulary and language
learning

Table 4 shows the results of the subjects’ answers related to the advantages of AI
generative tools. This thematic categorization highlights 4 categories reflecting the multifaceted
perspectives of EFL students on the use of AI chatbots and tools in learning. The first category is
entitled time saving and has three sub-categories, which revolve around minimizing working time,
providing quick answers, and saving time during exams by summarizing lessons. Some of the
subjects’ verbal data reflecting the aforementioned results are listed below:

Student 24: “It's fast and easy to use and gives direct and correct answers unlike Google, it gives
numerous answers. I personally use AI because it simplifies the task for me.”
Student 120: “It shortens time. When I have exams I ask AI to make me a summary and translate it
in case to understand, especially that I decided to take my master’s degree years after getting my
bachelor's degree. Seven gap years almost about to lose linguistic content, so it helps me a lot”

The second category is about scaffolding. Four sub-categories emerged from the second
category, which are completing assignments, summarizing short stories and handouts, facilitating
understanding of lessons, and brainstorming ideas for writing projects and assignments. The
following students’ comments illustrate the findings of the second category:

Student 91: “it helped me to brainstorm ideas and understand the short stories that the literature
teacher asks us to read. Sometimes I use AI to summarize them because to be honest I can’t read the
whole novel; I get bored easily. I also summarize my handouts and find more explanations.”

Student 215: “It made my life easier. Before when I used to revise my lessons, I had to watch
several videos on YouTube and look for pieces of information on Google. However, now I just send a
message and receive a detailed answer with well-explained examples.”
The third category emerging from the analysis of the students’ responses to the question is
entitled information accessibility. Students hold the view that AI generative tools can provide

11
Exploring Algerian EFL Students’ Familiarity, Use and Attitudes towards Generative Artificial
Intelligence Tools in Education
Loubna SEBBAH

detailed, specific answers to their questions and offer information that is not easily found
elsewhere.
Student 262: “AI tools are accessible at all times, they provide feedback and can save time”
Student 285: “ AI helps me a lot because sometimes when I revise, I stop because I don’t understand
a point so I ask ChatGPT a question about the lesson, and it gives me very detailed info.”

The fourth category is called personalized learning. The analysis of the students’ responses
gives rise to four sub-categories. The subjects believe that AI generative tools can enhance their
general language ability, including their writing skills, vocabulary and language learning.

Student 23: “it helped me express my thoughts better and learn vocabulary. For example, make it
formal. It also helped me express certain ideas in better wording because my writing is poor.”

Student 211: “When I am in need of someone to proofread my work, I often use ChatGPT to check
any grammar or punctuation mistakes, which is extremely helpful and it saves me a lot of time and
anxiety. I learn a lot from it”

c. What challenges do you face when using AI-chatbots and tools?

The results related to this open-ended question are demonstrated in the table below:
Table 5: Disadvantages of generative AI tools
Theme Categories Sub-categories
- Limited students’ creativity.
- Decrease in problem-solving skills.
- Reduced opportunities for students to
Impact on learning develop their own skills and knowledge.
development - Hindering the development of research and
learning skills.
- Limiting the ability to practise and improve
language skills.
Disadvantages of - Increased potential for cheating on exams
AI generative and assignments.
tools Academic integrity - Using AI to complete tasks without
understanding the material.
- Incorrect or misleading information.
Inaccuracy of - Misunderstanding complex questions.
information - Accepting inaccurate information without
verification.
- Robotic answers
- Encouraging laziness and reducing the
Motivation and self- motivation to work hard.
confidence - Low self-confidence and satisfaction with
personal achievements.
- Feeling inferior to AI capabilities and
doubting personal abilities.

Table 5 shows the results of the students’ answers regarding the disadvantages of AI
generative tools. As shown in the table above, the thematic analysis reveals 4 categories that

12
Journal of Languages & Translation Vol 05 Issue 01 / January 2025

highlight the disadvantages of using AI chatbots and tools for EFL students. These categories
reflect the negative effects associated with the reliance on AI in the subects ’ academic and
personal lives. The results of the first category entitled “Impact on learning development” reveal
that the students claim that becoming dependent on AI can decrease their critical thinking skills
and personal effort. They also report that AI can limit their creativity and reduce their problem
solving skills. Besides, the results show that heavy reliance on AI can reduce opportunities for
students to develop their study skills and can limit their ability to practise and improve their
language skills autonomously. The extracts below reflect the results of the second category:

Student 64: “Less effort means more AI dependency; I think if this happens in an exaggerated way,
this will turn humanity into robots, artificial and controlled by others, so no more creativity and use
of the mind”

Student 6: “From my perspective I see that the disadvantage of AI Chatbots is when we see most
students don’t use their own creativity and efforts. They always try to find an easy way to do their
homework without finding their style of writing which is a rare jewel to be creative in your writing
even if you don’t have enough vocabulary, but you try your best and let your ingenuity radiate and
it actually worth”

The second category is entitled “Academic integrity”. The analysis of the students’
responses reveals that the subjects hold the view that AI generative tools can increase the
potential for cheating on exams and assignments. These tools, according to the students’
responses, can affect students’ learning since they use AI to complete tasks without
understanding the learning material.

Student 271: “I believe that AI has only increased the rate of cheating at university, especially on
exams and homework”

Student 45: “I think that the widespread use of artificial intelligence in all fields has drawbacks,
for example, in my class, my classmates use it for cheating on exams or preparing ready-made
homework, and this is what makes the student lazy in order to attend lessons with his own creativity
and skills.”

The third category is “Inaccuracy of information”. The subjects confess that the use of AI
Chatbots can generate incorrect or misleading information, misunderstand complex questions and
produce robotic answers. These can also make students accept inaccurate information without
verification. Students comment:

Student 64: “I mostly use ChatGPT for proofreading and I have encountered a lot of problems. For
example when I have a question about grammar to check if I am using a word correctly, it often
says it is correct initially. Then, when I ask again for example “is the use of ‘for’ correct in this
context?” It contradicts itself and says no.... It says there is a mistake when there is none”

Student 225: “Sometimes, these tools give wrong information, which could mislead the student. It
can also make students lazy because they usually use it to get things done without actually learning
something.”

Student 67: “The results may sometimes seem a bit unnatural and very robotic. It makes you lose
the idea. Sometimes even teachers feel and know that our work is done by AI.”

13
 Exploring Algerian EFL Students’ Familiarity, Use and Attitudes towards Generative Artificial
Intelligence Tools in Education
Loubna SEBBAH

The fourth category emerging from the analysis of the students’ responses to the question
is entitled “Motivation and self-confidence”. The subjects believe that the use of AI chatbots and
tools can encourage laziness and procrastination and decrease their motivation to work hard. The
results show that over-reliance on AI can also lead to addiction, low self-confidence and
dissatisfaction with personal achievements. The subjects think that excessive use of AI can make
them feel inferior to its capabilities and doubt their personal abilities. The students’ comments
illustrating these findings are stated below:

Student 37: “Personally, I used to rely on AI a lot, and after some time I realized that I started
underestimating myself and always made sure to check at any given moment. I feel that I can’t use
my common sense anymore or hard work to look for information.”

Student 52: “Honestly, AI affected my self-confidence on learning since I am no more satisfied of

my performance. I always feel like AI is way better than my own resolutions. I become very addictive
to it.”

The following are the results of the fourth section of the questionnaire.
3.4. EFL students’ attitudes towards the use of generative AI tools in the learning process
The third research question sought to explore EFL students’attitudes towards the use of AI
tools in the learning process. The results related to this research question are presented in the
table below:
a. Please decide whether you agree or disagree with each statement by indicating whether
you: Strongly Agree (SA) Agree (A) Neutral (N) Disagree (D) Strongly Disagree (SD).

Table 6: EFL Students’ attitudes towards the use of AI tools in the learning process
N Items Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
agree disagree
AF % AF % AF % AF % AF %
AI-tools I use have a 35 11.47 118 38.68 90 29.50 37 12.13 25 8.19
01 positive impact on my % % % % %
learning outcomes.
02 AI-tools can generate 23 7.54 100 32.78 90 29.50 60 19.67 32 10.49
better information % % % % %
than I can produce by
myself.
03 Chatbots generate 13 4.26 132 43.27 85 27.86 55 18.03 20 6.55
average results % % % % %
compared to my
efforts.
04 My university has 45 14.75 3 0.98% 92 30.16 30 9.83 135 44.26
strict regulations on % % % %
the appropriate use of
generative AI tools by
students.

14
Journal of Languages & Translation Vol 05 Issue 01 / January 2025

05 The use of chatbots 58 19.01 127 41.63 73 23.93 37 12.13 10 3.27

can improve my % % % % %
language skills.
06 Using chatbots in 20 6.55 58 19.01 62 20.32 117 38.36 48 15.73
education should be % % % % %
banned.
07 Using chatbots leads 30 9.83 48 15.73 69 22.62 115 37.70 43 14.09
to academic % % % % %
dishonesty and
plagiarism.
08 The use of chatbots is 120 39.34 125 40.98 50 16.39 7 2.29 3 0.98
prevalent among my % % % % %
peers.
09 The chatbots I use 45 14.75 120 39.34 82 26.88 40 13.11 18 5.90
make me a successful % % % % %
learner.
10 I am worried about 97 31.80 115 37.70 57 18.68 24 7.86 12 3.93
how AI-chatbots % % % % %
might affect my
learning in the long
term.
11 I support the use of 62 20.32 142 46.55 60 19.67 30 9.83 11 3.60
AI in the learning % % % % %
process.
12 AI cannot replace 165 54.09 72 23.60 42 13.77 12 3.93 14 4.59
humane creativity and % % % % %
intelligence.
13 My teachers have a 97 31.80 140 45.90 62 20.32 4 1.31 2 0.65%
negative perception of % % % %
AI tools (such as
ChatGPT and
Gemini)
14 Using chatbots for 67 21.96 74 24.26 97 31.80 57 18.68 10 3.27
assignments is % % % % %
cheating.
15 Using generative AI 35 11.47 38 12.45 75 24.59 115 37.70 42 13.77
tools in the learning % % % % %
process is unethical.

Table 6 displays the results of Algerian EFL students’ attitudes towards using AI-powered
tools in the learning process. In response to items 1 and 2, the results reveal that 38.68% of the
respondents agree that the AI-chatbots they use have a positive impact on their learning outcomes,
and they (32.78 %) agree that chatbots can generate better information than they can produce by
themselves, although (29.50%) of respondents remain neutral on this claim. A majority of the
respondents (47.53%) agree that chatbots generate average results compared to their own efforts.
Regarding guidelines of use, 44.26 % of the subjects strongly disagree that their university has
strict regulations on the use of generative AI tools by students, and a considerable number of
students (38.36%) disagree that using AI chatbots for learning should be banned, reflecting a

15
Exploring Algerian EFL Students’ Familiarity, Use and Attitudes towards Generative Artificial
Intelligence Tools in Education
Loubna SEBBAH

preference for the continued use of artificial intelligence in the learning process. Furthermore, a
majority of students (41.63%) agree that chatbots can improve their learning outcomes; however,
37.70% of them disagree that using chatbots is related to academic dishonesty, indicating an
acceptance of AI tools as complementary to traditional learning tools. With regard to item number
8, approximately half of those surveyed agree (40.98 %) that the use of chatbots is prevalent
among their peers, and they (39.34 %) think that chatbots make them more successful learners.
In response to item number 10, 37.70% of those who were questioned agree that they are worried
about how AI might affect their learning in the long term. As shown in the table above, 46.55 % of
the students agree that they support the use of AI in the learning process, but more than half of
students (54.09%) strongly agree that AI cannot replace human creativity and intelligence,
affirming the unique value of human capabilities. With regard to academic integrity, 45.90% of
students agree that their teachers may have a negative perception of AI tools, and 24.26% of
students agree that using chatbots to do assigned tasks is cheating. However, 37.70% of students
disagree that using AI tools in learning is unethical. The results of the second question from
section four of the questionnaire are presented below.

b. In your opinion, how do you think AI can be systematically integrated into the university?
The results of this open-ended question regarding AI integration into higher education are
displayed in the table below:
Table 7: Students’ attitudes towards the integration of AI into higher education
Theme Categories Sub-categories
Balancing AI use and - Using AI to enhance leaning
student effort and develop language skills.

Ethical use - Responsible use of AI

Students’ perspectives on the
- Clear guidelines on AI use
integration of AI in the
Algerian University
The role of teachers - Guidance and monitoring
- Promoting strategies for use
Training - Integrating AI usage in study
skills module.
- Training students on how to use
AI moderately

Table 7 presents the results of students’ attitudes towards the integration of AI into higher
education. As shown in the table above, four categories emerged. The first category is entitled
“Balancing AI use and student effort”. The students suggest that AI can be integrated in the
university in order to enhance student learning and develop their language skills, leading to extra
opportunities for immediate feedback and scaffolding. The extracts below illustrate these findings:

Student 12: "The integration of chatbots in education or in university can offer benefits such as
immediate assistance, quick access to information, enhanced learning outcomes, and improved
educational experiences. But we need to know how to use it.”

Student 89: "I think AI is just the next step humanity has to take. Just how we moved from physical
books to digital books and the internet, we are now moving to an even better and efficient tool. I
think it will be nice if it will be introduced in the university and systemized”

16
Journal of Languages & Translation Vol 05 Issue 01 / January 2025

The second category is “Ethical use”. The students stress the significance of using AI tools
responsibly in order to avoid ethical issues, such as cheating and plagiarism. The students agree
that AI needs to be adopted to support and facilitate learning rather than complete tasks and
assignments for students. The following responses illustrate these results:

Student 211: "Using AI and tools in learning processes is beneficial and helpful but with
limitations and responsibility. AI tools are not created for cheating, plagiarism, or unethical
behaviors."

Student 290: "I strongly believe that the use of AI chatbots is very useful with limits. If the students
use it just to help themselves and get more information, it wouldn't be considered as cheating."

The third category is entitled “Teacher’s role”. The subjects highlight the importance of
teachers in guiding the responsible use of AI in the learning process. They also pinpoint to the
idea that clear guidelines and strategies on how to use AI for learning need to be communicated
in order to allow students to benefit from AI without becoming dependent. These extracts
highlight the aforementioned results:

Student 73: "I am a student and a teacher at the same time. From my perspective as a teacher, I'll
allow my students to use AI tools but only to have a better look and idea about the answers and
results. They must transfer and generate the answers according to their intelligence, background
information, and understanding."

Student 23: "Even though my strong disagreement prevails over my answers, I do not deny AI's
helping features. However, there should be strict guidelines to limit its use."

The fourth category is named “Training”. The subjects report that not all students know
how to use AI properly, suggesting that the use of AI needs to be taught in the study skills module
to cope with this digital age. The following comments reflect this result:

Student 303: “sometimes we do not know how to use it well maybe if teachers can show us or train
us on how to use it successfully we’ll not fall in the trap of plagiarism and cheating.”

Student 162: “In fact, we know it is tempting and students are absorbing information without
questioning, analyzing or making any critical thinking. Information is everywhere. Students are no
longer running to get knowledge...The best solution is to have some training to use it to support
learning. So, chatbots can really yield positive results if properly implemented. Please urge our
department to change its thinking about AI.”

The results are discussed in the subsequent section.

4. Discussion of the findings

The present study aims to explore Algerian EFL students’ familiarity, use and attitudes
towards generative AI tools in the learning process. The study addresses three research questions.
The first research question sought to identify the AI tools that Algerian EFL students are familiar
with. The findings of the present study indicated that the subjects were familiar with a number of
AI-powered tools and chatbots among which is ChatGPT. According to Mai et al. (2024),
ChatGPT is the widely used AI tool by students due to its interactive features that can facilitate
problem solving through follow-up questions. In addition to ChatGPT, other tools, such as

17
Exploring Algerian EFL Students’ Familiarity, Use and Attitudes towards Generative Artificial
Intelligence Tools in Education
Loubna SEBBAH

Grammarly, Sparknotes, Writesonic, and Aithor received considerable attention from the subjects
compared to AI-powered learning platforms like Socratic, which received less familiarity. The
subjects’ familiarity with Sparknotes may point to their preference for tools that can help them in
simplifying difficult lessons, through summarizing and extracting the main ideas while Writesonic
and Aithor can help them in leveling up their writing skills. On the other hand, the lack of
familiarity with the other AI tools, such as Talkpal AI, SlidesAI and Bard, may suggest that these
AI-powered tools have either not been introduced to the students or they do not address the
specific learning needs that the students consider important. Therefore, these findings may imply
that students tend to prioritize tools that can provide scaffolding to enhance their writing and
understanding of difficult lessons, reflecting the learning needs that need to be addressed and the
language skills that need to be consolidated (Alzahrani, 2023).

The second research question sought to explore how students use generative AI tools and
chatbots for learning. The findings revealed that the subjects used AI tools to accomplish different
tasks that required both lower and higher order thinking skills. In this regard, the subjects
seemed to use AI-tools to complete assignments and tasks that required writing, indicating that
their writing skills may be unsatisfactory, preventing them from constructing knowledge on their
own. Regarding the lower order thinking skills, the subjects often opted for AI-powered tools to
understand course material, synthesize information from a given lesson, and summarize the main
points for better retention. This may suggest that students tended to have deficiencies in their
ability to understand, synthesize and construct knowledge, and they appeared to rely on these
tools to compensate for this deficiency. Within the theory of connectivism using AI in the digital
age requires much effort than in traditional learning because knowledge is disseminated across a
network of connections, which requires digital literacy for students to be able to construct
knowledge from these networks (Siemens, 2005).

In addition, the subjects pinpointed to some merits and challenges of AI based on their
own experience. They appreciated the use of AI tools and chatbots for their efficiency, scaffolding
and information accessibility. Nevertheless, they indicated concerns about its potential negative
impact on their affective state, including motivation and self-efficacy and on their learning
development, focusing on critical thinking skills and creativity. As was demonstrated in the
analysis of the questionnaire, the results highlighted the potential of AI to make students addicted
and over-reliant, leading to reduced learner agency and autonomy. These findings can be
explained by the fact that while AI tools can play a pivotal role in student learning in this digital
age, it is crucial to use them with caution, ensuring that AI can maximize rather than affect
students’ learning experience (St-Hilaire et al., 2022; Konecki et al., 2023; Freeman, 2024).

The third question aimed to uncover EFL students’ attitudes towards the use of AI tools in
education after using them in their learning process. The current study revealed that the subjects
generated positive attitudes towards the use of AI, claiming that it contributed to improving their
learning outcomes through providing access to information, personalized learning and
instructional support. However, despite the assistance and usefulness that AI provided to the
subjects, EFL students seemed to favor their own abilities over that of AI, which is perceived by
the subjects as a meditational tool only. When it comes to academic integrity, the subjects were
well aware of the fact that strict guidelines need to be implemented to regulate the use of AI in
education and use it responsibly by students, thereby mitigating plagiarism and cheating and
avoiding AI prohibition in academic settings. They also highlighted some concerns about
teachers’ resistance to accept such technologies and the negative consequences that may arise
from over-reliance on AI to complete tasks and assignments, which may result in reduced critical

18
Journal of Languages & Translation Vol 05 Issue 01 / January 2025

thinking skills and creativity that are needed in higher education and in the twenty first century
pedagogy.

With regard to AI integration into the Algerian university, the findings emerged from the
analysis of the subjects’ responses to the open-ended questions provided insightful perspectives
regarding balancing the use of AI and student effort. In this respect, the subjects suggested that
AI-powered tools could be integrated into the learning process as assistive tools that can provide
extra scaffolding and practice to the struggling students who have weak language proficiency. Yet,
the subjects also cautioned against its misuse and stressed the importance of using these tools
ethically, following teachers’ guidelines and strategies to achieve a supportive learning
environment that embraces technology for learning development. Therefore, as noted by Bu (2022)
and Siemens (2005), the role of the teacher is inevitable in this future AI integration, as they are
considered as guides and facilitators of learning. Another important finding is that the subjects
called for the need for training on how to use AI-tools and chatbots effectively for academic
purposes through integrating them in the study skills module to improve their critical thinking
skills, focusing more on synthesis and analysis. One could argue that AI can be a double-edged
sword; however, as noted by Sallam (2023), when it is properly and ethically implemented, AI
can foster good learning outcomes, supporting students in their learning process while
encouraging a responsible and ethical learning environment.

According to the TAM tenets (Davis, 1986) and taking into account the findings of the
current study, the results can be explained by the fact that the subjects’ perceived usefulness is
apparent in the underpinning pedagogical strategies provided by AI tools to improve learning
outcomes, provide immediate feedback, and simplify difficult lessons. The perceived ease of use
is reflected in the subjects’ preference for tools that are accessible and easy to use. These
perceptions shape their overall positive attitudes towards AI, despite concerns about ethical use
and potential negative impacts on learning development. Moreover, the subjects’ suggestions for
integrating AI into the Algerian University further align with TAM since they showed a
willingness to integrate these tools into the learning process, provided that ethical guidelines are
followed, and adequate training is provided. The present findings are consistent with the results
obtained by Alzahrani (2023), Freeman (2024), Al-Tkhayneh et al. (2023), Stohr et al. (2024),
and Ajlouni et al. (2023) which found that students’ positive attitudes towards AI significantly
influenced the students’ usage behavior, and perceived usefulness led to widespread acceptance
of AI tools despite concerns about biased information and academic dishonesty.

Conclusion

The present study was conducted to explore Algerian EFL students’ familiarity, use and
attitudes towards generative AI tools in the learning process. Based on a mixed-methods design,
this exploratory study consisted of 305 subjects from the Department of English of the University
of Algiers 2. A questionnaire comprising close and open-ended questions was administered to the
subjects to elicit quantitative and qualitative data. The findings of the current study revealed that
EFL students were familiar with AI tools, such as ChatGPT being the most commonly used by the
subjects. The subjects primarily used generative AI tools and chatbots to complete tasks requiring
both lower and higher-order thinking skills, appreciating their efficiency and support but
expressing concerns about potential over-reliance and impacts on motivation and creativity,
emphasizing the need for responsible use and teacher guidance. Therefore, the present study
stresses the potential of AI to leverage students’ learning outcomes while also warning against its
misuse, advocating for a balanced and responsible approach to AI integration in education.

19
Exploring Algerian EFL Students’ Familiarity, Use and Attitudes towards Generative Artificial
Intelligence Tools in Education
Loubna SEBBAH

Future studies examining the role of AI in personalized learning and its impact on different
learning styles could also provide deeper insights. Finally, investigations into the ethical
implications and best practices for AI use in higher education would help in developing
comprehensive guidelines for its implementation.

References
Ajlouni, A.O., Wahba, F.A.-A., Almahaireh, A.S. (2023). Students’ Attitudes Towards Using
ChatGPT as a Learning Tool: The Case of the University of Jordan. International Journal of
Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), 17(18), 99–117.
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v17i18.41753
Al-Tkhayneh, K., Alghazo, E.M. , & Tahat, D . (2023). The Advantages and Disadvantages of
Using Artificial Intelligence in Education. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 13 (4),
105-117
Alzahrani, L. (2023). Analyzing Students’ Attitudes and Behavior Toward Artificial Intelligence
Technologies in Higher Education. International Journal of Recent Technology and
Engineering, 11(6), 65-73
Bu, Q. (2022). Ethical risks in integrating artificial intelligence into education and potential
countermeasures. Science Insights, 41(1), 561–566.
Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023). Students’ voices on generative AI: perceptions, benefits, and
challenges in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher
Education, 20(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8
Davis, F.D. (1986). A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User
Information Systems: Theory and Results. Doctoral dissertation, MIT Sloan School of
Management, Cambridge, MA
Freeman, J. (2024). Provide or punish? Students’ views on generative AI in higher education.
Higher Education Policy Institute
Gilissen, A., Kochanek, T., Zupanic, M., & Ehlers, J. (2022). Medical students’ perceptions
towards digitalization and artificial intelligence: A mixed-methods study. Healthcare, 10(4),
723. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10040723
Konecki, M., Konecki, M., & Biškupić, I. (2023). Using artificial intelligence in higher education.
In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computer Supported Education.
Labadze, L., Grigolia, M., & Machaidze, L. (2023). Role of AI chatbots in education: systematic
literature review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20
(56), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00426-1
Mai, D.T.T., Da, C.V., & Hanh, N.V. (2024). The use of ChatGPT in teaching and learning: a
systematic review through SWOT analysis approach. Front. Educ. 9:1328769. doi:
10.3389/feduc.2024.1328769
Mertala, P., Fagerlund, J., & Calderon, O. (2022). Finnish 5th and 6th grade students’ pre-
instructional conceptions of artificial intelligence (AI) and their implications for AI literacy
education. Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence.https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. caeai.
2022. 100095
Sallam, M. (2023). ChatGPT utility in health care education, research, and practice: Systematic
review on the promising perspectives and valid concerns. Healthcare, 11(6), 887. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 3390/ healthcare 11060 887
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. International Journal
of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1-9
St-Hilaire, F., Vu, D. D., Frau, A., Burns, N., Faraji, F., Potochny, J., Robert, S., Roussel, A.,
Zheng, S., & Glazier, T. (2022). A new era: Intelligent tutoring systems will transform online
learning for millions. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv: 2203.03724.

20
Journal of Languages & Translation Vol 05 Issue 01 / January 2025

Stohr, C., Ou, A.W.,& Malmstrom, H. (2024). Perceptions and usage of AI chatbots among
students in higher education across genders, academic levels and fields of study. Computers
and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 1-12
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard University Press
Wallace, R. (1995). Artificial linguistic internet computer entity (alice). City.
Weizenbaum, J. (1966). ELIZA—A computer program for the study of natural language
communication between man and machine. Communications of the ACM, 9(1), 36–45.

21