International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation  |  ISSN (Online): 2582-7138  |  Double-Blind Peer Review  |  Open Access  |  CC BY 4.0

Current Issues
     2026:7/3

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation

ISSN (Online): 2582-7138 | Open Access

Perceived Effectiveness of ChatGPT, Linguistic, and Written Communication Skills in English of Senior High School Students

Author(s):

Published:

Volume: 6 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 1655-1662

Subject: English

Country: Philippines

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54660/IJMRGE.2025.6.2.1655-1662

License: CC BY 4.0

Full Text (PDF)

Open Access - Free to Download

Download Full Article (PDF)

Alternative download link

Abstract

This study investigated the perceived level of effectiveness of using ChatGPT on the linguistic skills and written communication skills in English of senior high school students in Carmona Cavite, Philippines. The study was anchored on the communicative competence theory. A descriptive correlational research design was employed, utilizing a survey questionnaire to gather data from 50 senior high school students. Results show that respondents have room for improvements in linguistic skills in English. Although the respondents perceive ChatGPT as highly effective as an academic support tool, this is not enough because the respondents linguistic test results suggest significant gaps in foundational linguistic skills. This could result in communication barriers, limiting ability to construct grammatically correct and varied sentence, and could lead to confusion in understanding and using language effectively in different context. In addition, while the respondents perceive themselves as having relatively strong written communication skills, the respondents’ perceived effectiveness of ChatGPT does not affect their written communication skills. A detailed action plan was articulated to improve the linguistic and written communication skills of the students. There is a clear need for targeted intervention and initiatives to improve the linguistic and written communication skills in English of the students. Educational language instructions need to be enhanced and educators should consider adapting learner-centered strategies that combine traditional methodology and ChatGPT or other technologies. This descriptive correlational study provides novel exploration of perceived effectiveness of ChatGPT and students linguistic and written communication skills in English. It is very helpful because it reveals that the perceived effectiveness of ChatGPT does not directly correlate with the linguistics or written communications skills in English.

How to Cite This Article

John Mark B Decano, Leomar S. Galicia (2025). Perceived Effectiveness of ChatGPT, Linguistic, and Written Communication Skills in English of Senior High School Students . International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation (IJMRGE), 6(2), 1655-1662. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54660/IJMRGE.2025.6.2.1655-1662

Export Citation:

BibTeX RIS EndNote

References

  1. 2. Theoretical Framework Thisresearchhasbeenprimaryanchoredunderthetheoricalframeworkof Communicative Competence Framework(Hymes,1972\. Dell Hymesintroducedtheconceptofcommunicativecompetencetoaddresstheconstraintsofearlierlinguisticprinciplesthatdedicatedsolelygrammaticalcorrectness. Ithighlightstheabilitytouselanguageproperlyindifferentsocialcontexts. Zhou(2023\citedthatunderstandingthesocialnormsforusinglanguageineverydayinteractionsismorecriticalforlanguageusers. Inaddition, Hymesproposedthatcompetencegoesbeyondgrammartoincludeotherdimensions. Suvankulova(2023\concludedthatsuccessfulinteractioninavarietyofcircumstancesdependsontherelationshipbetweencommunicativecompetenceandcommunicationskills. Inthistheory, Hymesclaimedthateffectivecommunicationrequiresnotonlyaccuracyongrammarorlinguisticcompetencebutexpandedonthreeothercompetencieswhichinclude Sociolinguistic Competence, Discourse Competence, and Strategic Competence. Inthestudy, Chat GPTservesasaplatformfordevelopingthe Componentsof Communicative International Journalof Multidisciplinary Researchand Growth Evaluationwww. allmultidisciplinaryjournal. com1657|Page Competence., Sociolinguistic Competence, Discourse Competenceand Strategic Competencebecauseittouchestheareaofgrammar, vocabulary, syntax, sentenceorganization, applicationtodifferentsocialcontext, organizationofideascohesively, andprovidingstrategiestoovercommunicationbarriers. The Communicative Competence Theoryalignsof Chat GPTforimprovinglinguisticandwrittencommunicationskillsin English.
  2. 3. Methodology3.1 Research Design Thisstudyemployeddescriptive-correlationalresearchdesign. Thisdesigncombinesdescriptiveandcorrelationresearchtodescribethepopulationorphenomenonandestablishtherelationshipbetweentwoormorevariables. Descriptivemeansprovidingadetaileddescriptionofthephenomenonortherespondents/subjects. Itanswersthequestionofwhatishappeningorthecharacteristicsoftherespondents/subjects. Correlation, ontheotherhand, determinesthedegreeanddirectionoftherelationshipofthevariables. Itinvestigatesandquantifiesifthereispositive, negative, orifthereisnocorrelationexistingwithinthevariables. Correlationsdonotestablishcausalitybutidentifytrends, patternsordegreeofrelationships. Accordingto Brkha Deviand Nazung Lepcha(2023\descriptive-correlationalresearchfacilitatestheidentificationofmanyinterrelationshipsinasituation. Thisdesignwasdeemedappropriateforthestudybecauseitaimedtodeterminetherelationshipbetweentheperceivedlevelofeffectivenessof Chat GPTonlinguisticandwrittencommunicationskillsin Englishofseniorhighschoolstudentsin Carmona Cavite.3.2 Research Subjects Theprimarysourceofquantitativedatawerethestudents. First, thestudydescribedthelevelofperceivedeffectivenessthequestionnaire. Second, thescoretheyobtainedthroughalinguisticskillsassessmentusing Common European Frameworkof Reference(CEFR\wasprovidedtodeterminetheleveloflinguisticskillsoftherespondents. Third, thelevelofwrittencommunicationskillswasprovidedthroughself-assessmentquestionnaire. Thepopulationofthestudyincludedseniorhighschoolstudentsfromaprivateacademicinstitutionin Cavite, Philippineswith50respondentsoutof2sections. Grade11has1sectioncomposedof15students, and Grade12has1sectioncomposedof35respondents. Theresearcherdeterminedthatdueduetothesmallpopulationsizeof50students, randomstratifiedsamplingwasnotemployed. Instead, totalenumerationwasconducted, whereinall50studentsweresurveyedtoensurecomprehensivedatacollection.3.3 Instrumentation And Validation Thisstudyusedself-madequestionnairewhichwascomposedofthreeparts. Part1coveredtheperceivedlevelofeffectivenessof Chat GPT. Part2coveredtheleveloflinguisticskillswhile Part3focusedonthelevelofwrittencommunicationskills. Sincetheinstrumentisself-made, itwentcontentvalidationbyexpertsinlanguageeducation, research, andstatistics. Toensurethereliabilityoftheresearchtool, theresearchermeasuredtheinternalcoefficient. Theresearcherconductedpilottestingamongstselectedlearnerswhowillnotbepartoftheactualsurvey. Cronbach's Alphaabove0.70isconsideredacceptablewhile Alphaabove0.80isconsideredgood, andan Alphaabove0.90isexcellent. Thereliabilityresultsyieldedthefollowingcoefficients:=0.96(whichisexcellent\; Written Communication Skillsacceptable\. Sincevaluesare0.70andabove, scaleshave3.4 Datagatheringprocedure Theresearcherobtainedpermissionandapprovalfromtheschoolprincipaltoadministerthecollectionofdatathroughprintedform. Theresearchercommunicatedwiththerespondentsandbriefthemonthenatureandpurposeoftheresearch. Inaddition, confidentialityisofutmostimportanceandtheresearcherensuredthatconfidentialitywaskepttothehighestlevelpossibletoprotecttheprivacyoftheparticipants. Thisstepiscrucialandensuresthattherightsandwelfareofthestudentsarefullyprotectedinaccordancewithethicalresearchguidelines. Inaddition, theresearcherobtainedpermissionandapprovalfromthemanagementofanotheruniversitytoconductpilottesting. Theresearcherusedprintedquestionnaireinconductingthesurveyinmeasuringtheperceivedeffectivenessof Chat GPTinlinguisticandwrittencommunicationskills. Thecollecteddatawastabulatedandsubjectedtostatisticalanalysis, andinterpretation.3.5 Ethical Consideration Incompliancewith Republic Act No.10173(Data Privacy Actof2012\ofthe Philippines, thisstudywasobligatedtosafeguardandrespectthedataobtainedforresearchpurposesalone. Theresearcherensuredthatconfidentialitywaskepttothehighestlevelpossibletoprotecttheprivacyoftheparticipants. Thisstepiscrucialandensuresthattherightsandwelfareofthestudentsarefullyprotectedinaccordancewithethicalresearchguidelines. Propercoordinationwiththeschoolprincipalbothonpilotandactualsurveywasdone. Thepurposeofthesurveywasexplainedtotheadviserofthestudentsandtothestudentsaswellastoensuretheyunderstanditisvoluntaryandtheirconfidentiallyareprotected.3.6 Threatmentandanalysisofdata Theweightedmeanwasusedtodescribetheperceivedlevelofeffectivenessof Chat GPT. Percentageandfrequencylinguisticskillsandlevelofwrittencommunicationskillsin English. Finally, Pearsonrwasusedtodeterminetherelationshipbetweentheperceivedlevelofeffectivenessof Chat GPT, leveloflinguisticandlevelofwrittencommunicationskillsin Englishoftherespondents. Levelofeffectivenessof Chat GPTwasmeasuredusinga4-point Likertscalefromagreementtodisagreementwithverbalinterpretationof Very High, High, Low, and Very Low. Linguisticskillproficiencyscalefromismeasuredfrom Outstanding, Very Good, Good, Poor, and Very Poor. Englishwritingskillsproficiencywillbemeasuredusing4-point Likertscalefromagreementtodisagreementwithverbalinterpretationof Very High, High, Low, and Very Low. International Journalof Multidisciplinary Researchand Growth Evaluationwww. allmultidisciplinaryjournal. com1658|Page
  3. 4. Results And Discussions Thisstudyusedthedescriptivecorrelationdesigntomeasuretheperceivedlevelofeffectivenessof Chat GPTthroughaself-assessmentquestionnairewhiletheleveloflinguisticskillswasmeasuredthroughanassessmentanchoredunderthe Common European Frameworkof Reference(CEFR\. Meanwhile, theperceivedlevelofwrittencommunicationskillsin Englishwasalsodeterminedbasedonself-assessmentquestionnaire. Table1providesinsightsintothelevelofeffectivenessof Chat GPTasperceivedbytherespondents. Withanoverallaverageweightedmeanof2.86, verballyinterpretedas Chat GPTasausefulacademicsupporttool. However, thelowdatashowconcernsaboutitsperceivedcredibility, reliabilityandpersonalization, particularlyinspecializeddomainslikelanguagelearning. Thetop3indicatorshighlight Chat GPT'sstrengthsinefficiencyandfoundationalacademicsupport. Rankingfirstisindicatorno.
  4. 3. Chat GPThelpsstudentssavetimewithaweightedmean3.42, verballyinterpretedas"Very High", indicatingastrongperceivedvalueintaskcompletion. Indicatorno.
  5. 17. Studentsunderstandwhenitisappropriatetouse Chat GPTforacademicworkwithaweightedmeanof3.32, verballyinterpretas"Very High"rankssecond, suggestingusersrecognizeitsroleinacademicsandareawareofitsethicalandpracticalboundaries. Followingcloselyinthirdplaceisindicatorno.
  6. 1. Chat GPThelpsstudentsunderstanddifficultconceptswithaweightedmeanof3.18, verballyinterpretedas"High", signifyingthatusersseeitasavaluablelearningaidinenhancinglearning. Theindicatorsranked4through15, whileallwithinthe"High"interpretation, showamoderatelevelofperceivedeffectiveness. Thesemiddleindicatorssuggestthatwhile Chat GPTisausefultool, thereisroomforenhancementinitsabilitytoprovidein-depthlearningexperiencesandpersonalizedsupport. thatusershaveconfidenceonaccuracyofitsresponses. Lastly, indicatorno.
  7. 14. Chat GPTisatrustworthysourceofinformationonlanguagelearningofthestudents"gotaweightedmeanof2.30andverballyinterpretedasranked20th, revealingaclearlackoftrustin Chat GPT'sabilitytoprovideaccurateandreliablelanguagelearningresources. Itcanbenotedthatthisistheonlyindicatorthat Table1: The Levelof Effectivenessof Chat GPTasperceivedbythe Respondents Indicator Weighted Mean Verbal Interpretation Rank
  8. 1. Chat GPThelpsstudentsunderstanddifficultconcepts.3.18 High
  9. 32. Chat GPTprovidesexplanationsthatareclearandeasytounderstand.3.10 High
  10. 43. Chat GPThelpsstudentssavetime.3.42 Very High
  11. 14. Chat GPTassistsstudentsindevelopingadeeperunderstandingofthesubjectmatter.3.00 High6.
  12. 55. Chat GPThelpsstudentsapproachproblemsfromdifferentperspectives.3.00 High6.
  13. 56. Chat GPThelpsstudentsimprovethequalityoftheirwrittenassignments.2.86 High
  14. 107. Using Chat GPThelpsstudentslearnmoreeffectivelythanusingtextbooksalone.2.66 High
  15. 148. Chat GPTprovidesusefulfeedbackontheirwriting.2.90 High
  16. 99. Chat GPThelpsstudentsorganizetheirthoughtswhenplanningessaysorprojects.3.08 High
  17. 510. Chat GPTassistsstudentsinfindingrelevantinformationfortheirresearch.2.56 High
  18. 1811. Using Chat GPThelpsstudentscompleteassignmentsmoreefficiently.2.94 High
  19. 812. Studentsarecomfortableusing Chat GPTasanacademicsupport.2.60 High16.52.84 High11.
  20. 514. Chat GPTisatrustworthysourceofinformationonlanguagelearningofthestudents.2.30 Low
  21. 2015. Chat GPTprovidesaccurateinformationonlanguage-relateditemsofthestudents.2.52 High192.60 High16.
  22. 517. Studentsunderstandwhenitisappropriatetouse Chat GPTforacademicwork.3.32 Very High
  23. 218. Chat GPTisengagingandmotivatesstudentstolearn English.2.64 High152.74 High
  24. 1320. Chat GPTisaneffectivetoolforenhancinglinguisticandwrittencommunicationskillsin Englishofthestudents.2.84 High11.5 Overall Weighted Mean2.86 Highicskillsin Englishshowsthat80%areclassifiedashavingascorebetween10-19, interpretedas"Poor". Thissuggestssignificantgapsinfoundationallinguisticskillsthatcouldresultincommunicationbarriers, limitingabilitytoconstructgrammaticallycorrectandvariedsentence, andcouldleadtoconfusioninunderstandingandusinglanguageeffectivelyindifferentcontext. Ontheotherhand,6%gotscoresbetween20-respondentsdemonstratedahighleveloflinguisticcompetencesuggestingtheypossessstrongfoundationalskillsinspokenandwritten English. Theyarelikelyabletocommunicateeffectively, withgoodunderstandingofpronunciation, wordstructure, grammar, andsocialaspectsofthelanguage. Furthermore, anotable14%exhibit"Very Poor"Englishskillsandgotscoresbetween0-9points. Thissuggestthatsignificantchallengesinmasteringbasiclinguisticskillsandmayseverelyhindertheirabilitytocommunicateeffectivelyinbothwrittenandspoken English. Theymaystrugglewithpronunciation, sentenceconstruction, grammar, andunderstandingthemeaningofwordsorphrasesindifferentcontexts. Thismaypotentiallybeimpactingthecomprehensionofthelanguageandtheiracademicperformancein English. International Journalof Multidisciplinary Researchand Growth Evaluationwww. allmultidisciplinaryjournal. com1659|Page Table2: Score Frequency Percentage20-29(Good\3610-19(Poor\40800-9(Verypoor\714 Total50100communicationskillswithaverageweightedmeanof2.97, thattherespondentsperceivethemselvesashavingrelativelystrongwrittencommunicationskills. Themajorityoftherespondentsdemonstratedstrongwrittencommunicationskillsinareasbrainstormingandplanning, useofappropriatevocabulary, adaptingtheirwritingstyle, useofprecisewords, andconsideringtheiraudience. Thesesuggeststhatrespondentsaregenerallyproficientinorganizingtheirthoughts, providingrelevantsupportfortheirarguments, andtailoringtheirwritingtotheneedsoftheiraudienceandpurpose. Firstinrankareindicators
  25. 7. Studentssupporttheirmainideaswithspecificexamples, evidence, ordetails. and
  26. 11. Studentsusevocabularyappropriatefortheiraudienceandpurposegotaweightedmeanof3.24andwasverballystrongsupportsandprecisewordchoicemakeswritingmorecredible. Followingcloselywiththeweighedmeanof3.22, whichwasverballyinterpretedas"High", isindicatornumbers1and
  27. 20. Studentstaketimetobrainstormandplanbeforewritingandadapttheirwritingstylefordifferentcontexts(academic, professional, personal\ranked3.5, revealingthatstudentsunderstandthatstrongplanningandadaptabilityallowsforclearandeffectivewrittencommunication. Ontheotherhand, indicatorsranked7thto15threvealsasetofwritingskillsperceivedas"High"butwithmoderatelevelsofproficiency. Respondentsgenerallydemonstratestrengthsinclarityandaudienceawareness, asevidencedbytheirperceivedabilitytouseprecisewordchoicesandconsidertheiraudience'sknowledge. Whiletheydemonstrateasolidunderstandingofbasicwritingtechniques, thereisroomforimprovementinareaslikeofmoreadvancedaspectsofwriting, suchasorganizingideasmoreeffectively, enhancingtheuseoftransitions, andrefiningwordchoiceforgreaterimpact. Furthermore, theindicatorsranked16thto20threvealamixofmoderatetoseriousissuesintherespondents'writingskills, suggestingareasthatrequiresignificantimprovement. Thislow-rankedindicatorssuggestfundamentalchallengesinwritingorganization, grammaticalaccuracy, andtoneadjustment. Atrank16, indicator
  28. 13. Studentswritecompletesentenceswithoutfragmentsorrun-onsgotaweightedmeanof2.78, mostrespondentscangenerallywritecompletesentences, theremaystillbeoccasionalissueswithsentencestructure, inparticularwithmorecomplexorextendedsentences. Thisindicatesthatfurtheremphasisonrefiningsentenceconstructionandeliminatingfragmentsorrun-onsisneeded. Lastly, thelowest-rankedindicatorspointtomoreseriousissuesis Indicator15.:"Studentscannotmaintaincorrectsubject-verbagreementintheirsentences"gotasweightedmeanof2.44, verballyinterpretedas Indicator3, studentscannotorganizetheirwritingwithalogicalintroduction, body, andconclusiongotaweightedmeanof2.42, verballyinteattheverybottom, indicator18 Studentscannotadjusttheirtonebasedontheiraudienceandpurposegotaweighted Thesehighlightssignificantissuewithsubject-verbagreement(whichisfundamentaltogrammaticalaccuracy\, majorissueinwritingorganization(whichisfundamentalinstructuringtheirworkinaclearandcoherent, logicalmanner, whichaffectstheirargumentsandtheoverallflowofthetext\, andseriousissuewithtoneadjustment(whichisfundamentalinmodulatingtheirtoneasappropriatetoaspecificcontextoraudience, thatleadstoinappropriateorineffectivecommunication\. Table3: Communication Skillsin English Indicator Weighted Mean Verbal Interpretation Rank
  29. 1. Studentstaketimetobrainstormandplanbeforewriting.3.22 High3.
  30. 52. Studentsallowenoughtimetoreviseandedittheirworkbeforesubmitting3.14 High8.
  31. 53. Studentscannotorganizetheirwritingwithalogicalintroduction, body, andconclusion.2.42 Low
  32. 194. Studentsuseparagraphseffectivelytoseparatedifferentideas.3.16 High
  33. 65. Studentsuseappropriatetransitionstoconnectideasbetweensentencesandparagraphs3.10 High10.
  34. 56. Studentshaveahardtimewritingconclusionsthateffectivelysummarizetheirmainpoints.2.72 High
  35. 177. Studentssupporttheirmainideaswithspecificexamples, evidence, ordetails.3.24 High1.
  36. 58. Studentsdeveloptheirideasthoroughlywithsufficientexplanation.3.10 High10.
  37. 59. Studentsincluderelevantresearchwhennecessarytostrengthentheirwriting2.98 High
  38. 1310. Studentspresentmultipleperspectiveswhenaddressingcomplextopics.2.92 High
  39. 1411. Studentsusevocabularyappropriatefortheiraudienceandpurpose.3.24 High1.
  40. 512. Studentsuseprecisewordchoicesthatclearlyconveytheirmeaning.3.16 High
  41. 613. Studentswritecompletesentenceswithoutfragmentsorrun-ons.2.78 High
  42. 1614. Studentsuseproperpunctuation(commas, semicolons, quotationmarks, etc.\3.14 High8.
  43. 515. Studentscannotmaintaincorrectsubject-verbagreementintheirsentences.2.44 Low
  44. 1816. Studentsusecorrectverbtensesconsistentlythroughouttheirwriting.2.90 High
  45. 1517. Studentsconsidertheiraudience'sknowledgelevelwhendeterminingwhatinformationtoinclude.3.16 High
  46. 618. Studentscannotadjusttheirtonebasedontheiraudienceandpurpose.2.34 Low
  47. 2019. Studentsavoidbiasedlanguageintheirwriting.3.08 High
  48. 1220. Studentsadapttheirwritingstylefordifferentcontexts(academic, professional, personal\3.22 High3.5 Overall Weighted Mean2.97 High International Journalof Multidisciplinary Researchand Growth Evaluationwww. allmultidisciplinaryjournal. com1660|Page Table4examinestherelationshipbetweentheperceivedeffectivenessof Chat GPTandtherespondents'Englishlinguisticskills. Witha Pearsonrvalueof0.026, thereisnotenoughevidencetorejectthehypothesis. Thisdatasuggeststhatrespondents'perceptionsof Chat GPT'seffectivenessarenotinfluencedbytheir Englishlinguisticskills. Whetheranindividualpossessesstrongorweak Englishskillsdoesnotappeartoimpacttheirevaluationof Chat GPT'sefficacy. Therefore, factorsotherthanlinguisticproficiencylikelydriverespondents'perceptionsof Chat GPT'seffectiveness. Theresultisincontrastwiththestudiesof Zadorozhnyyand Lai Wan Yee(2023\, Kurtand Kurt(2023\, Songand Song(2023\, Banihashemetal.(2024\, Mahapatra2024, Zulfikasarietal.(2024\, and Wooetal.(2024\inexploringthemultifacetedwaysinwhich Chat GPTcontributesinenhancinggrammar, vocabulary, andlinguisticproficiency. Thisrecentstudyexploresonhow Chat GPTofferssignificantadvancementsintheteachingandlearningofgrammar, vocabulary, andoveralllinguisticproficiency. Table4: Relationshipbetweenthe Levelof Effectivenessof Chat GPTPearsonrvaluep-value Interpretation The Levelof Effectivenessof Chat GPTandthe0.026 Negligible Correlation0.856 No Correlation Significancelevel@0.05 Table5presentstherelationshipbetweentheperceivedwrittencommunicationskillsin English. Witha Pearsonrvalueof0.240, thereisnotenoughevidencetorejectthehypothesis. effectivenessof Chat GPTdoesnotaffecttheirwrittencommunicationskills. Theresultscontradict Zadorozhnyyand Lai Wan Yee(2023\accentuatedtheroleof Chat GPTinprovidingsupportto L2(second-language\writtencommunication. Theystressedthat Chat GPThelpsasagame-changingtoolbyprovidingdynamiclanguagesupport. Forexample, Chat GPTcanhelplearnersidentifyerrorsingrammar, sentencecohesionandorganizationimprovements, andvocabularyexpansion. Table5: English Pearsonrvaluep-value Interpretation Written Communication Skillsin English0.240 Low Correlation0.094 No Correlation Significancelevel@0.05 Table6presentstherelationshipbetweenrespondents'linguisticskillsandtheirwrittencommunicationskillsin English. Withthe Pearsonrvalueof-0.126, thereisnotenoughevidencetorejectthehypothesis. Theresultrevealsthatlinguisticskillsdonotaffectthewrittencommunicationskillsoftherespondents. Thiscontradictsthestudyof Campbell(2019\thathighlightedacademicwritingholdsapivotalroleinthelanguagedevelopmentof Englishlanguagelearners, necessitatingproficiencyindiverseareassuchaswritingorganization, coherence, grammar, andvocabulary. Table6: Pearsonrvaluep-value Interpretation The Levelof Written Communication Skillsin English-0.126 Low Correlation0.384 No Correlation Significancelevel@0.
  49. 55. Conclusions And Recommendations Basedonthefindingsofthestudy, itcanbeconcludedthattherespondentsperceive Chat GPTashighlyeffectiveasanacademicsupporttool. Thelowleveloflinguistictestresultsshowsthattherespondentshavepoorlinguisticskills. Thisshowsthattherespondentshavesignificantgapsinfoundationallinguisticskillsthatcouldresultincommunicationbarriers, limitingabilitytoconstructgrammaticallycorrectandvariedsentence. Thiscouldleadtoconfusioninunderstandingandusinglanguageeffectivelyindifferentcontext. Therespondentshavehighlevelofwrittencommunicationskillssuggestingthattherespondentsperceivethemselvesashavingstrongwrittencommunicationskills. Thisrevealsthattherespondentsperceivedthemselvesasgenerallyproficientinorganizingtheirthoughts, useofappropriateorprecisewordsinwiring, providingrelevantsupportfortheirargumentsandtailoringtheirwritingtotheneedsoftheiraudienceandpurpose. Therespondents'perceivedeffectivenessof Chat GPTdoesnotinfluencetheirleveloflinguisticskillsin English. Whetherthestudentsareweakorstrongin Englishdoesnotappeartoimpacttheirperceivedeffectivenessof Chat GPTdoesnotaffecttheirperceivedwrittencommleveloflinguisticskillsdoesnotinfluencetheirwrittencommunicationskills. Basedonthefindingsandconclusionsdrawn, itissuggestedforstudentstouse Chat GPTasatoolwithcaution, itshouldremaintheirguideandsourceofideasandnottotallydependonit. Bydoingso, learnerswilldevelopcriticaladcreative International Journalof Multidisciplinary Researchand Growth Evaluationwww. allmultidisciplinaryjournal. com1661|Pagethinking, whichareimperativesforeffectivecommunication. Theyshouldcontinuetobuilddigitalcompetencyfortheeffectiveuseof AI, Chat GPT, andothertechnologysotheycanapplycriticalthinkinginthedigitalenvironmenttoobtaineffectiveandefficientacademicsupport. Inregardstotheirlinguisticskills, theymustconsiderhavingimprovedlinguisticsskills. Thus, theyshouldfocusonenhancingtheirlanguageskillsincludinggrammar, sentencestructure, andvocabularybuilding. Thiscanbedonethroughvariouswayssuchasbyconstantreading, attendinggrammarandvocabularyworkshop, andlearningbuddyprogram. Intermsoftheirwrittencommunicationskills, studentsshouldcontinuetostrivetomaintainhighlevelofwrittencommunicationskills. Thiscanbereinforcedthroughwritingpractices, attendingtargetedwritingsupportsessions, peerarents, theyshouldprovidelanguage-richenvironmentathomewillenhancetheirlinguisticsandwritingskills. Theyshouldmonitortheuseof Chat GPTasanacademicsupporttoolbutremindingthestudentstonotbetotallydependentonit. Intermsofthelinguisticandwrittencommunicationskills, itisalsoperformanceinschoolsothattheycanprovidethesupportthattheychildneed. Bydoingso, parentscaneffectivelysupporttheirchildren'seffectivecommunicationskillsandoverallacademicgrowthandfuturesuccess. Forthelanguageteachers, theyshouldpromoteethicalintegrationof Chat GPTor AItechnologyintheirinstructions. Theymustgiveaclearexplanationoftheproperuseof Chat GPTasalearningsupporttoolandnotasareplacementfortheirownlearningandeffort. Thisapproachwillguaranteethatlearnerstodevelopasolidfoundationinlinguisticandwrittencommunicationwhilemakingresponsibleuseoftechnology. Intermsoflinguisticandwrittencommunicationskills, theyaresuggestedtodealwiththeneedsofthestudentsindevelopingtheseskills. Appropriateteachingstrategiesthatwillenhancethestudents'linguisticandcommunicativewritingskillsmustbeutilizesuchasdiagnosticlanguageassessment, linguisticandwrittencommunicationtargetedworkshops, feedbacksessions, andcontinuetoperformlanguageproficiencymonitoringprogress. Theteachersmustalsocontinuetoenhancetheirownknowledgethroughcontinuouseducationonlinguisticandwrittencommunicationsinstructions. Thiscanbedonebyattendingcollaborationworkshops, andtrainingsandseminars. Fortheschooladministrators, itisessentialthattheyshouldimplementpoliciesintheproperuseof Chat GPTasalearningsupporttoolonlyforgeneratingideas. Thiswillhelpmaintainacademicintegrityandpromoteindependentlearning. Theymustgiveattentiontothelinguisticandwrittencommunicationskillsofthestudentsasthesearecrucialinthefieldofwork. Theyshouldprovideteacherswiththematerialsneededandtrainingstodelivermeaningfulexperiencestothestudentsrelatedtolanguageenhancement. Finally, forfutureresearchers, theyarerecommendedtoconductsimilarstudiesconsideringqualitativedesign. Furthermore, studiesfocusingonethicalpracticesintheuseof Chat GPTor AIinenhancinglinguisticandwrittencommunicationsskillswouldhelpimproveeducationalstrategiesandtheeffectiveintegrationof Chat GPTor AIinthelanguagelearning.
  50. 6. References
  51. 1. Baidoo-Anu D, Owusu Ansah LOA. Educationintheeraofgenerativeartificialintelligence(AI\: Understandingthepotentialbenefitsof Chat GPTinpromotingteachingandlearning. SSRNElectronic Journal Availablefrom: https://doi. org/10.2139/ssrn.
  52. 43374842. Banihashem SK, Kerman NT, Noroozi O, Moon J, Drachsler H. Feedbacksourcesinessaywriting: Peer-generatedor AI-generatedfeedback?International Journalof Educational Technologyin Higher Educationfrom: https://doi. org/10.1186/s41239-024-00455-
  53. 43. Baskara FR. Thepromisesandpitfallsofusing Chat GPTforself-determinedlearninginhighereducation: Anargumentativereview. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Fakultas Tarbiyahdan Ilmu Keguruan IAIMSinjai
  54. 101. Availablefrom: https://doi. org/10.47435/sentikjar. v2i0.
  55. 18254. Cetinkaya G, Tilfarlioglu FY. Factors Affecting Grammar LPhilippines Southern Leyte State. Studocu;2020[citedfrom: https://www. studocu. com/ph/document/southern-leyte-state-university/secondary-education-major-in-english/factors-affecting-grammar-learning/
  56. 241604175. Devi B, Lepcha M, Basnet S. Applicationofcorrelationalresearchdesigninnursingandmedicalresearch. Journalof Xi'an Shiyou University(Natural Science Edition\
  57. 69. Availablefrom: https://doi. org/10.17605/OSF. IO/YRZ
  58. 686. Kurt G, Kurt Y. Enhancing L2writingskills: Chat GPTasanautomatedfeedbacktool. Journalof Information Technology Education: Research2024;23: Article
  59. 24. Availablefrom: https://doi. org/10.28945/
  60. 53707. Mahapatra S. Impactof Chat GPTonacademicwritingskills: Amixedmethodsinterventionstudy. Smart Learning Environments2024;11(9\. Availablefrom: https://doi. org/10.1186/s40561-024-00295-
  61. 98. Miksza P, Shaw J, Richerme LK, Hash P, Hodges D, Parker EC. Quantitativedescriptiveandcorrelationalresearch. In: Music Education Research: An Introduction Chapter
  62. 12. Availablefrom: https://doi. org/10.1093/oso/9780197639757.003.
  63. 129. Prentzas J, Sidiropoulou M. Assessingtheuseof Open AIChat GPTinauniversitydepartmentofeducation. In:202314th International Conferenceon Information, Intelligence, Systems&Applications(IISA\
  64. 4. Availablefrom: https://doi. org/10.1109/IISA59645.2023.
  65. 1034591010. Roach P. English Phoneticsand Phonology: APractical Course.5thed. Cambridge University Press;2019.
  66. 11. Ruiz-Rojas LI, Acosta-Vargas P, De-Moreta-Llovet J, Gonzalez-Rodriguez M. Empoweringeducationwithgenerativeartificialintelligencetools: Approachwithaninstructionaldesignmatrix. Sustainability2023;15(11524\. Available International Journalof Multidisciplinary Researchand Growth Evaluationwww. allmultidisciplinaryjournal. com1662|Pagefrom: https://doi. org/10.3390/su
  67. 15151152412. Saavedra A, Barredo C. Factorsthat Contributetothe Poor Writing Skillsin Filipinoand Englishofthe Elementary Pupils. International Journalon Innovation, Creativityand Change
  68. 1106. Availablefrom: https://ssrn. com/abstract=
  69. 369791513. Sabartai Zulkarnain S. The Impactsof Grammatical Learning Englishasa Foreign Language. Global Expert: Journalof English Education(GEEJ\Availablefrom: https://ejournal. bbg. ac. id/geej/article/view/1029/
  70. 96114. Song C, Song Y. Enhancingacademicwritingskillsandmotivation: Assessingtheefficacyof Chat GPTin AI-assistedlanguagelearningfor EFLstudents. Frontiersin Psychology
  71. 1260843. Availablefrom: https://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.
  72. 126084315. Suvankulova AN. How AIandmobileappscanenhancencies. Scienceand Innovation International Scientific Journal2024;3(10\:
  73. 106114. Availablefrom: https://doi. org/10.5281/zenodo.
  74. 1401207016. Trudgill P. Sociolinguistics: An Introductionto Languageand Society.4thed. Penguin Books;2000.
  75. 17. Woo DJ, Wang D, Guo K, Susanto H. Teaching EFLstudentstowritewith Chat GPT: Students'motivationtolearn, cognitiveload, andsatisfactionwiththelearningprocess. Educationand Information Technologiesfrom: https://doi. org/10.1007/s10639-024-12819-
  76. 418. Yilmaz H, Maxutov S, Baitekov A, Balta N. Perceptionof Chat GPT: ATechnology Acceptance Model Study. International Educational Review
  77. 83. Availablefrom: https://doi. org/10.58693/ier.
  78. 11419. Yu H, Guo Y. Generativeartificialintelligenceempowerseducationalreform: Currentstatus, issues, andprospects. Frontiersin Education2023;8: Article
  79. 1183162. Availablefrom: https://doi. org/10.3389/feduc.2023.
  80. 118316220. Yule G. The Studyof Language.7thed. Cambridge University Press;2020.
  81. 21. Zadorozhnyy A, Yee WLW. Chat GPTand L2writtencommunication: Agame-changerorjustanothertool?Languagesfrom: https://doi. org/10.3390/languages
  82. 901000522. Zhou W. Chat GPTintegratedwithvoiceassistantaslearningoralchat-basedconstructivecommunicationtoimprovecommunicativecompetencefor EFLlearners. Scientists
  83. 35. Availablefrom: https://scientists. uz/uploads/2024010/B-22. pdf
  84. 23. Zulfikasari S, Sulistio B, Aprilianasari W. Utilizationofexperience: Gen-Zclass. Lectura: Jurnal Pendidikan
  85. 272. Availablefrom: https://doi. org/10.31849/lectura. v15i1.18840

Publication Information

Journal: International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation (IJMRGE)

Publisher: Anfo Publication House

ISSN: 2582-7138 (Online)

Frequency: Bimonthly

Language: English

Open Access: Yes - This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Share This Article: