IMPROVING STUDENTS' WRITING SKILLS THROUGH CHATGPT IMPLEMENTATION: A CLASSROOM ACTION RESEARCH
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26418/jeep.v7i1.99844Keywords:
ChatGPT implementation, writing skills, classroom action research, vocational education, AI-infused ELTAbstract
Writing instruction in Indonesian vocational education faces significant challenges in engaging students and providing personalized feedback, yet limited empirical research has examined systematic ChatGPT integration in vocational English contexts. This classroom action research investigated and successfully improved tenth-grade students' writing skills at SMK Amaliyah Sekadau through systematic ChatGPT implementation following Kemmis and McTaggart's model across three instructional cycles. Twenty-six Computer and Network Engineering students participated, with data collected through observation checklists, field notes, writing assessment rubrics, and student response questionnaires. Results demonstrated a 37-percentage-point cumulative improvement from baseline 42.4% to post-Cycle 3 79.0% across five writing components: content, vocabulary, grammar, spelling, and mechanics. Student engagement increased significantly, with 85% expressing enhanced motivation and 88% perceiving ChatGPT as highly useful for writing development. This study revealed that systematic ChatGPT integration provided immediate personalized feedback, enhanced learner autonomy, and improved writing competence in vocational contexts, contributing empirical evidence for AI-infused English language teaching aligned with Indonesia's Merdeka Curriculum framework.References
Al-khresheh, M. H. (2024). Bridging technology and pedagogy from a global lens: Teachers' perspectives on integrating ChatGPT in English language teaching. Computers & Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, Article 100218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100218
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). Addison Wesley Longman.
Burke, K. (1994). The mindful school: How to assess authentic learning. IRI/Skylight Publishing.
Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for practitioners. Routledge
Deep, P. D., Chen, Y., Ghosh, N., & Rahaman, M. S. (2025). The influence of student–instructor communication methods on student engagement and motivation in higher education online courses during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Education Sciences, 15(1), Article 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010033
Díkli, S., Ahmad, U., & Warschauer, M. (2020). Effectiveness of AI-powered writing feedback in EFL contexts: A comparative study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(6), 602-628.
Feng, H., Li, K., & Zhang, L. J. (2025). What does AI bring to second language writing? A systematic review (2014-2024). Language Learning & Technology, 29(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.64152/10125/73629
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (4th ed.). Pearson Longman.
Heaton, J. B. (1998). Writing English language tests. Longman.
Hopkins, D. (2008). A teacher's guide to classroom research (4th ed.). Open University Press.
Hossain, M. K., & Younus, M. A. A. (2025). Teachers’ perspectives on integrating ChatGPT into EFL writing Instruction. TESOL Communications, 4(1),41-60. https://doi.org/10.58304/tc.20250103
Irwanto, I. (2025). Research trends on artificial intelligence in K-12 education in Asia. Discover Artificial Intelligence, 5, Article 389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-025-00389-4
Jakob, J. C., Andinasari, A., & Arifin, M. H. (2024). Utilizing artificial intelligence in language learning: What about engineering students' perception? Journal of English Education Program, 5(1), 48-58. https://doi.org/10.26418/jeep.v5i1.71159
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Deakin University Press.
Liu, W. (2025). AI for language teacher professional development: Advancing through human-ChatGPT collaboration. New Perspectives on Languages, 1, 1–16. https://doras.dcu.ie/31114/
Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2018). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Pearson Education.
Mahapatra, S. (2024). Impact of ChatGPT on ESL students' academic writing skills: A mixed methods intervention study. Smart Learning Environments, 11, Article 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00295-9
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Pérez-Paredes, P., Bueno-Alastuey, M. C., & Martínez-Sánchez, F. (2021). Interactive AI tools and learner engagement in writing instruction: Evidence from EFL contexts. Language Learning & Technology, 25(2), 68-84.
Polakova, P., & Ivenz, P. (2024). The impact of ChatGPT feedback on the development of EFL students' writing skills. Cogent Education, 11(1), Article 2410101. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2410101
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Srithep, S. (2025). The integration of ChatGPT in EFL writing instruction: Pedagogical merits and potential concerns. Pasaa Paritat Journal, 40(5), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.58837/CHULA.PPJ.40.5
Tatipang, D. P., Iskandar, Alrajafi, G., Liando, N. V. F., Wuntu, C. N., Budiman, J., & Ganap, N. N. (2025). Toward AI-infused ELT in the Indonesian context: A needs analysis for a digital-literacy course. Journal of English Education Program, 6(2), 210-223. https://doi.org/10.26418/jeep.v6i2.93783
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education: Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 1-27.
Zou, Y., Kuek, F., Feng, W., & Cheng, X. (2025). Digital learning in the 21st century: Trends, challenges, and innovations. Frontiers in Education, 10, Article 1562391. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1562391
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of English Education Program
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright aims to protect the specific way the article has been written to describe an experiment and the results. Journal of English Education Program (JEEP) is committed to its authors to protect and defend their work and their reputation and takes allegations of infringement, plagiarism, ethical disputes, and fraud very seriously. Under the terms of the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), author(s) retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication (online and print) with the work simultaneously. We use the ShareAlike (SA) component in addition to the Attribution (BY) and NonCommercial (NC) components, as follows:
BY (attribution): Users are allowed to share, distribute, and redistribute the published article in any medium or format, with identification of the authors and its initial publication in this journal. Authors are encouraged to post and distribute their articles immediately after publication (e.g., institutional or public repositories, personal websites). Authors are allowed to enter into additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the published article and an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
NC (non-commercial): Users are not allowed to use the article commercially without the permission of the authors. Authors agree explicitly that the published article is indexed worldwide in databases, repositories, and indexation services, even if these services operate on a commercial basis. Authors grant Journal of English Education Program (JEEP) explicit the right to include the published articles in databases, repositories, and indexation services.
SA (ShareAlike): If user(s) remix, transform, or build upon the material, they must distribute their contributions under the same license as the original (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).
