Aspects of Questioning ChatGPT in the Writing Process of College Student Writers : Focusing on Comparison between Writers Groups by Writing Level

Yunbin Lee
{"title":"Aspects of Questioning ChatGPT in the Writing Process of College Student Writers\n: Focusing on Comparison between Writers Groups by Writing Level","authors":"Yunbin Lee","doi":"10.46392/kjge.2023.17.4.49","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this study is to reveal the characteristics of how college student writers use ChatGPT in the writing process by analyzing the ‘question’ aspect of the writer group according to the writing level. To this end, 331 questions appearing in the written by 60 students were analyzed according to the criteria of three question types, as well as the frequency and continuity of questions for each writing process.As a result, ⑴ college writers showed a bias in their question patterns concerning the process of ‘creating content’, asking ‘one-time questions’ rather than ‘continuous questions’, ‘dependent questions’ rather than ‘initiative questions’, and ‘general questions’ rather than ‘specific questions’. In terms of functions required of ChatGPT, many questions arose in the order of ‘information (presentation)’, ‘evaluation’, ‘creation’, ‘application’, and ‘analysis’. ⑵ The question patterns of the upper and lower groups according to the writing level contrasted greatly. The upper group used ‘continuous’, ‘initiative’, and ‘specific’ questions relatively more, and showed a tendency to ask various questions in terms of request functions for ChatGPT. On the other hand, in the subgroup, attention was paid to the problem of the unethical use of ChatGPT due to the ‘invention’ question along with the contrasting aspect.Based on the above data, this studey indicated four areas that future ‘Question Education’ should take into consideration. First, in the field of writing education, the direction of ‘question education’ should be set under the goal of ‘priority improvement of learners' writing ability’. Second, prior to education on question methods, various types of questions should be taught. Third, useful question types and question sequence strategies for each writing process should be developed in connection with existing writing education contents. Finally, an agreement between the teacher and the learners concerning the use of ‘invention’ questions must be drawn up in a very specific manner.","PeriodicalId":267224,"journal":{"name":"The Korean Association of General Education","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Korean Association of General Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46392/kjge.2023.17.4.49","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to reveal the characteristics of how college student writers use ChatGPT in the writing process by analyzing the ‘question’ aspect of the writer group according to the writing level. To this end, 331 questions appearing in the written by 60 students were analyzed according to the criteria of three question types, as well as the frequency and continuity of questions for each writing process.As a result, ⑴ college writers showed a bias in their question patterns concerning the process of ‘creating content’, asking ‘one-time questions’ rather than ‘continuous questions’, ‘dependent questions’ rather than ‘initiative questions’, and ‘general questions’ rather than ‘specific questions’. In terms of functions required of ChatGPT, many questions arose in the order of ‘information (presentation)’, ‘evaluation’, ‘creation’, ‘application’, and ‘analysis’. ⑵ The question patterns of the upper and lower groups according to the writing level contrasted greatly. The upper group used ‘continuous’, ‘initiative’, and ‘specific’ questions relatively more, and showed a tendency to ask various questions in terms of request functions for ChatGPT. On the other hand, in the subgroup, attention was paid to the problem of the unethical use of ChatGPT due to the ‘invention’ question along with the contrasting aspect.Based on the above data, this studey indicated four areas that future ‘Question Education’ should take into consideration. First, in the field of writing education, the direction of ‘question education’ should be set under the goal of ‘priority improvement of learners' writing ability’. Second, prior to education on question methods, various types of questions should be taught. Third, useful question types and question sequence strategies for each writing process should be developed in connection with existing writing education contents. Finally, an agreement between the teacher and the learners concerning the use of ‘invention’ questions must be drawn up in a very specific manner.
大学生作家写作过程中质疑ChatGPT的几个方面——以写作水平对比为中心
本研究的目的是根据写作水平分析写作者群体的“问题”方面,揭示大学生写作在写作过程中使用ChatGPT的特点。为此,我们对60名学生的作文中出现的331个问题进行了分析,根据三个问题类型的标准,以及每个写作过程中问题的出现频率和连续性。因此,大学写作者的提问模式在“创造内容”的过程中,表现出了“一次性问题”而不是“连续问题”,“从属问题”而不是“主动问题”,“一般问题”而不是“具体问题”的偏见。在ChatGPT需要的功能方面,出现了很多问题,问题的顺序是“信息(展示)”、“评估”、“创建”、“应用”、“分析”。⑵根据写作水平,上下两组的题型对比很大。上层群体使用“连续型”、“主动型”和“具体型”问题较多,并且在ChatGPT的请求功能方面表现出提出各种问题的倾向。另一方面,在分组中,由于“发明”问题以及对比方面,关注了ChatGPT的不道德使用问题。基于上述数据,本研究指出了未来“问题教育”应该考虑的四个方面。首先,在写作教育领域,应在“优先提高学习者写作能力”的目标下确定“问题教育”的方向。第二,在问题方法教育之前,应该教授各种类型的问题。第三,应结合现有的写作教育内容,为每个写作过程制定有用的问题类型和问题顺序策略。最后,教师和学习者之间必须以一种非常具体的方式就“发明”问题的使用达成协议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信