A Sociological Take on Language Generative AI Tools
Language represents the medium in which human experiences are uniquely encoded by how an individual processes and produces language. The development of generative artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT created a challenge in the context of education due to how humans, being humans, often empl...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of emerging technologies in learning 2024-09, Vol.19 (7), p.137-152 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 152 |
---|---|
container_issue | 7 |
container_start_page | 137 |
container_title | International journal of emerging technologies in learning |
container_volume | 19 |
creator | Tan Chee Shien, Victor |
description | Language represents the medium in which human experiences are uniquely encoded by how an individual processes and produces language. The development of generative artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT created a challenge in the context of education due to how humans, being humans, often employ tools in unconventional ways as hallmarks of our creativity and critical thinking. Efforts to resist the incursion of AI into academic work have evidently failed, as observable from how the Russell Group changed its stance from prior bans on AI to the current acceptance of AI to a large degree (4 July 2023). This acceptance created tremors for the longstanding traditions of knowledge acquisition and production, which many academics are paying increasing attention to. In a bid to better understand the impact of such acceptance, the study was carried out to investigate the impact of AI use for sociological work. Employing a pilot study of a pragmatic approach with 20 graduates, it was found that while there was an even distribution of preference between personal writing and AI writing, academic submission preferences scaled towards AI writing. Preference for AI writing for submission was noted to be twice that of personal writing, despite an even distribution of preference. Findings also noted the qualitative differences between personal writing (268 words with 84 unique words) and AI writing (250 with 10 unique words) in word range and unique words. The analysis notes significant differences in word range between personal writing (± 35.93) and AI writing (± 4.28), reflecting a convergence of writing rhetoric that proves to be largely detrimental to sociological developments. The discussion presents considerations in three dimensions: the challenge on education, the challenge on language education, and the challenge on the sociological lens. |
doi_str_mv | 10.3991/ijet.v19i07.50853 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_3109787986</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3109787986</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1133-8e28d9b125b82e043a8b9a4190c356844537ffd3ae425a93b5a450ea7fc46d983</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkDFPwzAUhC0EEiXwA9gsMafYeXZij1UFpVIkBspsvaQvVUKIi51W4t_TEgamu-F0p_sYu5diDtbKx7ajcX6UthXFXAuj4YLNpMkhFWDg8p-_ZjcxdkLkYMHOGCz4m69b3_tdW2PPN_hB3A-8xGF3wB3xFQ0UcGyPxBdrvvG-j7fsqsE-0t2fJuz9-WmzfEnL19V6uSjTWkqA1FBmtraSma5MRkIBmsqiklbUoHOjlIaiabaApDKNFiqNSgvCoqlVvrUGEvYw9e6D_zpQHF3nD2E4TTqQwhamsKdXCZNTqg4-xkCN24f2E8O3k8Kd2bgzGzexcb9s4Af2P1Zk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3109787986</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Sociological Take on Language Generative AI Tools</title><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>EBSCOhost Education Source</source><creator>Tan Chee Shien, Victor</creator><creatorcontrib>Tan Chee Shien, Victor</creatorcontrib><description>Language represents the medium in which human experiences are uniquely encoded by how an individual processes and produces language. The development of generative artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT created a challenge in the context of education due to how humans, being humans, often employ tools in unconventional ways as hallmarks of our creativity and critical thinking. Efforts to resist the incursion of AI into academic work have evidently failed, as observable from how the Russell Group changed its stance from prior bans on AI to the current acceptance of AI to a large degree (4 July 2023). This acceptance created tremors for the longstanding traditions of knowledge acquisition and production, which many academics are paying increasing attention to. In a bid to better understand the impact of such acceptance, the study was carried out to investigate the impact of AI use for sociological work. Employing a pilot study of a pragmatic approach with 20 graduates, it was found that while there was an even distribution of preference between personal writing and AI writing, academic submission preferences scaled towards AI writing. Preference for AI writing for submission was noted to be twice that of personal writing, despite an even distribution of preference. Findings also noted the qualitative differences between personal writing (268 words with 84 unique words) and AI writing (250 with 10 unique words) in word range and unique words. The analysis notes significant differences in word range between personal writing (± 35.93) and AI writing (± 4.28), reflecting a convergence of writing rhetoric that proves to be largely detrimental to sociological developments. The discussion presents considerations in three dimensions: the challenge on education, the challenge on language education, and the challenge on the sociological lens.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1863-0383</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1863-0383</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3991/ijet.v19i07.50853</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Vienna: International Association of Online Engineering (IAOE)</publisher><subject>Educational sociology ; Generative artificial intelligence ; Pragmatism ; Preferences ; Writing</subject><ispartof>International journal of emerging technologies in learning, 2024-09, Vol.19 (7), p.137-152</ispartof><rights>2024. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><orcidid>0009-0006-3403-4649</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tan Chee Shien, Victor</creatorcontrib><title>A Sociological Take on Language Generative AI Tools</title><title>International journal of emerging technologies in learning</title><description>Language represents the medium in which human experiences are uniquely encoded by how an individual processes and produces language. The development of generative artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT created a challenge in the context of education due to how humans, being humans, often employ tools in unconventional ways as hallmarks of our creativity and critical thinking. Efforts to resist the incursion of AI into academic work have evidently failed, as observable from how the Russell Group changed its stance from prior bans on AI to the current acceptance of AI to a large degree (4 July 2023). This acceptance created tremors for the longstanding traditions of knowledge acquisition and production, which many academics are paying increasing attention to. In a bid to better understand the impact of such acceptance, the study was carried out to investigate the impact of AI use for sociological work. Employing a pilot study of a pragmatic approach with 20 graduates, it was found that while there was an even distribution of preference between personal writing and AI writing, academic submission preferences scaled towards AI writing. Preference for AI writing for submission was noted to be twice that of personal writing, despite an even distribution of preference. Findings also noted the qualitative differences between personal writing (268 words with 84 unique words) and AI writing (250 with 10 unique words) in word range and unique words. The analysis notes significant differences in word range between personal writing (± 35.93) and AI writing (± 4.28), reflecting a convergence of writing rhetoric that proves to be largely detrimental to sociological developments. The discussion presents considerations in three dimensions: the challenge on education, the challenge on language education, and the challenge on the sociological lens.</description><subject>Educational sociology</subject><subject>Generative artificial intelligence</subject><subject>Pragmatism</subject><subject>Preferences</subject><subject>Writing</subject><issn>1863-0383</issn><issn>1863-0383</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNpNkDFPwzAUhC0EEiXwA9gsMafYeXZij1UFpVIkBspsvaQvVUKIi51W4t_TEgamu-F0p_sYu5diDtbKx7ajcX6UthXFXAuj4YLNpMkhFWDg8p-_ZjcxdkLkYMHOGCz4m69b3_tdW2PPN_hB3A-8xGF3wB3xFQ0UcGyPxBdrvvG-j7fsqsE-0t2fJuz9-WmzfEnL19V6uSjTWkqA1FBmtraSma5MRkIBmsqiklbUoHOjlIaiabaApDKNFiqNSgvCoqlVvrUGEvYw9e6D_zpQHF3nD2E4TTqQwhamsKdXCZNTqg4-xkCN24f2E8O3k8Kd2bgzGzexcb9s4Af2P1Zk</recordid><startdate>20240924</startdate><enddate>20240924</enddate><creator>Tan Chee Shien, Victor</creator><general>International Association of Online Engineering (IAOE)</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0009-0006-3403-4649</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240924</creationdate><title>A Sociological Take on Language Generative AI Tools</title><author>Tan Chee Shien, Victor</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1133-8e28d9b125b82e043a8b9a4190c356844537ffd3ae425a93b5a450ea7fc46d983</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Educational sociology</topic><topic>Generative artificial intelligence</topic><topic>Pragmatism</topic><topic>Preferences</topic><topic>Writing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tan Chee Shien, Victor</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>International journal of emerging technologies in learning</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tan Chee Shien, Victor</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Sociological Take on Language Generative AI Tools</atitle><jtitle>International journal of emerging technologies in learning</jtitle><date>2024-09-24</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>137</spage><epage>152</epage><pages>137-152</pages><issn>1863-0383</issn><eissn>1863-0383</eissn><abstract>Language represents the medium in which human experiences are uniquely encoded by how an individual processes and produces language. The development of generative artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT created a challenge in the context of education due to how humans, being humans, often employ tools in unconventional ways as hallmarks of our creativity and critical thinking. Efforts to resist the incursion of AI into academic work have evidently failed, as observable from how the Russell Group changed its stance from prior bans on AI to the current acceptance of AI to a large degree (4 July 2023). This acceptance created tremors for the longstanding traditions of knowledge acquisition and production, which many academics are paying increasing attention to. In a bid to better understand the impact of such acceptance, the study was carried out to investigate the impact of AI use for sociological work. Employing a pilot study of a pragmatic approach with 20 graduates, it was found that while there was an even distribution of preference between personal writing and AI writing, academic submission preferences scaled towards AI writing. Preference for AI writing for submission was noted to be twice that of personal writing, despite an even distribution of preference. Findings also noted the qualitative differences between personal writing (268 words with 84 unique words) and AI writing (250 with 10 unique words) in word range and unique words. The analysis notes significant differences in word range between personal writing (± 35.93) and AI writing (± 4.28), reflecting a convergence of writing rhetoric that proves to be largely detrimental to sociological developments. The discussion presents considerations in three dimensions: the challenge on education, the challenge on language education, and the challenge on the sociological lens.</abstract><cop>Vienna</cop><pub>International Association of Online Engineering (IAOE)</pub><doi>10.3991/ijet.v19i07.50853</doi><tpages>16</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0009-0006-3403-4649</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1863-0383 |
ispartof | International journal of emerging technologies in learning, 2024-09, Vol.19 (7), p.137-152 |
issn | 1863-0383 1863-0383 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_3109787986 |
source | EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; EBSCOhost Education Source |
subjects | Educational sociology Generative artificial intelligence Pragmatism Preferences Writing |
title | A Sociological Take on Language Generative AI Tools |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T04%3A56%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Sociological%20Take%20on%20Language%20Generative%20AI%20Tools&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20emerging%20technologies%20in%20learning&rft.au=Tan%20Chee%20Shien,%20Victor&rft.date=2024-09-24&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=137&rft.epage=152&rft.pages=137-152&rft.issn=1863-0383&rft.eissn=1863-0383&rft_id=info:doi/10.3991/ijet.v19i07.50853&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3109787986%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3109787986&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |