0% found this document useful (0 votes)

168 views94 pages

Generative Artificial Intelligence and Language Teaching

The document discusses the impact of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) on language teaching, highlighting both its potential benefits and risks. It serves as a guide for language teachers to develop the necessary skills and knowledge for using GenAI effectively and ethically in their practices. The resource is designed for educators of all experience levels and includes reflective questions and evidence-informed approaches to enhance professional competence.

Uploaded by

rzgxyz68st

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

168 views94 pages

Generative Artificial Intelligence and Language Teaching

Uploaded by

rzgxyz68st

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 94

Moorhouse and Wong

The development of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI)

has led to intense wonder, surprise, excitement, and concern
within the language teaching profession. These tools offer the
potential to assist language teachers in helping their learners
achieve their language learning goals, and, at the same time,
risk disrupting language teaching and learning processes, the Generative AI
teaching profession, and possibly the instrumental needs to
learn foreign languages. This Element provides an accessible in Education
introduction and guide to the use of GenAI for language
teaching. It aims to facilitate language teachers’ development
of the professional knowledge and skills they need to use
GenAI responsibly, ethically, and effectively. It is a valuable

Generative Artificial Intelligence and Language Teaching

Generative Artificial
resource for pre-service and in-service language teachers of
all experience levels. Each section includes helpful tips and
questions for reflection to get teachers started with GenAI while
ensuring they engage critically and responsibly with these tools.
Evidence-informed approaches are promoted throughout the Intelligence and
Element.
Language Teaching
About the Series Series Editors
Generative AI is one of the most Mark Warschauer
disruptive technologies in modern University of
history, with the potential to California, Irvine
dramatically transform education
for better or worse. This series will
Tamara Tate
University of
Benjamin Luke Moorhouse
address cutting-edge topics on the
intersection of generative AI with
California, Irvine and Kevin M. Wong
educational research and practice for
diverse learners from early childhood
to adult.

Cover image: Yuichiro Chino/Moment/

Getty images ISSN 2977-3741 (online)
ISSN Core
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 196.153.51.144, on 02 Jul 2025 at 03:46:55, subject to the Cambridge 2977-3733
terms(print)
of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009618823
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 196.153.51.144, on 02 Jul 2025 at 03:46:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009618823
Elements in Generative AI in Education
edited by
Mark Warschauer
University of California, Irvine
Tamara Tate
University of California, Irvine

GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE AND
LANGUAGE TEACHING

Benjamin Luke Moorhouse

City University of Hong Kong
Kevin M. Wong
Pepperdine University

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 196.153.51.144, on 02 Jul 2025 at 03:46:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009618823
Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8EA, United Kingdom
One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10006, USA
477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia
314–321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre,
New Delhi – 110025, India
103 Penang Road, #05–06/07, Visioncrest Commercial, Singapore 238467

Cambridge University Press is part of Cambridge University Press & Assessment,

a department of the University of Cambridge.
We share the University’s mission to contribute to society through the pursuit
of education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence.

www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781009618861
DOI: 10.1017/9781009618823
© Benjamin Luke Moorhouse and Kevin M. Wong 2025
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions
of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take
place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press & Assessment.
When citing this work, please include a reference to the DOI 10.1017/9781009618823
First published 2025
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-1-009-61886-1 Hardback
ISBN 978-1-009-61881-6 Paperback
ISSN 2977-3741 (online)
ISSN 2977-3733 (print)
Additional resources for this publication at www.cambridge.org/moorhouse-wong
Cambridge University Press & Assessment has no responsibility for the persistence
or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this
publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain,
accurate or appropriate.
For EU product safety concerns, contact us at Calle de José Abascal, 56, 1°, 28003
Madrid, Spain, or email eugpsr@cambridge.org

Elements in Generative AI in Education

DOI: 10.1017/9781009618823
First published online: June 2025

Benjamin Luke Moorhouse

City University of Hong Kong
Kevin M. Wong
Pepperdine University
Author for correspondence: Benjamin Luke Moorhouse,
bmoorhou@cityu.edu.hk

Abstract: The development of generative artiﬁcial intelligence

(GenAI) has led to intense wonder, surprise, excitement, and concern
within the language teaching profession. These tools offer the
potential to assist language teachers in helping their learners achieve
their language learning goals, and, at the same time, risk disrupting
language teaching and learning processes, the teaching profession,
and possibly the instrumental needs to learn foreign languages. This
Element provides an accessible introduction and guide to the use of
GenAI for language teaching. It aims to facilitate language teachers’
development of the professional knowledge and skills they need to
use GenAI responsibly, ethically, and effectively. It is a valuable
resource for pre-service and in-service language teachers of all
experience levels. Each section includes helpful tips and questions for
reflection to get teachers started with GenAI while ensuring they
engage critically and responsibly with these tools. Evidence-informed
approaches are promoted throughout the Element.

Keywords: generative AI, language teaching, professional digital

competence, evidence-informed, AI literacy

© Benjamin Luke Moorhouse and Kevin M. Wong 2025

ISBNs: 9781009618861 (HB), 9781009618816 (PB), 9781009618823 (OC)
ISSNs: 2977-3741 (online), 2977-3733 (print)

Introduction 1

1 Generative AI 3

2 Using GenAI as a Knowledge Resource

and Development Tool 15

3 Using GenAI to Assist with Lesson Planning

and Materials Preparation 24

4 Using GenAI to Assist with Assessments and Feedback 33

5 Students’ Use of GenAI in Language Learning 40

6 Ethical and Social Considerations with GenAI

in Language Teaching 51

7 Essential GenAI Skills and Knowledge 60

8 Enhancing Professional GenAI Competence through

Professional Development 71

References 78

An Online Appendix for this Element is available at

www.cambridge.org/moorhouse-wong

Introduction*
The public release of ChatGPT by OpenAI in November 2022, and the subsequent
release of a plethora of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools by different
technology companies, has led to intense wonder, surprise, excitement, concern,
and worry about their capabilities (Moorhouse, 2024). These tools offer the
potential to assist language teachers in helping their learners achieve their language
learning goals, and, at the same time, risk disrupting language teaching and
learning processes, the teaching profession, and possibly the instrumental needs
to learn foreign languages (Jeon & Lee, 2023; Moorhouse & Kohnke, 2024). We
believe that teachers are essential to effective and holistic learning, and they will
not be replaced by artificial intelligence (AI), however, AI could help augment
their abilities and intelligence. It is important for language teachers to develop the
knowledge and skills associated with using GenAI to help their learners navigate
the GenAI-infused world but also become critically informed about the ethical and
social issues associated with these tools’ development. To do this, teachers should
model ethical, legal, and safe ways to use GenAI (Hockly, 2023) and help learners
think critically about how AI shapes and changes society. At the same time, it is
imperative that language teachers can distinguish between the ‘hype’ surrounding
these tools, and evidence-informed professional use of GenAI. This allows lan-
guage teachers to have greater agency in their use of GenAI tools with thoughtful
consideration for how GenAI may shape language teaching. Although language
teachers’ digital competencies and confidence in using technology have increased
since the Covid-19 pandemic, which forced teachers to use technology to mediate
teaching and learning (Lee & Jeon, 2024; Moorhouse, 2023), the complex and
diverse uses of GenAI tools necessitate unique competencies (Ng et al., 2023).
This Element is centred around the idea that language teachers need new and
specific skills and knowledge to use GenAI in their professional practices. We argue
that these tools are so different from previous technological advancements that
developing these skills and knowledge are essential to the profession (Mishra et al.,
2023; Ng et al., 2023). Although there are various frameworks that can be used to
help conceptualise the competencies needed to use technology (e.g., technological
pedagogical content knowledge), in this Element, we have adapted professional
digital competence (Instefjord & Munthe, 2017). Professional digital competence
conceptualises that different professions utilise technology differently in their
professional practices (Knoth et al., 2024), and, therefore, the knowledge and skills
needed to use technology are different. For example, a doctor and a language

*
Emojis used under a creative commons licence, © X Corp. Full details: Copyright 2025 X Corp
and other contributors Code licensed under the MIT Licence: http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
Graphics licensed under CC-BY 4.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

teacher will use different technologies or even the same technologies in different
ways than each other as part of their professional practices. Yet, both need a level of
digital competence to effectively engage in their professional tasks and be con-
sidered professionally competent (Knoth et al., 2024). Equally, GenAI is affecting
each profession differently. A doctor may need to understand and apply the use of
AI in medical diagnostic processes. In contrast, a language teacher may need to
guide students in how to use GenAI tools to engage in language practice activities.
Therefore, in this Element, we adopt five aspects of a newly conceptualised
construct, ‘professional-GenAI-competence’ (P-GenAI-C), to conceptualise the
knowledge and skills needed by language teachers in the GenAI world. The aim
is that by engaging with this Element, language teachers can develop these five
aspects and, therefore, be able to implement GenAI tools effectively and respon-
sibly into their professional practices. The five aspects are:

1. GenAI technological proﬁciency: Technological proﬁciency is concerned

with teachers’ awareness of a variety of GenAI tools, including their func-
tions, uses, and affordances.
2. Pedagogical compatibility of GenAI in English language teaching (PC): PC
refers to teachers’ use of GenAI tools to supplement and enhance their
students’ English language learning, including using GenAI tools to help
them achieve their learning objectives.
3. Teachers’ professional work: Professional work is concerned with the use of
GenAI tools in teachers’ professional work outside of the classroom, includ-
ing grading and giving feedback, communicating with stakeholders, and
school administration.
4. Risk, well-being, and the ethical use of GenAI (EU): EU refers to teachers’
awareness of the risks associated with using AI, the effects that GenAI tools
may have on teacher and learner well-being, and the ethical issues pertaining
to the use of GenAI tools.
5. Preparation of students for a GenAI world: Preparation of students relates to
a teacher’s abilities to prepare their students with the knowledge and skills
needed to critically and productively engage in GenAI tools in their learning,
recreation time, and future work.

Aspects of P-GenAI-C will be referred to throughout the Element, with case

studies and questions used to help readers develop their P-GenAI-C.

Element Overview
This Element has eight sections. In Section 1, the question ‘What is GenAI?’ is
addressed along with details of different kinds of GenAI tools and their

capabilities. Section 2 explores how GenAI tools can be used to assist teachers
as a knowledge resources and development tool. In Section 3, the attention
moves to examining how GenAI can assist with lesson planning and materials
preparation. Section 4 focuses on the use of GenAI in assisting teachers with
assessments and feedback. In Section 5, we consider the roles GenAI can play in
supporting students’ language learning. Section 6 puts forth important ethical
and social issues related to GenAI use in language teaching and learning. In
Section 7, essential knowledge and skills language teachers need to effectively
engage with GenAI are provided. Finally, Section 8 focuses on the future and
how language teachers can stay up to date with relevant developments and
continue to evolve their practices to the latest technological advancements in the
GenAI age.
The Element provides an accessible introduction and guide to the use of
GenAI and language teaching. It is a valuable resource for pre-service and in-
service language teachers of all experience levels. Each section includes helpful
tips and questions for reﬂection to get teachers started with GenAI while
ensuring they engage critically and responsibly with these tools. Evidence-
informed approaches are promoted throughout the Element.

GenAI Use in This Element

Throughout the Element, various GenAI tools are referenced and used to
illustrate the capabilities and limitations of the tools for language teaching
and learning purposes (see Appendix 1, available online at [short url], for the
list of tools referenced in this Element). It is important to note that the tools
selected are only a sample of the tools available, and we do not endorse any
speciﬁc company or product in this Element. Readers can take reference from
the Element but are advised to explore the variety of tools available to them and
select the most appropriate ones for their context and needs. As the capabilities
and features of GenAI tools are constantly advancing, the reader’s experience of
the tools may be different from the examples provided in the Element. However,
we hope the content and skills explored inspire readers to try out these tools in
their professional practices.

1 Generative AI
GenAI-Generated Summary of the Section
We thought it would be fun to demonstrate the potential of GenAI in the
Element itself. Along with many examples embedded in the sections, we will
also provide a GenAI summary of each section in different genres. For
Section 1, we asked GPT-4.o for a simple summary. Our prompt was:

This is the ﬁrst section of a book designed as a resource for language teachers
and scholars interested in the application of generative AI tools in language
teaching. Can you write a 100-word summary of the section as a lead-in to the
section to demonstrate the capabilities you have to provide contextualised
summaries of extended texts?

The conversational AI chatbot created the following summary:

Summary of Section 1: Generative Artiﬁcial Intelligence This section

introduces Generative Artiﬁcial Intelligence (GenAI), highlighting its trans-
formative potential in language teaching. It contrasts GenAI tools, such as
large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, with traditional rule-based AI
tools. Unlike earlier AI systems, GenAI leverages deep learning and exten-
sive datasets to generate diverse content, from text and images to audio and
video, in response to user prompts. The section categorizes GenAI tools into
conversational AI chatbots, visual/audio/video generators, and tools with
embedded GenAI functions. It emphasizes their adaptability, speed, and
evolving capabilities while raising questions about their impact and ethical
considerations in educational contexts.

We can see from the summary that the GenAI tool successfully identiﬁed the
main points from the section and succinctly and accurately summarised them in
a coherent text.

What Is GenAI?
The question, ‘What is GenAI?’ is not as easy to answer as one might think.
First, we should consider the term, artificial intelligence. Generally, AI refers to
computer systems that utilise algorithms to mimic human cognitive abilities and
carry out tasks traditionally needing human intelligence, such as speech recog-
nition, decision-making, and pattern identification (Ali et al., 2024; Sheikh
et al., 2023). It is a broad concept that is used to encapsulate a diverse range
of technological functionalities, including robotics, recommendation systems,
voice recognition, and chatbots.
In language teaching, before the release of ChatGPT, two types of AI tools
were commonly promoted by language educators and scholars for several years
due to their perceived utility in assisting language learning – chatbots and digital
writing assistants (Fryer et al., 2020; Kohnke, 2023). Chatbots could simulate
specific interlocutors (e.g., customer service agents) and discuss particular
topics (Kohnke, 2023). They could be used to provide opportunities for lan-
guage learners to practice specific interactions (Chiu et al., 2023). Digital
writing assistants can provide corrective feedback on learners’ written work
(Lee, 2020), including individualised feedback on students’ writing. However,
these kinds of AI-powered tools are rule-based programs based on predefined

guidelines derived from external knowledge –sometimes called predictive AI.

Each tool was designed to perform a specific role and could not deviate from its
pre-programmed answers. As such, the functions of technological tools were
determined during their programming and inception, limiting the outputs or
tasks they could engage in. For example, a chatbot designed to be a customer
service agent for a public transportation service could respond to users’ queries
about the time of the next train but could not respond on other topics or in other
roles (unless trained to do so) (Chiu et al., 2023). While researchers saw the
potential of these kinds of rule-based AIs in language teaching, due to their
narrow functionality, they have experienced very limited uptake in language
classrooms. Generative AI is different from these rule-based AI tools. It is easy
to see why their arrival has been heralded as a technological revolution that has
the potential to transform how we work, play, relate, and learn (Meniado, 2023;
Moorhouse et al., 2023).
Generative AI refers to a subset of AI designed for generating various types
of content, including text, code, videos, and images (Chan & Colloton, 2024).
Among the most popular GenAI tools in language teaching are large language
models (LLMs), such as generative pretraining transformers (GPTs), which
include OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Anthropic’s Claude platforms. These LLMs
utilise deep learning techniques and extensive datasets sourced from the
internet or specialised knowledge bases to produce new and often surprising
content in response to diverse and complex prompts like scenarios, images,
instructions, or questions (Lim et al., 2023). Instead of relying on predefined
rules, LLMs generate content by identifying patterns and relationships within
the data to produce statistically probable outcomes (Fui-Hoon Nah et al.,
2023). For example, they can predict the next word or token in a sentence to
craft coherent text. The adaptability of LLMs like GPTs allows them to be
used in various contexts to perform numerous natural language processing
tasks without specific instructions (Ali et al., 2024). Extensive training has
been used to increase the reliability and predictability of these tools.
Moreover, GenAI tools work extremely fast – usually producing content in
seconds (Moorhouse, 2024).
Besides LLMs, other models have been developed to analyse and create visual
and audio data (e.g., generative adversarial networks (GANs)). Some GenAI
tools combine LLMs and GANs to provide an easy-to-use interface using natural
language that generates multimodal output. Generative AI tools have incredible
functionality. This is why a user can ask an image-generating GenAI tool, such as
Dall-E 3, to create an image using natural language, for example, prompting ‘an
elephant flying a plane with a monkey on its shoulder’ and allowing the tool to
interpret and create a unique output (see Figure 1 for the hilarious result).

Figure 1 A Dall-E 3-created image of the prompt: An elephant ﬂying a plane

with a monkey on its shoulder.

Types of GenAI Tools

It can be challenging to neatly categorise the different kinds of GenAI tools
currently available for language teachers. Many tools have multiple functional-
ities and combine different AI technologies to make them easy to use while
performing highly advanced tasks. Some tools are designed for very speciﬁc tasks
and professions (e.g., medical diagnostic tools) and others are for general appli-
cation (e.g., conversational AI chatbots). The ﬁeld is moving incredibly quickly
and the types and functionalities of GenAI continue to expand exponentially. One
way to classify GenAI tools for language teaching is according to the following
three categories: 1. conversational AI chatbots; 2. visual, audio, and video
generators; and 3. tools with embedded GenAI functions and specialist AI tools.

Conversational AI Chatbots
Conversational AI chatbots is another name for LLM-based chatbots of GenAI
chatbots, with the terms often used interchangeably within language teaching
literature. The term ‘conversational AI chatbots’ predates LLM development and
was used to describe rule-based chatbots. It has continued to be used to describe
LLM-based chatbots. In this Element, we use conversational AI chatbots to refer to
LLM-based AI tools. This category includes models by OpenAI (e.g., ChatGPT
3.0, GPT-4.o), Google (e.g., Gemini 1.5-Flash), Anthropic (e.g., Claude), and Meta
(e.g., Llama). These AI tools have a human-like conversational interface where the

user can engage with the tool using natural language (e.g., posing questions, giving
responses, making statements). All these models can interpret written text input or
prompts, with some able to analyse and interpret multi-modal inputs (e.g., texts,
images, and videos). Each model has different strengths and limitations (see
Section 7 for a more detailed discussion of the differences between AI models).
Large language models can be combined with other types of AI architecture (e.g.,
GANs) to create multi-modal outputs. They can conduct a wide range of human-
like tasks. Here are some tasks conversational AI chatbots can perform:

Content Creation
Conversational AI chatbots can generate a broad selection of human-like texts
due to the large dataset from which AI tools draw. Users can specify the genre,
audience, topic, length, style, and any other desired features, and the tools will
generate a relevant text that aligns with the provided specifications. This can
include creative works such as specific kinds of poems, songs, and stories; texts
for personal and professional communication, such as e-mails, letters, or social
media posts; and academic texts, such as argumentative essays, persuasive
texts, opinion pieces, and expositions. For example, a primary school language
teacher may wish to create a poem on a specific topic or theme they are
exploring in their unit, and include some of the key vocabulary from the unit
in the poem. They could prompt a conversational AI chatbot with their specifi-
cations, and it will generate content following the details in the prompt. For
example, the prompt could be, ‘Write a three-stanza poem for young language
learners in Hong Kong on the topic of transport. Include the following words in
the poem: bus, car, taxi, tram, train, bicycle.’ A chatbot (e.g., GPT-4.o) would
create a poem like this one:

In Hong Kong’s streets, the buses go,

Through bustling lanes, both high and low.
With cars and taxis zipping fast,
We watch the lively city cast.

The trams glide by on tracks so neat,

A charming way to tour each street.
The trains beneath the ground, they zoom,
Through tunnels dark, they pierce the gloom.

On bicycles, we pedal free,

By parks and shores beside the sea.
In Hong Kong’s transport, near and far,

Adventure waits with each new star.

Teachers can then interact with the conversational AI chatbot to modify the
generated content to better meet their needs. For example, the teacher may feel
the poem is too challenging for his/her learners. He/she can input a follow-up
prompt suggestion to modify the poem for the learners. The prompt could be:
‘Can you reduce the lexical demands in the poem?’ A chatbot (e.g., GPT-4.o)
would create a modiﬁed poem like this one:

Hong Kong Rides

In Hong Kong, buses go,

Through busy streets, high and low.
Cars and taxis drive so fast,
We watch the city as they pass.

Trams on tracks, they glide so slow,

Through the streets, nice and low.
Trains zoom fast, under the ground,
In the tunnels, all around.

On bicycles, we ride with glee,

By the park and near the sea.
In Hong Kong, with every ride,
We ﬁnd fun and joy inside.

The teacher can continue to interact with the conversational AI chatbot to

modify the text (e.g., text difﬁculty or change the context/topic of the poem),
or task it with creating related content (e.g., comprehension questions, other
genres or text types using the same topic). The teacher can also end the
interactional sequence by ‘clearing context’ and start a new sequence or
conversation.

Conversation Partner
Conversational AI chatbots can engage in coherent contextualised back-and-
forth conversations on a multitude of topics and scenarios. This means they can
be given a ‘role’ and can engage in a conversation in that role, including
interacting with job interviewers, customers, friends, teachers, or even famous
ﬁctional characters. Users can provide a character description of the alias that
the conversational AI chatbot is adopting. For example, a disgruntled customer,
a supportive colleague, or a demanding job interviewer. Here is an example
interaction with GPT-4.o playing the role of a disgruntled customer:

Initial Prompt: I am a sales assistant in an electronics shop. I want to practice

my customer service skills. Can you take up the role of a disgruntled customer
who bought a new toaster that they are not satisﬁed with?

GPT-4.o: Sure! Let’s roleplay. I’ll be the disgruntled customer, and you can
practice handling the situation. Let’s begin: Customer: Excuse me! I need to
speak with someone about this toaster I bought here last week. It’s absolutely
useless! I can’t believe you sell such low-quality products. It doesn’t even
toast bread properly!
User: I’m sorry to hear that. Can you describe to me how you use it?
GPT-4.o as customer: How I use it? I mean, it’s a toaster – it’s not rocket
science! I plug it in, pop the bread in, and press the lever. But no matter what
setting I use, it either burns the bread to a crisp or barely warms it up!
I shouldn’t have to ﬁddle with it every single time just to get it to work right.
User: How can a help solve this issue?
GPT-4.o as customer: Well, for starters, I’d like a toaster that actually works!
I paid good money for this one, and it’s been nothing but a headache. Are you
going to replace it, or do I have to take this up with someone higher up?

In this interaction, the conversational AI chatbot accurately imitates the language

features related to the role as well as the persona it has been asked to adopt. The
use of language and phrases such as, ‘It’s absolutely useless’ and ‘Well, for
starters . . .’ show the likely frustrations expected from a disgruntled customer.
Given the large databases that many of the conversational AI chatbots draw
from, they are able to imitate the ‘spirit’ and ‘mannerisms’ of ﬁctional charac-
ters or famous people (although adopting another persona may have ethical
implications – see Section 6 for a detailed discussion). Some conversational AI
chatbots may remind users that they are not the actual person the user is
interacting with before they start the conversation. For example, GPT-4.o was
asked to take on the persona of Roald Dahl, the famous children’s author, and
answer questions about his life:

Initial prompt: Could you take on the persona of Roald Dahl and answer
questions about your life as him with short answers?
GPT-4.o: Of course! I’ll take on the persona of Roald Dahl and answer your
questions as if I were him. Fire away!
User: Why did you start writing children’s books?
GPT-4.o as Roald Dahl: Ah, well, I started writing children’s books because
I wanted to entertain my own children. I loved telling them bedtime stories, and
their laughter and excitement inspired me to write tales that could delight
children everywhere. Plus, there’s nothing quite like the imagination of a child!
User: Which was the first book you wrote?
GPT-4.o as Roald Dahl: The first children’s book I wrote was The Gremlins in
1943. It was inspired by RAF folklore during my time as a pilot. But my first
real success in children’s literature came later with James and the Giant Peach
in 1961. That’s when the magic truly began!

As this conversation shows, the conversational AI chatbot can provide accurate

information and adopt the language common in the famous person’s writings or
speeches. Some AI models support oral input and output, allowing for spoken
interaction. Of course, GenAI tools can provide inaccurate information (see
Section 6 for more details).

(Multi-Modal) Text Evaluation, Summarisation, and Analysis

Most conversational AI chatbot models can read various kinds of multi-modal
texts, including written texts, tables, graphics, figures, photos, audio files, and
videos. This allows them to conduct a multitude of operations, including
describing, evaluating, summarising, categorising, and analysing the inputted
content.
For written texts, such as creative works, articles, or books, conversational AI
chatbots can be tasked with summarising, analysing, or providing suggestions
on how to modify, adapt, or improve the texts. For example, a user could input
an article and ask for a summary of the text or create a social media post
promoting the text. Figure 2 shows how an AI (GPT-4.o) was able to read the
content of the article, extract key information, and create a coherent and
accurate LinkedIn post in the style of promotional social media posts. The
initial prompt was, ‘Can you create a LinkedIn post promoting this article.
Keep it short. Use emojis to attract the reader. [Article attached].’
Users can provide specific instructions to the conversational AI chatbot on
how to treat the inputted text, such as providing rubrics. In addition, a user could

Figure 2 An example of a user inputting a text, and the conversational AI

chatbot creating a LinkedIn post to promote the text.

input a story and evaluate its lexical complexity, suggest ways to improve the
writing quality, or increase its originality.
For multi-modal content (recorded and live), some of these tools can under-
stand content and infer information about the content (e.g., where the photo was
taken). Figure 3 shows a photograph taken by Benjamin Luke Moorhouse in
a supermarket in Hong Kong.
The photograph was uploaded to GPT-4.5-preview with the prompt, ‘Where
was this photograph taken?’ The conversational AI chatbot was able to interpret
the photograph. The chatbot generated the following text:

This photo was likely taken in Hong Kong. This conclusion is based on the
presence of “Kowloon Dairy,” a well-known dairy brand in Hong Kong,
the pricing labels using the “$” symbol (HKD is represented by “$”), and the
presence of Chinese and English text, which is typical in Hong Kong
supermarkets.

The tool correctly identiﬁes the content and uses the language of the texts in the
image to infer that it was taken in Hong Kong. It can identify physical charac-
teristics, emotions, and gestures. A photo of Benjamin Luke Moorhouse was
uploaded to GPT-4.5 (Figure 4).
The chatbot was asked to describe the person in the photo. The chatbot
created the following description:

The person in the photo appears to be sitting indoors, with a bright background
provided by large windows. They have short brown hair and are wearing
a dark-colored shirt with white stripes. They are smiling and appear cheerful.

Figure 3 Photo inputted into a conversational AI chatbot (taken by Benjamin

Luke Moorhouse).

Figure 4 Photo inputted into a conversational AI chatbot

(taken by Benjamin Luke Moorhouse).

The example shows how a conversational AI chatbot can correctly describe the
physical appearance of a person and identify their emotions. Some of the latest
GenAI models can use a mobile phone’s built-in camera to provide live, real-
time descriptions of the physical environment around the user.

Translation and Interpretation

Conversational AI chatbots can translate and interpret texts quite accurately, often
outperforming previous specialist translation tools. This may be related to their
ability to interpret context in the texts they are tasked with translating, which can be
enhanced when the user provides contextual information in their prompts.
Importantly, the accuracy of the translation will depend on the languages being
translated. There are specialist translation tools that utilise GenAI models and
architecture to provide more accurate and reliable translations (e.g., DeepL).
Some tools can translate oral texts and produce oral texts. Figure 5 shows how
a chatbot translated the LinkedIn post in Figure 2 into two languages suggested by
the user. We used the prompt: ‘Can you translate the post into French and Japanese?’
A deﬁning feature of conversational AI chatbots is their ability to ‘remember’
and ‘recall’ previous prompts and maintain coherent and contextualised inter-
actional sequences. This means teachers can engage in an iterative process of
prompting and reﬁnement until the desired content is produced. See Section 7
for more detailed descriptions of the ways chatbots work.

Figure 5 AI-generated translations of the LinkedIn post in Figure 2.

Visual, Audio, and Video Generators

Visual, audio, and video generators can generate speciﬁc kinds of content in
response to prompts. Usually, the interface is built on an LLM. The user can
input their request using natural language, then the tool converts the request into
language (and adds additional information programmed by the technology com-
pany), which the user cannot see, before producing the output. Some of these tools
create ‘one-off’ images that the user cannot modify directly in the tool, while

others allow the user to modify and adapt the image using follow-up prompts.
Some specialist image editing tools allow users to work directly with the image to
modify and change specific parts of it. Common visual generators include Dall-E,
Stable Diffusion, and MidJourney. Specialist tools include Adobe Firefly.
Audio generators can create audio output from written or audio input. Some
are specifically designed to create music (e.g., Jukebox), while others can
produce natural-sounding speech in different accents and speaking styles
(e.g., Speechflow AI). Tools such as Heygen allow users to input text in one
language, and have it translated and produced orally in another. Users can select
an avatar to present the speech, or impose the audio on an original video. Most
recently, video-generation tools, such as Sora AI, have entered the GenAI
landscape, which can generate short video clips from written prompts. Given
their ability to interpret natural language prompts, they can create highly
creative video clips, as well as life-like scenes. They have also allowed for the
creation of interactive avatars that people can interact with in real-time.

Tools with Embedded GenAI Functions and Specialist AI Tools

Given the capabilities of GenAI models, many existing digital tools are embed-
ding GenAI functions and features into their tools to increase automation and
enhance productivity, ultimately speeding up task completion (Moorhouse,
2024). It is likely this trend will continue as users benefit from automating
specific aspects of their tasks, commonly known as ‘AI assistants’ or ‘AI co-
pilots’. For example, the Quiz platform Kahoot! has a built-in AI assistance
feature that can help users generate quiz questions. As another example, the
student response system Mentimeter has an AI function that automatically
organises open responses submitted by individuals.
There are also specialist AI tools that have been developed for specific uses or
communities. For example, MagicSchool.ai is an AI tool designed for schools
and teachers that has features that can automate common teaching-related tasks.
Teachers can input their requirements and contextual information and generate
tailored content as output. Tools include rubric generators, lesson plan gener-
ators, text levellers, YouTube summarisers, e-mail writers, and many more. It is
likely that AI assistants will be embedded in increasingly more digital tools, and
new tools will be developed to meet certain community needs.

Conclusion
This section introduced the deﬁnition and characteristics of GenAI tools and the
different kinds of GenAI tools that language teachers might use. This know-
ledge is an important aspect of P-GenAI-C. Knowing how the tools work and

the different kinds of tools available allows teachers to select appropriate tools
for their professional tasks. The ﬁeld of GenAI is moving incredibly fast and
even at the point of writing this Element, new tools and new features of existing
tools have been developed and released. In subsequent sections, other aspects of
P-GenAI-C will be addressed.

Questions for Reﬂection

1. What capabilities of GenAI tools do you think will help you most with your
language teaching?
2. Which GenAI tools are you most excited to try out in your language
teaching?
3. What concerns do you have about the impact of these tools on language
teaching, learning, or beyond?

2 Using GenAI as a Knowledge Resource

and Development Tool
GenAI-Generated Summary of the Section
In this section, we asked GPT-4.o to summarise the section as a poem. This
shows how conversational AI chatbots can interpret the context of an uploaded
text and create a coherent and somewhat creative genre. This is the poem it
generated:

The Teacher’s AI Companion

In classrooms vast, both near and far,
Where lessons live and learners spar,
No single method holds the key,
To teach with grace and mastery.

From rods of color to silent ways,

To themes of life and future days,
GenAI steps to lend its might,
A guiding hand, a spark of light.

It draws from worlds both old and new,

With knowledge vast, perspectives true,
Yet caution calls – its ﬂaws may hide,
So verify, and check each side.

For cultures rich and tongues diverse,

It helps us bridge, connect, immerse,
To learn the needs of every face,
And build a warm, inclusive space.

Through prompts we craft, it helps us see,

The ways to teach creatively,
With feedback sharp, and plans in hand,
We navigate this teaching land.

So teachers rise, embrace the aid,

Of GenAI tools carefully made,
For though the path is yours to chart,
It offers wisdom, a helping heart.

Key aspects of a poem are clearly evident in the generated text, and anyone
can recognise this as a poem. The poem content aligns with the section’s
themes. There is evidence of creative language use, including rhyme
(e.g., far and spar), imagery, (e.g., a guiding hand, a spark of light),
personiﬁcation (e.g., It offers wisdom, a helping heart) and alliteration
(e.g., lessons live and learners spar). The question of whether GenAI tools
can actually be creative is debatable. However, a study found that people
prefer GenAI-generated poems to human-written poems (see Porter &
Machery, 2024).

Introduction
In Section 1, the capabilities of GenAI tools were introduced. These immense
capabilities have led to intense interest in the language teaching community
about how they can assist with language teaching and learning. This section
builds on Section 1 by exploring effective uses of GenAI tools in language
teaching and focuses on developing language teachers’ PC, which is an aspect
of P-GenAI-C. To do this, we need to first consider what constitutes language
teaching and the wonderfully diverse world that language teachers can find
themselves teaching in.
Before we begin exploring the pedagogical uses of GenAI in language
teaching, it is important to remember that language teachers can find them-
selves in a variety of diverse teaching contexts and modalities. Language
teaching happens at all levels of formal education (nursery, primary, second-
ary, tertiary, and beyond). Class sizes can vary from one-on-one settings to
classrooms with hundreds of learners. Teachers can conduct language lessons
that are synchronously online, face-to-face, or hybrid (a combination of face-
to-face and synchronous online). Teachers can teach through only one mode,
blending online and face-to-face modes, or straddle asynchronous and syn-
chronous online modes in a teaching sequence. Teachers might even find
themselves teaching in immersive virtual reality (VR) environments, such as
the metaverse.

Language teachers can have a pre-set curriculum with assigned teaching

materials and standardised assessment tasks or be given full autonomy and
responsibility to develop their own curriculum, instruction, and assessments.
They can teach in programmes or courses that have specific learning objectives
and focuses (e.g., International English Language Testing System (IELTS) prep-
aration courses, English in the disciplines, or English for Academic Purposes), or
they can teach general language courses. Lessons can occur daily, weekly, or
occasionally. Classes can also be streamed by proficiency or be mixed by ability
and proficiency. Students’ readiness, interest, and learning profiles (e.g., back-
ground, culture, or language resources (including first languages [L1s])) can differ
between and in learning contexts and classes (Tomlinson, 2014). The diversity of
language teaching and learning contexts and modalities is almost endless.
Similarly, there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ method or approach that language
teachers can adopt to guarantee success in any or all contexts (Richards &
Rogers, 2014). We do know, from years of research, that there are certain
evidence-based principles to effective language teaching that can be applied
to most contexts, such as, clearly establishing learning goals, comprehensible
exposure to the target language, meaningful communication, authentic
materials, regular and varied practice, timely and constructive feedback,
differentiated instruction, cultivating positive and supportive classroom envir-
onments, regular formative assessment and monitoring, and reflective practice
(Richards, 2010). However, despite the multitudes of books, articles, videos,
organisations, online resources, teacher training, and professional development
that are available to assist language teachers, they can still struggle to develop
effective learning environments and help their learners achieve their language
learning goals. In addition, language teaching can be cognitively, emotionally,
and physically intense with teachers engaged in a plethora of (often
simultaneous) tasks, such as sourcing and creating materials, designing relevant
teaching plans and materials, catering for learner diversity, managing classroom
behaviour, and assessing and providing feedback on learning.
In this and subsequent sections, we argue that GenAI has the potential to
assist teachers in implementing evidence-based language teaching principles
within the diverse teaching contexts and modalities they may be teaching in.

Knowledge Resource and Development

The capabilities of GenAI, speciﬁcally conversational AI chatbots, that draw
on vast datasets and produce contextually relevant responses, means they
have potential in acting as a knowledge resource and developer for language
teachers (Moorhouse, 2024). Conversational AI chatbots can provide accurate

information on a range of topics, teaching methodologies and approaches,

languages, cultures, and societies.

Using GenAI to Support Teachers’ Topic and Content Knowledge

Development
In terms of topic and content, when well-prompted, chatbots can generate
detailed information about science, medicine, famous people, history, places,
and almost any natural, physical or social phenomenon within a speciﬁc date
range (Kasneci et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2024). Although not content specialists,
language teachers are often expected to have knowledge about various topics
and themes to support students’ content and academic learning, or to implement
thematic and task-based teaching approaches. Language teachers can use con-
versational AI chatbots to seek information and build their topic and content
knowledge. For example, a teacher of young language learners who adopts
a theme-based approach, organising learning activities around the theme to
make cognitive connections for language learning (Pinter, 2017), could prompt
a conversational AI (e.g., ChatGPT) to generate information about the theme.
For example, a language teacher of young learners might be exploring the theme
of ‘festivals’ with their class. They could prompt a chatbot to give some ideas of
interesting festivals. We used GPT-4.o and the prompt: ‘Could you provide
some information about three European festivals that could be interesting to
young English language learners?’ It generated accurate information about
three festivals: La Tomatina (Spain), Oktoberfest (Germany), and the
Carnival of Venice (Italy). Here is an example of the information provided for
La Tomatina (Spain):

1. La Tomatina (Spain)
• What is it? La Tomatina is a famous tomato-throwing festival held in Buñol,
Spain. Participants gather in the streets to throw ripe tomatoes at each other in
a fun and messy food ﬁght.
• When does it happen? The last Wednesday of August every year.
• Why is it interesting? It’s a playful and unique tradition that sparks curiosity
and laughter among young learners. They can learn English phrases related to
food, colors, and actions like throw, splash, and squash.
• Fun fact: Over 100 tons of tomatoes are used each year during the event.

Using chatbots in this way can inform and provide inspiration for developing
teaching content that teachers can include in their lessons. Teachers should be
mindful that these tools can hallucinate and create incorrect information (see
Section 6 for more details about GenAI hallucinations and accuracy issues).

Using GenAI to Help Teachers Gain an Understanding of Language

Teaching Methodologies and Approaches
There are a plethora of teaching methods and approaches that language teachers can
reference when designing curriculum and implementing instruction. Richards and
Rodgers (2014) detail 15 approaches and methods in their book Approaches and
Methods in Language Teaching (Third Edition), which include task-based language
teaching, total physical response, The Silent Way, content-based instruction, and
content and language integrated learning, and so on. Although language teachers
may be familiar with some of these approaches, they may wish to understand the
types of approaches that are best suited to their context or want to learn more about
a specific approach with which they are less familiar. Language teachers can prompt
a conversational AI chatbot to generate a list of methods and approaches, provide
key information about a specific approach, or create example activities and lesson
plans that illustrate the implementation of the approach in a specific context. See
Appendix 2 (available online at [short url]) for an example of how a language
teacher can prompt a conversational AI chatbot to generate a sample lesson plan for
a specific teaching method (e.g., The Silent Way developed by Calen Gattegno).
The plan provides an accurate illustration of the principles that underpin The Silent
Way (e.g., minimum teacher talk) and the learning activities common to this method
(e.g., use of Cuisenaire rods to elicit learner responses). The ability of tools to
provide contextually relevant lessons and activity examples that adhere to specific
teaching methods and approaches can assist teachers in learning and selecting the
approaches that align best with their teaching needs (Kohnke et al., 2023).

Using GenAI to Build Awareness of Languages, Cultures, and Societies

Language teachers can work in a variety of diverse contexts with learners from
different cultures, societies, and languages. In order to create a supportive and
inclusive learning environment, it is important for teachers to develop intercultural
and interlanguage awareness (Baker, 2012). When interacting with students and/
or their parents or caregivers, knowledge of cultures and languages can help build
relationships and rapport (Scarino, 2009). Knowledge of the learners’ language
repertoires can also help language teachers tailor their curriculum and instruction
to common challenges faced by speakers of those language groups. However, it is
unlikely that language teachers will have extensive knowledge of the diverse
cultures and languages in their classrooms. Teachers can use conversational AI
chatbots to conduct research into cultures and languages. This can be particularly
useful before a new teaching unit or when designing a curriculum. For example,
a secondary school language teacher may be planning to teach a grammar lesson
on the use of personal pronouns. In their class, they have speakers of Spanish,

Mandarin, and Japanese. They could ask a conversational AI chatbot to provide

a table presenting the personal pronouns in each language, examples of where they
can be placed in sentences, and indicate any challenges for Spanish, Mandarin,
and Japanese learners of English. Here is an example prompt:

• I am a secondary school language teacher planning to teach a grammar lesson

on the use of personal pronouns. In my class, they have speakers of Spanish,
Chinese, and Japanese. Provide a table presenting the personal pronouns in
each language, examples of where they can be placed in sentences, and indicate
any challenges for Spanish, Chinese and Japanese learners of English.

Table 1 shows the kind of response a chatbot can generate.

In this way, the teacher can develop a more targeted lesson that addresses
potential learning challenges. Language teachers should know that the tools
may provide biased or stereotypical responses, and given the data used to train
the AI, and as the majority of the training data for LLMs is in English (93%)
compared to 7% for other languages (Brown et al., 2020), the quality and
accuracy of the information provided may depend on the amount of data on
the language as well as the quality of the prompt provided (Cain, 2023).

Conclusion
As stated at the beginning of this section, language teaching is incredibly diverse.
Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect teachers to have all the knowledge they need,
or to have access to appropriate and plentiful materials to use with their learners.
This section has shown how GenAI tools can assist language teachers in developing
the knowledge they need, as well as planning and preparing materials for their
lessons. As we conclude this section, we hope readers will feel they have begun to
develop an awareness of the pedagogical compatibility of GenAI with language
teaching (one aspect of P-GenAI-C). The next section will continue to explore ways
language teachers can effectively use GenAI in language teaching, speciﬁcally
addressing ways in which it can support lesson planning and material development.

Questions for Reﬂection

1. How might you use GenAI tools to support your knowledge development?
2. What kinds of culture and language diversity do you have in your class, and
how could GenAI tools help you learn more about your learners’ back-
grounds and needs?
3. How do you plan to double check the content created by GenAI tools to
ensure the information is reliable?

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 196.153.51.144, on 02 Jul 2025 at 03:46:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009618823
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009618823
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 196.153.51.144, on 02 Jul 2025 at 03:46:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of

Table 1 A table generated by GPT-4.o with information about pronouns in three different languages

Placement
English Chinese examples in
pronoun Spanish (Mandarin) Japanese English Challenges for learners
I Yo 我 (wǒ) 私 (わたし, I eat lunch. Spanish: May omit “yo” in Spanish, so
watashi) students might skip pronouns in English.
Chinese: No verb conjugation in
Chinese; difﬁculty with “am” in “I am”.
Japanese: Pronouns often omitted in
Japanese; students may omit “I”.
You Tú/Usted 你 (nǐ) / 您あなた (anata) You are kind. Spanish: Tú/Usted distinction for
(singular) (nín) familiarity/formality, but English lacks
this. Chinese: Politeness distinction (你
vs. 您). Japanese: Rarely use “anata”;
might overuse it in English.
He Él 他 (tā) 彼 (かれ, kare) He runs fast. Spanish: Gender agreement (él vs. ella);
possible confusion with “it”. Chinese: 他
is pronounced the same as 她 (she), so
students may mix up “he” and “she”.
Japanese: Pronouns like “kare” are
rarely used; students may omit “he”.
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009618823
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 196.153.51.144, on 02 Jul 2025 at 03:46:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of

Table 1 (cont.)

Placement
English Chinese examples in
pronoun Spanish (Mandarin) Japanese English Challenges for learners

She Ella 她 (tā) 彼女 (かのじょ, She sings Spanish: Gender agreement issues; may
kanojo) beautifully. confuse “she” and “it”. Chinese: 他 and
她 sound identical, leading to confusion.
Japanese: “Kanojo” is rarely used
outside speciﬁc contexts, leading to
omission of “she”.
It (No 它 (tā) (No equivalent) It is raining. Spanish: No direct equivalent of “it”; may
equivalent) omit subject in English. Chinese: 它 is
used for objects, but may not be intuitive.
Japanese: No equivalent for “it”; may
omit subject entirely.
We Nosotros/ 我们私たち (わたした We like pizza. Spanish: Gendered forms (nosotros/
Nosotras (wǒmen) ち, watashitachi) nosotras) may confuse learners. Chinese:
No gender distinction; may
overgeneralize this in English. Japanese:
Rarely used explicitly in Japanese; may
omit “we”.
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009618823
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 196.153.51.144, on 02 Jul 2025 at 03:46:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of

You (plural) Vosotros/ 你们あなたたち You all are Spanish: Vosotros is regional; Ustedes is
Ustedes (nǐmen) (anatatachi) amazing. formal, but English lacks this distinction.
Chinese: Plural marker “们” may not feel
natural in English. Japanese: Pronoun is
rarely used; may overuse “you all”.
They Ellos/Ellas 他们彼ら (かれら, They are coming. Spanish: Gender agreement (ellos/ellas);
(tāmen) / karera)/彼女た may confuse “they” with “it”. Chinese:
她们ち (かのじょた Gender distinction in writing (他们 vs. 她
(tāmen) ち, kanojotachi) 们) but not in pronunciation, leading to
confusion. Japanese: Rarely use “they”;
may omit pronoun entirely.
24 Generative AI in Education

3 Using GenAI to Assist with Lesson Planning and Materials

Preparation
GenAI-Generated Summary of the Section
In this section, we used GPT-4.o to create a short dialogue between two English
language teachers discussing the section content:

Dialogue: Two English Language Teachers Discussing Section 3

Teacher A: Have you read Section 3 of the book on using GenAI in language
teaching?
Teacher B: Yes, it’s fascinating! The idea of using GenAI for lesson planning
and materials preparation could save so much time.
Teacher A: Absolutely. I liked how it framed GenAI as a “planning partner.”
Brainstorming lesson ideas with AI and refining them sounds like having
a colleague on call.
Teacher B: Exactly. And the materials preparation section was insightful too.
Using AI to generate texts, images, and even differentiated resources tailored
to students’ levels is a game-changer.
Teacher A: I agree. The practical examples, like paraphrasing activities or
creating genre-specific texts, were really helpful. The advice to align mater-
ials with evidence-based principles stood out to me.
Teacher B: Same here. I also liked the part about students using AI to create
materials. It’s a great way to foster engagement and creativity.
Teacher A: True. But we’d still need to refine and adapt what AI generates. The
section made it clear that teachers remain central to the process.
Teacher B: Definitely. GenAI is a tool, not a replacement for us. But it’s
exciting to think about the possibilities it opens up.
Teacher A: Couldn’t agree more! Let’s try incorporating some of these ideas
into our lessons.
Teacher B: Let’s do it!

This dialogue shows how the conversational AI chatbot could identify the main
themes but present them within a professional conversation with identiﬁable
features of such a conversation. The dialogue appears to be semi-formal,
combining both professional vocabulary (e.g., ‘evidence-based principles’)
and conversational elements (e.g., ‘It’s fascinating’). The interactional structure
shows coherency with each speaker ‘collaborating’ to build on each other’s
ideas and expressing agreement. However, it is very polished and perhaps reads
more like a textbook-style scripted interaction than a real conversation between
two colleagues. Changing an academic text to a conversational genre could help

teachers and students connect with the content more easily. The script could be
inputted into a voice simulator and played back to students. Some GenAI tools
can automatically make podcasts of articles to help the listener connect with the
content in a more relaxed and conversational style (e.g., Google NotebookLM;
Yeo et al., 2025).

Introduction
Studies show that lesson planning is crucial for making the teaching–learning
encounter valuable and productive (Rifkin, 2003). It is during planning that
teachers can make key decisions about the lesson objectives, content, learning
activities, engagement, timing, assessments, and groupings (Richards, 2015).
The process of lesson planning helps teachers anticipate potential challenges
while identifying clear learning outcomes, leading to better utilisation of lesson
time (Scrivener, 2011). Yet, language teachers can struggle to find sufficient
time for planning and preparation (Bauml, 2014; König et al., 2020). In add-
ition, scholars suggest that the complexity of language education, with its
multiple components such as grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and cultural
nuances, makes lesson planning particularly daunting for language teachers
(Scrivener, 2011).
There has been intense speculation about the utility of GenAI tools in
assisting language teachers with their planning and preparation (Bonner
et al., 2023; Crompton & Burke 2024; Hong, 2023; Kohnke & Zou, 2024).
Bonner et al. (2023) suggested that chatbots have the potential to leverage
their extensive knowledge of various educational subjects to help create new
lesson ideas across diverse topics. They compared using GenAI in this manner
to brainstorming sessions with other educators. The teacher and GenAI can
‘discuss’ their ideas and evaluate how their plans might benefit and apply to
students. Van den Berg and du Plessis (2023) noted that chatbots can effect-
ively generate materials such as lesson plans, visual aids, worksheets, and
assessments.
In this section, suggestions on how GenAI can assist teachers with two
fundamental yet challenging tasks – lesson planning and materials preparation –
are explored, contributing to the knowledge needed for teachers to enhance their
students’ language learning with the assistance of GenAI.

GenAI-Assisted Lesson Planning

GenAI as a Planning Partner

Language teachers can adopt Bonner et al.’s (2023) ideas and use conversational
AI chatbots as simulated colleagues or critical friends in their lesson-planning

process. They could ask for lesson sequencing and/or activity ideas based on their
planned objectives, teaching points, or needs of learners. Teachers can share their
initial lesson plan drafts with a chatbot with the tool asked to evaluate it, propose
alternatives, or suggest pre-lesson or post-lesson tasks. At a simple level, the
teacher can ask the AI to give activity ideas. For example, an English-for-
academic-purposes teacher could prompt the conversational AI chatbot to give
activity ideas for helping learners practice the skill of paraphrasing. The teacher
can then further prompt to get more ideas, or get more details about one of the
suggested ideas. This could stimulate their thinking and provide them with ideas
they may not have thought of independently themselves (Crompton & Burke,
2024; Kohnke et al., 2023).

GenAI as a Lesson Plan Creator

At a more complex level, language teachers can work with a conversational AI

chatbot to develop a complete lesson sequence or plan. It is important that when
prompting the chatbot, the prompt is detailed and provides enough information
for it to give useful suggestions (Cain, 2023; Moorhouse et al., 2025). For
example, when writing the prompt, language teachers can provide information
about the learners (e.g., age, language proficiency, needs), language skills (e.g.,
writing, reading, speaking, listening), focus (e.g., grammar item, vocabulary
list), teaching methods or approaches (e.g., task-based language teaching,
presentation-practice-production), number of lessons and lesson lengths, and
any other information that would help the AI to generate a more accurate
response. Teachers can input a corpus of documents (e.g., curriculum docu-
ments, teaching materials) relevant to a course they are building (Kasneci et al.,
2023). When given a large task, like creating a lesson sequence or plan, it is
likely that the teacher will need to ‘work with’ the AI in an iterative process until
the desired plan is created. This means asking follow-up prompts that help the
LLM to finetune the response (Moorhouse et al., 2025) (see Section 7 for
prompting techniques).
It is important to remember that when tasking conversational AI chatbots
with assisting in lesson plan design, the GenAI tool will not have the deep
knowledge of the learners or context that the teacher possesses (van den Berg &
du Plessis, 2023). In addition, as the database mirrors human knowledge,
suggestions may be inappropriate, biased, generic, or repetitive. We have
observed that when tasked with suggesting lesson ideas for young language
learners, some of the suggestions are not age-appropriate and would be more
effective with older learners. Educators should use GenAI tools as resources and
catalysts, and should make the final decision on anything used with their

learners (Lee & Jeon, 2024). Teachers are crucial for evaluating, reﬁning,
adapting, and implementing lesson plans and materials generated to ensure
effective teaching (van den Berg & du Plessis, 2023).

Using GenAI Tools to Assist with Material Preparation

The generative capabilities of GenAI tools mean language teachers can make
almost any kind of multimodal material needed to aid instruction. As Section 1
showed, GenAI tools can create various kinds of texts, images, videos, and
audio files. It is well understood that language teachers are often dependent on
material writers (e.g., textbooks) and may not feel confident to develop their
own materials (McGrath, 2016). Yet, selecting, evaluating, adapting, or creating
materials to the local context and learners’ needs can increase their relevance
and usefulness in the learning process (Tomlinson, 2015). By seeing GenAI
tools as teaching assistants with the capability of generating tailored content
(Moorhouse, 2024), language teachers can better align their materials with
learner readiness, interests, needs, and profiles.
Tomlinson (2015) summarises five universal principles for materials devel-
opment and evaluation:

1) exposure to the language in use,

2) affective engagement,
3) cognitive engagement,
4) meaning-related attention to form, and
5) opportunity for language for communication.

Teachers can work with GenAI tools to select, evaluate, adapt, or create mater-
ials that align with these principles, local considerations, and contextual needs.
Research demonstrates that to design materials that expose learners to language
in use, the materials should be comprehensible, meaningful, authentic, substan-
tial in quality and valuable in variety, and provide opportunities for language
experiences in a variety of ways (McGrath, 2016). It can be hard for commercial
textbooks to meet all these criteria for diverse learners (McGrath, 2016),
which offers an entryway for GenAI tools. Language teachers can work with
a conversational AI chatbot to create texts that illustrate the meaning of specific
words, or provide examples of specific grammatical structures within an
appropriate genre. A language teacher could prompt a conversational AI to
generate a specific genre (e.g., recount) that includes a specific context (e.g.,
theme park in Japan), and a list of words to include (e.g., thrilling, exciting,
amazing, boring, exhausting). We used the prompt “Create a recount about a trip
to a theme park in Japan that includes the following adjectives: thrilling,

exciting, amazing, boring, exhausting. Make sure the context helps the reader
interpret the meaning of the adjectives” to prompt GPT-4.o to generate
a coherent recount with embedded vocabulary items:

My Adventure at the Theme Park in Japan

Last summer, I had the opportunity to visit one of the most thrilling theme
parks in Japan. From the moment we entered, the atmosphere was electric
with excitement. The towering roller coasters and intricate designs of the
attractions promised an exciting day ahead.
Our ﬁrst stop was the infamous Dragon’s Fury roller coaster. The ride was
everything I had hoped for and more. The twists, turns, and loops were
absolutely amazing. As we hurtled through the air, I could feel my heart
racing with exhilaration. The view from the top was breathtaking, offering
a panoramic glimpse of the entire park.
After the roller coaster, we decided to try out a few of the other rides.
Unfortunately, the Ferris wheel, which I had high hopes for, turned out to be
quite boring. It moved at a snail’s pace and offered little more than a slow,
uneventful circle. However, it did give us a chance to catch our breath and
plan our next adventure.
By mid-afternoon, we had explored nearly every corner of the park, from
the haunted houses to the water rides. It was an exhausting experience, but in
the best possible way. Our legs ached from all the walking, and our faces hurt
from smiling so much.
In the end, our day at the theme park was a perfect blend of thrilling rides,
exciting moments, and the occasional boring interlude. Despite the exhaust-
ing nature of the trip, the memories we made were truly amazing and will
stay with me forever.

To increase the value of the text for vocabulary exposure, the teacher could
prompt the chatbot to ensure the context helps the reader interpret the meaning
of the adjectives. This generated text offers contextual clues to support the
meaning of target vocabulary words. Although the text could be considered
complex, the teacher could work with the tool to simplify it (e.g., “Please adjust
the Lexile level.”). GenAI tools can create differentiated texts for learners of
different language proﬁciencies and interests or provide multiple texts that
expose students to the language a number of times. This could include reducing
the lexical demands in a text or creating multiple texts on the same topic at
different levels of complexity (Moorhouse, 2024).
Teachers could use conversational AI chats to create a listening script, and
then use audio generators, or video generators, to make the texts multimodal.
This allows teachers to make listening and viewing materials that can help
expose students to a wider range of multimodal texts. Audio and video gener-
ators with voice simulation features allow users to select speciﬁc accents with
increasing exposure. However, most tools are dominated by privileged

language varieties and accents (speciﬁcally North American) – leading to the

risk of increased language variety standardisation. In addition, teachers can
prompt chatbots to generate comprehension questions that support learners to
read for meaning or develop speciﬁc language skills (e.g., inferring). Here is an
example of a comprehension question about the previous recount text generated
on GPT-4.o:

What does the word “thrilling” in the context of the theme park describe?

– A. The slow pace of the Ferris wheel

– B. The overall atmosphere and roller coasters
– C. The boring parts of the day
– D. The exhausting nature of walking around the park

One important consideration when using GenAI to create texts is authenticity.

Authenticity is a complex concept and its importance is highly debated in
language teaching. At a basic level, authenticity refers to texts created for real-
world purposes and not language teaching. However, at a more complex level,
the way we engage with the text (e.g., the task) and the learning environment are
also important (McGrath, 2016). GenAI makes the concept of ‘authenticity’
confusing as it blurs the lines of authorship. Yet, the GenAI user is still
ultimately the one responsible for the output and will engage the tool with
a speciﬁc purpose in mind. Whether content created by GenAI tools is authentic
or not depends on the purpose for engaging with AI in text generation (e.g.,
language learning or real-world purpose), what task it is used for (e.g., language
practice or communicative task), and the environment the text is situated in.
Language teachers should be mindful of the kinds of language that appear in the
text they generate with GenAI tools so as to help learners’ notice the relation-
ship between language, genre, and context. Given the ease of generating texts
using chatbots, GenAI-generated texts could become the primary material used
in class and students’ main exposure to the target language. However, teachers
should not fully rely on AI-generated texts and still integrate books, websites,
and human-created texts into their language teaching, given the known beneﬁts
they bring to language learning.

Using GenAI to Create Aﬀectively and Cognitively Engaging Materials

Creating learning opportunities that facilitate affective engagement, or emo-
tional responses, can support language learning. GenAI tools can create a wide
variety of engaging genres (e.g., jokes, cartoons, songs, stories, poems, games)
to engage students. Teachers can prompt the tools to include their students as
characters within the literary texts, or could include localised details in their

prompts to get contextualise texts to learners’ lived experiences and environ-

ments. Teachers could use an image generator to create visuals to support the
meaning of the text or any speciﬁc vocabulary in the text.
Designing materials that require learners to think, or engage cognitively, is
essential in second-language (L2) acquisition (Mishan, 2015). To do this,
language teachers can design decision-making activities that require students
to engage meaningfully with language. For example, when teaching new
vocabulary words, learners can be asked to rank, sort, organise, identify, or
classify words based on certain criteria, such as personal preferences (likes,
dislikes), characteristics, or relationships. Conversational AI chatbots can sim-
plify the process of constructing these kinds of materials. Here are some
vocabulary decision-making activities suggested by GPT-4.o for the following
word list: swimming, running, singing, dancing, playing football, playing chess,
playing badminton, rock climbing, and skiing:

• Activity 1: Categorisation: Categorise the activities into the following

groups: Outdoor Activities, Indoor Activities, Solo Activities, and Team
Activities.
• Activity 2: Matching: Match each activity with the appropriate equipment or
setting (e.g., swimming ➔ swimming pool)
• Activity 3: Ranking Exercise: Rank the activities from most to least enjoy-
able based on your personal preferences. Share your ranking with a partner
and explain your choices.

Using GenAI to Create Form Focused Materials

Explicit attention to language form is an important aspect of language learning

as language learners notice and practice language (Thornbury, 1999).
Conversational AI chatbots can assist teachers in creating a variety of materials
that help learners strengthen the form/meaning relationship. Chatbots can create
worksheets that focus on speciﬁc grammar items, vocabulary items, reading, or
other skills. For example, a secondary school English language teacher could be
teaching students to practise the appropriateness of the passive and active voices
depending on their communicative function. A chatbot could be tasked with
providing practice ideas and creating a worksheet to support the activity. Here
are examples of some of the worksheet exercises suggested by GPT-4.o to
practice the active and passive voices:

Part 1: Identifying Active and Passive Sentences

Read the following sentences and write whether they are in the active or
passive voice.

1. The book was read by the student.

2. They will complete the project by next week.
3. The homework is being done by the children.
4. The chef prepares the meals every day.
5. The song was sung by the choir.

Part 2: Changing Voice

Rewrite the following active sentences in the passive voice.

1. The manager will review the report.

2. The students are writing essays.
3. The company produces innovative products.
4. The artist painted a beautiful mural.
5. The scientist discovered a new element.

Rewrite the following passive sentences in the active voice.

1. The cake was baked by my mother.

2. The letter is being written by John.
3. The car was repaired by the mechanic.
4. The novel was read by millions of people.
5. The presentation will be given by the CEO.

The teacher could work with the tool to refine these before using them with their
learners.
The ability of GenAI tools to write code also means language teachers
can ask the tools to create interactive games, quizzes, or other language
learning materials. These can be embedded in class blogs or HTML readers.
Language teachers can input a prompt such as, “Create an interactive quiz
for practicing academic words related to scientific report writing” and the
GenAI tool will generate code that can be used directly or modified until the
desired activity is created (see Figure 6 for an example and Appendix 3
for the HTML code (available online at [short url])). Of course, more
specific prompts can be used so the output better reflects the teacher’s
needs.

Student Using GenAI to Create Materials

Students can work directly with GenAI tools. Language learners can be
tasked with creating stories or other texts and inputting the texts into image
or video generators and seeing the results. Teachers can give students an AI-
generated image or video and ask them to guess the prompt used to create
the image or video. Various studies have shown how providing the oppor-
tunity for language learners to interact with chatbots can increase their
motivation and willingness to communicate (e.g., Chiu et al., 2023; Jeon,

Figure 6 An example of an interactive quiz created on Poe using GPT-4.o

2022). As mentioned in Section 1, rule-based chatbots can only take up pre-

programmed roles; however, GenAI-powered chatbots can be prompted to
take any role. Language teachers can develop materials (e.g., custom chat-
bots – see Section 7 for instructions and ideas of how to build custom
chatbots) that allow students to interact with conversational AI chatbots in
various roles (e.g., famous people (Moorhouse, 2024), tour guides (Javier &
Moorhouse, 2023), customer service agents, customers, potential employ-
ers), within various scenarios (e.g., job interviews, in a restaurant, getting
lost in an unfamiliar city), and communicative purposes (e.g., ordering food,
casual conversation, asking for directions). Text-to-voice add-ons or func-
tions can be activated to provide students with oral practice. Moreover,
specialist tools such as Call Annie can also be used for conversational
practice (Wan & Moorhouse, 2024).

Using GenAI to Create Multilingual Materials

Beyond the previously mentioned possible uses, GenAI tools can support
teachers in developing materials that capitalise on students’ L1 to support
their L2 learning. Although it is well known that strategic use of L1 can assist
L2 learning, ﬁnding appropriate resources and ﬁnding time to create such
resources limits their use in the L2 classroom (Kerr, 2014). Moorhouse et al.
(2024) found that conversational AI chatbots can be used to develop cross-
language comparison activities that could raise learners’ awareness of the
similarities and differences between their L1 and L2, as well as create multi-
lingual instructions that could help learners and their parents understand task

requirements. These tools could be particularly useful for teachers who do not
share an L1 with their learners. However, language teachers must declare they
have used GenAI tools to assist with the translation of materials.

Conclusion
Lesson planning and preparation can be incredibly time-consuming and
challenging for language teachers. Yet, quality planning can lead to more
effective language lessons. Similarly, materials tailored to learners’ needs
will likely be able to assist them in moving their learning forwards. This
section has demonstrated ways GenAI tools could assist language teachers
in their lesson planning and material preparation. Lesson planning is a great
place to start using GenAI as it does not require students to engage with the
tools directly, and no sensitive data (e.g., students’ work needs to be
uploaded to the tools).

Questions for Reﬂection

1. How might you use GenAI to assist you in creating materials tailored to your
learners’ needs?
2. How might you utilise the translation capabilities of GenAI tools to create
multilingual materials?
3. When might visual, audio, and video generators be useful in your lesson
planning and preparation tasks?

4 Using GenAI to Assist with Assessments and Feedback

GenAI-Generated Section Summary
In this section, we asked GPT-4.o to summarise the section as a recipe:

RECIPE FOR USING GENAI IN ASSESSMENTS, TESTS, AND FEEDBACK

Ingredients:
– 1 clear understanding of assessment types (summative & formative)
– 3 key assessment characteristics: transparency, validity, reliability
– A dash of GenAI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Speechace, Quizbot)
– 1 teacher’s professional judgment
– A sprinkle of student consent and data protection awareness
– Optional: Custom AI chatbots

(cont.)
Steps:
1. Prepare the Purpose: Define the goal of the assessment (e.g., profi-
ciency, comprehension, feedback).
2. Design Assessment Tasks: Use GenAI to generate test items, prompts,
or tasks (e.g., multiple-choice, cloze passages). Refine AI outputs for
validity and relevance.
3. Cook with Creativity: Experiment with prompts to create role-specific
scripts, multilingual instructions, or scenario-based assessments.
4. Grade Smarter: Upload student work to GenAI tools for grading and
feedback. Review AI feedback to ensure tone and accuracy.
5. Serve Feedback: Provide actionable, formative feedback using AI-
generated suggestions. Customise feedback for individual needs.
6. Mind the Details: Respect student copyright, check AI data policies,
and keep a “human in the loop” for quality assurance.
7. Garnish with Transparency: Communicate openly with students
about AI’s role in assessments.

Tips:
- Use AI tools to save time but validate results with your expertise.
- Keep assessments meaningful and aligned with learning goals.
- Balance tech efﬁciency with ethical considerations.

Outcome: A ﬂavorful blend of AI-assisted assessments, tests, and feed-

back that supports learning while ensuring fairness and reliability.

As you can see, the text is instantly recognisable as a recipe. The conversational
AI chatbot identiﬁed the key points from the section and included these as
ingredients, even including quantities that accurately reﬂect the section content
(e.g., three key assessment characteristics: transparency, validity, reliability).
Steps are used to summarise the main points from the section. It could be fun
and meaningful to get conversational AI chatbots to change texts from one
genre to another and get students to compare the language features and how they
relate to their function in a genre.

Introduction
An essential yet challenging task for language teachers is accurately assess-
ing learners’ language proﬁciency and abilities and providing constructive
feedback that can help learners move their learning forwards. Although

assessments can take many forms, they are often categorised into summa-
tive and formative assessments based on the assessment’s purpose.
Summative assessments are generally used to give an idea of what students
can do at a specific time – measuring the product of students’ learning
(Harmer, 2015). Many standardised language assessments are examples of
summative assessments (e.g., IELTS). They provide an example of the
learners’ attainment against predefined criteria. Formative assessments
measure students’ learning as part of a process. Instead of measuring what
has been achieved, they focus on helping the teacher and learner consider
their strengths and areas for improvement (Harmer, 2015). Formative
assessment is generally an ongoing process throughout a period of study,
while summative assessments usually take place at key milestones (e.g., the
end of a teaching unit or course). Assessments can have significant negative
and positive impacts on language teaching and learning. Teachers may
‘teach to the test’ and, therefore, the kind of assessment tasks students are
taking can impact directly on instruction. Similarly, students can feel motiv-
ated or demotivated depending on their assessment success. This is com-
monly referred to as the washback effect. Given their impact on language
teaching and learning, designing quality assessments is essential.
The quality of an assessment is often judged by three characteristics: trans-
parency, validity, and reliability:

• Transparency: Students and teachers should be made aware of the purpose of

the assessment.
• Validity: Assessments should evaluate what they are supposed to assess. For
example, a reading assessment should assess students’ reading abilities and
not other skills, such as spelling.
• Reliability: Assessments should give consistent results. Different assessors
should be able to come up with similar scores for the same assessment.

When selecting, designing, marking, and grading assessment tasks with the
assistance of GenAI tools, it is important that teachers consider these
characteristics. At the same time, there has been extensive discussion
about the greater use of technology in assessment practices. Marking and
grading assessments can be time-consuming and there can be issues of
reliability when many people are involved in the process. Therefore, when
ChatGPT was ﬁrst released, some of the early discussions about GenAI
utility in education were about its potential for automatic grading. In an
early study involving 12,100 student essays, Mizumoto and Eguchi (2023)
found that ChatGPT scored the essays effectively and rapidly in terms of the
accuracy of language, potentially saving teachers’ time and providing

students with quick and informative feedback on their work. Language

teachers have also reported using GenAI tools to help them develop assess-
ment tasks for their students (Moorhouse, 2024). There are now a range of
specialist online products built on AI technologies that have been designed
to assess language proficiencies. For example, Speechace is an online AI
speaking assessment tool. Its website suggests it can provide “unbiased,
comprehensive, engaging, instant AI spoken English assessment”
(Speechace, 2024). It offers reports on pronunciation, fluency, vocabulary,
and grammar and aligns the performance with the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages, IELTS, and other international
proficiency tests’ scoring rubrics. Duolingo and Hallo have similar tests
claiming high accuracy rates. Clearly, language assessment and testing are
ripe areas for the use of AI tools. Companies see the potential to gain
a share of the huge language testing market with valid and reliable auto-
mated alternatives to existing proficiency assessments and training
programmes.

GenAI-Assisted Assessment Task Design

The analytical and generative capabilities of GenAI tools can assist language
teachers with assessment tasks and test item design. Teachers can get suggestions
from conversational AI chatbots regarding the kinds of assessments they could
use for specific purposes and develop assessment tasks in combination with
GenAI tools. Similarly, GenAI tools can be used for automatic item generation
(Shin & Lee, 2023). Scholars have already begun to test the potential of various
AI tools for creating reading tests. For example, Shin and Lee (2023) conducted
a blind test to see if language teachers could identify the difference in the reading
passages and testing items extracted from the Korean College Scholastic Ability
Test (CSAT) English test, and others generated by ChatGPT. They found no
significant difference in how the teachers perceived the naturalness of the flow
and expression in the reading passages. However, the participants did find the
CSAT test items had more attractive options and were more comprehensive in
nature. Kohnke et al. (2023) demonstrated the capabilities of ChatGPT to gener-
ate a list of reading comprehension questions for Lewis Carroll’s book, Alice’s
Adventure in Wonderland. Similar to the approach used to assist teaching and
learning materials development proposed in Section 2, teachers can work with
GenAI tools as part of their assessment design and test item development.
Teachers first need to consider what the assessment aims to demonstrate (i.e.,
its purpose), and then work with the GenAI tool to come up with a valid and
reliable assessment task. For example, a language teacher may wish to assess

students’ listening comprehension skills related to a speciﬁc social scenario or

discourse. The teacher could ask a chatbot to generate a listening script, then
modify it to meet their assessment needs. The teacher could then ask the tool to
generate multiple-choice comprehension questions that focus on different listen-
ing skills (e.g., gist, detail, specific information, etc.). The teacher could record
the audio themselves or use a voice simulator to create a listening text. The speech
speed could be adjusted to meet the needs of the students. Conversational AI
chatbots can also be used to create multilingual instructions for the assessment
task or test. It is important that language teachers experiment with different
prompts and terms to help them get their desired materials and be specific
about the kinds of test items they want to generate (e.g., multiple choice, long
answer, short answer, fill-in-the-gap, cloze passage).
To support test item development, there are now a range of specialist tools.
Tools such as genQue can generate passages and questions at different profi-
ciency levels related to the CSAT English test. Similarly, Quizbot can be used to
generate a variety of question types for PDFs, videos, websites, videos, and
audio files, and so on. Conversational AI chatbots can also create similar kinds
of test items, although the teacher needs to provide enough contextual informa-
tion to the tool and carefully check the items generated to ensure they meet the
needs of the assessment.

GenAI-Assisted Grading, Analysis, and Feedback

Language teachers often report spending a substantial amount of their time
grading, analysing, and giving feedback to their learners’ assessment and
production tasks. GenAI tools have the potential to support language
teachers in their grading, analysis, and feedback work (Godwin-Jones,
2024). Intelligent text editors, such as Grammarly, have been available to
help language teachers and learners receive feedback and evaluate language
accuracy and appropriateness for some time. These tools were designed for
a specific function and could be customised within predefined parameters
(Godwin-Jones, 2024). This means users may need to use multiple AI tools
to support their language production and evaluation as the features are limited
and are “offered in piecemeal fashion, requiring the user to navigate many
distinct platforms in order to get assistance” (Tseng & Warschauer, 2023,
p. 259). This reduced their utility and, therefore, use in language teaching
contexts. However, it does increase the predictability of the tools to complete
the predefined task (e.g., providing corrective feedback).
Using conversational AI chatbots provides a greater degree of customisation,
but also requires the teacher and learner to have greater knowledge of how to

use the tools to get the desired responses. Students’ work can be uploaded to the
tool and the tool can be prompted to provide a grade and/or feedback on the
work based on specific assessment criteria. For example, a university language
teacher teaching students how to write a scientific report as part of an English-
for-specific-purposes course could input a student’s academic writing sample
into a conversational AI chatbot to analyse the quality of the work and generate
feedback that could assist them in evaluating the work. The teacher could use
a prompt such as:

• This is a scientiﬁc report submitted by a student for my English-for-speciﬁc-

purposes course. Please can you analyse the quality of the report and provide
feedback on content, language, and structure.

Teachers could also input the assessment rubric into the tool so the tool can
provide task-speciﬁc evaluation and feedback.

Customised Chatbots and Assessments

GenAI hosting platforms such as Poe allow language teachers to develop

custom chatbots and GenAI tools for specific purposes, such as grading
using a customised rubric or giving feedback to learners using a specific
approach (e.g., feedback sandwich) (Godwin-Jones, 2024; Moorhouse,
2024). Teachers can develop a custom chatbot that provides them with the
ability to complete the same task repetitively and more consistently. These
platforms also allow the user to refine the prompt and add a specific
knowledge base (e.g., task rubric or examples). The customised chatbot
can draw upon the knowledge base when providing responses. Teachers
need to tweak the prompt or instructions to improve the ability of the
chatbot to complete the task.

Formative Feedback
The ability of conversational AI chatbots to take on roles means they can be
useful in providing different kinds of formative feedback to learners’ production
tasks or as part of a task sequence (e.g., process writing). For instance, students
might be writing a story; they could be shown how to prompt a GenAI to give
feedback in different roles, for example, teacher, reader, or evaluator. In this
way, they can ﬁnd ways to improve the text. Educators have speculated that
students may prefer GenAI feedback as they perceive it to be non-judgemental.
This could enhance their willingness to engage with the tools as part of their
learning processes (see Section 5 for more ideas of how learners can use GenAI
in their language learning).

Important Consideration
There are a few things teachers should consider if they plan to use GenAI
tools as part of their assessment practices. First, students have copyright over
the work they produce. Teachers should get consent from students to input
their work into any digital tools. Teachers should check the terms of use of
the tools carefully, along with any privacy settings, so they are informed
about how any data they input are retained and used. Some tools have
addressed this concern. For example, Mizou, a specialist GenAI tool
designed for use by teachers, explicitly states that it does not use students’
data when training its model. Second, although studies have begun to show
how these tools can be accurate in identifying language errors and assessing
language (e.g., Mizumoto & Eguchi, 2023), there is still a need for the
‘human in the loop’ to ensure that the feedback is appropriate to the task,
the context, and the learner.
Clearly GenAI feedback offers potential (Barrot, 2023). Studies that
compare GenAI and human feedback have shown promising results. Steiss
et al. (2024) compared the quality and accuracy of human and ChatGPT
feedback. They found humans scored higher in four categories (clarity,
accuracy, prioritisation of essential features, and tone); however, ChatGPT
feedback was still rated highly in these categories. It excelled in criteria-
based feedback. Importantly, there was no difference in the quality of
ChatGPT feedback between L2 and L1 writing. It seems that there is indeed
potential for using GenAI tools in supporting language teachers’ assessment
processes; however, due to the sensitive nature of assessment, teachers
should consider their professional judgement when using these tools.

Conclusion
Given the signiﬁcant amount of time teachers dedicate to assessment and
feedback, the potential of a tool helping this process is very attractive.
However, the use of GenAI within assessment practices is the most controver-
sial use of GenAI in language teaching and learning. It is important that teachers
recognise the risks associated with using GenAI in grading and providing
feedback, and are transparent with their students on how and why they are
using GenAI tools. Accountability and transparency are key to ensuring assess-
ments are seen as valid and reliable. At the same time, reading students’ work
and providing feedback can help teachers get to know their learners’ needs. The
next section examines how learners can use GenAI to support their own
language learning processes. Guiding learners to use GenAI as part of their
feedback-seeking processes can give agency to learners to receive formative

feedback on the language learning task at a time conducive to their learning in

ways that are most contextualised and helpful.

Questions for Reﬂection

1. How might GenAI tools help you to design various assessment tasks and test
items?
2. What are important factors you need to consider if you wish to use GenAI as
part of your marking and feedback practices?
3. How would you feel if you knew your instructors or line managers used
GenAI to assess your performance?

5 Students’ Use of GenAI in Language Learning

GenAI-Generated Section Summary
For this section, we asked Mapify, a specialised AI tool designed to generate
mind maps, to summarise the section as a mind map. It extracted the key
information and organised the information into a three-level mind map
(see Figure 7).
Presenting content and information in mind maps and infographics can be
a way to help language learners visualise language that reﬂect the kinds of ways
they engage with information and knowledge (Kohnke & Jarvis, 2023).
Teachers could try using GenAI tools to turn their lesson content into different
kinds of infographics and mind maps.

Introduction
This section explores the potential of students using GenAI to support their
language learning. It begins by discussing the role of self-directed learning
(SDL), a key framework for understanding how students might use GenAI as
a technological tool to take control of their learning process. Recognising the
affordances of GenAI, students can generate practice exercises, receive instant
feedback, or simulate conversations by themselves, tailoring their learning to
self-identiﬁed needs and desired pace. In this context, fostering AI literacy – the
ability to discern when and how to use AI effectively – becomes crucial for
students. Without this literacy, students may either over-rely on GenAI or fail to
leverage its potential in ways that truly beneﬁt their learning. The section includes
examples and case studies that explore how we might cultivate AI literacy with
students so that they can use GenAI tools to support their own reading, writing,
speaking, and listening skills in English. The section helps develop language
teachers’ competence in preparing students for the GenAI world – a key aspect of

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 196.153.51.144, on 02 Jul 2025 at 03:46:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009618823
Figure 7 A summary of Section 5 generated by Mapify
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 196.153.51.144, on 02 Jul 2025 at 03:46:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009618823
42 Generative AI in Education

P-GenAI-C. In doing so, teachers can support students as they learn to use AI not
as a crutch but as a strategic resource in their SDL journeys.

Personalised Learning and SDL

Language classrooms are diverse, with students varying widely in profi-
ciency, interests, and learning profiles. Teachers face the challenge of
addressing these differences within the constraints of standardised materials
and curricula, which often fail to meet individual needs. This can leave
students without sufficient opportunities to practice skills at their appropri-
ate level, leading to frustration and slow progress. To address these chal-
lenges, personalised learning and SDL (Zhang & Zou, 2024) have surfaced
as promising approaches to meet the unique needs of individual learners.
Personalised learning emphasises the teacher’s role in designing, differenti-
ating, and adapting learning experiences to meet each student’s needs. In
contrast, SDL focuses on empowering students to take control over their
learning process, shifting the teacher’s role to fostering students’ ability to
learn independently and engage in shaping their own learning path
(Palfreyman & Benson, 2019).
Advances in technology have made it easier to implement both person-
alised learning and SDL. Platforms like YouTube provide authentic input,
interactive sites like Kahoot! and Wordwall engage learners with gamified
activities (Moorhouse & Kohnke, 2024), and machine translation tools
such as Google Translate allow learners to leverage their L1 to support
L2 learning (Kerr, 2014). However, many learners are unaware of the many
tools available to them or are unsure how to use them effectively. Teachers,
therefore, play a critical role in recommending appropriate resources and
teaching students how to choose and use different tools to support their
learning. This guidance not only personalises the learning experience but
also helps students develop the confidence and skills to engage in SDL.
Before the advent of GenAI, tools like rule-based chatbots and writing
assistants offered limited support for SDL. Chatbots simulated conversational
partners, enabling students to practice speaking, while tools like Grammarly
provided personalised feedback to help learners identify areas for improvement
(Barrot, 2020; Chiu et al., 2023). These tools allowed students to set goals and
adjust strategies based on feedback, aligning with SDL principles. However,
their narrow functionality restricted integration into broader teaching practices
(Moorhouse, 2024). GenAI tools, with the ability to generate customised
practice activities, simulate conversations, and offer instant, detailed feedback,
now provide unparalleled support for personalised learning and SDL.

A key element of SDL is self-regulation, which requires students to set

clear objectives, track progress, and reﬁne their strategies. Without the
ability to self-regulate, learners may struggle to identify their strengths
and weaknesses or to maintain long-term motivation. For example, consider
a Spanish-speaking high school student with an intermediate level of
English who practices conversational English daily to prepare for studying
abroad. While motivated, this student struggles to create effective oppor-
tunities for practice independently. GenAI tools, which can simulate realis-
tic conversations, generate tailored exercises, and provide immediate
feedback, directly address these challenges. By offering accessible, adap-
tive, and engaging support, these tools empower learners to take greater
ownership of their learning journeys. The next section will explore how
these affordances make GenAI a powerful resource for SDL learning.

The Aﬀordances of GenAI for SDL

GenAI can support students’ self-directed language learning by enabling them
to create personalised practice exercises, receive instant feedback, and simulate
conversations tailored to their individual needs and pace. These affordances can
be transformative for learners, especially those who face challenges in access-
ing traditional language practice opportunities.
First, GenAI allows students to create customised practice exercises that
target speciﬁc areas of difﬁculty. For example, if a student struggles with verb
tenses and phrasal verbs, they might use GenAI tools to generate targeted
grammar drills or vocabulary quizzes designed to address these learning
areas. For example, a student could use the following initial prompts with
a conversational AI chatbot,

• Prompt 1: I am a high school student learning English and I struggle with

verb tenses and phrasal verbs. Please create a quiz with 10 sentences where
I have to choose the correct verb tense (past, present, or future), and explain
why the answer is correct.
• Prompt 2: I am a high school student learning English and I struggle with
verb tenses and phrasal verbs. Generate ﬁve examples of phrasal verbs used
in sentences about travel, and give me a deﬁnition for each one with Spanish
translations.

Second, another critical affordance of GenAI is the ability to provide instant

feedback to learners. When a student practices writing, they can input their
essays into a GenAI tool that evaluates their grammar, vocabulary usage, and
overall coherence according to a rubric. For example, a student might write

a short essay about their weekend activities and then prompt the AI to provide
feedback. Example prompts include:

• Prompt 1: Check this essay for my use of past tense and vocabulary
mistakes. Highlight errors, explain why they are wrong, and suggest better
alternatives. Then give me a quiz so I can practice the correct past tense form
or vocabulary use.

Beyond typed text, some GenAI tools can also analyse handwritten input.
Students can take a photograph of their handwritten work and upload it to
a chatbot and ask for a digitalised version. Figure 8 shows a handwritten note.
Here is the digitised version of this text generated on GPT-4.o:

Dear Tony,
Thank you for giving me a new soft toy for my birthday. I really like it.
I keep it on my bed. What would you like for your birthday?
Love,
Alice

A student might write an essay or practice grammar exercises by hand, take

a photo of their work, and receive instant feedback on errors, legibility, and
structure. This immediate feedback loop allows the student to identify patterns
in their mistakes (e.g., overusing simple sentence structures) and refine their
writing strategies to accelerate their progress. Moreover, this feature bridges
traditional learning methods with the benefits of GenAI, ensuring that students
can practice language skills in the medium they find most comfortable while
still receiving targeted support.
Finally, conversational AI chatbots offer opportunities for simulated conver-
sations, an invaluable resource for language learners who might lack consistent

Figure 8 A handwritten note

access to speakers of English. Through AI-driven chat interfaces, language

learners can practice speaking in realistic scenarios, such as participating in
a class discussion or making travel arrangements. For instance, a student might
prompt a conversational AI chatbot to take up a role and engage in role play with
the learner. Here are some example prompts:

• Prompt 1: Pretend you are a travel agent, and I am booking a ﬂight to

New York. Ask me questions about my preferences and respond naturally
to my answers.
• Prompt 2: Simulate a conversation where I introduce myself to another
tourist at an art museum in New York City.

These simulations can be customised to reﬂect a student’s proﬁciency level and

personal interests, making the practice both relevant and engaging. By interact-
ing with GenAI tools, students can build conﬁdence and ﬂuency in a low-
pressure environment, bridging the gap between current abilities and personal
language learning goals.

Developing AI Literacy for Language Learners

To fully leverage the transformative potential of GenAI in language learning,
students must develop AI literacy – a nuanced understanding of how, why, and
when to use these tools effectively. AI literacy involves not only technical skills
but also the ability to critically engage with the content AI produces, ensuring
that it supports meaningful and ethical SDL. Without this critical skill, learners
risk misusing AI, such as relying too heavily on it for answers or failing to
critically engage with the feedback it provides.
Warschauer and colleagues (2023) offer a helpful five-part pedagogical
framework for AI literacy, which includes competencies of understanding,
accessing, prompting, corroborating, and incorporating when using AI. This
framework provides a structured approach to building AI literacy in learners
across age groups and proficiency levels. By fostering these skills, educa-
tors empower students with the skills to navigate GenAI tools confidently
and responsibly, enhancing their ability to direct their own language learn-
ing journeys. The following section first unpacks each of the five compe-
tencies and then offers case studies to illustrate how they might apply to
language learners.

Understanding: Building Foundational Knowledge

Students must ﬁrst develop a foundational understanding of the purpose, cap-
abilities, limitations, and ethical considerations of different GenAI tools. Such

knowledge is essential for using GenAI as a supportive partner in learning rather

than as a substitute for effort or critical engagement. Teachers play a vital role in
introducing the strengths and weaknesses of AI tools, encouraging learners to
evaluate outputs critically and thoughtfully. For instance, learners might exam-
ine how AI performs well with grammatical corrections but may misinterpret
context-sensitive language, such as idiomatic expressions or cultural nuances.
By understanding these limitations, students build the critical awareness neces-
sary to use AI responsibly and effectively, forming a strong basis for AI literacy.

Accessing: Navigating the Technology

Students must acquire the skills to identify and select GenAI tools that best align
with their specific learning objectives. This involves understanding the features
of various platforms, comparing functionalities, and making informed decisions
based on their goals. For example, a learner seeking to improve oral fluency
might evaluate the suitability of Call Annie for conversational practice versus
a tool like Speechling for pronunciation refinement. Recognising that certain
tools are more appropriate for specific tasks, such as grammar feedback or
conversation simulations, helps students approach their learning with a strategic
mindset. This process not only enhances their ability to navigate digital
resources but also supports their development of SDL skills by encouraging
intentional and purposeful engagement with technology.

Prompting: Asking the Right Questions

Interacting effectively with GenAI tools requires learners to craft precise and
purposeful prompts that elicit meaningful and relevant outputs. This includes
refining queries, analysing responses, and iterating as necessary to ensure the
AI-generated content aligns with their learning needs. For example, a language
learner may begin by asking for practice sentences using phrasal verbs, then
refine the request to include specific purposes or contexts such as travel or
business English. This iterative process allows learners to take control of their
interactions with GenAI, fostering a deeper engagement with both the language
and the technology. Developing the skill to formulate effective prompts is
central to building critical thinking and problem-solving abilities, key aspects
of both AI literacy and SDL.

Corroborating: Ensuring Accuracy and Credibility

Students must critically assess the accuracy and reliability of GenAI-
generated content, particularly for nuanced or complex language tasks. This
process involves cross-referencing AI outputs with trusted sources,

identifying inconsistencies, and verifying information. For instance, a student

analysing a literary text might use GenAI to articulate their own interpretation
of the text but compare it against scholarly analyses to ensure the nuances of
the original work are preserved. It is also essential to recognise that GenAI
tools, while often ﬂuent and conﬁdent, can produce incorrect or misleading
information, emphasising the importance of independent corroboration. These
practices cultivate a habit of critical evaluation, enabling learners to use AI
effectively without compromising the integrity of their work or their learning
process.

Incorporating: Using AI Ethically and Eﬀectively

Students should thoughtfully and ethically integrate GenAI outputs into their
work, ensuring a balance between GenAI assistance and their own contributions.
This includes documenting the role of GenAI in their process and ensuring the
final product reflects their authentic voice and understanding. For example, when
using GenAI-generated suggestions for improving sentence structure, learners
should consider rephrasing outputs in their own words, allowing them to intern-
alise and practice the language rather than simply accepting the suggestions
verbatim. This approach not only fosters deeper learning but also reinforces
ethical practices, promoting transparency and accountability in how GenAI is
used to support language learning. Such reflective integration is a crucial compo-
nent of GenAI literacy and empowers learners to maintain agency and integrity
over their educational outcomes.

Applying AI Literacy to SDL Learning

To illustrate how the AI literacy framework can be applied in diverse language
learning contexts, this section presents four case studies. These examples
demonstrate how learners at different ages develop their understanding, access
appropriate tools, craft effective prompts, corroborate AI-generated outputs,
and incorporate the results into their language learning processes. By engaging
with GenAI tools in purposeful ways, learners build both their language skills
and their ability to critically and ethically navigate AI technologies.

CASE STUDY 1: AN ELEMENTARY STUDENT BUILDING VOCABULARY

Context: An elementary student in an English immersion program is
working to expand her vocabulary. While she learns new words in class,
she struggles to use them correctly in sentences and to retain their mean-
ings in different contexts.

CASE STUDY 1: (cont.)

Engagement with AI: After her teacher introduces her to a GenAI tool
and explains its limitations, the student begins by prompting: “What does
the word ‘excited’ mean? Can you give me three sentences using it?” The
AI provides examples like: “The puppy was excited to see its owner.”
While the examples are accurate, the student wants additional context to
help solidify her understanding. She refines her prompt: “Give me three
sentences using ‘excited’ in sentences about this puppy.” This adjustment
generates sentences that build on the conversation, align with her interests,
and improve her ability to retain and apply the word meaningfully.
AI Literacy in Action: Through these interactions, the student develops
her ability to refine prompts (prompting) and critically assess whether the
outputs meet her learning needs (corroborating). By reflecting on the
examples and using them to create her own sentences, she actively
incorporates the AI outputs into her language practice (incorporating).
This engagement deepens her understanding of vocabulary use while
fostering confidence in navigating AI tools effectively.

CASE STUDY 2: A MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENT PRACTICING SPEAKING WITH CALL ANNIE
Context: A middle school student learning English as a L2 seeks to
improve oral ﬂuency and conﬁdence. However, the student lacks oppor-
tunities to practice speaking outside the classroom and often feels self-
conscious during group activities.
Engagement with AI: After evaluating several tools, the student selects
Call Annie for its interactive conversational capabilities. Tools such as Call
Annie use avatars to simulate the face of a speaker, increasing the human-like
feel of interactions (Wan & Moorhouse, 2024). The student initiates a session
by prompting: “Hi Annie, can we talk about soccer? I want to practice
discussing my favorite sport.” Annie engages him in a dialogue, asking
questions like: “What is your favorite soccer team, and why?” During the
conversation, Annie gently corrects his sentences, such as changing: “I like
Messi play” to “I like how Messi plays.” At the end of the session, the student
prompts: “Can you summarise the grammar mistakes I made and suggest
three sentences I can practice?” Annie provides a summary and offers
tailored practice sentences, such as: “I enjoy watching Messi play soccer.”

CASE STUDY 2: (cont.)

AI Literacy in Action: By using Call Annie, the student reﬁnes his

ability to interact effectively with conversational AI (accessing), tailor the
interaction to his specific needs (prompting), and assess the relevance and
utility of the feedback provided (corroborating). Incorporating these cor-
rections into subsequent practice sessions enhances his oral fluency and
confidence, demonstrating how AI can support active, self-directed
engagement with language learning.

CASE STUDY 3: AN UPPER SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENT PREPARING FOR EXAMS

Context: An upper secondary school student in Brazil is preparing for an
English proﬁciency exam. She struggles with complex grammatical struc-
tures, particularly the past perfect tense, and wants to focus on improving
her accuracy in this area.
Engagement with AI: The student begins by prompting: “Create ﬁve
multiple-choice questions about the past perfect tense with detailed
explanations for the correct answers.” The AI generates:
Which sentence correctly uses the past perfect tense?

A) Brazil had gained independence before Dom Pedro I was crowned

emperor.
B) Brazil gained independence before Dom Pedro I was crowned
emperor.
C) Brazil has gained independence before Dom Pedro I was crowned
emperor.

The AI explains that the correct answer is A and highlights the importance
of sequencing events in the past. Recognising that these questions are
useful but not challenging enough, the student refines her prompt: “Create
questions about the past perfect tense using historical events and add
detailed explanations for all options.” The revised output provides con-
textually rich, advanced-level questions tailored to her proficiency.
AI Literacy in Action: This iterative process allows the student to refine
her ability to craft purposeful prompts (prompting), critically evaluate the
depth and quality of the AI’s output (corroborating), and use the generated
questions to guide her focused practice (incorporating). These practices
not only improve her grammatical accuracy but also equip her with
strategies to self-direct her exam preparation.

CASE STUDY 4: AN UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT PRACTICING PROFESSIONAL

COMMUNICATION
Context: An engineering undergraduate student preparing for an intern-
ship interview seeks to improve her ability to articulate her skills and
experiences clearly in English. Although highly proficient, she struggles
to structure her responses concisely and confidently in a professional
context.
Engagement with AI: The student uses ChatGPT to simulate interview
scenarios, prompting: “Pretend you’re an interviewer for an engineering
internship. Ask me three questions and provide feedback on my answers.”
The AI begins with: “Can you describe a project you’ve worked on that
involved teamwork?” After responding, the student asks: “How could
I improve my answer?” The AI suggests adding specific examples of her
contributions to the project and using action-oriented language. To further
refine her preparation, she prompts: “Generate three follow-up questions
an interviewer might ask based on my response.” This helps her anticipate
potential queries and practice responding with confidence.
AI Literacy in Action: Through this engagement, the student learns to
tailor AI simulations to her specific needs (prompting), critically evaluate
the feedback for relevance and practicality (corroborating), and incorpor-
ate the suggestions into her preparation for future interviews (incorporat-
ing). This process enhances her professional communication skills while
fostering a deeper understanding of how to leverage AI tools for targeted
SDL.

Conclusion
This section demonstrates how GenAI can be a transformative resource for
language learners, enabling them to personalise their learning journeys while
developing essential skills. GenAI tools’ abilities to create customised exercises,
provide instant feedback, and simulate conversations allow learners to address their
unique language needs and goals. By engaging critically with GenAI tools, learners
not only enhance their language proﬁciency but also cultivate AI literacy – a crucial
skill for navigating technology in meaningful and ethical ways. Language teachers
have an essential role in supporting the development of these skills through
modelling effective and EU of GenAI in language learning, while raising learners’
awareness of the limitations and critical issues associated with GenAI tools.
When integrated thoughtfully, GenAI empowers learners to take control of their
education, fostering SDL and building conﬁdence in their abilities. By using

GenAI tools strategically – as partners rather than substitutes – students can bridge
gaps in their skills, reﬁne their strategies, and unlock their potential across all
language domains. With its ﬂexibility and adaptability, GenAI supports learners in
shaping their own educational paths, preparing them for success in an increasingly
AI-driven world. In the next section, important ethical concerns are introduced that
have implications for how language teachers may use GenAI tools with their
learners.

Questions for Reﬂection

1. How might you model the effective use of GenAI in language learning with
the aim of developing students’ AI literacy?
2. What capabilities of GenAI might be useful in facilitating your students’
language learning?
3. What concerns do you have regarding your students’ use of GenAI?

6 Ethical and Social Considerations with GenAI in Language

Teaching
GenAI-Generated Summary of the Section
In this section, we asked GPT-4.o to summarise the section as a warning sign to
be placed in a teachers’ room in a school. The chatbot created a number of
warning signs for each aspect of this section. For privity, one example is
provided:

⚠WARNING: BIAS IN AI OUTPUTS

- AI tools can reﬂect racial, gendered, cultural, or linguistic biases present in
their training data.
- Outputs may marginalise non-dominant varieties of English, reinforce stereo-
types, or exclude diverse perspectives.

What to Do:
✔Critically evaluate AI-generated content for fairness and inclusion.
✔Encourage students to analyse and discuss biases in AI outputs.

As you can see from this example, the chatbot extracts the main concerns and
advice embedded in the section and re-wrote them as warnings. It added an
emoji to emphasise that these are warnings ‘⚠’. Given that language teaching is
a demanding job and we often have limited time to read, asking GenAI tools to
create posters and other genres that include key information could be one way to
share and reinforce knowledge about AI with colleagues.

Introduction
The advent of GenAI has introduced profound opportunities and challenges in
language teaching. However, the desire for efﬁciency also raises signiﬁcant
ethical and social concerns, prompting educators and researchers to question the
broader implications of using GenAI tools for language learning. Issues such as
bias, copyright, accuracy, language standardisation, learner motivation, and
reduced creativity demand careful examination to ensure that GenAI integration
enhances rather than undermines language teaching and learning (Kasneci et al.,
2023; Stahl & Eke, 2024).
This section explores the multifaceted and evolving ethical and social consid-
erations associated with GenAI in language teaching. It examines how GenAI
impacts language and language learning, highlights key ethical dilemmas such as
bias and copyright, and discusses broader social implications like access and
environmental sustainability. By addressing these challenges, this section aims to
equip educators with important considerations when integrating AI responsibly
into their teaching, balancing technological innovation with ethical integrity. In
the P-GenAI-C framework described at the beginning of this Element, this section
addresses the fundamental aspect of risk, well-being, and EU.

Impact on Language and Language Learning

The widespread use of GenAI in language education has signiﬁcant impli-
cations for how learners engage with and perceive language. While these
tools can enhance access to standardised English and support personalised
learning, they also risk oversimplifying language use, stiﬂing creativity, and
diminishing learners’ motivation to engage deeply and productively with
the language. This section explores the dual-edged nature of GenAI’s
impact on language learning, focusing on standardisation, creativity, and
motivation.

Standardisation of Language

GenAI tools are primarily trained on large natural language datasets that favor
standardised varieties of English, such as Standard American or British English
(Smith et al., 2024). This exposure to standard language forms can be beneficial for
non-English speakers, as it can provide consistent and largely accepted linguistic
models that facilitate global communication (Smith et al., 2024). For instance,
learners who lack exposure to specific English-medium settings (e.g., workplace
English) can use a chatbot to practice grammar, vocabulary, and sentence construc-
tion in contexts that reflect widely accepted norms. Additionally, the standardisation

offered by chatbots can help learners prepare for standardised tests like IELTS,
where adherence to dominant English conventions is often critical for success.
However, while these benefits are important, they may inadvertently undermine the
importance of developing communication skills that reflect the diverse, non-
dominant contexts where English is also used.
In other words, the dominance of standardised English in GenAI training
datasets poses risks of marginalising regional dialects, cultural expressions, and
non-standard varieties of English. This standardisation can reinforce linguistic
hierarchies, privileging ‘correct’ or ‘proper’ forms of English while devaluing
others, such as African American vernacular English or regional dialects of
Indian English (Milroy, 2001). In language classrooms, tools may overuse
certain formal expressions, such as ‘delve’ or ‘commendable’, which could
homogenise learners’ language production and erode opportunities to cultivate
individual voice and style (Strokel-Walker, 2024). Moreover, this narrowing
effect might discourage learners from embracing linguistic creativity, recognis-
ing linguistic diversity, or valuing the richness of their own linguistic and
cultural backgrounds, leading to an overly prescriptive understanding of what
constitutes ‘proper’ English (Wan & Moorhouse, 2024).
To address these concerns, educators can take proactive steps to balance
the benefits of many conversational AI chatbots’ standardised outputs with
the promotion of linguistic diversity. Teachers might guide students in
critically analysing AI-generated texts, comparing them with regional or
cultural variations, and discussing the social implications of language hier-
archies. For example, students could examine how a phrase generated by AI
might differ from its expression in their local dialect or everyday speech,
fostering greater linguistic awareness. This approach encourages learners to
appreciate the diversity within English while equipping them with the
ability to adapt their language use depending on the audience or context,
a crucial skill in global communication. By positioning GenAI as a tool for
exploration rather than prescription, educators can support students in
developing a broader, more inclusive understanding of English as
a dynamic and global language. Teachers can also be mindful when select-
ing voices from voice simulators of ensuring students are exposed to
a variety of Englishes.

Creativity and Originality in Language Use

GenAI tools, while helpful in producing polished and ﬂuent text, risk reinforcing
formulaic and conventional uses of language (Bai et al., 2023). These tools often
rely on patterns derived from LLM training datasets, which can lead to outputs

that are predictable and lack the depth of creative nuance offered from people’s
lived experiences and perspectives. For language learners, this can be particularly
limiting, as it may reduce opportunities to experiment with innovative expres-
sions, unique metaphors, or alternative sentence structures. For instance, a learner
might rely on a GenAI tool to rewrite a paragraph but receive a result that, while
grammatically error-free, lacks the imaginative phrasing that could make their
writing distinctive or that fully expresses themselves. Consequently, such reli-
ance can discourage students from exploring their own linguistic creativity,
which is essential for developing a personal and authentic writing style, as well
as a deep understanding of and appreciation for the language arts discipline.
To mitigate these risks, educators may consider actively encouraging learners
to engage in metacognitive reﬂection about their use of GenAI tools. For
example, students could be asked to analyse AI-generated text for stylistic
uniformity and then modify it to incorporate more creative, personal, or uncon-
ventional elements. This practice not only fosters originality but also cultivates
critical thinking about how and when AI should be used as a writing aid. By
treating AI as a collaborative partner rather than an authoritative source,
students can learn to balance the utility of GenAI with the need to develop
their unique linguistic voice, ultimately fostering a richer and more individual-
ised, personal, and agentive approach to language use.

Language Learning Motivation

Learner motivation is a critical component of language learning, which has been

challenged and requires reconsidering with the integration of GenAI into the
language classroom. One concern is that the ease of accessing real-time translation
and AI-generated responses could reduce learners’ intrinsic motivation to develop
their language skills (Stockwell & Wang, 2024). As GenAI tools increasingly
provide immediate and polished outputs, some learners might question the value
of dedicating time to mastering English, particularly when these tools can seem-
ingly ‘do the work’ for them (Al-khresheh, 2024; Stockwell & Wang, 2024). This
potential decline in motivation is particularly concerning in contexts where learners
already struggle to see the practical relevance of language learning.
This dynamic ties closely to Warschauer and colleagues’ (2023) ‘rich get
richer’ contradiction, which suggests that technological tools often benefit those
already positioned to succeed, while potentially leaving others behind. For
motivated learners already proficient in the English language, GenAI offers
a powerful way to refine their skills, such as generating advanced-level practice
materials or receiving nuanced feedback on writing (Dwivedi et al., 2023).
However, for learners with lower motivation or English language proficiency,

the same tools might foster overreliance, leading to surface-level engagement

and challenges in building foundational language skills (Bai et al., 2023). This
disparity risks deepening inequalities in outcomes, as less motivated learners
may lack the skills necessary to fully leverage GenAI’s potential.
To counter these risks, educators may consider implementing strategies that
emphasise the complementary role of GenAI in language learning, rather than
its replacement of foundational skills. For example, classroom activities can
encourage learners to use GenAI tools in specific ways that supports brain-
storming ideas or generating focused feedback, but with clear expectations that
the final work reflects their own effort, understanding, and words (Moorhouse,
2024). By promoting critical engagement with AI outputs, educators can help
learners see GenAI as a tool for enhancing their skills, not replacing them,
thereby sustaining their motivation to achieve genuine language proficiency.
Furthermore, by integrating reflective exercises that require learners to cogni-
tively engage with GenAI-generated content by evaluating and revising the
output, teachers can help reinforce the value of active learning in a world
increasingly shaped by AI (Al-khresheh, 2024; Dwivedi et al., 2023).

Ethical Considerations
Using GenAI tools in learning contexts introduces complex ethical consider-
ations that educators and institutions must address. Issues related to bias,
copyright, and accuracy are particularly pressing in language teaching, where
the implications of these challenges can affect not only pedagogy but also
broader notions of fairness, inclusion, and intellectual integrity.

Bias in GenAI
The biases inherent in GenAI tools stem from the datasets used to train
them, which often reflect systemic historical inequities and problematic
cultural stereotypes. These biases can manifest in language outputs that
perpetuate racial, gendered, or cultural prejudices, posing significant chal-
lenges to creating inclusive learning environments (Kasneci et al., 2023).
For example, a study by Al-khresheh (2024) found that AI-generated
outputs disproportionately associated leadership roles with men and care-
giving roles with women, perpetuating stereotypes that do not apply to all
contexts. Such biases not only affect the quality of the content learners
encounter but can also shape their perceptions of societal roles in ways that
hinder progress towards equity.
In the language classroom, these biases can influence learners’ perceptions of
themselves and others, particularly when outputs fail to reflect the diversity

inherent in global Englishes. For instance, learners might encounter GenAI-

generated dialogues that prioritise Western norms or exclude regional varieties,
limiting their exposure to the full spectrum of English use (Milroy, 2001). This
exclusion may lead learners to undervalue their linguistic and cultural identities,
fostering a perception that their dialects or accents are inferior to standardised
forms. Likewise, biases in GenAI may cause learners to perceive their peers
from ethnolinguistic minoritised communities as lesser than, warranting
a proactive approach to critiquing and engaging with GenAI-generated content
in classrooms.

Copyright and Intellectual Property

The question of who owns AI-generated content – whether it is the user, the
developer, or the AI tool itself – is a contentious issue. GenAI models are trained
on vast amounts of data, much of which may include copyrighted materials used
without explicit permission (Lucchi, 2023). This raises ethical concerns about
the legality and fairness of using such content, particularly in educational
contexts where respect for intellectual property is a core value. Teachers and
learners alike may unknowingly breach copyright laws by incorporating AI-
generated outputs into their work without understanding their legal status.
This issue extends beyond legality to the principles of academic integrity and
attribution. For instance, educators might unknowingly use AI-generated lesson
plans or classroom materials derived from copyrighted content without proper
acknowledgement. While ChatGPT is able to generate text sets tailored to the
linguistic needs of speciﬁc learners, the content may be derived from a New York
Times article, a published poet, or a National Geographic website without per-
mission or consent to use the proprietary work. Similarly, students may incorpor-
ate AI-generated essays or translations into their assignments without considering
whether the source material was ethically obtained. These practices not only
undermine the principles of fair use but also risk setting a precedent where
learners view AI-generated content as freely available, diminishing their appreci-
ation for original creation and EU (Lund et al., 2023).
To navigate these challenges, educators must prioritise transparency and
ethical practices in their use of AI tools. This includes explicitly teaching
students about the importance of copyright laws and the limitations of AI-
generated content. For example, educators can have discussions on intellectual
property or incorporate lessons on proper citation practices into the curriculum
using AI-generated outputs as a starting point for discussions about EU (Draxler
et al., 2024). Institutions can further support these efforts by developing clear
guidelines that outline the permissible use of AI tools, ensuring that both

teachers and learners are aware of their responsibilities when engaging with
these technologies. Such measures not only safeguard against legal and ethical
missteps but also instil a sense of accountability and respect for intellectual
property in the classroom.

Accuracy and Hallucinations

GenAI’s capacity to produce fluent and convincing outputs often belies the
inaccuracies or what some have called ‘hallucinations’ embedded within its
responses. Hallucinations occur when AI generates incorrect, fabricated, or
contradictory information, leading users to mistakenly trust flawed outputs
(Walters & Wilder, 2023). These errors can manifest in various ways, from
subtle misinterpretations of grammar rules to outright fabrication of facts or
citations. For example, a study by Walters and Wilder (2023) revealed that over
half of the citations generated by ChatGPT-3.5 in a research paper were either
entirely fabricated or contained significant errors, highlighting the potential for
misinformation in academic contexts. Large language models rely on statistical
probability to generate content, meaning they do not understand the data in their
database, nor, do they understand what they generate.
In language learning tasks, inaccuracies in AI-generated outputs can mislead
students in understanding the nuances of English usage. For instance, while an
AI might produce grammatically correct sentences, it might fail to account for
contextual appropriateness or cultural nuances, leaving learners with an incom-
plete understanding of how language functions in real-world settings. This issue
is compounded by the perceived authority of AI tools, where learners may
accept the veracity of their outputs without sufficient scrutiny (Kasneci et al.,
2023). Such reliance can hinder the development of critical thinking and
language skills, which are essential for effective communication.
Educators can play a vital role in mitigating these risks by fostering critical
evaluation skills among learners. For example, teachers might design activities
where students compare AI-generated content with trusted sources, such as
academic texts or grammar guides, to identify discrepancies and discuss their
implications. This approach not only helps learners develop a more discerning
eye for evaluating content but also equips students with the skills needed to
verify information and use AI tools responsibly, ensuring that they are prepared
to navigate the complexities of technology-enhanced environments in society.

Social Considerations
The integration of GenAI in education, including language teaching, extends
beyond classrooms to broader social implications. These encompass issues such

as inequitable access to technology, the shifting roles of teachers in an AI-

mediated environment, and the environmental footprint of AI systems. Each of
these dimensions highlights the interconnected nature of education and society,
illuminating the need for deliberate and ethical approaches to integrating GenAI
into teaching practices.

Access to GenAI and Inequity

Access to GenAI tools is not uniform, creating disparities that disproportion-

ately affect learners and educators in under-resourced settings. Many advanced
AI systems require subscriptions, limiting their accessibility to individuals and
institutions with sufficient financial resources (Lim et al., 2023). This digital
divide exacerbates existing educational inequities, leaving marginalised groups
unable to fully benefit from the potential of AI-enhanced learning.
For instance, learners in under-resourced regions may rely on outdated or free
versions of AI tools that lack the capabilities of their premium counterparts.
They might also require fast and reliable internet connections to meaningfully
engage with AI platforms. These limitations hinder their ability to access
advanced features such as nuanced feedback or real-time conversation simula-
tions, which are critical for language development (Wan & Moorhouse, 2024).
Similarly, teachers in resource-constrained settings may lack the training or
institutional support to effectively integrate GenAI into their pedagogy, further
widening the gap between well-resourced and under-resourced classrooms.
Addressing this inequity requires systemic interventions at multiple levels.
Policymakers can advocate for subsidised access to GenAI tools in underserved
communities, while institutions can prioritise professional development pro-
grams that equip teachers with the skills to use available technologies effect-
ively (Kostka & Toncelli, 2023). Additionally, collaborations between AI
developers and educational organisations can lead to the creation of tailored,
low-cost solutions that cater to diverse contexts. By taking these steps, educa-
tors, administrators, policymakers, and institutions can work towards a more
equitable landscape where all learners have the opportunity to engage meaning-
fully with AI-enhanced language education.

Impact on Employment and Teacher Roles

The rise of GenAI in education has sparked debates about its potential to disrupt
traditional teacher roles and reshape the dynamics of the classroom. On the one
hand, AI tools can enhance teaching by automating routine tasks such as
grading or generating lesson plans, allowing teachers to focus more on indi-
vidualised instruction and critical thinking activities (Moorhouse, 2024). On the

other hand, there is growing concern that over-reliance on AI could diminish the
creative and relational aspects of teaching, reducing educators to facilitators of
technology rather than active contributors to the learning process.
This tension is particularly evident in the shifting expectations placed on
teachers. As GenAI tools potentially take on tasks traditionally associated
with content delivery, teachers will be increasingly required to adopt new
roles as mediators of technology and guides in critical digital engagement.
While these changes present opportunities for dynamic language teaching
practices, they also place additional pressure on teachers to adapt quickly to
evolving technological landscapes. Still, some studies note that teachers
express concerns about job insecurity and a loss of professional autonomy
as AI tools become more prevalent (Farrokhnia et al., 2023). To mitigate
these risks, it is essential to emphasise the complementary nature of AI in
education.

Environmental Impact of GenAI

The environmental implications of GenAI are an often-overlooked aspect of its

integration into education and society. Training and deploying LLMs require
substantial computational resources, which in turn consume significant amounts
of energy. This significantly contributes to the carbon footprint of GenAI
technologies, raising questions about their sustainability and long-term viability
(Stahl & Eke, 2024). As institutions increasingly adopt GenAI tools for teaching
and learning, it becomes crucial to weigh the educational benefits against their
environmental costs.
The energy demands of AI systems are particularly concerning given the
growing scale and sophistication of generative models. For example, studies
indicate that training a single LLM can generate as much carbon dioxide as
several cars produce over their entire lifespans (Dwivedi et al., 2023). In educa-
tional contexts, the widespread use of these tools – particularly if implemented at
scale – could amplify these environmental impacts. Thus, with the proliferation of
AI technology in educational contexts, educators and institutions can adopt
practices that prioritise specific AI tools that might require less computational
power, optimise classroom workflows to reduce unnecessary AI usage, and
advocate for greener infrastructure from AI developers. Additionally, incorporat-
ing discussions about the environmental impact of technology into the curriculum
can raise awareness among students, fostering a culture of responsible and
sustainable AI use. By taking these steps, the education sector can contribute to
a more balanced approach to technology adoption that aligns with global sustain-
ability goals.

Conclusion
This section has demonstrated that the ethical and social implications of GenAI
require careful consideration by language teachers. Issues such as bias, copy-
right, access inequities, and environmental impact must be addressed to ensure
that its integration into education is responsible and equitable.
Teachers play a pivotal role in navigating these challenges. By developing
transparent policies, fostering critical engagement, and balancing AI use with
human creativity, they can guide learners towards ethical and effective use of
GenAI. Moreover, institutional support, professional development, and sus-
tained dialogue among stakeholders are essential to creating an educational
environment that embraces the beneﬁts of AI while mitigating its risks. In doing
so, educators can empower students not only to achieve language proﬁciency
but also to become thoughtful, informed participants in an increasingly AI-
driven world.

Questions for Reﬂection

1. What risks and ethical issues might be particularly salient in your language
teaching context?
2. How might you mitigate these risks and ethical issues when using GenAI
tools as part of your professional practices?
3. What guidelines or policies might you implement regarding the use of
GenAI in your language teaching context?

7 Essential GenAI Skills and Knowledge

GenAI-Generated Section Summary
In this section, we used GPT-4.o to summarise the section as a ‘tweet’ for
a social media site:

Teachers, unlock the power of GenAI! Learn how to craft effective

prompts, validate responses, and tailor tools for your classroom needs.
Empower your teaching with essential GenAI skills and knowledge.
#EdTech #GenAI #PromptEngineering

We can see how the tool created a text that includes common features of a tweet,
like the use of the second person – teachers – to address and capture the attention
of the target audience, short catchy sentences to engage the audience, and
‘hashtags’ to make intertextual references. Creating super-short summaries
can help students get the main point of a text, and the use of ‘tweets’ or other
new literacy genres can help learners relate to the writing style and organisation.

Introduction
In this section, essential GenAI skills and knowledge that teachers need to
effectively select and interact with GenAI tools are introduced to enhance
teachers’ P-GenAI-C. Since the release of ChatGPT, there has been a sharp
focus on the skills and knowledge needed to work with GenAI tools to generate
the desired responses and content. Many of the tools are general models built for
generalised uses and not specifically for language teaching and learning pur-
poses. Having this understanding is important, as it helps us recognise why we
might not always get the responses we expect – the GenAI does not know our
context, role, or task requirements. Therefore, it may be drawing on information
irrelevant to our field or task. This means that if we want to be able to utilise
GenAI tools in our professional practices, we need to learn how to interact with
them. We need the skills and competencies to provide GenAI tools with the
information needed to do the task, and, depending on the kind of task we are
engaged in, understand that interacting with GenAI tools is an iterative process
where we have ‘back and forth’ conversations until we achieve our desired
content or outcomes (Cain, 2023). Importantly, LLMs do not understand lan-
guage or context, but make statistically informed predictions about the best text
to place next in sequence based on the prompt and its training (Cain, 2023).
At the same time, language teachers need some technological knowledge of
how GenAI tools work so they can select appropriate tools for their tasks and
optimise the settings to meet their needs. Different tools have different sources
and training data, along with different processing potential. Teachers can often
feel underwhelmed by their interactions with conversational AIs because the
models they use might be older or may not be tailored to the settings for their
task. Knowledge of how conversational AI tools work can address this issue.
There can also be different safeguards, privacy policies, and treatment of
copyrighted materials between models that impact teachers’ choices of tools.
In addition, language teachers need to develop checking and validation pro-
cesses to verify the information they receive from GenAI tools is trustworthy
and legitimate.
Finally, many GenAI tools allow for user tailoring. Language teachers can
develop specific chatbots for specific tasks. Tailoring allows for more accurate
task performance and consistency. Here the essential skills and knowledge
teachers need to use GenAI effectively are elaborated on.

GenAI Interactional Competence

An essential skill is the ability to interact with GenAI tools. This kind of
interaction has been called prompting, or prompt engineering (Cain, 2023),

but it can also be understood as GenAI interactional competence or prompt

literacy (Maloy & Gattupalli, 2024). GenAI interactional competence can be
defined as the ability to craft quality prompts and engage in an iterative dialogic
process with a GenAI tool until the most relevant and valuable output is
achieved (Cain, 2023). Scholars and educators have suggested that implement-
ing well-designed prompts can significantly affect the output generated by
GenAI tools (Knoth et al., 2024), and the ability to engage in back-and-forth
interactions means that the user can ‘refine’ or ‘expand’ on the response through
a dialogic iterative process (Cao & Dede, 2023). Maloy and Gattupalli (2024)
argue that “prompts are not just the commands we give, but understanding the
language that breathes life into ideas, making technology an extension of human
intent” (p. 1). Users can tailor the tone or style of the output or request
alternative ideas or information (Cain, 2023; Lo, 2023). However, poorly
designed prompts can lead to insufficient precision or undesired responses
(Knoth et al., 2024).
Cain (2023) argues that teachers need three essential aspects to effectively
prompt; 1. content knowledge; 2. critical thinking, and 3. iterative design.
Moorhouse et al. (2025) found similar aspects in the prompts used by pre-
service language teachers when they engaged GenAI tools as part of their
lesson-planning process. Content or pedagogical knowledge allows the user to
craft a prompt that includes essential information needed for the GenAI tool to
interpret the task. In language teaching, this could include providing informa-
tion about the learners (e.g., age, proficiency, L1s, interests, needs), teaching
objectives (e.g., language points, language skills), teaching methodologies (e.g.,
task-based language teaching, The Silent Way), and contextual considerations
(e.g., lesson length, class size, facilities) that allows the GenAI tool to provide
more focused responses, but also allows the teacher to evaluate the content
generated by the tool (Moorhouse, 2024).
Next, language teachers need critical thinking. Cain (2023) interprets critical
thinking in the context of prompting as the ability to evaluate, verify, and
question the generated outputs, as well as being able to detect hallucinations
(inaccurate information), biases, or unsuitable responses, and adjust prompts
accordingly. In language teaching, this could mean evaluating whether cultures
and languages are adequately represented in responses, and whether the sug-
gestions provided are suitable to the learners and teaching context (Moorhouse
et al., 2025).
Finally, language teachers need to be able to engage in an iterative design
process with the conversational AI chatbot or other GenAI tools to move
towards the desired output. Cain (2023) likens this to design thinking, where
the teacher starts with a vision and then goes through a process of planning,

design, testing, and reﬁnement. Moorhouse et al. (2025) observed this process
as pre-service language teachers engaged in lesson planning. Throughout the
process, the teachers are actively engaged in decision-making, deciding
whether to make further requests, give feedback to the LLM, seek opinions,
or ask for reﬁnement depending on their satisfaction with the generated content
or response of the LLM.
To craft the initial prompt, various frameworks have been proposed. These
include PROPER (Gruber, 2023), CREATE (Birss, 2023), CAST (Jacobs &
Fisher, 2023), CLEAR (Lo, 2023), and TRUST (Trust, 2023) frameworks.
Although each framework has slightly different suggestions on the components
that constitute a good prompt, several key elements are common. These are
summarised by Moorhouse (2024) as:

1. Be speciﬁc: be as detailed as possible.

2. Include context information: provide background information and include
as much data as possible.
3. Use simple language: write in clear and direct language.
4. Give steps: break down complex tasks into steps.
5. Involve iterative and reﬁnement processes: review responses frominitial
prompts and engage in back-and-forth conversation until you get the desired
content.

Figures 9 and 10 show the difference in responses between a ‘poor’ prompt and
a ‘good’ prompt. In Figure 9 the prompt used only mentions the genre (short
story) and topic (boy in Hong Kong). This means the text is generic and may not
meet the language teachers’ needs. In Figure 10, the teacher is specific (stating
genre, topic) and provides important context information (e.g., reading level).
Throughout, simple language is used. The story could be further tailored
through a refinement process (e.g., text simplification), change in content, use
of specific words of grammar structures, or other changes to meet the teachers’
needs. Teachers can also check the content for any biases or stereotyping,
making sure the text is appropriate for their learners.

Finding Suitable GenAI Tools for Your Professional Task

Although ChatGPT has received the majority of the attention around GenAI and
has even led to terms like ‘ChatGPTing’, there are several other technology
companies who have released GenAI tools (e.g., Anthropic, Meta, and Google).
Most of these companies have different models that have different data sources,
training data, algorithms, context windows, and parameters. Each of these
differences impacts the capabilities, attention, predictability, speed, accuracy,

Prompt: Write a short story about a boy in Hong Kong.

In the bustling streets of Hong Kong, a boy named Kai navigated the vibrant cityscape.
Every day after school, he would wander through the narrow alleys of Mong Kok,
captivated by the sights and sounds that filled the air. The aroma of street food mingled
with the chatter of vendors, creating an enchanting symphony of life.

Kai's favorite spot was a small bookstore tucked away on a quiet corner. The owner, an
elderly man named Mr. Chen, always welcomed him with a warm smile. Kai loved to lose
himself in the pages of adventure tales, dreaming of far-off places and extraordinary
journeys.

One rainy afternoon, as the city shimmered with reflections, Kai discovered an old book
with a faded cover. Intrigued, he carefully opened it and found a map tucked inside. It was
marked with mysterious symbols and a note that read: "The heart of the dragon lies within."

Excited by the possibility of an adventure, Kai showed the map to Mr. Chen. With a
twinkle in his eye, Mr. Chen explained that the map was said to lead to a hidden treasure, a
legacy from ancient times.

Fueled by curiosity, Kai decided to follow the map. It led him through the maze-like streets,
past bustling markets, and up the steep slopes of Victoria Peak. With each step, he felt a
connection to the city he had never experienced before.

Finally, at the top, Kai found a small, overgrown garden. In the centre stood a statue of a
dragon, its eyes glinting mysteriously. He knew he had found the heart of the dragon.
Though there was no material treasure, he realised the true wealth was the adventure itself
and the stories he would share.

As Kai gazed out over the skyline, the city lights twinkling like stars, he felt a profound
sense of belonging. Hong Kong was not just a city; it was a living, breathing tapestry of
tales waiting to be uncovered. And Kai, with his boundless curiosity, was ready to discover
them all.

Figure 9 Example of a poor-quality prompt and response

quality, and relevance of the content generated via the tools. Generally, the more
powerful models are only available through subscription, with less powerful
models offered for free or as ‘freemium’ subscriptions. Language teachers need
to know some of the technical aspects of GenAI tools so they can make
informed decisions about the tools and understand why they perform the way
they do. As many specialist AI tools are also built on different GenAI models, it

Prompt: Write a short story about an unbelievable day a ten-year-old boy had in Hong
Kong. It should include an unexpected twist and a funny resolution. The text should have a
Flesch reading score of 70.0-80.0 for a US 7th grade student. The story should be 200
words long.

An Unbelievable Day in Hong Kong

Tommy, a curious ten-year-old, woke up excited in Hong Kong. Today was the big dragon
boat festival! He raced downstairs, gulped his breakfast, and dashed to the harbor.

As he watched the colorful boats, a shiny object bobbed in the water. Curious, Tommy
leaned closer, slipped, and splashed right in! Gasping, he grabbed the object—a golden
compass.

Suddenly, everything around him changed. The bustling harbor turned into an ancient
village, and the boats were now giant, talking fish! One fish, named Finley, said,
"Welcome, traveler! You must find the Golden Pearl to return home."

Tommy, both scared and thrilled, agreed. With Finley’s help, he navigated through markets,
dodged mischievous monkeys, and finally reached a hidden cave. Inside, they found the
Golden Pearl guarded by a sleepy dragon.

Tommy remembered the dragon loved music. He played a tune on his phone, and the
dragon swayed, then snoozed. Quickly, Tommy grabbed the pearl and the compass glowed.

In a flash, Tommy was back at the harbor, soaked but smiling. He laughed, realising he'd
been dreaming. But when he reached into his pocket, the pearl was still there—a funny
reminder of his unbelievable day!

Figure 10 Example of a good-quality prompt and response

can also be helpful for teachers to understand the strengths and limitations of
these tools, too. Here the terms are brieﬂy introduced:

1. Data source: data source refers to the origin or collection of information from
which training data are derived. It is the raw, unprocessed information that
may be used to create training data. Data sources can include: books, articles,
academic papers, web pages, social media posts, government documents,
transcripts of spoken language, code repositories, and databases. Data sources
are typically vast and may contain information in various formats, not all of
which will necessarily be used in training. Some companies have signed
agreements with newspapers and publishers to gain access to their archives
as source data and training data for their GenAI models.

2. Training data: training data is the processed, curated, and formatted dataset
actually used to train the LLM. It is derived from data sources but has
undergone several steps of preparation:

• Cleaning: removing irrelevant information, correcting errors, and stand-

ardising format
• Tokenisation: breaking text into smaller units (tokens) that the model can
process
• Formatting: structuring the data in a way the model can understand and
learn from
• Balancing: ensuring a good representation of various topics, writing
styles, and so on
• Filtering: removing inappropriate or low-quality content.

GenAI companies do not release much information on the training data but it
is likely that each model will have different data within its dataset. By asking
different conversational AI chatbots for the same information, you can see
variations in their data sources. For example, we asked several chatbots to
write a short biographical statement about Benjamin Luke Moorhouse using
the prompt: “Write a short biographical statement about Dr Benjamin Luke
Moorhouse.” The responses are presented here:

• GPT-4.o: Dr. Benjamin Luke Moorhouse is a distinguished academic and

researcher specialising in [insert area of expertise, e.g., education, linguis-
tics, science, etc.]. With a passion for advancing knowledge and fostering
innovation, Dr. Moorhouse has contributed significantly to his field
through his research, publications, and teaching. He is known for his
commitment to mentoring students and his dedication to bridging the
gap between theory and practical application. Dr. Moorhouse continues
to make impactful contributions to [specific field or discipline], inspiring
both colleagues and learners alike.
• Claude 3.5 Sonnet: Dr Benjamin Luke Moorhouse is an Assistant Professor at
The Education University of Hong Kong, specialising in English language
teaching and teacher education. His research focuses on technology in lan-
guage education, pre-service teacher preparation, and mentoring in teaching
practicum. He has made significant contributions to understanding how
technology can be effectively integrated into language teaching and learning,
particularly in the Hong Kong context. Dr Moorhouse has published exten-
sively in academic journals on topics related to English language education
and teacher development. He is also known for his work on supporting
student teachers during their teaching practice experiences. Would you like

me to elaborate on any particular aspect of Dr Moorhouse’s work or

background?
• GPT-4o1-mini: As of my knowledge cutoff in October 2023, I do not have
specific information about Dr. Benjamin Luke Moorhouse. It’s possible
that Dr. Moorhouse is a faculty member specialising in a particular
academic field at the university. For the most accurate and up-to-date
biographical information, I recommend visiting the university official
website or contacting the university directly.

Different models gave different responses. GPT-4.o provided a generic

template. Claude 3.5 Sonnet gave a more specific statement but with
inaccurate information (e.g., a wrong affiliation), while GPT-4o-mini replied
that it did not have specific information about Dr Benjamin Luke Moorhouse
and the user should visit his university website. This shows how the size and
scope of the dataset differs between models. As the datasets are constantly
being added to, the information provided can also change over time. It is also
important to remember that texts that are copyrighted or behind ‘paywalls’
may not be included in datasets, which can have an effect on the content
produced.
3. Parameters: parameters are the adjustable values within an LLM that the
model learns during training. They can be thought of as the ‘knowledge’ or
‘skills’ of the model. Parameters determine how the model processes input
and generates output. Generally, more parameters allow for more complex
relationships and potentially better performance, though this is not always
true. Most LLMs can have billions of parameters (e.g., GPT-3 has 175 billion).
4. Context window: the context window is the number of tokens the model can
consider at once when generating a response. It determines how much
previous text the model can use to understand context and generate relevant
responses. So, if your prompt is too long, or you have a long interaction, you
might exceed the context window and the GenAI will ‘forget’ parts of the
conversation or prompt. Large language models sometimes indicate the
context window by stating the maximum number of tokens (words or
word pieces) the model can process in a single operation (e.g., Claude 3.5
Sonnet – 200,000). A larger context window can slow down the speed of the
LLM but allow for a longer coherent interaction.
5. Temperature: temperature is a setting used during the text-generation pro-
cess that affects the randomness of the model’s outputs. It is represented by
a value (usually between 0 and 1) that controls the randomness of the
model’s token selection. A lower temperature (e.g., closer to 0) will generate
more deterministic, focused, and conservative outputs, while a higher

temperature (e.g., closer to 1) will generate more random, diverse, and

creative outputs. It allows more ﬁne-tuning of the model’s behaviour for
different tasks without the need for retraining.
6. Algorithms: an algorithm is like a set of step-by-step instructions that tells
a computer how to do something. Algorithms in GenAI are the detailed
instructions and rules that guide computers in learning from existing data
and then creating something new. They tell the AI how to:

• Learn from data: analyse and understand patterns, structures, and styles in
the information it’s given (like thousands of images or sentences).
• Generate new content: use what it has learned to produce original material
that resembles the learned data but isn’t a copy of it.
• Improve over time: continuously reﬁne its creations by comparing them to
desired outcomes and adjusting accordingly.

Different GenAI tools will have different algorithms determining how the
tools respond to the user’s prompts and interactions. These algorithms are
inﬂuenced by the AI company’s values, beliefs, and unconscious biases.

Before using a GenAI tool, teachers are advised to note the model, features, and
settings of the tool to better understand the tool’s performance in the GenAI
process. If settings are adjustable, teachers can try out different settings and see
the impact on the content. They can also try different GenAI models with the
same prompts to discern differences in how the tools treat the prompt. Through
experimentation, teachers can better understand the models, features, and
settings that best help them in their professional practices.

Corroborating and Validation of GenAI Content

As detailed in Section 6, the content and responses generated by GenAI tools are
not always accurate, the reliance on statistical probability, even when they have
received extensive training, means they can ‘misinterpret’ the user’s prompt and
generate inaccurate information, or information that is biased. Teachers should
assess the content generated that could teach or reinforce biases or stereotypes.
This seems particularly important for language teachers working in multicul-
tural and multilingual environments using GenAI tools that have Western and
English biases and less oversight of content generated in languages other than
English. To avoid this, teachers can:

1. Use common sense: the ﬁrst process is to use common sense. The teacher
can review the content generated and consider if it makes sense based on
their existing knowledge. They can think about whether the content is biased

or contains stereotypes that might be harmful towards students in their class

or reinforce existing biases.
2. Try the same prompts in other GenAI tools: as different tools have different
datasets and algorithms, they will generally generate different content to the
same prompts. Teachers can submit the same prompt to two or more
chatbots, and if the responses are similar and consistent across chatbots, it
likely means the content is valid. To test this suggestion, teachers could use
the prompt: “List the top three tourist attractions in [a city/country]” and
input it in different LLMs. We tried this with the city of Hong Kong:

• o1-preview: 1. Victoria Peak; 2. The Star Ferry and Victoria Harbour; 3.

Tian Tan Buddha (Big Buddha); and Po Lin Monastery.
• Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 1. Victoria Peak; 2. Tian Tan Buddha (Big Buddha); 3.
Victoria Harbour.
• Gemini-1.5-Pro: 1. Victoria Peak (The Peak); 2. Hong Kong Disneyland;
3. Tian Tan Buddha (Big Buddha); and Po Lin Monastery.

This example demonstrates how three different GenAI models are relatively
consistent in recommending tourist attractions in Hong Kong. Victoria Peak
and Tian Tan Buddha appear in all three responses, with only Gemini-1.5-Pro
suggesting Disneyland. Teachers can be conﬁdent that Victoria Peak and Tian
Tan Buddha are two of the top tourist attractions and could do further research
on Victoria Harbour and Hong Kong Disneyland if needed.
3. Check sources cited in a chatbot response: sometimes teachers may be work-
ing with a chatbot to write reports or other academic or technical documents.
The chatbot may provide citations to reference relevant sources. These can
look real but may be fake or inaccurate. Teachers can check the accuracy of the
cited source by using Google Scholar, SCOPUS, or other search engines (e.g.,
Consensus). It is important that even if the source exists, teachers check if the
source supports the points provided in the chatbot’s response.
4. Use other ‘authoritative’ sources to verify the content: teachers can check the
content by conducting searches on the internet or referring to books.
Teachers can use academic journals, newspapers, government websites, or
documents, and so on. However, it is important to remember these sources
can also contain biased and inaccurate information and may represent
a speciﬁc world view or a particular author’s agenda.

The development of GenAI reminds us of the importance of information

literacy and the need to be critical when we engage with any texts, those
generated by GenAI, and those generated by humans. Developing checking

and validation processes can aid teachers in ensuring they provide accurate
information to their learners.

Tailoring Chatbots for Your Tasks

At the beginning of this section, we mentioned that many GenAI tools have been
built for general purposes, not specifically for language teaching and learning.
Although there are now specialist tools built on LLM infrastructure designed
specifically for teaching and learning purposes (e.g., MagicSchool), many LLMs
allow customisation by users so they can create tools for specific teaching and
learning tasks (e.g., providing formative feedback, providing information about
words, acting as a critical friend for advice on teaching ideas and materials)
(Moorhouse, 2024). Poe, a platform that includes various GenAI tools, allows
users to create their own ‘bots’ and customise the settings. First, users can select
a ‘bot type’ such as prompt bot, image generator, video generator, role play, and
server bot. After selecting an appropriate bot, the bot can be given a name, a base
bot (e.g., ChatGPT) can be selected, instructions can be inputted, and a specific
knowledge base can be uploaded. Teachers can ‘tweak’ the instructions and test
the responses until the bot can consistently complete the task. Knowledge bases
can make the bot provide more specialised responses (e.g., curriculum materials,
syllabi, course materials, marking, or feedback rubric).
A teacher may want to provide their learners with a customised bot that can
provide detailed information about the words they are learning with explan-
ations in the learners’ L1s. Using a general LLM would likely mean the teacher
would need to provide students with some prompt training and even then, the
content produced may not be consistent. Instead, they can tailor an LLM issuing
the ‘create bot’ function. In this way, the students can interact with the tailored
bot for the specific task of looking up new words. Other GenAI tools like
Perplexity also allow for customisation.

Conclusion
GenAI tools generally have intuitive interfaces, and it is relatively easy to use
them: just input a prompt and get a response. However, to use the tools effectively
and responsibly for speciﬁc professional tasks requires more advanced know-
ledge and skills. This section provided an overview of some fundamental skills
and knowledge language teachers need to use these tools in all aspects of their
professional roles. As technology becomes more complex, users generally
become less aware of their inner workings. Many people may be able to change
the oil in a petrol car, but probably have no idea how to conduct any maintenance
on an electric car. This means that if teachers want to be critical and responsible

users, they need some basic knowledge and understanding. This allows them to
select appropriate tools, interact with GenAI effectively, check the content the
GenAI tools create, and tailor the tools to their needs.

Questions for Reﬂection

1. Which prompting framework do you ﬁnd most useful for your interactions
with GenAI tools?
2. How have your interactions with GenAI changed after reading this section?
3. What ways do you use to check and verify the content generated by GenAI
tools?

8 Enhancing Professional GenAI Competence through

Professional Development
GenAI-Generated Section Summary
In this section, we asked GPT-4.o to summarise the section as a restaurant menu.
We have just included the main courses here as an example:

Main Courses

Self-Directed Learning Salad

- A fresh mix of GenAI tools, micro-learning resources, and actionable goals.
- Topped with examples of prompt engineering and step-by-step learning
strategies.

Community Collaboration Casserole

- A hearty dish of teacher communities, both local and online, seasoned with peer
support and shared practices.
- Served with a side of student involvement for added ﬂavor.

Reﬂexive Research Risotto

- A rich blend of reﬂective practice and practitioner research.
- Features action research “grains” and a dash of low-stakes experimentation.

We thought a menu might reﬂect the section theme of professional development

and how we can pick and choose what and how we learn given the wide variety
and easily accessible development options. We were impressed with the
GenAI’s ability to come up with catchy names for the dishes on the ‘menu’.
Lots of wordplay, such as, alliteration.

Introduction
The development of GenAI tools creates a need for language teachers to
revisit their professional skills and knowledge. Technological advances

continuously change human practices, which in turn change the knowledge we

need to successfully engage in these practices. New technologies will at first
disrupt our current understanding and often lead to ‘pushback’ as we need to
shift our way of doing and thinking. Early adopters will see the potential of
these technologies, but it takes longer for a community as a whole to adapt.
Yet, over time, these technologies will become normalised and part of our
professional expectations (Bax, 2003). This creates new ‘cultures of use’
within professional communities – the commonly shared norms and forms
of activity adopted by members of a group or community when using tech-
nologies (Thorne, 2003). A specific profession may use technology differently
than other professions. Previous examples of technologies that have become
normalised within language teaching include presentation tools, interactive
whiteboards, student response systems, and learning management systems
(Moorhouse & Yan, 2023). As stated in the Introduction, this Element was
centred on the idea that language teachers need P-GenAI-C to competently
and responsibly use GenAI in their professional practices. This Element has
detailed the kinds of knowledge and skills language teachers would need to
develop P-GenAI-C, however, as GenAI tools are constantly advancing, we
want the concluding section to be future-focused, considering how GenAI
may shape language teaching in the future. The final section also provides
suggestions for ways teachers can continue to enhance their P-GenAI-C
through engaging professional development.

Looking Forward
It is becoming increasingly difﬁcult to predict the future. Even since we began
writing this Element, new GenAI tools have been released with new capabil-
ities. The impact of these tools on language teaching and learning are only just
starting to be realised. Yet, the rapid embedding of AI assistive features in
digital tools, including educational technologies (e.g., learning management
systems) suggests that AI will be rapidly adopted into language teachers’
practices. Futurists are predicting that in the near future, there will be AI
teachers operating as autonomous AI agents who can personalise their instruc-
tion to the needs of individuals. The ﬁrst ‘teacherless’ AI school opened in
London, UK, in 2024. GenAI, robots, VR and augmented reality, and avatar
technologies can be combined to create ‘interactive virtual teachers’ where
students can engage with them in real time in the Metaverse. Virtual reality
already shows promise in language teaching. Dooley et al. (2023) found that
young language learners produced more examples of spontaneous language use,
increased mediation between learners, and higher levels of production and

comprehension than expected. Combined with ‘non-judgemental’ GenAI ava-

tars, students might feel even more willing to communicate in their target
language. These avatars can act as a language coach and conversational partner,
and take up any role in role-play activities. Teachers can capitalise on the GenAI
VR environment to better personalise the learning experiences for diverse
learner groups (Moorhouse et al., 2023).
In the near future, teachers will be able to virtually clone themselves,
providing a way for learners to get support 24/7 from a familiar face. Heygen
launched the ‘virtual twin’, which they argue can join meetings on the user’s
behalf. These developments are causing legitimate concern for many, due to
obvious ethical concerns but also due to the worry they will be replaced.
However, humans are inherently social beings who like to come together for
common goals – for example, learning. It seems then that GenAI will likely
augment language teaching, making possible professional practices previously
seen as challenging (e.g., personalised learning), but keeping the human lan-
guage teacher as a central part of a learning environment.
We predict that the general AI models that are now common will be replaced
with more personalised models that will understand our needs and be more tailored
to our contexts. This will further increase their utility in our work. We also predict
that developing P-GenAI-C will be a requirement for language teachers in the near
future, and there will be a need to continuously refine competencies as the
technologies progress and new methodologies are developed. At the same time,
as tools become more specialised, the control the user may have over them could
become diminished (Darvin, 2025). Current tools designed specifically for teach-
ing, for example, MagicSchool and Twee, while providing easy to use interfaces
that can make it easy for teachers to efficiently find a template and tool to create
a desired response, also reduce the control the user has to interact with the content
created and refine their ideas through an iterative process (Chen et al., 2024). At
this stage, teachers should explore the use of general GenAI tools (e.g., conversa-
tional AI chatbots) and develop their GenAI interactional competence so they can
maintain more control over the content they create.
More than ever, language teachers will need to be able to monitor their own
P-GenAI-C and find ways to develop themselves to stay relevant in the GenAI
age. We advocate for self-directed, community-orientated, evidence-informed,
reflexive professional development. When teachers see a need to develop, they
will be more dedicated to it. When they have a supportive community, they will
likely sustain their development. When the development is evidence-informed
and reflexive, teachers are likely to see positive outcomes to their development
and make adjustments based on the context.

Self-Directed Professional Development

Stockwell and Wang (2023) remind us that, while teachers have a responsibility to
facilitate their students’ language learning, “teachers are human, and are learners
of technology themselves” (p. 479). Technology has enabled teachers to access
a large range of professional development opportunities in various modalities.
GenAI has increased these opportunities. Section 2 illustrates how GenAI tools
can be used to help develop teachers’ topic and content knowledge development,
gain an understanding of language-teaching methodologies and approaches, and
build awareness of languages, cultures, and societies. These can be incredibly
useful when combined with the checking and validation processes proposed in
Section 7 in helping language teachers develop professionally.
Along with using GenAI tools, language teachers can access various
micro-learning resources and activities. Micro-learning activities are
designed to break topics into short, concise, and easily consumable seg-
ments (‘chunks’) of learning (Kohnke et al., 2024). Micro-learning activ-
ities are usually short and multimodal, incorporating videos, animations,
and infographics (Reinhardt & Elwood, 2019). They deliver personalised,
timely, and SDL activities (Kohnke, 2023). Kohnke and Moorhouse (2024)
found that language teachers often value the opportunity to acquire know-
ledge and skills through micro-learning activities, which foster experimen-
tation without causing cognitive overload. To engage in micro-learning,
language teachers need to ﬁrst identify an area for improvement (e.g.,
writing more effective prompts). They would then seek out relevant
resources like video-hosting sites (e.g., Youtube), social media sites (e.g.,
LinkedIn Learning), or relevant apps (e.g., Duolingo), and engage with the
content to achieve their learning goal. Developing clear and narrow learning
goals means that the materials sourced can be more focused and the
learning easier to measure. For example, “Learn how to build
a customised GenAI tool for language teaching purposes” is a better goal
than “Learn about GenAI tools”.
In addition to micro-learning, various platforms offer short courses that
provide micro-credentials that teachers can use to receive recognition for their
learning. Google and Microsoft both offer learning platforms that can lead to
accreditation. Microsoft has the ‘AI learning hub’ that includes a range of self-
access learning units on different aspects of AI knowledge and skills. They also
have ‘AI for Education’ resources and courses that are tailored to teachers.
Google offers courses on AI in education, including ‘Generative AI for
Educators’. LinkedIn Learning offers a range of educational development
resources created by different companies and content creators.

As it becomes easier to create content designed to promote teacher develop-

ment, we need to carefully consider the quality of such courses and resources.
Language teachers need to be critical of the professional development they
receive and consider its utility in their context. Greater emphasis needs to be
placed on developing teachers’ ability to engage in practitioner research, so they
can implement context-speciﬁc technological innovations, monitor their imple-
mentation, and evaluate their effectiveness.

Community-Orientated Professional Development

Language teachers around the world are all trying to understand how to
best adapt to the development of GenAI tools. By coming together with
other educators and education stakeholders, teachers can learn from each
other within a community-orientated approach. A community-orientated
approach provides teachers with support, guidance, mutual understanding,
and critical friends as they try to navigate new realities and develop the
competencies needed to support their language learners. It allows teachers
to position themselves within a larger system with shared common aims
but with different, yet equal, contributions.
Language teachers can create learning communities in their schools, districts,
professional organisations, and beyond. These communities do not need to be
restricted to language teachers alone, instead, they can involve students, par-
ents, and other key stakeholders, ensuring different voices can be learned from.
Organising sharings of practices, raising concerns on the impact of GenAI for
discussion, and exploring new features and tools as a group can help teachers to
feel more supported and conﬁdent to try them out in practice. Social media
platforms, such as ‘X’, ‘Bluesky’, Facebook, and LinkedIn have a large number
of ‘virtual communities’ where teachers can learn from and engage with
colleagues around the world.
At the school level, the community can involve students, especially if any
changes to practice affect their learning. Students can be invited to be
involved in different levels of decision-making, curriculum design, learning
activity preparation, and assessment practices as teachers and schools adapt
to GenAI developments. Student–teacher consultation groups can be estab-
lished, and students can be invited to participate in professional develop-
ment events.

Evidence-Informed and Reﬂexive Professional Development

The ability to reﬂect on our lived experiences allows us to better understand
ourselves and our actions, leading to continuous adaptation and learning.

Dewey is widely credited for highlighting the importance of experiential learn-

ing and reflective thought as the “sole method of escape from the purely
impulsive or purely routine action” (1933, p. 15). Technological developments
can be a catalyst for reflection, as they force us to challenge our current way of
thinking and doing, and ‘complicate’ the status quo. As new technologies
become embedded in professional practices, we can often lack evidence to
their effectiveness on different aspects of learner outcomes. In addition, lan-
guage teaching is highly context-specific, requiring localised evidence to sup-
port the adoption of specific technologies or practices into the classroom
(Richards, 2010).
Language teachers are encouraged to engage in practitioner research,
through self-study, reflective practice, or action research methodologies to
explore the use of GenAI tools in their professional practice. Teachers can
start with implementing GenAI tools into low-stake professional tasks,
such as lesson preparation and planning. Lesson preparation is conducted
out of the classroom and away from students, reducing the pressure on
teachers. Language teachers can spend time experimenting and refining
their practices and see if GenAI has positive impacts on their preparation
processes. Teachers can keep a diary of their experimentations to help
them critique and reflect upon their exploration. Teachers should recognise
this process of learning can be messy and increase their sense of vulner-
ability – but this is a perfectly normal part of learning. Teachers could
then explore how GenAI could be used to assist specific pedagogical
practices (see Sections 3–5 for inspiration). Teachers can collect artefacts,
invite colleagues to observe and provide suggestions, and gather feedback
from learners and parents to provide a more holistic view of the
explorations.
Over time, teachers can build use cases that could be invaluable to the
wider language teaching community. Language teaching conferences and
organisations (e.g., TESOL International Convention, RELC International
Conference, AILA World Congress) can be valuable spaces for the sharing
of use cases and empirical research into the use of GenAI in language
teaching. By actively engaging in the wider language teaching community,
teachers can be exposed to and contribute to shaping the communities’
response to GenAI developments.

Conclusion
In this ﬁnal section, we postulated about the future of GenAI in language
teaching. Clearly, this is a revolutionary technology that has been rapidly

adopted into various processes. It is important that language teachers and

their students maintain agency over whether and how these tools are used
(Darvin, 2025). As Godwin-Jones (2022) mentions, technology should be
seen as part of a variety of human and non-human resources that teachers
can draw upon to help learners achieve their language learning goals. To
do this, though, language teachers need to continuously develop their
P-GenAI-C, so they have the knowledge needed to critically evaluate
and reﬂect on the use of GenAI in language teaching and learning.

Questions for Reﬂection

1. If you haven’t used GenAI in your language teaching before, how might you
start using it? How might you collect evidence on the effectiveness of your
GenAI use?
2. What aspect of P-GenAI-C would you like to develop further? How might
you use micro-learning to support your development?
3. What are your predictions for the future of GenAI? How will you prepare
yourself for the future?

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 196.153.51.144, on 02 Jul 2025 at 03:46:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009618823
References
Al-khresheh, M. H. (2024). Bridging technology and pedagogy from a global
lens: Teachers’ perspectives on integrating ChatGPT in English language
teaching. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100218.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100218.
Ali, O., P. A. Murray, M. Momin, Y. K. Dwivedi, & T. Malik. (2024). The effects
of artificial intelligence applications in educational settings: Challenges and
strategies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 199, 123076.
Bai, L., X. Liu, & J. Su (2023). ChatGPT: The cognitive effects on learning and
memory. Brain-X, 1(3), e30. https://doi.org/10.1002/brx2.30.
Baker, W. (2012). From cultural awareness to intercultural awareness: Culture
in ELT. ELT Journal, 66, 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1093/ELT/CCR017.
Barrot, J. S. (2020). Integrating technology into ESL/EFL writing through
Grammarly. RELC Journal, 53(3), 764–768. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0033688220966632.
Barrot, J. S. (2023). Using ChatGPT for second language writing: Pitfalls and
potentials. Assessing Writing, 57, 100745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023
.100745.
Bauml, M. (2014). Collaborative lesson planning as professional development
for beginning primary teachers. The New Educator, 10(3), 182–200.
Bax, S. (2003). CALL: Past, present, and future. System, 31(1), 13–28.
Birss, D. (2023) How to research and write using generative AI tools. LinkedIn
Learning, formerly Lynda.com. www.linkedin.com/learning/how-to-
research-and-write-using-generative-ai-tools.
Bonner E., R. Lege & E. Frazier (2023). Large language model-based artificial
intelligence in the language classroom: Practical ideas for teaching. Teaching
English with Technology, 23(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.56297/bkam1691/
wieo1749.
Brown, T., B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, &
D. Amodei (2020). Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in
Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, 1877–1901. https://proceed
ings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2020.
Cain, W. (2023). Prompting change: Exploring prompt engineering in large
language model AI and its potential to transform education. TechTrends,
68(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-023-00896-0.
Cao, L. & C. Dede (2023). Navigating a World of Generative AI: Suggestions
for Educators. The Next Level Lab at Harvard Graduate School of Education.

https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/websites.harvard.edu/dist/a/108/files/2023/
08/Cao_Dede_final_8.4.23.pdf.
Chan, C. K. Y., & T. Colloton (2024). Generative AI in Higher Education: The
ChatGPT Effect. Routledge.
Chen, Z., T. Liu, & X. Liu (2024). Twee: Artificial intelligence assistant to
generate versatile materials for language education. RELC Journal. https://
doi.org/10.1177/00336882241282471.
Chiu, T. K., B. L. Moorhouse, C. S. Chai, & M. Ismailov (2023). Teacher
support and student motivation to learn with artificial intelligence (AI) based
chatbot. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(7), 3240–3256. https://doi
.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2172044.
Crompton, H., & D. Burke (2024). The educational affordances and challenges
of ChatGPT: State of the field. TechTrends, 68, 380–392. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11528-024-00939-0.
Darvin, R. (2025). The need for critical digital literacies in generative
AI-mediated L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 67, 101186.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2025.101186.
Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective
Thinking to the Educative Process. D. C. Health and Company.
Dooley, M., T. Thrasher, & R. Sadler (2023). ‘Whoa! incredible!’: Language
learning experiences in virtual reality. RELC Journal, 54(2), 321–339.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882231167610.
Draxler, F., A. Werner, F. Lehmann, M. Hoppe, A. Schmidt, D. Buschek, &
R. Welsch (2024). The AI ghostwriter effect: When users do not perceive
ownership of AI-generated text but self-declare as authors. ACM Transactions
on Computer-Human Interaction, 31(2), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3637875.
Dwivedi, Y. K., N. Kshetri, L. Hughes, E. L. Slade, A. Jeyaraj, A. K. Kar,
R. Wright (2023). Opinion paper: ‘So what if ChatGPT wrote it?’
Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications
of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International
Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.ijinfomgt:.2023.102642.
Farrokhnia, M., S. K. Banihashem, O. Noroozi, & A. Wals (2023). A SWOT
analysis of ChatGPT: Implications for educational practice and research.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(3), 460–474.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2195846.
Fryer, L. K., D. Coniam, R. Carpenter, & D. Lăpușneanu (2020). Bots for
language learning now: Current and future directions. Language, Learning
and Technology, 24(2), 8–22.

Fui-Hoon Nah, F., R. Zheng, J. Cai, K. Siau, & L. Chen (2023). Generative AI
and ChatGPT: Applications, challenges, and AI-human collaboration. Journal
of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 25(3), 277–304.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2022). Partnering with AI: Intelligent writing assistance and
instructed language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 26(2), 5–24.
http://doi.org/10125/73474.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2024). Distributed agency in second language learning and
teaching through generative AI. Language Learning & Technology, 28(2),
5–30. https://doi.org/10125/73570.
Gruber, P. (2023) Using ChatGPT for efficient data analysis with R. Instats Inc.
https://doi.org/10.61700/XWWIQWCMK4X0R469.
Harmer, J. (2015). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Pearson.
Hockly. N. (2023). Artificial intelligence in English language teaching: The
good, the bad and the ugly. RELC Journal, 54(2): 445–451. https://doi.org/
10.1177/00336882231168504.
Hong, W. C. H. (2023). The impact of ChatGPT on foreign language teaching
and learning: Opportunities in education and research. Journal of
Educational Technology and Innovation, 5(1), 37–45. https://jeti.thewsu
.org/index.php/cieti/article/view/103.
Instefjord, E. J., & E. Munthe (2017). Educating digitally competent teachers:
A study of integration of professional digital competence in teacher
education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 37–45.
Jacobs, H. H., & M. Fisher (2023). Prompt literacy: A key for AI-based learning.
www.ascd.org/el/articles/prompt-literacy-a-key-for-ai-based-learning.
Javier, D. R. C., & B. L. Moorhouse (2023). Developing secondary school
English language learners’ productive and critical use of ChatGPT. TESOL
Journal, (e755), 1–9.
Jeon, J., & S. Lee (2023). Large language models in education: A focus on the
complementary relationship between human teachers and ChatGPT.
Education and Information Technologies, 28, 5873–15892. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10639-023-11834-1.
Kasneci, E., K. Seßler, S. Küchemann, M. Bannert, D. Dementieva, F. Fischer, &
G. Kasneci (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large
language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103,
102274.
Kerr, P. (2014). Translation and Own-Language Activities. Cambridge
University Press.
Knoth, N., A. Tolzin, & A. Janson (2024). AI literacy and its implications for
prompt engineering strategies. Computers and Education: Artificial
Intelligence, 49(4), 100225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100225.

Kohnke, L. (2023). Using Technology to Design ESL/EFL Microlearning

Activities. Springer.
Kohnke, L., & A. Jarvis (2023). Developing infographics for English for
academic purposes courses. TESOL Journal, 14, e675. https://doi.org/
10.1002/tesj.6753-197.
Kohnke, L., D. Foung, & D. Zou (2024). Microlearning: A new normal for
ﬂexible teacher professional development in online and blended learning.
Education and Information Technologies, 29(4), 4457–4480.
Kohnke, L., D. Foung, D. Zou, & M. Jiang (2024). Creating the conditions for
professional digital competence through microlearning. Educational
Technology & Society, 27(1), 18.
Kohnke, L., & B. L. Moorhouse (2024). An exploration of microlearning as
continuous professional development for English language teachers: Initial
ﬁndings and insights. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and
e-Learning, 1–17.
Kohnke, L., B. L. Moorhouse, & D. Zou (2023). Using ChatGPT for language
teaching and learning. RELC Journal, 54(2), 537–550. https://doi.org/
10.1177/00336882231162868.
Kohnke, L. & D. Zou (2024). The role of ChatGPT in enhancing English
teaching: A paradigm shift in lesson planning and instructional practice.
Educational Technology and Society, 28(3), 4–20.
König, J., D. J. Jäger-Biela, & N. Glutsch (2020). Adapting to online teaching
during Covid-19 school closure: Teacher education and teacher competence
effects among early career teachers in Germany. European Journal of
Teacher Education, 43(4), 608–622.
Kostka, I., & R. Toncelli (2023). Exploring applications of ChatGPT to English
language teaching: Opportunities, challenges, and recommendations.
Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 27(3). https://doi.org/
10.55593/ej.27107int.
Lee, Y. J. (2020). The long-term effect of automated writing evaluation feed-
back on writing development. English Teaching, 75(1), 67–92.
Lee, S., & J. Jeon (2024). Enhancing pre-service EFL teachers’ TPACK through
chatbot-integrated lesson planning projects. Language Learning &
Technology, 28(1), 1–20. https://hdl.handle.net/10125/73598.
Lim, W. M., A. Gunasekara, J. L. Pallant, J. I. Pallant, & E. Pechenkina (2023).
Generative AI and the future of education: Ragnarök or reformation?
A paradoxical perspective from management educators. International Journal
of Management in Education, 21(2), 100790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme
.2023.100790.

Lo, L. S. (2023). The CLEAR path: A framework for enhancing information

literacy through prompt engineering. The Journal of Academic Librarianship,
49(4), 102720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2023.102720.
Lucchi, N. (2023). ChatGPT: A case study on copyright challenges for genera-
tive artificial intelligence systems. European Journal of Risk Regulation,
1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2023.59.
Lund, B. D., T. Wang, N. R. Mannuru, B. Nie, S. Shimray, & Z. Wang (2023).
ChatGPT and a new academic reality: Artificial intelligence-written research
papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing.
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74(5),
570–581. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24750.
Maloy, R. W., & S. Gattupalli (2024). Prompt literacy. EdTechnica, https://doi
.org/10.59668/371.14442.
McGrath, I. (2016). Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching.
Edinburgh University Press.
Meniado, J. C. (2023). Digital language teaching 5.0: Technologies, trends and
competencies. RELC Journal, 54(2), 461–473.
Milroy, J. (2001). Language ideologies and the consequences of
standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5(4), 530–555. https://doi.org/
10.1111/1467-9481.00163.
Mishan, F. (2015). Materials Development for TESOL. Edinburgh University Press.
Mishra, P., M. Warr, & R. Islam (2023). TPACK in the age of ChatGPT and
generative AI. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 39(4),
235–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2023.2247480.
Mizumoto, A., & M. Eguchi (2023). Exploring the potential of using an AI
language model for automated essay scoring. Research Methods in Applied
Linguistics, 2(2), 100050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100050.
Moorhouse, B. L. (2023). Teachers’ digital technology use after a period of
online teaching. ELT Journal, 77(4), 445–457.
Moorhouse, B. L. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence and ELT. ELT
Journal, 78(4), 378–392. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccae032.
Moorhouse, B. L., T. Y. Ho, C. Wu, & Y. Wan (2025). Pre-service language
teachers’ task-specific large language model prompting practices. RELC
Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882251313701.
Moorhouse, B. L., & L. Kohnke (2024). The effects of generative AI on initial
language teacher education: The perceptions of teacher educators. System,
122, 103290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103290.
Moorhouse, B. L., Y. Wan, T. Y. Ho, & A. M. Lin (2024). Generative
AI-assisted, evidence-informed use of L1 in L2 classrooms. ELT Journal,
78(4), 453–465.

Moorhouse, B. L., K. M. Wong, & L. Li (2023). Teaching with technology in the

post-pandemic digital age: Technological normalisation and AI-induced
disruptions. RELC Journal, 54(2), 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/
00336882231176929.
Moorhouse, B. L., & L. Yan (2023). Use of digital tools by English language
schoolteachers. Education Sciences, 13(3), 226.
Ng, D. T. K., J. K. L. Leung, J. Su, R. C. W. Ng, & S. K. W. Chu (2023).
Teachers’ AI digital competencies and twenty-first century skills in the post-
pandemic world. Educational Technology Research & Development, 71(1),
137–161.
Palfreyman, D. M., & P. Benson (2019). Autonomy and its role in English
language learning: Practice and research. In Second Handbook of English
Language Teaching, X. Gao, editor. Springer, 661–681.
Pinter, A. (2017). Teaching Young Language Learners. Oxford University
Press.
Porter, B., & E. Machery (2024) AI-generated poetry is indistinguishable from
human-written poetry and is rated more favorably. Scientific Reports, 14,
26133. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-76900-1.
Reinhardt, K. S., & S. Elwood (2019). Promising practices in online
training and support: Microlearning and personal learning environments
to promote a growth mindset in learners. In Handbook of Research on
Virtual Training and Mentoring of Online Instructors, 298–310. IGI
Global.
Richards, J. C. (2010). Competence and performance in language teaching.
RELC Journal, 41(2), 101–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368821
0372953.
Richards, J. C. (2015). Materials design in language teacher education: An
example from Southeast Asia. In International Perspectives on English
Language Teacher Education: Innovations from the Field, 90–106.
Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Richards, J. C., & T. S. Rodgers (2014). Approaches and Methods in Language
Teaching (Third Edition). Cambridge University Press.
Rifkin, B. (2003). Oral proficiency learning outcomes and curricular design.
Foreign Language Annals, 36(4), 582–588.
Scarino, A. (2009). Assessing intercultural capability in learning languages:
Some issues and considerations. Language Teaching, 42, 67–80. https://
doi.org/10.1017/S0261444808005417.
Scrivener, J. (2011). Learning Teaching. Macmillan.
Shaikh, S., S. M. Daudpota, S. Y. Yayilgan, & S. Sindhu (2023 ). Exploring the
potential of large-language models (LLMs) for student feedback sentiment

analysis. In 2023 International Conference on Frontiers of Information

Technology (FIT), 214–219. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
Shin, D., & J. H. Lee (2023). Can ChatGPT make reading comprehension
testing items on par with human experts? Language Learning &
Technology, 27(3), 27–40.
Smith, G., E. Fleisig, M. Bossi, I. Rustagi, & X. Yin (2024). Standard language
ideology in AI-generated language. arXiv, arXiv:2406.08726.
Speechace (2024). Speaking test. Speechace. www.speechace.com/speaking-test/.
Stahl, B. C., & D. Eke (2024). The ethics of ChatGPT: Exploring the ethical
issues of an emerging technology. International Journal of Information
Management, 74, 102700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023
.102700.
Steiss, J., T. Tate, S. Graham, J. Cruz, M. Hebert, J. Wang, & C. B. Olson
(2024). Comparing the quality of human and ChatGPT feedback of students’
writing. Learning and Instruction, 91, 101894.
Stockwell, G., & Y. Wang (2023). Exploring the challenges of technology in
language teaching in the aftermath of the pandemic. RELC Journal, 54(2),
474–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882231168438.
Stockwell, G., & Y. Wang (2024). Expanding the learning ecology and autonomy
of language learners with mobile technologies. Educational Technology and
Society, 27(2), 60–69. https://doi.org/10.30191/ETS.202404_27(2).SP05.
Strokel-Walker, C. (2024, May 1). AI chatbots have thoroughly infiltrated
scientific publishing. Scientific American. www.scientificamerican.com/art
icle/chatbots-have-thoroughly-infiltrated-scientific-publishing/.
Thornbury, S. (1999). How to Teach Grammar. Longman
Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication.
Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 38–67. http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/
thorne/.
Tomlinson, B. (2014). 7 teacher growth through materials development. The
European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 3(2), 89–107.
Tomlinson, B. (2015). Developing principled materials for young learners of
English as a foreign. In Teaching English to Young Learners: Critical Issues in
Language Teaching with 3-12 Year Olds, J. Bland, editor. Bloomsbury, 279.
Trust, T. (2023). Essential considerations for addressing the possibility of
AI-driven cheating, part 2. www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-with-
technology-articles/essential-considerations-for-addressing-the-possibility-
of-ai-driven-cheating-part-2/.
Tseng, W., & M. Warschauer (2023). AI-writing tools in education: If you can’t
beat them, join them. Journal of China Computer-Assisted Language
Learning, 3(2), 258–262.

van den Berg, G. & E. du Plessis (2023). ChatGPT and generative AI:
Possibilities for its contribution to lesson planning, critical thinking and
openness in teacher education. Education Sciences, 13(10), 998. https://doi
.org/10.3390/educsci13100998.
Walters, W. H., & E. I. Wilder (2023). Fabrication and errors in the biblio-
graphic citations generated by ChatGPT. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 14045.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-41032-5.
Wan, Y., & B. L. Moorhouse (2024). Using Call Annie as a generative artificial
intelligence speaking partner for language learners. RELC Journal. https://
doi.org/10.1177/00336882231224813.
Wang, L., X. Chen, X. Deng, H. Wen, M. You, W. Liu, Q. Li, & J. Li (2024).
Prompt engineering in consistency and reliability with the evidence-based
guideline for LLMs. npj Digital Medicine, 7, 41. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41746-024-01029-4.
Warschauer, M., W. Tseng, S. Yim, T. Webster, S. Jacob, Q. Du, & T. Tate
(2023). The affordances and contradictions of AI-generated text for writers of
English as a second or foreign language. Journal of Second Language
Writing. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4404380.
Yeo, M. A., B. L. Moorhouse, & Y. Wan (2025). From academic text to
talk-show: Deepening engagement and understanding with Google
NotebookLM. TESL-EJ, 28(4), 1–14.
Zhang, R., & D. Zou (2024). Self-regulated second language learning: A review
of types and benefits of strategies, modes of teacher support, and pedagogical
implications. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37(4), 720–765.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 196.153.51.144, on 02 Jul 2025 at 03:46:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009618823
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 196.153.51.144, on 02 Jul 2025 at 03:46:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009618823
Generative AI in Education

Mark Warschauer
University of California, Irvine
Mark Warschauer is a Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of California,
with affiliated faculty appointments in the Departments of Informatics, Language Science,
and Psychological Science. He is a member of the National Academy of Education and the
director of the UCI Digital Learning Lab. Professor Warschauer is one of the most influential
scholars in the world on digital learning, digital literacy, and the US of AI in Education. He
has published 12 books on these topics including with MIT Press, Cambridge University
Press, Teachers College Press, and Yale University Press, and some 300 scientific articles and
papers. His work has been cited more than 48,000 times, making him one of the most cited
researchers in the world on educational technology. He previously served as founding
editor of Language Learning & Technology and inaugural editor of AERA Open.

Tamara Tate
University of California, Irvine
Tamara Tate is a Project Scientist at the University of California, Irvine, and Associate
Director of the Digital Learning Lab. She leads the Lab’s work on digital and online tools to
support teaching and learning including generative AI, partnering with school districts,
universities, nonproﬁt organizations, media and tech developers, and others in iterative
development and evaluation. As the PI of a NSF-funded grant, she is studying the use of
generative AI in undergraduate writing courses. She also studies secondary student writing
as a member of the IES-funded national WRITE Center. She received her B.A. in English and
her Ph.D. in Education at U.C. Irvine and her J.D. at U.C. Berkeley.

Editorial Board
Stephen Aguilar, University of Southern California, US
Maha Bali, American University in Cairo, Egypt
Irene-Angelica Chounta, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany
Shayan Doroudi, University of California, Irvine, US
María Florencia Ripani, Ceibal Foundation, Uruguay
Bart Rientes, The Open University, UK
Neil Selwyn, Monash University, Australia
Jiahong Su, The University of Hong Kong
Ulrich Trautwein, University of Tübingen, Germany
Ying Xu, Harvard University

About the Series

Generative AI is one of the most disruptive technologies in modern history, with the
potential to dramatically transform education for better or worse. This series will
address cutting-edge topics on the intersection of generative AI with educational
research and practice for diverse learners from early childhood to adult.

Elements in the Series

Generative AI in Computer Science Education
Diana Franklin, Paul Denny, David A. Gonzalez-Maldonado and Minh Tran
Generative Artiﬁcial Intelligence and Language Teaching
Benjamin Luke Moorhouse and Kevin M. Wong