INTEGRATING ARTIFICIAL INTELEGENCE IN READING COMPREHENSION: CLASSROOM ACTION RESEARCH WITH EFL UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70574/cxs55f51Keywords:
Artificial intelligence; reading comprehension; ChatGPT; classroom actionAbstract
The use of generative artificial intelligence in teaching reading comprehension has expanded rapidly since late 2022. Despite growing interest among language educators, few studies have examined how teachers can systematically introduce AI tools into actual classroom reading instruction using iterative, reflective methods. This study aimed to answer two questions: first, whether structured AI integration across multiple instructional cycles improves EFL students' reading test scores, and second, how students' ways of interacting with AI change as they gain more experience. Forty second-year English majors at an Universitas Nusantara PGRI Kediri participated in three action research cycles over nine weeks. The researcher, who was also the classroom teacher, designed nine reading tasks where students used ChatGPT alongside academic passages. Data collection included pre-tests and post-tests measuring five reading sub-skills, screenshots of student-AI conversations (360 total), questionnaires administered after each cycle, semi-structured interviews with 12 students, and detailed classroom observation notes. Test scores rose from an average of 62.4% before the intervention to 79.25% at the end of Cycle 3. A repeated measures ANOVA confirmed that these improvements were statistically significant (p < .001) with a large effect size (partial η² = 0.676). The most notable gains appeared in two higher-order skills: synthesizing information across multiple text segments (+20.3 percentage points) and drawing inferences from implied content (+19.0 percentage points). An examination of the 360 ChatGPT interaction logs revealed a clear shift in how students used the tool. During Cycle 1, 62% of all prompts were either vocabulary definitions (34%) or translation requests (28%). By Cycle 3, these basic requests had dropped to 25% of total prompts, while more sophisticated prompts emerged: questioning an author's tone or bias (18%), asking for counterarguments (15%), and requesting feedback on the student's own understanding (12%). Interview data, analyzed using thematic analysis, produced four main themes. First, students consistently reported that ChatGPT helped them overcome comprehension barriers that would otherwise have stopped them from engaging with difficult academic texts. Second, participants described developing a more critical stance over time, learning to verify AI outputs and recognize potential inaccuracies. Third, students expressed ongoing tension between appreciating AI's helpfulness and worrying about becoming dependent on it. Fourth, those who worked in pairs during Cycles 2 and 3 reported that discussing AI responses with a partner reduced uncritical acceptance and deepened their understanding. When teachers integrate AI tools through sustained, reflection-driven classroom action research rather than one-time implementation, students can achieve measurable reading comprehension gains while simultaneously developing critical digital literacy. The findings suggest three practical principles for language educators: introduce basic prompting first, add collaborative structures to encourage peer discussion of AI outputs, and continuously adjust instruction based on observed student difficulties rather than following a fixed plan.
References
Baadache, H., & Latreche, K. (2025). AI and collaborative learning in EFL reading instruction: A classroom-based study with first-year English students at Batna 2 University. Revue des Sciences Humaines, *18*(2), 45-68.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, *3*(2), 77-101.
Chan, C. K. Y. (2023). A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, *20*, Article 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00408-3
Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, *99*(2), 311-325. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.311
Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2022). A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review, *1*(1). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2019). Teaching and researching reading (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
Hyland, K. (2014). English for academic purposes. Routledge.
Joo, D., & Belcher, D. (2025). Human-AI collaborative reading in academic contexts: An exploratory case study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, *73*, 102-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2024.102118
Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., ... Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, *103*, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research. Springer.
Law, L. (2024). Application of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in language teaching and learning: A scoping review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, *6*, 100212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100212
Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (2006). The "academic literacies" model: Theory and applications. Theory into Practice, *45*(4), 368-377. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4504_11
Lee, M. (2025). Developing and evaluating an interactive reading tool with teachers in the loop: Action research approach. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, *3927*, 1-15.
Memarian, B., & Doleck, T. (2023). Fairness, accountability, transparency, and ethics (FATE) in artificial intelligence (AI) in education: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, *28*, 14265-14300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11734-7
Mujiono, & Weganofa, R. (2026). Ethical and legal challenges in implementing artificial intelligence (AI) and metaverse in education. In S. K. Behera, A. K. Das, S. Mohapatra, & S. K. Mishra (Eds.), Artificial intelligence and the metaverse in education (pp. 45-68). Wiley.
Nguyen, A., Ngo, H. N., Hong, Y., Dang, B., & Nguyen, B. P. T. (2024). Ethical principles for artificial intelligence in education. Education and Information Technologies, *29*, 9353-9382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12200-0
Rahman, M. M., & Watanobe, Y. (2023). ChatGPT for education and research: A review of benefits and risks. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, *5*, 100161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100161
Schiff, D. (2022). Education for AI, not AI for education: The role of education and ethics in national AI policy. AI and Society, *37*, 1107-1123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01179-1
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wang, Y., Liu, C., & Tu, Y. F. (2024). Effects of ChatGPT-based reading instruction on EFL students' reading comprehension and motivation. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-18. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2024.2308094
Wei, L. (2023). Artificial intelligence in language instruction: Impact on English learning achievement, self-regulation, and anxiety. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-25. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2023.2284123
Yang, H., Gao, C., & Shen, H. (2025). Student perspectives on AI ethics in higher education: A mixed-methods study. Education and Information Technologies, *30*, 125-148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13054-w
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, *16*, Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
Zhu, C., Sun, M., Luo, J., & Li, Y. (2025). How to use generative AI ethically in higher education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, *22*, Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-025-00465-w
Gray, D. E. (2022). Doing research in the real world (5th ed.). Sage Publications, Ltd.
Rose, H., McKinley, J., & Galloway, N. (2020). Global Englishes and language teaching: A review of pedagogical research. Language Teaching, 54(2), 157–189. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000518
Subekti, A. S. (2022). Teaching Indonesian L2 learners academic writing: A proposed instructional model. SAGA: Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.21460/saga.2022.32.134
Subekti, A. S. (2025). Gender differences in academic motivation among rural Indonesian junior high school students. Revista Brasileira de Educação Do Campo (Brazilian Journal of Rural Education), 10(e19634), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.70860/ufnt.rbec.e19634
Subekti, A. S., & Kurniawati, L. A. (2022). Indonesian high school English teachers’ attitudes towards the use of instructional technology during the Covid-19 pandemic. Jurnal IQRA’: Kajian Ilmu Pendidikan, 7(2), 76–88. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.25217/ji.v7i2.2394
Taguchi, T., Magid, M., & Papi, M. (2009). The L2 motivational self system among Japanese, Chinese, and Iranian learners of English: A comparative study. In Z. Dornyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity, and the L2 Self (pp. 66–97). Multilingual Matters.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Mahendra Puji Permana Aji, Jenny Ika Mesela, Putri Novitasari (Author)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

