Intent‐Based Versus <scp>GPT</scp> ‐Based Conversational Agents: Benefits and Challenges for Practicing and Assessing Oral Interaction

Abstract Interactional competence (IC) is crucial for L2 learners to communicate effectively across diverse contexts (Roever [2022], Teaching and testing second language pragmatics and interaction: A practical guide). However, providing opportunities to practice interactive oral skills is time and resource intensive, and assessing IC is challenging due to the need for diverse contexts and interlocutors to capture the dynamic nature of communication. Spoken dialogue systems (SDS) can act as interlocutors, enabling learners to demonstrate linguistic skills, but often result in rigid, transactional exchanges (Timpe‐Laughlin et al. [2024], Computer Assisted Language Learning , 37, 149–178). Large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, which are purportedly capable of generating human‐like responses (Kostka &amp; Toncelli [2023], TESL‐EJ , 27(3), 1–19), may offer greater flexibility, enabling interactive conversations that could effectively elicit phenomena of IC. In this study, we explored interactional phenomena in the oral output of 50 participants who engaged in the same role‐play task with an SDS and an LLM interlocutor, respectively. Participants' interactions were audio‐recorded and analyzed for interactional features, including openings and closings, repairs, small talk, and recipient design. Findings revealed that while both systems elicited IC phenomena, participants engaged in significantly more repair sequences and recipient design in SDS interactions, likely due to the system's more constrained processing capabilities. By contrast, the LLM played a more active role in carrying the conversation, making inferences about participant intent while leaving fewer opportunities for participants to show their IC. These differences highlight distinct interactional affordances of each system. We discuss the affordances and limitations of both systems for practicing and assessing oral IC skills, suggesting a hybrid approach to move ahead.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
TESOL Quarterly
Published
2025-06-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3409
Citations
3
Primary Topic
AI in Service Interactions
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
7.44
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Intent‐Based Versus GPT ‐Based Conversational Agents: Benefits and Challenges for Practicing and Assessing Oral Interaction

Rahul R. Divekar, Judit Dombi, Tetyana Sydorenko, Saerhim Oh et al.
3 citations
TESOL Quarterly
AI in Service Interactions
7.44
article

Intent‐Based Versus GPT ‐Based Conversational Agents: Benefits and Challenges for Practicing and Assessing Oral Interaction

Rahul R. Divekar, Judit Dombi, Tetyana Sydorenko, Saerhim Oh, Veronika Timpe‐Laughlin
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Abstract Interactional competence (IC) is crucial for L2 learners to communicate effectively across diverse contexts (Roever [2022], Teaching and testing second language pragmatics and interaction: A practical guide). However, providing opportunities to practice interactive oral skills is time and resource intensive, and assessing IC is challenging due to the need for diverse contexts and interlocutors to capture the dynamic nature of communication. Spoken dialogue systems (SDS) can act as interlocutors, enabling learners to demonstrate linguistic skills, but often result in rigid, transactional exchanges (Timpe‐Laughlin et al. [2024], Computer Assisted Language Learning , 37, 149–178). Large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, which are purportedly capable of generating human‐like responses (Kostka &amp; Toncelli [2023], TESL‐EJ , 27(3), 1–19), may offer greater flexibility, enabling interactive conversations that could effectively elicit phenomena of IC. In this study, we explored interactional phenomena in the oral output of 50 participants who engaged in the same role‐play task with an SDS and an LLM interlocutor, respectively. Participants' interactions were audio‐recorded and analyzed for interactional features, including openings and closings, repairs, small talk, and recipient design. Findings revealed that while both systems elicited IC phenomena, participants engaged in significantly more repair sequences and recipient design in SDS interactions, likely due to the system's more constrained processing capabilities. By contrast, the LLM played a more active role in carrying the conversation, making inferences about participant intent while leaving fewer opportunities for participants to show their IC. These differences highlight distinct interactional affordances of each system. We discuss the affordances and limitations of both systems for practicing and assessing oral IC skills, suggesting a hybrid approach to move ahead.

TESOL QuarterlyVol. 59(S1)
Portland State University (US), Educational Testing Service (US), Bentley University (US), University of Pecs (HU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
AI in Service Interactions
7.44
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.