The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Exploring Students’ Generative AI-Assisted Writing Processes: Perceptions and Experiences from Native and Nonnative English Speakers
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Generative artificial intelligence (AI) can create sophisticated textual and multimodal content readily available to students. Writing intensive courses and disciplines that use writing as a major form of assessment are significantly impacted by advancements in generative AI, as the technology has the potential to revolutionize how students write and how they perceive writing as a fundamental literacy skill. However, educators are still at the beginning stage of understanding students’ integration of generative AI in their actual writing process. This study addresses the urgent need to uncover how students engage with ChatGPT throughout different components of their writing processes and their perceptions of the opportunities and challenges of generative AI. Adopting a phenomenological research design, the study explored the writing practices of six students, including both native and nonnative English speakers, in a first-year writing class at a higher education institution in the US. Thematic analysis of students’ written products, self-reflections, and interviews suggests that students utilized ChatGPT for brainstorming and organizing ideas as well as assisting with both global (e.g., argument, structure, coherence) and local issues of writing (e.g., syntax, diction, grammar), while they also had various ethical and practical concerns about the use of ChatGPT. The study brought to front two dilemmas encountered by students in their generative AI-assisted writing: (1) the challenging balance between incorporating AI to enhance writing and maintaining their authentic voice, and (2) the dilemma of weighing the potential loss of learning experiences against the emergence of new learning opportunities accompanying AI integration. These dilemmas highlight the need to rethink learning in an increasingly AI-mediated educational context, emphasizing the importance of fostering students’ critical AI literacy to promote their authorial voice and learning in AI-human collaboration.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Emerging frameworks emphasize process-oriented assessment that documents iterative revision, reflective decision-making, and AI integration strategies rather than solely evaluating final products (Engeness and Gamlem, 2025; Tseng and Lin, 2024; Wang, 2024).”
From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Wang, 2024
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Students, particularly those facing language barriers or socioeconomic pressures, conceptualize AI as an equalizing tool that democratizes access to high-quality writing support (Wang, 2024).”
From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Wang, 2024
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“LLMs dominate the planning phase for idea generation and outlining, continue supporting the drafting phase for content expansion, while AWE tools are reserved primarily for revision and editing (Wang, 2024; Zhao and Dang, 2026).”
From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Wang, 2024
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Explicit instruction in prompt engineering and critical AI literacy positions AI as legitimate skill development object rather than taboo (Talandis and Muller, 2025; Wang, 2024).”
From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Wang, 2024
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“For example, studies examining AI-assisted writing tasks report that students often produce more fluent and well-structured text, while improvements in argument quality or conceptual reasoning remain limited [10][11][12].”
From Fluency Illusion: A Review on Influence of ChatGPT in Classroom Settings (2026) · cites this paper as [11]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Studies consistently report that students perceive AI-generated text as helpful for brainstorming, drafting, paraphrasing, and improving linguistic accuracy [11].”
From Fluency Illusion: A Review on Influence of ChatGPT in Classroom Settings (2026) · cites this paper as [11]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Appropriate usage is motivated by efficiency enhancement, cognitive load reduction, and access to personalized scaffolding (Kumar et al., 2025; Wang, 2024).”
From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Wang, 2024
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“EFL and L2 students view AI as voice-augmenting and barrier-removing, whereas native speakers report concerns about authenticity when AI suggestions diverge from personal style (Wang, 2024).”
From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Wang, 2024
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Students use AI as a “walking tutor” providing instant feedback on linguistic accuracy and structural coherence, particularly during brainstorming and drafting (Talandis and Muller, 2025; Wang, 2024).”
From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Wang, 2024
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This motivation is especially pronounced among non-native speakers who leverage AI to augment authorial voice and overcome communication barriers (Wang, 2024).”
From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Wang, 2024
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Mitigates “full delegation” by rewarding the cognitive journey over the final output (Hanh and Duyen, 2025; Wang, 2024).”
From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Wang, 2024
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Students may rely on AI for organization without strengthening reasoning [11,36]”
From Fluency Illusion: A Review on Influence of ChatGPT in Classroom Settings (2026) · cites this paper as [11]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Lincoln, Y. S., Guba, E. G., & Pilotta, J. J. (1985) · International Journal of Intercultural Relations · doi:10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8 · Cited by 45,787 · cited 1×
“To ensure the trustworthiness of the qualitative analysis, I also conducted a peer debriefing (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) on the codebook with an experienced qualitative researcher.”
(1998) · Cited by 18,576
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research
(2010) · QMiP Bulletin · doi:10.53841/bpsqmip.2010.1.10.44 · Cited by 8,189 · cited 1×
“Phenomenology seeks to form a close and clear account of people’s perceptions and lived experiences as opposed to delivering a positivist conclusion of human encounters, as “pure experience is never accessible” (Smith et al., 2009, p. 33).”
Organizing and the process of sensemaking
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0133 · Cited by 6,943
Students' voices on generative ai: perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education
Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.00290 · Cited by 2,504 · cited 1×
“Furthermore, the study shows that rather than passively indulging themselves in the convenience of AI tools, a common concern among educators (Chan & Hu, 2023; Graham, 2023), the student writers attempted to seize new learning opportunities that emerged from AI technologies to promote their…”
Smith, J. A. (1996) · Psychology & Health · doi:10.1080/08870449608400256 · Cited by 2,380 · cited 1×
“This qualitative study adopted a phenomenological research design, which focuses on understanding and interpreting a particular aspect of shared human experience (Moran, 2002; Smith, 1996).”
Students’ voices on generative AI: perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education
Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8 · Cited by 2,301 · cited 1×
“Furthermore, the study shows that rather than passively indulging themselves in the convenience of AI tools, a common concern among educators (Chan & Hu, 2023; Graham, 2023), the student writers attempted to seize new learning opportunities that emerged from AI technologies to promote their…”
Language Learning with Technology
Castillo, D. G. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-16-2697-5 · Cited by 2,211
Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review
Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041 · Cited by 2,205 · cited 1×
“The present study shows that such decision making process can play a pivotal role in cultivating students’ “AI literacy” (Ng et al., 2021) and promoting their responsible use of AI.”
Interpretative phenomenological analysis.
Smith, J. A., & Shinebourne, P. (2012) · American Psychological Association eBooks · doi:10.1037/13620-005 · Cited by 1,755
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Cao, L., & Dede, C. (2023). Navigating a world of generative AI: Suggestions for educators. The next level lab at harvard graduate school of education. President and Fellows of Harvard College: Cambridge, MA.
- Eaton, S. (2023). Six tenets of postplagiarism: Writing in the age of artificial intelligence. University of Calgary. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/115882.
- Graham, S. S. (2023). Post-process but not post-writing: large language models and a future for composition pedagogy. Composition Studies, 51(1), 162–218.
- Johnson, G. P. (2023). Don’t act like you forgot: Approaching another literacy “crisis” by (re)considering what we know about teaching writing with and through technologies. Composition Studies, 51(1), 169–175.
- Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.
- Tan, X., Xu, W., & Wang, C. (2024). Purposeful remixing with generative AI: Constructing designer voice in multimodal composing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.19095. · DOI
- Wang, C., Samuelson, B., & Silvester, K. (2020). Zhai nan, mai meng and filial piety: The translingual creativity of Chinese university students in an academic writing course. Journal of Global Literacies, Technologies, and Emerging Pedagogies, 6(2), 1120–1143.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Investigating L2 writers' critical AI literacy in AI-assisted writing: An APSE model
Wang, C., & Wang, Z. (2025) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2025.101187 · Cited by 140
Generative AI (GenAI) in the language classroom: A systematic review
Lee, S., Choe, H., Zou, D., & Jeon, J. (2026) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2025.2498537 · Cited by 158
“As a resource provider, GenAI assisted language learners in enriching writing topics (Mahapatra, 2024), seeking additional information (Punar Özçelik & Ekşi, 2024), learning technical terms (Abdelhalim, 2024), and improving grammar or vocabulary (C. Wang 2024).”
InfluentialLiteracy in the Time of Artificial Intelligence
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2024) · Reading Research Quarterly · doi:10.1002/rrq.591 · Cited by 197
“But they also noted differences between human and machine feedback and that the two were different in useful ways (Tzirides, Zapata, et al., 2023, 2024; Zapata et al., 2024).”
Kohnke, L. (2024) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100279 · Cited by 132
A systematic literature review of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) literacy in schools
Park, J. (2025) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100487 · Cited by 114
Gökçe, A. T., Topal, A. D., Geçer, A. K., & Eren, C. D. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-13081-4 · Cited by 69
“For example, Wang (2024) found that students’ interactions with AI require a blend of knowledge, skills, and self-reflection to make informed decisions.”
Tejeda, A. S., Oller, J. C. D., Escandell, J. M. B., Gómez-Díaz, R., & Rodríguez, A. G. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2025.1711718 · Cited by 111
Hwang, H., Chang, X., & Sun, J. (2025) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2025.101230 · Cited by 73
The use of AI tools in English academic writing by Saudi undergraduates
Ozfidan, B., El-Dakhs, D. A. S., & Alsalim, L. A. (2024) · Contemporary Educational Technology · doi:10.30935/cedtech/15013 · Cited by 45
“These worries align with the research conducted by Wang (2024) and Özçelik and Ekşi (2024) who observed comparable issues over striking a balance between utilizing AI tools and upholding academic integrity and individual learning growth.”
Making sense of generative AI for assessments: Contrasting student claims and assessor evaluations
Fischer, I., Sweeney, S., Lucas, M., & Gupta, N. (2024) · The International Journal of Management Education · doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2024.101081 · Cited by 72
Derakhshan, A. (2025) · The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher · doi:10.1007/s40299-025-01042-5 · Cited by 44
“…currently used in educational contexts include Gemini (Google), ChatGPT (OpenAI), and Claude (Anthropic), each offering interactive, text-based support for a wide range of learning activities, such as brainstorming, content summarization, grammar correction, and dialogue simulation (Wang, 2024).”
Nguyen, L. Q., Le, H. V., & Nguyen, P. T. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-13231-8 · Cited by 42
“High levels of affective engagement can lead to reduced anxiety and a more enjoyable learning experience, which are essential for effective language acquisition and writing improvement (Dai & Wang, 2024; Dewaele et al., 2018).”
InfluentialTan, X., Wang, C., & Xu, W. (2025) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/amae092 · Cited by 33
Xu, L., Zhang, L., Ling, O., & Wang, D. (2025) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2025.101227 · Cited by 32
From prompt to polished: Exploring student-chatbot interactions for academic writing assistance
Usher, M., & Amzalag, M. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15030329 · Cited by 31
Identity and investment in the age of generative AI
Darvin, R. (2025) · Annual Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1017/s0267190525100135 · Cited by 46
“There have been explorations of learner perceptions of GenAI (Liu & Ma, 2024; Liu et al., 2024a; Wang, 2024), learner motivation (Liu & Reinders, 2024; Liu et al., 2024b), and teacher perspectives and readiness (Kaplan-Rakowski et al., 2023; Moorhouse, 2024).”
The value of GenAI for peer feedback provision: student perceptions and impacts
Noroozi, O., Haddadian, G., Gao, X., Schunn, C. D., Alqassab, M., & Banihashem, S. K. (2025) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-025-00558-6 · Cited by 31
“…GenAI tools such as ChatGPT and Grammarly for technical language improvements, which corresponds with GenAI’s documented affordances in performing grammatical corrections and para-phrasing (Guo & Wang, 2024) as well as enhancing overall writing accuracy (Mahapatra, 2024; Mizumoto & Eguchi, 2023).”
Enhancing Critical Writing Through AI Feedback: A Randomized Control Study
Zhang, K. (2025) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs15050600 · Cited by 56
“The few existing experimental studies rarely control for feedback timing or structural equivalence across conditions, preventing conclusive determinations about the causal impact of AI feedback on writing outcomes (Ban-ihashem et al., 2024; Song & Song, 2023; Wang, 2024).”
Silvola, A., Kajamaa, A., Merikko, J., & Muukkonen, H. (2025) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13606 · Cited by 24
Leveraging ChatGPT for Second Language Writing Feedback and Assessment
Li, M. (2024) · International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.4018/ijcallt.360382 · Cited by 40
Leveraging ChatGPT for research writing: An exploration of ESL graduate students’ practices
Cheng, D., Li, M., & Lee, T. S. (2025) · Computers & composition/Computers and composition · doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102934 · Cited by 28
Wang, C., Xu, W., & Tan, X. (2025) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/amaf057 · Cited by 43
Wang, P., Liu, T., Yang, Y., & Xiang, X. (2025) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.70018 · Cited by 21
Galindo‐Domínguez, H., Delgado, N., de la Maza, M. S., & Urbieta, J. M. E. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2026.108985 · Cited by 21
Lu, Q., Yao, Y., Xiao, L., Zhu, X., & Yin, H. (2026) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2025.2605541 · Cited by 32
Arpacı, İ., & Kuşci, İ. (2025) · Technology Knowledge and Learning · doi:10.1007/s10758-025-09817-x · Cited by 23
“Chatbots like ChatGPT can meet users’ emotional needs and engage in meaningful interactions, satisfying the need for a relationship with technology (Wang, 2024).”
Bui, T. T. U., & Tong, T. V. A. (2025) · AsiaCALL Online Journal · doi:10.54855/acoj.251615 · Cited by 33
“Such findings align with other studies, which highlight that some students are hesitant to utilize AI writing tools to improve their writing abilities, fearing that reliance on these tools might lose their original voice (Wang, 2024; Cummings et al. 2024).”
Generative AI as a Cognitive Co-Pilot in English Language Learning in Higher Education
Zaim, M., Arsyad, S., Waluyo, B., Ardi, H., Hafizh, M. A., Zakiyah, M., Syafitri, W., Nusi, A., & Hardiah, M. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15060686 · Cited by 36
“C. Wang (2024) highlights that students leverage GenAI for various writing tasks, such as brainstorming, organizing ideas, and refining both global and local writing issues.”
InfluentialPeters, M., & Angelov, D. (2025) · International Journal for Educational Integrity · doi:10.1007/s40979-025-00201-x · Cited by 27
“According to numerous sources, the advent of GenAI will revolutionize learning and teaching at all levels (Bearman and Luckin 2020; Bearman et al. 2022; Farrelly and Baker 2023; Wang 2024), with GenAI literacy becoming an essential element for all students to master (Southworth et al. 2023).”
Charles, K. A., Yousuf, A., Chua, H. C., Matthews, S., Harnett, J., & Hinton, T. (2025) · European Journal of Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.ejphar.2025.177508 · Cited by 17
Effects of human-AI collaborative writing strategy on EFL students’ argumentative writing skills
Pratama, R. D., Widiati, U., & Hakim, L. N. (2025) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2025.2503900 · Cited by 18
Erosion of Critical Academic Skills Due to AI Dependency Among Tertiary Students
Miranda, J. P. P., Cruz, M. A. D., Fernandez, A. B., Balahadia, F. F., Aviles, J. S., Caro, C. A., Liwanag, I. G., & Gaña, E. P. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-0122-8.ch002 · Cited by 19
Ravi, M., Kaur, K., Wright, C., Bawn, M., & Cutillo, L. (2025) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-025-00557-7 · Cited by 12
“Hence, although cGenAI-assisted writing processes have come under increasing scrutiny for assessment in higher education (Wang, 2024), we see that a large majority of our surveyed staff indeed consider such a use case as requiring competence in AI.”
Coexisting with ChatGPT: Evaluating a tool for AI-based paper revision
Manierre, M. J., Propst, L., Cohen, A., & Rogers, J. (2025) · Computers & composition/Computers and composition · doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102923 · Cited by 14
Muthmainnah, M., Asad, M. M., Yakin, A. M. A., & Almusharraf, N. (2025) · Asian Education and Development Studies · doi:10.1108/aeds-01-2025-0038 · Cited by 14
Gong, L., Chen, J., & Wu, F. Q. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies · doi:10.1109/tlt.2025.3564177 · Cited by 11
“Similar scenarios include programming education [82], [83] and collaborativewriting[84],[85],whereLLMscanmaximizetheir advantagesinknowledgeandskills.”
Liu, S., Liang, C., & Yu, S. (2025) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2025.103831 · Cited by 10
Ning, Y., Seah, W. T., Chen, J., Liu, J., & Tan, P. (2026) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2026.105572 · Cited by 10
Stolpe, K., Larsson, A., & Falck, M. J. (2026) · International Journal of Technology and Design Education · doi:10.1007/s10798-026-10060-3 · Cited by 10
“Fourth, prior knowledge plays a crucial role in shaping how students formulate prompts and interpret AI responses (Alfugaha & Al-Smadi, 2025; Wang, 2024).”
Generative Artificial Intelligence in Enhancing English Language Skills: A Systematic Review
G., A., & S, P. K. N. (2025) · Studies in Media and Communication · doi:10.11114/smc.v13i4.7763 · Cited by 20
MacArthur, M. J., Minnillo, S., Sperber, L., Whithaus, C., & Stillman, N. (2025) · Frontiers in Communication · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2025.1615752 · Cited by 8
Li, X., Li, T., Wang, M., Tao, S., Zhou, X., Wei, X., & Guan, N. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies · doi:10.1109/tlt.2025.3539104 · Cited by 8
“Wang’s study [35] acknowledged AI’s limitations in areas, such as originality and creativity, but also highlights its role in enhancing students’ critical thinking and writing skills.”
Voice in AI-assisted multimodal texts: What do readers pay attention to?
Tan, X., Xu, W., & Wang, C. (2025) · Computers & composition/Computers and composition · doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102918 · Cited by 7
Barrot, J. S., & Aranda, M. R. R. (2025) · Technology Knowledge and Learning · doi:10.1007/s10758-025-09884-0 · Cited by 12
The impact of chatbots on emotional intelligence in AI-assisted EFL writing
Kazazoğlu, S., & Özel, G. T. (2025) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2025.1624272 · Cited by 11
Jose, L. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-5703952/v1 · Cited by 7
Fluency Illusion: A Review on Influence of ChatGPT in Classroom Settings
Kumar, S., Mikayelyan, A., & Vorfolomeyeva, O. (2026) · Information · doi:10.3390/info17030299 · Cited by 11
Hsu, H.-P. (2025) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2025.2543113 · Cited by 6
“Specifically, at the start, writers must reflect on whether their use of AI aligns with relevant policies and guidelines set by those who will review their work (Candilas et al., 2024; Wang, 2024a), in line with the Ethical Use principle.”
InfluentialHan, J., Yang, Y., & Liu, G. (2025) · European Journal of Education · doi:10.1111/ejed.70240 · Cited by 10
L2 writers’ critical AI literacy in AI-assisted academic writing: scale development and validation
Yao, G., & Fan, L. (2026) · IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching · doi:10.1515/iral-2025-0218 · Cited by 6
“These tools can potentially alleviate cognitive load and enhance L2 writers ’ con fi dence and grammatical accuracy (Wang 2024; Woo et al. 2024).”
Cui, Y. (2026) · Discover Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s44163-026-01286-0 · Cited by 9
Luo, T., & Cao, S. (2026) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440251409860 · Cited by 6
“The increase in PU, in turn, directly facilitated students’ willingness to try GAI, ultimately driving an increase in their BI to use it (Yao & Wang, 2024; W. W. Zhang & Hou, 2024).”
InfluentialButarbutar, R., & Vallejo, R. G. (2025) · Data & Metadata · doi:10.56294/dm2025203 · Cited by 12
Le, T. T. P., Quach, T. T. N., Pham, T. X. T., & Nguyen, D. L. (2025) · AsiaCALL Online Journal · doi:10.54855/acoj.2516115 · Cited by 15
Jang, H., Jin, L., & So, H.-J. (2026) · The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher · doi:10.1007/s40299-025-01076-9 · Cited by 4
“Wang ( 2024) also examined students’ use of ChatGPT during Eng - lish writing and found that university students perceived it as helpful for brainstorming, organizing ideas, and devel - oping initial drafts.”
InfluentialHuang, Y., Chen, S., Zhang, W., & Chen, M. (2026) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16060816 · Cited by 7
Jin, Y., Yang, K., Martínez‐Maldonado, R., Gašević, D., & Yan, L. (2026) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2026.100655 · Cited by 4
“(Zhai, Wibowo and Li, 2024; Yang, Raković, Liang, Yan, Zeng, Fan, Gašević and Chen, 2025; Wang, 2025) A key determinant of these outcomes lies in the interaction design.”
Trinovita, D., Nurchurifiani, E., Hastomo, T., Andewi, W., & Hasbi, M. (2025) · JURNAL IQRA · doi:10.25217/ji.v10i2.6389 · Cited by 21
“Effective integration of GenAI requires educators to move beyond passive allowance and proactively instruct students on how to engage with it as a learning scaffold instead of a tool of dependency (Wang, 2024; Zhu et al., 2024).”
Approach Generative AI Tools Proactively or Risk Bypassing the Learning Process in Higher EducationPreprint
Sallai, D., Cardoso‐Silva, J., & Barreto, M. E. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4886015 · Cited by 4
Ink and algorithm: Exploring temporal dynamics in generative AI ‐assisted writing
Yang, K., Cheng, Y., Zhao, L., Raković, M., Swiecki, Z., Gašević, D., & Chen, G. (2026) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.70031 · Cited by 22
Large language model AI-guided creative writing co-creation in secondary schools
Spitsberg, T., Kettler, T., & McKamie, J. (2025) · Theory Into Practice · doi:10.1080/00405841.2025.2528551 · Cited by 3
Sağlam, A. L. G. (2025) · Learning Research and Practice · doi:10.1080/23735082.2025.2567247 · Cited by 6
“…(Imran & Almusharraf, 2023), mentors (Fidan & Gencel, 2022), conversational partners both in writing (El Shazly, 2021; Tai, 2024; Tai & Chen, 2024; Wang, 2024) and speaking (Fathi et al., 2024; Youn, 2023), evaluators (Cotton et al., 2023), feedback providers (Jeon & Lee, 2023), personal language…”
Li, X., Wang, W., & Gu, L. (2025) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2025.2587925 · Cited by 4
“Informed by previous research (e.g. Teng 2024), a questionnaire consisting of 22 multiple-choice questions and an open-ended question (see Table 2) was designed to investigate students’ perceptions and experiences of using GenAI feedback during revision.”
InfluentialEntangled cognition in EFL education: The role of generative AI
Hsu, L. (2025) · Contemporary Educational Technology · doi:10.30935/cedtech/17621 · Cited by 7
Artificial Intelligence and Academic-Based Writing Pedagogy
Oyenuga, M. O. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-5601-3.ch001 · Cited by 3
Exploring generative AI assisted-EFL academic writing: An activity theory perspective
Jia, C., & Lu, Y. (2026) · Journal of English for Academic Purposes · doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2026.101672 · Cited by 8
Implications of Leveraging AI in Students’ Academic Writing: A Review Analysis
Tumiran, M. A., Mohammad, N., & Bahri, S. (2024) · Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH) · doi:10.47405/mjssh.v9i8.2954 · Cited by 8
“Some AI technologies may improve students’ academic abilities to write better, their ways of teaching and learning, and create a unique student feedback mechanism (Wang, 2024; Maphoto et al., 2024; Wu, 2024a).”
BackgroundRosmayanti, V. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-1952-0.ch008 · Cited by 3
Yao, G. (2025) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2025.2553104 · Cited by 2
“They advocate for critical discussions about AI, exemplifying TFL’s ‘designing for feedback dialogues’ (Buckingham Shum et al. 2023), and are opposed to banning GPT (S33), focusing instead on ethical engagement (Wang 2024).”
Oladokun, B. D., Ukubeyinje, S. E., Oyighan, D., Obim, I. E., & Oloniruha, E. A. (2025) · College & Undergraduate Libraries · doi:10.1080/10691316.2025.2607372 · Cited by 3
“Wang (2025) highlighted the dilemmas teachers must manage: supporting AI use for skill development while maintaining learning authenticity.”
Kwon, K., Yang, S., Kale, U., Kim, K., & Park, J. (2026) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2026.100588 · Cited by 4
Tseng, S.-S. (2026) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2026.2658636 · Cited by 2
Wolf, M. K., Suhan, M., Deane, P., Sova, L., & Alderman, J. (2026) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2026.101083 · Cited by 2
Artificial intelligence in academic writing: A decade of trends and influences
Ghosh, P. L., Barua, S., & Golder, U. (2026) · Sustainable Futures · doi:10.1016/j.sftr.2026.102034 · Cited by 3
Ethically Utilizing GenAI Tools to Alleviate Challenges in Conventional Feedback Provision
Zainurrahman, Z., Purnawarman, P., & Muslim, A. B. (2024) · Journal of Academic Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10805-024-09578-9 · Cited by 3
“Studies reported that GenAI tools have been used in various fields (Hagerty & Rubinov, 2019), including in teaching and learning (Almasri, 2024; Law, 2024; Sumakul et al., 2022), especially in writing (Bahammam et al., 2023; Wang, 2024; Weidmann, 2024).”
Chat-GPT Feedback: Fostering Growth in English Writing Abilities among Students
Sekewael, M., & Anaktototy, K. (2024) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.1007287 · Cited by 2
Mulyono, Kusumaningsih, D. A., Mukhzamilah, Yuliyanto, A., Rhubido, D., & Cahyo, A. A. R. (2025) · Theory and Practice in Language Studies · doi:10.17507/tpls.1508.34 · Cited by 2
The Influence of AI Tools on the Student Writing Process and Compositional FluencyPreprint
Graham, O., & Milan, Y. (2025) · Preprints.org · doi:10.20944/preprints202506.0832.v1 · Cited by 6
Alshehri, O. A. O., Lamouchi, A., Abdellatif, M. S., Al-Dosari, M. N. A., Mekheimer, M., & Nemt-allah, M. A. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1830103 · Cited by 2
“…alternative outlines, proposing argumentative structures, and modeling genre conventions, AI expands learners’ rhetorical options—particularly valuable for those lacking sufficient exposure to academic writing schemas (Deep and Chen, 2025; Kim et al., 2024; Reza et al., 2025; Wang, 2024).”
Панкова, Т. Н., Вячеславовна, Я. Н., Sadykova, N., Tomin, V. V., & Колбасина, А. Д. (2025) · Вестник педагогических наук. · doi:10.62257/2687-1661-2025-1-202-208 · Cited by 1
Kristianto, V. A., Sucipto, S., Sri, H., & Yuhanafia, N. (2025) · Language Circle Journal of Language and Literature · doi:10.15294/lc.v19i2.21540 · Cited by 1
“This environment may inadvertently stifle creativity as it may promote conformity to individual teacher preferences rather than fostering unique student expressions (Wang, 2024).”
Xia, L. A., & Beech, H. (2025) · Journal of China Computer-Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1515/jccall-2024-0031 · Cited by 3
“In particular, students have used GenAI tools widely in academic writing tasks and have found them to be helpful in enhancing their writing motivation and con-fi dence (Guo and Li 2024; Meniado et al. 2024; Wang 2024).”
InfluentialDevelopment of an AI-Powered System for Thesis Advisor Consultations
Dangprasert, S. (2025) · International Journal of Information and Education Technology · doi:10.18178/ijiet.2025.15.6.2316 · Cited by 2
“Motivation and Creativity: Incorporating ChatGPT in academic writing stimulates creativity and helps improve language skills, particularly for non-native speakers [54].”
Forlales, A. L., & Villanueva, E. R. (2025) · Romblon State University Research Journal · doi:10.58780/rsurj.v7i1.229 · Cited by 1
Effects of DeepSeek-assisted Writing Instruction on EFL Learners' Writing Performance
Hu, S., & Wang, L. (2025) · International Conference on Educational Digitalization and Computer Science in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area · doi:10.1145/3746469.3746577 · Cited by 1
“Many researchers have confirmed the effectiveness of GenAI chatbots in second language writing practice [5] [6], however, most of these studies are based on the application of ChatGPT series.”
Wang, J., & Xiao, H. (2025) · International Conference on Natural Computation, Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery (ICNC-FSKD) · doi:10.1109/icnc-fskd67701.2025.11197985 · Cited by 1
“Wang (2024) noted AI’s potential to produce culturally misaligned content, requiring cross-cultural optimization [18].”
Huang, Z., Abbas, G., Nazar, N., & Jiang, Z. (2025) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.1080/17501229.2025.2602795 · Cited by 3
Self-Regulated Language Learning and Generative AI: A Systematic Review
Özturan, T. (2025) · Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi · doi:10.52597/buje.1751534 · Cited by 7
ChatGPT in Education: A Critical Overview of Breakthroughs and Challenges
Troussas, C., Krouska, A., Phivos Mylonas, B., & Sgouropoulou, C. (2026) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-10824-1_12 · Cited by 1
Jin, H., Li, Y., Jiang, Y., & Dong, C. (2026) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2026.2628044 · Cited by 1
Students’ Utilisation of Artificial Intelligence in Open and Distance Learning
Marıkı, B. E. (2026) · Knowledge · doi:10.3390/knowledge6010006 · Cited by 1
“Although the study demonstrated the need for AI in ODL, misusing or abusing the technology might lead to devastating consequences [31].”
Gow, S., & Illingworth, S. (2026) · Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1108/aiie-06-2025-0151 · Cited by 3
Generative Artificial Intelligence in Language Education
Tafazoli, D., McCallum, L., Mahjoubi, A., & Ghorbani, B. D. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/407555 · Cited by 1
University Students’ Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools Beyond Text Generation
Marchetti, E., Frandsen, T. F., & Sandu, D.-A. (2026) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-13153-9_4 · Cited by 1
Negotiating Writer Identity in Second Language Writing with Generative AI Support
Rahnuma, N. (2026) · Digital studies in language and literature · doi:10.1515/dsll-2026-0009 · Cited by 2
“Recent empirical work demonstrates that L2 learners actively edit AI-generated passages to preserve personal voice and linguistic identity, leveraging generative tools as metacognitive sca ff olds rather than wholesale replacements (Kim et al. 2024; Wang 2024).”
Papanastasiou, E. C., Pittas, E., Rodosthenous-Balafa, M., & Λαμπρόπουλος, Γ. (2026) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2026.100603 · Cited by 1
Jiang, G. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1815271 · Cited by 2
“(Wang and Wang, 2025, p. 14) In fact, the five dimensions should form an iterative cycle with overlapping among them.”
InfluentialZou, Z., Ahmad, N. K., & Ismail, L. (2026) · International Journal of Humanities and Social Science · doi:10.30845/ijhss.v16p10
Transnational Perspectives on Teaching Voice and Agency in the GenAI Era
Coban-Postaci, M. (2026) · Digital studies in language and literature · doi:10.1515/dsll-2026-0011 · Cited by 1
“Recent literature highlights the signi fi cant a ff ordances of GenAI, including support for linguistic development (Yan 2023), immediate feedback (Barrot 2023), and reduced cognitive load and anxiety (Wang 2024; Wang et al. 2025).”
Restoring Student Voice in AI-Assisted Assignments
Pramana, P., Utari, P., Handoko, A. I., Yuliarti, M. S., Huda, A. M., Setianingrum, V. M., & Susanto, T. (2026) · College Teaching · doi:10.1080/87567555.2026.2693311 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, C.
- Affiliations
- Colby College (US)
- Corresponding author
- Wang, Chaoran
- ORCID
- Wang, Chaoran
- Venue
- Technology Knowledge and Learning
- Published
- 2024-05-30
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1825-1846
- ISSN
- 2211-1662 (ISSN-L)
- 2211-1670
- OpenAlex
- W4399182459
- Cited by
- 212
- References
- 72
- Citations by year
- 2026: 119 · 2025: 81 · 2024: 12
- FWCI
- 79.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Technology Knowledge and Learning (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- generative AI in writing, ChatGPT, writing process, student perceptions, first-year composition, authorial voice, critical AI literacy, human-AI collaboration, ethics of writing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
