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
Flagged first, then by citations
2 of the 72 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
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
Items 101–200 of 212
Exploring student engagement with ChatGPT feedback: A classroom study of JFL learners
Takahashi, J., & Kadowaki, Y. (2026) · Foreign Language Annals · doi:10.1111/flan.70072 · Cited by 2
Wang, X., Tai, K. W. H., & Lin, C. (2026) · Language learning & technology · doi:10.64152/10125/73703 · Cited by 1
“…explaining, and repairing” activities to “increased classroom participation” demonstrates how students can learn to question not only language forms but also the reliability of AI-generated content, developing what might be termed “AI literacy” through translanguaging practices (Wang, 2025).”
Chen, X., & Li, Y. (2026) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.1080/17501229.2026.2706630 · Cited by 2
Kantek, J., James, D., Arachchi, T. M., & Goggin, G. M. (2026) · Communication Research and Practice · doi:10.1080/22041451.2026.2721183 · Cited by 1
Savvidou, C. (2026) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16091568 · Cited by 2
“…use large language models such as Chat-GPT, Claude, Gemini and Copilot across different stages of writing, including brainstorming, planning, language enhancement, revision and feedback, rather than solely to generate completed assignments (Barrett & Pack, 2023; Chan & Hu, 2023; Wang, 2025).”
Krishnan, S. (2026) · Review of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.37497/rev.artif.intell.educ.v7ii.76
Abdellatif, M. S., Alshehri, M. A., Lamouchi, A., Rahmath, M., & Nemt-allah, M. A. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1809174
“Appropriate usage is motivated by efficiency enhancement, cognitive load reduction, and access to personalized scaffolding (Kumar et al., 2025; Wang, 2024).”
InfluentialLearner Engagement With Feedback in Essay Writing
Nguyen, H. M. P., & Nguyen, T. H. (2024) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-6497-0.ch009
The Evolving Impacts of GenAI Tools on Writing Centers
Lindberg, N., & Domingues, A. A. (2025) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-8059-8.ch004
Kallestinova, E. (2025) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-8059-8.ch001
Humanizing Writing Support and Maintaining Voice in the AI Era
Firdaus, A. N. F. A. (2025) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-8059-8.ch011
Ntereke, B. B., Ramoroka, B. T., & Conteh, B. (2025) · Interciencia · doi:10.59671/jqd71 · Cited by 2
Bilikozen, N., Sayed, S., & Rahal, H. E. (2026) · Pedagogy Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature Language Composition and Culture · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5265420
Pedagogical Challenges of Generative AI in Academic Writing
Guarda, T., Chuquimarca, L. E., & Augusto, M. F. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-97617-9_27
AI-Assisted Writing and Editing
Schofield, L. N., & Zhou, X. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-94809-1_7 · Cited by 3
Integrating AI in English Education
Rosmayanti, V., Wahid, A., Sulolipu, A. A., Ramli, R., Thayeb, A. M. D. R., & Sriwahyuni, S. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-6330-1.ch003
L2 learners’ behavioral and cognitive engagement in AI-supported English writingPreprint
Alqurashi, F. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-6804457/v1
Navigating the Double-Edged Sword of AI Integration in Higher Education
Hashemi, S. S., Lundin, M., & Lantz-Andersson, A. (2025) · Proceedings for the European Conference on Reflective Practice-based Learning 2025 · doi:10.54337/ecrpl25-10936
EI Search: How to Search for Knowledge in the Age of Generative AI
Billingsley, B., Clarke, S., & Selker, T. (2025) · Science & Education · doi:10.1007/s11191-025-00687-4 · Cited by 1
“The disruption that followed GenAI’s arrival has been even more seismic, with heated debate about how staff and students should react to it (Niemi et al., 2023), especially in disciplines that work with language (Wang, 2024).”
Percepción de Estudiantes Universitarios sobre el Uso de Inteligencias Artificiales en su Educación
Montiel, C. H. M., Pérez, M. E. M., Moreno-Montiel, N., & Moreno-Montiel, B. (2025) · Revista Docentes 2 0 · doi:10.37843/rted.v18i2.723
Large Language Model Applications in the Algebra Domain: A Systematic Review
Song, Y., Zhang, Y., Precup, D., Rabbany, R., & Cutumisu, M. (2025) · Technology Knowledge and Learning · doi:10.1007/s10758-025-09922-x
“Their ability to understand and generate natural language has enabled the automation of many educational tasks (Wang, 2024 ), such as providing feedback to learners (Barrot, 2024; Matelsky et al., 2023 ), generating learning content and teaching plans (Hu et al., 2024; Moore et al., 2023 ),…”
Yang, G., Zhang, H., Liu, J., Yan, J., Tu, Y., Yang, M., & Zeng, Q.-F. (2025) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.1080/17501229.2025.2600523
ASSESSING ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING USING THE TOULMIN MODEL, METACOGNITIVE AWARENESS, AND AI LITERACYPreprint
Stofiana, T., Sunendar, D., Mulyati, Y., & Sastromiharjo, A. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5678887
Nurfidah, N., Damayanti, V., Anshori, D. S., & Kurniawan, K. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5936915
Bowen, T., Maddalena, K., & Whithaus, C. (2025) · Writing & Pedagogy · doi:10.3138/wap-2025-0004
A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies Fostering Generative AI Literacy in Higher Education
Xu, L., Ng, D. T. K., Deng, H., & Leung, J. K. L. (2025) · Bridging human and machine: future education with intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-0950-8_8
AIGC literacy and academic motivation: The motivational dynamics in higher education
Chen, Q., Yang, Y., & Chen, N. (2026) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-025-08525-0
“With its advanced automation in text generation and editing, AIGC enables students to structure their ideas more effectively, reduce writing-related stress, and elevate the overall quality of their work (Wang, 2025 ; Chen, 2023 ; Bedington et al., 2024 ).”
The AI Paradox in L2 Writing: Why Helpful Feedback Creates Unhelpful Dependency in Higher EducationPreprint
SEDDIKI, M., & Korichi, S. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-8731897/v1
Web Wiki-Based Collaborative Writing: Impacts on Scientific Writing, Self-Regulation, and Efficacy
Erdawati, E., Suryoputro, G., & Hikmat, A. (2025) · JPI (Jurnal Pendidikan Indonesia) · doi:10.23887/jpi-undiksha.v14i4.101205
Herdiana, H., & Munir, S. (2025) · JPI (Jurnal Pendidikan Indonesia) · doi:10.23887/jpi-undiksha.v14i4.97752 · Cited by 1
Sofiar, E., Solihati, N., & Sari, Z. (2025) · JPI (Jurnal Pendidikan Indonesia) · doi:10.23887/jpi-undiksha.v14i4.96026
Huang, J. W.-T. (2026) · Language learning & technology · doi:10.64152/10125/73668
“For example, Kim et al. (2024) and Wang (2024) examined learners’ perceptions and experiences using generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT, to support their writing.”
InfluentialWu, J., Zhang, J., & Fang, L. (2025) · International Conference on Educational Technology (ICET) · doi:10.1109/icet67421.2025.11380447
The AI Paradox in L2 Writing: Why Helpful Feedback Creates Unhelpful Dependency in Higher EducationPreprint
SEDDIKI, M., & Korichi, S. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-8731897/v2 · Cited by 2
Empowering EFL Writers Through AI
Rosmayanti, V. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-5601-3.ch009
Students’ Experiences and Perceptions of Ethical Use of AI Tools
Nkomo, L. M., Wald, N., & Mirosa, R. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-1875-3_16
Kong, B., & Maruthai, E. (2026) · BMC Psychology · doi:10.1186/s40359-026-04330-x
“Against this backdrop, this study investigates the risks related to language learning, develops a measure of risk awareness as component of AI literacy, and uncovers to what extent L2 learners may continue using AI in their learning in face of the potential risks of learning loss [40].”
InfluentialDorado, A. M. (2025) · E-Aesla · doi:10.58859/e0009
Filatova, A., & Victorino, G. (2026) · Creativity Studies · doi:10.3846/cs.2026.22135
Ethical Use of ChatGPT and Critic-AI in Academic Writing and ResearchPreprint
Yaprak, Z. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6539730
Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in Language Education: Current Trends and Perspectives
Bui, T. T. T., & Hoa, C. T. H. (2026) · Studies in computational intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-18392-7_1
Guo, W., Zhang, Y., Han, H., & Wang, H. (2026) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3772363.3799095
Boustane, H., Sabil, A., & Chroqui, R. (2026) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-19760-3_23
Lu, Y., & Jia, C. (2026) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2026.2665351
Toward Sustainable Learning With AI : A Methodological Agenda for Accountable Coursework
Wang, D., Ahmad, M. N., Alahmari, S., Alawad, W. M., Omar, A. H., Osman, N. A., Shen, Y., & Cheng, W. (2026) · European Journal of Education · doi:10.1111/ejed.70677
If AI can write it, are students learning it? Rethinking communication assignments
Herwandito, S. (2026) · Communication Teacher · doi:10.1080/17404622.2026.2667886
“Having become accustomed to composing essays with the aid of AI, they found it challenging to analyze actual interactions by process (Wang, 2025).”
GenAI Humanizers in Academic Writing: A Novel Ethical Risk Detection Model Using Machine Learning
Ghosal, I., Rajak, R., Saxena, R., Vijai, A., Kaloria, S., & Sheikh, M. F. A. (2026) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-25955-4_36
Meliyawati, Hikmat, A., & Mulyono, H. (2026) · JPI (Jurnal Pendidikan Indonesia) · doi:10.23887/jpi-undiksha.v15i1.101521
The influence of GenAI on second language writing instruction: A systematic review
Wang, Z., Lei, H., & Chen, K. (2026) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2026.104081 · Cited by 6
QuillBot in L2 writing: Implications for assessment in the age of AI
Do, H. M., & Le, T. K. V. (2026) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2026.101079
Harnessing AI-assisted Writing in Educational Institutions: A Systematic Literature Review
Sudirman, A., Kristanto, T., Gemilang, A. V., & Rais, B. (2026) · IJORER International Journal of Recent Educational Research · doi:10.46245/ijorer.v7i3.1172
Nodira, K., Natarajan, R., Selvakumar, A., Turaev, D., & Turdiev, A. S. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-6986-0.ch001
Integration of Artificial Intelligence Tools Into the Agroforestry Engineering Curriculum
Aragón-Rodríguez, F., Herranz-Matey, I., Rocamora, C., Almeida-Ñauñay, A. F., & Perdigones, A. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-1285-9.ch011
Li, Z. H. (2026) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2026.2685753 · Cited by 1
Turós, M., Soltész-Várhelyi, K., & Szűts, Z. (2026) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16060920 · Cited by 1
Monetizing Cyberliterature through AI‐Enhanced Networks in English Education System
Muthmainnah, M., Cardoso, L., Yakin, A. M. A., Khristianto, K., Nirmalawati, W., & Wahyuningsih, T. (2026) · doi:10.1002/9781394347315.ch4
A’seri, M. S. M., Yaacob, Y., Ahmad, R., Mustamam, N. I., & Mahmud, M. M. (2026) · International Conference on Information and Education Technology (ICIET) · doi:10.1109/iciet69664.2026.11561594
“Postgraduate and undergraduate students exhibit greater engagement in analytical and research-oriented activities, whereas pre-university students tend to use AI more selectively, likely due to differences in academic maturity and self-confidence [30].”
Democratizing data science, relational, and multimodal scholarly inquiry
Canché, M. S. G. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-21961-0.00008-5
The paradox of inclusion: Generative AI and the center-periphery divide in language education
Shi, K. (2026) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2026.104103 · Cited by 1
Student Perspectives on AI-Based Feedback in First-Year Writing
Pritts, N. (2026) · International Journal of Innovative Teaching and Learning in Higher Education · doi:10.4018/ijitlhe.413093
Culturally Responsive AI Literacy: Valuing Students’ Repertoires in AI-Mediated Writing
Kladieva, A. (2026) · Digital studies in language and literature · doi:10.1515/dsll-2026-0010
“In a qualitative study of fi rst-year writers, Wang (2024) documents this dynamic directly: students reported the dilemma of weighing the potential loss of learning and voice against the conve-niences AI o ff ers, with some describing their AI-assisted writing as no longer sounding like themselves.”
Your brain on ChatGPT, but whose brain? The missing adolescent in AI-cognition research
Campos, J. P., & Koff, T. (2026) · Frontiers in Developmental Psychology · doi:10.3389/fdpys.2026.1885225
Ursavaş, Ö. F., Onan, A., Durak, H. Y., & Akçayir, İ. (2026) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2026.2693955
The effect of artificial intelligence on students’ writing performance: a meta-analysis
Wu, J., Chen, Q., Jiang, H., & Bai, X. (2026) · Reading and Writing · doi:10.1007/s11145-026-10884-4 · Cited by 1
Bailey, D., Byrne, J., He, H., McConnell, J. R., & Bruster, B. G. (2026) · Technology Knowledge and Learning · doi:10.1007/s10758-026-10017-4
Supporting Critical Thinking Through Reflective Assignment: The Use of AI in Mental Health
Wong, S. F., Mahmud, M. M., Ramachandiran, C. R., Wong, S. S., & Thrumalingam, S. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-32115-2_16
Charly Jerome, J. (2026) · Indian Journal of Language and Linguistics · doi:10.54392/ijll2627
Perifanou, M. A., & Economides, A. A. (2026) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/07356331261469412
Çıldır, M., & Çobanoğulları, F. (2026) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.1080/17501229.2026.2708151 · Cited by 2
Postphenomenological analysis of the relations between generative AI and education
Meishar‐Tal, H., & Minyar-Beloruchev, K. (2026) · Educational Philosophy and Theory · doi:10.1080/00131857.2026.2709654
Generative AI for Second Language Writing Feedback, Assessment, and Instruction
Li, M., Han, J., & Taha, G. (2026) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009657334 · Cited by 1
Xu, J., Lu, X., & Abdi, N. M. (2026) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2026.101102
Pre-Service Teachers' Self-Esteem, Behavioral Intention, and AI Use in Academic Writing
Cubillas, T. E., Orozco, J. F., Intong, I. L. M., & Torralba, E. (2026) · International Conference on e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning · doi:10.1109/ic4e69618.2026.11631532
“Consistent with prior research [11], pre-service teachers with strong self-efficacy show greater confidence in integrating AI into academic and instructional tasks.”
Chang, D., Lin, M. P.-C., Huang, J.-Y., & Ryoo, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1826174
Heather, A. R., Han, J., & Tian, L. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1879758
Generative AI and linguistic creativity in digitally multilingual higher education
Семеніхіна, О. В., Semenog, O., Грона, Н. В., Riznyk, V., & Юрченко, А. О. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1931269
Hung, H.-C., & Pawitra, M. A. S. (2026) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/07356331261483883
Song, X., Sun, L., Qu, H., Jiang, X., Jin, J., Feng, L., & Song, W. (2026) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0355282
“Studies commonly focus on perceived usefulness, ease of use, attitudes, and behavioral intention, or on outcome comparisons between users and non-users in terms of grades or writing quality [14,15].”
Yang, Y., Cheng, Z., Meng, H., & Shen, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1920168
Student Use of and Views on GenAI for Writing
Kuznetsov, A., Sheely, A., & Baker, J. (2026) · Teaching Sociology · doi:10.1177/0092055x261478622
The role of agency in human-GenAI interaction for writing: Theoretical reflections
Khosronejad, M., Mills, K. A., Reimann, P., & Ryan, M. E. (2026) · Educational Philosophy and Theory · doi:10.1080/00131857.2026.2729436
A Study on How AI-enabled Immersive Situation Creation Promotes Primary School Students' Writing
Zheng, W., He, D., & Zhang, Y. (2026) · iEducation · doi:10.71204/55pxp430
“It offers timely guidance when students meet difficulties and keeps them active in learning (Wang, 2024).”
Mulyono, H., Suryoputro, G., Azizah, U. S. A., & Falah, Z. A. (2026) · SN Social Sciences · doi:10.1007/s43545-026-01716-x
“AI could rapidly generate linguistic alternatives, organize information, and suggest possible ideas, whereas students contribute disciplinary understanding, rhetorical awareness, critical reasoning, and ethical responsibility (Nguyen et al. 2024 ; Wang 2025 ).”
Generative AI for Writing: Student Interactions with AI Feedback in a High School English ClassroomPreprint
Kwon, K., Park, J., Kale, U., Kim, K., & Yang, S. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7471093
The impact of AI-Assisted writing tools on L2 academic writing performance in an Indonesian context
Yasnalia, S., & Ariyanto, N. S. (2025) · HAMKA INSIGHT · doi:10.51574/hamka.v5i2.129
“By incorporating activity theory frameworks and examining self-regulated learning strategies, the present inquiry contrasts native and non-native writing behaviors while exploring how students critically adopt AI systems as interactive dialogue partners (Long & Kim, 2024; Y. Wang, 2024).”
Creely, E. (2026) · International Journal of Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijcs2030019
Milner‐Bolotin, M. (2026) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16091561
Zhou, W., & Yang, Y. (2026) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2026.2732233
Li, C., Han, Y., & Feng, E. (2026) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2026.105751
Emergent Critical AI Literacy in EFL Undergraduates' AI-Assisted Multimodal and Monomodal Composing
Wei, S., & Ma, Q. (2026) · International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.4018/ijcallt.422690
Baah, J., & Debrah, C. A. A. O. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10549978/v1
Ngoveni, M. A. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1889499
Aydemir, M. (2026) · Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning · doi:10.31681/jetol.1954582
Nguyen, M. T., Thach, K. T. D., Nguyen, C. N. L., Nguyen, A. C., & Doan, H. K. (2026) · Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1155/hbe2/8063779
Ahmed, M. K. (2026) · Social Sciences & Humanities Open · doi:10.1016/j.ssaho.2026.103774
Noor, M. L. A.-H. M., Isa, M. A., Sahrir, M. S., & Ghalib, M. F. (2026) · International Journal of Learning Teaching and Educational Research · doi:10.26803/ijlter.25.9.20
Galindo‐Domínguez, H., Campo, L., Delgado, N., & Urruzola, M. V. (2026) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2026.102385
Integrating ChatGPT into 5E inquiry-based learning to scaffold EFL academic research writing
Cheng, Y.-H. (2026) · Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education · doi:10.1186/s40862-026-00455-z · Cited by 1
Maryam, Z., Sanif, S. B., Rehman, A. U. R., Nawal, A., & Shoaib, M. (2026) · International Journal of Information and Learning Technology · doi:10.1108/ijilt-10-2024-0224
Zhang, E. D., Yu, C., & Yang, Y. (2026) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2026.103100
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
