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
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
