ChatGPT and the digitisation of writing
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
The aim of this study is to uncover how students’ practices of writing in higher education are being impacted by ChatGPT. The use of ChatGPT and other generative AI needs to be set in the context of a longer-term process of the digitisation of writing, where many tools are being employed by students to support writing because it is a complex iterative process. Generative AI appears to have had a large impact on how students write, and we propose a model of generative AI literacy to assess their capabilities in doing so. Semi-structured interviews and observation data were collected at a British University with 23 students from diverse backgrounds, including the UK, USA, China, Japan, and Saudi Arabia. The data was analysed thematically. It was found that students used ChatGPT alongside many other tools, and in rather individualistic ways often to address specific challenges they felt they had with writing. Their main concerns were around plagiarism, information inaccuracy and technology dependence. There was a relatively weak understanding or interest in the ethical issues around the exploitative and environmental impacts of generative AI. The social controversy around ChatGPT can be seen as a useful opportunity to engage students in a discussion about the digitisation of writing and promote AI literacy in this context.
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
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?
ChatGPT's efficiency and speed, productivity-boosting capabilities, and 24/7 availability were seen as significant advantages.
“Chat-GPT's efficiency and speed, productivity-boosting capabilities, and 24/7 availability were also seen as significant advantages (Rogers et al. 2024;Šedlbauer et al. 2024;Zhao et al. 2024).”
From Fostering AI Literacy in Undergraduates: A ChatGPT Workshop Case Study (2025) · cites this paper as Zhao et al. 2024
The Findings (page not provided) report that participants felt more efficient and productive using ChatGPT, and that it sped up writing tasks and saved time. The Findings also mention immediate responses, but neither they nor the Discussion establish that participants saw 24/7 availability as an advantage. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThere is plausibly real scope for generative AI to support reading, summarisation, and interactive scaffolding for students with dyslexia and related conditions.
“There is, plausibly, real scope for generative AI to support reading, summarisation, and interactive scaffolding -domains where students with dyslexia and related conditions experience pronounced difficulty (Zhao, Cox, & Cai, 2024).”
From The Use of Generative AI by Students with Disabilities in UK Higher Education: A Mixed-Methods Survey of 125 Students (2025) · cites this paper as Zhao, Cox, & Cai, 2024
The Findings (page not available) report students using AI tools to summarise readings and ChatGPT for tasks they found difficult; a participant also describes using its feedback to develop paragraphs. This supports the proposed reading, summarisation and interactive-help uses in general, but the paper does not address dyslexia or related conditions or establish that these tools support students with those conditions. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredStudents' accounts show well-developed pragmatic and safety dimensions of AI literacy, but less developed socio-ethical and contextual dimensions.
“pragmatic and safety dimensions are well developed in students' accounts; socio-ethical and contextual dimensions are less so.”
From The Use of Generative AI by Students with Disabilities in UK Higher Education: A Mixed-Methods Survey of 125 Students (2025) · cites this paper as Zhao, Cox, and Cai's (2024)
The Discussion and Table 3 describe substantial generative AI literacy among the student interviewees, good awareness of privacy risks, and limited awareness of societal impacts. They do not clearly characterize contextual understanding as less developed: Table 3 says appropriate use was at the forefront of participants’ minds, though they sought institutional clarification. The paper also notes limits to students’ pragmatic skills, including unsophisticated prompt engineering. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredGenerative AI literacy involves critically evaluating the appropriateness of AI use in different contexts, understanding societal impacts, and recognizing potential risks and limitations.
“It involves critically evaluating the appropriateness of AI use in different contexts, understanding the societal impacts of AI (such as intellectual property rights, equity of access, and environmental concerns), and recognizing the potential risks and limitations of these technologies (Zhao et al. 2024).”
From Fostering AI Literacy in Undergraduates: A ChatGPT Workshop Case Study (2025) · cites this paper as Zhao et al. 2024
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414 · see citing works
ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., et al. (2023) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 · Cited by 7,326 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Yet while much has been written about this in editorials and opinion pieces (Kasneci et al., 2023; Trust et al., 2023) usually to inform educators about how to use it, we are only at the beginning of learning its impact on student behaviour through empirical research.”
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0 · Cited by 7,242 · cited 1× · see citing works
“T he use of AI in education (AIEd) has been a discrete area of study for several decades, albeit the majority of studies have been from a technical development standpoint with less involvement of educators (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019).”
What is AI Literacy? Competencies and Design Considerations
Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376727 · Cited by 3,241 · cited 2× · see citing works
“With the increasing use of AI in many domains of activity there is a growing interest in de fi ning AI literacy (Long and Magerko, 2020).”
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 2× · see citing works
“Chan and Hu (2023) found Hong Kong students positive about generative AI and willing to use it.”
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 2× · see citing works
“Chan and Hu (2023) found Hong Kong students positive about generative AI and willing to use it.”
What Is the Impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the Literature
Lo, C. K. (2023) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci13040410 · Cited by 2,024 · see citing works
Artificial intelligence innovation in education: A twenty-year data-driven historical analysis
Guan, C., Mou, J., & Jiang, Z. (2020) · International Journal of Innovation Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijis.2020.09.001 · Cited by 665 · see citing works
The opportunities and challenges of ChatGPT in education
Adeshola, I., & Adepoju, A. P. (2024) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2023.2253858 · Cited by 517 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…the wide-spread use in the writing of tools such as Grammarly and Google Translate seems to have been tacitly accepted with relatively little controversy, ChatGPT has drawn huge debate to the digitisation of writing (Adeshola and Adepoju, 2023; AlAfnan et al., 2023; Memarian and Doleck, 2023).”
More human than human: measuring ChatGPT political bias
Motoki, F., Pinho Neto, V., & Rodrigues, V. (2024) · Public Choice · doi:10.1007/s11127-023-01097-2 · Cited by 329 · see citing works
Digital support for academic writing: A review of technologies and pedagogies
Strobl, C., Ailhaud, E., Benetos, K., Devitt, A., Kruse, O., Proske, A., & Rapp, C. (2019) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.12.005 · Cited by 298 · see citing works
ChatGPT in education: Methods, potentials, and limitations
Memarian, B., & Doleck, T. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2023.100022 · Cited by 266 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…the wide-spread use in the writing of tools such as Grammarly and Google Translate seems to have been tacitly accepted with relatively little controversy, ChatGPT has drawn huge debate to the digitisation of writing (Adeshola and Adepoju, 2023; AlAfnan et al., 2023; Memarian and Doleck, 2023).”
Toxicity in chatgpt: Analyzing persona-assigned language models
Deshpande, A., Murahari, V., Rajpurohit, T., Kalyan, A., & Narasimhan, K. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.88 · Cited by 178 · see citing works
Kong, S.-C., Cheung, W. M.-Y., & Zhang, G. (2022) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100223 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
Algorithmic Literacy and the Role for Libraries
Ridley, M., & Pawlick-Potts, D. (2021) · Information Technology and Libraries · doi:10.6017/ital.v40i2.12963 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- AlAfnan MA, Dishari S, Jovic M, Lomidze K (2023) Chatgpt as an educational tool: opportunities, challenges, and recommendations for communication, busi- ness writing, and composition courses. J Artif Intell Technol 3(2):60-68
- Godwin-Jones R (2022) Partnering with AI: intelligent writing assistance and instructed language learning Language. Learn Technol 26:5-24. https://doi. org/10.10125/73474 · DOI
- Kruse O, Rapp C (2019) Seamless Writing: How the Digitisation of Writing Transforms Thinking, Communication, and Student Learning. In: Looi CK, Wong LH, Glahn C, Cai S (eds) Seamless Learning. Lecture Notes in Edu- cational Technology. Springer, Singapore, pp 191-208. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-981-13-3071-1_10 · DOI
- Lo LS (2023) The CLEAR path: a framework for enhancing information literacy through prompt engineering. J Acad Librariansh 49(4):102720
- Pinski M, Benlian A (2023) AI literacy-towards measuring human competency in artificial intelligence. In: Proceedings of the 56th Hawaii International Con- ference on System Sciences
- Selwyn N (2019) Should robots replace teachers? AI and the future of education. John Wiley & Sons, Cambridge
- Trust T, Whalen J, Mouza C (2023) ChatGPT: challenges, opportunities, and implications for teacher education. Contemp Issues Technol Teach Educ 23(1):1-23 UNESCO (2023) ChatGPT and artificial intelligence in Higher Education https:// www.iesalc.unesco.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/ChatGPT-and- Artificial-Intelligence-in-higher-education-Quick-Start-guide_EN_FINAL. pdf
- Uzun L (2023) ChatGPT and academic integrity concerns: detecting artificial intelligence generated content. Lang Educ Technol 3(1):100060
- Zhao X, Sbaffi L, Cox AM (2023) The Digitisation of Writing in Higher Education: exploring the Use of Wordtune as an AI Writing Assistant. OSF preprint. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/uzwy7 · DOI
- Zhao X, Xu J, Cox, AM (2024) Incorporating artificial intelligence into student academic writing in higher education: the use of wordtune by Chinese international students. Paper presented at the Hawaii Systems Sciences conference, Waikiki, Hawaii, 2-6 January 2024
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Does ChatGPT enhance student learning? A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies
Deng, R., Jiang, M., Yu, X., Lu, Y., & Liu, S. (2025) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105224 · Cited by 531 · see citing works
Cai, L., Msafiri, M. M., & Kangwa, D. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-13112-0 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Self-citationLiu, X., & Zhong, B. (2025) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2025.100741 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Msambwa, M. M., Wen, Z., & Daniel, K. (2025) · European Journal of Education · doi:10.1111/ejed.12909 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Nelson, A. S., Santamaría, P. V., Javens, J. S., & Ricaurte, M. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15050611 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
The use of generative AI by students with disabilities in higher education
Zhao, X., Cox, A., & Chen, X. (2025) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2025.101014 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Self-citationDaniel, K., Msambwa, M. M., & Wen, Z. (2025) · European Journal of Education · doi:10.1111/ejed.70036 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Kangwa, D., Msafiri, M. M., & Fute, A. (2025) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.70109 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Exploring ChatGPT's Potential and Concerns in Higher Education
Tick, A. (2024) · 2024 IEEE 22nd Jubilee International Symposium on Intelligent Systems and Informatics (SISY) · doi:10.1109/sisy62279.2024.10737595 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Fostering AI Literacy in Undergraduates: A ChatGPT Workshop Case Study
Archambault, S. G., Murph, N. L., & Ramachandran, S. (2025) · Library Trends · doi:10.1353/lib.2025.a968491 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Shepherd, N. J. (2025) · Journal of Knowledge Learning and Science Technology ISSN: 2959-6386 (online) · doi:10.60087/jklst.vol4.n4.016
“There is, plausibly, real scope for generative AI to support reading, summarisation, and interactive scaffolding — domains where students with dyslexia and related conditions experience pronounced difficulty (Zhao, Cox, & Cai, 2024).”
Influential
- Authors
- Zhao, X., Cox, A., & Cai, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Sheffield (GB)
- Ningbo University of Technology (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Cox, Andrew
- ORCID
- Zhao, Xin
- Venue
- Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
- Published
- 2024-04-03
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2055-1045 (ISSN-L)
- 2662-9992
- OpenAlex
- W4393858826
- Cited by
- 93
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 35 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 11
- FWCI
- 34.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Humanities and Social Sciences Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital literacy in education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, generative AI, academic writing, university students, AI literacy, plagiarism concerns, information accuracy, technology dependence, AI ethics, environmental impact of AI, writing practices
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
