The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students’ writing: EFL teachers’ perspective
Open accessAbstract
The primary objective of this study was to examine the range of available Artificial Intelligence (AI) writing tools and assess their influence on student writing, particularly in terms of content and organization, as perceived by English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers. Utilizing a qualitative approach, the research was constructed within a case study design. The data was collected via semi-structured interviews, targeting information about the diversity of AI writing tools and their impact on students” writing quality. The study gathered data from four EFL teachers across three distinct universities in Indonesia, shedding light on the variety of AI writing tools used in their classrooms. These included applications like Quillbot, WordTune, Jenni, Chat-GPT, Paperpal, Copy.ai, and Essay Writer. Furthermore, these teachers unanimously agreed that the AI writing tools positively improved their students’ writing quality, particularly enhancing the quality of their content and organization. The findings of this study imply that integrating AI writing tools can prove beneficial in elevating the quality of EFL student writing. In response to this study’s limitations, recommendations for future research were also addressed.
Verified 2026-10-06 · 1 reference not checked yet
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
In a qualitative case study of four EFL teachers across three Indonesian universities, teachers reported using a range of AI writing tools and generally perceived them as improving students’ writing content and organization. Teachers also raised concerns about over-reliance, generic ideas, and possible erosion of critical thinking and creativity.
Key findings
- The four EFL teachers used a variety of AI writing tools: QuillBot and WordTune were used by all four; Jenni AI and ChatGPT were used by three of four teachers (T1, T3, T4); T2 used Copy.ai and Paperpal; T3 used Essay Writer; T4 used Copy.ai and Essay Writer.
- Teachers unanimously agreed that AI writing tools positively improved students’ writing quality, particularly content and organization. For content, they discussed idea generation and vocabulary/language use; for organization, they discussed coherence/logical flow and use of transition words and phrases.
- Views were not uniformly positive: T2 said AI-generated ideas could be “generic” or lack personal touch and warned about over-reliance; T3 said AI tools could sometimes inhibit original idea generation; T2 also cautioned that AI-suggested vocabulary could lead to awkward or overly formal language.
- All four teachers reported improvement in students’ use of transition words and phrases, with T4 describing a before-and-after change from skipped or misused transitions to more effective use.
Methods
- Qualitative case study design using semi-structured interviews with four EFL writing teachers from three universities in Indonesia (one public, two private).
- Participants were selected based on practical experience with AI writing tools, accessibility, willingness, and teaching expertise; all had at least three years of EFL teaching experience and at least one year using AI writing tools.
- Data were analyzed using thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke’s five-step approach, with themes developed from interview transcripts.
Limitations
- The paper states that data came from only four EFL teachers from three universities in Indonesia, limiting breadth and representativeness across different regions and contexts.
- The paper states possible participant-selection bias: participating teachers were currently using and actively promoting AI writing tools, which may predispose findings toward more positive experiences and attitudes.
- The paper states that the study focused only on teachers’ perceptions, did not include students’ views or measure actual writing improvement, and did not examine long-term effects or potential negative effects of overdependence on AI tools.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 41 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingown data
The four EFL teachers in the study used a range of AI writing tools, including Quillbot, WordTune, Jenni, Chat-GPT, Paperpal, Copy.ai, and Essay Writer.
“These included applications like Quillbot, WordTune, Jenni, Chat-GPT, Paperpal, Copy.ai, and Essay Writer.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Jenni AI and ChatGPT were employed by three out of the four teachers (T1, T3, and T4).
“A second layer of commonality could be seen with Jenni AI and ChatGPT, which were employed by three out of the four teachers (T1, T3, and T4).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
QuillBot and Wordtune were used by all four teachers.
“Two tools, QuillBot and Wordtune, had emerged as universally used across all four teachers.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The study's participating EFL teachers used a diverse array of AI writing tools (e.g., Quilbot, Jenni, Chat-GPT, WordTune, Copy.ai, Paperpal, Essay writer).
“The initial findings of the current research underscored the diverse array of Artificial Intelligence (AI) writing tools (e.g., Quilbot, Jenni, Chat-GPT, WordTune, Copy.ai,Paperpal and Essay writer) utilized by teachers of English as a Foreign Language (EFL).”
- Also stated in: § 6. Conclusion · plain
“The findings revealed a diverse array of AI writing tools employed in EFL teaching and shed light on the strategies teachers use to integrate these tools to address students' writing challenges.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Also stated in: § 6. Conclusion · plain
- Findingown data
Teachers T1, T3, and T4 recognized apparent advantages of AI writing tools for vocabulary, such as vocabulary enhancement and minimization of repetition.
“While certain participants (i.e., T1, T3, & T4) recognized apparent advantages, such as vocabulary enhancement and minimization of repetition, others (i.e., T2) urged caution about potential downsides, including overly complex language and an excessive dependence on these tools.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
- Findingown data
Teachers T1, T3, and T4 acknowledged AI writing tools as beneficial for nurturing idea generation.
“This aligns with our findings, where teachers (T1, T3 & T4) acknowledged these tools as beneficial for nurturing idea generation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The participating EFL teachers shared a common interest in using a combination of AI tools to enhance students' writing skills.
“The EFL teachers shared a common interest in utilizing a combination of AI tools in enhancing students' writing skills, hinting at the fundamental trend of embedding technology into education.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The study's findings shed light on strategies teachers use to integrate AI tools to address students' writing challenges.
“The findings revealed a diverse array of AI writing tools employed in EFL teaching and shed light on the strategies teachers use to integrate these tools to address students' writing challenges.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
More seasoned and experienced teachers in using AI writing tools may exhibit greater confidence in exploring diverse AI tools for varying educational purposes.
“This pattern suggests that more seasoned and experienced teachers in using AIWT may exhibit greater confidence in exploring diverse AI tools for varying educational purposes.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The perspectives of four EFL teachers from three Indonesian universities are sufficient to generalize about integrating AI writing tools in EFL classrooms.
- Interpretationown data
Teachers with more years of experience in using AI writing tools (T2 and T3) utilized a broader set of AI tools.
“It appears that the teachers with more years of experience in using AIWT, T2 and T3, utilize a broader set of AI tools.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data
Integrating AI writing tools can prove beneficial in elevating the quality of EFL student writing.
“The findings of this study imply that integrating AI writing tools can prove beneficial in elevating the quality of EFL student writing.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Teachers' perceptions of the impact of AI writing tools on student writing quality accurately reflect the tools' actual impact.
- Rests on an assumption: The perspectives of four EFL teachers from three Indonesian universities are sufficient to generalize about integrating AI writing tools in EFL classrooms.
- Study design and conductown data
The data was obtained from only four EFL teachers from three universities in Indonesia, which limits the breadth of the study.
“Firstly, the data was obtained from only four EFL teachers from three universities in Indonesia, which limits the breadth of the study.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data
The integration of AI writing tools can be beneficial in enhancing the quality of EFL student writing.
“The study's implications suggest the integration of AI writing tools can be beneficial in enhancing the quality of EFL student writing.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The teachers' reports about changes in students' writing accurately reflect the actual impact of AI writing tools on students' writing.
- Interpretationreasoning
The study may not fully represent the experiences of teachers in different contexts because different regions may have varying degrees of access to technology, resources, and attitudes toward AI tools.
“Different regions may have varying degrees of access to technology, resources, and the attitudes of teachers towards AI tools, and this study may not fully represent the experiences of teachers in different contexts.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data
AI writing tools have promising potential for the content of L2 writing, specifically idea generation and articulation.
“In the realm of content, which refers to the generation of ideas and their articulation, AI writing tools have shown promising potential.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The teachers' reports about changes in students' writing accurately reflect the actual impact of AI writing tools on students' writing.
- Premisecitation
Kurniati and Fithriani (2021) found that QuillBot aided students in developing better paraphrasing skills.
“Kurniati and Fithriani (2021) found that QuillBot aided students in developing better paraphrasing skills, which is a critical competency in academic writing.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Kurniati and Fithriani (2021)
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
AI writing tools such as Grammarly, QuillBot, Wordtune, and Jenni have been found to significantly improve students' writing skills.
“On the positive side, AI writing tools such as Grammarly, QuillBot, Wordtune, and Jenni have been found to significantly improve students' writing skills.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites Tambunan et al. (2022)
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Kurniati and Fithriani (2021)
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Lam and Moorhouse (2022)
Not checked in the free run.
- Study design and conductreasoning
The study has a potential limitation of bias in participant selection because participating teachers were currently using and actively promoting AI writing tools, which could predispose findings toward more positive experiences and attitudes.
“Additionally, the teachers who participated in our research are currently using and actively promoting the use of AI writing tools, which could predispose the findings towards more positive experiences and attitudes.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisecitation
A study by Tambunan et al. (2022) showed that using Grammarly improved students' grammar and punctuation.
“A study by Tambunan et al. (2022) showed that using Grammarly improved students' grammar and punctuation.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Tambunan et al. (2022)
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
Students without access to high-speed internet or modern digital devices might be unable to utilize AI tools, widening the educational achievement gap.
“In their study, Mozumder et al. (2023) noted that students without access to high-speed internet or modern digital devices might be unable to utilize these AI tools, widening the educational achievement gap.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Mozumder et al. (2023)
Not checked in the free run.
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 44
- May combine two claims. 17
- The quote only partly states this claim. 4
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataT4 brought in Copy.ai and Essay Writer.
“T4 also brought in Copy.ai and Essay Writer, leveraging these tools to show students how to craft compelling pieces of writing in various styles and formats.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataThe four teachers expressed a wide range of opinions regarding the impact of AI writing tools on students' creativity and ability to generate ideas.
“The responses from four teachers (T1, T2, T3, & T4) highlighted a wide range of opinions among them regarding the impact of AI writing tools on students' creativity and ability to generate ideas.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown dataT2 perceived mixed effects of AI writing tools on students' idea generation: they can provide a starting point but may produce generic or impersonal ideas and may not always encourage deep or critical thinking.
“T2 expressed a more mixed evaluation of AI writing tools.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataT2 used Copy.ai and Paperpal.
“For instance, T2 used Copy.ai and Paperpal.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown dataT3 perceived that AI writing tools can sometimes inhibit students' ability to generate original ideas because students may become reliant on the tool's suggestions.
“T3 brought a different perspective, suggesting that AI writing tools could potentially hamper students' ability to generate original ideas.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe four EFL teachers unanimously agreed that AI writing tools positively improved their students' writing quality, particularly enhancing the quality of their content and organization.
“Furthermore, these teachers unanimously agreed that the AI writing tools positively improved their students' writing quality, particularly enhancing the quality of their content and organization.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataT3 employed Essay Writer.
“T3 employed Essay Writer, which helped students structure their essays logically and provided them with ideas for improvements”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown dataT1 perceived that AI writing tools boosted students' creativity by providing suggestions and expanding initial ideas, helping them overcome writer's block.
“T1, for example, highlighted the potential benefits of AI writing tools, emphasizing their ability to stimulate creativity and idea expansion.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown dataT4 perceived that AI writing tools can aid students in developing their ideas further by offering phrases or sentences that enhance an initial idea and demonstrating how an idea can be developed and supported with evidence or arguments.
“T4 re-emphasized some positive aspects of AI writing tools, notably their capacity to aid students in developing their ideas further.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingown dataT4 reported that AI writing tools functioned as personalized writing tutors, providing grammar suggestions, enhancing vocabulary usage, and ensuring logical continuity of arguments, and were instrumental in elevating students' writing capabilities, especially in creating logically coherent and flowing pieces.
“AI writing tools have been instrumental in elevating students' writing capabilities, especially in creating logically coherent and flowing pieces of writing.By providing grammar suggestions, enhancing vocabulary usage, and ensuring logical continuity of arguments, these tools have effectively functioned as personalized writing tutors.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
FindingcitationTeacher T2 raised the potential downside that over-reliance on AI writing tools may limit critical thinking and personal creativity.
“However, potential downsides were also noted, such as the risk of over-reliance on these tools potentially limiting critical thinking and personal creativity, as raised by T2 and supported by Huang and Tan (2023).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataAll four participating teachers recognized the positive role of AI writing tools in enhancing the clarity of student writing and promoting a logical progression of thoughts and arguments.
“In our study, all four participating teachers (T1, T2, T3, and T4) recognized the positive role of AI writing tools in enhancing the clarity of student writing and promoting a logical progression of thoughts and arguments.”
- Also stated in: § 6. Conclusion · plain
“The study also found unanimous agreement among the teachers about the positive role of AI writing tools in enhancing the clarity and logical progression of students' writing.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Also stated in: § 6. Conclusion · plain
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataThe participating teachers presented diverse perspectives on the influence of AI writing tools on students' vocabulary use and growth.
“Additionally, the teachers in this study (T1, T2, T3, & T4) presented diverse perspectives on the influence of AI writing tools on students' vocabulary use and growth.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataTeacher T2 expressed concern that students could become overly reliant on AI writing tools, which could inadvertently inhibit the growth of their critical thinking and problem-solving skills.
“Particularly, T2 expressed concern over the possibility that students could become overly reliant on these tools, which could inadvertently inhibit the growth of their critical thinking and problem-solving skills.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataTeacher T2 urged caution about potential downsides of AI writing tools for vocabulary, including overly complex language and excessive dependence.
“others (i.e., T2) urged caution about potential downsides, including overly complex language and an excessive dependence on these tools.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationAI writing tools are easy to use and effective, saving students and educators time and effort.
“They are easy to use and effective, saving students and educators time and effort (T. S. Chang et al., 2021;Gayed et al., 2022;Jeanjaroonsri, 2023;Zhao, 2022).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites T. S. Chang et al., 2021
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Gayed et al., 2022
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Jeanjaroonsri, 2023
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown dataGiven the small dataset, observations about AI tool usage patterns need to be treated as preliminary trends rather than definitive conclusions.
“However, given the small dataset, these observations need to be treated as preliminary trends rather than definitive conclusions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationSome research suggests that adopting AI-powered writing tools can help students improve their writing.
“Some research suggests that adopting AI-powered writing tools can help students improve their writing (e.g., Kurniati & Fithriani, 2022;Wang, 2022;Zhao, 2022)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites Kurniati & Fithriani, 2022
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Wang, 2022
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Zhao, 2022
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationAI writing tools are intended to analyze written materials and provide comments on many parts of writing, such as grammar, vocabulary, syntax, content, and structure.
“In general, AI writing tools are intended to analyze written materials and provide comments on many parts of the writing, such as grammar, vocabulary, syntax, content, and structure (Hosseini et al., 2023;Strobl et al., 2019;Thorp, 2023).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites Hosseini et al., 2023
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Strobl et al., 2019
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Thorp, 2023
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataThe level of teaching experience and qualifications may influence the use of AI tools.
“Furthermore, it is worth noting that the level of teaching experience and qualifications may influence the use of AI tools.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The perspectives of four EFL teachers from three Indonesian universities are sufficient to generalize about integrating AI writing tools in EFL classrooms.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationReal-time feedback from AI writing tools can assist students in comprehending fundamental concepts of successful writing and offer direction for enhancing writing abilities.
“This real-time feedback can also assist students in comprehending the fundamental concepts of successful writing and offer them with direction for enhancing their writing abilities (Akgun & Greenhow, 2022;Nazari et al., 2021;Rudolph et al., 2023).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites Akgun & Greenhow, 2022
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Nazari et al., 2021
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Rudolph et al., 2023
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationAI writing tools like AI KAKU could potentially reduce cognitive barriers for EFL learners when producing written text in English.
“a study found that AI writing tools like”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Gayed et al., 2022
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationSome educators worry that students might use AI writing tools not just for refining language, but also for generating ideas, potentially curtailing their creative thinking and originality.
“Some educators worry that students might use these tools not just for refining their language, but also for generating ideas, potentially curtailing their creative thinking and originality (Johinke et al., 2023).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Johinke et al., 2023
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).
InterpretationreasoningFocusing only on grammar and syntax overlooks the critical roles of content and organization in writing.
“Therefore, the focus on just grammar and syntax overlooks the critical roles of content and organization in writing.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationOthers have voiced concerns about the side effects of AI writing tools.
“while others have voiced concerns about the side effect of these tools (e.g., Y. Liu et al., 2022;Lund & Wang, 2023;Qadir, 2022).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites Y. Liu et al., 2022
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Lund & Wang, 2023
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Qadir, 2022
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationMalik et al. (2023) suggested that excessive reliance on AI tools can result in reduced efforts in critical thinking among students.
“This concern aligns with the findings of Malik et al. (2023), who suggested that excessive reliance on AI tools can result in reduced efforts in critical thinking among students.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Malik et al. (2023)
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationFarrokhnia et al. (2023) pointed out that while AI tools can improve certain writing skills, they may not be as effective in addressing higher-order writing elements, such as argument structure and coherence.
“Furthermore, Farrokhnia et al. (2023) pointed out that while AI tools can improve certain writing skills, they may not be as effective in addressing higher-order writing elements, such as argument structure and coherence.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Farrokhnia et al. (2023)
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationWong and Mak (2019) note that the content of L2 writing is often shaped by students' linguistic abilities and cultural backgrounds.
“Wong and Mak (2019) note that the content of L2 writing, in particular, is often shaped by students' linguistic abilities and their cultural backgrounds.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Wong and Mak (2019)
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationTheir research findings suggest that using AWE can provide students with positive benefits, which were consistent across their studies.
“Their research findings suggest that using AWE can provide students with positive benefits, which were consistent across their studies.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Miranty and Widiati (2021)
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Fahmi and Cahyono (2021)
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationMalik et al. (2023) suggested that AI tools can be instrumental in improving the organization of L2 writing.
“These findings align with the research by Malik et al. (2023), who suggested that AI tools can be instrumental in improving the organization of L2 writing.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Malik et al. (2023)
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationGood organization ensures a smooth flow of ideas, making writing easier to follow and more impactful.
“Good organization ensures a smooth flow of ideas, making the writing easier to follow and more impactful (Awada et al., 2020).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Awada et al., 2020
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationFahmi and Cahyono (2021) aimed to investigate differences in students' perceptions towards the use of AWE based on their proficiency levels.
“Fahmi and Cahyono (2021) aimed to investigate differences in students' perceptions towards the use of AWE based on their proficiency levels.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Fahmi and Cahyono (2021)
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenThe research did not examine the long-term effects of using AI tools on students' writing skills, nor did it investigate potential negative effects of students' overdependence on AI tools.
“Furthermore, the research did not examine the long-term effects of using AI tools on students' writing skills, nor did it investigate the potential negative effects of students' overdependence on AI tools, which was a concern raised by some teachers.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).
PremisecitationContent and organization are equally significant components of writing that profoundly affect the reader's understanding and engagement.
“The content and organization of a piece of writing are equally significant components that profoundly affect the reader's understanding and engagement (I. Lee & Yuan, 2021).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites I. Lee & Yuan, 2021
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationAI tools might not fully grasp the subtleties and nuances of human language and emotion, potentially leading to inappropriate or inaccurate suggestions in a given context.
“These tools might not fully grasp the subtleties and nuances of human language and emotion, potentially leading to suggestions that may not be appropriate or accurate in a given context (Haleem et al., 2022).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Haleem et al., 2022
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataAI writing tools were found to foster a comprehensive learning environment and enrich students' overall academic performance.
“In particular, the tools, including Quillbot, Jenni, Chat-GPT, WordTune, Copy.ai,Paperpal, and Essay writer, were found to foster a comprehensive learning environment and enrich students' overall academic performance.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The teachers' reports about changes in students' writing accurately reflect the actual impact of AI writing tools on students' writing.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
InterpretationreasoningIf teachers view AI writing tools as beneficial, this positive perception can lead to more widespread adoption, enriching EFL instruction.
“If teachers view these tools as beneficial, this positive perception can lead to more widespread adoption, enriching EFL instruction across the board.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationHuang and Tan (2023) argued that excessive dependence on AI technologies may decrease one's ability to think creatively and critically, as well as impair the capacity to make autonomous assessments regarding the standard of writing.
“They argued that excessive dependence on AI technologies may decrease one's ability to think creatively and critically, as well as impair the capacity to make autonomous assessments regarding the standard of writing.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Huang and Tan (2023)
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
PremisereasoningIt is still unclear how AI writing tools affect the quality of student writing particularly on the aspects of content and organization.
“However, it is still unclear how AI writing tools affect the quality of student writing particularly on the aspects of content and organization.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: There is almost no research in the Indonesian context reported in journal articles examining the impact of AI writing tools on content and organization from either students' or teachers' perspective.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationT. S. Chang et al. (2021) found that AI writing tools can provide instantaneous feedback and suggestions for reorganizing sentences and paragraphs, thus helping students improve the structure of their writing.
“Here, AI writing tools can provide instantaneous feedback and suggestions for reorganizing sentences and paragraphs, thus helping students improve the structure of their writing (T. S. Chang et al., 2021).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites T. S. Chang et al., 2021
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationGayed et al. (2022) found that AI writing tools can be instrumental in fostering idea development, thus aiding students in overcoming creative blocks.
“Moreover, a study by Gayed et al. (2022) found that AI writing tools can be instrumental in fostering idea development, thus aiding students in overcoming creative blocks.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Gayed et al. (2022)
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationMiranty and Widiati (2021) explored students' perceptions of the merits and drawbacks of AWE (i.e., Grammarly).
“Miranty and Widiati (2021) explored students' perceptions of the merits and drawbacks of AWE (i.e., Grammarly)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Miranty and Widiati (2021)
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationGPT-3 has been found to stimulate students' creative and critical thinking.
“Capable of generating coherent and contextually relevant sentences, GPT-3 has been found to stimulate students' creative and critical thinking (Mhlanga, 2023).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Mhlanga, 2023
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductreasoningTo address potential social-desirability bias in self-reported data, the researchers emphasized to participants that there were no right or wrong answers and encouraged openness and honesty.
“To address potential social-desirability bias inherent in self-reported data, we emphasized to the participants that there were no right or wrong answers and encouraged them to be as open and honest as possible.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).
Interpretationnone givenUnderstanding the types of AI writing tools used by teachers and their methods of integration could provide a blueprint for other educators looking to implement similar technologies.
“Firstly, understanding the types of AI writing tools used by teachers and their methods of integration could provide a blueprint for other educators looking to implement similar technologies in their teaching practices.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationBowen and Thomas (2020) state that organization of ideas is a critical component of L2 writing, and students often struggle with establishing coherence and logical progression in their texts.
“According to Bowen and Thomas (2020), the organization of ideas is a critical component of L2 writing, and students often struggle with establishing coherence and logical progression in their texts.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Bowen and Thomas (2020)
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationIskender (2023) argued that the use of AI writing tools could lead to diminished critical thinking skills if students become overly dependent on them.
“Iskender (2023) provided a critical perspective on this matter, arguing that the use of AI writing tools could lead to diminished critical thinking skills if students become overly dependent on them.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Iskender (2023)
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationAI writing tools like GPT-3 and GPT-4 have been leveraged to suggest the next word or paragraph in a text, aiding authors in creating human-like compositions.
“AI-based tools, like GPT-3 and its successor GPT-4, have been leveraged to suggest the next word or paragraph in a text, aiding authors in creating human-like compositions (Y.Liu et al., 2023).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Y.Liu et al., 2023
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductreasoningEach interview was recorded with the participant's permission to maintain accuracy in capturing responses for reliable transcription and data analysis.
“Each interview was recorded with the participant's permission, to maintain accuracy in capturing their responses, an integral part of reliable transcription and subsequent data analysis.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
The paper relies on this without support.
There is almost no research in the Indonesian context reported in journal articles examining the impact of AI writing tools on content and organization from either students' or teachers' perspective.
“To the best of our knowledge, there is almost no research in the Indonesian context that has been reported in journal articles examining the impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization from either students' or teachers' perspective.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Teachers' perceptions of the impact of AI writing tools on student writing quality accurately reflect the tools' actual impact.
“The findings of this study imply that integrating AI writing tools can prove beneficial in elevating the quality of EFL student writing.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The perspectives of four EFL teachers from three Indonesian universities are sufficient to generalize about integrating AI writing tools in EFL classrooms.
“These findings have broader implications for educators, students, and policymakers interested in optimizing language instruction through technology.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The teachers' reports about changes in students' writing accurately reflect the actual impact of AI writing tools on students' writing.
“The objective of this study was to explore the various types of AI writing tools and their influence on the quality of student writing-particularly in terms of content and organization-as perceived by EFL (English as a Foreign Language) teachers.”
“Furthermore, the study focused solely on teachers' perceptions and did not incorporate students' views or measure their actual improvements in writing skills due to the use of these AI tools.”
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?
Marzuki et al.'s mixed-methods investigation revealed that students perceived AI tools as empowering for content creation and revision processes.
“This finding is also supported by Marzuki et al.'s [5] mixed-methods investigation, which revealed that students perceived AI tools as empowering for content creation and revision processes.”
From AI-Integrated Scaffolding to Enhance Agency and Creativity in K-12 English Language Learners: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [5]
Section 4.2.1.1 reports teachers’ views that AI writing tools can help students generate and develop ideas, supporting the content-creation portion of the claim. But Section 3.1 describes a qualitative case study, not a mixed-methods investigation, and Sections 3.3–3.4 say the interviews collected teachers’ perceptions, not students’ perceptions. The cited passages do not establish that students perceived the tools as empowering for revision. (LLM, conf=0.89)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMarzuki et al.'s investigation of style variation tools like Wordtune demonstrated enhanced ability among students to adapt their writing tone and style according to different contexts.
“This finding was complemented by Marzuki et al.'s [5] investigation of style variation tools like Wordtune, which demonstrated enhanced ability among students to adapt their writing tone and style according to different contexts.”
From AI-Integrated Scaffolding to Enhance Agency and Creativity in K-12 English Language Learners: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [5]
Section 2.2 says Wordtune focuses on improving the tone and style of text, and section 4.1 reports teachers used it to improve students’ sentence structure and clarity. The paper does not demonstrate that students became better able to adapt their tone and style to different contexts. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMarzuki et al. found that AI writing assistants like Wordtune effectively supported the brainstorming process by offering multiple rewrite options, helping students maintain writing flow while exploring diverse expressions.
“Marzuki et al. [5] found that AI writing assistants like Wordtune effectively supported the brainstorming process by offering multiple rewrite options, helping students maintain writing flow while exploring diverse expressions.”
From AI-Integrated Scaffolding to Enhance Agency and Creativity in K-12 English Language Learners: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [5]
Section 4.1 (page not specified) says teachers used Wordtune to improve sentence structure and clarity, while identifying Jenni AI as a brainstorming tool. Section 4.2.1.1 says AI writing tools generally helped some students overcome creative blocks and explore ways to express ideas. The paper does not establish that Wordtune supported brainstorming specifically by offering multiple rewrite options or maintaining writing flow. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMarzuki et al. found that tools like QuillBot and Wordtune enhanced students' ability to manage content creation and organizational clarity independently.
“Marzuki et al.'s [5] study, using teacher interviews, found that tools like Quillbot and Wordtune enhanced students' ability to manage content creation and organizational clarity independently.”
From AI-Integrated Scaffolding to Enhance Agency and Creativity in K-12 English Language Learners: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [5]
The Public Interest Statement reports interviews with four EFL teachers and their view that AI tools improved students’ writing content and organization. Section 4.1 identifies QuillBot and Wordtune as tools the teachers used, while the Conclusion reports improved clarity and logical progression. The paper does not establish that students managed these tasks independently; its Conclusion instead notes concerns about over-reliance. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredSome students expressed concerns about becoming overly dependent on AI assistance.
“However, their study also highlighted an important tension: while students felt more confident in their writing decisions, some expressed concerns about becoming overly dependent on AI assistance.”
From AI-Integrated Scaffolding to Enhance Agency and Creativity in K-12 English Language Learners: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [5]
The Discussion reports concern about students becoming overly reliant on AI writing tools, but identifies T2, a teacher, as the person who expressed it. The Conclusion likewise attributes the concern to teachers, not students. The cited paper therefore supports the concern itself but not the claim that students expressed it. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Marzuki et al.'s mixed-methods study revealed that tools such as QuillBot and Wordtune improved content organization and bolstered students' belief in their ability to complete complex writing tasks.
“Their mixed-methods study revealed that tools such as QuillBot and Wordtune not only improved content organization but also bolstered students' belief in their ability to complete complex writing tasks.”
From AI-Integrated Scaffolding to Enhance Agency and Creativity in K-12 English Language Learners: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [5]
The Conclusion reports teachers’ agreement that AI writing tools, including QuillBot and Wordtune, improved the clarity and logical progression of students’ writing. Section 4.2.2.1 reports one teacher’s observation that students wrote more confidently, but it does not establish a stronger belief in their ability to complete complex writing tasks. Section 3.1 describes the study as a qualitative case study, not a mixed-methods study. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMarzuki et al. found that tools like Wordtune supported expressive writing, enhancing students' ability to convey individual voice while maintaining academic standards.
“Marzuki et al.'s [5] mixed-methods investigation found that tools like Wordtune supported expressive writing, enhancing students' ability to convey individual voice while maintaining academic standards.”
From AI-Integrated Scaffolding to Enhance Agency and Creativity in K-12 English Language Learners: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [5]
Section 4.1 (page unavailable) reports that the teachers used Wordtune to improve sentence structure, clarity, and students’ written expression. The cited paper does not establish that Wordtune helped students convey an individual voice while maintaining academic standards; section 4.2.2.1 instead notes a concern that over-reliance on AI tools could affect unique writing styles. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMarzuki et al.'s findings demonstrate that students exhibit increased confidence and writing fluency when AI tools serve as consultative resources rather than directive authorities.
“Marzuki et al.'s [5] findings demonstrate that students exhibit increased confidence and writing fluency when AI tools serve as consultative resources rather than directive authorities.”
From AI-Integrated Scaffolding to Enhance Agency and Creativity in K-12 English Language Learners: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [5]
Section 4.2.2.1 (page unavailable) reports a teacher’s observation that students write more confidently with AI guidance and describes improvements in sentence flow and cohesion. It also cautions against over-reliance. The paper does not establish increased writing fluency or compare consultative use with AI acting as a directive authority. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredChatGPT has the potential to provide immediate feedback and real-time assistance in improving students' writing skills.
“ChatGPT, a powerful AI language model developed by OpenAI, has been increasingly adopted in EFL classrooms due to its potentials to provide immediate feedback and real-time assistance in improving students' writing skills (Marzuki et al., 2023).”
From An Investigation into the Usage of ChatGPT in Academic Writing by EFL University Students in North and East Syria: A Cross-Sectional Study (2025) · cites this paper as Marzuki et al., 2023
The Introduction (page unavailable) says AI writing tools used by EFL learners provide immediate, real-time feedback and assistance that can improve writing skills. The ChatGPT entry (page unavailable) describes conversational writing practice, but the cited paper does not specifically say ChatGPT provides that feedback or that ChatGPT itself has been increasingly adopted in EFL classrooms. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredWriting instructors worried the suggestion of more advanced vocabulary might lead students to use words inappropriate for their specific writing tasks.
“however, they worried the suggestion of more advanced vocabulary might lead students to use words inappropriate for their specific writing tasks.”
From Generative Artificial Intelligence, Formative Epistemic Injustice, and Educators’ Solutions (2026) · cites this paper as Marzuki et al. 2023
Writing instructors who use GenAI tools in their classrooms note that vocabulary and word choice in student writing with GenAI were more advanced.
“Writing instructors who use GenAI tools in their classrooms note that vocabulary and word choice in student writing with GenAI were more advanced”
From Generative Artificial Intelligence, Formative Epistemic Injustice, and Educators’ Solutions (2026) · cites this paper as Marzuki et al. 2023
These instructors noted student writing was better in organization and in the use of transition words.
“While these instructors noted student writing was better in organization and in the use of transition words”
From Generative Artificial Intelligence, Formative Epistemic Injustice, and Educators’ Solutions (2026) · cites this paper as Marzuki et al. 2023
Little attention was given to whether students actually learned how to better organize an essay or use transition words.
“little attention was given to whether students actually learned how to better organize an essay or use transition words (Marzuki et al. 2023).”
From Generative Artificial Intelligence, Formative Epistemic Injustice, and Educators’ Solutions (2026) · cites this paper as Marzuki et al. 2023
The perceived impact on organization confirms the findings of Allagui (2023) and Marzuki et al. (2023), who highlight the help with the organization of content in their study.
“In terms of organization, the perceived impact confirms the findings of Allagui (2023) and Marzuki et al. (2023), who highlight the help with the organization of content in their study.”
From Impact of ChatGPT on ESL students’ academic writing skills: a mixed methods intervention study (2024) · cites this paper as Marzuki et al. (2023)
Many reviewed studies relied heavily on short-term implementations of AI tools, typically spanning only one academic semester or less.
“First, many studies relied heavily on short-term implementations of AI tools, typically spanning only one academic semester or less [5,7].”
From AI-Integrated Scaffolding to Enhance Agency and Creativity in K-12 English Language Learners: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [5]
The Conclusion (page unavailable) says this study did not examine long-term effects, but it does not assess the duration of other studies. The Research participants section (page unavailable) says the interviewed teachers had at least one year of experience using AI writing tools. Searches for short-term implementations, reviewed-study durations, and semesters found no passage establishing that many studies lasted one semester or less. (LLM, conf=0.73)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAI writing tools can improve grammar, coherence, and argumentation in academic writing.
“AI-assisted writing tools can substantially improve grammar, coherence, and argumentation, making writing more accessible and efficient [2,28].”
From The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as [2]
AI tools can help students overcome writer's block by providing prompts, sentence suggestions, and guidance on structuring an essay.
“Additionally, AI tools that make content suggestions can help students overcome writer's block by providing prompts, sentence suggestions, and guidance on structuring an essay.”
From The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as [2]
AI writing tools cannot fully understand context and nuanced language, including idiomatic expressions, tonal shifts, and creative or subjective writing.
“This is because AI tools cannot fully understand specific nuances of argumentation, tone, and discipline-specific writing conventions.”
From The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as [2]
AI writing tools can help educators assess student writing by identifying common errors and producing personalized instruction.
“From an instructional perspective, AI tools can help educators assess student writing by identifying common errors and producing personalized instruction [2].”
From The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as [2]
AI writing tools can provide explanations of grammatical rules, allowing students to learn from their errors and improve their writing.
“Moreover, AI-powered platforms, such as Grammarly, not only point out mistakes but also explain the grammatical rules, allowing students to learn from their errors and improve their writing [2].”
From The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as [2]
AI writing tools can help eliminate redundancy, improve word choice, and enhance clarity, enabling writers to produce clear, concise, and well-organized content.
“This process helps eliminate redundancy, improve word choice, and enhance clarity, enabling writers to produce clear, concise, and well-organized content [2].”
From The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as [2]
AI tools can help students identify credible sources, improve transitions between ideas, and ensure overall consistency in arguments.
“These tools can assist students in identifying credible sources, improving transitions between ideas, and ensuring overall consistency in arguments [2].”
From The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as [2]
Over-reliance on AI tools can lead to diminished critical thinking, creativity, and independent problem-solving abilities.
“A primary concern among educators is the potential for students' overreliance on AI-generated suggestions, which may lead to factual inaccuracies, diminished critical thinking, and a decline in independent problem-solving abilities [15].”
From The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as [2]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Tools called unique to T2 and T3 are also used by T4
MinorThe paper describes Copy.ai as a unique tool used by T2 and Essay Writer as a unique tool used by T3, but it also says T4 used both.
“Notably, T2, who is the oldest, holds the highest qualification (a Ph.D.) and has the most teaching experience, utilizes unique tools like Copy.ai and Paperpal.Similarly, T3, who has comparable AIWT experience, also uses a unique tool, Essay Writer.”
“T4 also brought in Copy.ai and Essay Writer, leveraging these tools to show students how to craft compelling pieces of writing in various styles and formats.”
Cites
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414 · cited 1× · see citing works
“As outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006), the goal of this thematic analysis was to identify patterns and connections among themes extracted from the qualitative data, thereby addressing our research questions.”
BackgroundCase Study Research: Design and Methods
Chaiklin, H. (1991) · The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · doi:10.1097/00005053-199102000-00025 · Cited by 39,631 · see citing works
Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., et al. (2023) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642 · Cited by 4,584 · see citing works
ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education?
(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9 · Cited by 1,806 · cited 1× · see citing works
“This real-time feedback can also assist students in comprehending the fundamental concepts of successful writing and offer them with direction for enhancing their writing abilities (Akgun & Greenhow, 2022; Nazari et al., 2021; Rudolph et al., 2023).”
BackgroundArtificial intelligence in education: Addressing ethical challenges in K-12 settings
Akgun, S., & Greenhow, C. (2022) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-021-00096-7 · Cited by 1,473 · cited 1× · see citing works
“This real-time feedback can also assist students in comprehending the fundamental concepts of successful writing and offer them with direction for enhancing their writing abilities (Akgun & Greenhow, 2022; Nazari et al., 2021; Rudolph et al., 2023).”
BackgroundChatGPT is fun, but not an author
Thorp, H. H. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adg7879 · Cited by 1,437 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In general, AI writing tools are intended to analyze written materials and provide comments on many parts of the writing, such as grammar, vocabulary, syntax, content, and structure (Hosseini et al., 2023; Strobl et al., 2019; Thorp, 2023).”
BackgroundA SWOT analysis of ChatGPT: Implications for educational practice and research
Farrokhnia, M., Banihashem, S. K., Noroozi, O., & Wals, A. (2024) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2023.2195846 · Cited by 1,384 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Furthermore, Farrokhnia et al. (2023) pointed out that while AI tools can improve certain writing skills, they may not be as effective in addressing higher-order writing elements, such as argument structure and coherence.”
BackgroundChatting about ChatGPT: how may AI and GPT impact academia and libraries?
Lund, B. D., & Wang, T. (2023) · Library Hi Tech News · doi:10.1108/lhtn-01-2023-0009 · Cited by 1,355 · see citing works
Ouyang, F., Zheng, L., & Jiao, P. (2022) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-022-10925-9 · Cited by 831 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Similarly, Ouyang et al. (2022) studied the impact of AI in education, and their findings corroborate our research.”
ResultOpen AI in Education, the Responsible and Ethical Use of ChatGPT Towards Lifelong Learning
Mhlanga, D. (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4354422 · Cited by 719 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Capable of generating coherent and contextually relevant sentences, GPT-3 has been found to stimulate students’ creative and critical thinking (Mhlanga, 2023).”
BackgroundOpen AI in Education, the Responsible and Ethical Use of ChatGPT Towards Lifelong Learning
Mhlanga, D. (2023) · Sustainable Development Goals Series · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-37776-1_17 · Cited by 718 · see citing works
Haleem, A., Javaid, M., & Singh, R. P. (2022) · BenchCouncil Transactions on Benchmarks, Standards and Evaluations · doi:10.1016/j.tbench.2023.100089 · Cited by 694 · cited 1× · see citing works
“These tools might not fully grasp the subtleties and nuances of human language and emotion, potentially leading to suggestions that may not be appropriate or accurate in a given context (Haleem et al., 2022).”
BackgroundBhutoria, A. (2022) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100068 · Cited by 677 · see citing works
“Fake News” Is Not Simply False Information: A Concept Explication and Taxonomy of Online Content
Molina, M. D., Sundar, S. S., Le, T., & Lee, D. (2021) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/0002764219878224 · Cited by 485 · cited 1× · see citing works
“High-quality content is relevant, informative, original, and meaningful, resonating with the audience and fulfilling its purpose—whether that be to inform, persuade, entertain, or provoke thought (Molina et al., 2021).”
BackgroundNazari, N., Shabbir, M. S., & Setiawan, R. (2021) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07014 · Cited by 405 · cited 2× · see citing works
“This real-time feedback can also assist students in comprehending the fundamental concepts of successful writing and offer them with direction for enhancing their writing abilities (Akgun & Greenhow, 2022; Nazari et al., 2021; Rudolph et al., 2023).”
BackgroundLee, M., Liang, P., & Yang, Q. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3502030 · Cited by 345 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Works by Nazari et al. (2021), Dale and Viethen (2021), M. Lee et al. (2022), and Zhao (2022) served as valuable references.”
BackgroundDoğan, M. E., Doğan, T. G., & Bozkurt, A. (2023) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app13053056 · Cited by 340 · cited 1× · see citing works
“This empowers educators to tailor their teaching strategies to each student’s unique needs and preferences, leading to more effective learning outcomes (Dogan et al., 2023).”
BackgroundExploring an AI-based writing Assistant's impact on English language learners
Gayed, J. M., Carlon, M. K. J., Oriola, A. M., & Cross, J. S. (2022) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100055 · Cited by 340 · cited 12× · see citing works
“Chat-GPT simulated conversations, assisting students in improving their conversational writing skills, which was a crucial aspect of English learning in a globalized and digitally connected world.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialArtificial intelligence and the conduct of literature reviews
Wagner, G., Lukyanenko, R., & Paré, G. (2021) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1177/02683962211048201 · Cited by 332 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Another important application of AI in writing is its ability to expedite the literature review process, which deals with large volumes of partially structured (meta)data (Wagner et al., 2022).”
BackgroundDigital 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 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In general, AI writing tools are intended to analyze written materials and provide comments on many parts of the writing, such as grammar, vocabulary, syntax, content, and structure (Hosseini et al., 2023; Strobl et al., 2019; Thorp, 2023).”
BackgroundThe role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: writing better scientific review articles.
(2023) · PubMed Central · Cited by 289 · see citing works
Using AI to write scholarly publications
Hosseini, M., Rasmussen, L. M., & Resnik, D. B. (2024) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2023.2168535 · Cited by 286 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In general, AI writing tools are intended to analyze written materials and provide comments on many parts of the writing, such as grammar, vocabulary, syntax, content, and structure (Hosseini et al., 2023; Strobl et al., 2019; Thorp, 2023).”
BackgroundEngineering Education in the Era of ChatGPT: Promise and Pitfalls of Generative AI for Education
Qadir, J. (2022) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.21789434.v1 · Cited by 264 · see citing works
Holy or Unholy? Interview with Open AI’s ChatGPT
Iskender, A. (2023) · European Journal of Tourism Research · doi:10.54055/ejtr.v34i.3169 · Cited by 260 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Iskender (2023) provided a critical perspective on this matter, arguing that the use of AI writing tools could lead to diminished critical thinking skills if students become overly dependent on them.”
BackgroundLiu, C., Hou, J., Tu, Y.-F., Wang, Y., & Hwang, G.-J. (2023) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2021.2012812 · Cited by 231 · see citing works
Grammarly as AI-powered English Writing Assistant: Students' Alternative for Writing English
Fitria, T. N. (2021) · Metathesis: Journal of English Language, Literature, and Teaching · doi:10.31002/metathesis.v5i1.3519 · Cited by 221 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Furthermore, the study by Fitria (2021) aligns with our findings.”
ResultThe Influence of Emerging Technologies on Distance Education
Garlińska, M., Osial, M. E., Proniewska, K. K., & Pręgowska, A. (2023) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics12071550 · Cited by 213 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Garlinska et al. (2023) discuss how virtual classrooms, online workshops, and cloud-based writing tools, for example, are revolutionizing the domain of writing instruction.”
BackgroundZhao, X. (2023) · RELC Journal · doi:10.1177/00336882221094089 · Cited by 192 · cited 3× · see citing works
“Some research suggests that adopting AI-powered writing tools can help students improve their writing (e.g., Kurniati & Fithriani, 2022; Wang, 2022; Zhao, 2022), while others have voiced concerns about the side effect of these tools (e.g., Y. Liu et al., 2022; Lund & Wang, 2023; Qadir, 2022).”
BackgroundOne Small Step for Generative AI, One Giant Leap for AGI: A Complete Survey on ChatGPT in AIGC EraPreprint
Zhang, C.-N., Zhang, C.-S., Li, C., Qiao, Y., Zheng, S., Dam, S. K., Zhang, M.-C., Kim, J. U., Kim, S., Choi, J., et al. (2023) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.06488 · Cited by 158 · see citing works
Wang, Z. (2020) · Library Hi Tech · doi:10.1108/lht-05-2020-0113 · Cited by 117 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Some research suggests that adopting AI-powered writing tools can help students improve their writing (e.g., Kurniati & Fithriani, 2022; Wang, 2022; Zhao, 2022), while others have voiced concerns about the side effect of these tools (e.g., Y. Liu et al., 2022; Lund & Wang, 2023; Qadir, 2022).”
BackgroundPost-Graduate Students’ Perceptions of Quillbot Utilization in English Academic Writing Class
Kurniati, E. Y., & Fithriani, R. (2022) · Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics · doi:10.21462/jeltl.v7i3.852 · Cited by 97 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Some research suggests that adopting AI-powered writing tools can help students improve their writing (e.g., Kurniati & Fithriani, 2022; Wang, 2022; Zhao, 2022), while others have voiced concerns about the side effect of these tools (e.g., Y. Liu et al., 2022; Lund & Wang, 2023; Qadir, 2022).”
BackgroundWill AI Console Me when I Lose my Pet? Understanding Perceptions of AI-Mediated Email Writing
Liu, Y., Mittal, A., Yang, D., & Bruckman, A. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3517731 · Cited by 92 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Some research suggests that adopting AI-powered writing tools can help students improve their writing (e.g., Kurniati & Fithriani, 2022; Wang, 2022; Zhao, 2022), while others have voiced concerns about the side effect of these tools (e.g., Y. Liu et al., 2022; Lund & Wang, 2023; Qadir, 2022).”
BackgroundTambunan, A. R. S., Andayani, W., Sari, W. S., & Lubis, F. K. (2022) · Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.17509/ijal.v12i1.46428 · Cited by 85 · cited 1× · see citing works
“A study by Tambunan et al. (2022) showed that using Grammarly improved students’ grammar and punctuation.”
MethodThe automated writing assistance landscape in 2021
Dale, R., & Viethen, J. (2021) · Natural Language Engineering · doi:10.1017/s1351324921000164 · Cited by 81 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Works by Nazari et al. (2021), Dale and Viethen (2021), M. Lee et al. (2022), and Zhao (2022) served as valuable references.”
BackgroundUnderstanding L2 writing teacher expertise
Lee, I., & Yuan, R. E. (2020) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100755 · Cited by 77 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The content and organization of a piece of writing are equally significant components that profoundly affect the reader’s understanding and engagement (I. Lee & Yuan, 2021).”
BackgroundEFL students’ perception on the use of Grammarly and teacher feedback
Fahmi, M. A., & Cahyono, B. Y. (2021) · JEES (Journal of English Educators Society) · doi:10.21070/jees.v6i1.849 · Cited by 75 · cited 2× · see citing works
“The present authors are aware of the seminal work of Miranty and Widiati (2021) and Fahmi and Cahyono (2021), which, to some degree of details, examine the use of Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) as one of the AI writing tools employed by Indonesian EFL students in their writing.”
BackgroundChang, T.-S., Li, Y., Huang, H.-W., & Whitfield, B. (2021) · 2021 2nd International Conference on Education Development and Studies · doi:10.1145/3459043.3459065 · Cited by 74 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Here, AI writing tools can provide instantaneous feedback and suggestions for reorganizing sentences and paragraphs, thus helping students improve the structure of their writing (T. S. Chang et al., 2021).”
BackgroundAwada, G. M., Burston, J., & Ghannage, R. (2019) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2018.1558254 · Cited by 70 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Good organization ensures a smooth flow of ideas, making the writing easier to follow and more impactful (Awada et al., 2020).”
BackgroundReclaiming the technology of higher education for teaching digital writing in a post—pandemic world
Johinke, R., Cummings, R. E., & Lauro, F. D. (2023) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/1.20.02.01 · Cited by 62 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Some educators worry that students might use these tools not just for refining their language, but also for generating ideas, potentially curtailing their creative thinking and originality (Johinke et al., 2023).”
BackgroundMozumder, M. A. I., Athar, A., Armand, T. P. T., Sheeraz, M. M., Uddin, S. M. I., & Kim, H. (2023) · International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology · doi:10.23919/icact56868.2023.10079464 · Cited by 52 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In their study, Mozumder et al. (2023) noted that students without access to high-speed internet or modern digital devices might be unable to utilize these AI tools, widening the educational achievement gap.”
BackgroundAn automated writing evaluation (AWE) in higher education
Miranty, D., & Widiati, U. (2021) · Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction · doi:10.47750/pegegog.11.04.12 · Cited by 33 · cited 2× · see citing works
“The present authors are aware of the seminal work of Miranty and Widiati (2021) and Fahmi and Cahyono (2021), which, to some degree of details, examine the use of Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) as one of the AI writing tools employed by Indonesian EFL students in their writing.”
BackgroundSelf-citationManipulating texture and cohesion in academic writing: A keystroke logging study
Bowen, N. E. J. A., & Thomas, N. (2020) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100773 · Cited by 32 · cited 1× · see citing works
“According to Bowen and Thomas (2020), the organization of ideas is a critical component of L2 writing, and students often struggle with establishing coherence and logical progression in their texts.”
BackgroundOn the necessity (or lack thereof) of digital proctoring: Drawbacks, perceptions, and alternatives
Duncan, A. S., & Joyner, D. A. (2022) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.12700 · Cited by 28 · cited 1× · see citing works
“As Duncan and Joyner (2022) articulated, educators must grapple with issues related to digital equity, privacy, and the potential for distraction.”
BackgroundSelf-Assessment in the Primary L2 Writing Classroom
Wong, K. M., & Mak, P. (2019) · Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes · doi:10.3138/cmlr.2018-0197 · Cited by 20 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Wong and Mak (2019) note that the content of L2 writing, in particular, is often shaped by students’ linguistic abilities and their cultural backgrounds.”
BackgroundUsing Digital Portfolios to Develop Students’ Writing
Lam, R., & Moorhouse, B. L. (2022) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003295860 · Cited by 17 · cited 1× · see citing works
“A study by Lam and Moorhouse (2022) found that WordTune effectively helped students identify their writing weaknesses, thereby promoting self-assessment and learning.”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Cahyono, B. Y., Khotimah, K., & Batunan, D. A. (2023). Workable approaches in EFL teaching mediated by mobile technology during the pandemic and post-pandemic: Indonesian EFL teachers’ experiences and expectations. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24, 138–159. http://callej.org/journal/24-1/Cahyono-Khotimah-Batunan-Imamyartha2023.pdf
- Jeanjaroonsri, R. (2023). Thai EFL learners’ use and perceptions of mobile technologies for writing. Learn Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 16(1), 169–193. https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/LEARN/article/view/263438
- 10.21462/jeltl.v7i3.852 · DOI
- Umamah, A., & Cahyono, B. Y. (2022). EFL university students’ use of online resources to facilitate self-regulated writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 108–124. http://callej.org/journal/23-1/Umamah-Cahyono2022.pdf
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zhai, C., Wibowo, S., & Li, L. D. (2024) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7 · Cited by 1,567 · see citing works
“Other studies revealed that regular utilization of dialogue systems is linked to a decline in abilities of cognitive abilities, a diminished capacity for information retention, and an increased reliance on these systems for information (Dergaa et al., 2023; Marzuki et al., 2023).”
BackgroundLaw, L. (2024) · Computers and Education Open · doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100174 · Cited by 596 · see citing works
Exploring students' perspectives on generative AI-assisted academic writing
Kim, J., Yu, S., Detrick, R., & Li, N. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12878-7 · Cited by 438 · see citing works
Exploring Artificial Intelligence in Academic Essay: Higher Education Student's Perspective
Malik, A. R., Pratiwi, Y., Andajani, K., Numertayasa, I. W., Suharti, S., Darwis, A., & Marzuki (2023) · International Journal of Educational Research Open · doi:10.1016/j.ijedro.2023.100296 · Cited by 418 · see citing works
Impact of ChatGPT on ESL students’ academic writing skills: a mixed methods intervention study
Mahapatra, S. (2024) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-024-00295-9 · Cited by 398 · see citing works
“This finding is consistent with the literature on students’ views on the impact of ChatGPT and other AI-driven tools on their writing (Marzuki et al., 2023; Yan, 2023).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialDarwin, D., Rusdin, D., Mukminatien, N., Suryati, N., Laksmi, E. D., & Marzuki, M. (2023) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2023.2290342 · Cited by 426 · see citing works
“This concern has been raised by Marzuki et al. (2023) who argue that AI has the potential to diminish one’s capacity for critical thinking.”
Self-citationKarataş, F., Abedi, F. Y., Ozek Gunyel, F., Karadeniz, D., & Kuzgun, Y. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12574-6 · Cited by 252 · see citing works
Implementing generative AI (GenAI) in higher education: A systematic review of case studies
Belkina, M., Daniel, S., Nikolic, S., Haque, R., Lyden, S., Neal, P., Grundy, S., & Hassan, G. M. (2025) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100407 · Cited by 183 · see citing works
ChatGPT for L2 learning: Current status and implications
Yang, L., & Li, R. (2024) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2024.103351 · Cited by 194 · see citing works
Zhi, R., & Wang, Y. (2024) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2024.103341 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Lo, C. K., Yu, P. L. H., Xu, S., Ng, D. T. K., & Jong, M. S. (2024) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-024-00342-5 · Cited by 284 · see citing works
ChatGPT in Teaching and Learning: A Systematic Review
Ali, D., Fatemi, Y., Boskabadi, E., Nikfar, M., Ugwuoke, J., & Ali, H. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14060643 · Cited by 146 · see citing works
Boudouaia, A., Mouas, S., & Kouider, B. (2024) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/07356331241247465 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
“The goal is to identify effective methods for improving students ’ EFL writing to enhance their overall EFL competency (Marzuki et al., 2023).”
Li, B., Lowell, V. L., Wang, C., & Li, X. (2024) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100266 · Cited by 181 · see citing works
Zhao, D. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-13145-5 · Cited by 165 · see citing works
“The expansion of AI technology in writing assistance has revolutionized language learning and academic writing, prompting investigations into the multifaceted effects of these advanced tools on language precision, content structuring, and creative writ - ing facilitation (Marzuki et al., 2023 ).”
Aljuaid, H. (2024) · Arab World English Journal · doi:10.24093/awej/chatgpt.2 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
“Widiati et al. (2023) found that AI writing tools positively improved students’ writing quality, particularly in “content and organization, as perceived by English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers” (p. 349).”
BackgroundThe impact of ChatGPT feedback on the development of EFL students’ writing skills
Poláková, P., & Ivenz, P. (2024) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2024.2410101 · Cited by 203 · see citing works
“Such positive results correspond with current research studies conducted around the world (Han et al., 2023; Marzuki et al., 2023; Silitonga et al., 2023).”
Bui, N. M., & Barrot, J. S. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12891-w · Cited by 113 · see citing works
“Studies on the utilization of ChatGPT for L2 writing have recently been building up (e.g., Athanassopoulos et al., 2023; Javier & Moorhouse, 2023; Marzuki et al., 2023; Su et al., 2023).”
Li, B., Tan, Y. L., Wang, C., & Lowell, V. L. (2025) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100445 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
Wang, Y. (2024) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2024.103505 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Proliferation of AI Tools: A Multifaceted Evaluation of User Perceptions and Emerging Trend
Marquis, Y. A., Oladoyinbo, T. O., Olabanji, S. O., Olaniyi, O. O., & Ajayi, S. A. (2024) · Asian Journal of Advanced Research and Reports · doi:10.9734/ajarr/2024/v18i1596 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Artificial intelligence in mathematics education: The good, the bad, and the ugly
Opesemowo, O. A. G., & Ndlovu, M. (2024) · Journal of Pedagogical Research · doi:10.33902/jpr.202426428 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
The impact of integrating ChatGPT with teachers’ feedback on EFL writing skills
Asadi, M., Ebadi, S., & Mohammadi, L. (2025) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2025.101766 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Tran, T. T. T. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15020232 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
“These findings resonate with recent studies highlighting the potential of integrating AI-driven tools with traditional feedback methods to enhance writing performance (Aladini, 2023; Marzuki et al., 2023).”
Tang, X., Chen, H., Lin, D., & Li, K. (2024) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e34262 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
“These features span a broad spectrum of indicators, ranging from fundamental mechanics such as spelling and grammar [10,11] to intricate elements like lexical diversity and sophistication [12,13], syntactic complexity and sophistication [14,15], cohesion [16,17], and organization [18,19].”
BackgroundDeep, P. D., & Chen, Y. (2025) · Societies · doi:10.3390/soc15090247 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
“This can ultimately diminish their creativity and critical thinking abilities [2].”
InfluentialShen, X., & Teng, M. F. (2024) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101524 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Investigating the adoption of AI in higher education: a study of public universities in Indonesia
Helmiatin, H., Hidayat, A., & Kahar, M. R. (2024) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2024.2380175 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
“One notable AI tool used in this context is ChatGPT (Pradana et al., 2023), which has been widely adopted by college students Additionally, lecturers use ChatGPT to enhance work efficiency and provide comprehensive learning materials (Wu et al., 2022).”
InfluentialBalancing AI and authenticity: EFL students' experiences with ChatGPT in academic writing
Werdiningsih, I., Marzuki, & Rusdin, D. (2024) · Cogent Arts & Humanities · doi:10.1080/23311983.2024.2392388 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
“the use of ai tools in eFl writing has gained traction due to their ability to support linguistic development and streamline the writing process (marzuki et al., 2023; Reiss, 2021). these tools offer features such as grammar checks, style suggestions, and content generation, which can significantly…”
InfluentialSelf-citationMzwri, K., & Turcsányi-Szabó, M. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15020199 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
The effects of generative AI usage in EFL classrooms on the l2 motivational self system
Huang, J., & Mizumoto, A. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-13071-6 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
“The benefits of ChatGPT for L2 learning are well-documented and include enhancing positive learner perceptions (Agustini, 2023; Marzuki et al., 2023), improving writing and overall language skills (Athanassopoulos et al., 2023; Vera, 2023), and providing additional support for teachers in L2…”
Liu, J., Sihes, A. J. B., & Lu, Y. (2025) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-025-00406-0 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
“Marzuki et al. (2023) and Tseng and Lin (2024) focused on short-term improvements in their writing and comprehension, but they did not explore whether students who used AI-generative tools regularly develop stronger or weaker CT skills over time.”
Waluyo, B., & Kusumastuti, S. (2024) · Social Sciences & Humanities Open · doi:10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101146 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
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 92 · see citing works
“Students may be inclined to rely on the quick solutions oered by GAI, rather than taking the time to understand and learn from their mistakes (Marzuki et al., 2023).”
InfluentialSelim, A. S. M. (2024) · International Journal of English Linguistics · doi:10.5539/ijel.v14n1p14 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Santiago, C. S., Embang, S. I., Acanto, R. B., Ambojia, K. W. P., Aperocho, M. D. B., Balilo, B. B., Cahapin, E. L., Conlu, M. T. N., Lausa, S. M., Laput, E. Y., et al. (2023) · International Journal of Learning Teaching and Educational Research · doi:10.26803/ijlter.22.11.14 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Xiao, F., Zhu, S., & (辛闻), W. X. (2025) · ECNU Review of Education · doi:10.1177/20965311241310881 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
“Additionally, overreliance on ChatGPT may discourage students from engaging with traditional learning methods or from interacting with human instructors (Marzuki et al., 2023; Mohamed, 2024; Nguyen, 2023; Nurseha, 2023).”
Incorporating ChatGPT for EFL Writing and Its Effects on Writing Engagement
Teng, M. F., & Huang, J. (2025) · International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.4018/ijcallt.367874 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
“For instance, research has demonstrated that ChatGPT positively influences learners' perceptions of the writing process, fostering greater confidence and satisfaction in their work (Marzuki et al., 2023; Xiao & Zhi, 2023; Van Horn, 2024).”
Falebita, O. S., & Kok, P. J. (2024) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-024-00252-1 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
“Studies have revealed that undergraduates use AI-driven tools for facilitating notetaking [59], efficient assignment completion [21], generating academic content [58], substitute for traditional tools [48], and enhanced learning [15].”
Multimodal composing with generative AI: Examining preservice teachers’ processes and perspectives
Smith, B. E., Shimizu, A. Y., Burriss, S. K., Hundley, M. K., & Pendergrass, E. (2024) · Computers & composition/Computers and composition · doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2024.102896 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Giray, L., Sevnarayan, K., & Ranjbaran, F. (2025) · Internet Reference Services Quarterly · doi:10.1080/10875301.2024.2437174 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
“Recent studies show that integrating AI tools that offer real-time feedback, and detailed suggestions are more effective in improving students’ writing quality, particularly enhancing the quality of their content and organization (Barrett & Pack, 2023; Marzuki et al., 2023).”
Li, M., & Wilson, J. (2025) · Information · doi:10.3390/info16070519 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Yao, Y., Sun, Y., Zhu, S., & Zhu, X. (2025) · European Journal of Education · doi:10.1111/ejed.12824 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Educators’ perspective on artificial intelligence: equity, preparedness, and development
Gayed, J. M. (2025) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2024.2447169 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
“Previous studies have focused on student-outcomes, and therefore on AI tools that foster motivation and English learning (Jeon & Lee, 2023; Kohnke et al., 2023; Marzuki et al., 2023; Mohamed, 2024; Sumakul et al., 2022; Vera, 2023).”
Navigating the Ethical Terrain of AI-Generated Text Tools: A Review
Mohamed, Y. A., Mohamed, A. H. H. M., Khanan, A., Bashir, M., Adiel, M. A. E., & Elsadig, M. A. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3521945 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Pedagogical and Ethical Implications of Artificial Intelligence in EFL Context: A Review Study
Alghamdy, R. Z. (2023) · English Language Teaching · doi:10.5539/elt.v16n10p87 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
“Additionally, using such programs to generate new ideas and concepts might suppress their natural creativity (Johinke et al., 2023; Marzuki et al., 2023).”
ChatGPT in Language Learning: Perspectives from Vietnamese Students in Vietnam and the USA
Ho, P. V. P., & Le, A. Q. (2024) · International Journal of Language Instruction · doi:10.54855/ijli.24325 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
“While targeted instruction and rapid feedback may improve language learning experiences, there are worries about relying too much on critical thinking abilities (Marzuki et al., 2023; Neji et al., 2023).”
BackgroundInfluentialFlipped Learning and Artificial Intelligence
López-Villanueva, D., Campión, R. S., & Palau, R. (2024) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics13173424 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Revolutionizing EFL writing: unveiling the strategic use of ChatGPT by Indonesian master’s students
Werdiningsih, I., Marzuki, M., Indrawati, I., Rusdin, D., Ivone, F. M., Basthomi, Y., & Zulfahreza (2024) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2024.2399431 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
“…celebrated the general utility of such platforms (e.g. Cahyono et al., 2023; Fahmi & Cahyono, 2021; Hosseini & Horbach, 2023; Liu & Ma, 2023; Marzuki et al., 2023; Shaikh et al., 2023; Shoufan, 2023), yet it often glosses over the granular cognitive and metacognitive strategies that dictate…”
InfluentialSelf-citationDu, Q. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13602-9 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Chan, C. K. Y., & Lee, K. K. W. (2025) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105399 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Yankouskaya, A., Babiker, A., Rizvi, S., Alshakhsi, S., Liebherr, M., & Ali, R. (2025) · ACM Transactions on the Web · doi:10.1145/3765895 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
“Regular usage of these systems can reduce an individual's cognitive abilities and information retention capacity and increase the reliance or dependency on these systems for information [33], [34].”
Alsolami, A. (2024) · Research in Developmental Disabilities · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2024.104884 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Oubibi, M., Hryshayeva, K., & Huang, R. (2025) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2025.2454445 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
“The collaborative use of these AI tools fosters a more efficient writing process, as each tool brings its strengths to the table, thereby reducing the time and effort required to produce high-quality academic work (Marzuki et al., 2023; Strobl et al., 2019).”
Khampusaen, D. (2025) · LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network · doi:10.70730/pgcq9242 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
“To sum up, while ChatGPT has successfully demonstrated promising potential for enhancing writing skills (Marzuki et al., 2023), there remains insufficient research examining how systematic AI integration affects the development of argumentative writing skills over time, particularly in EFL contexts…”
Artificial Intelligence Use in Feedback: A Qualitative Analysis
Pang, T. Y., Kootsookos, A., & Cheng, C.-T. (2024) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/40wmcj98 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
“AI has been used to train computers to analyse essays and provide feedback designed to promote understanding and grammar correction (Marzuki et al., 2023).”
MethodAlmazrou, S. H., Alanezi, F., Almutairi, S. A., AboAlsamh, H. M., Alsedrah, I. T., Arif, W. M., Alsadhan, A. A., Alsanad, D. S., Alqahtani, N. S., AlShammary, M. H., et al. (2024) · Nutrition and Health · doi:10.1177/02601060241273627 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
“The study (Marzuki et al., 2023) also caution that the realism and complexity of AI-generated scenarios must be continuously updated to match real-world developments.”
Exploring the impact of AI threats on originality and critical thinking in academic writing
Octaberlina, L. R., Muslimin, A. I., Chamidah, D., Surur, M., & Mustikawan, A. (2024) · Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology · doi:10.55214/25768484.v8i6.3878 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
“This potentially reduces the individual's role in deep intellectual processes, which should be at the core of academic writing (Marzuki et al., 2023).”
Abdelhalim, S. M., Alsahil, A. A., & Alsuhaibani, Z. (2025) · Cogent Arts and Humanities · doi:10.1080/23311983.2025.2508031 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
“Furthermore, marzuki et al. (2023) noted that students were able to use ai to improve the content and organization of their writing, which parallels chatgPt’s potential to enhance the accuracy and fluency of their translation. similarly, Werdiningsih et al. (2024a) provided insights into the…”
Min, H., Abbasi, B. N., & Jing, H. (2025) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-025-05817-5 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
“Marzuki et al. (2023) evaluated the effects of AI writing tools on student writing as perceived by EFL teachers, employing a qualitative methodology with a sample of four EFL teachers.”
Scrutinizing Indonesian pre-service teachers’ technological knowledge in utilizing AI-powered tools
Hastomo, T., Mandasari, B., & Widiati, U. (2024) · Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn) · doi:10.11591/edulearn.v18i4.21644 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
“AI writing tools enhanced the quality of EFL student writing [27].”
BackgroundSelf-citationMuslimin, A. I., Mukminatien, N., & Maria, I. F. (2024) · Online Learning · doi:10.24059/olj.v28i2.4246 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Tao, Y., & Yu, J. (2024) · BMC Psychology · doi:10.1186/s40359-024-01572-5 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
“Within the realm of language acquisition, these components assume paramount importance as they have a significant influence on learners’ advancement, especially in the realm of written competence [20].”
BackgroundHuang, J., & Teng, M. F. (2025) · Digital Applied Linguistics · doi:10.29140/dal.v2.102469 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
“Marzuki et al. (2023) found that AI tools improve writing quality, particularly in content and organization, while Liang et al. (2024) reported positive learner attitudes towards AI’s usefulness in writing and intentions to use it for writing tasks.”
Wang, C., Wang, B., & Xu, D. (2025) · Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/j.lmot.2025.102131 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Emerging Dynamics of ChatGPT in Academia: A Scoping Review
Mahrishi, M., Abbas, A., Radovanović, D., & Hosseini, S. (2024) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/b182ws13 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Potentials and implications of ChatGPT for ESL writing instruction
Ibrahim, K., & Kirkpatrick, R. (2024) · The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v25i3.7820 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
“For instance, Marzuki et al. (2023)”
BackgroundZulianti, H., Hastuti, H., Nurchurifiani, E., Hastomo, T., Maximilian, A., & Ajeng, G. D. (2024) · World Journal of English Language · doi:10.5430/wjel.v15n3p117 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Zhang, Q., Siraj, S. B., & Razak, R. A. (2025) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.1080/17501229.2025.2515111 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Luo, L., & Yusuf, A. (2026) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2025.2548919 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
“In essence, adaptive feedback may serve as a catalyst that activates deeper engagement and strategic learning processes, which, in turn, translate into improved performance (Marzuki et al. 2023; Tran 2025).”
AI in the language classroom: Insights from pre-service English teachers
Yetkin, R., & Altınkaya, Z. Ö. (2024) · E-Learning and Digital Media · doi:10.1177/20427530241267011 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
“Recent developments in AI have spurred a multitude of studies exploring its integration into language education (e.g., Fathi et al., 2024; Har, 2023; Liu and Ma, 2024; Marzuki et al., 2023; Yan, 2023).”
Urazbayeva, G., Kussainova, R., Aibergen, A., Kaliyeva, A., & Kantayeva, G. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14090946 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
“…in the text), inferential (making deductions The the the , re-fi in-class weekly as : a of , English , The As for past related works, Marzuki et al. [41] acknowledged several constraints in their study, notably that the EFL teachers who took part were already familiar with and actively encouraging…”
Setyaningsih, E., Asrori, M., Ngadiso, Sumardi, S., Zainnuri, H., & Hariyanti, Y. (2024) · Voices of English Language Education Society · doi:10.29408/veles.v8i3.27700 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
“Marzuki et al. (2023) highlighted its positive impact on students’ EFL writing content and organization, albeit with noted challenges.”
Ebadi, S., Velayati, S., Ramezanzadeh, A., & Salman, A. R. (2025) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105391 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Ateeq, A. A., Alaghbari, M. A., Alzoraiki, M., Milhem, M., & Beshr, B. A. H. (2024) · ASU International Conference in Emerging Technologies for Sustainability and Intelligent Systems (ICETSIS) · doi:10.1109/icetsis61505.2024.10459686 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence in Mathematics Education
Opesemowo, O. A. G. (2024) · Advances in information quality and management · doi:10.4018/978-1-6684-7366-5.ch084 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Jamshed, M., Ahmed, A. S. M. M., Sarfaraj, M., & Warda, W. U. (2024) · International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) · doi:10.3991/ijim.v18i19.50361 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Generative Artificial Intelligence in the EFL Writing Context: Students' Literacy in Perspective
Alzubi, A. A. F. (2024) · Qubahan Academic Journal · doi:10.48161/qaj.v4n2a506 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
AI-enhanced collaborative story writing in the EFL classroom
Emerson, N. (2024) · Technology in Language Teaching & Learning · doi:10.29140/tltl.v6n3.1764 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Exploring pre-service English language teachers’ readiness for AI-integrated language instruction
Altınkaya, Z. Ö., & Yetkin, R. (2025) · Pedagogies An International Journal · doi:10.1080/1554480x.2025.2451299 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
“For example, Marzuki et al. (2023) conducted a study on the impact of using different AI writing tools like Quillbot, Jenni, and Chat-GPT on the quality of student writing.”
The design and evaluation of an interactive AI companion for foreign language writing
Mills, N. V., Hok, H., Dressen, A., & Veillas, Q. (2025) · Foreign Language Annals · doi:10.1111/flan.12790 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Swidan, A., Lee, S. Y., & Romdhane, S. B. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15040461 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Crogman, H. T., Eshun, K. O., Jackson, M., TrebeauCrogman, M. A., Joseph, E. E., Warner, L. C., & Erenso, D. B. (2023) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci13111091 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
ChatGPT and EFL/ESL writing: a systematic review of advantages and challenges
Alsaedi, N. (2024) · English Language Teaching · doi:10.5539/elt.v17n5p41 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Abdillah, H. Z., Partino, & Madjid, A. (2023) · E3S Web of Conferences · doi:10.1051/e3sconf/202344005005 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
“With deep analysis of conversations, AI Chat GPT can identify early signs of mental distress that others may miss. Integrating AI writing tools can prove useful in improving the quality of student writing [13].”
BackgroundArtificial Intelligence in Education
Delello, J. A., Bailey, J., & Garcia-Lopez, A. (2024) · Advances in business information systems and analytics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-3003-6.ch001 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Yapay Zekânın Eğitim Sistemine Entegrasyonunun Potansiyel Faydaları
Temur, S. (2024) · Batı anadolu eğitim bilimleri dergisi · doi:10.51460/baebd.1541524 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Derakhshan, A., Lalli, G. S., & Park, Y. (2026) · Language Testing in Asia · doi:10.1186/s40468-026-00445-5 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Harnessing AI Chatbots for EFL Essay Writing: A Paradigm Shift in Language Pedagogy
Pitychoutis, K. M. (2024) · Arab World English Journal · doi:10.24093/awej/chatgpt.13 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
“Also, AI writing tools have been found to improve the writing quality of EFL students, particularly in terms of content and organisation, as perceived by teachers across various universities in Indonesia (Marzuki et al., 2023).”
BackgroundAlsalem, M. S. (2024) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2024.2430865 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
“The interview questions were again based on reviewed studies (Koltovskaia, 2023; Li, 2021; Li et al., 2015; Link et al., 2014; Marzuki et al., 2023; Putra, 2023).”
Bui, T. T. U., & Tong, T. V. A. (2025) · AsiaCALL Online Journal · doi:10.54855/acoj.251615 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
“Such betterment has been supported by Garg (2024), Mahapatra (2024), Jacob, Tate, and Warschauer (2023).”
Eğitimde yapay zekâ kullanımı: Etik sorunlar ve çözümler
Temur, S. (2025) · Mehmet Akif Ersoy üniversitesi eğitim fakültesi dergisi. · doi:10.21764/maeuefd.1516576 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
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 31 · see citing works
“English proficiency is highly valued for academic and professional success, but access to advanced English resources varies widely across institutions, with generative AI potentially leveling the playing field by providing immediate, accessible language support (Marzuki et al., 2023).”
Shofiah, N., & Putera, Z. F. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3871916/v1 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
TALAYHAN, Ö. G. (2023) · JOURNAL OF CURRENT DEBATES IN SOCIAL SCIENCES · doi:10.29228/cudes.71701 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Turós, M., Nagy, R., & Szűts, Z. (2025) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100394 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Hwang, W., Luthfi, M. I., & Liu, Y. (2024) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.1080/17501229.2024.2437655 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Self-citationSok, S., Heng, K., & Pum, M. (2025) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440251353575 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
“The integration of AI writing tools, for example, can prove beneficial in elevating the quality of student writing (Marzuki et al., 2023) and writing organization (Marzuki et al., 2023; Strobl et al., 2019).”
Exploring the effectiveness of digital writing tools on Thai EFL students’ writing
Pitukwong, K., & Saraiwang, S. (2024) · Contemporary Educational Technology · doi:10.30935/cedtech/14808 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
“This corresponds with Iskender (2023) and Marzuki et al. (2023), who expressed concern that students might prioritize quick fixes from digital tools over deeply understanding and learning from their mistakes, which would essentially negate the process of learning and development in writing.”
- Authors
- Marzuki, Widiati, U., Rusdin, D., Darwin, & Indrawati, I.
- Affiliations
- Universitas Madako Tolitoli
- State University of Malang (ID)
- Universitas Madako Tolitoli (ID)
- Venue
- Cogent Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2023-07-20
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 2331-186X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4384934594
- Cited by
- 524
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 158 · 2025: 209 · 2024: 138 · 2023: 19
- FWCI
- 122.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Cogent Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Balai Pembiayaan Pendidikan Tinggi
- Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Keywords
- AI writing tools, EFL writing, student writing quality, teacher perceptions, ChatGPT, QuillBot, writing instruction
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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-06.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.
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
