The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet; none of the 41 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
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.
Checked 2026-10-06 · 1 reference not checked yet
Overview
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
Verification
Claims the paper makes
29 Not checked yet · 22 Own result · 11 Own interpretation · 6 Own method · 1 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These included applications like Quillbot, WordTune, Jenni, Chat-GPT, Paperpal, Copy.ai, and Essay Writer.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 4.1. Types of AI writing tools use by the EFL teachers
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two tools, QuillBot and Wordtune, had emerged as universally used across all four teachers.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 4.1. Types of AI writing tools use by the EFL teachers
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 5. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 6. Conclusion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 5. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This aligns with our findings, where teachers (T1, T3 & T4) acknowledged these tools as beneficial for nurturing idea generation.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 5. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 5. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 6. Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > QuillBot
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It appears that the teachers with more years of experience in using AIWT, T2 and T3, utilize a broader set of AI tools.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > QuillBot
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 44
- It may state two separate claims as one. 17
- The quote only partly states this claim. 4
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > QuillBot
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 4.2.1.1. Idea generation.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“T2 expressed a more mixed evaluation of AI writing tools.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 4.2.1.1. Idea generation.
plainconditionalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For instance, T2 used Copy.ai and Paperpal.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 4.1. Types of AI writing tools use by the EFL teachers
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“T3 brought a different perspective, suggesting that AI writing tools could potentially hamper students' ability to generate original ideas.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 4.2.1.1. Idea generation.
hedgedconditionalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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 impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“T3 employed Essay Writer, which helped students structure their essays logically and provided them with ideas for improvements”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > QuillBot
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“T1, for example, highlighted the potential benefits of AI writing tools, emphasizing their ability to stimulate creativity and idea expansion.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 4.2.1.1. Idea generation.
hedgeddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“T4 re-emphasized some positive aspects of AI writing tools, notably their capacity to aid students in developing their ideas further.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 4.2.1.1. Idea generation.
plainconditionalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 4.2.2.1. Coherence and logical flow.
boosteddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 5. Discussion
hedgedconditionalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 5. Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 6. Conclusion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 5. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 5. Discussion
hedgedconditionalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“others (i.e., T2) urged caution about potential downsides, including overly complex language and an excessive dependence on these tools.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 5. Discussion
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites T. S. Chang et al., 2021
- Not checked yetcites Gayed et al., 2022
- Not checked yetcites Jeanjaroonsri, 2023
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, given the small dataset, these observations need to be treated as preliminary trends rather than definitive conclusions.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > QuillBot
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Some research suggests that adopting AI-powered writing tools can help students improve their writing (e.g., Kurniati & Fithriani, 2022;Wang, 2022;Zhao, 2022)”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kurniati & Fithriani, 2022
- Not checked yetcites Wang, 2022
- Not checked yetcites Zhao, 2022
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hosseini et al., 2023
- Not checked yetcites Strobl et al., 2019
- Not checked yetcites Thorp, 2023
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, it is worth noting that the level of teaching experience and qualifications may influence the use of AI tools.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > QuillBot
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Akgun & Greenhow, 2022
- Not checked yetcites Nazari et al., 2021
- Not checked yetcites Rudolph et al., 2023
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“a study found that AI writing tools like”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 2.2. The impact of AI writing tools on students writing quality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gayed et al., 2022
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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).”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 2.2. The impact of AI writing tools on students writing quality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Johinke et al., 2023
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, the focus on just grammar and syntax overlooks the critical roles of content and organization in writing.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 1. Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“while others have voiced concerns about the side effect of these tools (e.g., Y. Liu et al., 2022;Lund & Wang, 2023;Qadir, 2022).”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Y. Liu et al., 2022
- Not checked yetcites Lund & Wang, 2023
- Not checked yetcites Qadir, 2022
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 5. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Malik et al. (2023)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 2.2. The impact of AI writing tools on students writing quality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Farrokhnia et al. (2023)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Wong and Mak (2019) note that the content of L2 writing, in particular, is often shaped by students' linguistic abilities and their cultural backgrounds.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 5. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wong and Mak (2019)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Their research findings suggest that using AWE can provide students with positive benefits, which were consistent across their studies.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Miranty and Widiati (2021)
- Not checked yetcites Fahmi and Cahyono (2021)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 5. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Malik et al. (2023)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Good organization ensures a smooth flow of ideas, making the writing easier to follow and more impactful (Awada et al., 2020).”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Awada et al., 2020
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Fahmi and Cahyono (2021) aimed to investigate differences in students' perceptions towards the use of AWE based on their proficiency levels.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fahmi and Cahyono (2021)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 6. Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites I. Lee & Yuan, 2021
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“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).”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 2.2. The impact of AI writing tools on students writing quality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Haleem et al., 2022
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 6. Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The teachers' reports about changes in students' writing accurately reflect the actual impact of AI writing tools on students' writing.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If teachers view these tools as beneficial, this positive perception can lead to more widespread adoption, enriching EFL instruction across the board.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 1. Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 5. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Huang and Tan (2023)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, it is still unclear how AI writing tools affect the quality of student writing particularly on the aspects of content and organization.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 1. Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- 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.
In the paper
“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).”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 5. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites T. S. Chang et al., 2021
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 5. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gayed et al. (2022)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Miranty and Widiati (2021) explored students' perceptions of the merits and drawbacks of AWE (i.e., Grammarly)”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Miranty and Widiati (2021)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Capable of generating coherent and contextually relevant sentences, GPT-3 has been found to stimulate students' creative and critical thinking (Mhlanga, 2023).”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 2.2. The impact of AI writing tools on students writing quality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mhlanga, 2023
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 3.4. Data collection procedure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 1. Introduction
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 5. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bowen and Thomas (2020)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 2.2. The impact of AI writing tools on students writing quality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Iskender (2023)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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).”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 2.2. The impact of AI writing tools on students writing quality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Y.Liu et al., 2023
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 3.4. Data collection procedure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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)
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > QuillBot
“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.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > QuillBot
“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.”
Citations
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×
“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 39,639
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
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×
“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×
“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×
“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×
“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
Ouyang, F., Zheng, L., & Jiao, P. (2022) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-022-10925-9 · Cited by 831 · cited 1×
“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×
“Capable of generating coherent and contextually relevant sentences, GPT-3 has been found to stimulate students’ creative and critical thinking (Mhlanga, 2023).”
Background
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
Items 101–200 of 524
Alghasab, M. B. (2025) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2025.2505304 · Cited by 54
“Collaboration occurs between human and AI writing tools, and by harnessing these tools learners can engage in a reciprocal interaction at different stages of the writing process that can engender the production of better content and organization (Marzuki et al., 2023).”
The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Enhancing EFL Writing Skills among High School Students
Alzahrani, D. F. K. J., & Alotaibi, D. H. H. (2024) · Journal of Educational and Human Sciences · doi:10.33193/jeahs.34.2024.482 · Cited by 16
A Systematic Rapid Review of Empirical Research on Students’ Use of ChatGPT in Higher Education
Dikilitaş, K., Klippen, M. I. F., & Keleş, S. (2024) · Nordic Journal of Systematic Reviews in Education · doi:10.23865/njsre.v2.6227 · Cited by 25
“Marzuki et al. (2023) hence argue that “ChatGPT stimulates conversations with students, thereby enhancing their conversational writing skills.””
BackgroundMethodInfluentialA Systematic Review of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Second Language Writing Education
Luo, Y., Xia, Y., & Lu, X. (2025) · Digital studies in language and literature · doi:10.1515/dsll-2025-0001 · Cited by 21
Hua, J. H. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Management and Development Studies · doi:10.53378/353030 · Cited by 30
“…(EFL) students in Indonesia, Sumakul et al. (2022) found that students had positive perceptions towards the use of the AI app in the writing class, Marzuki et al. (2023) also found that students’ writing quality improved in content and organization with the use of AI tools and Siregar et al.…”
EFL paraphrasing skills with QuillBot: Unveiling students enthusiasm and insights
Mohammad, T., Alzubi, A. A. F., Nazim, M., & Khan, S. I. (2023) · Journal of Pedagogical Research · doi:10.33902/jpr.202324645 · Cited by 15
“The findings also support the outcomes of another study by Marzuki et al. (2023), who claims that incorporating AI writing tools can help improve the quality of EFL student writing.”
Wörner, J. H. R., Turtova, A. P., & Lang, A. S. I. D. (2024) · IEEE SoutheastCon · doi:10.1109/southeastcon52093.2024.10500042 · Cited by 19
Anik, M. H., Raaz, S. N. C., & Khan, N. (2024) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-024-00438-6 · Cited by 27
Tran, H. N., Le, T. T. N., & Tran, V. B. U. (2025) · International journal of AI in language education. · doi:10.54855/ijaile.25215 · Cited by 25
“Positive about the influence of these tools on students’ writing was also found in the research of Marzuki et al. (2023).”
Khuder, B. (2025) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/amaf022 · Cited by 15
Wulyani, A. N., Widiati, U., Muniroh, S., Rachmadhany, C. D., Nurlaila, N., Hanifiyah, L., & Sharif, T. I. S. T. (2024) · LLT Journal A Journal on Language and Language Teaching · doi:10.24071/llt.v27i1.7966 · Cited by 14
“Regarding feedback, Marzuki et al. (2023) state that with AI writing tools, students can receive immediate feedback and assistance, improving their writing skills faster.”
BackgroundMethodResultSelf-citationJaved, F. (2024) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-83549-486-820241015 · Cited by 14
Evaluating the Impact of AI Tools on Grammar Mastery: A Comparative Study of Learning Outcomes
Lalira, J. E., Pangemanan, Y. A. T., Scipio, J. E., Lumi, S. M., Merentek, T. C., & Tumuju, V. N. (2024) · Voices of English Language Education Society · doi:10.29408/veles.v8i3.27856 · Cited by 26
“Research by Marzuki et al. (2023) highlights the role of various AI-powered tools, such as Quillbot, WordTune, and ChatGPT, in improving the content and organization of students’ writing.”
The potential of deep learning in improving K‐12 students' writing skills: A systematic review
Bal, M., & Öztürk, E. (2025) · British Educational Research Journal · doi:10.1002/berj.4120 · Cited by 14
Erosion of Critical Academic Skills Due to AI Dependency Among Tertiary Students
Miranda, J. P. P., Cruz, M. A. D., Fernandez, A. B., Balahadia, F. F., Aviles, J. S., Caro, C. A., Liwanag, I. G., & Gaña, E. P. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-0122-8.ch002 · Cited by 19
Leveraging AI on Social Media & Digital Platforms to Enhance English Language Teaching and Learning
Emon, M. M. H. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-1952-0.ch007 · Cited by 14
On the nascency of ChatGPT in foreign language teaching and learning
Fang, S., & Han, Z. (2025) · Annual Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1017/s026719052510010x · Cited by 29
Wu, H.-H., Lalli, G. S., & Zeng, Y. (2026) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/ijal.70089 · Cited by 14
Reimagining libraries in the AI era: ethical AI literacy and human-centered strategies
Michalak, R., & Ellixson, D. (2026) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-025-02827-4 · Cited by 13
Goshu, K. C., & Gebremariam, H. T. (2024) · Ampersand · doi:10.1016/j.amper.2024.100195 · Cited by 13
The Use of ChatGPT for Vocabulary Acquisition: A Literature Review
Ngo, K. T. (2024) · International journal of AI in language education. · doi:10.54855/ijaile.24121 · Cited by 25
Milton, C., Vidhya, L., & Thiruvengadam, G. (2024) · Advanced Education · doi:10.20535/2410-8286.315068 · Cited by 16
“It can stunt their natural learning process and development of self-editing skills (Marzuki, et al., 2023).”
Exploring the Use of ChatGPT in EFL/ESL Writing Classrooms: A Systematic Literature Review
Mali, Y. C. G. (2025) · Journal of language and Education · doi:10.17323/jle.2025.21793 · Cited by 29
Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED) Policies in School Context: A Mixed Approach Research
Salha, S., Mousa, A., & Khayat, S. (2024) · Leadership and Policy in Schools · doi:10.1080/15700763.2024.2443675 · Cited by 13
“Intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) represent another significant application of AIED, providing one-on-one tutoring for students in various subjects (Marzuki et al., 2023).”
Artificial intelligence (AI) as a new trajectory in education
Döğer, M. F., & Göçen, A. (2025) · The Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1080/00220671.2025.2510391 · Cited by 12
“…offering tailored practice and supporting individual learning (Božić, 2023; Channa et al., 2021; Sharma, 2021); analyzing text and summarization (Marzuki et al., 2023); facilitating research (Liu et al., 2023; Lund & Wang, 2023); contributing to language development (Chew & Chua, 2020; Huang et…”
InfluentialGrammar and engagement in focus: Evaluating Gemini AI’s impact on an educational environment
Ng, M. L., Behforouz, B., & Ghaithi, A. A. (2025) · Computers and Education Open · doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2025.100302 · Cited by 16
Bal, M., & Arseven, T. (2025) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2025.102118 · Cited by 17
Yaseen, M. G., & Alnakeeb, S. S. (2023) · Mesopotamian Journal of Computer Science · doi:10.58496/mjcsc/2023/019 · Cited by 21
Overviewing the Maze of Research Integrity and False Positives Within AI-Enabled Detectors
Abubakari, M. S. (2024) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-0884-4.ch013 · Cited by 12
Artificial intelligence in education and EFL teachers’ attitudes: scale development and validation
Fatalaki, J. A., Saeedi, Z., Marand, E. S., & Firuz, A. R. N. (2025) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.1080/17501229.2025.2494823 · Cited by 12
Abdullah, M. Y. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13601-w · Cited by 14
“These tools offer features such as para-phrasing and refining sentences, allowing users to fine-tune their content with ease (Marzuki et al., 2023).”
AI's effectiveness in language testing and feedback provision
Alshehri, A. (2025) · Social Sciences & Humanities Open · doi:10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101892 · Cited by 11
Alpar, Ö. (2025) · European Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.12973/eu-jer.14.4.1291 · Cited by 23
Tekır, S. (2026) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2026.2617399 · Cited by 22
“Marzuki et al. (2023) likewise noted stylistic experimentation and lexical variation among Indonesian EFL learners producing essays with AI suggestion features.”
Rashid, S., Malik, S., Abbas, F., & Khan, J. A. (2024) · Journal of Computers in Education · doi:10.1007/s40692-024-00338-7 · Cited by 19
“Moreover, the AI-based technology discussed above helps improve students writing quality and organization (Marzuki, 2023).”
Wu, Q., & Xu, A. (2025) · British Educational Research Journal · doi:10.1002/berj.4119 · Cited by 19
RetractedFrom Struggle to Mastery: AI-Powered Writing Skills in ESL Education
Jaramillo, J. J., Chiappe, A., & Sáez-Delgado, F. (2025) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app15148079 · Cited by 20
Pan, Y. (2025) · Discover Computing · doi:10.1007/s10791-025-09830-9 · Cited by 17
“Acting as reflective partners, GenAI tools empower students to identify and address weaknesses iteratively, fostering autonomy, critical thinking, and self-efficacy [27, 31, 43, 44, 51, 53, 54, 100].”
Enhancing Writing Literacy Teachers’ through AI Development
Wulandari, F., Astuti, M. T., & Marhamah, M. (2024) · Jurnal Onoma Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra · doi:10.30605/onoma.v10i1.3175 · Cited by 13
Ethical AI Integration in Academia
van Rensburg, Z. J., & van der Westhuizen, S. (2024) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-1054-0.ch002 · Cited by 10
Artificial intelligence in medical education: Typologies and ethical approaches
Pręgowska, A., & Perkins, M. D. (2024) · Ethics & bioethics · doi:10.2478/ebce-2024-0004 · Cited by 16
The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Differentiated Instruction Classrooms
Ruslim, M. I., & Khalid, F. B. (2024) · International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences · doi:10.6007/ijarbss/v14-i8/22435 · Cited by 10
“A study by Marzuki et al. (2023) supports this observation, indicating that while teachers acknowledge the benefits of AI writing tools in imp roving students’ writing quality, they are also aware of the need for more specialized training to fully utilize these technologies.”
ResultA Systematic Review of EFL Teachers’ Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence Technologies
Özkan, E. K., Erdemir, N., & Coşkun, D. (2024) · Ihlara Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi · doi:10.47479/ihead.1535035 · Cited by 23
Arifin, M. A., Rahman, A. A., Balla, A., Susanto, A. K., & Pratiwi, A. C. (2025) · Changing English · doi:10.1080/1358684x.2024.2418132 · Cited by 13
“When asked about whether ChatGPT could make students overly reliant on the tool, possibly leading to lack of creativity (Marzuki et al. 2023; Zou and Huang 2023), Jamila said, ‘I disagree because I don’t use ChatGPT to generate [new] ideas but to get more nuanced concepts.”
Utilization of Artificial Intelligence in Academic Writing Class: L2 Learners Perspective
Junio, D. A., & Bandala, A. A. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Humanoid, Nanotechnology, Information Technology, Communication and Control, Environment, and Management (HNICEM) · doi:10.1109/hnicem60674.2023.10589003 · Cited by 10
Liu, J., Zou, J., Zhang, J., & Teng, J. (2025) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-025-08116-z · Cited by 11
“Marzuki et al. ( 2023 ) reported that overreliance can poten - tially threaten people’s critical thinking and problem-solv - ing skills (Marzuki et al., 2023 ).”
Huang, J., Mizumoto, A., & Huang, Y. L. (2025) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/ijal.70020 · Cited by 14
Chen, Y., & Chen, J. (2025) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/13621688251397724 · Cited by 14
The Homogenizing Engine: AI's Role in Standardizing Culture and the Path to Policy
Daryani, Y., Sourati, Z., & Dehghani, M. (2025) · Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1177/23727322251406591 · Cited by 13
“They fundamentally reshape how people think, communicate, and understand their communities (Kou & Guo, 2020; Marzuki et al., 2023; Tang et al., 2023).”
Ali, S. (2024) · Arab World English Journal · doi:10.24093/awej/chatgpt.7 · Cited by 11
Jinowat, N., Unapang, J., Kangsawiwat, T., & Sapai, P. (2024) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-61678-5_25 · Cited by 13
Wu, J., Wang, Y., Chen, F., Yin, X., & He, Y. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3571055 · Cited by 15
Incorporating ChatGPT into Hospitality and Tourism Education: A Comparative Student and AI Study
Xie, P. F. (2025) · Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education · doi:10.1080/10963758.2025.2512430 · Cited by 9
Lin, C.-J., & Hwang, G. (2025) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2025.2532629 · Cited by 15
“By offering tailored feedback and guidance aligned with individual learners’ needs, AI has shown its potential to enhance learning processes, especially in English writing (Marzuki et al., 2023).”
The impact of AI-driven tools on student writing development: A case study
Zheldibayeva, R., Nascimento, A. K. D. O., de Castro, V. C., Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2025) · Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies · doi:10.30935/ojcmt/16738 · Cited by 9
Generative Artificial Intelligence in Enhancing English Language Skills: A Systematic Review
G., A., & S, P. K. N. (2025) · Studies in Media and Communication · doi:10.11114/smc.v13i4.7763 · Cited by 20
Secondary teachers’ use and beliefs about generative artificial intelligence and writing in school
Graham, S., Skar, G. B. U., Kvistad, A. H., & Jeffery, J. V. (2025) · Reading and Writing · doi:10.1007/s11145-025-10699-9 · Cited by 13
The calculator analogy: Epistemic virtues for using LLMs
Voinea, C., Mann, S. P., Savulescu, J., & Earp, B. D. (2025) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.103198 · Cited by 8
Li, M., Belpoliti, F., Taha, G., & Zhang, M. (2025) · Foreign Language Annals · doi:10.1111/flan.70041 · Cited by 10
Tian, S., & Xiang, H. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13725-z · Cited by 12
Chinese EFL learners’ engagement with ChatGPT feedback on academic writing: A case study in Malaysia
Kailin, Z., & Saeed, M. A. (2025) · Computers & composition/Computers and composition · doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102976 · Cited by 19
Enriching the Teaching-Learning Experience by Using AI Tools in the L2 Classroom
Barrios-Beltran, D. (2024) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-0872-1.ch004 · Cited by 8
Jaber, S. A., Hasan, H. E., Alzoubi, K. H., & Khabour, O. F. (2024) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e41331 · Cited by 9
Generative AI as a Personal Tutor for English Language Learning: A Review of Benefits and ConcernsPreprint
Pang, S., Nol, E., & Heng, K. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4865398 · Cited by 8
“ChatGPTwasalso foundtoreducelearninganxietyinlanguagelearningenviron-ments[35]andimprovewritingefficacy[36,37].”
Humairoh, M. F. N., Widiati, U., Rabbianty, E. N., & Basthomi, Y. (2024) · Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education · doi:10.1108/jarhe-04-2024-0201 · Cited by 7
Self-citationChristou, P. (2024) · International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Education (WAIE) · doi:10.1109/waie63876.2024.00017 · Cited by 12
“Also, AI alters traditional teaching methods through educational bots, intelligent tutoring systems, adaptive learning platforms, and project-based learning [31] [32] [33].”
Fitzek, S., & Bârgăoanu, A. (2025) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-025-00477-7 · Cited by 7
“Although recent research suggests that LLMs can improve such features (Imran & Almusharraf, 2023; Marzuki et al., 2023; Montenegro-Rueda et al., 2023), questions remain about authenticity, intellectual ownership, and the balance between AI-generated enhancements and a student’s own voice (Castro,…”
InfluentialDaraio, C. C., Leo, S. D., & Ferazzoli, F. (2025) · International Transactions in Operational Research · doi:10.1111/itor.70054 · Cited by 8
Palacios-Núñez, M. L., Mendoza-García, E. M., Zarate, J. W. N., & Deroncele-Acosta, Á. (2025) · Edutec Revista Electrónica de Tecnología Educativa · doi:10.21556/edutec.2025.93.3995 · Cited by 14
Marino, M. S., & Cabezuelo, A. S. (2025) · Algorithms · doi:10.3390/a18100634 · Cited by 14
Potemkina, T. V., Avdeeva, Y. A., & Ivanova, U. (2024) · Высшее образование в России · doi:10.31992/0869-3617-2024-33-5-67-85 · Cited by 8
Temur, S. (2025) · Buca eğitim fakültesi dergisi (Online)/Buca Eğitim Fakültesi dergisi · doi:10.53444/deubefd.1600146 · Cited by 7
Educators in Transition: Unpacking Argentinean Teachers' Attitudes Towards AI in Higher Education
Bottiglieri, L. I., Irrazabal, M. F., & Ramallo, C. (2025) · Ikala: Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura · doi:10.17533/udea.ikala.355874 · Cited by 7
GenAI in Academic Writing- Empowering Learners or Redefining Traditional Pedagogical Practices?
Zaheer, S., Ma, C., Zhu, Y., & Vasinda, S. (2025) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.4018/ijaitl.373582 · Cited by 12
“Learners also felt more motivated to revise and experiment with different writing styles using AI tools (Dizon, 2023; Wang et al., 2022; Widiati et al., 2023).”
InfluentialExploring the GenAI Literacy of Chinese University Students in EFL Learning
Li, T., & Ding, Y. (2025) · International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.4018/ijcallt.377175 · Cited by 9
“Research indicates that these applications enhance writing quality, skills, proficiency, and learner engagement (Mahapatra, 2024; Marzuki et al., 2023; Song & Song, 2023; Teng & Huang, 2025; Zhang et al., 2023).”
Wang, G., Shakibaei, G., & Çakmak, F. (2025) · British Educational Research Journal · doi:10.1002/berj.4190 · Cited by 7
RetractedYasmin, M., Fatima, W., & Irshad, I. (2025) · Sustainable Futures · doi:10.1016/j.sftr.2025.100809 · Cited by 17
Yao, M., Wei, Y., & Liu, H. (2026) · Ethics & Behavior · doi:10.1080/10508422.2025.2549310 · Cited by 6
“Also, based on semi-structured interviews with EFL teachers, Mazuki and colleagues revealed that AI tools were perceived to improve both the content and organization of student writing (Marzuki et al., 2023).”
Almashour, M., Aldamen, H. A. K., & Jarrah, M. A. (2025) · Social Sciences & Humanities Open · doi:10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.102016 · Cited by 11
Academic Writing in Nursing Graduate Programs: The Use of Artificial Intelligence
Johnson, J. E., & Rulo, K. M. (2025) · Journal of Nursing Education · doi:10.3928/01484834-20250516-03 · Cited by 10
Thi, X. H. N., Thien, H. V. H., Nhung, V. K., & Nguyen, T. T. (2025) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-025-00905-9 · Cited by 25
“The main drawbacks are overreliance, limitation of critical thinking skills [27], problems with plagiarism [32, 40, 54], and information inaccuracy [7, 15, 26, 30, 36, 41].”
InfluentialAkanda, F., & Talukder, T. (2026) · Social Sciences & Humanities Open · doi:10.1016/j.ssaho.2026.102437 · Cited by 18
Aeni, N., Darmawati, B., Muthmainnah, M., Yunus, M., Mulyanah, ., Sharma, A., Rachmat, & Hamka, D. W. (2024) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-6103-6_13 · Cited by 6
Redefining the Concept of Literacy: a DigCompEdu extension for Critical Engagement with AI tools
Georgopoulou, M. S., Krouska, A., Troussas, C., & Sgouropoulou, C. (2024) · South-East Europe Design Automation, Computer Engineering, Computer Networks and Social Media Conference (SEEDA-CECNSM) · doi:10.1109/seeda-cecnsm63478.2024.00026 · Cited by 9
“These include concerns about data privacy and potential bias within algorithms [16], the risk of misuse for plagiarism [17-18], the possibility of providing misleading or oversimplified information [19], emotional isolation and a lack of socialization [20], and an over-reliance on AI tools [21-22].”
BackgroundStudent Adoption of AI Writing Tools
Malmous, M., & Zaidoune, S. (2024) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-7220-3.ch009 · Cited by 7
Berk, E. H., & Aydın, S. (2025) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-3678-7.ch011 · Cited by 7
ELT Teachers' perception and usage of ChatGPT as a teaching tool in the Bangladeshi EFL context
Tarannum, T., Ahmed, R., Seraj, P. M. I., & Khan, T. S. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13515-7 · Cited by 12
“…is the possibility of significant deterioration of students’ creativity, critical thinking, problem-solving as well as writing skills due to their use of AI tools such as ChatGPT (Alharbi, 2023; Kiryakova & Angelova, 2023; Marzuki et al., 2023; Nguyen & Dieu, 2024; Rahman & Watanobe, 2023).”
The Collaborative Future of Translation Between Human-AI Partnerships
Awashreh, R. A., & Aboeisheh, A. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-0060-3.ch008 · Cited by 8
Pre-service English Teacher Perceptions of AI in Writing Skills
Nadhifah, A. S. N. A. S., Syukur, H. N. S. H. N., Haryanto, M. F. H. M. F., Luthfiyyah, R., & Rozak, D. R. (2024) · Journal of World Englishes and Educational Practices · doi:10.32996/jweep.2024.6.2.3 · Cited by 6
“Marzuki (2023) expresses that AI has the potential to transform admissions procedures, assist students with their studies, and drive breakthroughs in tutoring programs.”
BackgroundAbedi, S. R., Divanpour, F., Molaee, S. R., & Gebremariam, H. T. (2025) · Language, Technology, and Social Media. · doi:10.70211/ltsm.v3i1.83 · Cited by 10
Technological Competence, Training and Support, Attitude Towards AI, and Teachers’ Acceptance
Silagan, B. L., & Tumapon, T. T. (2025) · Psychology and Education A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.70838/pemj.360809 · Cited by 14
The Impact of AI Tools on EFL Students’ Self-Efficacy in Academic Writing: A Qualitative Study
Erliani, N. N. P., Eryansyah, E., & Amrullah, A. (2025) · Edukasi Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pengajaran · doi:10.19109/s75mbm13 · Cited by 6
“However, there are worries about students becoming too dependent on these tools, which might slow down their skill development (Lee et al., 2024; Marzuki et al., 2023).”
Yang, Y., Ling, Q., Wu, Z., Shen, Y., Estigoy, E. B., Gray, S. Z., Sun, H., Zhang, B., & Jiang, G. (2025) · International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.4018/ijcallt.379336 · Cited by 7
University Students’ Perceptions of AI Application in Writing Skills in Vietnam: A Systematic Review
Cung, L. T., Hoang, U. P. T., Dinh, A. N., & Bui, T. H. (2025) · Vietnam Journal of Education (online)/Vietnam Journal of Education/Giáo dục · doi:10.52296/vje.2025.533 · Cited by 11
Anani, G. E., Nyamekye, E., & Baffour-Koduah, D. (2025) · Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1155/hbe2/9943540 · Cited by 6
Applying the AI assessment scale in writing and translation for EFL
Roe, J., Perkins, M., & Furze, L. (2025) · Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1108/aiie-02-2025-0034 · Cited by 21
“Furthermore, there is evidence that multiple AI tools can benefit student learning in an EFL context, including Paperpal, Quillbot, and WordTune (Marzuki et al., 2023).”
Khojasteh, L., Karimian, Z., Nasiri, E., Kafipour, R., & Farahmandi, A. Y. (2025) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-025-08288-z · Cited by 10
“…can help manage this cognitive load, especially for writing tasks, by reducing the extraneous cognitive load associated with mechanics such as spelling and grammar, thereby enabling students to focus on more complex cognitive processes, such as critical thinking and content development [29, 33].”
Bahari, A. (2026) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2026.2614081 · Cited by 6
“Although the positive impacts observed here align with studies such as Marzuki et al. (2023), Mohamed (2024), and Pokrivcakova (2024), which highlight AI’s educational benefits and rapport-building potential, the literature is not univocal.”
Profiles of AI Dependency: A Latent Class Analysis of Filipino Students' Academic Competencies
Fernando, E. Q., Tolentino, J. C. G., Cruz, M. A. D., Salenga, J. L., Maniago, V. G. M., Grume, J. C., Pineda, E. M., Leon, A. P. D., & Miranda, J. P. P. (2025) · International Conference on Education and Multimedia Technology (ICEMT) · doi:10.1145/3761843.3761871 · Cited by 5
“Selective AI Users (Class 2) demonstrated strong research and writing skills, moderate independence, and high engagement, adopting AI as a complementary tool rather than a primary resource [9, 13].”
Aqadoh, H., & Trimasse, N. (2024) · Reflective Practice · doi:10.1080/14623943.2024.2384116 · Cited by 5
“Different researchers have highlighted AI’s potential to exacerbate educational inequalities, violate students’ privacy, and limit their perspectives (Darwin et al., 2024; Marzuki et al., 2023; Nguyen et al., 2023).”
Metadata
- 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
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Education › 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
