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 401–500 of 524
Hamid, R. J., Maing, R. A., Rampeng, R., Muhammad, A. F., & Sahib, N. (2025) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2025.2590863 · Cited by 4
“These patterns are consistent with Marzuki et al. (2023) and Werdiningsih et al. (2024), who found that educators often operate within a ‘ functional ’ rather than ‘ transformational ’ model of technology integration.”
Amjad, A. I. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-4217-7.ch006
The Impact of Generative AI on Student Identity Formation
Thibaud, E. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-99804-1_19 · Cited by 1
Identifying GenAI Effectiveness: Grading Elementary Writing
Harnish, T., & Solano, G. L. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-99804-1_16
Sharma, S., Kaur, S., & Kaur, G. (2025) · Boletim da Sociedade Paranaense de Matemática · doi:10.5269/bspm.77990
Barkhuizen, G. (2025) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009444132.004
Gamified English: Investigating the Impact of Duolingo’s on Learners Outcomes: Three Case Studies
Elathrm, J. S. (2025) · مجلة كلية التربية العلمية · doi:10.37376/fesj.vi19.7436
Utilizing Artificial Intelligence to Enhance English Language Skills and Areas
Kheder, K., & Jomaa, N. J. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-3561-2.ch009
AI the Teacher? A Study on the Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in Learning
Kobierski, M. (2025) · Linguistics Beyond and Within (LingBaW) · doi:10.31743/lingbaw.18219
“One such example concerns the potential dissemination of disinformation and/or misinformation, highlighting the importance of critically evaluating AI-generated content (Marzuki et al. 2023).”
Exploring Novel Digital Assessment Methods in a Bioengineering Virtual Laboratory Training
Girmay, S., Mangayil, R. K., Viskari, H., & Karttunen, A. J. (2026) · Computer Applications in Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/cae.70142 · Cited by 1
“Use of AI tools in course assignments has the risk of promoting a surface approach to learning, which involves completing tasks with minimal effort to meet course requirements, without truly engaging with the materials and the topic [19–22].”
Workaholism is associated with dependency on Large Language Models in a cross-national studyPreprint
Barajeeh, B., Kuhail, M. A., Yankouskaya, A., Yang, H., Wang, X., Tina Yunsi, M. A., Alshakhsi, S. A. A., Liebherr, M., & Ali, R. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-8467589/v1
Megersa, T., Tolera, T., & Hailu, R. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-8647126/v1
Work Engagement: Global Trends, Bibliometric Analysis (2020-2025)
Shah, N. M. (2026) · EDUCATUM Journal of Social Sciences · doi:10.37134/ejoss.vol12.sp.14.2026
Improving Senior High School Students’ Descriptive Essays Through Reflective Journaling Strategy
Omaya, R. J. (2026) · Psychology and Education A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.70838/pemj.520102
Miranda, J. P. P., Manalese, R. P., Geronimo, S., Maniago, V. G. M., Padilla, C. K., Leon, A. P. D., Merle, S., & Castro, M. A. (2025) · International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Education (WAIE) · doi:10.1109/waie67422.2025.11381174 · Cited by 2
“Various AI-powered applications are now commonly used to support writing, editing, and design tasks in schoolwork [11] – [14].”
Boudouaia, A., Khattala, A., & Bennouioua, H. (2026) · Journal of Computing in Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s12528-026-09491-7 · Cited by 2
“Marzuki et al. (2023) explore various AI writing tools.”
Technology Assisted Through Virtual Robot Tutor (VTR) in Writing English Short Stories
Muthmainnah, M., Cardoso, L., Nagalakshmi, M., Apriani, E., Yakin, A. M. A., Azar, A. S., & Obaid, A. J. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-5601-3.ch010
AI and the Future of Writing Pedagogy
Govindaraj, M., Mariyappan, M. S. R., Anand, N. M., N.A., J. P. S., & Godwin, S. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-5601-3.ch003
Helaluddin, H., Ismail, G. A., Ulfah, S. M., Fitriyyah, D., Wati, S., & Rohbiah, T. S. (2026) · European Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.12973/eu-jer.15.2.669
Human writing and machine patterns: analyzing a decade of convergence
Chang, E. (2026) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-026-05589-y
AI in the Classroom: How Students Use ChatGPT to Enhance Their Writing
Nguyen, T. T. T., & Nguyen, K. T. M. (2025) · International Conference on Education and Multimedia Technology (ICEMT) · doi:10.1145/3761843.3761903
“Li et al. found that AI feedback made student writing more consistent [8], while Marzuki et al. observed better content organization [9].”
Asistentes de inteligencia artificial: uso y percepción en estudiantes de idiomas de la UNT, 2025
Dextre, Y. M. D. P. G., & Hurtado, X. M. R. (2026) · EVSOS · doi:10.57175/evsos.v4i3.299
Hasheela-Mufeti, V. T., Tuape, M., & Happonen, A. (2026) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9781003633433-9
The influence of online peer review on EFL learners’ cohesion and coherence in narrative writing
Li, J., Guan, Y., Pack, A., Jia, W., Xia, W., & Wang, B. (2026) · Journal of China Computer-Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1515/jccall-2025-0028
“Research hasfocused on feedback from peers (e.g., Carr 2023; Fan and Xu 2020), teachers (e.g., Alharbi 2022; Wang et al. 2023) and AI robots (e.g., Marzuki et al. 2023).”
Alreshidi, S. M., Almutairi, A. A., Malti, W. E., Jomaa, L., Dankar, M. J., & Fawaz, M. A. (2026) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.106629 · Cited by 2
Oktarina, P. S., Adnyani, N. W. S., & Gayatri, N. P. R. D. (2025) · Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Profesi Guru · doi:10.23887/jippg.v8i3.109556
Ethical Use of ChatGPT and Critic-AI in Academic Writing and ResearchPreprint
Yaprak, Z. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6539730
Xu, W., Abdullah, R., & Li, X. (2026) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2026.2634424
Funda, V., Makhetha-Kosi, P., Chimucheka, N., & Bamigboye, O. O. (2026) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-026-01446-5
“Furthermore, AI language models, such as GPT-3, can help students by generating content as well as offering recommendations for improved sentence structures and vocabulary Marzuki et al. [25].”
Erümit, S. F. (2026) · European Journal of Education · doi:10.1111/ejed.70616
Yundayani, A., Mukminin, A., & Alghadari, F. (2026) · Высшее образование в России · doi:10.31992/0869-3617-2026-35-3-149-168
Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in Language Education: Current Trends and Perspectives
Bui, T. T. T., & Hoa, C. T. H. (2026) · Studies in computational intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-18392-7_1
Tracking, Retrieving, and Auditing for Coherent Epics in Online Narratives
Duan, Q., Wang, C., Luo, Y., Tang, N., Shen, L., & Luo, Y. (2026) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3772363.3798905
“First, most AI writing tools primarily focus on generation or drafting [3, 13, 23], often overlooking authors’ creativity [2, 15, 33], and offering limited support for post-writing review and revision, where narrative inconsistencies are commonly detected.”
Instructional Mechanisms for Professional Writing: A Comparison of Scaffolded Annotation and ChatGPT
Corvite, S., Matz, R. L., Mills, M., & Hui, J. S. (2026) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3790915
“For instance, scholars have demonstrated the utility of AI in supporting a diversity of writers, including non-native English speakers [57, 69], researchers [77], creative writers [45], and students [63, 67].”
Artificial Intelligence in Language Education and Intercultural Communication
Kayaoğlu, M. N. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-6325-7.ch001
Nguyen, P. B. T., & Nguyen, B. N. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6588990
Exploring Learners’ Awareness of AI-Powered Tools’ Impact on Critical Thinking
Biboussi, E. M., & Hmouri, Z. (2026) · Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation/Advances in science, technology & innovation · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-97825-8_50
AI-Enhanced Storytelling to Recontextualize Descriptive Grammar Teaching
Milad, M. (2026) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.4018/ijaitl.408129
Duan, C., & Wang, Y. (2026) · International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education · doi:10.1177/03064190261445582 · Cited by 3
Widodo, J. S., & Suharyati, H. (2026) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781394335640.ch3
Impact of ChatGPT on metacognition and motivation in EFL academic writing
Vo, L. T. T., & Hoang, L. V. (2026) · Proceedings of International Academia · doi:10.65956/procia.2026.14
“This view is consistent with the findings of Marzuki et al. (2023), viewing ChatGPT as useful for content and organization.”
Miglbauer, M. (2026) · Journal of Education for Teaching International Research and Pedagogy · doi:10.1080/02607476.2026.2665838 · Cited by 1
“For example, studies have demonstrated that scaffolding and collaborative writing facilitated by genAI enhance the language output (Meniado 2023; Y.-J. Lee 2024), specifically the quality of content and structure (Marzuki et al. 2023).”
Lu, Y., & Jia, C. (2026) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2026.2665351
Using or Misusing of Artificial Intelligence in Academia: A Formal Analysis
Kumar, D. R., Azim, F., & Bohra, R. (2026) · International Research Journal of Computer Science · doi:10.26562/irjcs.2026.v1304.17
Lutfia, N., & Ilham (2026) · Ethical Lingua Journal of Language Teaching and Literature · doi:10.30605/25409190.931
Topic Modeling of Student Perspectives on Generative AI for Academic Research Writing
Aspiras, L. S. (2026) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Systems, and Emerging Technologies (ICAISET) · doi:10.1109/icaiset66439.2026.11541475
Harnessing AI-assisted Writing in Educational Institutions: A Systematic Literature Review
Sudirman, A., Kristanto, T., Gemilang, A. V., & Rais, B. (2026) · IJORER International Journal of Recent Educational Research · doi:10.46245/ijorer.v7i3.1172
Kayyali, M. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-1285-9.ch003
Digital Mediation in Applied Linguistics
John, A. (2026) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-8317-0.ch013
Effects of AI on the Trust and Confidence of Faculty Members in Submitted Academic Works by Students
Aguio, W. A., Cuerdo, R. L. C. M., Gerero, N. R., Gutierrez, S. E., Kadusale, R. P. V., & Lucero, H. R. (2026) · International Journal of Latest Technology in Engineering Management & Applied Science · doi:10.51583/ijltemas.2026.150500177
Tashmeer, M., Davies, M. J., & Stephens, J. M. (2026) · British Educational Research Journal · doi:10.1002/berj.70208
Exploring Student Experiences With AI- Driven Tools for Speech ProficiencyPreprint
Serundo, D. A., Tapic, L. G. E., Turtogo, J. R., Fabricante, E. L., Apao, D. D. G., & Tayros, M. T. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10066024/v1
Shen, Y., & He, S. (2026) · International Conference on Information and Education Technology (ICIET) · doi:10.1109/iciet69664.2026.11561596 · Cited by 1
“To amplify the affordance of AI, the guidance provided for students should be embedded at different stages [8, 9].”
Analysing the pedagogical potential of ChatGPT: a usability testing with educators
Shaikh, S., Yayilgan, S. Y., Klímová, B., Pikhart, M., Černá, M., & Abomhara, M. (2026) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2026.2689778
The G-U-I-D-E Framework: A Context-Based Approach to Responsible AI Use in L2 Writing
Demir, S., & Koral, M. A. (2026) · Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi · doi:10.52597/buje.1833747
The Impact of AI Writing Tools on the Writer Identity of English Majors
Wang, J. (2026) · SHS Web of Conferences · doi:10.1051/shsconf/202623504003
Rojabi, A. R., Astutik, Y., Mustofa, A., Amumpuni, R. S., & Amal, M. K. (2026) · Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education · doi:10.1108/jarhe-01-2026-0065
SÖYLER, D. Y., Karahüseyinoğlu, M. F., & Kırdemir, A. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1873886 · Cited by 1
“AI technologies have the potential to support individuals’ learning processes, facilitate access to information, and enhance academic productivity (Marzuki et al., 2023; Başaran and Yeşilbaş Özenç, 2024; Karahüseyinoğlu et al., 2025).”
Generative AI for Academic Writing among Indonesian History Education Lecturers
Kurniawan, P. W., Maximilian, A., Zulianti, H., & Hidayat, N. (2026) · Proceeding International Conference on Digital Education and Social Science · doi:10.55506/icdess.v3i1.176
Rethinking AI in Learning: Does It Strengthen or Erode Critical Digital Literacy?
Guermat, A. M. E., & Bekkaoui, M. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-19585-2_17
Shabani, K., & Roodgar, R. (2026) · European Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1515/eujal-2025-0041
“Overall, the findings indicated that Character AI significantly improved learners ’ writing quality, supporting recent claims about the facilitative role of AI in writing development (Adams & Chuah, 2022; Huang &Tan, 2023; Marzuki et al., 2023).”
Ma, G., & Shi, Y. (2026) · Journal of China Computer-Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1515/jccall-2025-0032 · Cited by 2
“The fi nding suggests that AI tools excel at transmitting factual knowledge but struggle to cultivate higher-order critical thinking without human sca ff olding (Darwin et al. 2024; Marzuki et al. 2023).”
Wang, T., Rowsell, J., & Pei, L. (2026) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16071092 · Cited by 2
Grammarly: A Modern Ally in Language Teaching. From NLP Theory to Classroom Practice
Τσακαλίδου, Σ. (2026) · International Journal of Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.46300/9109.2026.20.15
Wang, Y. Y., Zhang, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2026) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1002/jcal.70294 · Cited by 1
Albano, R. A. R., Kurata, Y., Dacayan, A. M. M., Orme, J. L. B., & Basconcillo, A. P. H. (2026) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2026.07.014
The effect of artificial intelligence on students’ writing performance: a meta-analysis
Wu, J., Chen, Q., Jiang, H., & Bai, X. (2026) · Reading and Writing · doi:10.1007/s11145-026-10884-4 · Cited by 1
Mahmudah, A., Prastowo, A., Hidayat, N., & Muqowin (2026) · Decision Sciences in Human Learning and Development · doi:10.64268/decision.v1i1.5
“In communication development, AI tools can assist students in organizing ideas, refining language use, and improving clarity of expression (Marzuki et al., 2023; Ou et al., 2024).”
Charly Jerome, J. (2026) · Indian Journal of Language and Linguistics · doi:10.54392/ijll2627
“The third research priority is equity focused investigation of AI writing tool access and effects across diverse learner populations and institutional contexts Marzuki et al., (2023).”
Critical reflections on AI integration in graduate research writing
Pham, V. P. H., & Nguyen, N. H. V. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1877950 · Cited by 1
Wahas, Y. M. A., & Almerhebi, Y. A. (2026) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-026-01901-3
“While previous work such as Marzuki et al. [37] has primarily examined teachers’ perspectives, the present study contributes by foregrounding the student experience, with particular attention to the Yemeni higher-education context.”
Modeling pre-service EFL teachers’ attitudes toward Artificial Intelligence in language education
Tootkaboni, A. A., & Maghsoudi, M. (2026) · Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado · doi:10.6018/reifop.680741
“Recent advancements in AI have spurred numerous studies on its integration into language instruction (e.g., Fathi et al., 2024; Har, 2023; Liu et al., 2023; Liu & Ma, 2024; Marzuki et al., 2023).”
Dewi, R. R. C., Azindani, A., Budinurani, L., & Wulandari, N. (2026) · Journal of Education and Teaching Learning · doi:10.59211/mjpjetl.v4i1.392
Technology Aided Formative Assessment and Writing Skills
Parra-Gavilánez, L. F., Morales, A. P. P., & Sánchez, X. A. C. (2026) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-20381-6_35
ChatGPT in EFL academic writing instruction in Asian higher education: A scoping review
Heng, B., & Nawas, A. (2026) · Review of Education · doi:10.1002/rev3.70213 · Cited by 2
Chetyrina, N. V. (2026) · Вестник Тамбовского университета. Серия: Гуманитарные науки · doi:10.20310/1810-0201-2026-31-4-891-912
Aeni, N., Hasan, M., & Dahri, N. A. (2026) · Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education · doi:10.1108/jarhe-04-2026-0768
Reño, A. B., Sasutana, A., Ticmon, S. L., Torralba, M., & Villa, K. (2026) · International Conference on e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning · doi:10.1109/ic4e69618.2026.11631373
Writing and speaking anxiety as predictors of ChatGPT usage among EFL learners
Yaşar, H., & Karagücük, V. (2026) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-026-02020-9 · Cited by 1
“Previous research has identified a range of strategies to cope with WA. Qashoa [81] reported that increasing opportunities for practice and preparation and exposure to more text models can be effective in reducing WA. Additionally, writing quality can be better with the help of AI tools [69].”
Miranda, J. P. P., Canlas, R. B., Santos, R. C. D., Concepcion, A. U., Padilla, C. K., & Doctor, P. I. (2026) · International Conference on Intelligent and Sustainable AI Systems (ICOSAAS) · doi:10.1109/icosaas68663.2026.11649341
“This confirms the earlier findings that reported that students see AI as useful for writing, idea generation, and research [18], [19].”
AI writing assistants and their effect on EFL writing quality.
Mela, A. J. L. (2026) · Latitude · doi:10.55946/latitude.v2i24.293
Grab, M. Ö. (2026) · Social Sciences & Humanities Open · doi:10.1016/j.ssaho.2026.103465 · Cited by 1
Multimodal AI-Driven Adaptive Assessment System for Personalized E-Learning Environments
Shobana, K., Verma, S., Kaur, A., Katekhaye, D., Mohanapriya, T., & Arya, S. (2026) · 2026 International Conference on Emerging Trends in Information, Communication & Systems (ICETICS) · doi:10.1109/icetics69505.2026.11651325
Fujiwara, M., Chujo, R., & Hautasaari, A. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2026.100372
Torres-Vásquez, L., & Christie, D. E. V. (2026) · Ampersand · doi:10.1016/j.amper.2026.100283
Khattak, Z. I., Mathew, B. P., Ghorbanpoor, M., Qureshi, M. B., & Zakwani, M. A. (2026) · International Journal of Learning Teaching and Educational Research · doi:10.26803/ijlter.25.8.9
Santika, R., & Farizki, R. (2026) · International Multidisciplinary Journal of Emerging Technologies and Applications · doi:10.67294/fedswq39
Erdemir, N., Tekeli, H., & SAYIN, İ. (2026) · Journal of Computer and Education Research · doi:10.18009/jcer.1847945
Argumentative Writing and Technology: A Systematic Review (2010-2025)Preprint
Kia, A. J., & Farsani, M. A. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7388022
Exploring EFL students’ use of generative AI for academic writing: An extension of the UTAUT2 model
Solihati, T. A., Nurhayati, E., & Mulyana (2026) · Online Learning · doi:10.24059/olj.v30i3.5326
An NLP-enhanced large-scale review of AI trends and research gaps in English language education
Atar, C., Atlamaz, T. A., & Dogan, B. (2026) · Discover Computing · doi:10.1007/s10791-026-10475-5
“Like the results of the keyword analysis, the titles of the most cited papers reveal that AI use is considerably high in EFL writing (e.g. [13, 33]), and the most recent top-cited papers were on both writing and ChatGPT [30, 37].”
Long-term impact of ChatGPT feedback on EFL students' writing skills development accross genres
Fatmawati, Basthomi, Y., Suryati, N., Laksmi, E. D., & Hassan, I. (2026) · Multidisciplinary Science Journal · doi:10.31893/multiscience.2027179
“Empirical studies on automated writing evaluation (AWE) systems reveal that this type of feedback can improve students’ writing quality when it is used regularly (Fan, 2023b; Fan & Ma, 2022; Marzuki et al., 2023; Stevenson & Phakiti, 2014).”
EFL university students’ perceptions of ChatGPT’s impact on English writing content
Nguyen, T. B., & Huynh, T. N. P. (2026) · Proceedings of International Academia · doi:10.65956/procia.2026.147
“…for different purposes in writing, such as giving reasons, results, or examples observed by interview participants also coincided with findings from Marzuki et al. (2023) and Xiao (2024), whose research highlights the wide variety of connectors used in students ’ writing and their perceptions of…”
InfluentialLu, S.-L. (2026) · Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Educational Digitalization and Computer Science in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area · doi:10.1145/3828183.3828504
The Impact of LuzIA on Academic Writing in English as Foreign Language Learners
Vladés, E. C., Herdoiza, J. D. S., Tenesaca, J. R. B., & López, J. E. L. (2026) · Arandu-UTIC. · doi:10.69639/arandu.v13i3.2485
Steinerová, J. (2026) · Acta Informatica Pragensia · doi:10.18267/j.aip.316
Soni, D., Sankathala, S., & Das, S. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-2600-0383-1.ch002
Ryoo, M.-L. (2026) · Springer Proceedings in Humanities and Social Sciences · doi:10.1007/978-981-92-0411-3_9
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
