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.
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
“The findings of this study imply that integrating AI writing tools can prove beneficial in elevating the quality of EFL student writing.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > Abstract
plainconditional- 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.
- Rests on an assumption: Teachers' perceptions of the impact of AI writing tools on student writing quality accurately reflect the tools' actual impact.
- Rests on an assumption: The perspectives of four EFL teachers from three Indonesian universities are sufficient to generalize about integrating AI writing tools in EFL classrooms.
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
“Firstly, the data was obtained from only four EFL teachers from three universities in Indonesia, which limits the breadth of the study.”
§ 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: unclear — It is unclear whether 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
“The study's implications suggest the integration of AI writing tools can be beneficial in enhancing the quality of EFL student writing.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 6. Conclusion
hedgedconditional- 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.
- 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
“Different regions may have varying degrees of access to technology, resources, and the attitudes of teachers towards AI tools, and this study may not fully represent the experiences of teachers in different contexts.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 6. Conclusion
hedged- 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 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 the realm of content, which refers to the generation of ideas and their articulation, AI writing tools have shown promising potential.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 5. Discussion
boostedconditional- 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.
- Rests on an assumption: The teachers' reports about changes in students' writing accurately reflect the actual impact of AI writing tools on students' writing.
In the paper
“Kurniati and Fithriani (2021) found that QuillBot aided students in developing better paraphrasing skills, which is a critical competency in academic writing.”
§ 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 Kurniati and Fithriani (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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“On the positive side, AI writing tools such as Grammarly, QuillBot, Wordtune, and Jenni have been found to significantly improve students' writing skills.”
§ 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 Tambunan et al. (2022)
- Not checked yetcites Kurniati and Fithriani (2021)
- Not checked yetcites Lam and Moorhouse (2022)
boosteddirect- 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.
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
“Additionally, the teachers who participated in our research are currently using and actively promoting the use of AI writing tools, which could predispose the findings towards more positive experiences and attitudes.”
§ The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective > 6. Conclusion
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.
In the paper
“A study by Tambunan et al. (2022) showed that using Grammarly improved students' grammar and punctuation.”
§ 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 Tambunan et al. (2022)
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.
In the paper
“In their study, Mozumder et al. (2023) noted that students without access to high-speed internet or modern digital devices might be unable to utilize these AI tools, widening the educational achievement gap.”
§ 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 Mozumder et al. (2023)
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.
- 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
Zhai, C., Wibowo, S., & Li, L. D. (2024) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7 · Cited by 1,567
“Other studies revealed that regular utilization of dialogue systems is linked to a decline in abilities of cognitive abilities, a diminished capacity for information retention, and an increased reliance on these systems for information (Dergaa et al., 2023; Marzuki et al., 2023).”
BackgroundLaw, L. (2024) · Computers and Education Open · doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100174 · Cited by 689
Exploring students' perspectives on generative AI-assisted academic writing
Kim, J., Yu, S., Detrick, R., & Li, N. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12878-7 · Cited by 438
Exploring Artificial Intelligence in Academic Essay: Higher Education Student's Perspective
Malik, A. R., Pratiwi, Y., Andajani, K., Numertayasa, I. W., Suharti, S., Darwis, A., & Marzuki (2023) · International Journal of Educational Research Open · doi:10.1016/j.ijedro.2023.100296 · Cited by 418
Impact of ChatGPT on ESL students’ academic writing skills: a mixed methods intervention study
Mahapatra, S. (2024) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-024-00295-9 · Cited by 398
“This finding is consistent with the literature on students’ views on the impact of ChatGPT and other AI-driven tools on their writing (Marzuki et al., 2023; Yan, 2023).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluential
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
