CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 173Artificial Intelligence in EducationEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningEnglish Language Learning and Teaching

Cultivating writing skills: The role of ChatGPT as a learning assistant—A case study

Open access
Punar Özçelik, Nermin, Yangın Ekşi, Gonca·2024·Smart Learning Environments
DOI 10.1186/s40561-024-00296-8
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) has garnered considerable interest in the field of language education in recent times; however, limited research has focused on the role of AI in the specific context of register knowledge learning during English language writing. This study aims to address this research gap by examining the impact of ChatGPT, an AI-powered chatbot, on the acquisition of register knowledge across various writing tasks. The research design employed a one-case shot pre-experimental design, with 11 voluntary participants selected through convenience sampling. Preliminary results indicate that students found ChatGPT beneficial for acquiring formal register knowledge but perceived it as unnecessary for informal writing. Additionally, the effectiveness of ChatGPT in teaching neutral register was questioned by the participants. This research contributes to the existing literature by shedding new light on the effects of AI-generated chatbots in register learning during the writing process, offering insights into their potential as learning assistants. Further investigation is warranted to explore the broader implications and applications of AI in language learning contexts.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s40561-024-00296-8

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Research on writing and language learning constitutes one of the most active areas of inquiry into ChatGPT's classroom use.

    “Research on writing and language learning constitutes one of the most active areas of inquiry into ChatGPT's classroom use [10].”

    From Fluency Illusion: A Review on Influence of ChatGPT in Classroom Settings (2026) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Problem statement and research questions section says that very few studies had examined AI in language learning and identifies ChatGPT-assisted English writing as a research gap. Rather than describing writing and language learning as one of the most active areas of inquiry into classroom use, the paper presents its study as addressing an underexplored area. (LLM, conf=0.81)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Studies examining AI-assisted writing tasks report that students often produce more fluent and well-structured text, while improvements in argument quality or conceptual reasoning remain limited.

    “For example, studies examining AI-assisted writing tasks report that students often produce more fluent and well-structured text, while improvements in argument quality or conceptual reasoning remain limited [10][11][12].”

    From Fluency Illusion: A Review on Influence of ChatGPT in Classroom Settings (2026) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Results and discussion section says ChatGPT helped students improve grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, and the professional tone of their writing. But the study focused on self-editing and register knowledge in 11 participants; its Conclusion says it may not have covered all facets of writing expertise. It does not establish that improvements in argument quality or conceptual reasoning were limited, or that students often produced more fluent text across studies. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Surface-level improvement from AI linguistic support (grammar correction, paraphrasing, vocabulary suggestions) may be mistaken for stronger writing competence.

    “Surface-level improvement may be mistaken for stronger writing competence [10,39]”

    From Fluency Illusion: A Review on Influence of ChatGPT in Classroom Settings (2026) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Results and discussion section says ChatGPT improved the formal aspects of students’ texts through corrections to grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure. The Conclusion cautions that the study may not cover all facets of writing expertise or assess long-term writing development. The paper does not say that these visible improvements were mistaken for stronger writing competence. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Andre, T. (1998). The impact of digital and electronic technology in education: A Glacier with multiple causes? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 14(3), 17-20.
  2. Kohnke, L. (2022). A pedagogical chatbot: A supplemental language learning tool. RELC Journal, 54, 828-838. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00336 88221 106705 · DOI
  3. Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (Eds.), The meaning of meaning (pp. 296-336).
  4. Raja, R., & Nagasubramani, P. C. (2018). Impact of modern technology in education. Journal of Applied and Advanced Research, 3(1), 33-35. https:// doi. org/ 10. 21839/ jaar. 2018. v3S1. 165 · DOI
  5. Ratheeswari, K. (2018). Information communication technology in education. Journal of Applied and Advanced Research, 3(1), 45-47. https:// doi. org/ 10. 21839/ jaar. 2018. v3S1. 169 · DOI
  6. Reid, T. B. W. (1956). Linguistics, structuralism and philology. Archivum Linguisticum, 8(1), 28-37.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Punar Özçelik, N., & Yangın Ekşi, G.
ORCID
Venue
Smart Learning Environments
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2024-03-18
Volume
11
Issue
1
ISSN
2196-7091 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s40561-024-00296-8
OpenAlex
W4392917047
Cited by
115
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 28
FWCI
43.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Smart Learning Environments (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
Keywords
ChatGPT, AI chatbots, English writing, formal register, informal register, writing skills, learning assistants, artificial intelligence in language teaching

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review