The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Generative AI in Student Essays: English Teachers' Perspectives on Effective Assessment Methods
Open accessAbstract
The increasing use of AI-assisted writing tools in education presents new challenges in ensuring the integrity and originality of student essays. This study investigates English teachers’ perceptions of various essay assessment methods in light of these challenges. Through a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative Likert-scale data and qualitative open-ended responses, the research reflects the perspectives of 50 experienced educators from the Faculty of Linguistics at the National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute.” The study investigates teachers' familiarity with AI tools, the challenges they face in assessing AI-assisted student work, and their views on AI's role in aiding or potentially hindering student writing skills. Findings indicate that while many educators support AI for tasks like grammar and proofreading, concerns persist over its impact on students' critical thinking and originality. Assessment methods currently in use include in-class handwritten essays, oral defenses, AI-detection software, and portfolios. The results indicate that hybrid assessment methods are rated as the most effective for evaluating AI-influenced essays, indicating a preference for combining traditional and AI-specific techniques. Implications and recommendations for research and practice have been outlined, emphasizing a balanced approach that promotes ethical AI usage, critical thinking, and academic integrity in writing assessments.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
AI in essay-based assessment: Student adoption, usage, and performance
Smerdon, D. (2024) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100288 · Cited by 43
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- Internet and Higher Education, 63, 100962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2024.100962 · DOI · Paper page
- Ifelebuegu, A. O. (2023). Rethinking online assessment strategies: Authenticity versus AI chatbot intervention. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6(2). Victoria University Kampala, Uganda. http://journals.sfu.ca/jalt/index.php/jalt/index
- Kim, N.J & Kim, M.K. (2022). Teachers' Perceptions of Using an Artificial Intelligence-Based Educational Tool for Scientific Writing. Frontiers in Education, 7, 755914. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.755914 · DOI · Paper page
- Kizilcec, R. F., Huber, E., Papanastasiou, E. C., Cram, A., Makridis, C. A., Smolansky, A., Zeivots, S., & Raduescu, C. (2024). Perceived impact of generative AI on assessments: Comparing educator and student perspectives in Australia, Cyprus, and the United States. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100269 · DOI · Paper page
- Krishna, K., Song, Y., Karpinska, M., Wieting, J., & Iyyer, M. (2023). Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defense. ArXiv, abs/2303.13408. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.13408 · DOI · Paper page
- Lukianenko, V. V., Shastko, I. M., & Korbut, O. H. (2024). Evaluating AI Detection Tools for Academic Integrity in Higher Education. Scientific Innovations and Advanced Technologies, 5(33), 970-978. https://doi.org/10.52058/2786-5274-2024- 5(33)-970-978 · DOI
- Malik, A. R., Pratiwi, Y., Andajani, K., Numertayasa, I. W., Suharti, S., Darwis, A., & Marzuki. (2023). Exploring artificial intelligence in academic essay: Higher education student's perspective. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 5, 100296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2023.100296 · DOI · Paper page
- Matsuda, P.K., Jeffery, J.V. (2012). Voice in Student Essays. In: Hyland, K., Guinda, C.S. (eds), Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137030825_10 · DOI
- Moorhouse, B. L., Yeo, M. A., & Wan, Y. (2023). Generative AI tools and assessment: Guidelines of the world's top-ranking universities. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, 100151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100151 · DOI · Paper page
- Plate, D., Melick, E., Hutson, J., & Edele, S. (2024). Generative AI in the English composition classroom: Practical and adaptable. Routledge.
- Putra, M. (2023). AI writing correction tools: Teachers and students' perception. Jurnal Pemikiran dan Penelitian Pendidikan, 21(1), 5. http://journal.uinmataram.ac.id/index.php/tatsqif
- Santra, P., & Majhi, D. (2023). Scholarly Communication and Machine-Generated Text: Is it Finally AI vs AI in Plagiarism Detection?. SRELS Journal of Information Management. https://doi.org/10.17821/srels/2023/v60i3/171028 · DOI
- Screti, F. (2023). Using Google Docs for guided Academic Writing assessments: students' perspectives. Language Learning in Higher Education, 13, 153 -174. https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2023-2007 · DOI
- Sharples, M. (2022). Automated essay writing: An AIED opinion. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32(4), 1119-1126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-022-00300-7 · DOI
- Soohwan, L., & Song, K. S. (2024). Teachers' and students' perceptions of AI- generated concept explanations: Implications for integrating generative AI in computer science education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100283. · DOI
- Sullivan, M., Kelly, A. & McLaughlan, P., (2023). ChatGPT in higher education: Considerations for academic integrity and student learning. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6(1), 1-10. rning & Teaching, 6(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.17 · DOI · Paper page
- Sweeney, S. (2023). Who wrote this? Essay mills and assessment -Considerations regarding contract cheating and AI in higher education. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(2), 100818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100818 · DOI · Paper page
- Tossell, C. C., Tenhundfeld, N. L., Momen, A., Cooley, K., & de Visser, E. J. (2024). Student perceptions of ChatGPT use in a college essay assignment: Implications for learning, grading, and trust in artificial intelligence. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 17, 1069-1081. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2024.3355015 · DOI · Paper page
- Waltzer, T., Pilegard, C., & Heyman, G. D. (2024). Can you spot the bot? Identifying AI-generated writing in college essays. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 20(11). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-024-00158-3 · DOI · Paper page
- Weber-Wulff, D., Anohina-Naumeca, A., Bjelobaba, S., et al. (2023). Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 19(26). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00146-z Words: 7605 Characters: 54 261 (30 standard pages) · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ncube, P. D. N., Dzvapatsva, G. P., Matobobo, C., & Ranga, M. M. (2026) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-025-00871-w · Cited by 31
“A balanced approach leveraging AI while upholding ethical standards will ensure meaningful and credible assessments in the AI era [ 30, 38].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Lukianenko, V., & Kornieva, Z.
- Venue
- XLinguae
- Published
- 2024-10
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 235-250
- ISSN
- 1337-8384 (ISSN-L)
- 2453-711X
- OpenAlex
- W4404289366
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4
- FWCI
- 2.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- XLinguae (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Keywords
- generative AI, student essays, essay scoring, English teachers' perceptions, AI-assisted writing, academic integrity, originality, AI detection software, critical thinking, writing portfolios, oral defense, ethical AI use, English as a foreign language
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
