CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 17EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningEnglish Language Learning and TeachingArtificial Intelligence in Education

University students' perceptions of AI-assisted writing tools in supporting self-regulated writing practices

Open access
Amani, Nailatul, Bisriyah, Maslihatul·2025·IJELTAL (Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics)
DOI 10.21093/ijeltal.v10i1.1942
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming education by offering personalized learning tools, yet its role in fostering self-regulated learning (SRL) strategies among English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students remains underexplored. This study investigates EFL students' perceptions of AI applications in supporting their self-regulated writing strategies, particularly in planning, monitoring, and evaluation. Employing a qualitative case study approach, data were collected from 40 EFL students at an Islamic-based university in East Java, Indonesia, through questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and document analysis. The findings indicate that most students perceive AI tools as beneficial, particularly for grammar checking, spelling correction, and word choice improvement, though their reliance on AI for idea generation, topic selection, and writing progress monitoring varies. While AI is valued for feedback, paraphrasing, and translation, students still prefer human guidance for in-depth explanations, with some expressing concerns that excessive dependence on AI may hinder their comprehension and writing confidence. These findings highlight the need for a balanced integration of AI tools into writing instruction, emphasizing the importance of human feedback and personalized learning approaches.

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 · 10.21093/ijeltal.v10i1.1942

Cites

0 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?

  • Substantial evidence relies on convenience sampling and self-reported data, introducing potential social desirability bias regarding misconduct behaviors.

    “but substantial evidence relies on convenience sampling and self-reported data introducing potential social desirability bias regarding misconduct behaviors (Amani and Bisriyah, 2025; Hanh and Duyen, 2025; Karkoulian et al., 2025).”

    From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Amani and Bisriyah, 2025

    The Instruments section (3.3; page unavailable) describes questionnaires and interviews, supporting the self-reported-data portion. The Participants section (3.2; page unavailable) specifies purposive, not convenience, sampling. The retrieved passages do not discuss social desirability bias regarding misconduct behaviors or establish that substantial evidence uses these methods. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • AI tools in academic writing fall into four functional categories: generative AI models, automated writing evaluation systems, translation tools, and multimodal platforms.

    “The tools identified fall into four functional categories: generative AI models (ChatGPT, Gemini, DeepSeek, Copilot) for higher-order tasks like brainstorming and drafting; automated writing evaluation systems (Grammarly, ProWritingAid, Hemingway Editor) for grammar and mechanical corrections; translation tools (DeepL, Google Translate) for cross-lingual support; and multimodal platforms (Canva, Q”

    From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Amani and Bisriyah, 2025

    Section 2.2, “AI-Assisted Writing” (page unavailable), discusses writing assistants, automated writing evaluation, and translation tools. The interview findings also identify ChatGPT and Gemini for idea generation and DeepL for translation. Our copy does not establish a four-category taxonomy or identify multimodal platforms such as Canva as a fourth category. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    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

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. Abadikhah, S., Aliyan, Z., & Talebi, S. H. (2018). EFL students' attitudes towards self- regulated learning strategies in academic writing. Issues in Educational Research, 28(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/ielapa.437737151804355 · DOI
  2. Alammar, A., & Amin, E. A.-R. (2023). EFL Students' Perception of Using AI Paraphrasing Tools in English Language Research Projects. Arab World English Journal, 14(3), 166-181. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol14no3. · DOI
  3. Altas, E. A., & Mede, E. (2021). The Impact Of Flipped Classroom Approach On The Writing Achievement And Self-Regulated Learning Of Pre-Service English Teachers. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 22(1), 66-88. https://doi.org/10.17718/TOJDE.849885 · DOI
  4. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research Methods in Education (8th ed.). Routledge. https://archive.org/details/research-methods-in-education
  5. Fathi, J., & Feizollahi, B. (2020). The effect of Strategy-Based Instruction on EFL writing performance and Self-Regulated Learning. Journal of Language Research, 11(33). https://www.sid.ir/FileServer/JE/1014620203302
  6. Fitrah, M., & Luthfiyah. (2017). Penelitian Kualitatif,Tindakan Kelas & Studi Kasus (Ruslan & M. M. Effendi (eds.)). Jejak Publisher.
  7. Fitria, T. N. (2023). ProWritingAid as AI-Powered Writing Tools: The Performance in Checking Grammar and Spelling of Students' Writing. Polingua (Scientific Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Language Education), 12(2), 65-107. https://doi.org/10.30630/polingua.v12i2.276 · DOI
  8. Fodil-cherif, S. B. (2021). EFL Writing Skills Development Through Literature. Education and Linguistics Research, 7(2), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.5296/elr.v7i2.18835 · DOI
  9. Hapsari, A., & Fatmasari, T. A. (2022). Online Self-Regulated Learning Strategies in the Process of Writing Undergraduate Thesis: A Survey Study. Journal of English and Education (JEE), 8(2), 58-72. https://doi.org/10.20885/jee.v8i2.24333 · DOI
  10. Kamalov, F., & Gurrib, I. (2023). A New Era of Artificial Intelligence in Education: A Multifaceted Revolution. 1-27. http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.18303 · arXiv
  11. Koraishi, O. (2023). Teaching English in the Age of AI: Embracing ChatGPT to Optimize EFL Materials and Assessment. Language Education & Technology Journal, 3(1), 55-72. http://langedutech.com
  12. Le, P. T. N. (2023). Vietnam national university, hanoi university of languages and international studies. Proceedings of the Asia CALL Internatonal Conference, 4(May), 45- 62. https://asiacall.info/proceedings/index.php/articles/article/view/72
  13. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry (E. G. Guba (ed.)). SAGE Publications, Inc.
  14. Mammadova, T. (2019). Teaching Grammar to a Grammar-Free Generation. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  15. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. In Sage Publications: Vol. (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
  16. Nasution, A., & Fatimah, S. (2018). The Use of Pro Writing Aid Web in Editing Students Writing. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 7(1), 362-368. https://doi.org/10.24036/jelt.v7i2.9802 · DOI
  17. Purwanto, M. N. (2000). Ilmu Pendidikan Teoritis dan Praktis. In Remaja Rosdakarya (13th ed.). Remaja Rosdakarya.
  18. Skar, G. B., Graham, S., & Huebner, A. R. (2023). Efficacy for writing self-regulation, attitude toward writing, and quality of second grade students' writing. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1265785 · DOI
  19. Tran, T. T. T., & Ma, Q. (The E. U. of H. K. (2023). Technology-Enhanced Self-Regulation Instruction: A Dynamic Training Model to Facilitate Vietnamese EFL Learners' Self- Regulated Writing Skills. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4583267 · DOI
  20. Türkben, T. (2021). The Effect of Self-Regulated Strategy Education on the Writing Skills of Middle School Students. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 9(2), 52. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.9n.2p. · DOI
  21. Umamah, A., & Cahyono, B. Y. (2020). Indonesian university students' self-regulated writing (SRW) strategies in writing expository essays. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 25-35. https://doi.org/10.17509/IJAL.V10I1.24958 · DOI
  22. Wahyuda, M. I., Putera, A. A., & Khuseini, M. (2022). The Effectiveness of ProwritingAid toward Students Writing Skills in Senior High School. English Edu: Journal of English Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 26-34. https://doi.org/10.18860/jetl.v1i1.1624 · DOI
  23. Yadav, S., & Yadav, R. (2024). Educational administration: Theory and practice. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 30(6), 1456-1465. https://doi.org/10.53555/kuey.v30i6.5518 · DOI
  24. Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Applied Social Research Methods Series, 18(2). https://doi.org/10.1097/00001610-199503000-00004 · DOI
  25. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In Handbook of Self-Regulation (M. Boekaer, pp. 13-39). Academic Press.
  26. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2011). Self-Regulated of Learning and Performance An Introduction and an Overview. In Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance (p. 12). Routledge.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Amani, N., & Bisriyah, M.
Affiliations
Universitas Islam Negeri Maulana Malik Ibrahim (ID)
ORCID
Bisriyah, Maslihatul
Venue
IJELTAL (Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics)
Publisher
UINSI Samarinda
Published
2025-05-01
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
91
ISSN
  • 2527-6492 (ISSN-L)
  • 2527-8746
DOI
10.21093/ijeltal.v10i1.1942
OpenAlex
W4409949856
Cited by
17
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 7
FWCI
60.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IJELTAL (Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics) (publishedVersion)
  • Research Repository Universitas Islam Negeri Maulana Malik Ibrahim (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
Keywords
AI writing tools, student self-regulation, EFL writing, student perceptions, writing planning, writing assessment, grammar checking, human feedback, writing confidence, AI dependency, 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.

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