The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cohesion and Coherence in Essays Generated by ChatGPT: A Comparative Analysis to University Students’ Writing
Open accessAbstract
ChatGPT is a natural language processing tool that can assist in many language-related tasks (ChatGPT, personal communication, May 20, 2023). It can also produce human-like writing. Cohesion and coherence are major requirements of any piece of writing, and it is assumed that ChatGPT can generate successful essays regarding these language requisites. Adopting Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) theory of cohesion and van Dijk and Kintsch’s (1983) cognitive situation model to achieve coherence, the researcher investigates cohesion and coherence in essays produced by ChatGPT compared to essays produced by students with respect to the same language features. The current study revolves around two major research questions: how are cohesion and coherence manifested in essays produced by ChatGPT, and how do these same language features resemble or differ from essays written by students? To answer these questions, students’ essays from first and fourth years in the English Department at one of the Egyptian private universities and essays produced by ChatGPT on the same prompts were assessed by the two courses’ instructors, qualitatively analyzed by ChatGPT and quantitatively analyzed using Coh-Metrix software version 3.0, and then compared. Findings revealed that ChatGPT can produce human-like essays not only in terms of cohesion and coherence, but also regarding lexical choices and advanced grammatical structures, which poses a great challenge of how to avoid having students plagiarizing from ChatGPT. Accordingly, the article concludes with some recommendations that utilize ChatGPT to enhance learners’ linguistic proficiency without sacrificing the integrity, honesty and reliability of the learning process.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“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 [39]
Citations
Cites
Unlocking the opportunities through ChatGPT Tool towards ameliorating the education system
Javaid, M., Haleem, A., Singh, R. P., Khan, S., & Khan, I. H. (2023) · BenchCouncil Transactions on Benchmarks, Standards and Evaluations · doi:10.1016/j.tbench.2023.100115 · Cited by 535
A Chat(GPT) about the future of scientific publishing
Hill-Yardin, E. L., Hutchinson, M. R., Laycock, R., & Spencer, S. J. (2023) · Brain, Behavior, and Immunity · doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2023.02.022 · Cited by 270
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fluency Illusion: A Review on Influence of ChatGPT in Classroom Settings
Kumar, S., Mikayelyan, A., & Vorfolomeyeva, O. (2026) · Information · doi:10.3390/info17030299 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Ismail, H. Y. S.
- Venue
- CDELT Occasional Papers in the Development of English Education
- Published
- 2023-07-01
- Volume
- 83
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 143-165
- ISSN
- 1110-2721 (ISSN-L)
- 2735-3591
- OpenAlex
- W4388613120
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 10.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- CDELT Occasional Papers in the Development of English Education (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Linguistics and Discourse Analysis
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, cohesion, coherence, AI-generated text, student writing, Halliday and Hasan cohesion theory, Coh-Metrix, word choice, grammatical complexity, academic integrity, plagiarism, EFL writing
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