The Impact of Artificial Intelligence Tools on Academic Writing Instruction in Higher Education: A Systematic Review
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
With the growth of Artificial Intelligence technologies, there is interest in studying their potential impact on university academic writing courses. This study examined whether AI tools are replacing these courses by exploring how they effectively replace traditional academic writing instruction and this shift’s potential benefits and drawbacks. The researcher reviewed existing literature on integrating AI tools into academic writing instruction. The findings provide insights to educators navigating the integration of Artificial Intelligence tools into writing curricula while maintaining instructional quality and academic integrity standards. By synthesizing the latest research, this study can inform decisions about the appropriate use of Artificial Intelligence in teaching essential writing skills. Increased use of Artificial Intelligence writing tools has sparked debate about their role in academic writing instruction. Universities like Stanford have updated policies around Artificial Intelligence tool usage and academic integrity. The University of California issued guidance acknowledging the prevalence of generative Artificial Intelligence on campuses. Middlebury College banned classroom use of ChatGPT over concerns it could impede critical thinking and writing skill development. Results show that while Artificial Intelligence helps with grammar and style, questions remain about its impact on creativity and critical thinking. However, Artificial Intelligence is not replacing university writing courses. These courses teach critical thinking, research, citation, argumentation, creativity, originality, and ethics, which Artificial Intelligence lacks. Academic writing courses offer a complete learning experience. Artificial Intelligence may improve academic writing but is unlikely to replace traditional courses soon. A balanced approach integrating Artificial Intelligence support while preserving core elements of academic writing education appears most effective for preparing students for diverse writing challenges.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
The educational value of generative AI in writing contexts is shaped less by tool availability than by the quality of human-AI interaction fostered through deliberate instructional design.
“Recent scholarship has increasingly highlighted that the educational value of generative AI in writing contexts is shaped less by tool availability than by the quality of human–AI interaction fostered through deliberate instructional design (Aljuaid, 2024; Deep and Chen, 2025).”
From From tool to scaffold: structured human–AI collaboration and its effects on academic writing and digital critical thinking among Saudi EFL learners (2026) · cites this paper as Aljuaid, 2024
AI tools can support improvements in linguistic accuracy, textual coherence, and genre awareness through immediate, individualized feedback.
“Systematic reviews converge on two key points: first, AI tools can support improvements in linguistic accuracy, textual coherence, and genre awareness through immediate, individualized feedback; and second, these benefits are contingent on how AI is embedded within instruction rather than on tool availability alone.”
From From tool to scaffold: structured human–AI collaboration and its effects on academic writing and digital critical thinking among Saudi EFL learners (2026) · cites this paper as Aljuaid, 2024
From a process-writing and self-regulation perspective, the educational value of AI depends on whether it makes the writing process more visible and subject to deliberate revision, rather than outsourcing final text production.
“From a process-writing and self-regulation perspective, the educational value of AI depends on whether it makes the writing process more visible and subject to deliberate revision, rather than outsourcing final text production (Aljuaid, 2024; Al-Sofi, 2024; Deep and Chen, 2025).”
From From tool to scaffold: structured human–AI collaboration and its effects on academic writing and digital critical thinking among Saudi EFL learners (2026) · cites this paper as Aljuaid, 2024
These mechanisms produce learning gains only when instruction structures students to critically engage with AI feedback rather than passively accept it-making human-AI interaction quality, rather than tool access alone, the proximate driver of writing improvement.
“Crucially, these mechanisms produce learning gains only when instruction structures students to critically engage with AI feedback rather than passively accept it—making human–AI interaction quality, rather than tool access alone, the proximate driver of writing improvement (Aljuaid, 2024; Arif et al., 2025; Deep and Chen, 2025).”
From From tool to scaffold: structured human–AI collaboration and its effects on academic writing and digital critical thinking among Saudi EFL learners (2026) · cites this paper as Aljuaid, 2024
The benefits of AI tools for writing are contingent on how AI is embedded within instruction rather than on tool availability alone.
“Systematic reviews converge on two key points: first, AI tools can support improvements in linguistic accuracy, textual coherence, and genre awareness through immediate, individualized feedback; and second, these benefits are contingent on how AI is embedded within instruction rather than on tool availability alone.”
From From tool to scaffold: structured human–AI collaboration and its effects on academic writing and digital critical thinking among Saudi EFL learners (2026) · cites this paper as Aljuaid, 2024
The strongest effects emerge when AI is integrated into process-oriented pedagogies involving iterative drafting, structured revision cycles, and explicit guidance on evaluating and selectively adapting AI suggestions.
“The strongest effects emerge when AI is integrated into process-oriented pedagogies involving iterative drafting, structured revision cycles, and explicit guidance on evaluating and selectively adapting AI suggestions (Aljuaid, 2024; Han and Li, 2024; Khalifa and Albadawy, 2024).”
From From tool to scaffold: structured human–AI collaboration and its effects on academic writing and digital critical thinking among Saudi EFL learners (2026) · cites this paper as Aljuaid, 2024
Cites
Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning
Sweller, J. (1988) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7 · Cited by 11,048 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Cognitive load theory, developed by Sweller (1988), examines the mental effort required for learning, helping understand whether AI enhances or hinders students’ learning experience (Berssanette & de Francisco, 2022).”
BackgroundCritical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/s1096-7516(00)00016-6 · Cited by 6,619 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence in Education: A Review
Chen, L., Chen, P., & Lin, Z. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2988510 · Cited by 4,133 · cited 8× · see citing works
“AI technologies like ChatGPT, RapidMiner, Copilot, and Iris.ai help with data analysis, literature reviews, and paper writing (Chen et al., 2020a; Malik et al., 2023).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialArtificial 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 6× · see citing works
“Educators widely regard AI as a beneficial tool that provides prompt feedback and individualized student assistance (Akgun & Greenhow, 2022; Braiki et al., 2020).”
BackgroundInfluentialChiu, T. K. F., Xia, Q., Zhou, X., Chai, C. S., & Cheng, M. (2023) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100118 · Cited by 1,181 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Third, learners and educators hold that AI influences creative thinking in terms of better and instant feedback (Chiu et al., 2023; González-Calatayud et al., 2021) and improved time management (Akgun & Greenhow, 2022; Fyfe, 2023; Gardner et al., 2021).”
BackgroundNew Era of Artificial Intelligence in Education: Towards a Sustainable Multifaceted Revolution
Kamalov, F., Santandreu Calonge, D., & Gurrib, I. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su151612451 · Cited by 1,089 · cited 3× · see citing works
“In academic writing instruction at the university level, AI entails using computer systems and technologies to perform tasks typically associated with human Intelligence and cognitive abilities (Leoste et al., 2021; Kamalov et al., 2023).”
BackgroundMethodThe promises and challenges of artificial intelligence for teachers: A systematic review of research
Celik, I., Dindar, M., Muukkonen, H., & Järvelä, S. (2022) · TechTrends · doi:10.1007/s11528-022-00715-y · Cited by 984 · see citing works
Perkins, M. (2023) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/1.20.02.07 · Cited by 839 · see citing works
Ouyang, F., Zheng, L., & Jiao, P. (2022) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-022-10925-9 · Cited by 831 · see citing works
Makarius, E. E., Mukherjee, D., Fox, J. D., & Fox, A. K. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.07.045 · Cited by 780 · see citing works
Impact of ChatGPT on learners in a L2 writing practicum: an exploratory investigation
Yan, D. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-11742-4 · Cited by 713 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In their study, Yan (2023) and Lingard (2023) used a survey to assess students’ perceptions of AI tools and their understanding of how to use AI-generated data appropriately.”
BackgroundExploring the potential of using an AI language model for automated essay scoring
Mizumoto, A., & Eguchi, M. (2023) · Research Methods in Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100050 · Cited by 647 · see citing works
Marzuki, Widiati, U., Rusdin, D., Darwin, & Indrawati, I. (2023) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2023.2236469 · Cited by 524 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Widiati et al. (2023) found that AI writing tools positively improved students’ writing quality, particularly in “content and organization, as perceived by English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers” (p. 349).”
BackgroundArtificial Intelligence for Student Assessment: A Systematic Review
González-Calatayud, V., Prendes-Espinosa, P., & Roig-Vila, R. (2021) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app11125467 · Cited by 503 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Third, learners and educators hold that AI influences creative thinking in terms of better and instant feedback (Chiu et al., 2023; González-Calatayud et al., 2021) and improved time management (Akgun & Greenhow, 2022; Fyfe, 2023; Gardner et al., 2021).”
BackgroundCumpston, M. S., McKenzie, J. E., Welch, V. A., & Brennan, S. E. (2022) · Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdac036 · Cited by 464 · see citing works
Imran, M., & Almusharraf, N. (2023) · Contemporary Educational Technology · doi:10.30935/cedtech/13605 · Cited by 421 · see citing works
Nazari, N., Shabbir, M. S., & Setiawan, R. (2021) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07014 · Cited by 405 · see citing works
Liang, J.-C., Hwang, G.-J., Chen, M.-R. A., & Darmawansah, D. (2023) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2021.1958348 · Cited by 378 · see citing works
Chocarro, R., Cortiñas, M., & Marcos-Matás, G. (2023) · Educational Studies · doi:10.1080/03055698.2020.1850426 · Cited by 343 · see citing works
Academic and Administrative Role of Artificial Intelligence in Education
Ahmad, S. F., Alam, M. M., Rahmat, M. K., Mubarik, M. S., & Hyder, S. I. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su14031101 · Cited by 309 · see citing works
Chaudhry, I. S., Sarwary, S. A. M., El Refae, G. A., & Chabchoub, H. (2023) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2023.2210461 · Cited by 262 · see citing works
Liu, C., Hou, J., Tu, Y.-F., Wang, Y., & Hwang, G.-J. (2023) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2021.2012812 · Cited by 231 · see citing works
Effects of real-time analytics-based personalized scaffolds on students’ self-regulated learning
Lim, L., Bannert, M., van der Graaf, J., Singh, S., Fan, Y., Surendrannair, S., Rakovic, M., Molenaar, I., Moore, J., & Gašević, D. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107547 · Cited by 198 · see citing works
Zheng, L., Niu, J., Zhong, L., & Gyasi, J. F. (2023) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2021.2015693 · Cited by 183 · see citing works
Examining the impact of Grammarly on the quality of mobile L2 writing
Dizon, G., & Gayed, J. M. (2021) · The JALT CALL Journal · doi:10.29140/jaltcall.v17n2.336 · Cited by 138 · see citing works
Bauer, E., Greisel, M., Kuznetsov, I., Berndt, M., Kollar, I., Dresel, M., Fischer, M. R., & Fischer, F. (2023) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13336 · Cited by 130 · see citing works
Leoste, J., Jõgi, L., Õun, T., Pastor, L., San Martín López, J., & Grauberg, I. (2021) · Computers · doi:10.3390/computers10090110 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Artificial intelligence in education and assessment methods
Braiki, B. A., Harous, S., Zaki, N., & Alnajjar, F. (2020) · Bulletin of Electrical Engineering and Informatics · doi:10.11591/eei.v9i5.1984 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
How Teacher and Grammarly Feedback Complement One Another in Myanmar EFL Students’ Writing
Thi, N. K., & Nikolov, M. (2022) · The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher · doi:10.1007/s40299-021-00625-2 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ringo, D. S. (2025) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2025.2475268 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Alshehri, O. A. O., Lamouchi, A., Abdellatif, M. S., Al-Dosari, M. N. A., Mekheimer, M., & Nemt-allah, M. A. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1830103 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“First, AI should be embedded within guided workflows requiring students to frame problems, draft iteratively, and log accept/reject/justify decisions—not used as unstructured open access (Aljuaid, 2024; Al-Fraidan, 2024).”
InfluentialPratama, H. (2025) · Conference on English Language Teaching · doi:10.24090/celti.2025.1335 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Aljuaid, H.
- Affiliations
- Taif University (SA)
- Corresponding author
- Aljuaid, Hind
- ORCID
- Aljuaid, Hind
- Venue
- Arab World English Journal
- Publisher
- AWEJ Publishing
- Published
- 2024-04-24
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 26-55
- ISSN
- 2229-9327 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4394993620
- Cited by
- 129
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 57 · 2025: 64 · 2024: 8
- FWCI
- 48.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Arab World English Journal (publishedVersion)
- SocArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nd)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Keywords
- AI tools, academic writing instruction, higher education, generative AI, ChatGPT, academic integrity, writing courses, critical thinking, creativity, AI writing tools, writing curriculum
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
