Saudi EFL learners' perceptions of using artificial intelligence and its impact on their writing skills
Open accessAbstract
In the evolving landscape of education, Artificial Intelligence tools are increasingly integrated into English as a Foreign Language classroom to enhance students’ writing skills. This study examines the perceptions of female Saudi learners of English as a Foreign Language at the University of Jeddah regarding the utilization of Artificial Intelligence tools to enhance writing skills. Examining Saudi EFL learners’ perceptions and experiences of using Artificial Intelligence tools to support their writing development can contribute to language teachers’ and technology developers’ understanding of the processes and practice implications around using Artificial Intelligence-based tools to support EFL teaching and learning. Therefore, this study addresses these questions: What are the EFL learners’ perceptions of using ChatGPT in language learning? What impact does the use of Artificial Intelligence have on writing competency? What are the limitations of using Artificial Intelligence-based tools in students’ English language writing skills? The study uses mixed methods, including questionnaires and semi-structured interviews, to explore learners’ attitudes, perceived benefits, and drawbacks of Artificial Intelligence on their writing proficiency. The study revealed that students valued Artificial Intelligence technologies for learning and had positive experiences utilizing them. They appreciated the prompt responses of Artificial Intelligence technologies to their inquiries, the assistance in grammatical accuracy, and the support in vocabulary development. Conversely, the students identified issues associated with utilizing Artificial Intelligence tools to enhance writing. The findings underscore the importance of incorporating Artificial Intelligence technology into education, considering curriculum development and teacher training to optimize technological advantages. Future studies should explore cultural contexts and expand the applicability of Artificial Intelligence in language acquisition.
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?
Writing-focused research in Saudi contexts indicates that EFL learners commonly use AI for idea generation, initial drafting, and surface polishing, reporting improved clarity and correctness alongside mixed feelings regarding originality and authorial ownership.
“Writing-focused research in Saudi contexts indicates that EFL learners commonly use AI for idea generation, initial drafting, and surface polishing, reporting improved clarity and correctness alongside mixed feelings regarding originality and authorial ownership (Al-Harbi and Al-Ahdal, 2025; Al-Sofi, 2024; Alyami et al., 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 Alyami et al., 2025
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
Mohammed, A. (2026) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-10895-1_36
Alshayban, A. (2026) · Isagoge - Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences · doi:10.59079/isagoge.v6i1.292
Positive Psychology and AI in Second Language Learning: A Bibliometric Review of an Emerging Field
ALTINTAŞ, N., & Kartal, G. (2026) · International Journal of Current Approaches in Language Education and Social Sciences · doi:10.35452/caless.1888005
ChatGPT and Adult English Language Learning: A Scoping Literature Review
Askari, M., & Yazdani, J. (2026) · New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development · doi:10.1177/19394225261454716
Mouas, S. (2026) · Armenian Folia Anglistika · doi:10.46991/afa/2026.22.1.110
“Despite these limitations, students generally hold positive attitudes toward AI feedback, particularly for its role in supporting language accuracy and revision processes (Alyami et al., 2025).”
The G-U-I-D-E Framework: A Context-Based Approach to Responsible AI Use in L2 Writing
Demir, S., & Koral, M. A. (2026) · Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi · doi:10.52597/buje.1833747
- Authors
- Alyami, A., Alotaibi, S., & Khan, W.
- Affiliations
- University of Jeddah (SA)
- Venue
- Arab World English Journal
- Publisher
- AWEJ Publishing
- Published
- 2025-03-20
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 349-365
- ISSN
- 2229-9327 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4408586739
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7
- FWCI
- 7.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Arab World English Journal (publishedVersion)
- 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
- AI-assisted language learning, ChatGPT, EFL writing skills, learner perceptions, Saudi EFL learners, female university students, writing skills, grammatical accuracy, vocabulary development, teacher professional development, curriculum development
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