CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 124Artificial Intelligence in EducationEnglish Language Learning and TeachingEducational Technology and Pedagogy

Utilization of artificial intelligence technology in an academic writing class: How do Indonesian students perceive?

Open access
Utami, Santi Pratiwi Tri, Andayani, Andayani, Winarni, Retno, Sumarwati, Sumarwati·2023·Contemporary Educational Technology
DOI 10.30935/cedtech/13419
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Research shows that artificial intelligence (AI) technology positively influences students’ writing skills, but this area has yet to be touched by Indonesian researchers. This study aims to map perception, obstacles, and recommendations for optimizing use of AI in teaching academic writing in Indonesian. This article focuses on a case study of three senior high schools in Central Java, Indonesia. It employs quantitative and qualitative data. The researcher collected the data using questionnaires presented with Likert scale, followed by an in-depth interview through mobile instant messaging interview. Findings show that (1) AI-based learning tools help students to do academic research, especially in the planning step, to identify and develop the topics, as well as in the drafting step, to develop a paper draft, (2) AI-based learning tools are deemed flexible in accessibility despite not being able to cover all necessities required by students in writing process, (3) students are interested in using AI technology in academic writing class so that learning process will not be boring. Although AI has been used in academic writing classes, tools have not positively impacted quality of students’ academic papers in all indicators. There are several obstacles to using AI, namely (1) need for more available feature, especially in editing Indonesian text, and (2) in contrast, the features still need to be optimized. These are the recommendations for the optimization of AI-based learning tools, which are (1) adding features to edit Indonesian text, including spelling, diction, and sentence structure, and (2) enhancing AI literacy to be able to explore and leverage the existing features optimally. This research has yet to accommodate the possible coverage in checking the originality and accuracy of the written product assisted by AI-based learning tools, which could become a focus for future researchers.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This case study maps Indonesian senior high school students’ perceptions of AI-based learning tools in academic writing using TAM dimensions of perceived usefulness, ease of use, and attitude. Students generally perceived AI positively, but reported incomplete features—especially for editing Indonesian text—and limited impact on all quality indicators.

Key findings

  • Perceived usefulness: 86.00% confirmed AI helped their writing performance (average 4.12); 65.00% said it improved writing skills (average 3.85), while 33.00% were neutral; 69.00% said it improved writing quality (average 3.74), but improvement was seen only on creativity of idea, not all indicators.
  • Perceived ease of use: accessibility averaged 4.09, instruction ease 4.01, flexibility 4.21, and variety of features 3.88; only 2.00% found initial instruction obstacles, but 33.00% were neutral on feature variety because features did not cover all writing needs.
  • Attitude toward usage: likeability averaged 4.35, motivation 4.02, convenience 4.12, and boredom 4.09; 22.00% were neutral on boredom, hoping to use AI sparingly and explore other tools.
  • Obstacles were incomplete available features, especially editing Indonesian text, and features needing optimization; recommendations included adding Indonesian text editing features and enhancing AI literacy.

Methods

  • Case study in three senior high schools in Semarang, Indonesia, with 58 eleventh-grade participants: n=25 male (43.10%) and n=33 female (56.90%), selected by purposive sampling.
  • Data came from a 12-item online questionnaire (reduced from 15 by expert judgment) using a 5-point Likert scale, followed by semi-structured in-depth mobile instant messaging interviews via WhatsApp; 11 participants were randomly selected, and interview data from nine were reported after removing duplicates/unnecessary data.
  • Quantitative questionnaire data were counted in percentages and averages; qualitative interview data were coded and used to elaborate questionnaire statements.

Limitations

  • Stated in the paper: the research has not accommodated possible coverage in checking the originality and accuracy of AI-assisted written products; it also needs expansion to the perspective of IT-supported classrooms for secondary school students, and it only covers two AI-based learning tools.
  • Evident from the text: the sample is small and purposively drawn from three schools, so findings are not broadly generalizable.
  • Evident from the text: the study relies on self-reported perceptions rather than independent measures of writing quality or learning outcomes.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.30935/cedtech/13419

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 29 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    With an average score of 4.02, participants have motivation to learn with AI-based learning tools.

    “With an average score of 4.02, the participants have the motivation to learn with AI-based learning tools.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Participants did not use AI-based learning tools to help them revise and edit.

    “The participants stated that they did not use AI-based learning tools to help them revise and edit.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    33.00% of participants gave neutral responses on improving writing skills because they thought the skills of using written language and writing mechanics should be manual.

    “Nevertheless, 33.00% of participants gave neutral responses since they thought that the skills of using written language and writing mechanics should be manual.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Students are interested in using AI technology in academic writing class so that the learning process will not be boring.

    “students are interested in using AI technology in academic writing class so that learning process will not be boring”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    AI-based learning tools cannot cover all necessities required by students in the writing process.

    “despite not being able to cover all necessities required by students in writing process”
    • Also stated in: § 3.88 · plain
      “However, the variety of features has yet to cover the necessities of the participants in the writing processes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 25
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 29
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The use of AI-based learning tools is perceived as improving the quality of writing, supported by 69.00% of participants, with an average score of 3.74.

    “The use of AI-based learning tools is perceived as improving the quality of writing is supported by 69.00% of participants, with an average score of 3.74.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    In terms of accessibility, the average score was 4.09, and most participants said they had no difficulties accessing AI-based learning tools.

    “In terms of accessibility, the average score was 4.09.Most participants said they had no difficulties accessing AI-based learning tools.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Most participants (86.00%) confirmed that AI-based learning tools help their performance in the writing process, with an average score of 4.12.

    “Most of the participants (86.00%) confirmed that AI-based learning tools help their performance in the writing process.The average score reached 4.12, which means positive.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Participants who disagreed noted that features in AI-based learning tools could not cover indicators determining quality of academic paper: accuracy of analysis, readiness to write synthesis, and ability to conclude.

    “Participants who disagree with the statement noted that the features in AI-based learning tools could not cover the indicators, which determine the quality of the academic paper, which are the accuracy of analysis, the readiness to write synthesis, and the ability to conclude something.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingown data

    The features of AI-based learning tools still need to be optimized.

    “and (2) in contrast, the features still need to be optimized.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The statement that AI-based learning tools can help students achieve the learning objective was scored neutral by 38.00% of participants, with an average score of 3.88.

    “The statement that AI-based learning tools can help students achieve the learning objective was scored neutral by 38.00% of participants, with an average score of 3.88.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The questionnaire's data on likeability of AI-based learning tools show an average score of 4.35, indicating most participants have a positive interest in its use.

    “The questionnaire's data on the likeability of AI-based learning tools show an average score of 4.35.It shows that most participants have a positive interest in the use of it.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Findingown data

    There is a need for more available features in AI-based learning tools, especially for editing Indonesian text.

    “There are several obstacles to using AI, namely (1) need for more available feature, especially in editing Indonesian text”
    • Also stated in: § Students' perception of usefulness of artificial intelligence technology utilization · plain
      “They had difficulties because of the absence of Indonesian language options to support them.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The ease of instruction in AI-based learning tools had an average score of 4.01, and only 2.00% of participants found obstacles in understanding the instruction initially.

    “The questionnaire's analysis on the ease of instruction in AI-based learning tools shows an average score of 4.01.Only 2.00% of the participants found obstacles in understanding the instruction at the initial point when they finally found the practical solution by themselves.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Most participants agreed on the variety of features in the learning tools, with an average of 3.88; 33.00% were neutral because features have yet to fulfil all requirements in writing.

    “Most participants agreed on the variety of features in the learning tools, with an average of 3.88.33.00% of participants stated that they are neutral since they have types of features, yet they have yet to be able to fulfil all requirements in writing.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The perception that AI-based learning tools can improve writing skills scored an average of 3.85, with 65.00% of participants supporting the statements.

    “The perception that AI-based learning tools can improve writing skills scores an average of 3.85.65.00% of the participants support the statements.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Most Indonesian secondary students positively perceive the usefulness, ease of use, and attitude toward using AI technology in their writing classes.

    “Based on the results and discussion, most Indonesian secondary students positively perceive the usefulness, ease of use, and attitude toward using AI technology in their writing classes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Students thought the features were developed enough to help them in the writing process.

    “They thought the feature was developed enough to help them in the writing process.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Participant A-20 stated that they enjoyed the learning process with AI and did not feel burdened by it.

    “In the interview, the participant stated that they enjoy the learning process with AI, as they said below.”
    • Also stated in: § Students' attitude towards use of artificial intelligence technology · plain
      “The processes were not only manual, but it was also involving a discussion with my groupmates since also use the learning tools practically.It was interesting.I did not feel burdened by it”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    AI was helpful to the students, despite not getting comprehensive agreement.

    “Despite not getting a comprehensive agreement, we see that AI was helpful to the students.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Participants opined that their ideas were no longer original when using AI-based learning tools.

    “However, on the other hand, they opined that their ideas were no longer original.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Data from the questionnaire and interview illustrate that students were more pleased, motivated, convenient, and joyful when having an academic writing class using AI-based learning tools.

    “The data from the questionnaire and interview illustrate that the students were more pleased, motivated, convenient, and joyful when having an academic writing class using AI-based learning tools.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Students deemed that the features did not completely cover all stages in which they need help while writing a text.

    “However, they also deem that the features did not completely cover all stages in which they need help while writing a text.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    The obstacles to using AI are incomplete available features, especially in editing Indonesian text, and available features that need to be used optimally.

    “The obstacles to using AI are (1) incomplete available features, especially in editing Indonesian text and (2) the available features that need to be used optimally.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Most participants had positive interest and enthusiasm and were not bored when using AI-based learning tools.

    “Most participants had positive interest and enthusiasm and were not bored.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingreasoning

    Students hoped that the features are continuously developed.

    “Therefore, they hope that the features are continuously developed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Interviewed participants stated that the accomplishment of written communication and systematic and critical thinking still needed to be optimally developed with the learning tools.

    “In the interview, they stated that the accomplishment of written communication and systematic and critical thinking still needed to be optimally proliferated with the learning tools.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Participants felt the learning process was more varied, although they hoped to use AI-based learning tools sparingly.

    “They felt the learning process was more varied, although they hoped they used it sparingly.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The average score for convenience of using AI-based learning tools was 4.12, indicating participants did not find anything annoying or disruptive.

    “Regarding the convenience of using AI-based learning tools, the average score is 4.12, which means the participants did not find anything annoying or disruptive.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Students' perceptions are practical tools which determine students' behavior.

    “Students' perceptions are practical tools which determine the students' behavior (Scherer et al., 2016).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Scherer et al., 2016

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Interview participants were chosen randomly to represent the questionnaire findings.

    “For the interview, we had 11 participants who were chosen randomly to represent the result of the questionnaires' findings.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Triangulation was implemented to articulate the reliability of qualitative research and the validity of research questions.

    “The strategy refers to the theory of triangulation, where a particular approach could support an observed phenomenon.The strategy is implemented to articulate the reliability of qualitative research and the validity of research questions (Ary et al., 2018;Muñoz & Ramirez, 2015).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Ary et al., 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Muñoz & Ramirez, 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Writing academic research is complex and challenging.

    “Pitrianti and Gasanti (2020) states that writing academic research is complex and challenging.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pitrianti and Gasanti (2020)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    AI-based learning tools positively impact students in a writing class.

    “Some of the research above shows that using AI-based learning tools positively impacts the students in a writing class.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Fitria, 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Mediyawati et al., 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Gayed et al., 2022

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The questionnaire items were validated by experts, reducing the number of items from 15 to 12.

    “From the 15 items of the arranged questionnaire, the experts judged that we only had 12 items left (Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Researchers removed duplicated and unnecessary data, resulting in interview data from nine participants.

    “During the process, the researchers remove duplicated and unnecessary data.Hence, we got the interview data from nine participants.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The questionnaire items were developed from the theoretical construction of TAM.

    “The questionnaire items were developed from their theoretical construction of TAM (Davis, 1989;Davis et al., 1989).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Davis, 1989

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Davis et al., 1989

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The process writing approach helps make learning writing effective and improves students' skills.

    “The approach is vital since, based on Kurniasih et al. (2020) and Sudiati and Nurhidayah (2008), it helps make learning writing effective and improves the students' skills.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Kurniasih et al. (2020)

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Sudiati and Nurhidayah (2008)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Chen et al. (2020) stated that AI gives new learning experiences to students, although they need to adjust.

    “This finding is in line with Chen et al. (2020), who stated that AI gives new learning experiences to students, although they need to adjust.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chen et al. (2020)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The existence of AI in academic writing classes could be used as a supplementing tool.

    “The existence of AI in academic writing classes could be used as a supplementing tool.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Motivation in writing is relevant to performance in writing as it is a crucial challenge for students.

    “Motivation in writing is relevant to performance in writing as it is a crucial challenge for students (Cutler & Graham, 2008;De Smedt et al., 2016;Feliks et al., 2019).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Cutler & Graham, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites De Smedt et al., 2016

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Feliks et al., 2019

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Burkhard (2022) and Indriyani and Solihati (2021) state that it is essential to be critical of integrating AI to develop skills.

    “Burkhard (2022) and Indriyani and Solihati (2021) state that it is essential to be critical of integrating AI to develop skills.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Burkhard (2022)

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Indriyani and Solihati (2021)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationcitation

    AI technology can be a part of learning writing as an additional tool with correct operation and timing.

    “AI technology can be a part of learning writing as an additional tool with correct operation and timing (Alharbi, 2023;Altmäe et al., 2023;Godwin-Jones, 2022;Kangasharju et al., 2022;Razack et al., 2021).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Alharbi, 2023

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Altmäe et al., 2023

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Godwin-Jones, 2022

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Prior works affirm the importance of teachers in strengthening students' writing competence and giving feedback on their writing product.

    “The finding is in line with Abdalkader (2022), Inayah and Nanda (2016), and Mursyid (2023), who affirm the importance of teachers in strengthening students' writing competence and giving feedback on their writing product.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Abdalkader (2022)

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Inayah and Nanda (2016)

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Mursyid (2023)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Teachers are still required in the academic writing class, primarily to strengthen competence in writing academic papers and giving systematic feedback to students.

    “Then, the teachers are still required in the academic writing class, primarily to strengthen the competence in writing academic papers and giving systematic feedback to the students.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The procedure for implementing study ethics is regulated in the Guidelines for Writing Scientific Papers, 2023 from Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta.

    “Authors declared that the procedure for implementing study ethics is regulated in the Guidelines for Writing Scientific Papers, 2023 from Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Personal data has been guaranteed to be kept confidential.

    “Personal data has been guaranteed to be kept confidential.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationown data

    AI-based learning tools can only help students with basic writing, specifically planning and drafting.

    “The tools can only help them with basic writing, specifically planning and drafting.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Informed consent was obtained from the students.

    “Informed consent was obtained from the students.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Some researchers show that the development of model and features are continuing apart from improving the accuracy of the ever-growing AI technology.

    “Some researchers show that the development of model and features are continuing apart from improving the accuracy of the ever-growing AI technology (Gayed et al., 2022;Godwin-Jones, 2022;Halaweh, 2023;Molenaar, 2022).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Gayed et al., 2022

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Godwin-Jones, 2022

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Halaweh, 2023

      Not checked in the free run.

45 of 45

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is a minimum of research focusing on using AI technology in an Indonesian academic writing class for senior high school students.

    “However, there is a minimum of research focuses on using AI technology in an Indonesian academic writing class for senior high school students.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    TAM has three aspects of user's beliefs: perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and attitude toward usage.

    “This research refers to TAM formula, which assumes three aspects of the user's beliefs: perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and attitude toward usage.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Students' positive perception of technology increases their motivation, enthusiasm, and academic success rates.

    “Students' positive perception of technology also increases their motivation, enthusiasm, and academic success rates.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    AI-based learning tools are relatively new in academic writing classes.

    “Nevertheless, AI-based learning tools are relatively new in academic writing classes.”
4 of 4

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?

  • Heightened engagement facilitated by the AI tool's responsiveness contributes to observed improvements in writing skills and motivation.

    “This heightened engagement, facilitated by the AI tool’s responsiveness, contributes to the observed improvements in writing skills and motivation (Liu et al., 2021; Utami and Winarni, 2023).”

    From Enhancing academic writing skills and motivation: assessing the efficacy of ChatGPT in AI-assisted language learning for EFL students (2023) · cites this paper as Utami and Winarni, 2023

    The Discussion reports that students perceived improved motivation, and the writing-skills findings report perceived benefits, with observed writing-quality improvement limited to creativity of ideas (section labeled “3.74”; page unavailable). The paper does not establish that the tool’s responsiveness heightened engagement or that such engagement caused improvements in skills and motivation. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Prior work by Rahman et al. (2022) and Utami and Winarni (2023) shows that AI-powered language learning positively influences EFL learners' motivation and engagement in writing tasks.

    “Moreover, these findings harmonize with the outcomes identified by Rahman et al. (2022) and Utami and Winarni (2023), which accentuated the positive influence of AI-powered language learning on EFL learners’ motivation and their heightened engagement in writing tasks.”

    From Enhancing academic writing skills and motivation: assessing the efficacy of ChatGPT in AI-assisted language learning for EFL students (2023) · cites this paper as Utami and Winarni (2023)

    The Discussion reports that most students perceived improved motivation when using AI-based tools, and the Students’ attitude section describes their interest and enthusiasm. But the Participants section identifies them as Indonesian eleventh-graders writing scientific papers, not EFL learners; the paper does not establish heightened engagement in EFL writing tasks. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • English language learners have positive perceptions regarding the integration of AI tools into writing activities.

    “This body of research highlights the positive perceptions of English language learners regarding the integration of AI tools into writing activities (Rahman et al., 2022; Utami and Winarni, 2023).”

    From Enhancing academic writing skills and motivation: assessing the efficacy of ChatGPT in AI-assisted language learning for EFL students (2023) · cites this paper as Utami and Winarni, 2023

    The Discussion (page not available) says most students positively perceived AI technology in academic writing classes. The Participants section identifies them as eleventh-grade students at three Indonesian schools, but does not identify them as English language learners. The positive-perception finding is supported; its application to English language learners is not established by this paper. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Contextual accuracy concerns about AI-generated feedback were identified.

    “The identified contextual accuracy concerns resonate with previous studies highlighting the need for careful consideration when incorporating AI-generated feedback (Utami and Winarni, 2023).”

    From Enhancing academic writing skills and motivation: assessing the efficacy of ChatGPT in AI-assisted language learning for EFL students (2023) · cites this paper as Utami and Winarni, 2023

    In “Students’ perception of usefulness of artificial intelligence technology utilization” (page unavailable), a participant says users must decide whether to accept AI-offered sentences and rearrange drafts so they remain logical. This supports careful consideration of AI writing suggestions, but the paper does not identify contextual accuracy problems in AI-generated feedback specifically; it says participants did not use the tools for revising and editing. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Utami et al. (2023) found collaborative use promoted some novel language generation, indicating a modest impact on both dimensions.

    “Collaborative use promoted shared agency and some novel language generation, indicating a modest impact on both dimensions.”

    From AI-Integrated Scaffolding to Enhance Agency and Creativity in K-12 English Language Learners: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [35]

    In “Students’ perception of usefulness of artificial intelligence technology utilization” (page unavailable), participants say the tools supplied opening paragraphs and sentence options for group writing, supporting some AI-assisted language generation. The paper does not assess shared agency or a modest impact on two dimensions. Its Discussion (page unavailable) also reports students’ concern that their ideas were no longer original, so it does not establish that the generated language was novel. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Mursyid. (2023). Integrating AI-based writing tools to enhance students’ learning process in digital writing. In Proceedings International Conference on Education of Suryakancana 2023 (pp. 564-569). https://doi.org/10.35194/cp.v0i0.3040 · DOI
  2. Peter, J., & Singaravelu. (2020). Problems in writing in English among high school learners. Aegaeum Journal, 8(9), 1502-1515.
  3. Sudiati, & Nurhidayah. (2008). Peningkatan menulis karya ilmiah siswa kelas II SMA UII Yogyakarta [Improvement in writing scientific papers for second grade students SMA UII Yogyakarta]. Litera, 7(2), 174-186.
  4. Sumakul, D. T. Y. G., Hamied, F. A., & Sukyadi, D. (2022a). Artificial intelligence in EFL classrooms: Friend or foe? LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 15(1), 232-256.
  5. Sutama, I. M., & Utama, I. D. G. B. (2017). Pemanfaatan teknologi informasi dan komunikasi (TIK) dalam pembelajaran menulis di sekolah menengah atas [Utilization of information and communication technology (ICT) in learning to write in high school]. In Proceedings of the National Seminar on Innovative Research (pp. 522-529).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Utami, S. P. T., Andayani, A., Winarni, R., & Sumarwati, S.
Affiliations
Sebelas Maret University (ID)
Corresponding author
Utami, Santi Pratiwi Tri
ORCID
Venue
Contemporary Educational Technology
Publisher
Bastas Publications
Published
2023-10-01
Volume
15
Issue
4
Pages
ep450
ISSN
1309-517X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.30935/cedtech/13419
OpenAlex
W4381236221
Semantic Scholar
f78a36bd6be15a8761ca2915a5030d8d06440806
Cited by
124
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 6
FWCI
29.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Contemporary Educational Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Educational Technology and Pedagogy
Keywords
artificial intelligence in education, academic writing, student perceptions, AI-based learning tools, Indonesian language writing, writing process, AI literacy, high school students, writing quality

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

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