CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 45Artificial Intelligence in EducationEnglish Language Learning and TeachingEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning

The use of AI tools in English academic writing by Saudi undergraduates

Open access
Ozfidan, Burhan, El-Dakhs, Dina Abdel Salam, Alsalim, Lama Adel·2024·Contemporary Educational Technology
DOI 10.30935/cedtech/15013
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study explores Saudi undergraduate students’ perceptions of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in academic writing. Despite extensive research on AI in higher education, there is limited focus on academic writing, especially in the Saudi context. A survey of 189 students, proficient in English and enrolled in freshmen academic writing courses, was conducted. The students frequently used ChatGPT, Grammarly, and Google Translate. Exploratory factor analysis identified two factors: “instructional support of AI tools” and “instructional practices of AI tools,” explaining 55.302% of the variance. Descriptive analysis revealed strong student agreement on AI tools’ benefits, including idea generation, outline preparation, grammar and spell-check improvements, and time-saving. However, concerns about reliability, contextual accuracy, and ethical implications were noted. The study indicates the need for proper training and clear guidelines to make the most of AI in academic writing. The participants, in various responses, indicated how AI helps develop their writing accuracy and come up with new ideas although some participants worry about relying too much on technology. The study recommends that AI tools can be very helpful, but we need to use them thoughtfully to cater to different student experiences and concerns.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This mixed-methods survey of 189 Saudi undergraduates in freshmen academic writing courses found generally positive perceptions of AI tools, especially ChatGPT, Grammarly, and Google Translate, for idea generation, outlining, grammar/spelling, and time-saving. Students also reported concerns about reliability, contextual accuracy, over-reliance, and ethical issues such as plagiarism.

Key findings

  • Exploratory factor analysis yielded two factors—“instructional support of AI tools in academic writing” and “instructional practices of AI tools in academic writing”—explaining 55.302% of the variance; the first explained 50.027% and the second 5.274%. KMO was .94, and Cronbach’s alpha was 0.88.
  • Students strongly agreed that AI aids idea generation (M = 4.40), outline preparation (M = 4.27), grammar and spelling improvement (M = 4.45), writing clarity (M = 4.21), overall writing quality (M = 4.32), and time-saving (M = 4.28).
  • Additional positive ratings included helpful AI suggestions (M = 4.26), meeting deadlines (M = 4.13), organizing ideas and arguments (M = 4.17), structure/organization insights (M = 4.15), proofreading efficiency (M = 4.13), and formatting/citation consistency (M = 4.11). Trust in AI-generated clarity suggestions was moderate (M = 3.79).
  • Open-ended responses cited advantages such as saving time, generating ideas, providing feedback, and improving language accuracy; disadvantages included over-reliance, underdevelopment of writing skills, plagiarism, inaccurate information, ethical concerns, accessibility/cost/customization issues, and the need to post-edit and cross-check. 21% of respondents reported no disadvantages.

Methods

  • Mixed-methods design using a survey administered to 223 Saudi university students; 34 who reported never using AI tools were excluded, leaving 189 valid respondents. Participants were native Arabic speakers, EFL learners, highly proficient in English, aged 18–29 (mean 20.1), enrolled in freshmen academic writing courses at a single Saudi institution.
  • The instrument had three parts: demographics; 21 five-point Likert-type items on AI use in academic writing stages and requirements; and two open-ended questions on advantages and disadvantages. Two multiple-choice questions asked about duration of AI tool use and specific tools used.
  • Analysis used SPSS for exploratory factor analysis with principal component analysis and Varimax rotation, descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations), Cronbach’s alpha, and thematic analysis of open-ended responses. Data were collected April–May 2024.

Limitations

  • The paper does not include a dedicated limitations section. It states that future studies should investigate these dynamics “especially in a range of educational settings,” implying limited generalizability beyond the sampled context.
  • Evident from the text: data came from a single Saudi Arabian institution, the sample was limited to freshmen academic writing students, and the design was cross-sectional and self-report, so causal claims cannot be made.
  • Evident from the text: the study relies on exploratory factor analysis rather than confirmatory factor analysis, and open-ended responses were thematically analyzed, which may limit the depth and generalizability of qualitative findings.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.30935/cedtech/15013

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 15 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    The two factors collectively explained 55.302% of the overall variance within the dataset.

    “The analysis yielded two distinct factors, collectively explaining 55.302% of the overall variance within the dataset.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The majority of the students used ChatGPT, Grammarly, and Google Translate.

    “the majority of students were using ChatGPT, Grammarly and Google Translate”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Some students used Quillbot.

    “some students were using Quillbot.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The results showed that AI programs like Grammarly, ChatGPT, and Google Translate are widely accepted.

    “The results also showed that AI programs like Grammarly, ChatGPT, and Google Translate are widely accepted.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    AI tools are viewed as effective in helping meet academic writing deadlines (M = 4.13).

    “AI tools are also viewed as effective in helping meet academic writing deadlines (M = 4.13)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 23
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 25

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The KMO value for the survey data was .94, falling within the superb range.

    “In our study, the KMO value was .94,falling within the superb range, as highlighted in Table 1.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Principal component analysis with Varimax rotation on 21 items yielded two distinct factors.

    “The analysis yielded two distinct factors, collectively explaining 55.302% of the overall variance within the dataset.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    The remaining AI tools were used by fewer than 10 participants each.

    “The remaining tools were used by less than 10 participants for each tool.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Descriptive analysis revealed strong student agreement on AI tools' benefits, including idea generation, outline preparation, grammar and spell-check improvements, and time-saving.

    “Descriptive analysis revealed strong student agreement on AI tools' benefits, including idea generation, outline preparation, grammar and spell-check improvements, and time-saving.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The participants indicated that AI helps develop their writing accuracy and come up with new ideas, although some participants worry about relying too much on technology.

    “The participants, in various responses, indicated how AI helps develop their writing accuracy and come up with new ideas although some participants worry about relying too much on technology.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Concerns about reliability, contextual accuracy, and ethical implications were noted.

    “However, concerns about reliability, contextual accuracy, and ethical implications were noted.”
    • Also stated in: § Data Analysis · plain
      “The results showed that while most students had a positive opinion of AI tools and acknowledged their potential to improve writing productivity and quality, they also voiced reservations about its dependability and potential ethical ramifications.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The two factors were independent of one another, exhibiting no correlation.

    “Notably, these two factors were found to be independent of one another, exhibiting no correlation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The survey found that while most students had good opinions of AI tools, some were worried about the possibility of over-reliance on these technologies and the possibility of plagiarism.

    “The survey also found that while most students had good opinions of AI tools, some were worried about the possibility of over-reliance on these technologies and the possibility of plagiarism.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Students valued the AI tools' ability to save them time and help them write better overall, especially when it came to grammar and vocabulary.

    “The students valued the AI tools' ability to save them time and help them write better overall, especially when it came to grammar and vocabulary”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    A few students expressed dissatisfaction with the cost of these tools.

    “a few students expressed their dissatisfaction with the accessibility, cost and customization of these tools”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    21% of the respondents reported no disadvantages for these tools.

    “It must be noted that 21% of the respondents reported no disadvantages for these tools.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Numerous students reported that the use of AI tools made writing more productive and freed them from having to spend as much time on language mechanics as they would have liked.

    “Numerous students reported that the use of AI tools made writing more productive and freed them from having to spend as much time on language mechanics as they would have liked.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    A few students highlighted the usefulness of AI tools for formatting.

    “a few students highlighted the usefulness of the tools in terms of building the writer's confidence and assisting with translation, formatting, generating citations and checking plagiarism.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    They valued the ability to generate ideas, organize essays, and receive immediate feedback on their drafts with the aid of these tools.

    “They valued the ability to generate ideas, organize essays, and receive immediate feedback on their drafts with the aid of these tools.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    A few students highlighted the usefulness of AI tools for assisting with translation.

    “a few students highlighted the usefulness of the tools in terms of building the writer's confidence and assisting with translation, formatting, generating citations and checking plagiarism.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The quantitative findings are supplemented by the open-ended comments, which show that students like AI technologies for their ease of use and efficacy in improving language accuracy and sparking creative thought.

    “The quantitative findings are supplemented by the open-ended comments, which show that students like AI technologies for their ease of use and efficacy in improving language accuracy and sparking creative thought.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    While many students found AI technologies valuable, there is variety in the perceived usefulness of these tools, as evidenced by the standard deviations in the descriptive analysis of the replies.

    “While many students found AI technologies valuable, there is variety in the perceived usefulness of these tools, as evidenced by the standard deviations in the descriptive analysis of the replies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    A few students highlighted the usefulness of AI tools for checking plagiarism.

    “a few students highlighted the usefulness of the tools in terms of building the writer's confidence and assisting with translation, formatting, generating citations and checking plagiarism.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    A few students highlighted the usefulness of AI tools for building the writer's confidence.

    “a few students highlighted the usefulness of the tools in terms of building the writer's confidence and assisting with translation, formatting, generating citations and checking plagiarism.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    A few students expressed dissatisfaction with the customization of these tools.

    “a few students expressed their dissatisfaction with the accessibility, cost and customization of these tools”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    A few students highlighted the usefulness of AI tools for generating citations.

    “a few students highlighted the usefulness of the tools in terms of building the writer's confidence and assisting with translation, formatting, generating citations and checking plagiarism.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Some students preferred to use AI tools because they were helpful, easy to use and served as excellent assistants while conducting research.

    “Some students also preferred to use AI tools because they were helpful, easy to use and served as excellent assistants while conducting research.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    There is noticeable variability in responses, with standard deviations ranging from 0.734 to 0.948.

    “there is noticeable variability in responses, with standard deviations ranging from 0.734 to 0.948.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Cronbach's alpha for the survey items was 0.88, indicating good internal consistency.

    “Cronbach's alpha for the survey items was computed to assess reliability; the result was 0.88, indicating a good degree of internal consistency.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The study's survey sample comprised 189 Saudi undergraduate students enrolled in freshmen academic writing courses after excluding 34 respondents who had never used AI tools.

    “The researchers thus excluded 34 respondents from the original sample because these respondents reported that they had never used AI tools before.”
    • Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
      “A survey of 189 students, proficient in English and enrolled in freshmen academic writing courses, was conducted.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Academic writing is a conspicuously daunting task for university students.

    “because academic writing is a conspicuously daunting task for university students (e.g., Dunn, 2021;Lin & Morrison, 2021)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Dunn, 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Lin & Morrison, 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    Despite extensive research on AI in higher education, there is limited focus on academic writing, especially in the Saudi context.

    “Despite extensive research on AI in higher education, there is limited focus on academic writing, especially in the Saudi context.”
    • Also stated in: § Research Article LITERATURE REVIEW · plain
      “However, much fewer studies have focused on the academic writing classes in higher education.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Interpretationown data

    The results demonstrate different ways in which AI tools can improve academic writing, but they also draw attention to the obstacles and issues that must be resolved in order to fully reap the rewards of using them.

    “The results demonstrate different ways in which AI tools can improve academic writing, but they also draw attention to the obstacles and issues that must be resolved in order to fully reap the rewards of using them.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reported perceptions of AI tools' benefits accurately reflect actual improvements in their academic writing quality and efficiency.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The high loading of items on these criteria indicates that students view AI tools as essential components of their instructional practices, boosting their enthusiasm and confidence in writing assignments, in addition to helpful assistance in content generation and organization.

    “The high loading of items on these criteria indicates that students view AI tools as essential components of their instructional practices, boosting their enthusiasm and confidence in writing assignments, in addition to helpful assistance in content generation and organization.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    AI tools have the potential to revolutionize academic writing education because of their dual role as essential teaching components and supportive assistance.

    “AI tools have the potential to revolutionize academic writing education because of their dual role as essential teaching components and supportive assistance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reported perceptions of AI tools' benefits accurately reflect actual improvements in their academic writing quality and efficiency.

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

    Interpretationcitation

    These worries align with the research conducted by Wang (2024) and Özçelik and Ekşi (2024) who observed comparable issues over striking a balance between utilizing AI tools and upholding academic integrity and individual learning growth.

    “These worries align with the research conducted by Wang (2024) and Özçelik and Ekşi (2024) who observed comparable issues over striking a balance between utilizing AI tools and upholding academic integrity and individual learning growth.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Wang (2024)

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Özçelik and Ekşi (2024)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationown data

    Worries about errors, moral dilemmas, and customization requirements point to areas where AI technologies still need to be improved.

    “But worries about errors, moral dilemmas, and customization requirements point to areas where AI technologies still need to be improved.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    This study was approved by the Ethics Committee at Prince Sultan University on 13 March 2024 with approval code PSU IRB-2024-03-0180.

    “This study was approved by the Ethics Committee at Prince Sultan University on 13 March 2024 with approval code PSU IRB-2024-03-0180.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    These opinions suggest that AI tools are helpful in handling the intricacies of academic writing, which supports the results of related studies conducted in other nations.

    “These opinions suggest that AI tools are helpful in handling the intricacies of academic writing, which supports the results of related studies conducted in other nations (e.g., Bibi & Atta, 2024;Malik et al., 2023).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Bibi & Atta, 2024

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Malik et al., 2023

      Not checked in the free run.

    • Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reported perceptions of AI tools' benefits accurately reflect actual improvements in their academic writing quality and efficiency.

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study data were stored confidentially with access only to the researchers.

    “Additionally, the study data were stored confidentially with access only to the researchers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    Participants indicated their consent to participate in this study through Google Form.

    “Participants indicated their consent to participate in this study through Google Form.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Interpretationown data

    Although the advantages of these technologies are widely acknowledged, especially with regard to enhancing language accuracy and facilitating idea generation, serious doubts exist regarding their dependability, moral implications, and requirement for customization.

    “Although the advantages of these technologies are widely acknowledged, especially with regard to enhancing language accuracy and facilitating idea generation, serious doubts exist regarding their dependability, moral implications, and requirement for customization.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    This dual use of AI tools emphasizes how they might revolutionize academic writing instruction by offering students ongoing, personalized guidance.

    “This dual use of AI tools emphasizes how they might revolutionize academic writing instruction by offering students ongoing, personalized guidance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reported perceptions of AI tools' benefits accurately reflect actual improvements in their academic writing quality and efficiency.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The variability suggests that while many find AI tools beneficial in supporting different aspects of academic writing, individual experiences and levels of agreement with the effectiveness of AI tools differ significantly.

    “This variability suggests that while many find AI tools beneficial in supporting different aspects of academic writing, individual experiences and levels of agreement with the effectiveness of AI tools differ significantly”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The study finds that AI tools are typically well-received and have a noticeable favorable impact on writing efficiency and quality.

    “it finds that these tools are typically well-received and have a noticeable favorable impact on writing efficiency and quality.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reported perceptions of AI tools' benefits accurately reflect actual improvements in their academic writing quality and efficiency.
    • Rests on an assumption: The sample of Saudi undergraduate students surveyed is representative of Saudi undergraduate students in general.

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

    Premisecitation

    The variety of available AI tools holds promise for providing ongoing support to students in their learning journey of academic writing.

    “because the variety of available AI tools holds promise for providing ongoing support to students in their learning journey of academic writing (e.g., Nazari et al., 2021;Nguyen et al., 2024).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Nazari et al., 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Nguyen et al., 2024

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    All data was kept confidential and accessible only by the researchers.

    “All data was kept confidential and accessible only by the researchers.”
    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 conductreasoning

    Participants reported their consent in the Google forms and the Google forms were kept anonymous, as required by the Institutional Review Board.

    “As per the requirements of the Institutional Review Board of the Saudi university, the participants reported their consent in the Google forms and the Google forms were kept anonymous.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    This acceptance reflects how adaptable and useful these tools are for handling many phases of the writing process, from ideation to editing.

    “This acceptance reflects how adaptable and useful these tools are for handling many phases of the writing process, from ideation to editing.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reported perceptions of AI tools' benefits accurately reflect actual improvements in their academic writing quality and efficiency.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The variability in responses suggests that while many respondents find AI tools beneficial, the extent of their perceived usefulness and impact can differ among individuals.

    “This variability suggests that while many respondents find AI tools beneficial, the extent of their perceived usefulness and impact can differ among individuals”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
45 of 45

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Saudi society is rapidly embracing new technologies in line with the focus on digital transformation in Saudi Vision 2030.

    “Third, more research is needed in the Saudi context because the Saudi society is rapidly embracing new technologies in line with the focus on digital transformation in its new Saudi Vision of 2030.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Students' attitudes and opinions determine the acceptability and efficacy of AI tools.

    “However, the attitudes and opinions of the students who use these tools will determine their acceptability and efficacy.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The open-ended responses were reliably coded into themes.

    “Open-ended replies were subjected to thematic analysis, which developed themes by locating and coding important phrases.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 189 survey respondents are representative of Saudi undergraduate students' perceptions of AI tools in academic writing.

    “A survey of 189 students, proficient in English and enrolled in freshmen academic writing courses, was conducted.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Participants' self-reported perceptions of AI tools' benefits accurately reflect actual improvements in their academic writing quality and efficiency.

    “it finds that these tools are typically well-received and have a noticeable favorable impact on writing efficiency and quality.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The sample of Saudi undergraduate students surveyed is representative of Saudi undergraduate students in general.

    “The study thus offers a thorough assessment of Saudi undergraduate students' opinions regarding AI tools for academic writing”
6 of 6

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 literature strongly supports the shift toward authentic assessments-tasks that are complex, context-rich, and reflective of real-world scenarios-as a way to make AI-generated responses less relevant or useful.

    “The literature strongly supports the shift toward authentic assessments, tasks that are complex, context-rich, and reflective of real-world scenarios as a way to make AI-generated responses less relevant or useful (Chan & Zhou, 2023; Haroud & Saqri, 2025; Ozfidan et al., 2024).”

    From Six Institutional Intervention Areas to Support Ethical and Effective Student Use of Generative AI in Higher Education: A Narrative Review (2026) · cites this paper as Ozfidan et al., 2024

    The Discussion recommends AI literacy, clear rules, and training to address over-reliance and plagiarism. A search for authentic assessment and real-world tasks found no passage proposing complex, context-rich assessments or saying they make AI-generated responses less useful. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Average communality is below every reported post-extraction communality

    Minor

    If post-extraction communalities consistently exceed 0.8, their average cannot be 0.7.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Almaraz-López, C., Almaraz-Menéndez, F., & López-Esteban, C. (2023). Comparative study of the attitudes and perceptions of university students in business administration and management and in education toward artificial intelligence. Education Sciences, 13(6), Article 609. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13060609 · DOI
  2. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49(2), 155–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294170 · DOI
  3. Ballesteros, R. F. (2003). Encyclopedia of psychological assessment. SAGE.
  4. Barrett, A., & Pack, A. (2023). Not quite eye to AI: Student and teacher perspectives on the use of generative artificial intelligence in the writing process. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), Article 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00427-0 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Chauke, T. A., Mkhize, T. R., Methi, L., & Dlamini, N. (2024). Postgraduate students’ perceptions on the benefits associated with artificial intelligence tools on academic success: In case of ChatGPT AI tool. Journal of Curriculum Studies Research, 6(1), 44–59. https://doi.org/10.46303/jcsr.2024.4 · DOI
  6. Dunn, M. (2021). The challenges of struggling writers: Strategies that can help. Education Sciences, 11(12), Article 795. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11120795 · DOI
  7. El-Dakhs, D. A. S., Ozfidan, B., & Ibrahim, N. G. (2023). Teachers’ perceptions of digital language learning strategies: The case of a private Egyptian university. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 13(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJOPCD.329967 · DOI
  8. Fayez, O., Ozfidan, B., & Ismail, H. (2023). The praxis of user experience (UX) in the design of undergraduate online classes: Framing the perceptions of engineering and social sciences students. Sustainability, 15(4), Article 3300. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043300 · DOI
  9. Imran, M., & Almusharraf, N. (2024). Google Gemini as a next generation AI educational tool: A review of emerging educational technology. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1), Article 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00310-z · DOI
  10. Irwin, B. (2024). Exploring generative AI tools for English language learning: Student adoption and perceptions. Sophia University Junior College Division Faculty Journal, 45, 127–137.
  11. Jolliffe, I. (2002). Principal component analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
  12. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Kurniati, E. Y., & Fithriani, R. (2022). Post-graduate students’ perceptions of Quillbot utilization in English academic writing class. Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics, 7(3), 437–451. https://doi.org/10.21462/jeltl.v7i3.852 · DOI
  14. Lange, C., & Costley, J. (2020). Improving online video lectures: Learning challenges created by media. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00190-6 · DOI
  15. Lee, Y. J., Davis, R. O., & Lee, S. O. (2024). University students’ perceptions of artificial intelligence-based tools for English writing courses. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 14(1), Article e202412. https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/14195 · DOI
  16. Lin, L. H., & Morrison, B. (2021). Challenges in academic writing: Perspectives of engineering faculty and L2 postgraduate research students. English for Specific Purposes, 63, 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.03.004 · DOI
  17. Malik, A. R., Pratiwi, Y., Andajani, K., Numertayasa, I. W., Suharti, S., & Darwis, A. (2023). Exploring artificial intelligence in academic essay: Higher education student’s perspective. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 5, Article 100296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2023.100296 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Nurmayanti, N., & Suryadi (2023). The effectiveness of using Quillbot in improving writing for students of English education study program. Jurnal Teknologi Pandidikan, 8(1), 32–40. https://doi.org/10.33394/jtp.v8i1.6392 · DOI
  19. Ozfidan, B., & El-Dakhs, D. A. S. (2023). Students’ perceptions of online learning in non-L1 environments. International Journal of Multilingualism. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2023.2239856 · DOI
  20. Syahnaz, M., & Fithriani, R. (2023). Utilizing artificial-intelligence-based paraphrasing tool in EFL writing class: A focus on Indonesian university students’ perceptions. Journal of English Language Teaching, 7(2), 210–218. https://doi.org/10.30998/scope.v7i2.14882 · DOI
  21. Utami, S. P. T., & Winarni, R. (2023). Utilization of artificial intelligence technology in an academic writing class: How do Indonesian students perceive? Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(4), Article ep450. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13419 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Widianingtyas, N., Mukti, T. W. P., & Silalahi, R. M. P. (2023). ChatGPT in language education: Perceptions of teachers–A beneficial tool or potential threat? Voices of English Language Education Society, 7(2), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.29408/veles.v7i2.20326 · DOI
  23. Zimotti, G., Frances, C., & Whitaker, L. (2024). The future of language education: Teachers’ perceptions about the surge of AI writing tools. Technology in Language Teaching & Learning, 6(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.29140/tltl.v6n1.1136 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ozfidan, B., El-Dakhs, D. A. S., & Alsalim, L. A.
Affiliations
  • Florida Gulf Coast University, Fort Myers, FL, USA
  • Prince Sultan University, Riyadh, SAUDI ARABIA
  • Prince Sultan University (SA)
ORCID
Venue
Contemporary Educational Technology
Publisher
Bastas Publications
Published
2024-10-01
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
ep527
ISSN
1309-517X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.30935/cedtech/15013
OpenAlex
W4402079214
Cited by
45
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 1
FWCI
16.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Contemporary Educational Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Prince Sultan University (RL-CH-2019/9/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Keywords
artificial intelligence in education, academic writing, English as a foreign language, undergraduate students, Saudi students, ChatGPT, Grammarly, Google Translate, student perceptions, AI ethics, writing instruction, AI tools in higher education

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 2026-10-06.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.

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