Developing Future Teachers’ Academic Writing and Critical Thinking Skills Using ChatGPT
Open accessAbstract
Preparing future teachers to meet the demands of an increasingly dynamic world is a paramount challenge. Academic writing and critical thinking skills influence foreign language teachers’ professional growth, shaping their students’ cognitive development. This paper explores the integration of ChatGPT (generative pre-trained transformer) as a tool to augment future foreign language teachers’ academic writing and critical thinking skills. Through engagement with ChatGPT, future foreign language teachers have the opportunity to interact with a large language model that can provide targeted feedback, prompt thought-provoking discussions, and assist in refining professionally oriented competencies. This study examines the impact of ChatGPT on skills development through a comprehensive analysis of empirical data, pedagogical frameworks, and student experiences. A qualitative study conducted with 35 students enrolled in a foreign languages master’s program utilized focus group interviews and thematic analysis. The findings highlight ChatGPT’s limitations in content generation while also recognizing its potential to reduce research labor and assist in formatting and referencing tasks. The study underscores the importance of informed usage of ChatGPT, with students and educators recognizing the necessity of verifying information and maintaining academic integrity.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Several studies reported increased awareness of AI limitations and improved evaluative reasoning following structured revision tasks.
“Several studies reported increased awareness of AI limitations and improved evaluative reasoning following structured revision tasks [62,64,75].”
From A Systematic Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications and Impact of GenAI on Students' Critical Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [64]
The Findings and Discussion section reports that students discussed ChatGPT’s limitations and compared AI-generated with human-generated content. It does not report increased awareness or improved evaluative reasoning following structured revision tasks; the activities described were focus-group discussions, not revision tasks. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- S. Bailey, Academic Writing, 5th ed. Taylor & Francis, 2017. [E-book] Available: Taylor & Francis.
- S. D. Brookfield, Teaching for Critical Thinking: Tools and Techniques to Help Students Question Their Assumptions. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2012.
- C. McLoughlin and M. J. W. Lee, "The 3 P's of pedagogy for the networked society: Personalization, participation, and productivity," International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 10-27, 2008.
- B. Black, "Critical thinking -A tangible construct?" Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment Publication, vol. 3, pp. 2-4, 2007.
- W. C. H. Hong, "The impact of ChatGPT on foreign language teaching and learn- ing: Opportunities in education and research," Journal of Educational Technology and Innovation, vol. 3, pp. 37-45, 2023.
- M. Maguire and B. Delahunt, "Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars," All Ireland Journal of Higher Education (AISHE-J), vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 3351-33514, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://ojs.aishe.org/index.php/ aishe-j/article/view/335 [Accessed Apr. 2, 2024].
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Liu, J., Sihes, A. J. B., & Lu, Y. (2025) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-025-00406-0 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
“Studies have shown that generative AI facilitates structured guidance in writing, speaking, and reasoning (Darmawansah et al., 2024; Datskiv et al., 2024), enabling students to refine their ideas, evaluate arguments, and construct coherent responses in EFL classrooms.”
InfluentialBalart, T., Díaz, B., & Shryock, K. (2026) · Algorithms · doi:10.3390/a19030179 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
“Several studies reported increased awareness of AI limitations and improved evaluative reasoning following structured revision tasks [62,64,75].”
Paredes-Aguirre, M., Bolaños-Mendoza, C., Ortíz-Rojas, M., Martinez-Tovar, J., Sanchez-Mendoza, M., & Moreno-Abramowicz, M. (2026) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2026.2614093 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Chinese EFL learners’ engagement with ChatGPT feedback on academic writing: A case study in Malaysia
Kailin, Z., & Saeed, M. A. (2025) · Computers & composition/Computers and composition · doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102976 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
AI Translation Tools in Language Learning
Ayyaz, S. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-9077-1.ch003 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Attitude Towards Teacher-AI Collaboration in Academic Writing Instruction
Fazal, S. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-9077-1.ch002
Chinese Efl Learners’ Engagement with Chatgpt Feedback on Academic Writing: A Case Study in MalaysiaPreprint
Kai-lin, Z., & Saeed, M. A. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5342470
Kahenya, N. P. (2026) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-8795-6.ch010
Lee, H., Li, P., Chen, P., Huang, Y., & Wu, T. (2026) · European Journal of Education · doi:10.1111/ejed.70527
ФОРМУВАННЯ КРИТИЧНОГО МИСЛЕННЯ МАЙБУТНІХ ПЕДАГОГІВ У ЦИФРОВОМУ ОСВІТНЬОМУ СЕРЕДОВИЩІ УНІВЕРСИТЕТУ
Акімова, О. В., & Богатько, В. (2025) · Modern Information Technologies and Innovation Methodologies of Education in Professional Training Methodology Theory Experience Problems · doi:10.31652/2412-1142-2025-78-410-418
- Authors
- Datskiv, O., Zadorozhna, I., & Shon, O.
- Affiliations
- Ternopil Volodymyr Hnatiuk National Pedagogical University (UA)
- Venue
- International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET)
- Published
- 2024-09-24
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 07
- Pages
- 126-136
- ISSN
- 1863-0383 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4402760005
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 5
- FWCI
- 3.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, academic writing, critical thinking, pre-service foreign language teachers, teacher professional development, AI-generated feedback, academic integrity, generative AI in 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.
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