CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningArtificial Intelligence in EducationEnglish Language Learning and Teaching

Investigating the Impact of ChatGPT as an AI Tool on ESL Writing: Prospects and Challenges in Saudi Arabian Higher Education

Open access
Abduljawad, Samah Abdulhadi·2025·International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching
DOI 10.4018/ijcallt.367276
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This research explores the impact of ChatGPT, an AI tool, on ESL students' writing proficiency at a Saudi Arabian university. Using a mixed-methods approach, data from 130 students showed a significant positive effect on their writing. A focus group interview with six students highlighted opportunities such as personalized feedback, language skill development, vocabulary expansion, and greater autonomy. However, challenges included a lack of contextual understanding, loss of individuality in writing, reduced creativity, and ethical concerns. The findings offer valuable insights for educators on how to effectively integrate ChatGPT into writing instruction while addressing its challenges.

Verified 2026-10-06 · 1 reference not checked yet

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This mixed-methods study at one Saudi Arabian university reports that ChatGPT had a significant positive effect on ESL students’ writing proficiency among 130 third-year students. Focus group and classroom observation data also identify opportunities such as personalized feedback and vocabulary expansion, alongside challenges including limited contextual understanding, reduced individuality/creativity, and ethical concerns.

Key findings

  • Quantitative results showed a strong positive correlation between ChatGPT use and writing proficiency (Pearson r = 0.815, p < 0.01), and regression indicated ChatGPT significantly predicted writing proficiency (B = 0.184, Beta = 0.180, t = 2.065, p = 0.041), with R² = 0.783 and adjusted R² = 0.777; H1 was accepted.
  • Reliability and validity statistics for the ChatGPT scale were high: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.941, AVE = 0.782, composite reliability = 0.91, KMO = 0.832, explained variance = 81.547%, and factor loadings from 0.713 to 0.803.
  • Thematic analysis identified opportunities including personalized and immediate feedback, language skill development, vocabulary expansion, autonomy in learning, and enhanced content quality; personalized feedback was mentioned in 80% of responses.
  • Challenges included lack of contextual understanding, reported as a concern for 70% of students and appearing in 60% of responses, plus loss of individuality in writing, reduced creativity, and ethical concerns.

Methods

  • Mixed-methods pragmatic design using a single-group pre/post structure without a separate control group; quantitative questionnaire data came from 130 third-year ESL students at one Saudi Arabian university, with a focus group interview of six randomly selected students and classroom observations.
  • Students received a one-month AI integration curriculum with two-hour sessions in the university computer lab, taught by three ESL teachers and based partly on “Fundamentals of English Grammar”; data collection ran from May 2023 to October 2023.
  • Analysis used SPSS for exploratory factor analysis, frequencies, correlations, and regression, while interview transcripts and classroom observation notes were analyzed thematically.

Limitations

  • The paper states that results are not broadly generalizable because participants were third-year ESL students from a single university, and that a larger qualitative sample could provide richer insights.
  • The paper states that self-reported questionnaire and interview data may introduce bias, such as overestimating or underestimating writing improvements, though classroom observations were used to triangulate findings.
  • The paper states that no control group was included due to practical and ethical considerations, so the study used a single-group, pre-post design focused on individual progress over time; evident from the text, this limits causal claims.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4018/ijcallt.367276

Cites

34 of 38 references verified3 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 24 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    The p-value of ChatGPT (0.041) is less than the standard benchmark (>0.05).

    “Since the p-value of ChatGPT (0.041), is less than the standard benchmark (>0.05).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    ChatGPT is a statistically significant predictor of writing proficiency (t=2.065, p=0.041).

    “The significant t value (2.065, p = 0.041) confirms that ChatGPT is a statistically significant predictor of writing proficiency, emphasizing its role in enhancing ESL learners' writing skills.”
    • Also stated in: § Regression · hedged
      “The independent variable has a significant effect on WP, as indicated by their p-values being less than 0.05 (ChatGPT: p = 0.041).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The regression analysis satisfies its assumptions, such as linearity and independence of errors.
  • Findingcitation

    ChatGPT's ability to suggest refinements to content contributed significantly to higher-quality drafts.

    “ChatGPT's ability to suggest refinements to content contributed significantly to higher-quality drafts, a finding supported by Raheem et al. (2023).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Raheem et al. (2023)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Findingown data

    Focus group participants identified loss of individuality in writing as a challenge of ChatGPT use.

    “However, challenges included a lack of contextual understanding, loss of individuality in writing, reduced creativity, and ethical concerns.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Lack of Contextual Understanding appeared in 60% of responses, signaling a critical challenge.

    “For instance, Personalized Feedback was mentioned in 80% of responses, making it the most frequently cited opportunity, while Lack of Contextual Understanding appeared in 60% of responses, signaling a critical challenge.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 4
  • May combine two claims. 25
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 20

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    ChatGPT improves clarity and cohesion across student writings.

    “Observational analysis showed improvements in clarity and cohesion across student writings.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Personalized Feedback was mentioned in 80% of responses, making it the most frequently cited opportunity.

    “For instance, Personalized Feedback was mentioned in 80% of responses, making it the most frequently cited opportunity, while Lack of Contextual Understanding appeared in 60% of responses, signaling a critical challenge.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    ChatGPT delivers instant, tailored corrections, enabling learners to revise and refine writing in real time.

    “Classroom observations and student feedback highlighted the tool's ability to deliver instant, tailored corrections, enabling learners to revise and refine their writing in real time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The regression model has a good fit, and ChatGPT positively contributes to writing performance.

    “The analysis also indicates that the model indeed has a good fit, and the independent variable positively contribute to the level of writing performance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The regression analysis satisfies its assumptions, such as linearity and independence of errors.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    ChatGPT and ESL writing proficiency were significantly positively correlated, with Pearson r = .815 and p < .01.

    “All the variables in this table are positively correlated, and the 'r' values lie at 0.815, which indicates that all the variables have a perfect positive association with ESL writing performance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Observational data showed students tend to prioritize correctness over creativity, restricting their ability to experiment with innovative ideas.

    “Observational data also showed a tendency for students to prioritize correctness over creativity, restricting their ability to experiment with innovative ideas.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    ChatGPT improves grammar, sentence structure, and coherence.

    “Observations showed marked improvements in grammar, sentence structure, and coherence as students engaged with ChatGPT's suggestions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Students had apprehensions about ethical implications of AI-generated content, questioning its impact on academic integrity.

    “Both classroom and interview data revealed apprehensions about the ethical implications of AI-generated content, with students questioning its impact on academic integrity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    Reliance on AI led to formulaic writing and a loss of personal voice.

    “Several students worried that reliance on AI led to formulaic writing and a loss of personal voice.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Observations revealed students struggled to apply ChatGPT's feedback to nuanced or culturally specific prompts, confirming limitations in contextual understanding.

    “Observations revealed instances where students struggled to apply ChatGPT's feedback to nuanced or culturally specific prompts, confirming their feedback about the tool's limitations in contextual understanding.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Critical challenges included lack of contextual understanding, loss of individuality in writing, reduction in creativity, and ethical concerns.

    “Conversely, critical challenges identified through both methods included a lack of contextual understanding, loss of individuality in writing, reduction in creativity, and ethical concerns.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Observed writing behaviors reflected a cautious approach, as students prioritized grammatical accuracy over creative expression, aligning with concerns about reduced creativity and individuality.

    “Similarly, observed writing behaviors reflected a cautious approach, as students prioritized grammatical accuracy over creative expression, aligning with concerns raised about reduced creativity and individuality.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Main opportunities include personalized feedback, language skill development, vocabulary expansion, autonomy in learning, and content quality.

    “According to the interviews and observations, the main opportunities include personalized feedback, language skill development, vocabulary expansion, autonomy in learning, and content quality.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Immediate feedback accelerates learning by allowing students to address errors promptly.

    “This aligns with Hopfenbeck et al. (2023), who noted that immediate feedback accelerates learning by allowing students to address errors promptly.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hopfenbeck et al. (2023)

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Other studies have highlighted challenges of AI tools, including over-reliance on technology and issues with AI's contextual understanding.

    “while others have highlighted challenges, including over-reliance on technology and issues with AI's contextual understanding (Raheem et al., 2023).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Raheem et al., 2023

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    ChatGPT provides learners with qualitative responses that increase motivation and decrease fear of answering classroom questions incorrectly.

    “Studies have proven that ChatGPT provides learners with qualitative responses to their questions, which also increases their level of motivation and decreases challenges associated with the fear of answering classroom questions incorrectly (Guo et al., 2022).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Guo et al., 2022

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Factor analysis supported the ChatGPT items' construct validity, with KMO of .832, explained variance of 81.547%, and factor loadings from .713 to .803.

    “The high Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value of 0.832 signifies sampling adequacy, while the explained variance of 81.547% reflects a substantial portion of variability accounted for by the factors.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Some studies have shown positive impacts of AI tools, such as improving writing efficiency and providing personalized feedback.

    “Some studies have shown positive impacts of AI tools, such as improving writing efficiency and providing personalized feedback (Yan, 2023;Li & Zhang, 2023)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Yan, 2023

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Li & Zhang, 2023

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Students appreciated immediate, personalized feedback and improved language skills, but highlighted limitations including contextual inaccuracies and potential impacts on creativity and ethics.

    “While students appreciated the tool's ability to deliver immediate, personalized feedback and improve language skills, they also highlighted its limitations, including contextual inaccuracies and potential impacts on creativity and ethics.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Barrot's framework supports that AI tool capability in providing appropriate, prompt feedback enhances writing proficiencies and fosters efficient interaction.

    “Furthermore, Barrot's framework supports this research results as, according to the framework, the AI tool capability in providing appropriate, prompt feedback to students enhances their writing proficiencies and fosters efficient interaction with the tool during the writing process (Barrot, 2023).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Barrot, 2023

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisereasoning

    The varying effects and inconsistent attitudes of AI tools in different educational contexts may hinder their widespread application in language education.

    “The varying effects and inconsistent attitudes of AI tools, particularly ChatGP, in different educational contexts may hinder their widespread application in language education.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Students' writing skills are improved when AI writing assistants are used, but their use can undermine academic ethics and honesty.

    “According to Yan's (2023) reports, students' writing skills are improved when AI writing assistants are used, but their use can undermine academic ethics and honesty (Yan, 2023).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Yan, 2023

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisereasoning

    The inconsistency in findings about AI tools highlights the need for a focused investigation into their impact on ESL writing efficiency.

    “This inconsistency highlights the need for a focused investigation into the impact of AI tools on ESL writing efficiency.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The AI tool creates a dialogic feedback process, allowing students and AI to engage in immediate feedback, therefore promoting learning.

    “Moreover, the studies complement Winstone and Carless' works by showing that the AI tool creates a dialogic feedback process, allowing students and the AI to engage in immediate feedback, therefore promoting learning (Carless & Winstone, 2023).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Carless & Winstone, 2023

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    ChatGPT may threaten academic honesty and the writing department.

    “However, on the contrary, it may threaten academic honesty and the writing department (Firaina & Sulisworo, 2023).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Firaina & Sulisworo, 2023

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    AI as a formative feedback tool facilitates dialogue, enhances student engagement, and improves academic learning outcomes.

    “AI as a formative feedback tool facilitates dialogue, enhances student engagement, and improves academic learning outcomes (Barrot, 2023).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Barrot, 2023

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationown data

    The analysis provides a nuanced understanding of the opportunities and challenges associated with ChatGPT.

    “By combining classroom observations with surveys and interviews, the analysis provides a nuanced understanding of the opportunities and challenges associated with ChatGPT.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The training program ensured the quality and reliability of teaching materials by aligning them with curriculum objectives and using verified educational resources.

    “This also ensures the quality and reliability of the teaching materials by aligning them with the curriculum objectives and using verified educational resources.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Results need to be more generalizable due to limited number of participants, as third-year ESL students from a single university were involved.

    “The results need to be more generalizable due to the limited number of participants, as third-year ESL students from a single university were involved.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The third-year ESL students from a single university are representative of ESL learners generally.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This study underscores the potential of AI tools to support Saudi Arabia's educational goals and enhance the learning experience for its students.

    “This study underscores the potential of AI tools to support Saudi Arabia's educational goals and enhance the learning experience for its students in an increasingly digital world.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductreasoning

    When combined with classroom observations, self-reports help triangulate findings, offering a more comprehensive understanding of the AI tool's effects.

    “When combined with classroom observations, these self-reports help triangulate findings, offering a more comprehensive understanding of the AI tool's effects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Self-reported data and classroom observations accurately reflect students' writing improvements and experiences.

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

    Interpretationcitation

    These observations align with learners' discussions and existing literature on implications and drawbacks of heavily depending on AI tools.

    “These observations align with both learners' discussions and existing literature on the implications and drawbacks of heavily depending on AI tools (Nelson et al., 2020;Rex et al., 2022).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Nelson et al., 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Rex et al., 2022

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In Saudi Arabia, integration of AI tools like ChatGPT provides a timely opportunity to improve English language proficiency and address challenges faced by Saudi ESL learners.

    “In the context of Saudi Arabia, where the educational system is transitioning towards more technologically advanced and student-centered learning approaches, the integration of AI tools like ChatGPT provides a timely opportunity to improve English language proficiency and address the challenges faced by Saudi ESL learners.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The study adopted a single-group, pre-post design to focus on individual progress over time.

    “Consequently, this study adopted a single-group, pre-post design to focus on individual progress over time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationown data

    The primary contribution of this research is demonstrating the beneficial impact of ChatGPT on enhancing students' writing abilities.

    “The primary contribution of this researcher is demonstrating the beneficial impact of ChatGPT on enhancing students' writing abilities.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The observed improvement in writing proficiency is attributable to ChatGPT rather than other factors such as practice, maturation, or teacher input.

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

    Premisecitation

    Yan (2023) states AI technology can provide context-suggested writing, facilitate better argument structuring, and enhance textualization, significantly boosting writing performance and efficiency when applied correctly.

    “According to Yan (2023), AI technology can provide context-suggested writing, facilitate better argument structuring, and enhance textualization, significantly boosting writing performance and efficiency when applied correctly.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Yan (2023)

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    Self-reports can introduce bias, such as overestimating or underestimating writing improvements.

    “Though self-reports can introduce bias, such as overestimating or underestimating writing improvements, they offer a unique perspective on how students engage with the tool.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
37 of 37

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Improvements in ESL writing proficiency observed after ChatGPT training were caused by ChatGPT rather than other factors.

    “This approach does not require a separate control group, as the objective is to observe and evaluate improvements within individual participants following the intervention with AI technology.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The six focus group students' perspectives represent the experiences of the 130 ESL students.

    “For the focus group interview, six students were randomly selected from 130 students.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The observed improvement in writing proficiency is attributable to ChatGPT rather than other factors such as practice, maturation, or teacher input.

    “According to the quantitative results, the AI formative feedback tool, ChatGPT, has a significant positive impact on enhancing ESL students writing proficiency.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The third-year ESL students from a single university are representative of ESL learners generally.

    “The results need to be more generalizable due to the limited number of participants, as third-year ESL students from a single university were involved.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Self-reported data and classroom observations accurately reflect students' writing improvements and experiences.

    “Though self-reports can introduce bias, such as overestimating or underestimating writing improvements, they offer a unique perspective on how students engage with the tool.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The regression analysis satisfies its assumptions, such as linearity and independence of errors.

    “The significant F value (151.219,p < 0.001) indicates that the regression model is highly effective in explaining variance in the dependent variable, Writing Proficiency.”
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?

  • Several studies highlight the importance of equitable access to licensed AI platforms, curated digital content, case studies, and lesson plan templates tailored for AI-enhanced teaching.

    “Several studies highlight the importance of equitable access to licensed AI platforms, curated digital content, case studies, and lesson plan templates tailored for AI-enhanced teaching (Abduljawad, 2024; Strzelecki &amp; ElArabawy, 2024; Summers 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 Abduljawad, 2024

    The AI Integration Curriculum Development section describes using verified educational resources and designing worksheets and quizzes for ChatGPT training; Future Implications recommends training educators to use AI. These passages support the general value of resources for AI-enhanced teaching, but do not address equitable access to licensed platforms, curated digital content, case studies, or lesson plan templates. The supplied passages have no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    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.

  • Regression degrees of freedom imply more predictors than reported

    Major

    The ANOVA table gives regression degrees of freedom as 3, implying three predictors, but its footnote names only ChatGPT as a predictor.

  • Standardized regression coefficient conflicts with the correlation

    Major

    With ChatGPT as the sole predictor, its standardized regression coefficient must equal its Pearson correlation with writing proficiency. The paper reports 0.180 for the coefficient but 0.815 for the correlation.

  • Regression R-squared conflicts with the reported correlation

    Major

    The model lists ChatGPT as its only predictor. In a simple regression, R-squared must equal the squared Pearson correlation between the predictor and outcome; 0.815 squared is about 0.664, not 0.783.

    Reported 0.783 · recomputed 0.664225

  • Section B valid percentage does not match its frequency

    Minor

    Section B has 45 of 130 students, or 34.6%, not the reported 24.6% valid percentage. The table reports 130 valid students in total.

    Reported 24.6 · recomputed 34.615385

  • ANOVA narrative reports degrees of freedom as the F value

    Minor

    The narrative states "F =1, 126," whereas the ANOVA table reports an F statistic of 151.219.

  • Section C valid percentage does not match its frequency

    Minor

    Section C has 40 of 130 students, or 30.8%, not the reported 40.8% valid percentage.

    Reported 40.8 · recomputed 30.769231

6 of 6

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. 10.1088/1742-6596/890/1/0121 · DOI
  2. 10.1234/jeltl.v8i2.1234 · DOI
  3. Amirjalili, F. (2024). Exploring the efficacy of ChatGPT in personalized language learning: An intervention study in Iranian ESL classrooms. Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills). https://civilica.com/doc/2071315
  4. 10.1234/jpp.v5i1.5678 · DOI
  5. 10.1234/elt.v12i1.2345 · DOI
  6. 10.1234/repeater.2020.0001 · DOI
  7. 10.24071/llt.v25i2.2653 · DOI
  8. Monika, G., & Suganthan, C. (n.d.). A study on analyzing the role of ChatGPT in English acquisition among ESL learners during English language classroom. Bodhi: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8(2), 75. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376981483_A_Study_on_Analyzing_the_Role_of_Chatgpt_in_English_Acquisition_among_ESL_Learners_during_English_Language_Classroom
  9. 10.1080/10494820.2023.2159474 · DOI
  10. 10.59890/ijir.v1i10.366 · DOI
  11. L. M.Ribeiro-Flucht, 2024, Explainable AI in language learning: Linking empirical evidence and theoretical concepts in proficiency and readability modeling of Portuguese, Proceedings of the 19th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, 199
  12. 10.1007/s11096-023-01661-6 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Abduljawad, S. A.
Affiliations
Royal Commission for Yanbu Colleges and Institutes, Saudi Arabia
Corresponding author
Abduljawad, Samah Abdulhadi
ORCID
Abduljawad, Samah Abdulhadi
Venue
International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching
Publisher
IGI Global Scientific Publishing
Published
2025-01-10
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
1-19
ISSN
  • 2155-7098 (ISSN-L)
  • 2155-7101
DOI
10.4018/ijcallt.367276
OpenAlex
W4406257459
Semantic Scholar
401ddc12af8ed7ebbd2dcc4ae676825319e606a7
Cited by
19
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 8
FWCI
68.44
Type
journal article
Language
ng
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
Keywords
ChatGPT, generative AI in education, ESL writing, writing skills, personalized feedback, vocabulary development, learner autonomy, creativity in writing, AI ethics, writing instruction

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