CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 22Artificial Intelligence in EducationLibrary Science and Information LiteracyArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Discovering how students use generative artificial intelligence tools for academic writing purposes

Open access
Johnston, Heather, Eaton, Maria, Henry, Isabel, Deeley, Eva-Marie, Parsons, Bryony N.·2025·Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education
DOI 10.47408/jldhe.vi34.1301
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The aim of this project was to identify ways in which students are using Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) technologies for the planning and researching stage of essay style assignments. The study recruited 30 students from various subject areas and levels of study and with different self-reported levels of confidence in using GAI tools. Each student was given three essay questions to choose from and 50 minutes to research their topic, make notes from sources, and put together an essay plan, using GAI tools if they deemed them useful. Their screens were recorded to facilitate a natural planning process and they were encouraged to narrate to provide insight into their reasoning. Of the 30 participants, 21 (70%) used GAI technologies within their process. ChatGPT 3.5 (Open AI) was the most frequently chosen, with 18 students (60%) using this. The most popular use of GAI was asking for definitions, explanations, or examples; or creating an essay plan or structure. The study also provided insight into students’ searching process, revealing that Google was the most popular starting point (chosen by 30% of students). Journal articles were the most popular source type (used by 80% of participants), and skim reading a section of a source was the most common method used to decide if it was relevant, with 63.3% of students doing this. When examining referencing behaviour, 80% of the students included some form of references in their essay plan, but none of the students created references for any GAI tools they had used.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.47408/jldhe.vi34.1301

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Citations

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Avdic, A. and Eklund, A. (2010) ‘Searching reference databases: what students experience and what teachers believe that students experience’, Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 42(4), pp.224-235. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000610380119 · DOI
  2. Dwivedi, Y.K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E.L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A.K., Baabdullah, A.M., Koohang, A. et al. (2023) ‘Opinion paper: “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy’, International Journal of Information Management, 71. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268401223000233?via%3Dihub (Accessed: 24 May 2024).
  3. Jacobsen, H.E. and Andenæs, R. (2011) ‘Third year nursing students' understanding of how to find and evaluate information from bibliographic databases and Internet sites’, Nurse Education Today, 31(8), pp.898-903. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2011.01.003 · DOI
  4. Obenza, B.N., Salvahan, A., Rios, A.N., Solo, A., Alburo, R.A. and Gabila, R.J. (2024) ‘University students' perception and use of ChatGPT: generative artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education’, International Journal of Human Computing Studies, 5(12), pp.5-18. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4724968 (Accessed: 24 May 2024).
  5. Stokel-Walker, C. (2022) ‘AI bot ChatGPT writes smart essays – should professors worry?’ Nature, 9 December. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04397-7 (Accessed: 24 May 2024).
  6. West, H., Malcolm, G., Keywood, S. and Hill, J. (2019) ‘Writing a successful essay’, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 43(4), pp.609-617. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2019.1655720 · DOI
  7. Johnston, H., Eaton, M., Henry, I., Deeley, E.-M., & Parsons, B. N. (2025). Discovering how students use generative artificial intelligence tools for academic writing purposes. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, (34). https://doi.org/10.47408/jldhe.vi34.1301
  8. Bryony Parsons, Heather Johnston, Understanding student preferences for one to one writing appointments post-pandemic , Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education: No. 24 (2022)
  9. Bryony N Parsons, Kate Murray, Gina Gundersen, Athiene Maslin, Heather Johnston, Improving AI prompt literacy: experimental evidence on the effect of an online tutorial among university students , Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education: No. 41 (2026)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Johnston, H., Eaton, M., Henry, I., Deeley, E.-M., & Parsons, B. N.
Affiliations
University of Liverpool (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education
Publisher
Association for Learning Development in Higher Education
Published
2025-02-28
Issue
34
ISSN
1759-667X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.47408/jldhe.vi34.1301
OpenAlex
W4408037221
Cited by
12
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 3
FWCI
12.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
generative AI, ChatGPT, academic writing, essay planning, research process, student use of AI tools, source evaluation, skim reading, information seeking, university students

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