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 accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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
- 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
- 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).
- 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
- 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).
- 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).
- 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
- 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
- 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)
- 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
Altamirano, S. F. S., Maquen‐Niño, G. L. E., Roldán, C. M. G., Herrera, A. P., & Cárdenas, D. M. C. (2026) · Review of Education · doi:10.1002/rev3.70152 · Cited by 12
Perceived Impact of Procrastination on Academic Performance Among Students and the Role of AI Tools
Jebasingh, D. R., Ahmad, N., Shimray, S. R., & Subaveerapandiyan, A. (2025) · Libri · doi:10.1515/libri-2025-0093 · Cited by 8
Pum, M. (2025) · Interdisciplinary Educational Technology · doi:10.71176/interedtech/17573 · Cited by 6
Lindkvist, A., Curbo, S., & Hultgren, C. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1813306 · Cited by 5
Matthews, D., Wheeler, A., Insley, H. A., & Mackintosh, C. (2025) · Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship · doi:10.29173/istl2935 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Johnston, H., Eaton, M., Henry, I., Deeley, E.-M., & Parsons, B. N.
- Affiliations
- University of Liverpool (GB)
- Venue
- Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education
- Published
- 2025-02-28
- Issue
- 34
- ISSN
- 1759-667X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4408037221
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 3
- FWCI
- 12.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- 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
