EFL Students’ Perceptions on Using ChatGPT as an AI Tool for Developing Academic Writing Skills: A Case Study at University College of Haql
Open accessAbstract
With advancing artificial intelligence (AI) technology, writing assistance tools now include plagiarism detectors, ChatGPT and grammar checkers. These AI tools help students of EFL to improve their writing, communication, creativity, and critical thinking, thereby developing language skills and academic success. Various writing tasks are supported by the Open AI Chat GPT application, and this study explores the perceptions of students regarding its effectiveness for improving their skills in academic writing. Using a closed-ended questionnaire with Likert scale for the collection of data, the quantitative study involved a sample of 50 students from the English language program within the University College of Haql, Saudi Arabia, who had used ChatGPT during one semester. Findings show a majority of respondents held a positive view of their use of ChatGPT for increasing motivation to learn (42.5%), provision of user-friendly and comprehensive features (43.5%), and assisting in correction of grammatical errors (33.3%). Some respondents were neutral with regard to the ability of ChatGPT to offer explanations for improving skills in writing (33.5%). To conclude, ChatGPT is able to serve as a tool of value to help students enhance their writing skills in English, though there is potential for further refinements to be made that would offer explanations in greater detail.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Learner-focused studies generally report positive perceptions, linking ChatGPT use to increased motivation, engagement, and perceived writing improvement.
“Learner-focused studies generally report positive perceptions, linking ChatGPT use to increased motivation, engagement, and perceived writing improvement (Teng, 2024; Kivrak, 2024; Othman, 2025).”
From Perceptions vs. practices: academic integrity and actual ChatGPT use among EFL students (2026) · cites this paper as Othman, 2025
Cites
Power to the Teachers: An Exploratory Review on Artificial Intelligence in Education
Lameras, P., & Arnab, S. (2021) · Information · doi:10.3390/info13010014 · Cited by 291 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Perceptions vs. practices: academic integrity and actual ChatGPT use among EFL students
Alsadoon, R. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1796737 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ahmed Othman, A. K.
- Venue
- Journal of Curriculum and Teaching
- Publisher
- Sciedu Press
- Published
- 2025-06-28
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 18
- ISSN
- 1927-2677 (ISSN-L)
- 1927-2685
- OpenAlex
- W4411748839
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 3.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Curriculum and Teaching (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- 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
- ChatGPT, AI-assisted writing, academic writing skills, EFL learners, student perceptions, writing motivation, grammatical error correction, AI-assisted language learning
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