Cited by 51EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningArtificial Intelligence in EducationEnglish Language Learning and Teaching

What does AI bring to second language writing? A systematic review (2014-2024)

Open access
Feng, Haiying, Li, Kexin, Zhang, Lawrence Jun·2025·Language Learning & Technology

Abstract

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has introduced both opportunities and challenges to second language (L2) writing, and a new dimension to L2 writing research. To map the evolving landscape of AI-integrated L2 writing research, this systematic review analyzed 112 studies published between January 2014 and June 2024. The review focused on research contexts and participants, theoretical and methodological orientations, research setups, and key research issues. The analysis revealed that the majority of studies were conducted with undergraduates in the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context. Most studies did not specify a theoretical framework; however, the predominant theoretical orientations were cognitive, technological-pedagogical, social, critical, and genre. The literature commonly employed eclectic or mixed methodologies, favoring (quasi-)experimental designs with short duration. The writing tasks investigated were varied, with a notable emphasis on elemental genres such as argumentative essays. The main research issues addressed included AI functionalities; students’ perceptions and experiences; impacts on students’ writing, cognitive, affective, and behavioral performance; teachers’ perceptions, teaching practices, and literacy development; and factors influencing AI use. The findings highlight the need for future research, particularly longitudinal studies focusing on the development of AI literacy in L2 writing.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.64152/10125/73629

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • AI's pedagogical value increases when it is designed and taught as a process scaffold, focusing on what to do, when, and why, rather than merely as a text improver, focusing on what to change.

    “This suggests a broader implication: AI's pedagogical value increases when it is designed and taught as a process scaffold, focusing on what to do, when, and why, rather than merely as a text improver, focusing on what to change (Aydın Yıldız, 2025;Feng et al., 2025;Zou et al., 2025).”

    From Generative AI, visual scaffolds, and metacognition in EFL writing (2026) · cites this paper as Feng et al., 2025

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Feng, H., Li, K., & Zhang, L. J.
Venue
Language Learning & Technology
Published
2025-05-19
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
1-27
ISSN
1094-3501 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4413184455
Cited by
51
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 13
FWCI
36.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Language learning & technology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • ScholarSpace (University of Hawaii at Manoa) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China (19YJA740012)
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
artificial intelligence, second language writing, AI-assisted writing, English as a foreign language, AI literacy, argumentative essay, student perceptions of AI, teacher perceptions, writing instruction, cognitive performance, affective performance, behavioral performance, literacy development

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