Cited by 15Artificial Intelligence in EducationAcademic integrity and plagiarismStudent Assessment and Feedback

Leveraging AI tools in university writing instruction: enhancing student success while upholding academic integrity

Open access
Akiba, Daisuke, Garte, Rebecca·2024·Journal of Interactive Learning Research

Abstract

The emergence of AI-powered Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT and Google Gemini, presents both opportunities and challenges for higher education, particularly regarding academic integrity in writing instruction. This exploratory study examines a novel pedagogical approach that integrates LLMs as required feedback tools in a university-level psychology writing assignment. The exclusive online approach emphasizes improvement through revision, requiring students to obtain AI-generated feedback on ungraded initial drafts based on an instructor-provided rubric, with final assessment focused on the quality of subsequent revisions. Analysis of survey data from 39 undergraduate students, incorporating both quantitative measures and qualitative responses, revealed several key findings. Students consistently reported high utility of LLM feedback, particularly valuing its specificity and actionable guidance. The structured integration of AI feedback appeared to foster learner independence while addressing ethical concerns, with students clearly distinguishing between using AI for feedback versus content generation. Moreover, the assignment’s emphasis on iterative improvement over initial performance was perceived to reduce academic integrity pressures. These preliminary findings suggest that thoughtfully structured LLM integration can enhance the writing process while maintaining academic rigor, offering promising directions for pedagogical innovation in technology-enhanced learning environments. Implications for writing instruction and future research in higher education are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.70725/355152wkijve

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Positioning AI as feedback partner rather than ghostwriter, with structured requirements to critique and adapt AI-generated suggestions, enhances metacognitive engagement and critical evaluation capacities.

    “Positioning AI as feedback partner rather than ghostwriter, with structured requirements to critique and adapt AI-generated suggestions, enhances metacognitive engagement and critical evaluation capacities (Akiba and Garte, 2024; Khojasteh et al., 2025; Oates and Johnson, 2025; Song and Song, 2023).”

    From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Akiba and Garte, 2024

    The Assignment Structure and Procedure section requires students to revise drafts using AI feedback and explain why they accepted or rejected suggestions. The Discussion reports active engagement beyond surface edits and describes AI as a writing partner rather than a shortcut. The study does not establish that this approach enhances metacognitive engagement or critical evaluation capacities as distinct outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Akiba, D., & Fraboni, M. C. (2023). AI-Supported Academic Advising: Ex- ploring ChatGPT's Current State and Future Potential toward Student Empowerment. Education Sciences, 13(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/educ- sci13090885 · DOI
  2. Anders, B. A. (2023). Is using ChatGPT cheating, plagiarism, both, neither, or forward thinking? Patterns, 4(3), 100694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pat- ter.2023.100694 · DOI
  3. Dien, J. (2023). Editorial: Generative artificial intelligence as a plagiarism prob- lem. Biological Psychology, 181, 108621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsy- cho.2023.108621 · DOI
  4. Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H., Al- bashrawi, M. A., Al-Busaidi, A. S., Balakrishnan, J., Barlette, Y., Basu, S., Bose, I., Brooks, L., Buhalis, D., … Wright, R. (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, 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Martinez-Maldonado, R., Kay, J., Buckingham Shum, S., & Yacef, K. (2019). Collocated Collaboration Analytics: Principles and Dilemmas for Mining Multimodal Interaction Data. Human-Computer Interaction, 34(1), 1-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2017.1338956 · DOI
  6. Peng, L., & Zhao, B. (2024). Navigating the ethical landscape behind ChatGPT. Big Data & Society, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517241237488 · DOI
  7. Wang, C., Aguilar, S. J., Bankard, J. S., Bui, E., & Nye, B. (2024). Writing with AI: What College Students Learned from Utilizing ChatGPT for a Writing Assignment. Education Sciences, 14(9), 976. https://doi.org/10.3390/educ- sci14090976 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Akiba, D., & Garte, R.
Affiliations
  • Queens College, CUNY (US)
  • Borough of Manhattan Community College (US)
Venue
Journal of Interactive Learning Research
Published
2024
Volume
35
Issue
4
Pages
467-480
ISSN
1093-023X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4410595242
Cited by
15
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1
FWCI
5.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Interactive Learning Research (publishedVersion)
  • CUNY Academic Works (City University of New York) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
Keywords
large language models, AI-generated feedback, academic integrity, university writing instruction, draft revision, learner autonomy, ChatGPT, Google Gemini, technology-enhanced 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