Lecturer's Perceptions and Strategies on ChatGPT Overreliance in ESL Academic Writing Among Undergraduates: A Case Study at a Malaysian Private University

The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT has transformed academic writing practices in English as a Second Language (ESL) contexts while simultaneously raising concerns about academic integrity and skill development. This study explored ESL lecturers’ perceptions of students’ overreliance on ChatGPT and the strategies adopted to manage this phenomenon at a Malaysian private university. Guided by the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), a qualitative case study design was employed, and semi-structured interviews were conducted with three ESL lecturers teaching academic writing. Reflexive thematic analysis revealed that while ChatGPT offers linguistic scaffolding, lecturers perceived a decline in authentic writing processes, diminished metacognitive engagement, and increasing occurrences of AI-generated inaccuracies and fabricated references. Moreover, varied lecturer expectations and the lack of guidelines were found to encourage students’ dependence on AI applications. Consequently, lecturers introduced in-class writing tasks, structured assessments and oral defences to verify the authenticity of student submissions. These results are significant because they emphasise the institutional requirements for AI literacy education, unified governance and the restructuring of assessments to guarantee ethical and accountable AI application. As a result, this study contributes context-specific insights into sustainable AI integration aligned with SDG 4’s call for quality education in the digital era.

ESL academic writing, ChatGPT, AI overreliance, Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)

1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ali, D., Fatemi, Y., Boskabadi, E., Nikfar, M., Ugwuoke, J., & Ali, H. (2024). ChatGPT in teaching and learning: A systematic review. Education Sciences, 14(6), 643. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14060643 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Baek, C., Tate, T., & Warschauer, M. (2024). “ChatGPT seems too good to be true”: College students’ use and perceptions of generative AI. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100294 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Balázs Fajt, & Schiller, E. (2025). ChatGPT in academia: University students’ attitudes towards the use of ChatGPT and plagiarism. Journal of Academic Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-025-09603-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Barrot, J. S. (2023). ChatGPT as a language learning tool: An emerging technology report. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-023-09711-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Barrot, J. S. (2024). Leveraging ChatGPT in the writing classrooms: Theoretical and practical insights. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 43, 43. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2024.43.03 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bin-Nashwan, S. A., Sadallah, M., & Bouteraa, M. (2023). Use of ChatGPT in academia: Academic integrity hangs in the balance. Technology in Society, 75, 102370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102370 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2023). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Espartinez, A. S. (2024). Exploring student and teacher perceptions of ChatGPT use in higher education: A Q-methodology study. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100264 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Farquhar, S., Kossen, J., Kuhn, L., & Gal, Y. (2024). Detecting hallucinations in large language models using semantic entropy. Nature, 630(8017), 625–630. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07421-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387. https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc198115885 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Freeman, J. (2025). Student generative AI survey 2025. https://www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/HEPI-Kortext-Student-Generative-AI-Survey-2025.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Gerlich, M. (2025). AI tools in society: Impacts on cognitive offloading and the future of critical thinking. Societies, 15(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Graham, O., & Milan, Y. (2025). The impact of ChatGPT reliance on the development of student critical thinking skills. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202506.0861.v1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Hu, H., Du, K., & Hashim, H. (2025). ChatGPT in English writing assessment: Can AI accurately measure complexity, accuracy, and fluency indices? 2025 International Conference on Distance Education and Learning (ICDEL), 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1109/icdel65868.2025.11193569 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Huang, L., Yang, Y., Ma, W., Zhong, W., Feng, Z., Wang, H., Chen, Q., Peng, W., Feng, X., Qin, B., & Liu, T. (2023). A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions. ArXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2311.05232 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Hwang, G.-J., & Chen, N.-S. (2023). Editorial position paper: Exploring the potential of generative artificial intelligence in education: Applications, challenges, and future research directions. Educational Technology & Society, 26(2). https://doi.org/10.30191/ETS.202304_26(2).0014 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Jiang, F. K., & Hyland, K. (2025). Does ChatGPT write like a student? Engagement markers in argumentative essays. Written Communication, 42(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883251328311 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., & Stadler, M. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Li, J., Chen, J., Ren, R., Cheng, X., Zhao, X., Nie, J.-Y., & Wen, J.-R. (2024). The dawn after the dark: An empirical study on factuality hallucination in large language models. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), 10879–10899. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.586 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Pritpal Singh Bhullar, Joshi, M., & Chugh, R. (2024). ChatGPT in higher education: A synthesis of the literature and a future research agenda. Education and Information Technologies, 29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12723-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Setyaningsih, E., Zainnuri, H., Wahyuni, D. S., & Hariyanti, Y. (2025). EFL students’ use, perceptions, and reliance on Chat-GPT for editing and proofreading: A technology acceptance model perspective. Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 13(3), 1367. https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v13i3.13484 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Steiss, J., Tate, T., Graham, S., Cruz, J., Hebert, M., Wang, J., Moon, Y., Tseng, W., Warschauer, M., & Olson, C. B. (2024). Comparing the quality of human and ChatGPT feedback of students’ writing. Learning and Instruction, 91, 101894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101894 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Teng, M. F. (2025). Examining longitudinal development of writing motivation in the GenAI context: A self-determination theory perspective. Learning and Motivation, 91, 102157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2025.102157 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Wang, J., & Fan, W. (2025). The effect of ChatGPT on students’ learning performance, learning perception, and higher-order thinking: Insights from a meta-analysis. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12, 621. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04787-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Yan, D. (2023). Impact of ChatGPT on learners in a L2 writing practicum: An exploratory investigation. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 13943–13967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11742-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study