Enhancing Primary ESL Writing Through Artificial Intelligence: The Use of Quillbot as an AI-Assisted Writing Tool

Primary school learners of English as a Second Language (ESL) often face challenges in developing writing proficiency due to limited linguistic resources and insufficient opportunities for feedback. Although artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted writing tools have gained attention for their potential to support language learning, empirical research on their use among young ESL learners remains limited. This study investigates the effectiveness of enhancing primary ESL writing through artificial intelligence, specifically through the integration of QuillBot as an AI-assisted writing tool, in a Malaysian primary classroom. Using a mixed-methods design, the study involved 30 Year 5 pupils who participated in a six-week AI-supported writing intervention. Quantitative data were collected through CEFR-aligned pre- and post-writing assessments measuring grammar accuracy, vocabulary use, and writing fluency, alongside a structured questionnaire examining pupils’ perceptions. Qualitative data were obtained from semi-structured interviews with experienced ESL educators to gain instructional insights and professional perspectives on AI integration. Findings indicate meaningful improvements across all assessed writing components, demonstrating the positive impact of AI-assisted support on pupils’ writing performance. Pupils also reported increased confidence and motivation towards writing. Educators highlighted QuillBot’s value in providing timely formative feedback and promoting learner autonomy.

Artificial Intelligence in education, ESL writing, primary learners, AI-assisted writing, QuillBot

1. Azman, H., & Hashim, F. (2020). Challenges in providing effective feedback in ESL writing classrooms. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 17(2), 1–20. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bai, L., & Guo, X. (2023). Artificial intelligence–assisted feedback and ESL writing development: Learner engagement and autonomy. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(5–6), 789–812. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2019). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Foo, T. C., & Teh, K. S. (2022). Exploring AI paraphrasing tools for ESL writing revision. Asian Journal of University Education, 18(4), 107–119. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2019). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(1), 1–20. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2019). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing: Complexity, theory, and pedagogy. Journal of Second Language Writing, 44, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Jong, M. S. Y., Chan, T., & Luk, E. (2024). Artificial intelligence literacy for young learners: Implications for classroom practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 72(1), 45–62. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. K. (2019). Likert scale: Explored and explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(4), 396–403. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Khalid, A., & Lim, Y. C. (2020). Common grammatical errors in Malaysian primary ESL writing. Journal of Language Studies, 20(2), 45–60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Krishnan, P., & Zaini, A. (2025). Writing proficiency among Malaysian primary ESL learners: Persistent challenges and instructional gaps. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 21(1), 33–49. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Li, Z., Link, S., & Hegelheimer, V. (2021). Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation in ESL writing instruction. Language Learning & Technology, 25(2), 80–96. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2015). English language education reform in Malaysia: The roadmap 2015–2025. Ministry of Education Malaysia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Myhill, D., & Jones, S. (2020). Teaching writing: Process, product, and pedagogy. Journal of Writing Research, 12(1), 1–29. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Noor, N. M., & Faizal, N. (2022). Exam-oriented writing instruction in Malaysian ESL classrooms. Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics, 7(3), 451–467. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Palpanadan, S. (2025). Ethical and pedagogical concerns in AI-assisted language learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Education, 45(1), 98–113. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Panadero, E. (2020). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 823–853. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Rahim, A., & Wahi, W. (2023). Teacher feedback practices in ESL writing classrooms. Journal of Education and Learning, 12(2), 65–78. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Rahman, S., & Liew, J. (2022). Lexical and grammatical challenges in Malaysian primary ESL writing. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 22(1), 45–63. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Ramli, N., & Tew, W. C. (2024). Writing anxiety and AI-assisted tools in ESL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 58(1), 112–130. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Ranalli, J., Link, S., & Chukharev-Hudilainen, E. (2021). Automated writing evaluation for formative assessment of ESL writing. Language Learning & Technology, 25(2), 43–63. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Sudin, N. A., & Swanto, S. (2024). ESL learners’ perceptions of AI writing tools in academic writing. International Journal of Instruction, 17(2), 233–248. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Sweller, J. (2019). Cognitive load theory and educational design. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Tan, K. H., & Ibrahim, N. (2021). Process-based writing instruction in Malaysian ESL classrooms. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 12(5), 742–751. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Tan, K. H., & Sulaiman, S. (2023). AI-assisted writing tools and ESL writing development. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(7), 1052–1075. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Wang, Y. (2024). Artificial intelligence feedback and ESL writing accuracy. System, 118, 102947. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Yunus, M. M., & Halim, H. A. (2021). Revising ESL writing: Teachers’ practices and learners’ responses. Asian EFL Journal, 28(3), 87–104. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Zakaria, S., & Sulaiman, N. (2024). Formative feedback constraints in Malaysian primary ESL classrooms. Malaysian Journal of Education, 49(1), 55–69. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Zhang, Z., & Hyland, K. (2022). Fostering noticing through AI-generated feedback in ESL writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 56, 100889. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Zimmerman, B. J. (2019). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 1–17). Routledge. [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