ESL Undergraduates’ Attitudes and Practices in AI-Assisted Academic Writing: A Mixed-Methods Survey

This study explored how ESL undergraduates use and perceive artificial intelligence (AI) tools in academic writing. Using a quantitative-dominant mixed-methods cross-sectional survey design, 31 responses were collected from students at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Kedah. To align the analysis with the study scope, 28 undergraduate responses were retained for the main analysis, while three non-target responses (two postgraduate and one diploma) were excluded. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the closed-ended items, while open-ended responses were examined thematically. The findings show that AI use was common: 60.7% of respondents reported using AI tools often, 35.7% sometimes, and 3.6% always. ChatGPT was used by all respondents (100.0%), followed by QuillBot (85.7%) and Grammarly (32.1%). Students mainly used AI for generating ideas or outlines (82.1%), correcting grammar and spelling (75.0%), and rephrasing sentences (67.9%). Perceptions were generally positive, with respondents agreeing that AI improves writing quality (M = 4.25), supports better writing skills (M = 4.18), saves time (M = 3.86), and increases confidence in writing (M = 4.07). Nevertheless, qualitative responses revealed concerns about inaccurate information, plagiarism, overdependence, and reduced critical thinking. Overall, students viewed AI as a supportive tool rather than a replacement for their own effort. The study suggests that AI can be integrated productively into ESL writing instruction when accompanied by clear ethical guidelines, disclosure practices, and AI literacy training.

Artificial intelligence; ESL undergraduates

1. Almaraz-López, C., Almaraz-Menéndez, F., & López-Esteban, C. (2023). Comparative study of the attitudes and perceptions of university students in business administration and management and in education toward artificial intelligence. Education Sciences, 13(6), 609. doi:10.3390/educsci13060609. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023). Students’ voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, 43. doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Chaudhry, I. S., Sarwary, S. A. M., El Refae, G. A., & Chabchoub, H. (2023). Time to revisit existing student’s performance evaluation approach in higher education sector in a new era of ChatGPT—A case study. Cogent Education, 10(1), Article 2210461. doi:10.1080/2331186X.2023.2210461. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Dempere, J., Modugu, K., Hesham, A., & Ramasamy, L. K. (2023). The impact of ChatGPT on higher education. Frontiers in Education, 8, Article 1206936. doi:10.3389/feduc.2023.1206936. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Dunn, M. (2021). The challenges of struggling writers: Strategies that can help. Education Sciences, 11(12), 795. doi:10.3390/educsci11120795. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Gayed, J. M., Mills, A., Anderson, A., Jones, A., & Morley, H. (2022). The concept is right, but the sample may not be: I could not verify a 2022 “Gayed et al.” AI-writing article matching your manuscript wording with full confidence from public indexing alone. Please check the exact source in your draft notes before including it. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Imran, M., & Almusharraf, N. (2023). Analyzing the role of ChatGPT as a writing assistant at higher education level: A systematic review of the literature. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(4), Article ep464. doi:10.30935/cedtech/13605. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Imran, M., & Almusharraf, N. (2024). Google Gemini as a next generation AI educational tool: A review of emerging educational technology. Smart Learning Environments, 11, 22. doi:10.1186/s40561-024-00310-z. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Lange, C., & Costley, J. (2020). Improving online video lectures: Learning challenges created by media. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17, 16. doi:10.1186/s41239-020-00190-6. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Lin, H. F., & Morrison, B. J. (2021). Challenges in academic writing: Perspectives of engineering faculty and L2 postgraduate research students. English for Specific Purposes, 63, 59–70. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2021.03.004. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Nazari, N., Shabbir, M. S., & Setiawan, R. (2021). Application of artificial intelligence powered digital writing assistant in higher education: Randomized controlled trial. Heliyon, 7(5), e07014. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07014. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Widianingtyas, N., Mukti, T. W. P., & Silalahi, R. M. P. (2023). ChatGPT in language education: Perceptions of teachers—A beneficial tool or potential threat? VELES: Voices of English Language Education Society, 7(2), 279–290. doi:10.29408/veles.v7i2.20326. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Zimotti, G., Frances, C., & Whitaker, L. (2024). The future of language education: Teachers’ perceptions about the surge of AI writing tools. Technology in Language Teaching & Learning, 6(2). doi:10.29140/tltl.v6n2.1136. [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