Evaluating the Influence of Artificial Intelligence on Students’ Writing Proficiency in English Composition: Implications for Educational Technology & Social Studies Education

The increasing adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in education has significantly influenced students' approaches to English composition. This study evaluated the influence of AI on students' writing proficiency in English composition and examined its implications for educational technology and social studies education in Lagos State Senior Secondary Schools. The study adopts descriptive survey research design. The study involved 200 Senior Secondary School students selected through a multistage sampling technique. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire and an English Composition Writing Test and analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics at the 0.05 level of significance. The findings indicated that AI positively influenced students' grammar, vocabulary, organisation, and coherence in writing but raised concerns about overdependence and reduced originality. The study further revealed that the effective integration of AI into educational technology can enhance writing instruction, while social studies education can promote ethical AI use, digital citizenship, and critical thinking. The study concluded that AI is a valuable instructional tool when used responsibly and recommended that teachers integrate AI into English language instruction with appropriate pedagogical and ethical guidelines to improve students' writing proficiency.

Artificial intelligence, Educational technology, English composition, Social studies education. Students writing proficiency

1. Almusharraf, A., Bailey, D., Almusharraf, N., & Alotaibi, T. (2025). Students’ perceptions of generative AI in EFL writing: Strategies, self-efficacy, satisfaction and behavioural intention. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 18-36. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ariyibi O.O., Oduyebo, V. I., Sadudeen, M. A., Owoyemi, S. O., Usman, M. O. & Musa, A. K. (2025). The Rise of Artificial Intelligence for Research Among University Students Studying STEM-Related Courses. International Journal of Latest Technology in Engineering, Management & Applied Science. https://www.ijltemas.in/submission/index.php/online/article/view/2864 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bahri, S., Arifin, W. N. J. W., & Widodo, H. (2025). Development Of A Deep Learning Model: Contextual Strategies For Improving The Profile Of Pancasila High School Students. Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Terapan Universitas Jambi, 9(3), 1235-1248. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Besançon, M., & Lubart, T. (2015). La créativité de l'enfant: évaluation et développement. Mardaga. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Brookfield, S. D. (2012). Critical theory and transformative learning. The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice, 131-146. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Emig, C. C. (1986). Conditions de fossilisation du genre Lingula (Brachiopoda) et implications paléoécologiques. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 53(2-4), 245-253. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Facione, P. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (The Delphi Report). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition & Communication, 32(4), 365-387. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Glăveanu, V. P. (2020). A sociocultural theory of creativity: Bridging the social, the material, and the psychological. Review of General psychology, 24(4), 335-354. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Glăveanu, V. P. (2020). A sociocultural theory of creativity: Bridging the social, the material, and the psychological. Review of General psychology, 24(4), 335-354. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of educational psychology, 99(3), 445. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of educational psychology, 99(3), 445. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Heinemann Educational Books, 4 Front St., Exeter, NH 03833. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Halpern, D. F. (2014). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A brief edition of thought & knowledge. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Hargrove, M. B. (2013). Hargrove, MB, Nelson, DL, and Cooper, CL (2013) Generating eustress by challenging employees: Helping people savor their work. Organizational Dynamics. 42, 61-69. Organizational Dynamics, 42, 61-69. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. National Conference on Research in English. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Holmes, W., & Tuomi, I. (2022). State of the art and practice in AI in education. European journal of education, 57(4), 542-570. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Howard, R. M. (1995). Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty. College English, 57(7), 788-806. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Kasneci, E etal (2023). Chat gtp for good . learning and individual differences , 103. https://doi.org/10.1016 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., ... & Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and individual differences, 103, 102274. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Khampusaen, D. (2025). The Impact of ChatGPT on Academic Writing Skills and Knowledge: An Investigation of Its Use in Argumentative Essays. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 18(1), 963-988. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Mahapatra, S. (2024). Impact of ChatGPT on ESL students’ academic writing skills: A mixed methods intervention study. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1), 9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Maharani 2018. An investigation of writing strategies used by students on the perspective language proficiency and gender. International journal of multi-cultural and multi religious understanding. 5(5), 185–190. https:// doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v5i5.364. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Mitra, B. (2025). Emancipatory information retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.19241. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Murray, D. (1972). Teach writing as a process not product. The leaflet, 71(3), 11-14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Olomu, A. A. & Ariyibi, O. O. (2026). Patterns and Frequency of Artificial Intelligence Utilization for Academic Purposes among Undergraduate Students of Lagos State University. International Journal of Technology, Health and Sustainability. https://ijths.com/wp-content/uploads/IJTHS-020172.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006). Critical thinking: The nature of critical and creative thought. Journal of developmental education, 30(2), 34. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006). Critical thinking: The nature of critical and creative thought. Journal of developmental education, 30(2), 34. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Rahman, M. M., & Watanobe, Y. (2023). ChatGPT for education and research: Opportunities, threats, and strategies. Applied Sciences, 13(9), 5783. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13095783⁠ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. Advances in applied psycholinguistics, 2, 142-175. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Tee, T. K., Yunos, J. M., Mohamad, B., Othman, W., & Yee, M. H. (2010). The evaluation of thinking skills based on taxonomy of Anderson and Krathwohl. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Wang, D., Hu, B., Hu, C., Zhu, F., Liu, X., Zhang, J., ... & Peng, Z. (2020). Clinical characteristics of 138 hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus–infected pneumonia in Wuhan, China. jama, 323(11), 1061-1069. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Woo, G., Liu, C., Kumar, A., Xiong, C., Savarese, S., & Sahoo, D. (2024). Unified training of universal time series forecasting transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02592. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Yang, K., Cai, J., Ouyang, L., Vasluianu, F. A., Timofte, R., Ding, J., ... & Li, Z. (2025). NTIRE 2025 challenge on single image reflection removal in the wild: Datasets, methods and results. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 1301-1311). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Yang, K., Cai, J., Ouyang, L., Vasluianu, F. A., Timofte, R., Ding, J., ... & Li, Z. (2025). NTIRE 2025 challenge on single image reflection removal in the wild: Datasets, methods and results. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 1301-1311). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Zhao, X., Cox, A., & Cai, L. (2024). ChatGPT and the digitisation of writing. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 482. [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