From Draft to Masterpiece: Using AI Writing Tools to Elevate form 6 ESL Essay Writing

Many Malaysian Form 6 ESL students struggle to achieve the MUET Writing Paper standards, especially in linguistic correctness, lexical range, and grammatical control. Addressing this issue, the current study looked into the efficacy of incorporating artificial intelligence (AI) writing tools to improve students' writing skills. The study, which was based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and Constructivist learning theory, looked at how AI-supported writing instruction helps learners engage and develop knowledge. A quantitative quasi-experimental approach was used with 16 Lower Six ESL pupils at a Malaysian secondary school. Over the course of a six-week intervention, students conducted guided MUET-style writing activities with AI writing tools. Pre- and post-test writings were graded using an analytical rubric that corresponded to MUET descriptors for vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics. Performance differences were measured using descriptive and inferential techniques. The findings demonstrated considerable improvements in all writing components, with vocabulary showing the biggest increase, followed by grammar and mechanics. These findings show that AI systems may efficiently scaffold linguistic accuracy and lexical development using instant feedback and iterative revision. The study emphasizes the pedagogical potential of AI-assisted instruction in improving MUET-oriented writing performance and advocates for its incorporation into post-secondary ESL curriculum.

AI Tools, Writing skills, content, MUET

1. Akhtar, R., Hassan, H., Saidalvi, A. & Hussain, S. (2019). A systematic review of the challenges and solutions of ESL students’ academic writing. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology, 8(5C). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Biagini, G., Cuomo, S. & Ranieri, M. (2024). Developing and validating a multidimensional AI literacy questionnaire. ((PDF) Developing and Validating a Multidimensional AI Literacy Questionnaire: Operationalizing AI Literacy for Higher Education) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2020). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (5th ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and technology acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. DOI:10.2307/249008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Fitzgerald, A., Avirmed, T., & Battulga, N. (2025). Exploring the factors informing educational inequality in higher education: a systematic literature review. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 29(4), 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2024.2381121 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Flower, Linda & Hayes, John. (2004). A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing. College Composition and Communication. 32. DOI:10.2307/356600 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Hong, N., & del Busto, C. T. (2020). Collaboration, scaffolding, and successive approximations: A developmental science approach to training in clinical psychology. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 14(3), 228–234. https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000260 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Irvin, Sandra and Blankenship, Kathryn Guillot (2022) "Vocabulary & Academic Success in University Undergraduate Students," Teaching and Learning in Communication Sciences & Disorders: Vol. 6: Iss. 2, Article 6. Available at: https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/tlcsd/vol6/iss2/6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Khalifa, Mohamed & Albadawy, Mona. (2024). Using Artificial Intelligence in Academic Writing and Research: An Essential Productivity Tool. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine Update. DOI:10.1016/j.cmpbup.2024.100145 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Lihua Li, Meaghan S Cuerden, Bian Liu, Salimah Shariff, Arsh K Jain & Madhu Mazumdar (2021) Three Statistical Approaches for Assessment of Intervention Effects: A Primer for Practitioners, Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, , 757-770, DOI: 10.2147/ RMHP.S27583. https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S275831 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Li, C., Nik Mohd Alwi, N. A. & Azmat Ali, M. M. (2025). A comparative review of CET4 essay assessments. Asian Journal of English Language and Pedagogy, 13(1), 101–118. (https://umpir.ump.edu.my/id/eprint/45169/1/A%20comparative%20review%20of%20CET4%20essay%20writing%20assessments%20insights%20from%20the%20CEFR%20level%20descriptors%20and%20CET4%20writing%20rubrics.pdf) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Lixiang Yan, Roberto Martinez-Maldonado, Yueqiao Jin, Vanessa Echeverria, Mikaela Milesi et al, (2025)The effects of generative AI agents and scaffolding on enhancing students’ comprehension of visual learning analytics,Computers & Education, Volume 234, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105322. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Luo, L., Hu, J., Zheng, Y. et al. (2025). Human vs. AI: Does AI learning assistant enhance students’ innovation behavior?. Educ Inf Technol 30, 17483–17530 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13474-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Malaysia Digital Economy Blueprint (https://naqiz.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/MyDigital-Malaysia_Digital_Economy_Blueprint.pdf) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Maraza-Quispe, B. et al. (2024). Impact of gamified online tools. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 14(2), 123–130. Doi: 10.18178/ijiet.2024.14.1.2033 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Marzuki, , Widiati, U., Rusdin, D., Darwin, , & Indrawati, I. (2023). The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students’ writing: EFL teachers’ perspective. Cogent Education, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2236469 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Missi, Mariam & Jarmouni, Rania & Chibi, Mounir & Azize, El. (2024). Exploring Students' Perceptions of Using Grammarly in Academic Writing: Master Students of the English Department as a Case Study. International Journal of Innovative Research and Development. 13. 24-31. DOI:10.24940/ijird/2024/v13/i6/JUN24003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Mizan, Nelfi & Norman, Helmi. (2024). Pre-University Students' Perception in Using Generative AI: A Study at a Malaysian Private University. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences. DOI:10.6007/IJARBSS/v14-i8/22455 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Mohamed K, M A (2024) Using artificial intelligence in academic writing and research: An essential productivity tool, Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine Update, DOI:10.1016/j.cmpbup.2024.100145 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Mohd Don, Zuraidah. (2015). English Language Education Reform in Malaysia: The Roadmap 2015-2025.(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290260030_English_Language_Education_Reform_in_Malaysia_The_Roadmap_2015-2025) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Mustofa, R. H. et al. (2025). Extending TAM: Role of trust and ethics. Computers and Education: AI, 8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100379. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Noble Lo, Alan Wong, Sumie Chan (2025) The impact of generative AI on essay revisions and student engagement, Computers and Education Open, Volume 9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2025.100249. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Paethrangsi, Nisara & Teekasap, Sombat & Khiewpan, Rachapong & Jandaboue, Wanlapa. (2024). Empowering Students’ Autonomous Learning through Self-regulation, Metacognitive Strategies, and Collaborative Learning Environments. Journal of Liberal Arts RMUTT. 5. 69-79. DOI:10.60101/jla.2024.5.1.4065 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using IBM SPSS. London: McGraw-Hill, Open University Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003117452 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Putra, M. (2023). Teachers' and students’ perceptions on AI correction tools. Jurnal Tatsqif, 21, 35–66. DOI:10.20414/jtq.v21i1.7963 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Rad, H. S., Alipour, R., & Jafarpour, A. (2024). Using artificial intelligence to foster students’ writing feedback literacy, engagement, and outcome: A case of Wordtune application. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(9), 5020–5040. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2208170 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Ranalli, Jim (2021) L2 student engagement with automated feedback on writing: Potential for learning and issues of trust, Journal of Second Language Writing, Volume 52, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100816. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Rosyada-AS, Amrina & Apoko, Tri. (2023). Investigating English Vocabulary Difficulties and Its Learning Strategies of Lower Secondary School Students. Journal of Languages and Language Teaching. 11. 489. 10.33394/jollt.v11i3.8404. DOI:10.33394/jollt.v11i3.8404 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Sasson, Irit & Yehuda, Itamar & Miedijensky, Shirley & Malkinson, Noam. (2021). Designing new learning environments: An innovative pedagogical perspective. The Curriculum Journal. DOI:10.1002/curj.125 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Taber, Keith. (2018). Scaffolding learning: Principles for effective teaching and the design of classroom resources. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327833000_Scaffolding_learning_Principles_for_effective_teaching_and_the_design_of_classroom_resources) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Tamimi, N. N. M., Al O.M.S., & Thottoli, M. (2023). Factors influencing university selection. Journal of Business Management Review, 4, 439–454. DOI:10.47153/jbmr46.7142023 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Tutunaru, Tatiana. (2023). Improving Assessment and Feedback in the Learning Process: Directions and Best Practices. Research and Education. 38-60. 10.56177/red.8.2023.art.3. (https://researchandeducation.ro/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Tatiana_Tutunaru_Improving_Assessment_and_Feedback_in_the_Learning_Process_Directions_and_Best_Practices_REd_nr8.pdf) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Vidhiasi, Dhion. (2018). Classroom observation and Research. DOI:10.6084/m9.figshare.7988522 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Vivek, R., Nanthagopan, Y. & Piriyatharshan, S. (2023). Theoretical underpinnings of triangulation. SEEU Review, 18.Volume 5, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpbup.2024.100145. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes (M. Cole, V. Jolm-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press. (https://www.scribd.com/document/845099157/Vygotsky-1978-Mind-in-Society-Development-of-Higher-Psycholo) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Yang, L., Chiu, M. M. & Yan, Z. (2021). Power of teacher feedback. Educational Psychology, 41(7), 821–824. DOI:10.1080/01443410.2021.1964855 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Zhang, Z., & Hyland, K. (2023). Student engagement with peer feedback in L2 writing: Insights from reflective journaling and revising practices. Assessing Writing, 58, Article 100784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100784 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Zhou, X., Li, Y., Chai, C. S., & Chiu, T. K. F. (2025). Defining, enhancing, and assessing artificial intelligence literacy and competency in K-12 education from a systematic review. Interactive Learning Environments, 33(10), 5766–5788. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2025.2487538 [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