Generative AI Literacy and Responsible Academic Writing Practices Among Bangladeshi University Students

The rapid integration of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) into higher education has transformed academic writing practices while creating new challenges in aspects of academic integrity, authorship, and ethical technology use. This study examines the level of generative AI literacy among university students in Bangladesh along with their level of responsible academic writing practices. Additionally, it explores the relationship between GenAI literacy and responsible writing behaviour and also aims to identify whether these practices differ across academic disciplines. The research was conducted by employing a quantitative cross-sectional survey, and 250 valid responses were collected from undergraduate students enrolled in different higher education institutions in Bangladesh through an anonymous online questionnaire. The survey instrument consisted of three sections: demographic information, generative AI literacy, and responsible academic writing practices. To analyze the data, descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were used with a view to examining students’ AI literacy levels, writing practices, relationships between variables, and disciplinary differences. The study findings indicate that generative AI has become a common component of students’ academic activities, with more than 71% of participants reporting frequent use of AI tools for purposes such as brainstorming, language improvement, summarization, and writing assistance. The research also revealed considerable awareness of AI capabilities, limitations, hallucinations, and ethical concerns. However, the results revealed that while most students engage in responsible AI-assisted writing practices, including fact verification, source checking, rewriting AI-generated content, and maintaining personal authorship, some students reported a need for clearer institutional guidelines and formal AI literacy training. Moreover, the findings also suggest a positive association between generative AI literacy and responsible academic writing practices, which is consistent with the relevance of Long and Magerko’s (2020) AI literacy framework for understanding ethical AI engagement. The study concludes by recommending that universities in Bangladesh should consider formal approaches and develop curriculum models for GenAI literacy to support critical evaluation, ethical AI use, and responsible academic writing practices.

Generative AI literacy; Responsible academic writing; Higher education; Academic integrity; AI ethics

1. Ahsan, W. B., & Islam, F. (2025). LLM chatbots in academic writing: Usability and ethical concerns among Bangladeshi university students. Userhub Journal. https://doi.org/10.58947/journal.mqzd67 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ahsan, W. B., Gani, M. O., Arifin, M. S., Bari, S., Ahamed, T., & Hossain, M. S. (2026). Faculty and institutional readiness for generative AI in Bangladeshi higher education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Annapureddy, R., Fornaroli, A., & Gatica-Perez, D. (2024). Generative AI literacy: Twelve defining competencies. Digital Government: Research and Practice. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Barrot, J. S. (2023). Using ChatGPT for second language writing: Pitfalls and potentials. Assessing Writing, 57, 100745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100745 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bretag, T. (2016). Challenges in addressing plagiarism in education. PLOS Medicine, 13(12), e1002183. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002183 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bretag, T. (Ed.). (2020). A research agenda for academic integrity. Edward Elgar Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bozkurt, A. (2024). Why generative AI literacy, why now and why it matters in the educational landscape? Kings, queens and GenAI dragons. Open Praxis, 16(3), 283–290. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.16.3.739 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Carolus, A., Koch, M. J., Straka, S., & Bente, G. (2023). MAILS—Meta AI Literacy Scale: Development and testing of an AI literacy questionnaire based on well-founded competency models and psychological change- and meta-competencies. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 1(2), 100014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2023.100014 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023). Students’ voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, 100134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100134 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024). 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]

11. Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H., Al-Busaidi, A. S., Balakrishnan, J., Barlette, Y., Basu, S., Bose, I., Brooks, L., Buhalis, D., Carter, L., ... Wright, R. (2023). So what if ChatGPT wrote it? Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. European Commission. (2022). Ethical guidelines on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and data in teaching and learning for educators. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2766/153756 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Göçen, A., & Aydemir, F. (2020). Artificial intelligence in education and schools. Research on Education and Media, 12(1), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.2478/rem-2020-0003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Glikson, E., & Woolley, A. W. (2020). Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 627–660. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0057 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Hasib, M., & Islam, M. S. (2025). How university students in Bangladesh engage with ChatGPT: A qualitative study. PLOS ONE, 20(9), e0333089. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0333089 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Hossain, Z., Biswas, M. S., & Khan, G. (2025). AI literacy of library and information science students: A study of Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006241309323 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. International Center for Academic Integrity. (2021). The fundamental values of academic integrity (3rd ed.). International Center for Academic Integrity. https://academicintegrity.org/resources/fundamental-values [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Islam, M. S. (2026). Policy vacuum in an AI era: Exploring the urgent need for AI policy in higher education in Bangladesh. Journal of Learning and Educational Policy, 6(1), 41–52. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Jensen, T. W., & Jensen, S. W. (2024). AI literacy in the context of working with sources: Pitfalls and possibilities of generative AI models in academic writing. Journal of Academic Writing, 14(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.18552/joaw.v14i1.958 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Karim, M. J., Debnath, S., Karim, A., Uddin, M., & Islam, N. (2026). Investigating generative AI dependency patterns among Bangladeshi STEM students. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11000.00004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. 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., Pfeiffer, F., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., … Kasneci, G. (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]

23. Kibria, M. G., Khanom, K., Sultana, J., Chowdhury, F. P., et al. (2026). Determinants of ChatGPT adoption in higher education: An empirical study on public and private university students in Bangladesh. South Asian Journal of Business Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/09721509261443740 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Kong, C., Tallant, A. C., & Selig, I. (2025). Exploring generative AI literacy in higher education: Student adoption, interaction, evaluation and ethical perceptions. Information and Learning Sciences, 126(1–2), 132–148. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-07-2024-0095 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Laupichler, M. C., Aster, A., Schirch, J., & Raupach, T. (2022). Artificial intelligence literacy in higher and adult education: A scoping literature review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100101 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Lo, C. K. (2023). What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature. Education Sciences, 13(4), 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040410 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Logg, J. M., Minson, J. A., & Moore, D. A. (2019). Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Lyu, W., Wang, Y., Chung, T., Sun, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2024). Evaluating the effectiveness of LLMs in introductory computer science education: A semester-long field study. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (pp. 63–74). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3657604.3662033 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021). AI literacy: Definition, teaching, evaluation and ethical issues. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 58(1), 504–509. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.487 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. OpenAI. (2023). GPT-4 technical report. arXiv.https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Perkins, M. (2023). Academic integrity considerations of AI large language models in the post-pandemic era: ChatGPT and beyond. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 20(2), Article 07. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.02.07 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Pecorari, D. (2008). Academic writing and plagiarism: A linguistic analysis. Continuum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2023). Maintaining quality and standards in the ChatGPT era: QAA advice on the opportunities and challenges posed by generative artificial intelligence. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Russell, D. R. (2002). Writing in the disciplines: A curricular history (2nd ed.). Southern Illinois University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Sharma, S., & Ha, L. (2025). Generative AI in higher education: A comparative study of ChatGPT adoption, perception, and use among college students in the Global North and Global South. Human-Machine Communication, 11, 107–126. https://doi.org/10.30658/hmc.11.6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (3rd ed.). University of Michigan Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386693 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. UNESCO. (2026). Bangladesh: Global AI Ethics and Governance Observatory—Readiness Assessment Methodology (RAM) country profile. UNESCO. https://www.unesco.org/ethics-ai/en/node/309 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Uygun, E. (2025). Clashing AIs: Artificial intelligence literacy and academic integrity in an EFL context. Journal of Academic Ethics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-025-09676-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Wardle, E., & Downs, D. (Eds.). (2020). Writing about writing: A college reader (4th ed.). Bedford/St. Martin's. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Yan, L., Sha, L., Zhao, L., Li, Y., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Chen, G., Li, X., Jin, Y., & Gašević, D. (2024). Practical and ethical challenges of large language models in education: Kohnke, L. (2024). Exploring EAP students’ perceptions of GenAI and traditional grammar-checking tools for language learning. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100279 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education—Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Zhao, X., Cox, A., & Cai, L. (2024). ChatGPT and the digitisation of writing. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, Article 111. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02689-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]