Navigating the crossroads of GAI and academic English writing

A Student Perspective in a Time of Transition

Authors

  • Ida Klitgård Roskilde University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7146/lom.v17i31.147660

Keywords:

Generative AI, AI, Academic English, Academic English Writing, Content analysis, University, Higher Education

Abstract

The study investigates how students perceive, use, and evaluate Generative Artificial Intelligence tools in a BA Academic English Writing course. Tools like ChatGPT, Quillbot, and Grammarly have transformed traditional study aids, enhancing the writing process. The research question is: How do students' perceptions of using Generative AI (GAI) as a tool for academic English writing evolve over the course of an academic writing class immediately after the public launch of the large language model (LLM) ChatGPT? The study considers Warschauer et al.’s three paradoxes arising from using GAI for second language writing: the imitation contradiction, the rich get richer contradiction, and the with or without contradiction. Methodology includes pre- and post-course surveys with qualitative questions to capture students' views before and after using GAI. Content analysis reveals varied opinions, from enthusiasm for GAI's efficiency to concerns about academic dishonesty and creativity hindrance. Students also worry about grading bias and increasing exam difficulty. The study underscores the need for balanced and responsible GAI integration to enhance individual efforts and skills while acknowledging potential benefits and risks.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

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. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8

Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Open University Press.

Johnston, H., Wells, R. F., Shanks, E. M., & others. (2024). Student perspectives on the use of generative artificial intelligence technologies in higher education. International Journal of Educational Integrity, 20, 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-024-00149-4

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Deakin University Press.

Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x

Malmström, H., Stöhr, C., & Ou, A. W. (2023). Chatbots and other AI for learning: A survey of use and views among university students in Sweden. (Chalmers Studies in Communication and Learning in Higher Education 2023:1). https://doi.org/10.17196/cls.csclhe/2023/01

Nam, J., & Welding, L. (2023). College students' attitudes toward AI tools in education. BestColleges. https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/college-students-ai-tools-survey/

Warschauer, M., Tseng, W., Yim, S., Webster, T., Jacob, S., Du, Q., & Tate, T. (2023). The affordances and contradictions of AI-generated text for writers of English as a second or foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 62, 101071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2023.101071

Published

2025-02-11 — Updated on 2025-02-14

Versions

How to Cite

Klitgård, I. (2025). Navigating the crossroads of GAI and academic English writing: A Student Perspective in a Time of Transition. Tidsskriftet Læring Og Medier (LOM), 18(31). https://doi.org/10.7146/lom.v17i31.147660 (Original work published February 11, 2025)