The Differential Impact of AI Tools Among EFL University Learners: A Process Writing Approach
Keywords:
AI-assisted academic writing; Grammarly; Process Writing Approach; EFL Vietnamese undergraduates and writing tool efficacyAbstract
This study examines the impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) writing assistants, Grammarly, Write & Improve, and Slick Write, on Vietnamese EFL majors’ writing proficiency. Grammarly ensures grammatical accuracy; Write & Improve offers rigorous academic feedback; and Slick Write checks readability and sentence complexity. In a quasi-experimental mixed-methods research project with 200 Vietnamese first-year public and private university students, quantitative data on pre- and post-test scores were compared via paired t-tests and logistic regression. Interviews and focus groups were analyzed using themes for the qualitative data. Findings indicated significant improvements in grammatical correctness (p = .034) and task completion (p < .01), particularly in the students from the private universities. However, enhanced content coherence was not revealed (p = 1.00), and diminished language range with significant loss was found (p = .015). Qualitative findings indicated that the students welcomed AI tools for grammar correction and efficiency but were cautious about dependency, loss of creativity, and loss of personal voice, particularly among the private university students. The study highlights the varied impact of AI writing tools, underscoring their utility in polishing grammar and task fulfillment and their lack of ability to improve higher-order writing skills such as coherence and linguistic variety. Institutional context significantly influenced the students’ engagement and performance, suggesting the necessity for pedagogically planned, context-sensitive implementation of AI tools.
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.24.5.24
References
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications.
Cambridge English. (n.d.). Write & improve. Cambridge University Press & Assessment. https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/learning-english/free-resources/write-and-improve/
Cotton, D., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2023). 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
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Dang, T. H. N. (2024). EFL students’ perceptions of peer feedback in writing classes at a university in HCM City. International Journal of Language Instruction, 3(2), 18-28. https://doi.org/10.54855/ijli.24322
Farooqi, M. T. K., Amanat, I., & Awan, S. M. (2024). Ethical considerations and challenges in the integration of artificial intelligence in education: a systematic review. Journal of Excellence in Management Sciences, 3(4), 35-50. https://doi.org/10.69565/jems.v3i4.314
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600
Graham, S., MacArthur, C., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.). (2013). Best practices in writing instruction (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Huang, W., Hew, K. F., & Fryer, L. K. (2021). Chatbots for language learning—are they really useful? a systematic review of chatbot?supported language learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(1), 237-257. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12610
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
Marzuki, N., Widiati, U., Rusdin, D., Darwin, D., & Indrawati, I. (2023). The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students’ writing: EFL teachers’ perspective. Cogent Education, 10(2), 2236469.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2023.2236469
Nguyen, L. T. H. (2021). Teachers’ perception of ICT integration in English language teaching at Vietnamese tertiary level. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 10(3), 697–710. https://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2021.3.697
Nurseha, I. (2023). Efl teachers' perspectives on how ai writing tools affect the structure and substance of students' writing. JEET, Journal of English Education and Technology, 4(03), 189-211. https://doi.org/10.59689/jeet.v4i03.127
Okolie, U. C. and Egbon, T. N. (2024). Research in contemporary society: the role of artificial intelligence in academic research writing. Qualitative Research of Business and Social Sciences, 2(1), 27-26. https://doi.org/10.31316/qrobss.v2i1.7166
Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (2007). Introduction to academic writing (3rd ed.). Pearson/Longman.
Ph?m, V. P. H. and Le, A. Q. (2024). ChatGPT in language learning: perspectives from Vietnamese students in Vietnam and the USA. International Journal of Language Instruction, 3(2), 59-72. https://doi.org/10.54855/ijli.24325
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2019). Artificial intelligence and the futures of learning.
https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/artificial-intelligence-and-futures-learning
Yu, H. (2024). Retracted: the application and challenges of chatgpt in educational transformation: new demands for teachers' roles. Heliyon, 10(2), e24289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24289
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Thi Phuong Lien Tuong, Thi-Tuyet Tran
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
All articles published by IJLTER are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No-Derivatives 4.0 International License (CCBY-NC-ND4.0).
