Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ The Journal of Studi...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

The Effects Of Digital Authoring Tools On University Students’ Writing: A Case Study Of Undergraduate Students

Authors: Lynda Silhadi;

The Effects Of Digital Authoring Tools On University Students’ Writing: A Case Study Of Undergraduate Students

Abstract

Technology has undoubtedly imposed itself as a crucial tool in developing linguistic skills to the extent that many educational institutions worldwide have integrated it into their teaching methods. In the context of EFL (English as a Foreign Language) writing, the introduction of writing-assisted tools, particularly ChatGPT, has raised questions about their impact on students' writing abilities. This study aims to examine the effects of using electronic writing-assisted tools on EFL students' writing, focusing on five key areas: vocabulary, grammar, coherence, cohesion, and idea generation. To guide the research, a quasi-experiment was conducted with 52 EFL undergraduate students at the University of Algiers 2 in Algeria. The study found that students frequently relied on ChatGPT and Google to generate ideas and improve vocabulary. However, no significant improvements were observed in these areas, nor in grammar, coherence, or cohesion. Additionally, the participants reported that teacher feedback was more valuable than automated feedback due to its perceived accuracy and quality. Thus, the findings suggest that while students use AI tools to generate written content, they do not fully utilize them to foster deep learning, improve writing competence in key areas, or develop independent writing skills. The study highlights the need for educators to develop strategies that help students better utilize technology to enhance their writing skills and produce high-quality original work.

Keywords

automated writing evaluation (AWE), ChatGPT, Language and Literature, authoring tools, P, Artificial intelligence (AI), automated feedback

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
gold
Related to Research communities