����������������������������������������������������������������������������������

 

 

Aplicaci�n de herramientas de inteligencia artificial para mejorar la producci�n escrita en estudiantes de secundaria en clases de ingl�s

 

Application of artificial intelligence tools to improve the written production of high school students in English classes

 

Aplica��o de ferramentas de intelig�ncia artificial para melhorar a produ��o escrita em alunos do ensino secund�rio em aulas de ingl�s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Correspondencia: kennyjessael97@outlook.com

 

Ciencias de la Educaci�n

Art�culo de Investigaci�n

 

 

* Recibido: 20 de junio de 2025 *Aceptado: 23 de julio de 2025 * Publicado: �18 de agosto de 2025

 

        I.            Universidad Estatal de Milagro, Ecuador.

      II.            Universidad Estatal de Milagro, Ecuador.

   III.            Universidad Estatal de Milagro, Ecuador.

 

Resumen

El presente estudio evalu� el impacto del uso de herramientas de inteligencia artificial (IA) como Grammarly, QuillBot y ChatGPT en la redacci�n en ingl�s de estudiantes adolescentes, considerando los criterios de gram�tica, coherencia y cohesi�n, y vocabulario. Debido a que los datos no cumpl�an los supuestos de normalidad, se aplic� la prueba no param�trica de Mann-Whitney U para comparar los resultados entre estudiantes que utilizaron herramientas de IA y aquellos que no lo hicieron. En todos los criterios evaluados, se encontraron diferencias estad�sticamente significativas (p < 0,001), favoreciendo al grupo que emple� IA. Estos resultados evidencian que el uso de dichas tecnolog�as puede mejorar significativamente la calidad de los textos escritos. Adicionalmente, se aplic� una encuesta con escala de Likert para conocer la percepci�n de los estudiantes sobre el uso de estas herramientas. La mayor�a expres� opiniones neutrales a favorables, especialmente en aspectos como facilidad de uso, organizaci�n de ideas y aprendizaje de vocabulario. Tambi�n se observ� un inter�s por seguir utilizando IA en futuras clases y en otras asignaturas. Al analizar las respuestas por edades, se encontr� que los estudiantes de 14 y 15 a�os mostraron una actitud m�s receptiva hacia la IA en comparaci�n con los de 16 a�os, cuyas percepciones fueron m�s reservadas. Estos hallazgos sugieren que las herramientas de IA no solo mejoran el desempe�o ling��stico, sino que tambi�n influyen en la motivaci�n y autonom�a del estudiante, lo que abre oportunidades para su integraci�n pedag�gica en el aula de manera cr�tica y formativa.

Palabras clave: inteligencia artificial; producci�n escrita; estudiantes secundaria; ingl�s.

 

Abstract

This study evaluated the impact of using artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as Grammarly, QuillBot, and ChatGPT on adolescent students' English writing, considering the criteria of grammar, coherence and cohesion, and vocabulary. Because the data did not meet the assumptions of normality, the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test was applied to compare the results between students who used AI tools and those who did not. Statistically significant differences were found (p < 0.001) in all the evaluated criteria, favoring the group that used AI. These results demonstrate that the use of these technologies can significantly improve the quality of written texts. Additionally, a Likert-scale survey was administered to determine students' perceptions of the use of these tools. The majority expressed neutral to favorable opinions, especially in aspects such as ease of use, organization of ideas, and vocabulary learning. There was also an interest in continuing to use AI in future classes and other subjects. When analyzing responses by age, it was found that 14- and 15-year-old students displayed a more receptive attitude toward AI compared to 16-year-olds, whose perceptions were more reserved. These findings suggest that AI tools not only improve language performance but also influence student motivation and autonomy, opening up opportunities for their pedagogical integration into the classroom in a critical and formative manner.

Keywords: artificial intelligence; written production; secondary school students; English.

 

Resumo

Este estudo avaliou o impacto da utiliza��o de ferramentas de intelig�ncia artificial (IA), como o Grammarly, QuillBot e ChatGPT, na escrita em ingl�s de alunos adolescentes, considerando os crit�rios de gram�tica, coer�ncia e coes�o, e vocabul�rio. Como os dados n�o cumpriam os pressupostos de normalidade, foi aplicado o teste n�o param�trico U de Mann-Whitney para comparar os resultados entre os estudantes que utilizaram ferramentas de IA e os que n�o utilizaram. Foram encontradas diferen�as estatisticamente significativas (p < 0,001) em todos os crit�rios avaliados, favorecendo o grupo que utilizou IA. Estes resultados demonstram que a utiliza��o destas tecnologias pode melhorar significativamente a qualidade dos textos escritos. Al�m disso, foi administrado um inqu�rito em escala Likert para determinar as perce��es dos estudantes sobre o uso destas ferramentas. A maioria expressou opini�es neutras a favor�veis, especialmente em aspetos como a facilidade de utiliza��o, a organiza��o de ideias e a aprendizagem de vocabul�rio. Houve tamb�m interesse em continuar a utilizar a IA em aulas futuras e outras disciplinas. Ao analisar as respostas por faixa et�ria, verificou-se que os alunos de 14 e 15 anos demonstraram uma atitude mais recetiva em rela��o � IA comparativamente aos alunos de 16 anos, cujas perce��es foram mais reservadas. Estas descobertas sugerem que as ferramentas de IA n�o s� melhoram o desempenho lingu�stico, como tamb�m influenciam a motiva��o e a autonomia dos alunos, abrindo oportunidades para a sua integra��o pedag�gica na sala de aula de forma cr�tica e formativa.

Palavras-chave: intelig�ncia artificial; produ��o escrita; alunos do ensino secund�rio; ingl�s.

 

Introducci�n

In the global context, proficiency in the English language has become a key 21st-century skill�not only as a medium for international communication, but also as a tool for accessing scientific, technological, and cultural information (Liu et al., 2023; Wahyuningsih, 2024). Writing in English is considered an essential skill for participating in increasingly interconnected academic and professional environments (Alqahtani et al., 2023). In response to this demand, the integration of technological tools�and more recently, artificial intelligence (AI)�has opened new possibilities to optimize teaching and learning processes by offering automated, personalized, and real-time feedback (Christou, 2023; Swiecki et al., 2022).

However, at the national level, there are still significant gaps in English language instruction, especially at the secondary level. Many students exhibit low performance in written production, facing difficulties in grammar, coherence, textual cohesion, and vocabulary (Liang et al., 2023). These shortcomings are further exacerbated by structural limitations such as overcrowded classrooms, limited time for writing practice in class, and the prevalence of traditional methods that prioritize grammatical memorization over contextual language application (Fan et al., 2025). Although accessible technological resources like Grammarly, QuillBot, or ChatGPT exist, their pedagogical integration in schools remains limited or nonexistent, due to both teachers' lack of familiarity and the absence of clear policies regulating their educational use (Curtis, 2023; Fan et al., 2025).

In the Latin American academic context, several recent works have explored the integration of emerging technologies to optimize learning processes, offering valuable insights applicable to English language instruction. For instance, Castillo Anzules and Gua�a Moya (2024) examined agile methodologies, such as Kanban, to enhance workflow management in software development�findings that underline the importance of structured, iterative approaches, which can also inform the design of AI-assisted writing activities. Similarly, Gua�a Moya, Garc�a Herrera, and Quinatoa Arequipa (2017) discussed the feasibility of implementing computer applications in Ecuadorian higher education, highlighting both infrastructural challenges and the pedagogical potential of digital tools.

From a more specialized perspective, Marcillo, Castillo Anzules, and Begnini (2024) reviewed heuristic applications in artificial intelligence, emphasizing decision-making algorithms that could be adapted for personalized feedback in language learning. The educational benefits of ICT have also been documented by Gua�a-Moya, Arteaga-Alc�var, Ilbay-Gua�a, and Morales Jaramillo (2023), who demonstrated their positive impact on students with dyslexia, and by Gua�a-Moya, Arteaga-Alc�var, Chiluisa-Chiluisa, and Begnini-Dom�nguez (2022), who traced the evolution of ICT in education, outlining trends relevant to AI-supported writing instruction.

In the area of accessibility and inclusion, Arteaga Alc�var (2025) proposed the design and evaluation of adaptive learning platforms for students with disabilities, an approach that resonates with the potential of AI tools to address diverse learner needs in writing tasks. Likewise, Tiglla Tumbaico (2025) analyzed the impact of generative artificial intelligence (IAG) on personalized learning in Latin American universities, reinforcing the view that AI can be a catalyst for individualized, student-centered instruction.

These studies provide a solid foundation for examining AI-assisted tools such as Grammarly, QuillBot, and ChatGPT in the context of English writing, supporting both the pedagogical rationale and the technological feasibility of their integration into secondary education.

The core problem lies in the difficulty of improving secondary students' English writing skills through conventional pedagogical strategies, which fail to provide timely feedback or foster autonomous learning (Curtis, 2023; Wang, 2022). This situation hinders the development of key communication competencies and negatively impacts overall academic performance. AI tools could represent a viable solution, as they offer individualized, immediate, and continuous support during the writing process. However, there is still insufficient empirical evidence to support their effectiveness in specific school contexts (Marino et al., 2023).

This research is justified by the urgent need to evaluate the real impact of emerging technologies in the classroom, particularly those that can enhance the teaching of English and help close educational gaps (Khalifa & Albadawy, 2024; Marino et al., 2023). Assessing the use of AI tools as writing support not only responds to the demand for educational innovation but can also provide teachers with new strategies to address the diversity of learning styles present in their classrooms (Law, 2024; Marino et al., 2023).

The significance of this study lies in its potential to generate applicable knowledge on how AI-based technologies can be effectively integrated into the school curriculum (Law, 2024). Moreover, it can provide evidence to guide the formulation of educational policies that promote the responsible and pedagogically sound use of these tools for the benefit of students (Kim & Kim, 2022; Zhao, 2023).

The objective of this research is to evaluate the impact of using artificial intelligence tools on improving the written English production of secondary students, through the application of Likert-scale surveys to gather data on perceptions, progress, and challenges throughout the process. The results are expected to show significant improvements in areas such as grammar, textual coherence, and motivation for language learning, as well as a positive attitude toward the use of technologies in the classroom.

 

Materials and Methods

This study employs a quantitative approach with a quasi-experimental design to evaluate the impact of using artificial intelligence (AI) tools on the English writing production of secondary school students. The research involves a comparison between an experimental group, which used AI platforms such as Grammarly, QuillBot, and ChatGPT during writing activities, and a control group, which continued using traditional methods without technological support (Khalifa & Albasssdawy, 2024; Wei, 2023).

The sample consisted of students from two educational institutions, selected through non-probabilistic convenience sampling, considering similar academic levels and socioeconomic contexts. Participants were between 13 and 16 years old.

The following instruments were used for data collection:

1. Pre- and post-intervention written tests evaluated using rubrics that assessed grammar, coherence, cohesion, and vocabulary.
2. A Likert-scale survey administered to the experimental group, designed to measure students� perceptions of the AI tools in terms of usefulness, ease of use, motivation, and self-efficacy in writing. The scale consisted of five levels ranging from �strongly disagree� to �strongly agree.�

The procedure began with the administration of an initial written test to both groups to establish a baseline. Subsequently, over eight weeks, the experimental group used AI tools to support their writing activities under teacher supervision, while the control group worked with conventional techniques. At the end of the intervention, a post-test was administered to both groups, and the Likert-scale survey was applied to the experimental group (Wei, 2023).

Quantitative data were analyzed using statistical software. A descriptive analysis was conducted to characterize the variables, and an inferential analysis was used to compare pre- and post-intervention results between the two groups, using appropriate statistical tests based on the data distribution (Dergaa et al., 2023; Nazari et al., 2021). Survey results were analyzed using frequency distributions and measures of central tendency to identify the predominant perceptions among students.

This methodology allows for a comprehensive and objective evaluation of the effect of AI-based tools on the development of English writing skills, combining performance measures with the users' subjective assessments (Liu et al., 2023; Syahnaz & Fithriani, 2023; Wang, 2022).

 

Table 1. Grammar Test Evaluation Rubric.

 

Results Analysis

Since the data collected did not meet the assumptions of normality required for parametric tests, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the scores of students who used artificial intelligence tools with those who did not. This statistical test is appropriate for comparing two independent groups when the variables of interest are ordinal or when the data distribution is non-normal, as was the case in this study. The choice of this test made it possible to robustly determine whether there were significant differences in the evaluated criteria grammar, coherence and cohesion, and vocabulary without compromising the validity of the results.

The Mann-Whitney U test was applied to compare the performance of students who used AI with those who did not, in the criteria of grammar, coherence and cohesion, and vocabulary. In all cases, statistically significant differences were found (p < 0.001), favoring the group that used AI. This indicates that such tools can be effective support for improving the quality of students' written texts.

 

Table 2. Mann-Whitney U Test Statistics for the Evaluation Criteria: Grammar, Coherence and Cohesion, and Vocabulary.

 

The results show a clear and consistent difference in the linguistic performance of students who used artificial intelligence compared to those who did not. In all three evaluated criteria�grammar, coherence and cohesion, and vocabulary�students who had the support of AI tools obtained significantly higher scores. This finding suggests that the use of AI can enhance writing quality by helping students build more structured sentences, connect ideas with greater clarity and precision, and expand their lexical repertoire. Furthermore, it is evident that the AI support went beyond basic corrections and positively influenced the overall development of the texts.

These results reinforce the potential of emerging technologies as complementary resources in teaching and learning processes, particularly in writing production. They also highlight the need to rethink traditional pedagogical practices to critically, constructively, and ethically integrate these tools into the classroom.

 

Table 3. Survey on Students� Experience Using Artificial Intelligence Tools for Writing.

 

The results obtained reflect a predominantly positive perception among students regarding the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as Grammarly, QuillBot, or ChatGPT in their English writing activities. Although responses tend to cluster around the middle levels of the Likert scale, there are clear indicators showing openness and acceptance toward these educational technologies.

In the dimension related to improvement in English grammar, most students (39) remained neutral, while 33 expressed some level of agreement (levels 4 and 5). This suggests that, although part of the group perceives concrete grammatical benefits, others have yet to identify a clear impact, which could be due to how the tools were used or their prior knowledge of the language.

The statement regarding the ease of use of AI tools received more agreement-oriented responses. A total of 47 students selected levels 4 and 5, while 35 chose the midpoint. This indicates that students generally considered these platforms to be accessible and easy to use, which is a key factor for their effective classroom integration.

Regarding motivation to write in English, opinions were more divided. Although 36 students showed agreement (levels 4 and 5), a similar number (45) selected the lower levels of the scale (levels 1 and 2), indicating that AI use did not have the same motivational effect for everyone. This difference may be related to individual factors such as confidence, interest in the language, or familiarity with this type of technology.

On the other hand, the statement "These tools helped me better organize my ideas when writing" received a more favorable response. Here, 45 students selected levels 4 and 5, suggesting that a significant portion perceived improvements in the structure and clarity of their texts thanks to AI tools�particularly due to suggestions on coherence and logical sequencing of ideas.

The vocabulary learning dimension also reflected a mostly positive experience. More than 46 students recognized improvement in this aspect (levels 4 and 5), highlighting the potential of these tools to enrich vocabulary, as they often provide synonyms, more appropriate word suggestions, or contextual corrections.

Regarding confidence in writing in English, the data show a favorable perception, though with some dispersion. Nearly half of the group (42 students) reported feeling more confident when writing with AI (levels 4 and 5), indicating that these tools can create a less intimidating environment for writing, especially by reducing errors before being evaluated by teachers or peers.

The statement about the desire to continue using these tools in future classes received strong support: 47 students chose levels 4 and 5. This clearly demonstrates students' willingness to keep integrating AI into their English learning process�an opportunity teachers can leverage to design more innovative and personalized activities.

Aligned with this, the idea that teachers should integrate AI tools into other subjects was also well received, with 44 students expressing agreement (levels 4 and 5). This suggests that the perceived benefits are not limited to English; students see

 

Table 4. Survey on Students� Experience Using Artificial Intelligence Tools in Writing.

 

Regarding the perception of artificial intelligence tools, 14-year-old students expressed the most favorable evaluations across the assessed dimensions. Their responses fell within an average range between 2.80 and 3.20, reflecting a mostly neutral stance with a slight positive inclination. Among the statements that generated the highest levels of agreement in this group was their interest in incorporating AI tools into other subjects (M = 3.14, Question 8), followed by the perception that they learned more with AI compared to traditional methods (M = 3.10, Question 9). These results suggest that younger students view AI as a valuable asset to enhance their educational experience and broaden their learning horizons.

On the other hand, 15-year-old students�the largest group in the study (n = 61)�showed slightly lower average scores, ranging from 2.64 to 3.03. Although their responses also remained within a neutral range, a similar trend to that of the younger group was observed. Again, the statement with the highest acceptance was the desire to integrate AI tools into other subjects (M = 3.03, Question 8), indicating a shared interest in exploring new, technology-supported learning methods. However, a lower rating was identified in relation to improvements in English grammar (M = 2.64, Question 1), suggesting that for this group, AI had a limited impact on that specific language aspect.

For the 16-year-old students (n = 9), the lowest evaluations in the study were observed, with averages ranging from 2.11 to 2.44, placing them between the "Disagree" and "Neutral" categories. The lowest score was recorded for the question about confidence in writing English (M = 2.11, Question 6), which may indicate that, for this group, AI tools were not effective in strengthening that dimension. The highest scores in this group, although still modest, were for questions related to learning new vocabulary (M = 2.44, Question 5) and independently correcting errors (M = 2.44, Question 10). It is important to note that the small number of participants in this group limits the generalizability of these results, although it does allow for the identification of certain trends.

In general, it is evident that 14- and 15-year-old students show a more receptive attitude toward the use of AI tools compared to 16-year-olds. Although the differences are not particularly large (ranging from 0.1 to 0.3 points on average between the 14- and 15-year-old groups, and up to 0.9 points in relation to the 16-year-old group in some questions), they do reflect a perception gap that may be associated with factors such as technological familiarity, learning expectations, or even previous experience with more traditional educational methods. These findings pave the way for future research exploring in greater depth the reasons behind these age-related differences.

The findings of this study align with recent literature documenting improvements in writing quality using artificial intelligence tools. Both qualitative and quantitative studies have shown that writing assistants such as Grammarly provide reliable feedback on grammar, spelling, and structure, helping students identify mistakes and improve their writing (Tran, 2025). Similarly, recent works report that AI tools offer real-time feedback on grammar, style, and coherence, facilitating the production of more structured and coherent texts (Garg, 2023). Specifically, Garg (2024) notes that these platforms suggest improvements in idea organization and offer lexical alternatives that enrich vocabulary, contributing to better-constructed essays. These effects are consistent with our results: the group that used AI scored significantly higher in grammar, coherence/cohesion, and vocabulary. In fact, research involving ChatGPT has found a significant positive impact on the academic writing skills of university students (Mahapatra, 2024). Mahapatra (2024) reported that ChatGPT significantly enhanced the textual quality of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students, and that perceptions of its usefulness were overwhelmingly positive.

Students' Perception of Educational AI

The survey conducted in our study reveals a generally favorable perception toward AI tools in writing. This aligns with findings from other researchers: Malik et al. (2023) found that most students positively value these technologies, highlighting concrete benefits such as improved grammar correction, plagiarism detection, language translation, and idea generation for essays (Malik et al., 2023). Additionally, that same study observed that the use of AI enhances students' self-efficacy (confidence and ability to write), as it provides constant support and reduces the pressure associated with making mistakes. In our case, a significant number of students reported feeling more confident and independent when writing with AI tools, which coincides with the literature linking these technologies to greater student autonomy. In this regard, Amani & Bisriyah (2025) state that systems like ChatGPT support the self-regulation of the writing process: they assist with planning, drafting, editing, and revising, leading to increased student autonomy and improved writing outcomes.

On the other hand, the survey also revealed mixed opinions in certain areas (e.g., motivation to write). This is not surprising; other studies indicate that AI�s motivational impact may vary depending on the context and the students' profiles (Mahapatra, 2024). However, the most consistent data suggest that students find these tools accessible and useful. The general acceptance�illustrated by the desire to continue using them in future classes and to expand their use to other subjects�reflects that students perceive real educational value in AI, as also reported in recent research (Mahapatra, 2024; Malik et al., 2023).

Pedagogical Implications

These results reinforce the potential of AI technologies as educational complements in writing instruction. However, the literature suggests that their integration should be approached with balance and reflection. Garg (2024) warns that while AI tools enhance text quality by improving grammar and coherence, there is also a risk that students may become overly dependent on them, potentially diminishing creativity and exposing them to ethical issues such as style homogenization or plagiarism (Singh et al., 2021; Tran, 2025; Yeh et al., 2021). As a result, scholars recommend a critical and guided pedagogical approach: teachers should encourage mindful use of AI, integrating it into formative activities and promoting critical thinking. For instance, it is suggested that AI be used to assist in the revision of drafts while maintaining teacher-led evaluation, so students can learn from suggested changes rather than accepting them uncritically (Yeh et al., 2021; Zhao, 2023).

 

Conclusions

Statistical results demonstrated that students who used artificial intelligence (AI) tools to support their writing processes achieved significantly better performance in grammar, coherence and cohesion, and vocabulary compared to those who did not use them. This confirms that AI is a valuable resource that can help improve text quality in educational settings.

The use of these technologies not only facilitated surface-level corrections but also supported better structural and lexical development in texts, enabling students to build better-organized sentences, link ideas clearly, and expand their vocabulary. Thus, AI serves as an educational complement that can positively transform writing skills.

The survey showed a general acceptance of tools such as Grammarly, QuillBot, and ChatGPT. Students appreciated their ease of use, ability to help organize ideas, vocabulary enrichment, and the confidence they provided in writing in English. They also expressed a willingness to continue using these technologies in future academic activities.

Differences in perception and acceptance of AI were identified based on age group. Fourteen- and fifteen-year-old students showed a more favorable attitude and openness toward these tools compared to sixteen-year-olds, who provided more neutral or even somewhat negative responses, particularly regarding confidence and motivation. This finding suggests that factors such as technological familiarity, expectations, and previous educational experience may influence AI acceptance.

These results highlight the need to rethink traditional pedagogical practices to integrate artificial intelligence in a critical, formative, and ethical way enhancing its use as an educational support. Furthermore, continued research is recommended to investigate the causes behind age-related perception differences and to explore strategies for maximizing AI�s benefits across different student profiles.

 

Referencias

1.      Alqahtani, T., Badreldin, H. A., Alrashed, M., Alshaya, A. I., Alghamdi, S. S., bin Saleh, K., Alowais, S. A., Alshaya, O. A., Rahman, I., Al Yami, M. S., & Albekairy, A. M. (2023). The emergent role of artificial intelligence, natural learning processing, and large language models in higher education and research. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 19(8), 1236-1242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2023.05.016

2.      Amani, N., & Bisriyah, M. (2025). University Students� Perceptions of AI-Assisted Writing Tools in Supporting Self-Regulated Writing Practices. IJELTAL: Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 91-107.

3.      Arteaga Alc�var, Y. (2025). Plataformas de aprendizaje adaptativo y la inclusi�n educativa: dise�o, implementaci�n y evaluaci�n de la accesibilidad para estudiantes con discapacidad. InnDev, 3(3), 49�63. https://doi.org/10.69583/inndev.v3n3.2024.149

4.      Castillo Anzules, M., & Gua�a Moya, E. J. (2024). Kanban: Una metodolog�a �gil para la gesti�n eficiente del flujo de trabajo en el desarrollo de software, una revisi�n sistem�tica. Revista Ingenio Global, 3(1), 17�28. https://doi.org/10.62943/rig.v3n1.2024.68

5.      Christou, P. (2023). Ηow to Use Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a Resource, Methodological and Analysis Tool in Qualitative Research? The Qualitative Report. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2023.6406

6.      Curtis, N. (2023). To ChatGPT or not to ChatGPT? The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Academic Publishing. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 42(4), 275-275. https://doi.org/10.1097/INF.0000000000003852

7.      Dergaa, I., Chamari, K., Zmijewski, P., & Ben Saad, H. (2023). From human writing to artificial intelligence generated text: examining the prospects and potential threats of ChatGPT in academic writing. Biology of Sport, 40(2), 615-622. https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2023.125623

8.      Fan, Y., Tang, L., Le, H., Shen, K., Tan, S., Zhao, Y., Shen, Y., Li, X., & Ga�ević, D. (2025). Beware of metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative artificial intelligence on learning motivation, processes, and performance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(2), 489-530. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13544

9.      Garg, P. (2024). The Impact of AI Writing Tools on the Content and Organization of Students� Writing perspective. International Journal of Humanities Social Science and Management (IJHSSM), 4(3).

10.  Gua�a Moya, E. J., Garc��a Herrera, D. G., & Quinatoa Arequipa, E. E. (2017). Utop��a o realidad de aplicaciones inform�ticas en la educaci�n. Caso Universidad Ecuatoriana. Revista Publicando, 3(9), 119-137. https://revistapublicando.org/revista/index.php/crv/article/view/176

11.  Gua�a-Moya, J., Arteaga-Alc�var, Y. A., Chiluisa-Chiluisa, M., & Begnini-Dom�nguez, L. F. (2022). Evolution of information and communication technologies in education. In 2022 Third International Conference on Information Systems and Software Technologies (ICI2ST) (pp. 138�144). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICI2ST57350.2022.00027

12.  Gua�a-Moya, J., Arteaga-Alc�var, Y., Ilbay-Gua�a, E., & Morales Jaramillo, M. B. (2023). Uso de las Tecnolog�as de la Informaci�n y Comunicaci�n para mejorar el aprendizaje de los ni�os con dislexia. RECIMUNDO: Revista Cient�fica de la Investigaci�n y el Conocimiento, 7(1), 507�514. https://doi.org/10.26820/recimundo/7.(1).ene.2023.507-514

13.  Khalifa, M., & Albadawy, M. (2024). Using artificial intelligence in academic writing and research: An essential productivity tool. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine Update, 5, 100145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpbup.2024.100145

14.  Kim, N. J., & Kim, M. K. (2022). Teacher�s Perceptions of Using an Artificial Intelligence-Based Educational Tool for Scientific Writing. Frontiers in Education, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.755914

15.  Law, L. (2024). Application of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in language teaching and learning: A scoping literature review. Computers and Education Open, 6, 100174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100174

16.  Liang, J.-C., Hwang, G.-J., Chen, M.-R. A., & Darmawansah, D. (2023). Roles and research foci of artificial intelligence in language education: an integrated bibliographic analysis and systematic review approach. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(7), 4270-4296. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1958348

17.  Liu, C., Hou, J., Tu, Y.-F., Wang, Y., & Hwang, G.-J. (2023). Incorporating a reflective thinking promoting mechanism into artificial intelligence-supported English writing environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(9), 5614-5632. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.2012812

18.  Mahapatra, S. (2024). Impact of ChatGPT on ESL students� academic writing skills: a mixed methods intervention study. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00295-9

19.  Malik, A. R., Pratiwi, Y., Andajani, K., Numertayasa, I. W., Suharti, S., & Darwis, A. (2023). Exploring artificial intelligence in academic essay: higher education student�s perspective. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 5(100296).

20.  Marcillo, F., Castillo Anzules, M. S., & Begnini, L. (2024). Heur�stica aplicada en inteligencia artificial, una revisi�n sistem�tica. Revista Cient�fica Kosmos, 3(2), 81�94. https://doi.org/10.62943/rck.v3n2.2024.100

21.  Marino, M. T., Vasquez, E., Dieker, L., Basham, J., & Blackorby, J. (2023). The Future of Artificial Intelligence in Special Education Technology. Journal of Special Education Technology, 38(3), 404-416. https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434231165977

22.  Nazari, N., Shabbir, M. S., & Setiawan, R. (2021). Application of Artificial Intelligence powered digital writing assistant in higher education: randomized controlled trial. Heliyon, 7(5), e07014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07014

23.  Swiecki, Z., Khosravi, H., Chen, G., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Lodge, J. M., Milligan, S., Selwyn, N., & Ga�ević, D. (2022). Assessment in the age of artificial intelligence. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100075

24.  Syahnaz, M., & Fithriani, R. (2023). Utilizing Artificial Intelligence-based Paraphrasing Tool in EFL Writing Class: A Focus on Indonesian University Students� Perceptions. Scope : Journal of English Language Teaching, 7(2), 210. https://doi.org/10.30998/scope.v7i2.14882

25.  Tiglla Tumbaico, B. D. (2025). Impacto de la Inteligencia Artificial Generativa (IAG) en la personalizaci�n del aprendizaje en universidades latinoamericanas. Alpha International Journal, 3(1), 18�30. https://doi.org/10.63380/aij.v3n1.2025.55

26.  Tran, K. M. A. (2025). Research on Using Grammarly to Improve Students� English Writing. AsiaCALL Online Journal, 16(1), 69-82. https://doi.org/10.54855/acoj.251614

27.  Wahyuningsih, S. (2024). Does Artificial Intelligence (AI) Play Roles in Enhancing Academic Writing? Unravelling Lecturers� Voices in Indonesian Higher Education. Jurnal Pendidikan Progresif, 14(1), 489-503. https://doi.org/10.23960/jpp.v14.i1.202436

28.  Wang, Z. (2022). Computer-assisted EFL writing and evaluations based on artificial intelligence: a case from a college reading and writing course. Library Hi Tech, 40(1), 80-97. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-05-2020-0113

29.  Wei, L. (2023). Artificial intelligence in language instruction: impact on English learning achievement, L2 motivation, and self-regulated learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1261955

30.  Zhao, X. (2023). Leveraging Artificial Intelligence (AI) Technology for English Writing: Introducing Wordtune as a Digital Writing Assistant for EFL Writers. RELC Journal, 54(3), 890-894. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882221094089

 

 

 

 

 

 

� 2025 por los autores. Este art�culo es de acceso abierto y distribuido seg�n los t�rminos y condiciones de la licencia Creative Commons Atribuci�n-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).