ISSN: 2226-6348
Open access
The rapid developmenat of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has introduced new possibilities and challenges for English writing instruction in higher education. This study investigates the role of generative AI tools, particularly ChatGPT and Quillbot, in university-level English writing teaching by comparing them with Grammarly, teacher feedback, and peer review. Using a comparative case study design, the research combines horizontal analysis across different feedback sources with vertical analysis of the evolution of writing support technologies. Data were collected from undergraduate students’ drafts, revisions, reflective journals, interviews, and feedback records. The findings indicate that generative AI tools provide immediate, accessible, and scalable support, helping students with idea generation, paraphrasing, discourse organization, and revision. However, their use also raises concerns about over-reliance, academic integrity, authorship, and the weakening of students’ critical engagement with writing. Compared with AI-generated feedback, teacher feedback remains more effective in addressing higher-order issues such as argumentation, rhetorical development, and disciplinary conventions, while peer review offers collaborative but uneven support. The study argues that generative AI should not replace human feedback, but should be integrated responsibly within writing pedagogy as a supplementary scaffold. By situating AI within the frameworks of the Zone of Proximal Development, the process writing approach, and critical pedagogy, this study contributes to a more balanced understanding of how AI may reshape writing instruction, teacher roles, and student agency in higher education.
Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2016). Rethinking case study research: A comparative approach. Routledge.
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big?. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 610-623).
Cotton, D. R., 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.
Dikli, S., & Bleyle, S. (2014). Automated essay scoring feedback for second language writers: How does it compare to instructor feedback?. Assessing writing, 22, 1-17.
El Ebyary, K., & Windeatt, S. (2010). The impact of computer-based feedback on students’ written work. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 121-142.
Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition & Communication, 32(4), 400-414.
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Routledge.
Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181-201.
Flowerdew, J. (2015). John Swales’s approach to pedagogy in Genre Analysis: A perspective from 25 years on. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 19, 102-112.
Freire, P. (2020). Pedagogy of the oppressed. In Toward a sociology of education (pp. 374-386). Routledge.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2020). Emerging Technologies: Artificial Intelligence and Language Learning. Language Learning & Technology, 24(2), 1-17.
Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing. Cambridge university press.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses, Michigan classics ed.: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language teaching, 39(2), 83-101.
Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of second language writing, 10(3), 185-212.
Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., ... & Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and individual differences, 103, 102274.
Lantolf, J. P., Thorne, S. L., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and second language development. In Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 221-240). Routledge.
Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in higher education, 23(2), 157-172.
Lee, I. (2017). Classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Singapore: Springer Singapore.
Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2010). A synthesis of research on second language writing in English. Routledge.
Li, J., Link, S., & Hegelheimer, V. (2015). Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback in ESL writing instruction. Journal of second language writing, 27, 1-18.
Link, S., Dursun, A., Karakaya, K., & Hegelheimer, V. (2014). Towards better ESL practices for implementing automated writing evaluation. Calico Journal, 31(3), 323-344.
Liu, J., & Edwards, J. G. H. (2018). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. University of Michigan Press.
Lo, C. K., Yu, P. L. H., Xu, S., Ng, D. T. K., & Jong, M. S. Y. (2024). Exploring the application of ChatGPT in ESL/EFL education and related research issues: A systematic review of empirical studies. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1), 50.
Lund, B. D., Wang, T., Mannuru, N. R., Nie, B., Shimray, S., & Wang, Z. (2023). ChatGPT and a new academic reality: Artificial Intelligence?written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74(5), 570-581.
Matsuda, P. K. (2003). Process and post-process: A discursive history. Journal of second language writing, 12(1), 65-83.
Pennycook, A. (2004). Critical applied linguistics. The handbook of applied linguistics, 784-807.
Ranalli, J. (2018). Automated written corrective feedback: How well can students make use of it?. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(7), 653-674.
Ranalli, J., Link, S., & Chukharev-Hudilainen, E. (2017). Automated writing evaluation for formative assessment of second language writing: Investigating the accuracy and usefulness of feedback as part of argument-based validation. Educational Psychology, 37(1), 8-25.
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT journal, 59(1), 23-30.
Seow, A. (2002). The writing process and process writing. Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice, 315(320), 67.
Stake, R. (1995). Case study research. Cham: Springer.
Trachtenberg, B. (2023). ChatGPT, artificial intelligence, and academic integrity. Office of Academic.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (Vol. 86). Harvard university press.
Wingate, U. (2012). Using Academic Literacies and genre-based models for academic writing instruction: A’literacy’journey. Journal of English for academic purposes, 11(1), 26-37.
Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. (No Title).
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(1), 1-27.
Zhai, X. (2022). ChatGPT user experience: Implications for education. Available at SSRN 4312418.
Yuexi, J., Alias, A. B., & Nasri, N. M. (2026). The Role of Generative AI Tools in English Writing Teaching. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 15(2), 219–236.
Copyright: © 2026 The Author(s)
Published by HRMARS (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode