Enhancing Academic Writing in a Linguistics Course with Generative AI: An Empirical Study in a Higher Education Institution in Hong Kong

Abstract

The advent of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed information acquisition and utilization in higher education academic writing. This study fills the empirical research gap by examining how university students use generative AI tools for digital academic writing. The study investigates the experiences of 140 undergraduates enrolled in an ‘Introduction to Linguistics’ course at a university in Hong Kong employing generative AI applications, such as ChatGPT3.5 and the AI Image Generation feature in Padlet, for a collaborative multimedia Wikibook project spanning 13 weeks. The mixed-method approach included analyzing AI-generated content integration within 29 multimedia-enhanced Wikibook chapters, development logs with ChatGPT interactions, the assimilation of AI-generated content into drafts, and collaborative composition dynamics. Additionally, a survey with 98 student responses assessed perceptions regarding AI efficacy in academic writing support. Key findings reveal the multifaceted role of ChatGPT in shaping discourse, offering linguistic tools, and structuring information. The students recognized the advantages of leveraging AI tools, rapidly acclimating to their strengths and limitations through practical engagement. The outcomes of this research offer insights into students’ effective utilization of AI-generated content and suggest potential directions for incorporating generative AI tools into academic writing pedagogy.

1. Introduction

Wiki-mediated collaborative writing is the process of knowledge generation in which contributions from multiple authors and multiple textual iterations are encouraged [1]. Wiki-mediated collaborative writing facilitates the joint and continuous creation or modification of web content through its inherent user-editable features [1,2]. This approach has emerged as a prominent pedagogical strategy within educational instruction [3,4]. In the context of second language (L2) acquisition, Wiki-mediated writing serves as a transformative pedagogical instrument that not only allows users to document iterative revisions but also cultivates a dynamic learning environment. This environment actively engages L2 learners, promoting critical thinking and fostering peer-to-peer interactions [5,6,7]. Thus, the advantages of employing Wiki transcends mere language acquisition, extending to enhancements in digital literacy, cultural awareness, and learner motivation [4,8].

Besides web technologies, generative tools have also become increasingly vital resources for enhancing academic writing among L2 learners, offering customized support that addresses the personal challenges students face [9,10]. The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence, particularly the rise of GenAI, compels higher education to adapt to the digital era by integrating these innovative tools into educational contexts. Over the past two decades, artificial intelligence and education research focused on learner-supporting AI technologies designed to foster learner autonomy and automate certain instructional functions [11]. The increasing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in academic writing has prompted a critical examination of how students select and incorporate AI-generated sources into their written work while maintaining their authentic voices [9,12]. To address concerns related to academic integrity, establishing clear pedagogical guidelines governing the AI-assisted writing process is essential. Accordingly, this study employs Wikibook’s online collaborative writing platform and requires students to document their AI-enhanced writing processes, exploring their experiences in this multimodal chapter writing and their perceived effectiveness of various generative AI tools.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Affordance of Artificial Intelligence in Education

The primary benefits perceived by learners can be categorized into three key dimensions: (1) information retrieval and brainstorming, (2) personalized assessment and guidance, and (3) asynchronous communication and collaboration. Generative AI in education offers a supportive learning environment by providing timely and relevant information in response to specific prompts [13,14]. With the feasibility of receiving adequate information under clear prompts, students can engage with the topics they are genuinely interested in, thus fostering students’ learning motivation and creativity [15,16,17]. In addition to facilitating information retrieval, the adaptive, learner-centered environments created by generative tools such as ChatGPT and Automated Essay Scoring (AES) systems offer authentic assessment and tailored guidance [18] through immediate detection of spelling and grammatical errors [17]. Integrating advanced technologies in educational settings also provides students with platforms for inquiry that transcend temporal and spatial constraints [19], empowering them to transition from passive recipients to proactive contributors in collaborative learning contexts [20,21].

Besides text generators, AI image generators are now also becoming an area of interest in education. Multimodal writing requires students to create meaning using diverse semiotic resources, including auditory, visual, gestural, and spatial elements, in addition to linguistic text [22]. The potential of AI-generated images lies in their capacity to provide valuable insights into students’ creative thought processes [23] and to serve as a novel pedagogical approach for developing AI literacy [24]. However, students may perceive AI-generated images as lacking authenticity, leading to frustration with components generated by AI tools such as Bing Image Creator [25]. Thus, it is essential to investigate students’ perceptions regarding the role of AI image generators in their writing processes. Insights into how these tools either enhance or hinder students’ experiences may yield valuable recommendations for integrating AI technologies into teaching and assessment practices. To our knowledge, existing literature has not explored the combined utilization of ChatGPT and AI image generators in students’ academic writing. This study aims to address this gap by examining the potential of these two AI tools in enhancing writing skills and investigating students’ perceptions and critical reflections on their AI-facilitated writing experiences.

2.2. Challenges of Artificial Intelligence in Education

Despite the numerous affordances identified in AI-assisted learning contexts, the integration of generative tools has its limitations. Research indicates that generative AI can produce misleading information and erroneous references during the learning process [13]. Furthermore, some studies have highlighted shortcomings in enhancing students’ critical thinking, engagement, and motivation [21]. The predominant concerns surrounding the use of generative AI in higher education relate to academic integrity and originality as well as privacy and confidentiality [26,27], which are regarded as paramount in today’s digital educational landscape [28,29,30,31,32,33]. In response to these challenges, universities have begun implementing policies to address issues of academic dishonesty, particularly concerning plagiarism facilitated by AI tools [13].

However, recognizing the substantial potential and affordances that AI tools can offer in the learning process has shifted the focus from outright bans to strategies for their appropriate integration [34,35]. This study aims to pioneer efforts in guiding students toward effectively using these tools while preserving space to enhance their critical thinking skills. Additionally, it contributes to the literature by exploring strategies for balancing the utilization of AI tools as learning aids while minimizing their potential misuse.

2.3. ChatGPT’ Benefits and Plagiarism Issues in Academic Writing

With a plethora of research discussing the advantages and disadvantages of state-of-the-art technologies in education, several empirical studies have delved into the substantial effects of ChatGPT’s automatic text generation on students’ L2 writing skills following appropriate training [33,36]. After the introduction of ChatGPT into their writing tasks, students reported high levels of satisfaction with the AI’s functionalities, including its ability to address on-demand inquiries, provide relevant learning materials, generate creative ideas, and assist in editing essays [33,37]. This positive feedback highlights the potential benefits of AI in enriching educational experiences.

However, notable concerns have emerged regarding the simplified text generation and post-editing processes facilitated by ChatGPT, which may lead to students developing an excessive reliance on technology and diminishing engagement in the actual writing process [33]. Additionally, some researchers have raised alarms about the potential misuse of ChatGPT as a cheating tool, given its capacity to generate original content that may evade detection by plagiarism checkers or produce responses that are merely paraphrased versions of uncited sources [9,35,38]. Studies have emphasized the importance of acknowledging the contributions of AI to prevent potential plagiarism and promote responsible, ethical usage [37,39]. Furthermore, students have pointed out significant issues related to educational equity, emphasizing the inherent unfairness in allowing some students to use AI tools to replicate content without giving full credit, thus compromising academic integrity [40]. These challenges underscore the necessity for balanced integration strategies that optimize the advantages of AI while addressing its potential drawbacks in educational settings [14,31].

Above all, the existing literature and empirical research consistently highlight both the benefits and potential threats associated with the use of generative tools in higher education. Studies demonstrated that these tools can significantly enhance student learning, yet concerns persisted regarding their misuse and the subsequent ethical implications. Notably, there is an ongoing call for transparent and ethical guidelines to govern the integration of AI into academic writing instructions and practices [14]. In response to this demand, the present study employs a mixed-methods approach to investigate the perceptions and experiences of 140 undergraduates regarding the use of both image- and text-generating applications. Through an in-depth analysis of how students incorporate ChatGPT into their final writing products and their perceptions of this process, the study aims to provide a nuanced understanding of how generative AI can be ethically and effectively integrated into academic writing, addressing existing concerns related to integrity.

2.4. The Present Study

This study involved a cohort of 140 undergraduate students enrolled in a course titled “Introduction to Linguistics”, and they were divided into four tutorial groups, each group with around 35 students. The students were organized into small groups to undertake an online multimedia Wikibook chapter writing task. In each tutorial group, they worked in groups of four, and each group member was required to contribute around 900 words to a chapter of a student-authored academic book Introduction to Linguistics based on the topics introduced in the course, and they were required to incorporate some multimedia elements (images, videos, etc.) in their chapters. By the end of the course, four Wikibooks were written by students in the four tutorial groups, each book containing 7 to 8 chapters, resulting in a total of 29 chapters. Utilizing the history feature of Wiki tools, the researcher documented the entire iterative process of collaborative revision among group members. Concurrently, this writing task encouraged students to employ generative AI tools, necessitating that they keep a record of their entire process while using resources such as ChatGPT and the Padlet AI function. Students were required to document the prompts they used, the outputs they received, and the content they integrated into their final submissions. By analyzing and comparing the AI-generated text with the students’ final writings, researchers could clearly observe how students enrich their content through prompt revisions and the selection of appropriate, accurate information relevant to their topics.

The existing literature mainly discussed students’ perceptions of generative AI after introducing ChatGPT to them, thus leading to the most concerning issues of academic integrity and plagiarism. To address this gap, this study utilizes Wiki tools as a means to monitor students’ writing performance during this process, ensuring they are not just replicating AI-generated information. Under this research design, the current study investigates students’ perceptions regarding using different tools, particularly ChatGPT and Padlet AI image generation function. To the best of our knowledge, prior studies have yet to explore students’ supervised collaborative academic writing experience in higher education. The research questions of this study are as follows:

What functions does ChatGPT serve in students’ digital writing of a Wikibook?

What are students’ perceptions of incorporating ChatGPT and the Padlet AI image generation function into their Wikibook chapter writing?

By addressing the two questions, this study seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of the role and efficacy of AI tools in enhancing the academic writing process in higher education. Additionally, it offers a model for guiding students to properly use the emerging tools to improve their writing skills rather than losing their own voice.

3. Methodology

3.1. Participants

The study comprised a sample of 140 undergraduate students from Hong Kong enrolled in a linguistics course. Within this course, participants were tasked with completing a multimedia Wikibook chapter writing assignment, facilitated by ChatGPT and the Padlet AI function, over a period of 13 weeks. The researchers analyzed 29 Wikibook chapters written by students, alongside their self-documented writing procedures on Google Docs, which included the prompts they employed and the content they integrated into their final submissions. Furthermore, a questionnaire was administered to assess students’ perceptions regarding the benefits and effectiveness of using AI in collaborative academic writing. Demographic information pertaining to the participants is presented in Table 1.

3.2. Instruments and Data Collection

The data for this study were collected through various methods, including asking students to record the process of editing and drafting Wikibook chapters using Google Docs to observe how they integrated the AI-generated content into their academic writing and an online survey designed to assess perceptions of AI tools in enhancing writing output. The survey consisted of four main sections: the first examined students’ emotional experiences with Wikibook chapter writing; the second investigated the perceived benefits of using ChatGPT at various stages of the writing process; the third explored students’ perceptions and evaluations of utilizing the image generation feature of Padlet in assisting their Wikibook chapter writing; and the final section addressed additional issues pertinent to this writing process. The questionnaire employed a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In this empirical study, 29 collaborative Wikibook chapters and their corresponding self-documented writing procedures on Google Docs were gathered, and the survey yielded a total of 98 responses.

4. Results

4.1. ChatGPT’ Functions in Students’ Digital Writing

Through analysis of the 29 Wikibook chapters and using the self-documented writing procedures on Google Docs, the study identified multiple functions of ChatGPT-generated content in students’ digital writing. The primary functions included shaping opinions, supporting opinions, serving as a linguistic repository, and providing organizational ideas. Notably, a significant proportion of ChatGPT-generated sources were utilized for supporting opinions. Within the sub-functions of supporting opinions, ChatGPT-generated content was frequently employed to provide definitions, present arguments, and analyze or discuss concepts. However, the tool was rarely used for shaping opinions and providing support for language and organization. This suggests that students tend to rely more heavily on ChatGPT for generating essential information. Due to limited space, another article focusing on ChatGPT’s functions in students’ digital writing will be written based on the collected data.

4.2. Students’ Experiences and Perceptions of Wikibook Chapter Writing

Based on the findings of the first section of the questionnaire survey, the participants expressed varying degrees of agreement regarding the benefits of ChatGPT, as detailed in Table 2. This section of the questionnaire assessed students’ self-evaluations of their performance, experiences, and attitudes toward utilizing AI tools for their Wikibook chapter writing project. The items that received the highest mean scores included: “I spent a significant amount of time working on the Wikibook chapter” (mean = 4.06, SD = 0.79), “I worked diligently during the Wikibook chapter writing process” (mean = 3.97, SD = 0.88), “I am aware of potential abuses of AI technology (e.g., plagiarism)” (mean = 3.97, SD = 0.85), and “I invested considerable effort in the Wikibook project” (mean = 3.97, SD = 0.84). Conversely, the items with the lowest mean scores were: “I enjoyed writing the Wikibook chapter” (mean = 3.33, SD = 1.03) and “Writing the Wikibook chapter is among the most enjoyable coursework” (mean = 3.36, SD = 0.95), along with “I believe I performed well on the Wikibook chapter writing compared to others” (mean = 3.39, SD = 0.82).

These findings indicate that students exerted considerable effort to complete the Wikibook chapter writing tasks, and understood how AI can assist in their writing, yet they also reflect potential frustrations encountered throughout the process. Furthermore, the results reveal students’ critical awareness of the possible drawbacks associated with AI misuse.

4.3. Students’ Frequency of Using ChatGPT at Each Writing Stage and Their Perceptions of Using the Tool

Table 3 below shows students’ perceptions of using ChatGPT at different stages of the writing process. The items listed represent various writing stages, such as understanding the assignment, researching the topic, planning the outline, drafting the content, revising the writing, editing and proofreading, and formatting and finalizing the chapter.

The item with the highest mean score, “To draft the content of my section” (mean = 3.34, SD = 1.02), indicates that students perceived ChatGPT as particularly beneficial for content preparation. In contrast, the items with the lowest mean score are “To understand the assignment” (mean = 2.86, SD = 1.16) and “To format and finalize the chapter” (mean = 2.87, SD = 1.16). The standard deviations for these items were relatively low, ranging from 1.02 to 1.35, suggesting a consistent perception among students regarding the utility of ChatGPT across different stages of the writing process.

Table 3 suggests that students found ChatGPT to be more advantageous for writing products than task understanding. The foremost helpful functions are preparing and revising the writing draft, such as providing comprehensive information about the topics, and revising and polishing the writing content by using more accurate and acceptable expressions. The results regarding students’ perceived usefulness of ChatGPT in different writing stages indicate ChatGPT’s paramount role as a learning partner who provides reliable writing improvement suggestions in students’ academic writing process.

This study also investigated students’ perception of ChatGPT’s role in the writing task (Table 4). The mean score across the five questionnaire items listed in the table below showed small variability, ranging from 3.6 to 3.86, indicating students’ consistent high-level recognition of ChatGPT’s importance in writing and its influence on improving students’ writing productions. The item with the highest mean score is “is easy to use” (mean = 3.86, SD = 0.80), followed by the item “improved my productivity in Wikibook chapter writing” (mean = 3.71, SD = 0.86).

Table 5 presents the results of students’ perceived benefits of using ChatGPT. Students found ChatGPT particularly helpful in generating ideas, with a mean score of 3.87 and a standard deviation of 0.81. Another important benefit lies in ChatGPT’s assistance in finding the right vocabulary for their topics, with a mean score of 3.72 and a standard deviation of 0.87. ChatGPT was also seen as useful in correcting the grammar of students’ English writing (mean = 3.62, SD = 0.99) and organizing ideas (mean = 3,70, SD = 0.85).

4.4. Students’ Perceptions of Using Padlet AI Image Generation Function in Writing

Besides ChatGPT, this study also introduced an innovative function of a generative AI tool, the image generation function, by assisting with the writing processes of the students. Students’ perceptions of using the Padlet image generation function are shown below (Table 6). The main functions of the Padlet AI image generator included four aspects: creating expected images, addressing plagiarism issues, making the written chapter appealing, and saving time.

Among the four items, the function of making the chapter more appealing by adding visual elements was most appreciated (mean = 3.83, SD = 0.72). Students perceived the image created by AI as satisfactory and convenient, as it provided the desired images (mean = 3.68, SD = 0.83). The AI image generators can create innovative products from the students’ unique prompts, thus effectively addressing students’ concerns about plagiarism (mean = 3.6, SD = 0.83).

4.5. Other Issues

Besides ChatGPT and the Padlet AI image generation function, this study also explores and compares students’ proficiency in using other AI tools (Table 7). Students indicate their utilization of other tools in the writing process, namely, Grammarly and Canva. It is worth noticing that students’ perceived proficiency in ChatGPT is the highest (mean = 2.82, SD = 0.68), while students’ self-evaluated proficiency in Grammarly (mean = 2.57, SD = 0.91) and Canva (mean = 2.57, SD = 0.79) are the lowest.

5. Discussion

The result of this study answered the two research questions: (1) What functions does ChatGPT serve in students’ digital writing? (2) What are students’ perceptions of incorporating ChatGPT and the Padlet AI image generation function into their Wikibook chapter writing?

The results from the questionnaire, alongside the analysis of AI-generated content integration within 29 multimedia-enhanced Wikibook chapters, development logs documenting interactions with ChatGPT, and collaborative composition dynamics, collectively highlighted ChatGPT’s critical role as a versatile writing assistant in facilitating writing tasks [13,14,18,41]. Specifically, this study elucidated ChatGPT’s function in supporting opinion formation during the digital writing process by identifying several subfunctions within its role as a language repository, such as providing definitions, presenting arguments, and analyzing concepts. Other identified roles of ChatGPT, including information retrieval and revision suggestions, were consistent with existing literature [17].

Through the history and revision function of Wiki-mediated technology and the required documentation of students’ utilization of generative AI, this study exemplifies a strategy for instructors to compare AI-offered information and students’ submitted writing, a way that reduces students’ direct copying of AI-generated content and enables them to adapt the AI-generated information in their own writing through careful selection and paraphrasing and further study of the related literature for the verification of and elaboration on AI-generated information. Thus, the unique contribution of this study to the body of literature lies in its effective strategies for addressing plagiarism concerns. The findings suggest that students demonstrated critical thinking skills regarding misinformation and academic integrity issues previously highlighted in the literature [9,33,38]. Participants exhibited confidence in recognizing integrity challenges associated with the use of AI tools. Notably, some students expressed a strong desire for independent writing, asserting that AI tools should not be necessary for their work, as they prefer to convey their authentic voices without reliance on AI-generated content. Such significant outcomes regarding students’ perceptions of AI content underscored the potential benefits of AI in enhancing critical thinking and developing problem-solving skills [16,17]. The differing results in this study may be attributed to the incorporation of the Wikibook format in the writing process. The use of Wiki tools, combined with the requirement to document their interactions with ChatGPT, discouraged students from directly copying AI-generated content. Furthermore, the abundance of information and innovative topics accessed through ChatGPT heightened students’ motivation to explore new subjects, thereby fostering a passion for self-directed learning.

Another contribution of this study is students’ perceptions of using the Padlet image generator function in their Wikibook chapter writing. This study aligned with previous studies in students’ evaluation of AI-generated images from the perspective of the relevance of AI images to their expectations [18]. From this perspective, the utilization of AI image generators can cultivate students’ reflections on how the AI products fit their requirements, thus diminishing the situation taking place in text generators that students may just copy from AI-generated resources.

It is worth noting that self-reported data from students may be influenced by factors such as enthusiasm, fear of judgment, or misunderstanding about AI’s capabilities. Moreover, students’ positive perceptions of AI tools do not necessarily translate to measurable improvements in their academic writing skills. To provide a more objective evaluation, the teaching staff involved in this study assessed students’ academic writing performance after utilizing AI tools to assist with their writing. By grading the Wikibook chapters produced by the students, the teacher observed a significant improvement in overall academic writing compared to the previous year when students did not use AI to assist with their writing. These improvements were evident in areas such as the richness of content (enhanced by AI-generated information), the vividness of examples (supported by AI-generated images), and general grammatical accuracy (aided by AI-assisted proofreading of final drafts). These findings were further verified through oral presentations. The students presented their chapters competently using appropriate academic language, demonstrating a strong grasp of their Wikibook content, further confirming the positive impact of AI tools on their academic performance.

Regarding the limitations, this study involved 140 undergraduate students at one university in Hong Kong, majoring in various education and humanities subjects, whose native language is not English. The results represent EFL learners’ perceptions at an undergraduate level in the context of Hong Kong. Future studies should include more samples from other disciplines in different education systems for a thorough and robust understanding of this topic.

6. Conclusions

In response to the research questions, this study suggests the following: (1) ChatGPT functioned as an invaluable assistant in students’ Wikibook chapter writing by shaping discourse, providing linguistic tools, and organizing information; (2) students demonstrated a high level of understanding of the advantages of ChatGPT in generating innovative ideas, revising content, and structuring arguments; (3) students reported a positive experience with the Padlet AI image generation function, particularly valuing its convenience and effectiveness in enhancing their work through the incorporation of visual elements; and (4) students demonstrated critical thinking skills regarding the information provided by AI tools, recognizing the ethical implications of integrating AI-generated content into their final products.

By integrating a Wiki-mediated project with various generative tools, this study presents a pedagogical framework that encourages students to harness the benefits of these technologies while preserving their unique voices. Consequently, the findings may assist academic writing instructors in effectively incorporating AI tools into classroom assessments and instructional practices. Moreover, this approach has the potential to enhance students’ critical thinking skills concerning information generated by AI. Ultimately, this research contributes to the broader academic discourse by exploring effective strategies for integrating AI within higher education settings.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.W.; methodology, L.W.; formal analysis, L.W. and B.R.; resources, L.W.; data curation, L.W. and B.R.; writing—original draft presentation, B.R. and L.W.; Writing—review and editing, L.W.; supervision, L.W.; project administration, B.R.; funding acquisition, L.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Education University of Hong Kong (Ref. no. 2022-2023-0264; 12 April 2023).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Tables

Table 1

Demographic information about participants.

Items		Number	Percentage
Gender	Male	38	39%
	Female	60	61%
Undergraduate Programs	English	56	57%
	English Studies and Digital Communications	23	23.5%
	Chinese Education	6	6.2%
	Psychology	1	1%
	Primary Education–General studies	2	2.1%
	Not Applicable	10	10.2%

Table 2

Students’ perceptions of using generative AI tools in writing.

Items	Mean	SD
I believe I performed well on the Wikibook chapter writing compared to others	3.39	0.82
I worked very hard during the Wikibook chapter writing process.	3.97	0.72
I experienced tension while writing the Wikibook chapter.	3.83	0.85
I would be willing to engage in AI-related writing tasks in the future…	3.67	0.82
After working on the Wikibook chapter, I feel competent in using AI to…	3.67	0.79
I spent lots of time working on the Wikibook chapter.	4.06	0.79
Writing the Wikibook chapter is one of the most enjoyable coursework fo…	3.36	0.95
I understand how AI technology can assist me in writing my Wikibook cha…	3.82	0.84
I can use AI tools to enhance my work efficiency.	3.89	0.82
I can select the most suitable AI tool from a variety for a specific target	3.74	0.85
I can skillfully use AI tools to assist with my Wikibook writing.	3.76	0.76
I felt nervous while working on the Wikibook chapter.	3.84	0.86
I am aware of potential abuses of AI technology (e.g., plagiarism).	3.97	0.88
I can identify the functions of the AI tools I have used.	3.77	0.85
I can identify ethical issues related to AI.	3.69	0.82
I can evaluate the capabilities and limitations of an AI tool after usi…	3.87	0.73
I invested a lot of effort in the Wikibook project.	3.97	0.84
I felt pressured while working on the Wikibook project.	3.87	0.82
I believe that the Wikibook chapter writing was valuable to me.	3.8	0.85
I enjoyed writing the Wikibook chapter.	3.33	1.03
I think undertaking this writing task assisted me in acquiring AI skills…	3.78	0.83
I am satisfied with my performance in writing the Wikibook chapter.	3.65	0.79
I found the Wikibook project interesting.	3.63	0.90

Table 3

Students’ frequency and perceptions of using ChatGPT at each writing stage.

Items	Mean	SD
To understand the assignment	2.86	1.16
To research about the topic	3.31	1.05
To plan the outline of the chapter	3.02	1.16
To draft the content of my section	3.34	1.02
To revise my writing	3.16	1.18
To edit and proofread my writing	3.13	1.35
To format and finalize the chapter	2.87	1.16

Table 4

Students’ perceptions of ChatGPT’s role in the writing tasks.

Items	Mean	SD
was crucial for my Wikibook chapter writing.	3.6	0.93
improved my productivity in Wikibook chapter writing.	3.78	0.95
aided me in understanding the course content.	3.71	0.86
is more useful than search engines (e.g., Google) for Wikibook chapter writing.	3.61	1.02
is easy to use.	3.86	0.80

Table 5

Students’ perceived benefits of using ChatGPT.

Items	Mean	SD
generating ideas.	3.87	0.81
correcting the grammar of my English writing.	3.62	0.99
finding the right vocabulary for my topic.	3.72	0.87
organizing my ideas.	3.7	0.85

Table 6

Students’ perceptions of using Padlet AI image generation function.

Items	Mean	SD
conveniently provided the images I wanted.	3.68	0.83
addressed my concerns about plagiarism.	3.6	0.85
made my chapter more visually appealing.	3.83	0.72
saved my time.	3.73	0.73

Table 7

Students’ proficiency in using generative AI tools.

Items	Mean	SD
ChatGPT	2.82	0.68
Padlet AI functions	2.61	0.67
Grammarly	2.57	0.91
Canva	2.57	0.79

References

1. Purdy, J.P. When the tenets of composition go public: A study of writing in Wikipedia. Coll. Compos. Commun.; 2009; 61, pp. W351-W373. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.58680/ccc20099492]

2. Calzada, A.; García Mayo, M.D.P. Child learners’ reflections about EFL grammar in a collaborative writing task: When form is not at odds with communication. Lang. Aware.; 2021; 30, pp. 1-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2020.1751178]

3. Wang, L. Blending a linguistics course for enhanced student learning experiences in a Hong Kong higher education institution. Blended Learning for Inclusive and Quality Higher Education in Asia; Lim, C.P.; Graham, C.R. Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 103-124.

4. Naghdipour, B. ICT-enabled informal learning in EFL writing. J. Second. Lang. Writ.; 2022; 56, 100893. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2022.100893]

5. Pham, V.P.H.; Usaha, S. Blog-based peer response for L2 writing revision. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn.; 2015; 29, pp. 724-748. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2015.1026355]

6. Woo, M.M.; Chu, S.K.W.; Li, X. Peer-feedback and revision process in a wiki mediated collaborative writing. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev.; 2013; 61, pp. 279-309. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9285-y]

7. Zamiri, M.; Esmaeili, A. Methods and technologies for supporting knowledge sharing within learning communities: A systematic literature review. Adm. Sci.; 2024; 14, 17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/admsci14010017]

8. Barrot, J.S. Using ChatGPT for second language writing: Pitfalls and potentials. Assess. Writ.; 2023; 57, 100745. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100745]

9. Wang, L. Employing Wikibook project in a linguistics course to promote peer teaching and learning. Educ. Inf. Technol.; 2014; 21, pp. 453-470. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-014-9332-x]

10. Michel-Villarreal, R.; Vilalta-Perdomo, E.; Salinas-Navarro, D.E.; Thierry-Aguilera, R.; Gerardou, F.S. Challenges and opportunities of generative AI for higher education as explained by ChatGPT. Educ. Sci.; 2023; 13, 856. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci13090856]

11. Afzaal, M.; Imran, M.; Du, X.; Almusharraf, N. Automated and human interaction in written discourse: A contrastive parallel corpus-based investigation of meta discourse features in machine-human translations. SAGE Open; 2022; 12, 215824402211422. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21582440221142210]

12. Tseng, W.; Warschauer, M. AI-writing tools in education: If you can’t beat them, join them. J. China Comput. Lang. Learn.; 2023; 3, pp. 258-262. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jccall-2023-0008]

13. Marron, L. Exploring the potential of ChatGPT 3.5 in higher education: Benefits, limitations, and academic integrity. Handbook of Research on Redesigning Teaching, Learning, and Assessment in the Digital Era; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2023; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-8292-6.ch017]

14. Rasul, T.; Nair, S.; Kalendra, D.; Robin, M.; Santini, F.d.O.; Ladeira, W.J.; Sun, M.; Day, I.; Rather, R.A.; Heathcote, L. The role of ChatGPT in higher education: Benefits, challenges, and future research directions. J. Appl. Learn. Teach.; 2023; 6, pp. 41-56. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.29]

15. Bognár, L.; Ágoston, G.; Bacsa-Bán, A.; Fauszt, T.; Gubán, G.; Joós, A.; Juhász, L.Z.; Kocsó, E.; Kovács, E.; Maczó, E. et al. Re-Evaluating Components of Classical Educational Theories in AI-Enhanced Learning: An Empirical Study on Student Engage-ment. Educ. Sci.; 2024; 14, 974. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci14090974]

16. Dennick, R. Constructivism: Reflections on twenty five years teaching the constructivist approach in medical education. Int. J. Med. Educ.; 2016; 7, pp. 200-205. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5116/ijme.5763.de11]

17. Rudolph, J.; Tan, S.; Tan, S. ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education?. J. Appl. Learn. Teach.; 2023; 6, pp. 342-363. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9]

18. Kumar, J.A. Educational chatbots for project-based learning: Investigating learning outcomes for a team-based design course. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ.; 2021; 18, 65. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00302-w]

19. Li, C.; Xing, W. Natural language generation using deep learning to support MOOC learners. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ.; 2021; 31, pp. 186-214. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40593-020-00235-x]

20. Deng, X.; Yu, Z. A A meta-analysis and systematic review of the effect of chatbot technology u se in sustainable education. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 2940. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15042940]

21. Zawacki-Richter, O.; Marín, V.I.; Bond, M.; Gouverneur, F. Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education—Where are the educators?. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ.; 2019; 16, 39. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0]

22. Lim, J.; Kessler, M. Multimodal composing and second language acquisition. Lang. Teach.; 2023; 57, pp. 183-202. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000125]

23. Lee, U.; Han, A.; Lee, J.; Lee, E.; Kim, J.; Kim, H.; Lim, C. Prompt Aloud!: Incorporating image-generative AI into STEAM class with learning analytics using prompt data. Educ. Inf. Technol.; 2023; 29, pp. 9575-9605. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12150-4]

24. Tzirides, A.O.O.; Zapata, G.; Kastania, N.P.; Saini, A.K.; Castro, V.; Ismael, S.A.; You, Y.-L.; dos Santos, T.A.; Searsmith, D.; O’Brien, C. et al. Combining human and artificial intelligence for enhanced AI literacy in higher education. Comput. Educ. Open; 2024; 6, 100184. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100184]

25. Liu, M.; Zhang, L.J.; Biebricher, C. Investigating students’ cognitive processes in generative AI-assisted digital multimodal com posing and traditional writing. Comput. Educ.; 2023; 211, 104977. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104977]

26. Bukar, U.A.; Sayeed, S.; Razak, S.F.A.; Yogarayan, S.; Sneesl, R. Prioritizing Ethical Conundrums in the Utilization of ChatGPT in Education through an Analytical Hierarchical Approach. Educ. Sci.; 2024; 14, 959. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci14090959]

27. Susnjak, T.; McIntosh, T.R. ChatGPT: The end of online exam integrity?. Educ. Sci.; 2024; 14, 656. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci14060656]

28. Imran, M.; Almusharraf, N. Analyzing the role of ChatGPT as a writing assistant at higher education level: A systematic review of the literature. Contemp. Educ. Technol.; 2023; 15, ep464. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13605]

29. Moorhouse, B.L.; Yeo, M.A.; Wan, Y. Generative AI tools and assessment: Guidelines of the world’s top-ranking universities. Comput. Educ. Open; 2023; 5, 100151. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100151]

30. Qasem, F. ChatGPT in scientific and academic research: Future fears and reassurances. Libr. Hi Tech News; 2023; 40, pp. 30-32. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-03-2023-0043]

31. Rahman, M.; Terano, H.J.R.; Rahman, N.; Salamzadeh, A.; Rahaman, S. ChatGPT and academic research: A review and recommendations based on practical examples. J. Educ. Manag. Dev. Stud.; 2023; 3, pp. 1-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.52631/jemds.v3i1.175]

32. Sullivan, M.; Kelly, A.; McLaughlan, P. ChatGPT in higher education: Considerations for academic integrity and student learning. J. Appl. Learn. Teach.; 2023; 6, pp. 1-10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.17]

33. Yan, D. Impact of ChatGPT on learners in a L2 writing practicum: An exploratory investigation. Educ. Inf. Technol.; 2023; 28, pp. 13943-13967. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11742-4]

34. Bentley, C.; Aicardi, C.; Poveda, S.C.; Magela Cunha, L.; Kohan Marzagao, D.; Glover, R.; Rigley, E.; Walker, S.; Compton, M.; Oguz, A. A Framework for Responsible AI Education: A Working Paper. 2023; Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4544010 (accessed on 31 August 2023).

35. Jarrah, A.M.; Wardat, Y.; Fidalgo, P. Using ChatGPT in academic writing is (not) a form of plagiarism: What does the literature say. Online J. Commun. Media Technol.; 2023; 13, e202346. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/13572]

36. Mahapatra, S. Impact of ChatGPT on ESL students’ academic writing skills: A mixed methods intervention study. Smart Learn. Environ.; 2024; 11, 9. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00295-9]

37. Wang, C.; Aguilar, S.J.; Bankard, J.S.; Bui, E.; Nye, B. Writing with AI: What College Students Learned from Utilizing ChatGPT for a Writing Assignment. Educ. Sci.; 2024; 14, 976. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci14090976]

38. Kohnke, L.; Foung, D.; Ho, E. Open Educational Resources in the English for Academic Purposes Context. Open Educational Resources in Higher Education: A Global Perspective; Springer: Singapore, 2023; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8590-4_14]

39. Bender, E.M.; Gebru, T.; McMillan-Major, A.; Shmitchell, S. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big?. Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness; Accountability, and Transparency, Virtual, 3–10 March 2021; pp. 610-623. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922]

40. Johnston, H.; Wells, R.F.; Shanks, E.M.; Boey, T.; Parsons, B.N. Student perspectives on the use of generative artificial intelligence technologies in higher education. Int. J. Educ. Integr.; 2024; 20, 2. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40979-024-00149-4]

41. Sallam, M. ChatGPT utility in healthcare education, research, and practice: Systematic review on the promising perspectives and valid concerns. Healthcare; 2023; 11, 887. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11060887]