How disruptive is AI in students’ academic writing in higher education?
This study investigates the impact of artificial Intelligence (AI) tools on academic writing (AW) in higher education (HE) and focuses on their dual role as enablers and disruptors. Using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) framework, the research combines a review of recent literature with a case study of six Masters’ students at a University in the Midlands in the United Kingdom (UK). The study examines specific areas in AW where AI tools such as Grammarly, Google Scholar, and ChatGPT are used, particularly to improve lower-order skills like grammar and fluency, and the challenges in supporting higher-order skills like critical thinking and originality. Semi-structured interviews provided qualitative insights into students’ perceptions, usage patterns and barriers, which were analysed thematically and linked to the UTAUT framework. Key findings show that while AI tools improve efficiency and support non-native speakers, students have concerns about ethical issues (e.g., plagiarism, authorship), limited trust in AI-generated content, and barriers like digital literacy gaps. The study calls for institutions to address these challenges by integrating AI tools carefully, offering targeted training, and creating clear policies on AI use. Despite the small sample size, the findings provide valuable insights into AI’s roles in AW and its implications for improving the use of AI in HE.Keywords: artificial intelligence; academic writing; higher education; UTAUT; ethics; digital literacy; technology enhanced learningPart of the Special Issue Generative AI and education <https://doi.org/10.21428/8c225f6e.0390b853>
Authors
- Jeff Stanford (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8384-1838)
Institutions
- University of Leicester (GB)
Publication Details
- Published
- 2025-03-15
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.21428/8c225f6e.b1d05ed3
- Citations
- 1
- Primary Topic
- Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.65