A Comparative Study of Generative AI and Human Texts: Limits and Possibilities of Academic Writing

This study examines how the use of generative AI tools influences the content and style of university students’ writing and explores its educational implications. Despite the rapid spread of generative AI such as ChatGPT in higher education, empirical comparisons of its actual impact on student writing remain limited. To address this gap, 69 term papers were collected from the liberal arts course the ‘Philosophy of Life and Ecology in the 21st Century’ at D. University in Seoul, covering two cohorts: 2021 (without AI) and 2025 (with AI). A mixed-methods approach was adopted: text-mining techniques were employed to quantitatively compare sentence length, lexical diversity (TTR, MATTR), conjunction use, and sentiment scores, while the course instructor qualitatively reviewed rhetorical features, writing style, and reference practices.The analysis showed that AI-assisted papers were shorter and more concise, with lower lexical diversity than those written without AI. While overall conjunction frequency and variety revealed no significant difference, AI-assisted writing tended to rely more on illustrative and emphatic connectors rather than conditional ones. Sentiment scores were largely similar across both groups; however, from the instructor’s perspective, AI-assisted writing often reflected uniformity of thought and style, sometimes including fabricated references, which revealed the issue of AI hallucination. At the same time, a few students demonstrated critical engagement by explicitly reporting how and why they used AI tools.These findings suggest that prohibiting AI use in academic writing is insufficient. Instead, pedagogical design and assessment criteria should guide students to employ AI critically and creatively while ensuring fact-checking and personal interpretation. This study offers empirical evidence on the opportunities and challenges of AI-assisted writing, providing a foundation for balanced discussions in higher education.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
The Korean Association of General Education
Published
2025-12-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.46392/kjge.2025.19.6.71
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Comparative Study of Generative AI and Human Texts: Limits and Possibilities of Academic Writing

Jong Hyang Park, Eun Young Kim
The Korean Association of General Education
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

A Comparative Study of Generative AI and Human Texts: Limits and Possibilities of Academic Writing

Jong Hyang Park, Eun Young Kim
article en

Abstract

This study examines how the use of generative AI tools influences the content and style of university students’ writing and explores its educational implications. Despite the rapid spread of generative AI such as ChatGPT in higher education, empirical comparisons of its actual impact on student writing remain limited. To address this gap, 69 term papers were collected from the liberal arts course the ‘Philosophy of Life and Ecology in the 21st Century’ at D. University in Seoul, covering two cohorts: 2021 (without AI) and 2025 (with AI). A mixed-methods approach was adopted: text-mining techniques were employed to quantitatively compare sentence length, lexical diversity (TTR, MATTR), conjunction use, and sentiment scores, while the course instructor qualitatively reviewed rhetorical features, writing style, and reference practices.The analysis showed that AI-assisted papers were shorter and more concise, with lower lexical diversity than those written without AI. While overall conjunction frequency and variety revealed no significant difference, AI-assisted writing tended to rely more on illustrative and emphatic connectors rather than conditional ones. Sentiment scores were largely similar across both groups; however, from the instructor’s perspective, AI-assisted writing often reflected uniformity of thought and style, sometimes including fabricated references, which revealed the issue of AI hallucination. At the same time, a few students demonstrated critical engagement by explicitly reporting how and why they used AI tools.These findings suggest that prohibiting AI use in academic writing is insufficient. Instead, pedagogical design and assessment criteria should guide students to employ AI critically and creatively while ensuring fact-checking and personal interpretation. This study offers empirical evidence on the opportunities and challenges of AI-assisted writing, providing a foundation for balanced discussions in higher education.

The Korean Association of General EducationVol. 19(6)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 35%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.