ACADEMIC PERMISSIBILITY IN LLM-ASSISTED EFL WRITING: HOW CONTEXTUAL JUSTIFICATIONS SHAPE STUDENTS' MORAL JUDGMENTS IN A WITHIN-SUBJECTS VIGNETTE SURVEY

AbstractThis paper investigates EFL students’ perceptions of ethical acceptability judgments of using Large Language Models (LLMs) into academic writing. In contrast to the simplistic view of acceptable/unacceptable use of LLMs, the present study models how specific contextual justifications shape students’ moral evaluations of LLM-assisted writing. A cross-sectional within-subject design was used with 220 third-year EFL students at three public universities in Laghouat, Algeria, to rate the ethical acceptability of LLMs use to complete four writing assignments. Under a neutral baseline condition, participants assessed the use of LLM for completing the four assignments, as well as four single condition contexts (disclosure, accuracy verification, syllabus permission, and learning intent). Their ratings were analyzed using Δ-effect scores (conditional minus baseline) to quantify condition effects above baseline and to describe task-level differences in ethical acceptability. Contextual conditions increased ethical acceptability to different extents, with learning intent producing the largest positive shift (ΔM ≈ 1.6, d ≈ 0.7) and disclosure exerting only a small, non-robust effect (ΔM ≈ 0.2, d ≈ 0.1). The baseline ratings also followed a clear gradient, which saw AI-assisted proofreading as the most acceptable while paraphrasing was consistently least acceptable. Theoretically, the study adds value by supporting a conditional-ethics perspective because it demonstrates how students’ moral considerations of LLMs use are dependent on learning-oriented and epistemically responsible frameworks rather than procedural cues like disclosure or syllabus permissions with no behavioral consequences. Practically, the paper advices that AI policies and pedagogy should be designed to encourage learning intent and verification activities as opposed to disclosure as a standalone requirement.Keywords: Academic integrity; large language models (LLMs); EFL writing; conditional ethics

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2026-09-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22211397
Primary Topic
Academic integrity and plagiarism
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

ACADEMIC PERMISSIBILITY IN LLM-ASSISTED EFL WRITING: HOW CONTEXTUAL JUSTIFICATIONS SHAPE STUDENTS' MORAL JUDGMENTS IN A WITHIN-SUBJECTS VIGNETTE SURVEY

Mohamed SEDDIKI, Souhila Korichi
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Academic integrity and plagiarism
article

ACADEMIC PERMISSIBILITY IN LLM-ASSISTED EFL WRITING: HOW CONTEXTUAL JUSTIFICATIONS SHAPE STUDENTS' MORAL JUDGMENTS IN A WITHIN-SUBJECTS VIGNETTE SURVEY

Mohamed SEDDIKI, Souhila Korichi
article en

Abstract

AbstractThis paper investigates EFL students’ perceptions of ethical acceptability judgments of using Large Language Models (LLMs) into academic writing. In contrast to the simplistic view of acceptable/unacceptable use of LLMs, the present study models how specific contextual justifications shape students’ moral evaluations of LLM-assisted writing. A cross-sectional within-subject design was used with 220 third-year EFL students at three public universities in Laghouat, Algeria, to rate the ethical acceptability of LLMs use to complete four writing assignments. Under a neutral baseline condition, participants assessed the use of LLM for completing the four assignments, as well as four single condition contexts (disclosure, accuracy verification, syllabus permission, and learning intent). Their ratings were analyzed using Δ-effect scores (conditional minus baseline) to quantify condition effects above baseline and to describe task-level differences in ethical acceptability. Contextual conditions increased ethical acceptability to different extents, with learning intent producing the largest positive shift (ΔM ≈ 1.6, d ≈ 0.7) and disclosure exerting only a small, non-robust effect (ΔM ≈ 0.2, d ≈ 0.1). The baseline ratings also followed a clear gradient, which saw AI-assisted proofreading as the most acceptable while paraphrasing was consistently least acceptable. Theoretically, the study adds value by supporting a conditional-ethics perspective because it demonstrates how students’ moral considerations of LLMs use are dependent on learning-oriented and epistemically responsible frameworks rather than procedural cues like disclosure or syllabus permissions with no behavioral consequences. Practically, the paper advices that AI policies and pedagogy should be designed to encourage learning intent and verification activities as opposed to disclosure as a standalone requirement.Keywords: Academic integrity; large language models (LLMs); EFL writing; conditional ethics

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Changji University (CN)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Academic integrity and plagiarism
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.