This longitudinal mixed-methods investigation addressed the unresolved question of how different modes of AI-enhanced collaboration shape EFL academic writing across content enrichment, linguistic accuracy, and organizational coherence. A four-arm, stratified, parallel-group randomized controlled trial (Randomized Controlled Trial [RCT]) with concealed, centralized allocation and assessor blinding was implemented over an 8-week hybrid program (2 h in-person +2 h online weekly; 32 contact hours). Randomization used permuted blocks (size = 8; 1:1:1:1) within university, baseline proficiency tertiles, and gender strata; analyses followed intention-to-treat with multiple imputation (m = 50; Rubin’s rules) and prespecified sensitivity checks (complete-case, per-protocol). Quantitatively, outcomes were captured via rubric-based assessments, automated writing analytics, and AI engagement indices; qualitatively, semi-structured interviews (n = 88) and validated surveys were analyzed through reflexive thematic analysis. Integration occurred at design, methods, and interpretation using joint displays and triangulation. The content-enrichment intervention produced the largest and most durable gains (e.g., d > 0.80), including a substantial adjusted mean difference in overall writing versus control (Δ = 1.95, p < .001). Multivariate analyses (MANCOVA) showed a significant group effect after adjusting for pretest scores (p < .001). Path analysis indicated that perceived AI utility and digital literacy significantly mediated performance gains. Thematically, AI functioned as a collaborative partner, though dense feedback sometimes elevated cognitive load.
AdamsD.ChuahK. M. (2022). Artificial intelligence-based tools in research writing: Current trends and future potentials. In ChuriP. P.JoshiS.ElhosenyM.OmraneA. (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in higher education (pp. 169–184). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003138867-11
2.
AladiniA.IsmailS. M.KhasawnehM. A. S.ShakibaeiG. (2025). Self-directed writing development across computer/AI-based tasks: Unraveling the traces on L2 writing outcomes, growth mindfulness, and grammatical knowledge. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 17, 100566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100566
3.
Al-khreshehM. (2024). The future of artificial intelligence in English language teaching: Pros and cons of ChatGPT implementation through a systematic review. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 43, 54–80. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2024.43.04
4.
AllisonJ. (2025). RAISE the standard: A framework for transparent reporting of artificial intelligence studies in education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 64, (1). 3, 15, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331251377430
5.
AvelloR.GajderowiczT.Gómez-RodríguezV. G. (2024). Is ChatGPT helpful for graduate students in acquiring knowledge about digital storytelling and reducing their cognitive load? An experiment. Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED), 24(78), e604621. https://doi.org/10.6018/red.604621
6.
BahariA. (2019). FonF practice model from theory to practice: CALL via focus on form approach and nonlinear dynamic motivation to develop listening and speaking proficiency. Computers & Education, 130, 40–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.11.009
7.
BahariA. (2025). Nonlinear dynamic Language learning theory: From theory to practice. Journal of Research in Educational Sciences, 15(1), 17–33.
8.
BahariA.LiuY. (2025). AI integration in EFL teacher development: A mixed-methods evaluation of digital competency, professional trajectories, and pedagogical innovation within adaptive learning ecosystems. Interactive Learning Environments. 1, 17, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2025.2591251
9.
BarrotS. (2024). Leveraging ChatGPT in the writing classrooms: Theoretical and practical insights. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 43, 43–53. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2024.43.03
10.
BerkE. H.AydinS. (2025). The impact of artificial intelligence-powered writing assistance systems on metacognitive writing strategies. In Mateo-GuillenC.Cortijo OcañaA. (Eds.), Transformations in digital learning and educational technologies (pp. 241–274). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3373-3678-7.ch011
11.
BinnsR. (2018). Fairness in machine learning: Lessons from political philosophy. Proceedings of the 2018 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287580
ChenB.HwangG. H.WangS. H. (2021). Gender differences in cognitive load when applying game-based learning with intelligent robots. Educational Technology & Society, 24(3), 102–115. https://doi.org/10.30191/ETS.202107_24(3).0008
14.
ChenX.ZouD.ChengG.XieH. (2024). Deep neural networks for the automatic understanding of the semantic content of online course reviews. Education and Information Technologies, 29(4), 3953-3991. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1063902311980-6
15.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
16.
CromptonH.BurkeD. (2023). Artificial intelligence in higher education: The state of the field. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8
17.
CrossleyS. A.KyleK.McNamaraD. S. (2016). The development and use of cohesive devices in L2 writing and their relations to judgments of essay quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.003
18.
CummingA.KantorR.BabaK.ErdosyU.EouanzouiK.JamesM. (2005). Analysis of discourse features and verification of scoring levels for independent and integrated prototype written tasks for the new TOEFL® (TOEFL iBT Research Report, RR-05-13). Educational Testing Service. 2005(1), 77, https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2005.tb01990.x
19.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
20.
DongL. (2024). ChatGPT in language writing education: Reflections and a research agenda for a ChatGPT feedback engagement framework. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 43, 121–131. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2024.43.07
21.
FathiJ.RahimiM. (2024). Utilising artificial intelligence-enhanced writing mediation to develop academic writing skills in EFL learners: A qualitative study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2024.2374772
22.
FieldA. (2020). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
23.
GardnerS.NesiH. (2013). A classification of genre families in university student writing. Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 25–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams024
24.
GayedJ. M.CarlonM. K. J.OriolaA. M.CrossJ. S. (2022). Exploring an AI-based writing assistant's impact on English language learners. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100055
25.
GoldshteinM.AlhashimA. G.RoscoeR. D. (2024). An NLP-based exploration of variance in student writing and syntax: Implications for automated writing evaluation. Computers, 13(7), 160. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers13070160
26.
Gómez-CamachoA.de-Pablos-PonsJ.Colás-BravoP.Conde-JiménezJ. (2023). Youth digital writing on WhatsApp and the teaching of spelling. Comunicar: Media Education Research Journal, 31(77), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.3916/C77-2023-05
27.
JacobsH. L.ZinkgrafS. A.WormuthD. R.HartfielV. F.HugheyJ. B. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Newbury House.
28.
KersnaL.LaakK.-J.LeppM.PedasteM. (2025). Supporting self-regulated learning in primary education: Using written learning guides in lessons. Education Sciences, 15(1), 60. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010060
29.
KimJ. S.RelyeaJ. E.BurkhauserM. A.SchererE.RichP. (2021). Improving elementary grade students’ science and social studies vocabulary knowledge depth, reading comprehension, and argumentative writing: A conceptual replication. Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1935-1964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648021-09609-6
30.
KimN. J.KimM. K. (2022). Teacher’s perceptions of using an artificial intelligence-based educational tool for scientific writing. Frontiers in Education, 7, 755914. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.755914
31.
KoraishiO. (2024). The intersection of AI and language assessment: A study on the reliability of ChatGPT in grading IELTS writing task 2. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 43(1), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2024.43.02
32.
LeeY. F.HwangG. J.ChenP. Y. (2022). Impacts of an AI-based chatbot on college students’ after-class review, academic performance, self-efficacy, learning attitude, and motivation. Educational Technology Research & Development, 70(5), 1843–1865. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10142-8
33.
LiuC.HouJ.TuY. F.WangY.HwangG. J. (2023). Incorporating a reflective thinking promoting mechanism into artificial intelligence-supported English writing environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(9), 5614-5632. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.2012812
34.
LiuZ. (2024). Effects of nonlinear dynamic online assessment model on language learners’ learning outcomes and cognitive load. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12700-4
35.
MalikA. R.PratiwiY.AndajaniK.NumertayasaI. W.SuhartiS.DarwisA.Marzuki (2023). Exploring artificial intelligence in academic essay: Higher education student's perspective. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 5, 100296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2023.100296
36.
McNamaraD. S.GraesserA. C.McCarthyP. M.CaiZ. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge University Press.
37.
MichalakR.EllixsonD. (2025). Fostering ethical AI integration in first-year writing: A case study on human-tool collaboration in artificial intelligence literacy. Journal of Library Administration, 65(3), 361–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2025.2468136
38.
MohammedS.KhalidF. (2025). The role of trait emotional intelligence and foreign language peace of mind in AI-mediated writing development. Language Testing in Asia, 15, Article 7. 7, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-025-00343-2
MohebbiH.PanahiA. (2025). Writing. In StockwellG.WangY. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of technology in language teaching and learning (pp. 444–459). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009088102.029
41.
NiloyA. C.AkterS.SultanaN.SultanaJ.RahmanS. I. U. (2024). Is ChatGPT a menace for creative writing ability? An experiment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(2), 919–930. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12929
42.
OubibiM.HryshayevaK.HuangR. (2025). Enhancing postgraduate digital academic writing proficiency: The interplay of artificial intelligence tools and ChatGPT. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2025.2104052
43.
Punar ÖzçelikN.Yangın EkşiG. (2024). Cultivating writing skills: The role of ChatGPT as a learning assistant—a case study. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00296-8
44.
SatvatiN.KamaliJ.Safian BoldajiF.KhodadadiM.AkhondiS. (2025). AI integration into language education and teacher identity: An ecological perspective. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 47, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2025.47.01
45.
SchererR.SiddiqF.TondeurJ. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Computers & Education, 128, 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009
46.
SeoJ. Y. (2024). Exploring the educational potential of ChatGPT: AI-assisted narrative writing for EFL college students. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 43, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2024.43.01
47.
ShenY.TaoY. (2025). Assessing English writing self-efficacy beliefs, anxiety, and metacognitive strategy use: A structural equation modeling analysis. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 7(1), 70–87. https://doi.org/10.58304/ijts.20250105
48.
SongC.SongY. (2023). Enhancing academic writing skills and motivation: Assessing the efficacy of ChatGPT in AI-assisted language learning for EFL students. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1260843. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1260843
49.
SwainM. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In GassS.MaddenC. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Newbury House.
50.
SwainM. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In HinkelE. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
SyahnazM.FithrianiR. (2023). Utilizing artificial intelligence-based paraphrasing tool in EFL writing class: A focus on Indonesian university students’ perceptions. Scope: Journal of English Language Teaching, 7(2), 210-218. https://doi.org/10.30998/scope.v7i2.14882
53.
VenkateshV.DavisF. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
54.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
55.
WangT.LundB. D.MarengoA.PaganoA.MannuruN. R.TeelZ. A.PangeJ. (2023). Exploring the potential impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on international students in higher education: Generative AI, chatbots, analytics, and international student success. Applied Sciences, 13(11), 6716. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13116716
XerriD.BlockJ. (2024). Learning to be a writing instructor in the age of generative AI: The role of research-practice partnerships. Language Teacher Education Research, 1(1), 64–78. https://doi.org/10.32038/lter.2024.01.04
58.
YeoM. A. (2023). Academic integrity in the age of Artificial Intelligence (AI) authoring apps. TESOL Journal, 14(3), e716. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.716
59.
YuH.XieQ. (2025). Generative AI vs. teachers: Feedback quality, feedback uptake, and revision. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 47, 113–137. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2025.47.07
60.
YuL.PoehnerM. E. (2023). Developing L2 writing abilities through an instructional enrichment program informed by dynamic assessment. Journal of Second Language Writing, 60, 101013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2023.101013
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
