This mixed-methods study examined the impact of integrating generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) into English as a foreign language (EFL) writing classes on students’ writing performance and affective responses. Nearly 100 Chinese students from four parallel International English Language Testing System (IELTS) writing classes in a university foundation program participated in a 9-week trial, with half assigned to an experimental group and half to a control group. Both groups received theme-based instructions on IELTS Writing Task 2 through a three-stage writing process, while the experimental group also engaged with Kimi, a widely used GenAI chatbot in China, during and after class. Unlike previous studies, this research targeted lower-intermediate learners and aimed to offer a more nuanced understanding of GenAI’s role by employing natural language processing (NLP)-based evaluations and linear mixed-effect models in the quantitative analysis. The pretest and posttest results showed that GenAI-assisted instruction did not significantly improve students’ writing performance except in syntactic complexity. The questionnaire and interview data, however, indicated that this approach positively influenced learners’ motivation, engagement, and self-efficacy. Further analysis suggested that the discrepancy between students’ improvements in writing performance and their reported affective gains may be attributed to limited learner agency, a lack of teacher support outside class, and misalignment between their English proficiency levels, cognitive readiness, and GenAI’s affordances. The study concludes with implications for second-language writing instruction and directions for future research.
AladiniA.IsmailS.A.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
2.
ChanH.VerspoorM.VahtrickL. (2015). Dynamic development in speaking versus writing in identical twins. Language Learning, 65(2), 298–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12107
3.
CunningsI. (2012). An overview of mixed-effects statistical models for second language researchers. Second Language Research, 28(3), 369–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658312443651
4.
DarvinR.HafnerC. (2022). Digital literacies in TESOL: Mapping out the terrain. TESOL Quarterly, 56(3), 865–882. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3161
5.
EllisN.C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188. https://doi:10.1017/S0272263102002024
6.
EscalanteE.PackA.BarrettA. (2023). AI-generated feedback on writing: Insights into efficacy and ENL student preference. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00425-2
7.
FeuersteinR.RandY.HoffmanM.MillerR. (1980). Instructional enrichment. University Park Press.
8.
FoxJ.WeisbergS. (2019). An R companion to applied regression. Sage.
9.
FryerL.K.AinleyM.ThompsonA.GibsonA.SherlockZ. (2017). Stimulating and sustaining interest in a language course: An experimental comparison of Chatbot and Human task partners. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 461–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.045
GhafouriM.HassaskhahJ.Mahdavi-ZafarghandiA. (2024). From virtual assistant to writing mentor: Exploring the impact of a ChatGPT-based writing instruction protocol on EFL teachers’ self-efficacy and learners’ writing skill. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688241239764
14.
Godwin-JonesR. (2022). Partnering with AI: Intelligent writing assistance and instructed language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 26(2), 5–24. http://doi.org/10125/73474
15.
GogolK.BrunnerM.GoetzT.MartinR.UgenS.KellerU.FischbachA.PreckelF. (2014). “My questionnaire is too long!” the assessments of motivational-affective constructs with three-item and single-item measures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(3), 188–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.04.002
16.
HousenA.KuikenF. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461–473. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp048
17.
HuangJ.MizumotoA. (2024). Examining the effect of generative AI on students’ motivation and writing self-efficacy. Digital Applied Linguistics, 1, 102324. https://doi.org/10.29140/dal.v1.102324
18.
JohnsonM.D. (2017). Cognitive task complexity and L2 written syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37, 13–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.06.001
19.
KarataşF.AbediF.Y.Ozek GunyelF.KaradenizD.KuzgunY. (2024). Incorporating AI in foreign language education: An investigation into ChatGPT’s effect on foreign language learners. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 19343–19366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12574-6
20.
KesslerM.MaW.SolheimI. (2021). The effects of topic familiarity on text quality, complexity, accuracy, and fluency: A conceptual replication. TESOL Quarterly, 56(4), 1163–1190. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3096
KyleK.EguchiM. (2024). Evaluating NLP models with written and spoken L2 samples. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 100120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2024.100120
23.
LantolfJ.P.ThorneS.L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press.
LowieW.M.VerspoorM.H. (2019). Individual differences and the ergodicity problem. Language Learning, 69, 184–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12324
26.
LuX. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 36–62.
LundA. (2013). Collaboration unpacked: Tasks, tools and activities. In MeskillC. (Ed.), Online teaching and learning: Sociocultural perspectives (pp. 77–98). Bloomsbury Academic.
29.
MacIntyreP.DuckerN. (2022). The idiodynamic method: A practical guide for researchers. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 100007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2022.100007
30.
MarsdenE.Morgan-ShortK.ThompsonS.AbugaberD. (2018). Replication in second language research: Narrative and systematic reviews and recommendations for the field. Language Learning, 68(2), 321–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12286
31.
MarzukiWidiati, U.RusdinD.IndrawatiI. (2023). The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students’ writing: EFL teachers’ perspective. Cogent Education, 10, 226469. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2236469
32.
MeniadoJ.C.HuyenD.T.T.PanyadilokpongN.LertkomolwitP. (2024). Using ChatGPT for second language writing: Experiences and perceptions of EFL learners in Thailand and Vietnam. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100313
MizumotoA.ShintaniN.SasakiM.TengM.F. (2024). Testing the viability of ChatGPT as a companion in L2 writing accuracy assessment. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 100116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2024.100116
35.
MohsenM.A.AlthebiS.AlsagourR.AlsalemA.AlmudawiA.AlshahraniA. (2024). Forty-two years of computer-assisted language learning research: A scientometric study of hotspot research and trending issues. ReCALL, 36(2), 230–249. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344023000253
36.
NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044
37.
PackA.MaloneyJ. (2024). Using artificial intelligence in TESOL: Some ethical and pedagogical considerations. TESOL Quarterly, 58(2), 1007–1018. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3320
38.
PapiM. (2022). The role of motivational and affective factors in L2 writing performance and written corrective feedback processing and use. In ManchónR.M.PolioC. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp. 152–165). Routledge.
39.
PavlenkoA.LantolfJ. (2001). Second language learning as participation and the reconstruction of selves. In LantolfJ.P. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp.155–177). Oxford University Press.
40.
PlakansL.GebrilA.BilkiZ. (2019). Shaping a score: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in integrated writing performances. Language Testing, 36(2), 161–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532216669537
41.
PolioC.SheaM.C. (2014). An investigation into current measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 10–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.003
42.
PolioC.YoonH.J. (2018). The reliability and validity of automated tools for examining variation in syntactic complexity across genres. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28, 165–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12200
43.
PraphanP.W.PraphanK. (2023). AI technologies in the ESL/EFL writing classroom: The villain or the champion?Journal of Second Language Writing, 62, 101072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2023.101072
44.
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. http://doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1260843
45.
SpringR.JohnsonM. (2022). The possibility of improving automated calculation of measures of lexical richness for EFL writing: A comparison of the LCA, NLTK, and SpaCy tools. System, 106, 770–786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102770
46.
SuY.LinY.LaiC. (2023). Collaborating with chat GPT in argumentative writing classrooms. Assessing Writing, 57, 100752. https://doi:10.1016/j.asw.2023.100752
47.
ThorneS.L. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence, co-evolution, and language education. Modern Language Journal, 108, 567–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12932
48.
Van LierL. (2010). The ecology of language learning: Practice to theory, theory to practice. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 3, 2–6, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.005
49.
VerspoorM.SchmidM.XuX. (2012). A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 239–263. https://doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.007
50.
WarschauerM. (2002). A developmental perspective on technology in language education. TESOL Quarterly, 36(3), 453–475. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588421
51.
WarschauerM.TsengW.YimS.WebsterT.JacobS.DuQ.TateT. (2023). The affordances and contradictions of AI-generated text for writers of English as a second or foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 62, 101071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2023.101071
WuX. (2024). Artificial intelligence in L2 learning: A meta-analysis of contextual, instructional, and social-emotional moderators. System, 126, 103498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.103498
XieQ. (2019). Error analysis and diagnosis of ESL linguistic accuracy: Construct specification and empirical validation. Assessing Writing, 41, 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2019.05.002
56.
YanD. (2023). Impact of ChatGPT on learners in a L2 writing practicum: An exploratory investigation. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 13943–13967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11742-4
57.
YangY.ChenL. (2025). Beyond concordances: Exploring GenAI-assisted data-driven learning for English periphrastic causative constructions from a sociocultural perspective. Computer Assisted Language Learning. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2025.2513988
58.
YangY.YapN.T.AliA.M. (2023). Predicting EFL expository writing quality with measures of lexical richness. Assessing Writing, 57, 100762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100762
ZhengY.YuS. (2018). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proffciency students. Assessing Writing, 37, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.001
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.
