Navigating ChatGPT in EFL Academic Writing: Pre-Service Teachers’ Experiences, Concerns, and Pedagogical Reflections
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29408/veles.v10i1.34008Keywords:
ChatGPT, EFL academic writing, AI-assisted writing, Pre-service teachers, AI literacy, pedagogical reflectionAbstract
The growing presence of generative artificial intelligence in higher education has reshaped how academic writing is learned, practised, and taught. This study explores pre-service teachers’ experiences of using ChatGPT in academic writing and examines their pedagogical reflections on its possible integration into EFL writing instruction. While previous studies have widely discussed students’ use of ChatGPT as a writing assistant, limited attention has been given to pre-service teachers, who occupy a dual position as language learners and future educators. Using a narrative inquiry design, this study involved eight EFL pre-service teachers from a private university in Indonesia. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and analyzed thematically. The findings show that ChatGPT supported participants in generating ideas, organizing texts, improving language accuracy, and increasing writing efficiency. However, participants also expressed concerns about factual inaccuracies, fabricated references, academic integrity, and over-reliance, which may weaken creativity, learner agency, and independent thinking. Importantly, the participants did not view these challenges merely as limitations, but reframed them as pedagogical opportunities. They proposed strategies such as combining AI-assisted and AI-free writing tasks, integrating fact-checking activities, comparing AI feedback with human feedback, and encouraging students to justify their use of AI-generated suggestions. These findings suggest that pre-service teachers are developing critical pedagogical reasoning in response to generative AI. The study highlights the need to integrate AI literacy into teacher education programs to promote ethical, reflective, and pedagogically informed uses of ChatGPT in EFL academic writing classrooms.
References
Bailey, D. R. (2019). Conceptualisation of Second Language Writing Strategies and Their Relation to Student Characteristics. The Journal of AsiaTEFL, 16(1), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2019.11.1.9.135
Benuyenah, V. (2023). Commentary: ChatGPT use in higher education assessment: Prospects and epistemic threats. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 16(1), 134–135. https://doi.org/10.1108/jrit-03-2023-097
Boudouaia, A., Mouas, S., & Kouider, B. (2024). A study on ChatGPT-4 as an Innovative approach to enhancing English as a Foreign Language writing learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 62(6), 1289–1317. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331241247465
Clandinin, D. J. (2006). Narrative inquiry: A methodology for studying lived experience. Research studies in music education, 27(1), 44-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X060270010301
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.
Derakhshan, A., & Shakki, F. (2018). An investigation into the relationship between Iranian EFL High- and Low-Proficient learners and their learning styles. SAGE Open, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018809408
Dergaa, I., Chamari, K., Zmijewski, P., & Saad, H. B. (2023). From human writing to artificial intelligence generated text: examining the prospects and potential threats of ChatGPT in academic writing. Biology of Sport, 40(2), 615–622. https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2023.125623
Doshi, A. R., & Hauser, O. P. (2024). Generative AI enhances individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content. Science Advances, 10(28), eadn5290. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adn5290
Farrell, T. S. C. (2022). Reflective practice in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Farsani, M. A., Abdollahzadeh, E., & Beikmohammadi, M. (2019). Self-regulated Learning, Metacognitive Awareness, and Argumentative writing. Writing & Pedagogy, 11(2), 195–222. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.37051
Fitria, T. N. (2023). Artificial intelligence (AI) technology in OpenAI ChatGPT application: A review of ChatGPT in writing English essay. ELT Forum Journal of English Language Teaching, 12(1), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.15294/elt.v12i1.64069
Guo, K., & Wang, D. (2023). To resist it or to embrace it? Examining ChatGPT’s potential to support teacher feedback in EFL writing. Education and Information Technologies, 29(7), 8435–8463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12146-0
Hockly, N. (2023). Artificial intelligence in English language teaching: The good, the bad and the ugly. RELC Journal, 54(2), 445–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882231168504
Hockly, N. (2023). Artificial intelligence in English language teaching: The good, the bad and the ugly. RELC Journal, 54(2), 445–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882231168504
Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, R. H., & Hafner, C. A. (2012). Understanding Digital Literacies: A Practical Introduction. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003177647
Kohnke, L., Moorhouse, B. L., & Zou, D. (2023). ChatGPT for language teaching and learning. RELC Journal, 54(2), 537–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882231162868
Kohnke, L., Moorhouse, B. L., & Zou, D. (2023a). Exploring generative artificial intelligence preparedness among university language instructors: A case study. Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence, 5, 100156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100156
Kung, T. H., Cheatham, M., Medenilla, A., Sillos, C., De Leon, L., Elepaño, C., Madriaga, M., Aggabao, R., Diaz-Candido, G., Maningo, J., & Tseng, V. (2023). Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: Potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models. PLOS Digital Health, 2(2), e0000198. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000198
Li, H., Fang, Y., Zhang, S., Lee, S. M., Wang, Y., Trexler, M., & Botelho, A. F. (2025). ARCHED: A Human-Centered Framework for transparent, responsible, and Collaborative AI-Assisted instructional design. ArXiv.org. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2503.08931
Lingard, L. (2023). Writing with ChatGPT: An Illustration of its Capacity, Limitations & Implications for Academic Writers. Perspectives on Medical Education, 12(1), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.1072
Mahapatra, S. (2024). Impact of ChatGPT on ESL students’ academic writing skills: a mixed methods intervention study. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00295-9
Martini, J. (2020). Reflective practice in ELT. TESL Canada Journal, 37(1), 90–92. https://doi.org/10.18806/10.18806/tesl.v37i1.1331
Marzuki, Widiati, U., Rusdin, D., Darwin, & Indrawati, I. (2023). The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students’ writing: EFL teachers’ perspective. Cogent Education, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2023.2236469
McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & McCarthy, P. M. (2009). Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication, 27(1), 57–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088309351547
Mizumoto, A., & Eguchi, M. (2023). Exploring the potential of using an AI language model for automated essay scoring. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100050
Moorhouse, B. L., & Kohnke, L. (2024). The effects of generative AI on initial language teacher education: The perceptions of teacher educators. System, 122, 103290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103290
Nguyen, A., Hong, Y., Dang, B., & Huang, X. (2024). Human-AI collaboration patterns in AI-assisted academic writing. Studies in Higher Education, 49(5), 847–864. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2323593
Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2013). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.795518
Nugroho, A., Andriyanti, E., Widodo, P., & Mutiaraningrum, I. (2024). Students’ appraisals post-ChatGPT use: Students’ narrative after using ChatGPT for writing. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 62(2), 499–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2024.2319184
Ortiz, A. M. (2015). The qualitative interview. In Research in the college context (pp. 47-61). Routledge.
Özçelik, N. P., & Ekşi, G. Y. (2024). Cultivating writing skills: the role of ChatGPT as a learning assistant—a case study. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00296-8
Özkiziltan, D. (2022). Melanie Mitchell: Artificial intelligence—a guide for thinking humans. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, 23(4), 581–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10710-022-09439-7
Song, C., & Song, Y. (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
Sumakul, D. T. Y. G., Hamied, F. A., & Sukyadi, D. (2022). Students’ perceptions of the use of AI in a writing class. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research/Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 624. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.220201.009
Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Panadero, E. (2017). Developing evaluative judgement: enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work. Higher Education, 76(3), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0220-3
Teng, M. F. (2024). “ChatGPT is the companion, not enemies”: EFL learners’ perceptions and experiences in using ChatGPT for feedback in writing. Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100270
Tobin, G. A., & Begley, C. M. (2004). Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework. Journal of advanced nursing, 48(4), 388-396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03207.x
Vintzileos, A. M., Chavez, M. R., & Romero, R. (2023). A role for artificial intelligence chatbots in the writing of scientific articles. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 229(2), 89–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2023.03.040
Walters, W. H., & Wilder, E. I. (2023). Fabrication and errors in the bibliographic citations generated by ChatGPT. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 14045. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-41032-5
Werdiningsih, I., Marzuki, Indrawati, I., Rusdin, D., Ivone, F. M., Basthomi, Y., & Zulfahreza. (2024). Revolutionizing EFL writing: unveiling the strategic use of ChatGPT by Indonesian master’s students. Cogent Education, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2024.2399431
Yan, D. (2023). Impact of ChatGPT on learners in a L2 writing practicum: An exploratory investigation. Education and Information Technologies, 28(11), 13943–13967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11742-4
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Shelia Anjarani, Miftahul Furqon, Dodi Siraj Muamar Zain, Hera Septriana, Dwi Isnaeni
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with VELES agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0).
- Authors can enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., posting it to an institutional repository or publishing it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) before and during the submission process, as this can lead to productive exchanges and earlier and greater citations of published work.
VELES is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
