The use of ChatGPT on students’ writing organization at English education study program of Univeristas Negeri Padang
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24036/jelt.v15i2.98Keywords:
ChatGPT, writing organization, structureAbstract
This study investigates the use of ChatGPT among students in an English Language Education program, focusing on how they integrate writing organization as an essential element in essay writing. The study employed screen-recording observation to collect data from ten students as they used ChatGPT to support and improve the organization of their essays. The findings show that students used ChatGPT in four main ways: as a tool for essay structure development, organizational revision, mixed writing support, and direct essay generation. Most students used ChatGPT to help develop their ideas, arrange supporting details, and organize their thoughts into a more coherent and structured essay. In this sense, ChatGPT functioned as a supportive writing assistant that helped students clarify their thinking, improve paragraph arrangement, and strengthen the logical flow of their essays. However, the study also found contrasting practices, particularly among students who relied on ChatGPT to generate complete essays with minimal personal contribution. This practice raises concerns about over-reliance on artificial intelligence, reduced critical thinking, and passive learning behavior. Therefore, while ChatGPT can offer meaningful support in improving writing organization, its use should be guided by pedagogical awareness. Students need to be encouraged to use ChatGPT as a learning tool rather than as a substitute for their own writing process, creativity, and critical engagement.
References
Alberth. (2023). THE USE OF CHATGPT IN ACADEMIC WRITING: A BLESSING OR A CURSE IN DISGUISE? Teflin Journal, 34(2), 337–352. https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v34i2/337-352
Aulia, V., PGRI Kalimantan Moh Yamin, U., & Lambung Mangkurat, U. (2024). The Limitations of Navigating ChatGPT as Writing Assistance Tools in EFL Writing Activities. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa, 11(2).
Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (2010). Language Assessment in Practice. Oxford University Press.
Bibi, Z., & Atta, A. (2024). The Role of ChatGPT as AI English Writing Assistant: A Study of Student’s Perceptions, Experiences, and Satisfaction. Annals of Human and Social Sciences, 5(I). https://doi.org/10.35484/ahss.2024(5-i)39
Boardman, C. A., & Frydenberg, J. (2008). Writing to communicate: Paragraphs and essays (3rd ed.). Pearson Longman.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (5th Edition). Sage.
Dasgupta, T., & Patki, R. (2024). Integrating ChatGPT in the Language Classroom to Foster Learners’ Engagement in Writing Tasks. Language Learning & Technology Journal, (No.26).
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G.,
Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeiffer, F., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., … Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Marshall, C., Rossman, G. B., & Blanco, G. L. (2022). Designing Qualitative Research (7th Edition). Sage.
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
Memarian, B., & Doleck, T. (2023). ChatGPT in education: Methods, potentials, and limitations. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, 100182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100182
Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (2006). Writing academic English (4th ed.). Pearson Longman.
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Ruegg, R., & Sugiyama, Y. (2013). Organization of ideas in writing: what are raters sensitive to? Language Testing in Asia, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/2229-0443-3-8
Selim, A. S. M. (2024). The Transformative Impact of AI-Powered Tools on Academic Writing: Perspectives of EFL University Students. International Journal of English Linguistics, 14(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v14n1p14
Sharma, R. K. (2024). Open AI Application Tools Utilization for Improving Academic Writing: A Study. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research. https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2024.v06i06.29336
Sudrajad, W., Fikri, M. H., Perdana, R., & Putra, B. (2024). Productivity and Creativity in English Academic Writing? In EDUCATUM: Scientific Journal of Education (Vol. 2, Issue 2).
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic Writing for Graduate Students (3rd Edition). Michigan ELT.
Trust, T., Whalen, J., & Mouza, C. (2023). Editorial: ChatGPT: Challenges, opportunities, and implications for teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 23(1), 1–23.
Wang, C. (2024). Exploring Students’ Generative AI-Assisted Writing Processes: Perceptions and Experiences from Native and Nonnative English Speakers. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09744-3
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
Xu, Z. (2025). Patterns and Purposes: A Cross-Journal Analysis of AI Tool Usage in Academic Writing. http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.00632
Zhan, Y., & Yan, X. (2025). Student engagement with ChatGPT feedback in L2 writing: Cognitive and metacognitive perspectives. System, 128, 103612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2025.103612
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Aisha Septin Alifia, Ainul Addinna (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
