AI-Assisted Research Writing: Graduate Students' Experiences, Outcomes and Academic Integrity
Keywords:
academic integrity; Artificial Intelligence tools; graduate students; Technology Acceptance Model; writing outcomesAbstract
This study examined the relationship between artificial intelligence (AI) tool use and writing outcomes among graduate students engaged in thesis writing, grounded in the Technology Acceptance Model. Using a convergent parallel mixed methods design, the study involved 96 graduate students enrolled in thesis writing courses at a government higher education institution in Bulacan, during the first trimester of the 2025–2026 academic year. Qualitative data focused on students' adherence to academic integrity regulations. Quantitative measures assessed perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, behavioral intention to use, and self-reported writing performance. The results indicated that ChatGPT, Grammarly and QuillBot were the most used AI tools. Statistical analysis demonstrated a strong positive relationship between experience with AI tools and writing performance outcomes. The qualitative analysis surfaced themes about AI tool adoption, namely linguistic support, organization of ideas, and cognitive scaffolding and ideation¾alongside themes reflecting ethical awareness, namely selective use and resistance, responsible and transparent authorship, critical evaluation, accountability in AI tool use, and alignment with institutional guidelines. These results show that technological advances are now integral to writing courses and are used in the preparation and oversight of students' research. The study's key implication is that to use AI tools in thesis writing in an ethical manner, institutions must develop clear ethical frameworks that protect scholarly integrity while accepting the changing reality of human–AI collaboration in academic research.
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.25.5.8
References
Adhikari, R., & Timsina, T. P. (2024). An educational study focused on the application of mixed methods approach as a research method. OCEM Journal of Management, Technology & Social Sciences, 3(1), 94–109. https://doi.org/10.3126/ocemjmtss.v3i1.62229
Alsharefeen, R., & Al Sayari, N. (2025). Examining academic integrity policy and practice in the era of AI: A case study of faculty perspectives. Frontiers in Education, 10, Article 1621743. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1621743
Anwar, R., Bashir, S., & Malik, N. A. (2025). Generative AI-assisted feedback and EFL writing: A study on proficiency, revision frequency, and writing quality. Discover Education, 4(170). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00602-7
Azevedo, R., Taub, M., & Mudrick, N. V. (2025). Institutional policies on artificial intelligence in higher education: Frameworks and best practices for faculty. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 188, 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.70013
Barrot, J. S. (2025). Leveraging Google Gemini as a research writing tool in higher education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 30, 593–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09774-x
Bingham, A. J. (2023). From data management to actionable findings: A five-phase process of qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231183620
Bista, K., & Bista, R. (2025). Leveraging AI tools in academic writing: Insights from doctoral students on benefits and challenges. American Journal of STEM Education, 6, 32–47. https://doi.org/10.32674/9m8dq081
Connell Pensky, A. E., Usdan, J. H., & Chang, H. (2025). Generative AI's impact on graduate student professional writing productivity and quality. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 35(6), 4057–4082. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-025-00528-z
Dahri, N. A., Yahaya, N., Al-Rahmi, W. M., Aldraiweesh, A., & Alturki, U. (2024). Extended TAM-based acceptance of AI-powered ChatGPT for supporting metacognitive self-regulated learning in education: A mixed-methods study. Heliyon, 10(8), Article e29317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29317
Davis, F. 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
Deep, P. D., & Chen, Y. (2025). The role of AI in academic writing: Impacts on writing skills, critical thinking, and integrity in higher education. Societies, 15(9), Article 247. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15090247
Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H., Albashrawi, M. A., Al-Busaidi, A. S., Balakrishnan, J., Barlette, Y., Basu, S., Bose, I., Brooks, L., Buhalis, D., … Wright, R. (2023). So what if ChatGPT wrote it? Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, Article 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
Fitria, T. N. (2021). Grammarly as AI-powered English writing assistant: Students' alternative for writing English. Metathesis: Journal of English Language, Literature, and Teaching, 5(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.31002/metathesis.v5i1.3519
Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., Schafer, B., Valcke, P., & Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5
Gruenhagen, J. H., Sinclair, P. M., Carroll, J-A., Baker, P. R. A., Wilson, A., & Demant, D. (2024). The rapid rise of generative AI and its implications for academic integrity: Students’ perceptions and use of chatbots for assessment. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100273
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
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., Pfeffer, J., 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, Article 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Kofinas, A., Goddard, T., Hua, C., Ma, J., & Zhou, X. (2025). The impact of generative AI on academic integrity of authentic assessments within a higher education context. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(6). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13585
Kurniati, E. Y., & Fithriani, R. (2022). Post-graduate students' perceptions of QuillBot utilization in English academic writing class. Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.21462/jeltl.v7i3.852
Laila, N., & Daulay, E. (2024). Students' perception of using QuillBot to improve students' writing skills. Indonesian EFL Journal, 10(2), 223–232. https://doi.org/10.25134/ieflj.v10i2.10083
Lloyd, N., Hyett, N., & Kenny, A. (2024). To member check or not to member check? An evaluation of member checking in an interpretive descriptive study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241301383
Mahapatra, S. (2024). Impact of ChatGPT on ESL students' academic writing skills: A mixed methods intervention study. Smart Learning Environments, 11, Article 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00295-9
Marzuki, M., Widiati, U., Rusdin, D., & Darwin, D. (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
Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-11.3.1428
Perkins, M. (2023). Academic integrity in the age of artificial intelligence. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 20(5). https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.02.07
Rodafinos, A. (2025). The integration of generative AI tools in academic writing: Implications for student research. Social Education Research, 6(2), 250–258. https://doi.org/10.37256/ser.6220256517
Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Publications.
Shi, J., Liu, W., & Hu, K. (2025). Exploring how AI literacy and self-regulated learning relate to student writing performance and well-being in generative AI-supported higher education. Behavioral Sciences, 15(5), 705. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15050705
?Shroff, R. H., Deneen, C. C., & Ng, E. M. W. (2011). Analysis of the technology acceptance model in examining students' behavioural intention to use an e-portfolio system. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(4), 600–618. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.940
Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/pl00022268
Teo, T. (2019). Students and teachers' intention to use technology: Assessing their measurement equivalence and structural invariance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(1), 201–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117749430
Tokdemir Demirel, E. (2024). The use and perceptions towards AI tools for academic writing among university students. Innovations in Language Teaching Journal, 1(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.53463/innovltej.20240328
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. 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
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Warschauer, M., Tseng, W., Yim, S., Webster, T., Jacob, S., Du, Q., & Tate, T. (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
Woodrow, L. (2011). College English writing affect: Self-efficacy and anxiety. System, 39(4), 510–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.10.017
Xue, L., Mahat, J., & Ghazali, N. (2026). Technology acceptance model in artificial intelligence in education: A meta-analysis. SAGE Open, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251409441
Younas, A., & Fàbregues, S. (2026). Advancing the classification of mixed methods research questions. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898251413451
Zendy. (2025). AI in education for students & researchers: 2025 trends & statistics. https://zendy.io/blog/ai-in-research-for-students-researchers-2025-trends-statistics
Zhao, X., Cox, A., & Cai, L. (2024). ChatGPT and the digitisation of writing. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, Article 482. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02904-x
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Leonora Fulgencio De Jesus
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
All articles published by IJLTER are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No-Derivatives 4.0 International License (CCBY-NC-ND4.0).
