Investigation of the Effect of Generative Artificial Intelligence on Academic Writing Skills through SWOT Analysis

Abstract

The use of generative artificial intelligence in scientific research processes is rapidly becoming widespread today, which brings about discussions in many areas. Academic writing is one of these areas. This study aims to examine the impact of generative artificial intelligence on academic writing skills through SWOT analysis. The participants of the study consisted of 24 students who were studying for their master's or doctoral degrees at various state universities in Türkiye in the spring term of the 2023-2024 academic year. Personal information form and semi-structured interview form developed by the researchers were used as data collection tools. Content analysis method was used to analyze the data. As a result of the study, it was revealed that the use of GenAI in graduate students' academic writing processes provides significant advantages in terms of looking at their texts from a broad perspective, designing the text, language corrections, creativity and originality. However, it has been observed that it may create weaknesses such as ethical problems, linguistic errors, limiting the individual's originality and productivity, and manipulating information. It was pointed out that while generative artificial intelligence in the academic writing process offers opportunities such as personalized consultancy, avoiding problems caused by the researcher, saving time and increasing productivity, it may also bring threats such as the decline of the researcher's writing skills, presenting stereotypes, eliminating creativity and originality, accepting the information presented without questioning, loss of data privacy and decreased human control. The findings show that generative AI is an important supporter for students in academic writing processes, but it is important to reach a consensus on the limits of its use in academic writing.

Keywords

• Academic writing
• Generative artificial intelligence
• Writing skills
• Postgraduate education

Üretken Yapay Zekânın Akademik Yazma Becerisi Üzerindeki Etkisi: Bir SWOT Analizi

Abstract

Üretken yapay zekânın günümüzde bilimsel araştırma süreçlerinde kullanımı hızla yaygınlaşmakta, bu da birçok alanda tartışmayı beraberinde getirmektedir. Bu alanların başında akademik yazma gelmektedir. Bu çalışmada üretken yapay zekânın akademik yazma becerisi üzerindeki etkisini SWOT analizi yoluyla incelemek amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmanın katılımcılarını 2023-2024 akademik yılının bahar döneminde Türkiye’nin çeşitli devlet üniversitelerinde yüksek lisans veya doktora eğitimi almakta olan 24 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmada veri toplama aracı olarak araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen kişisel bilgi formu ve yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analiz edilmesinde içerik analizi yönteminden yararlanılmıştır. Çalışmanın sonucunda, lisansüstü öğrencilerin akademik yazma süreçlerinde üretken yapay zekâ kullanımının metinlerine geniş bir perspektiften bakabilme, metni tasarlama, dil düzeltmeleri, yaratıcılık ve özgünlük bağlamında önemli avantajlar sağladığı ortaya çıkmıştır. Bununla birlikte etik sorunlar, dilsel hatalar, bireyin özgünlüğünü ve üretkenliğini sınırlama, bilgiyi manipüle etme gibi zayıf yönler oluşturabileceği görülmüştür. Akademik yazma sürecinde üretken yapay zekânın kişiselleştirilmiş danışmanlık, araştırmacıdan kaynaklı problemlerin önüne geçme, zamandan tasarruf ve üretkenliği artırma gibi fırsatlar sunarken araştırmacının yazma becerisinin gerilemesi, kalıp düşünceler sunma, yaratıcılığı ve özgünlüğü ortadan kaldırma, sunulan bilginin sorgulanmadan kabul edilmesi, veri gizliliğinin yok olması ve insan denetiminin azalması gibi tehditleri de beraberinde getirebileceğine dikkat çekilmiştir. Bulgular, üretken yapay zekânın akademik yazma süreçlerinde öğrenciler için önemli bir destekçi olduğunu göstermekte ancak akademik yazımda kullanımının sınırları konusunda bir fikir birliğine varılmasının önemini ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

• Akademik yazma
• Üretken yapay zekâ
• Yazma becerisi
• Lisansüstü eğitim

References

1. Adams, D., & Chuah, K. M. (2022). Artificial intelligence-based tools in research writing. In P. P. Churi, S. Joshi, M. Elhoseny, & A. Omrane (Eds.), Artifcial intelligence in higher education: A practical approach (pp. 169–184). CRC Press.
2. Adarkwah, M. A. (2024). GenAI-Infused adult learning in the digital era: A conceptual framework for higher education. Adult Learning, 10451595241271161. https://doi.org/10.1177/10451595241271161
3. Alshater, M. (2022). Exploring the role of artificial intelligence in enhancing academic performance: A case study of ChatGPT (December 26, 2022). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4312358 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4312358
4. American Psychological Association [APA]. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). American Psychological Association.
5. Banaz, E., & Maden, S. (2024). Türkçe öğretmen adaylarının yapay zekâ tutumlarının farklı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 14(2), 1173-1180. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.1430419
6. Barrat, J. (2023). Our final invention: Artificial intelligence and the end of the human era. Hachette UK.
7. Barrett, A., & Pack, A. (2023). Not quite eye to AI: Student and teacher perspectives on the use of generative artificial intelligence in the writing process. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(59), 1-24.
8. Benzaghta, M. A., Elwalda, A., Mousa, M. M., Erkan, I., & Rahman, M. (2021). SWOT analysis applications: An integrative literature review. Journal of Global Business Insights, 6(1), 55-73. https://www.doi.org/ 10.5038/2640-6489.6.1.1148

9. Bozkurt, A. (2023). ChatGPT, üretken yapay zeka ve algoritmik paradigma değişikliği. Alanyazın, 4(1), 63-72. https://doi.org/10.59320/alanyazin.1283282
10. Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2023). Challenging the status quo and exploring the new boundaries in the age of algorithms: Reimagining the role of generative AI in distance education and online learning. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 18(21), i-viii. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7755273
11. Bozkurt, A., Xiao, J., Lambert, S., Pazurek, A., Crompton, H., Koseoglu, S., Farrow, R., … & Jandrić, P. (2023). Speculative Futures on ChatGPT and Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI): A collective reflection from the educational landscape. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 53-130. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7636568
12. Bozkurt, A., Karadeniz, K., Baneres, D., Guerrero-Roldán, A. E., & Rodríguez, M. E. (2021). Artificial intelligence and reflections from educational landscape: A review of AI studies in half a century. Sustainability, 13(2), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020800
13. Brynjolfsson, E., Rock, D., & Syverson, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence and the modern productivity paradox. In A. Agrawal, J. Gans, & A. Goldfarb (Eds.), The economics of artificial intelligence: An agenda (pp. 23-57). University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226613475
14. Campbell, M. (2019). Teaching academic writing in higher education. Education Quarterly Reviews, 2(3), 608–614. https://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1993.02.03.92
15. Cave, S., Dihal, K., Hollanek, T., Katsuno, H., Yang, L., Taillandier, A., & White, D. (2023). The meanings of AI: A cross-cultural comparison. In. S. Cave, & K. Dihal (Eds.), Imagining AI: How the world sees intelligent machines (pp. 16–36). University Press Oxford.
16. Chen, X., Chen, J., Cheng, G., & Gong, T. (2020). Topics and trends in artificial intelligence assisted human brain research. PLoS ONE, 15(4), e0231192. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231192
17. Chen, T. J. (2023). ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence applications speed up scientific writing. Journal of the Chinese Medical Association, 86(4), 351-353. https://doi.org/10.1097/JCMA.0000000000000900
18. Chen, Z., Chen, C., Yang, G., He, X., Chi, X., Zeng, Z., & Chen, X. (2024). Research integrity in the era of artificial intelligence: Challenges and responses. Medicine, 103(27), 1-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000038811
19. Chiu, T. K., Xia, Q., Zhou, X., Chai, C. S., & Cheng, M. (2023). Systematic literature review on opportunities, challenges, and future research recommendations of artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, 100118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100118
20. Cohen, J. F., & Moher, D. (2025). Generative artificial intelligence and academic writing: friend or foe?. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 179, 111646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111646
21. Creswell, J. W. (2023). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri: Beş yaklaşıma göre nitel araştırma ve araştırma deseni (7. bs.). M. Bütün, & S. B. Demir (Çev. Ed.). Siyasal Kitabevi.
22. Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T. M. (2003). Issues in academic writing in higher education. In C. Coffin, M. J. Curry, S. Goodman, A. Hewings, T. M. Lillis & J. Swann (Eds.), Teaching academic writing: A toolkit for higher education (pp. 1-18). Routledge.
23. Curzon, J., Kosa, T. A., Akalu, R., & El-Khatib, K. (2021). Privacy and artificial intelligence. IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 2(2), 96-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TAI.2021.3088084
24. Day, T. (2013). Success in academic writing. Palgrave Macmıllan.
25. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1–32). Sage Publications Ltd.
26. 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%2Fbiolsport.2023.125623
27. El Shazly, R. (2021). Effects of artificial intelligence on English speaking anxiety and speaking performance: A case study. Expert Systems, 38(3), e12667. https://doi.org/10.1111/exsy.12667
28. Ertel, W. (2018). Introduction to artificial intelligence (2nd ed.). Springer.
29. Evans, C., & Robertson, W. (2020). The four phases of the digital natives debate. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(3), 269-277. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.196
30. Eyüp, B., & Kayhan, S. (2023). Pre-Service Turkish language teachers' anxiety and attitudes toward artificial intelligence. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 11(4), 43-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.11n.4p.43
31. Farrelly, T., & Baker, N. (2023). Generative artificial intelligence: Implications and considerations for higher education practice. Education Sciences, 13(11), 1109. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13111109
32. Fathi, J., & Rahimi, M. (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
33. Gilat, R., & Cole, B. J. (2023). How will artificial intelligence affect scientific writing, reviewing and editing? The future is here…. Arthroscopy, 39(5), 1119-1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2023.01.014
34. Graham, S., Gillespie, A., & McKeown, D. (2013). Writing: Importance, development, and instruction. Read Writ, 26, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9395-2
35. Greene, S., & Lidinsky, A. (2012). From inquiry to academic writing: A text and reader (2nd ed.). Bedford /St. Martin’s.
36. Golan, R., Reddy, R., Muthigi, A., & Ramasamy, R. (2023). Artificial intelligence in academic writing: A paradigm-shifting technological advance. Nature Reviews Urology, 20(6), 327-328. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41585-023-00746-x
37. Göçer, A. (2010). Türkçe öğretiminde yazma eğitimi. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 3(12), 178-195.
38. Hajimaghsoodi, A., & Maftoon, P. (2020). The effect of activity theory-based computer-assisted language learning on EFL learners’ writing achievement. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 16, 1–21. doi: 10.32038/ltrq.2020.16.01.
39. Hammann, L. (2005). Self-regulation in academic writing tasks. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17(1), 15-26.
40. Hartley, J. (2008). Academic writing and publishing: A practical handbook. Routledge.
41. Huang, Y. H. (2024). Exploring the implementation of artificial intelligence applications among academic libraries in Taiwan. Library Hi Tech, 42(3), 885-905. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-03-2022-0159
42. Huisman, B., Saab, N., Van Den Broek, P., & Van Driel, J. (2019). The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: A meta-analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 863-880. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896
43. Helms, M. M., & Nixon, J. (2010). Exploring SWOT analysis–where are we now? A review of academic research from the last decade. Journal of strategy and management, 3(3), 215-251. https://doi.org/10.1108/17554251011064837
44. Inkeles, A., & Smith, D. H. (1974). Becoming modern: Individual change in six developing countries. Harvard University Press.
45. Irvin, L. L. (2010). What is “academic” writing? In C. Lowe & P. Zemliansky (Eds), Writing spaces: Readings on writing (Vol. 1, pp. 3–17). Parlor Press LLC.
46. Iskender, A. (2023). Holy or unholy? Interview with Open AI’s ChatGPT. European Journal of Tourism Research, 34, 3414. https://doi.org/10.54055/ejtr.v34i.3169
47. Jarrah, A. M., Wardat, Y., & Fidalgo, P. (2023). Using ChatGPT in academic writing is (not) a form of plagiarism: What does the literature say. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 13(4), e202346. https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/13572
48. Karagöl, E. (2020). Akademik yazma açısından bildiri özetleri. Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi, 8(2), 410-426. https://doi.org/10.16916/aded.690405
49. Kacena, M. A., Plotkin, L. I., & Fehrenbacher, J. C. (2024). The use of artificial intelligence in writing scientific review articles. Current Osteoporosis Reports, 22(1), 115-121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-023-00852-0
50. Khalifa, M., & Albadawy, M. (2024). Using artificial intelligence in academic writing and research: An essential productivity tool. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine Update, 100145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpbup.2024.100145
51. Kim, J., Yu, S., Detrick, R., & Li, N. (2024). Exploring students’ perspectives on generative AI-assisted academic writing. Education and Information Technologies, 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12878-7
52. Kumlu, D. (2023). Yapay zekâyla çevrilen film yapımcılığı metinlerinde terminolojik sorgulamalar. Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 16(96), 49-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/JASSS.72119
53. Law, L. (2024). Application of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in language teaching and learning: A scoping literature review. Computers and Education Open, 100174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100174
54. Lee, J. H., Shin, D., & Noh, W. (2023). Artificial intelligence-based content generator technology for young English-as-a-foreign-language learners’ reading enjoyment. RELC Journal, 54(2), 508-516. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882231165060
55. Leigh, D. (2009). SWOT analysis. Handbook of Improving Performance in the Workplace: Volumes 1‐3, 115-140. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470592663.ch24
56. Lincoln, Y. S. (2009). Ethical practices in qualitative research. In D. M. Mertens, & P. E. Ginsberg (Eds.), The handbook of social research ethics (pp. 150-169). Sage.
57. McCarthy, J. (2007). From here to human-level AI. Artificial Intelligence, 171(18), 1174–1182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2007.10.009
58. Merriam, S. (2018). Nitel araştırma-desen ve uygulama için bir rehber (Çev. Ed. S. Turan). Nobel Yayıncılık.
59. Mertens, D. M., & Ginsberg, P. E. (2009). The handbook of social research ethics. Sage.
60. Mondal, H., & Mondal, S. (2023). ChatGPT in academic writing: Maximizing its benefits and minimizing the risks. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, 71(12), 3600-3606. https://doi.org/10.4103/IJO.IJO_718_23
61. Mullen, C. (2006). Best writing practices for graduate students: reducing the discomfort of the blank screen. Kappa Delta Pi Record 43(1), 30-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2006.10516456
62. Munk, A. K., Jacomy, M., Ficozzi, M., & Jensen, T. E. (2024). Beyond artificial intelligence controversies: What are algorithms doing in the scientific literature?. Big Data & Society, 11(3), 20539517241255107. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517241255107
63. Namugenyi, C., Nimmagadda, S. L., & Reiners, T. (2019). Design of a SWOT analysis model and its evaluation in diverse digital business ecosystem contexts. Procedia Computer Science, 159, 1145-1154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.283
64. Nazari, N., Shabbir, M. S., & Setiawan, R. (2021). Application of artificial intelligence powered digital writing assistant in higher education: Randomized controlled trial. Heliyon, 7(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07014.
65. Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021). Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041
66. Nguyen, A., Ngo, H. N., Hong, Y., Dang, B., Nguyen, B. P. T. (2023). Ethical principles for artificial intelligence in education. Educ. Inf. Technol, 28(4), 4221–4241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11316-w
67. Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (2007). Introduction to academic writing (3rd ed.). Pearson.
68. Özkan-Bardakcı, M. (2024). Dijitalleşme, teknoloji ve yaşlılık: The Intern filminin sosyolojik analizi. Sosyolojik Bağlam Dergisi, 5(2), 351–372. https://doi.org/10.52108/2757-5942.5.2.7
69. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
70. Puyt, R. W., Lie, F. B., & Wilderom, C. P. (2023). The origins of SWOT analysis. Long Range Planning, 56(3), 102304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2023.102304
71. Richards, J. C., & Miller, S. K. (2005). Doing academic writing in education: Connecting the personal and the professional. Lawrence Erlbaum Assocıates, Publishers.
72. Saldaña, J. (2019). Nitel araştırmacılar için kodlama el kitabı. (A. Tüfekçi Akcan & S. N. Şad, Çev. Ed.). Pegem Akademi.
73. Salinas-Navarro, D. E., Vilalta-Perdomo, E., Michel-Villarreal, R., & Montesinos, L. (2024). Using generative artificial intelligence tools to explain and enhance experiential learning for authentic assessment. Education Sciences, 14(1), 83. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010083
74. Salvagno, M., Taccone, F. S., & Gerli, A. G. (2023). Can artificial intelligence help for scientific writing?. Critical care, 27(75), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04380-2
75. Shayakhmetova, L., Mukharlyamova, L., Zhussupova, R., & Beisembayeva, Z. (2020). Developing collaborative academic writing skills in English in CALL classroom. International Journal of Higher Education, 9(8), 13-18. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v9n8p13
76. Shidiq, M. (2023, May). The use of artificial intelligence-based chat-gpt and its challenges for the world of education; from the viewpoint of the development of creative writing skills. In Proceeding of international conference on education, society and humanity (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 353-357).
77. Shopovski, J. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence, AI for scientific writing: A literature review. Preprints, 2024060011. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202406.0011.v1
78. Singh, A. A., & Lukkarila, L. (2017). Successful academic writing: A complete guide for social and behavioral scientists. Guilford Publications.
79. 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
80. Steidl, M., Felderer, M., & Ramler, R. (2023). The pipeline for the continuous development of artificial intelligence models-Current state of research and practice. Journal of Systems and Software, 199, 111615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2023.111615
81. Tunay-Gül, Z., Gürol, M., & Alcı, B. (2024). Lisansüstü öğrencilerin akademik yazma öz-yeterliliklerine ilişkin değerlendirmeleri. The Journal of Social Science, 8(15), 26-34. https://doi.org/10.30520/tjsosci.1425429
82. Ungan, S. (2007). Yazma becerisinin geliştirilmesi ve önemi. Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 23(2), 461-472.
83. Wale, B. D., & Bogale, Y. N. (2021). Using inquiry-based writing instruction to develop students’ academic writing skills. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 6, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-020-00108-9
84. Wang, B., Rau, P. L. P., & Yuan, T. (2023). Measuring user competence in using artificial intelligence: validity and reliability of artificial intelligence literacy scale. Behaviour & information technology, 42(9), 1324-1337. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2022.2072768
85. Xiao, Z., Zhou, M. X., Chen, W., Yang, H., & Chi, C. (2020, April). If I hear you correctly: Building and evaluating interview chatbots with active listening skills. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-14).
86. Xu, Y., Liu, X., Cao, X., Huang, C., Liu, E., Qian, S., ... & Zhang, J. (2021). Artificial intelligence: A powerful paradigm for scientific research. The Innovation, 2(4), 100179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100179
87. Yang, M. (2023). New York City schools ban AI chatbot that writes essays and answers prompts. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/06/new-york-city-schools-ban-ai-chatbot-chatgpt adresinden erişilmiştir.
88. Yeniceler-Kortak, İ. (2024). İletişim ve medya çalışmalarında yeni gelişmeler: Yapay zekâ ve gazetecilik araştırmalarına dair bibliyometrik bir analiz. Moment Dergi, 11(1), 81-108. https://doi.org/10.17572/mj2024.1.81-108
89. Yin, R. K. (2017). Durum çalışması araştırması uygulamaları (İ. Günbayı Çev.). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
90. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (11. bs.). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
91. Yudkowsky, E. (2008). Artificial intelligence as a positive and negative factor in global risk. In N. Bostrom, & M. M. (Eds.), Global catastrophic risks (pp. 308–345), Oxford University Press.