Written Communication Jul 2025

Does ChatGPT Write Like a Student? Engagement Markers in Argumentative Essays

Feng (Kevin) Jiang ; Ken Hyland University of East Anglia

Abstract

ChatGPT has created considerable anxiety among teachers concerned that students might turn to large language models (LLMs) to write their assignments. Many of these models are able to create grammatically accurate and coherent texts, thus potentially enabling cheating and undermining literacy and critical thinking skills. This study seeks to explore the extent LLMs can mimic human-produced texts by comparing essays by ChatGPT and student writers. By analyzing 145 essays from each group, we focus on the way writers relate to their readers with respect to the positions they advance in their texts by examining the frequency and types of engagement markers. The findings reveal that student essays are significantly richer in the quantity and variety of engagement features, producing a more interactive and persuasive discourse. The ChatGPT-generated essays exhibited fewer engagement markers, particularly questions and personal asides, indicating its limitations in building interactional arguments. We attribute the patterns in ChatGPT’s output to the language data used to train the model and its underlying statistical algorithms. The study suggests a number of pedagogical implications for incorporating ChatGPT in writing instruction.

Journal
Written Communication
Published
2025-07-01
DOI
10.1177/07410883251328311
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Topics
discourse analysis writing pedagogy argument artificial intelligence literacy studies
Export
BibTeX RIS

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

References (63) · 4 in this index

  1. Adeshola I. Adepoju A. P. (2024). The opportunities and challenges of ChatGPT in education. Interactive Learn…
     ↗
  2. Anthony L. (2014). TagAnt (Version 1.2.0) [Computer software]. Waseda University. http://www.antlab.sci.wased…
  3. Anthony L. (2022). AntConc (Version 4.0.11) [Computer software]. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
  4. Barrot (2023)
    Using ChatGPT for second language writing: Pitfalls and potentials
    Assessing Writing
  5. 10.1016/j.acorp.2023.100083
     ↗
Show all 63 →
  1. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
     ↗
  2. Bin-Hady W. R. A. Al-Kadi A. Hazaea A. Ali J. K. M. (2023). Exploring the dimensions of ChatGPT in English la…
     ↗
  3. Byrd A. (2023)
    Truth-telling: Critical inquiries on LLMs and the corpus texts that train them
    Composition Studies
  4. 10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100068
     ↗
  5. 10.1016/j.acorp.2023.100082
     ↗
  6. 10.4324/9781315179346-11
     ↗
  7. Gallagher J. R. (2023)
    Lessons learned from machine learning researchers about the terms “artificial intelligenc…
    Composition Studies
  8. Godwin-Jones R. (2022)
    Partnering with AI: Intelligent writing assistance and instructed language learning
    Language Learning & Technology
  9. Gong Z. Liu Y. Liu Y. (2024). A comparative study of research questions written by L1 English authors and Chi…
     ↗
  10. HYLAND (2001)
    Bringing in the Reader: Addressee Features in Academic Articles
    Written Communication
  11. Hyland K. (2002). What do they mean? Questions in academic writing. TEXT 22(4) 529–557. https://doi.org/10.15…
     ↗
  12. Hyland K. (2004)
    Open linguistics series. Analysing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks
  13. Hyland K. (2005)
    Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing
  14. Hyland K. (2005b). Representing readers in writing: Student and expert practices. Linguistics and Education 1…
     ↗
  15. Hyland K. (2005c). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7(2…
     ↗
  16. 10.1016/j.linged.2006.05.002
     ↗
  17. Hyland K. (2010). Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal of…
     ↗
  18. 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.09.003
     ↗
  19. 10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.001
     ↗
  20. Hyland K. Jiang F. (2023). Interaction in written texts: A bibliometric study of published research. Studies …
     ↗
  21. Ingley S. J. Pack A. (2023). Leveraging AI tools to develop the writer rather than the writing. Trends in Eco…
     ↗
  22. Ji H. Han I. Ko Y. (2023). A systematic review of conversational AI in language education: Focusing on the co…
     ↗
  23. 10.1093/applin/amae052
     ↗
  24. 10.1016/j.esp.2025.03.001
     ↗
  25. Jiang F. Ma X. (2018). ‘As we can see’: Reader engagement in PhD candidature confirmation reports. Journal of…
     ↗
  26. Kabir A. A. (2022)
    Learn ChatGPT: The future of learning
  27. Kasneci E. Sessler K. Küchemann S. Bannert M. Dementieva D. Fischer F. Gasser U. Groh G. Günnemann S. Hüllerm…
     ↗
  28. Kohnke L. Moorhouse B. L. Zou D. (2023). ChatGPT for language teaching and learning. RELC Journal 54(2) 537–5…
     ↗
  29. Koubaa A. (2023). GPT-4 vs. GPT-3.5: A concise showdown. TechRxiv. Preprint. https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxi…
     ↗
  30. Koutsantoni D. (2004). Attitude certainty and allusions to common knowledge in scientific research articles. …
     ↗
  31. Kumar D. V. (2023). How “ChatGPT” seems to look behind: Working of ChatGPT. https://www.kaggle.com/discussion…
  32. Lafuente-Millán E. (2014). Reader engagement across cultures languages and contexts of publication in busines…
     ↗
  33. Laquintano T. (2023)
    TextGenEd: Teaching with text generation technologies
  34. Lee J. J. Deakin L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscou…
     ↗
  35. 10.1609/icwsm.v11i1.14973
     ↗
  36. Markey et al. (2024)
    Dense and Disconnected: Analyzing the Sedimented Style of ChatGPT-Generated Tex…
    Written Communication
  37. 10.1057/9780230511910
     ↗
  38. McGrath L. Kuteeva M. (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse …
     ↗
  39. Milano E. (2023)
    How to ask ChatGPT anything and get the right answers: Learn to prompt AI LLMs effectively
  40. Nordling L. (2023). How ChatGPT is transforming the postdoc experience. Nature 622(7983) 655–657. https://doi…
     ↗
  41. OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT: Optimizing language models for dialogue. https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt
  42. Pack A. Maloney J. (2023). Using generative artificial intelligence for language education research: Insights…
     ↗
  43. Park D. B. (1982)
    The meanings of “audience.”
    College English
  44. 10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100976
     ↗
  45. Rayson P. (2016). Log-likelihood spreadsheet. http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/llwizard.html
  46. Revell T. Yeadon W. Cahilly-Bretzin G. Clarke I. Manning G. Jones J. Mulley C. Pascual R. Bradley N. Thomas D…
     ↗
  47. Rudolph J. Tan S. Tan S. (2023). ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher edu…
     ↗
  48. Santurkar S. (2023)
    Proceedings of the 40th international conference on machine learning
  49. Sarrion E. (2023). Exploring the power of ChatGPT. Apress. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-9529-8
     ↗
  50. Satariano A. Kang C. (2023). How nations are losing a global race to tackle AI’s harms. The New York Times. h…
  51. 10.1371/journal.pone.0305354
     ↗
  52. Shahriari H. Shadloo F. (2019). Interaction in argumentative essays: The case of engagement. Discourse and In…
     ↗
  53. Su et al. (2023)
    Collaborating with ChatGPT in argumentative writing classrooms
    Assessing Writing
  54. 10.1093/applin/22.1.58
     ↗
  55. 10.1177/1474022216628302
     ↗
  56. 10.31855/bc47ee6b-75c
     ↗
  57. Yoon H.‑J. (2021). Interactions in EFL argumentative writing: Effects of topic L1 background and L2 proficien…
     ↗
  58. Zhang M. (2023)
    How language model hallucinations can snowball
    arXiv Preprint. arXiv:2305.13534
CrossRef global citation count: 27 View in citation network → Build reading path →

Related Articles

  1. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly Dec 2025
    From Chatbot to Classroom: Developing Critical Thinking and Evaluative Judgment With AI ↗
    Daneshwar Sharma; Shiva Kakkar; Ashima Agrawal
    writing pedagogy service learning argument professional writing artificial intelligence literacy studies
  2. College Composition and Communication Sep 2025
    From an Unsettled Middle: A Critical-Ethical Stance for GenAI-Engaged Writing Assignments ↗
    Christopher Basgier; Lydia Wilkes
    first-year composition writing pedagogy writing across the curriculum argument writing centers artificial intelligence literacy studies
  3. College Composition and Communication Sep 2025
    From Cheating to Cheat Codes: Integrating Generative AI Ethics into Collaborative Learning ↗
    Kristi Girdharry
    modern rhetorical theory rhetorical criticism writing pedagogy argument collaborative writing writing centers artificial intelligence literacy studies
  4. The Peer Review Sep 2025
    The Impact of Working at a Writing Center in Brazil: Perspectives of Student Tutors ↗
    Ana Raquel Fialho Ferreira Campos; João Tiago Gaspar Cozechen; Elaine Pereira Lustosa; Marcos Angel De Carvalho Eing; Leonardo Schimiloski
    first-year composition writing pedagogy graduate education argument writing centers professional writing qualitative research artificial intelligence multilingual writers literacy studies race and writing
  5. Written Communication Jul 2025
    Synthesizing Professional Knowledge and Racial Literacy Content Through Explicit Composing Instruction: A Discourse Synthesis Study ↗
    Jenifer Jasinski Schneider; James R. King; Gretchen Dodson
    discourse analysis writing pedagogy teacher development argument assessment literacy studies race and writing