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
Open Access
Closed
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

Cites in this index (2)

  1. Written Communication
  2. Written Communication
Also cites 43 works outside this index ↓
  1. Adeshola I. Adepoju A. P. (2024). The opportunities and challenges of ChatGPT in education. Interactive Learn…
  2. 10.1016/j.asw.2023.100745
  3. 10.1016/j.acorp.2023.100083
  4. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
  5. Bin-Hady W. R. A. Al-Kadi A. Hazaea A. Ali J. K. M. (2023). Exploring the dimensions of ChatGPT in English la…
  6. 10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100068
  7. 10.1016/j.acorp.2023.100082
  8. 10.4324/9781315179346-11
  9. Gong Z. Liu Y. Liu Y. (2024). A comparative study of research questions written by L1 English authors and Chi…
  10. Hyland K. (2002). What do they mean? Questions in academic writing. TEXT 22(4) 529–557. https://doi.org/10.15…
  11. Hyland K. (2005b). Representing readers in writing: Student and expert practices. Linguistics and Education 1…
  12. Hyland K. (2005c). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7(2…
  13. Hyland K. (2010). Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal of…
  14. 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.09.003
  15. 10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.001
  16. Hyland K. Jiang F. (2023). Interaction in written texts: A bibliometric study of published research. Studies …
  17. Ingley S. J. Pack A. (2023). Leveraging AI tools to develop the writer rather than the writing. Trends in Eco…
  18. Ji H. Han I. Ko Y. (2023). A systematic review of conversational AI in language education: Focusing on the co…
  19. 10.1093/applin/amae052
  20. 10.1016/j.esp.2025.03.001
  21. Jiang F. Ma X. (2018). ‘As we can see’: Reader engagement in PhD candidature confirmation reports. Journal of…
  22. Kasneci E. Sessler K. Küchemann S. Bannert M. Dementieva D. Fischer F. Gasser U. Groh G. Günnemann S. Hüllerm…
  23. Kohnke L. Moorhouse B. L. Zou D. (2023). ChatGPT for language teaching and learning. RELC Journal 54(2) 537–5…
  24. Koubaa A. (2023). GPT-4 vs. GPT-3.5: A concise showdown. TechRxiv. Preprint. https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxi…
  25. Koutsantoni D. (2004). Attitude certainty and allusions to common knowledge in scientific research articles. …
  26. Lafuente-Millán E. (2014). Reader engagement across cultures languages and contexts of publication in busines…
  27. Lee J. J. Deakin L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscou…
  28. 10.1609/icwsm.v11i1.14973
  29. 10.1057/9780230511910
  30. McGrath L. Kuteeva M. (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse …
  31. Nordling L. (2023). How ChatGPT is transforming the postdoc experience. Nature 622(7983) 655–657. https://doi…
  32. Pack A. Maloney J. (2023). Using generative artificial intelligence for language education research: Insights…
  33. 10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100976
  34. Revell T. Yeadon W. Cahilly-Bretzin G. Clarke I. Manning G. Jones J. Mulley C. Pascual R. Bradley N. Thomas D…
  35. Rudolph J. Tan S. Tan S. (2023). ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher edu…
  36. Sarrion E. (2023). Exploring the power of ChatGPT. Apress. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-9529-8
  37. 10.1371/journal.pone.0305354
  38. Shahriari H. Shadloo F. (2019). Interaction in argumentative essays: The case of engagement. Discourse and In…
  39. Su Y. Lin Y. Lai C. (2023). Collaborating with ChatGPT in argumentative writing classrooms. Assessing Writing…
  40. 10.1093/applin/22.1.58
  41. 10.1177/1474022216628302
  42. 10.31855/bc47ee6b-75c
  43. Yoon H.‑J. (2021). Interactions in EFL argumentative writing: Effects of topic L1 background and L2 proficien…
CrossRef global citation count: 23 View in citation network →