1.
Why did you choose QuillBot specifically and not other AI writing
tools?
Suggested Answer:
I selected QuillBot because it is widely accessible, user-friendly, and commonly
used by learners, which increases its ecological validity in real classroom
contexts. Its features—such as grammar checking, paraphrasing, and vocabulary
enhancement—align closely with the key writing components assessed in this
study, namely grammar accuracy, vocabulary usage, and writing fluency.
Additionally, QuillBot provides comparative revisions that support metalinguistic
awareness, making it suitable for guided use with primary ESL pupils.
2. How is this study different from previous research on AI-assisted
writing?
Suggested Answer:
Most existing studies on AI-assisted writing focus on secondary or tertiary
learners, whose cognitive, linguistic, and digital literacy profiles differ
significantly from those of primary pupils. This study addresses a clear research
gap by examining AI-assisted writing at the primary school level within a
Malaysian ESL context. It also adopts a mixed-methods approach, combining
performance data with pupils’ and teachers’ perceptions, which allows for a more
comprehensive pedagogical interpretation.
3. Why did you choose Year 5 pupils?
Suggested Answer:
Year 5 pupils were selected because they possess sufficient foundational literacy
skills to engage meaningfully in writing and revision tasks, while still exhibiting
variability in language proficiency. This makes them developmentally appropriate
for examining the effects of AI-assisted writing tools. Furthermore, Year 5 pupils
are transitioning towards more structured writing demands, making intervention
at this stage pedagogically relevant.
4. How did you prevent pupils from becoming overly dependent on
QuillBot?
Suggested Answer:
The use of QuillBot was pedagogically guided rather than unrestricted.
Pupils were instructed to compare their original drafts with AI-generated
suggestions and to reflect on changes before revising their work. Teacher
guidance emphasised understanding errors rather than simply accepting
automated corrections. This approach positioned QuillBot as a supportive
learning tool, not a replacement for independent thinking or teacher feedback.
5. How do you justify using AI tools with young learners?
Suggested Answer:
The use of AI with young learners can be justified when it is developmentally
appropriate, guided, and ethically implemented. In this study, QuillBot was
used to scaffold learning by providing immediate feedback, which is often limited
in large classrooms. When used responsibly, AI tools can enhance learner
autonomy, motivation, and awareness of language use without replacing the
teacher’s instructional role.
6. Why did you use a mixed-methods approach?
Suggested Answer:
A mixed-methods approach was adopted to capture both learning outcomes
and learning experiences. Quantitative data provided objective evidence of
changes in writing proficiency, while qualitative data offered deeper insights into
pupils’ and teachers’ perceptions of AI-assisted writing. This combination
strengthens the validity of the findings and supports more meaningful
pedagogical interpretations.
7. How reliable are your findings given the sample size?
Suggested Answer:
While the sample size was relatively small and limited to one school, it is
appropriate for classroom-based quasi-experimental research. The use of
intact groups enhances ecological validity, and statistically significant
improvements with large effect sizes suggest meaningful instructional impact.
Nevertheless, the findings should be interpreted cautiously and viewed as
context-specific rather than generalisable.
8. What are the main pedagogical implications of your study?
Suggested Answer:
The findings suggest that AI-assisted writing tools such as QuillBot can
effectively support process-based writing, particularly in providing immediate
feedback and encouraging revision. However, successful implementation
requires teacher mediation, clear instructional objectives, and structured
guidance to prevent over-reliance on automated feedback. AI should be
integrated as a complementary tool rather than a substitute for pedagogy.
9. What are the main limitations of your study?
Suggested Answer:
The main limitations include the short intervention duration, the small and
context-specific sample, and the reliance on literature primarily from
secondary and tertiary contexts for comparison. Additionally, the study did not
examine long-term retention or transfer of writing skills, which could be explored
in future research.
10. What would you recommend for future research?
Suggested Answer:
Future studies could involve larger samples across multiple schools, extend
the intervention period, and examine long-term writing development.
Comparative studies involving different AI tools or investigating the impact of AI-
assisted writing on specific learner groups, such as low-proficiency pupils, would
also be valuable.