1.
) Introduction
In the evolving landscape of English language education, the infusion of artificial intelligence (AI)
emerges as a transformative force, redefining traditional pedagogical boundaries with unprecedented
precision and interactivity. This integration promises enhanced language mastery through adaptive tools
that personalize feedback, simulate immersive dialogues, and streamline complex analytical tasks,
thereby elevating students' linguistic proficiency and creative expression. Yet, it simultaneously raises
concerns over diminished critical thinking, overreliance on automated outputs, and potential erosion of
authentic human interaction in literary discourse. At its heart, such technological incorporation reshapes
the affective dimensions of learning, sparking heightened motivation through gamified engagement,
fostering deeper participation via collaborative AI-human interfaces, and cultivating sustained
involvement in activities that bridge digital innovation with timeless narrative arts. These dynamics,
drawn from emergent scholarly explorations, set the stage for examining foundational studies on AI's
facilitative roles, inherent limitations, and psychosocial impacts in English-centric classrooms.
2.) The AI Writing Tools
The advent of AI-based writing tools has revolutionized English language pedagogy, particularly for
majors who grapple with the multifaceted demands of composition, from grammatical precision to
creative paraphrasing and argumentative refinement. As Wu (n.d.) elucidates, tools such as Grammarly,
QuillBot, NoRedInk, ArgRewrite, and ChatGPT exemplify this shift by leveraging natural language
processing (NLP) to deliver instantaneous, tailored feedback, thereby addressing key advantages of AI
integration in English curricula. Grammarly, for instance, excels in detecting linguistic errors—grammar,
spelling, punctuation, coherence, and style—offering corrective suggestions that enhance clarity and
elevate writing quality, a boon for English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners whose challenges often
stem from non-native proficiency (Zhang et al., as cited in Wu, n.d.; Huang et al., as cited in Wu, n.d.).
This aligns with Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), where AI acts as a scaffold, bridging the
gap between a student's current abilities and potential through personalized guidance, much like a more
knowledgeable peer (Vygotsky, 1978). Similarly, QuillBot's paraphrasing prowess fosters high-level
cognitive skills, enabling students to rephrase ideas while preserving meaning—a critical yet demanding
task for English majors honing originality and synthesis (Mohammad et al., as cited in Wu, n.d.).
NoRedInk complements this by providing customized exercises and progress analytics, allowing
educators to target grammar, mechanics, and style in large classes, thus optimizing instructional
efficiency (Summerhays, as cited in Wu, n.d.). ArgRewrite innovates further by analyzing revisions across
drafts, promoting iterative self-monitoring and ownership of the writing process (Litman et al., as cited
in Wu, n.d.), while ChatGPT ignites creativity through generative text and conversational interfaces,
sparking novel perspectives and real-time refinements in organization, vocabulary, and coherence
(Salvagno et al., as cited in Wu, n.d.; Song & Song, as cited in Wu, n.d.). These advantages extend to
heightened motivation, participation, and engagement: Wu (n.d.) notes that such tools foster positive
attitudes toward writing, with ChatGPT-linked classes showing superior skill progression and
enthusiasm, resonating with the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), which posits that perceived
usefulness and ease of use drive adoption and intrinsic motivation (Davis, 1989). For English majors, this
translates to active involvement in interactive quizzes, chat-based brainstorming, and gamified revisions,
transforming passive writing drills into dynamic, participatory experiences that sustain long-term
engagement.
Despite these merits, the integration of AI writing tools is not without notable disadvantages,
particularly for English majors whose discipline prizes nuanced human judgment and originality. Wu
(n.d.) highlights accessibility barriers as a primary concern, including the digital divide exacerbated by
hardware, software, and internet prerequisites, which disproportionately affect students in under-
resourced regions and could widen inequities in English education. Ethical dilemmas further complicate
adoption: issues of algorithmic bias, privacy breaches, and copyright infringement loom large, as AI may
perpetuate cultural or linguistic prejudices embedded in training data, undermining the critical thinking
central to literary analysis (Wu, n.d.). Overreliance poses another risk; while tools like Grammarly and
ChatGPT provide efficient feedback, they may erode independent revision skills, fostering superficial
corrections over deep rhetorical awareness—a pitfall for English majors navigating subjective,
interpretive writing. Wu (n.d.) contrasts this with ArgRewrite's revision-focused approach, yet even
here, the tool's campus-limited availability underscores scalability challenges. These drawbacks can
dampen motivation if students perceive AI as a crutch rather than an ally, potentially reducing
participation in authentic peer reviews or teacher-led critiques, and leading to disengagement when
tools fail to capture the creative ambiguity of poetry or prose. From a theoretical lens, this echoes
Bandura's social cognitive theory, where self-efficacy in writing hinges on mastery experiences;
excessive AI mediation might stunt this by minimizing personal agency (Bandura, 1997).
The psychosocial ripple effects of AI writing tools on English majors' motivation, participation, and
engagement warrant deeper scrutiny, as Wu (n.d.) demonstrates through empirical endorsements.
Instant feedback loops—common across these tools—eliminate delays inherent in teacher grading,
empowering students to iterate rapidly and build confidence, thereby boosting intrinsic motivation per
self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985). QuillBot and ChatGPT, with their conversational and
generative features, particularly excel here, drawing students into participatory dialogues that mirror
collaborative writing workshops, enhancing engagement through perceived autonomy and relatedness.
NoRedInk's analytics further incentivize participation by visualizing progress, turning data into
motivational narratives that align with flow theory, where optimal challenge matches skill to sustain
immersion (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). However, disadvantages like freemium models (e.g., Grammarly's
paid tiers) and interface variances may frustrate users, selectively engaging tech-savvy students while
alienating others, thus unevenly influencing overall classroom dynamics. Wu (n.d.) advocates
collaborative solutions—governmental infrastructure investments, ethical regulations, and educator
training—to mitigate these, ensuring equitable access that amplifies engagement across diverse English
major cohorts.
In synthesizing these insights, AI writing tools like those reviewed by Wu (n.d.) offer English majors a
double-edged sword: profound advantages in personalized skill-building and motivational uplift,
tempered by accessibility hurdles, ethical risks, and threats to authentic engagement. Grounded in
theories from ZPD to TAM, this body of literature underscores the need for balanced integration, paving
the way for subsequent RRL explorations into broader AI applications.
References:
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard
University Press.
Wu, L. (n.d.). AI-based writing tools: Empowering students to achieve writing success. School of Foreign
Languages, Northwest Minzu University.
3.) Integration of AI in English Language Teaching
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into English language teaching represents a paradigm shift,
harnessing machine intelligence to simulate human-like tasks such as natural language understanding,
pattern recognition, and adaptive problem-solving, thereby amplifying pedagogical efficacy for English
majors (Macias Loor et al., n.d.; Bernate & Vargas-Guativa, 2020). Key advantages manifest through
adaptive learning systems that dynamically tailor content and pacing via predictive analytics,
personalizing instruction to individual proficiency levels—a critical asset for English majors navigating
diverse linguistic demands from grammar to discourse analysis (Álvarez-Sepúlveda, 2020; Garzón-Daza,
2021). Intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) further exemplify this by emulating one-on-one tutoring,
drawing on expansive content repositories to deliver customized feedback and guidance, aligning
seamlessly with Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) where AI scaffolds learning within
learners' capability thresholds (Vygotsky, 1978; Jarquín, 2020; X. Li, 2020). Chatbots enhance
conversational practice in simulated environments, bolstering fluency and pragmatic competence, while
automated assessment tools evaluate multifaceted skills—grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and
fluency—offering diagnostic insights that surpass traditional grading constraints (Liu & Kong, 2021; Yan
Dong, 2022). Gamification via serious games injects motivational elements, merging structured activities
with playful mechanics to deepen retention, and augmented/virtual reality (AR/VR) immerses students
in authentic cultural scenarios, fostering experiential language application (Jiang et al., 2022; Liu & Kong,
2021). These affordances elevate motivation, participation, and engagement: AR/VR simulations, for
instance, cultivate flow states per Csikszentmihalyi's theory (1990), drawing English majors into
participatory narratives that enhance cognitive and affective involvement, while chatbots promote
autonomous practice, boosting self-efficacy under Self-Determination Theory (SDT) by fulfilling
autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Yong, 2020).
Notwithstanding these benefits, AI integration in English teaching harbors significant disadvantages,
particularly for English majors whose curricula emphasize interpretive depth and interpersonal nuance.
Accessibility inequities, rooted in the digital divide, limit adoption among under-resourced students,
perpetuating disparities in skill development (Macias Loor et al., n.d.; Huang, 2022). Ethical quandaries
abound—data privacy breaches, algorithmic biases reflecting training data imbalances, and overreliance
on AI that may atrophy critical thinking and originality, core to literary criticism (Asencio et al., 2021).
Automated assessments, while efficient, risk oversimplifying subjective elements like stylistic flair or
cultural idiomaticity, potentially misaligning with constructivist principles where knowledge co-
construction thrives through human dialogue (Piaget, 1970). Historical evolution underscores these
tensions: from 1960s computer-assisted drills to modern ITS, progress has been hampered by
computational limits and pedagogical mismatches (Guan et al., 2020; Motlagh et al., 2023). For English
majors, such pitfalls could erode motivation if AI supplants collaborative discourse, diminishing
participation in peer-led seminars and fostering disengagement via impersonal interfaces that fail to
replicate emotional resonance.
The incorporation of AI profoundly shapes English majors' motivation, participation, and overall
engagement, as evidenced by Macias Loor et al. (n.d.), who highlight immersive technologies' role in
sustaining learner investment. Gamified platforms and chatbots leverage intrinsic rewards, aligning with
SDT to heighten autonomy through self-paced interactions and relatedness via simulated dialogues,
evidenced in heightened fluency gains and positive attitudes (Fryer et al., 2020; Zhang & Aslan, 2021).
AR/VR extends this by embedding language in contextualized worlds, amplifying participation per the
Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework's cognitive, social, and teaching presence dimensions (Garrison
et al., 2000; Yedavalli et al., 2021). Adaptive systems track progress in real-time, mitigating frustration
and bolstering persistence, yet disadvantages like bias can undermine trust, curtailing engagement
among marginalized groups (Liang et al., 2023). Future-oriented applications—enhanced NLP for
nuanced translation and AI-VR hybrids—promise equitable motivation if ethical safeguards address
privacy and inclusivity (Diwaker et al., 2021; Lazar et al., 2022). Empirical cases affirm this duality: AI-
augmented remote learning during COVID-19 sustained participation amid disruptions, though equity
gaps persisted (King, 2023; Delipetrev et al., 2020).
Theoretical syntheses illuminate AI's dual impact: constructivism posits AI as a mediator for active
knowledge-building, yet warns against passive consumption (Piaget, 1970), while CoI emphasizes hybrid
human-AI communities to optimize engagement. Wu's (n.d.) tool-specific insights from prior literature
complement this, as writing aids like Grammarly integrate with broader teaching AI to holistically
empower English majors.
References:
Álvarez-Sepúlveda, J. [et al.] (2020). [Full details from source].
Asencio, M. [et al.] (2021). [Full details].
Bernate, S., & Vargas-Guativa, Y. (2020). [Full details].
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4),
227–268.
Garrison, D. R., et al. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment. Internet and Higher Education,
2(2-3), 87–105.
Garzón-Daza, J. (2021). [Full details].
[Continue for all cited works, e.g., Macias Loor, M. A., Alcivar Solorzano, D. M., & Vera Moreira, A. K.
(n.d.). Integration of artificial intelligence in English teaching. [Publisher/URL].]
Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Orion Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.
4.) Advantages and Disadvantages of Using AI in the Classroom
Empirical scrutiny of AI's classroom integration reveals pronounced advantages for English majors, as Al-
Tkhayneh et al. (n.d.) delineate through perspectives of 184 Al Ain University students, affirming AI's
capacity to enhance personalized learning experiences, process vast data volumes, and optimize task
management. Platforms like Moodle exemplify this via AI-driven analytics that customize virtual
classrooms, uploading content, assigning tasks, and delivering performance insights—reducing teachers'
administrative burdens by 31% and freeing focus for pedagogical innovation (Al-Johani, 2020; Al-
Tkhayneh et al., n.d.). Microsoft Teams facilitates remote collaboration through AI-enhanced
communication channels, while Alef Education tailors interactive games, tests, and real-time reports to
individual needs, echoing adaptive systems from Macias Loor et al. (n.d.) and writing tools in Wu (n.d.).
These align with the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), where perceived usefulness (e.g., data-
driven personalization) and ease of use propel adoption, yielding improved academic outcomes per Al-
Mashaqba (2020) and Al-Bakri (2021). For English majors, advantages extend to behavioral pattern
detection for early intervention, fostering linguistic proficiency via automated grading and pattern
analysis, thus amplifying efficiency in composition and analysis tasks (Al-Omari, 2021).
Counterbalancing these gains, Al-Tkhayneh et al. (n.d.) illuminate disadvantages, including fears of
traditional job displacement, implementation costs, programming errors, and eroded human
relationships—resonating with student apprehensions over AI supplanting teacher roles. Surveys
indicate divided opinions on AI's efficacy in behavior control, system efficiency, note provision, teacher
dependency reduction, and social interaction enhancement, with concerns over data privacy, ethical
decision-making, and isolation from reduced face-to-face engagement (Al-Mashaqba, 2020; Huang,
2019). In English classrooms, this manifests as diminished interpersonal feedback vital for nuanced
rhetoric, potentially biasing algorithms against diverse linguistic backgrounds and amplifying the digital
divide (Al-Ghamidi, 2021). Prior studies corroborate: Barak and Dori (2019) note training needs and bias
risks in STEM analogs applicable to language arts, while Kovanović and Gasevic (2019) highlight faculty
preparation gaps. Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986) frames this as self-efficacy erosion if AI
mediates mastery experiences, stunting English majors' confidence in authentic discourse.
AI's incorporation profoundly influences English majors' motivation, participation, and engagement, with
Al-Tkhayneh et al. (n.d.) reporting positive student views on experiential enhancement yet skepticism
toward interaction losses. Moodle's AI recommendations boost participation via error-specific feedback,
motivating iterative writing akin to QuillBot's paraphrasing (Wu, n.d.), while Alef's gamification sustains
engagement through interactive activities, per Situated Learning Theory's communities of practice (Lave
& Wenger, 1991). Al-Bakri (2021) and Al-Ghamidi (2021) affirm heightened involvement and efficiency,
with AI alleviating administrative loads to prioritize student-centered activities—elevating motivation via
autonomy in self-paced modules (Deci & Ryan, 2000). However, isolation risks from asynchronous
learning undermine social cohesion, potentially disengaging majors reliant on collaborative literary
discussions (Al-Turki, 2019). Huang (2019) evidences mixed teacher-student dynamics, where AI
facilitates progress tracking but distances relational bonds, echoing CoI framework concerns (Garrison et
al., 2000).
Prior literature convergence underscores duality: Al-Mashaqba (2020) links AI to superior learning
outcomes in Jordanian universities, paralleling UAE contexts, while Barak and Dori (2019) advocate
balanced implementation with training. Recommendations emphasize ethical safeguards—privacy
protocols, bias mitigation, and hybrid models preserving human elements (Al-Tkhayneh et al., n.d.;
Kovanović & Gasevic, 2019).
This synthesis, bridging Al-Tkhayneh et al. (n.d.) with antecedents, posits AI as a catalytic yet cautious
enhancer for English majors, theorized through TAM's adoption drivers and Bandura's agency
imperatives.
References:
Al-Bakri, S. (2021). [Full details from source].
Al-Ghamidi, A. (2021). [Full details].
Al-Johani, N. (2020). [Full details].
Al-Mashaqba, N. (2020). [Full details].
Al-Omari, A. (2021). [Full details].
Al-Tkhayneh, K. M., Alghazo, E. M., & Tahat, D. (n.d.). The advantages and disadvantages of using
artificial intelligence in education. [Publisher/URL].
Al-Turki, A. (2019). [Full details].
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Prentice-Hall.
Barak, M., & Dori, Y. J. (2019). [Full details].
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness... MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). [What and why... Psychological Inquiry].
Garrison, D. R., et al. (2000). [Critical inquiry...].
Huang, [Initial]. (2019). [Full details].
Kovanović, V., & Gašević, D. (2019). [Full details].
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Cambridge University Press.
5.) Synthesis
The body of literature on artificial intelligence (AI) in English education converges on several central
themes: AI’s capacity to enhance learning through personalization and automation, its potential to
reshape motivation and engagement, and the persistent concerns regarding ethics, equity, and
overreliance on technology. These themes cut across studies on AI writing tools, AI-integrated English
teaching environments, and students’ perceptions of AI use in the classroom, ultimately revealing a
complex ecology rather than a one-sided narrative of “AI as savior” or “AI as threat.” By synthesizing
these findings, this section moves beyond description to interpret emerging patterns, connect them to
relevant theoretical frameworks, and highlight how the current gaps in the literature justify the present
qualitative investigation on AI in the classroom: voices from English major students.
Theme 1: AI as an Enabler of Personalized, Adaptive Learning
Across multiple studies, AI is consistently framed as a powerful tool for personalized learning and
adaptive feedback. Leiping Wu’s (n.d.) review of AI-based writing tools—such as Grammarly, QuillBot,
NoRedInk, ArgRewrite, and ChatGPT—demonstrates how these platforms offer instant, tailored
feedback in grammar, style, coherence, and organization, enabling students to revise iteratively without
waiting for teacher-marked papers. This aligns with the broader integration of AI in English language
teaching, where adaptive learning systems and intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) dynamically adjust
content and pacing based on learners’ performance, preferences, and difficulties (Macias Loor, Alcivar
Solorzano, & Vera Moreira, n.d.). Likewise, Al-Tkhayneh, Alghazo, and Tahat (n.d.) report that students
from Al Ain University recognize AI’s ability to process vast amounts of data, recommend targeted
learning strategies, and improve task management, reinforcing the idea that AI can function as a
responsive, individualized learning partner rather than a generic information provider.
Theoretically, this pattern resonates strongly with Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and the concept of the
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), where learners progress most effectively when supported by
more knowledgeable agents or tools that scaffold their emerging abilities (Vygotsky, 1978). In the
context of AI-supported English writing, AI tools serve as cognitive scaffolds that guide students in
revising, paraphrasing, and organizing their ideas, thus extending the range of what they can do
independently (Wu, n.d.). At the same time, adaptive learning models and AI-driven platforms like
Moodle and Alef Education also reflect principles from constructivist learning theory, which posits that
learners construct knowledge through active engagement with meaningful, differentiated experiences
rather than passive reception of standardized content (Piaget, 1970; Siemens, 2005).
For English majors, whose work often involves nuanced interpretation, reflection, and stylistic
experimentation, such personalization is particularly significant because it allows their writing and
reading practice to be calibrated to their evolving linguistic and rhetorical identities. The present study
therefore adopts a qualitative approach to explore how English majors perceive and negotiate this
AI-mediated scaffolding: How do they experience AI suggestions as support versus interference in their
creative or critical writing? How do they decide when to follow AI feedback and when to resist it? These
questions are central to the sociocultural and constructivist underpinnings of the study and cannot be
adequately captured through quantitative averages alone.
Theme 2: Motivation, Participation, and Engagement in AI-supported Classrooms
A second major strand of the literature concerns AI’s influence on motivation, participation, and
engagement, typically framed in positive terms. Multiple studies report that AI tools and platforms
increase students’ sense of autonomy, reduce the anxiety associated with writing, and encourage
repeated practice. Wu (n.d.) notes that AI-based writing tools often foster a more positive attitude
toward writing, especially among EFL learners who struggle with grammar and coherence. ChatGPT, for
example, is described as a “spark” that ignites creativity, helping students generate ideas, improve
organization, and refine vocabulary through conversational interaction. Similarly, Macias Loor et al.
(n.d.) emphasize that gamified AI applications, chatbots, and immersive AR/VR environments create
playful, low-pressure spaces in which students can experiment with language, thereby enhancing
intrinsic motivation and sustained engagement.
These findings connect directly to Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), which explains
motivation as arising from the satisfaction of three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence,
and relatedness.
AI tools that allow students to access personalized feedback anytime and anywhere support autonomy
by enabling self-paced, learner-driven practice.
Instant corrections and adaptive exercises build competence by helping students see concrete progress
in grammar, fluency, and organization.
Collaborative AI-enhanced platforms (e.g., Microsoft Teams and AI-integrated learning management
systems) foster a sense of relatedness by enabling communication, peer interaction, and shared tasks,
even in hybrid or remote settings.
The study by Al-Tkhayneh et al. (n.d.), which surveyed students’ attitudes toward AI in higher education,
also reveals that many learners see AI as enhancing their learning experience and making administrative
tasks more efficient. However, these same findings expose a tension: while AI appears to facilitate
participation, it can also reconfigure the social dynamics of the classroom. Some students express
concern about losing direct human interaction, and others worry that AI-mediated communication may
become a substitute for deeper teacher–student or peer–peer relationships.
The present qualitative design attends precisely to this tension. By conducting in-depth interviews with
English majors, the study examines how AI tools are experienced on the level of affect and identity: How
do students interpret AI feedback in emotional and aesthetic terms? Do they feel more or less
motivated when AI intervenes early in the writing process? How do they describe the balance between
AI-assisted practice and face-to-face discussions in literature or composition classes? The insights from
Self-Determination Theory and the Community of Inquiry framework (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer,
2000)—with its emphasis on social, cognitive, and teaching presence—justify the need for a
phenomenological or narrative-oriented qualitative approach that captures the nuanced, lived
experience of AI integration among English majors.
Theme 3: Ethical Concerns, Equity, and Overreliance
A third coherent theme across the literature is the ethical and equity-related dimension of AI
integration. Wu (n.d.) highlights concerns about algorithmic bias, privacy, copyright, and the digital
divide, particularly in relation to AI-based writing tools. Macias Loor et al. (n.d.) similarly emphasize that
AI deployment in language teaching raises issues of data privacy, potential algorithmic bias, and unequal
access to advanced tools, especially in contexts where infrastructure and digital literacy are unevenly
distributed. The UAE-based study by Al-Tkhayneh et al. (n.d.) confirms that students recognize several
disadvantages: fear of errors in AI recommendations, concerns about the loss of traditional teaching
jobs, and the possibility of diminished human interaction in the classroom.
These concerns are consistent with recent critical reviews of AI in language education, which note that
AI use in English classrooms frequently involves trade-offs between efficiency and ethical integrity (e.g.,
academic honesty, data security, and algorithmic transparency) (e.g., Trends and Gaps in AI Research for
Language Education, 2025; Integrating Artificial Intelligence into English Language Teaching, 2025). At
the same time, there is a recurring observation that many students and educators are not yet fully
equipped to navigate these issues, as evidenced by studies on AI readiness gaps and misalignments
between academic AI use and professional expectations (e.g., The AI Readiness Gap, 2025).
Here, the synthesis draws on sociocultural and critical pedagogy perspectives, as well as ethical
frameworks in AI education, to interpret these patterns. From a sociocultural perspective, the classroom
is not only a space for cognitive skill development but also a site of power relations, identity formation,
and social practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Freire, 1970). When AI tools filter or mediate student-teacher
discourse, they inevitably reshape who has authority over evaluation, interpretation, and correction.
Critical theorists would therefore ask: Whose norms and values are embedded in AI algorithms? Whose
voices and language varieties are marginalized or excluded by default settings and training data?
The qualitative orientation of the present study is especially suited to probing these questions. By
listening to English majors narrate their experiences with AI, the research can uncover how students
perceive bias in AI feedback, how they negotiate decisions about when to use AI, and how they interpret
issues of authorship and originality in AI-assisted texts. The study is thus positioned to contribute to a
growing body of qualitative work on AI literacy and ethical awareness in higher education, particularly in
the context of English-major learners whose discipline places high value on voice, style, and critical
reflection (Godinez & Bacang, 2025; exploratory qualitative studies on AI in academic writing).
Theme 4: Gaps and Opportunities for the Present Qualitative Study
Taken together, the reviewed literature reveals several recurring patterns and persistent gaps that
justify the focus and method of this study. Patterns include:
AI’s strong potential for enhancing writing performance, motivation, and engagement through
personalization and feedback.
Concurrent concerns about overreliance, loss of human interaction, data privacy, algorithmic bias, and
equity.
A growing attention to the perceptions and attitudes of students and teachers, but still relatively limited
in-depth, context-specific inquiry into how learners experience AI in their own words.
The dominant methodologies in the existing work are largely quantitative (e.g., surveys,
pre-test/post-test designs) or conceptual/synthetic (e.g., systematic reviews, theoretical frameworks),
with fewer detailed qualitative portraits of learners’ lived experiences in AI-integrated English
classrooms (e.g., Al-Tkhayneh et al., n.d.; Al-Bakri, 2021; Al-Mashaqba, 2020; reviews on AI in English
teaching, 2025). While these studies provide valuable evidence of what AI can do and how often
students use it, they often under-represent the meaning that students attach to AI integration in their
academic and professional trajectories.
This represents a significant gap for English majors, who are not only language learners but also future
teachers, writers, and critical readers. Their perceptions of AI—how they position it as a helper, a rival, a
mentor, or a risk—cannot be fully understood through Likert-scale items alone. Therefore, the choice of
a qualitative research design (e.g., phenomenological, narrative, or case-study approach) is theoretically
and methodologically justified. By collecting rich, first-person accounts from English majors, the study
can:
Explore the emotional and ethical dimensions of AI use in writing and classroom activities.
Trace how AI shapes students’ identity and learning beliefs as aspiring English majors.
Generate nuanced insights that inform ethical AI policies, teacher training, and curriculum design in
English education.