Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Artificial intelligence (AI) tools offer accessible support for English writing, but favourable perceptions do not necessarily translate into sustained use. This study investigated Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL) pre-university students’ perceptions of AI tools in an English writing skills course at a Malaysian public university. A quantitative descriptive survey was conducted with a sample of 225 students drawn from a population of approximately 529. A 20-item questionnaire organised around five Technology Acceptance Model constructs used a five-point agreement scale. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and Cronbach’s alpha. Internal consistency coefficients ranged from .781 to .872. Perceived usefulness recorded the highest mean (3.85), followed by perceived ease of use (3.82) and attitude towards use (3.51). Behavioural intention to use (2.90) and self-reported actual system use (2.82) were lower. These results indicate favourable evaluations of AI’s usefulness and usability alongside more limited intentions and reported use. The findings support integrating guided AI activities and explicit instruction on evaluating feedback within foundation writing courses. As the study measured perceptions rather than writing performance, the findings do not establish improvements in writing proficiency or causal relationships among acceptance constructs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Karoman et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: