Navigating Ai-Assisted Academic Writing: Malaysian University Students’ Perceptions of Use, Learning, Academic Integrity and Institutional Guidance
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24191/idealogy.v11i2.979Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly embedded in university writing and learning, yet frequent use does not necessarily indicate uncritical acceptance or measurable learning gains. This study examines how 41 students at a Malaysian higher education institution perceive AI use in academic writing and learning, focusing on use frequency, self-reported reliance, perceived usefulness, perceived influence on critical thinking, academic integrity, and institutional guidance. A convergent mixed-methods questionnaire design combined closed-ended items with open-ended responses. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively using frequencies and percentages, while open-ended responses were analysed thematically and integrated with the quantitative patterns during interpretation. Most respondents reported regular AI use (65.9%) and positive attitudes toward AI (75.6%), while 87.8% perceived AI as improving the quality of their academic work. Although 80.5% perceived AI as supporting critical thinking, qualitative responses also described a trade-off between efficiency and depth of learning. Academic-integrity concerns were substantial, with 63.4% reporting that they were very concerned, while 75.6% supported clearer institutional guidelines. The integrated findings indicate a use-with-awareness pattern: students value AI as a support for writing and idea generation while recognising risks of superficial engagement, authorship ambiguity, and over-reliance. The study does not establish actual effects on critical thinking or academic-integrity behaviour. It highlights the need for explicit AI literacy, transparent assessment expectations, and institutional guidance that distinguishes legitimate assistance from substitution of students’ intellectual work.
Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Academic Writing, Higher Education, Student Perceptions, Academic Integrity
References
Bond, M., Khosravi, H., De Laat, M., Bergdahl, N., Negrea, V., Oxley, E., Pham, P., Chong, S. W., & Siemens, G. (2024). A meta systematic review of artificial intelligence in higher education: A call for increased ethics, collaboration, and rigour. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21, Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00436-z
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Chiu, T. K. F. (2024). Future research recommendations for transforming higher education with generative AI. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100197
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024). Chatting and cheating? Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2261161
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
Godwin-Jones, R. (2022). Partnering with AI: Intelligent writing assistance and instructed language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 26(2), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.64152/10125/73474
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2023). Artificial intelligence in education. In Data ethics: Building trust: How digital technologies can serve humanity (pp. 621–653). Globethics Publications. https://doi.org/10.58863/20.500.12424/4276068
Johnston, H., Wells, R. F., Shanks, E. M., Boey, T., & Parsons, B. N. (2024). Student perspectives on the use of generative artificial intelligence technologies in higher education. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 20, Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-024-00149-4
Karkoulian, S., Sayegh, N., & Sayegh, N. (2025). ChatGPT unveiled: Understanding perceptions of academic integrity in higher education: A qualitative approach. Journal of Academic Ethics, 23, 1171–1188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09543-6
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Gröschner, A., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeiffer, F., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., Stadler, M., & Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Marshall, B., Cardon, P., Poddar, A., & Fontenot, R. (2013). Does sample size matter in qualitative research? A review of qualitative interviews in IS research. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 54(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2013.11645667
Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Strzelecki, A. (2023). To use or not to use ChatGPT in higher education? A study of students’ acceptance and use of technology. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(9), 5142–5155. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2209881
Susnjak, T. (2022). ChatGPT: The end of online exam integrity? arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.09292
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education: Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15430421TIP4102_2Bond, M., et al. (2024). A meta systematic review of artificial intelligence in higher education: A call for increased ethics, collaboration, and rigour. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 UiTM Press
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
UiTM Press (the Publisher) has agreed to publish the undersigned author’s paper in Idealogy Journal. The agreement is contingent upon the fulfilment of a number of requirements listed below.
1. The undersigned author warrants that the paper entitled below is original, that it is not in any way libellous or unlawful in Malaysia, that it does not infringe any copyright or other proprietary right. The undersigned hereby represents and warrants that he/she is the author of the paper, except for material that is clearly identified as to its original source, with permission notices from the copyright owners where required. The undersigned represents that he/she has the power and authority to sign and execute this agreement.
2. The undersigned author warrants that the paper entitled below has not been published elsewhere, and also it will not be submitted anywhere else for publication prior to acceptance/rejection by this Journal.
3. By submitting the paper entitled below, the undersigned author agrees to transfer the rights to publish and distribute the paper in an international e-journal (entitled above) to Publisher.
4. The undersigned author agrees to make a reasonable effort to conform to Publisher's submission guidelines and to liaise with the editor to ensure that the requirements of these guidelines are met to a reasonable degree.
5. The corresponding author signs for and accepts responsibility for releasing this material on behalf of any and all coauthors. This agreement is to be signed by at least one of the authors who has obtained the assent of the co-author(s) where applicable. After submission of this agreement signed by the corresponding author, changes of authorship or in the order of the authors listed will not be accepted.
