Technology Integration and Process Approach to Learning to Write Scientific Papers
Abstract
Objective: Academic writing proficiency is fundamental for students, yet many faces significant challenges. This study synthesizes evidence on the effectiveness of technology integration, particularly AI, with the process approach in academic writing instruction. Method: Using systematic literature review following PRISMA guidelines, searches across eight databases yielded 85 articles (2010-2025) with inter-rater reliability Cohen's Kappa 0.78. Analysis employed thematic analysis using TPACK framework and SAMR model. Results: Reveal a significant research gap with only 9.4% of articles specifically integrating technology with process approach. Synthesis of 32 quantitative studies shows 87.5% report improved writing quality with medium-large effect sizes (d=0.45-1.20), particularly in language-grammar (93.3%), citation-referencing (100%), and structure-organization (89.3%). Affective aspects increased consistently: motivation (91.7%), self-efficacy (94.7%), and positive attitudes (95.2%). AI tools (25.9%) demonstrate high versatility supporting all writing process stages. Challenges include limited internet access (44.7%), lack of teacher training (49.4%), and infrastructure support (42.4%). Novelty: Includes integrated framework synthesizing multiple theories, evidence-based taxonomy of technologies for process writing stages, and contextualized analysis for Indonesia. Best practices emphasize purposeful integration, scaffolded implementation, critical engagement, and formative assessment.
Abstract View: 118 
PDF Download: 72
SIMILARITY CHECK Download: 24
References
Adnan, Z. (2009). Some potential problems for research articles written by Indonesian academics when submitted to international English language journals. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 11(1), 107-125.
Azizah, N. L., Widiati, U., & Hidayati, D. (2023). Indonesian university students' challenges in writing research articles: A qualitative study. Journal of Language and Education, 9(1), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2023.12345
Bayat, N. (2014). The effect of the process writing approach on writing success and anxiety. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(3), 1133-1141. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2014.3.1720 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2014.3.1720
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Chan, C. K. Y., & Lee, K. K. W. (2023). The AI generation gap: Are Gen Z students more interested in adopting generative AI such as ChatGPT in teaching and learning than their Gen X and millennial generation teachers? Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), Article 60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00269-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00269-3
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315044408-14
Cotton, D. R., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2023). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 228-239. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Fitria, T. N. (2023). ChatGPT in English writing class: AI-assisted writing or academic dishonesty? Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics, 8(2), 353-372. https://doi.org/10.21462/jeltl.v8i2.1165
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600 DOI: https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc198115885
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools. Alliance for Excellent Education.
Graham, S., Liu, X., Aitken, A., Ng, C., Bartlett, B., Harris, K. R., & Holzapfel, J. (2020). Effectiveness of literacy programs balancing reading and writing instruction: A meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S183-S209. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.291 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.291
Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (Eds.). (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 5.1.0). The Cochrane Collaboration. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning
Huang, J., Saleh, S., & Liu, Y. (2023). A review on artificial intelligence in education. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 12(3), 260-275. https://doi.org/10.36941/ajis-2023-0077 DOI: https://doi.org/10.36941/ajis-2023-0077
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
Long, A. F., & Godfrey, M. (2004). An evaluation tool to assess the quality of qualitative research studies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 7(2), 181-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000045302 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000045302
McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276-282. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031 DOI: https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031
Mirahayuni, N. K. (2002). Investigating textual structure in native and non-native English research articles: Strategy differences between English and Indonesian writers [Doctoral dissertation, University of New South Wales].
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810610800610
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Ningsih, S. K., & Marlina, L. (2021). The problems of Indonesian EFL students in writing a thesis: An analysis study. Journal of English Language Teaching, 10(2), 267-276. https://doi.org/10.24036/jelt.v10i2.112345
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., ... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Puentedura, R. R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education. http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/
Rahmawati, R., Drajati, N. A., & Supriyadi, S. (2021). Investigating the challenges of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesian higher education. Journal of Education and Learning, 15(2), 185-191. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v15i2.18343
Rudolph, J., Tan, S., & Tan, S. (2023). ChatGPT: Bullshit speaker or the end of traditional assessments in higher education? Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 342-363. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Thomas, B. H., Ciliska, D., Dobbins, M., & Micucci, S. (2004). A process for systematically reviewing the literature: Providing the research evidence for public health nursing interventions. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 1(3), 176-184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-475X.2004.04006.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-475X.2004.04006.x
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wingate, U., & Tribble, C. (2012). The best of both worlds? Towards an English for Academic Purposes/Academic Literacies writing pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 37(4), 481-495. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.525630 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.525630
Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 165-187. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586647 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3586647
Copyright (c) 2025 maguna eliastuti, Andri Purwanto, Mildan Arsdan Fidinillah3 Fidinillah3, Ninin Herlina Herlina (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Abstract viewed = 118 times
PDF downloaded = 72 times
SIMILARITY CHECK downloaded = 24 times
