The Effect of AI Tools on Writing Skills and Creative Thinking: Perceptions of Arab EFL Teachers in Haifa District

تأثير أدوات الذكاء الاصطناعي على مهارات الكتابة والتفكير الإبداعي: تصوّرات معلمي اللغة الإنجليزية كلغة أجنبية العرب في منطقة حيفا

Areen Khalid Mahmoud Jabarin¹, Dr. Fawaz Aqel¹, Prof. Allam Musa¹

DOI: https://doi.org/10.53796/hnsj612/15

Arabic Scientific Research Identifier: https://arsri.org/10000/612/15

Volume (6) Issue (12). Pages: 206 - 216

Received at: 2025-11-10 | Accepted at: 2025-11-18 | Published at: 2025-12-01

Download PDF

1. Introduction

The landscape of education has been transformed by technological advances that were once confined to theoretical discussions. AI Writing assistance tools such as ChatGPT, Grammarly, and QuillBot have become increasingly common in academic settings, offering individualized support and enhancing learning processes in ways that differ substantially from conventional classroom methods (Chen et al., 2020). These tools can process large amounts of data, provide immediate feedback, and handle routine tasks, thereby enabling educators to devote more attention to direct student engagement (Neha, 2020).

In the field of language learning, AI has assumed a particularly significant role. Tools such as Grammarly offer immediate suggestions regarding grammar, syntax, and style, which research has shown can improve the technical proficiency of English Language Learners (Kim & Kim, 2022). Beyond addressing mechanical issues, these tools may also support creativity by handling lower-order writing tasks, potentially allowing students to focus more energy on generating original ideas and exploring new forms of expression (Wu et al., 2021).

Nevertheless, the rapid adoption of these technologies has raised important questions. Concerns have emerged regarding algorithmic bias, ethical implications, and the possibility that automated systems might replace the relevant, contextualized feedback that human instructors provide (Schiff, 2021). One area that deserves particular attention is the perspective of teachers themselves, who serve as the primary agents of technology implementation in schools. Their beliefs and attitudes shape whether these tools empower or limit student creativity and critical thinking.

This study addresses an important gap in the existing literature by examining how writing assistance technology affects both writing proficiency and creative thinking, specifically from the viewpoint of Arab EFL teachers in the Haifa District of Israel. This region, characterized by its culturally and linguistically diverse student population, offers a distinctive context for investigating these dynamics. Despite the growing availability of digital writing tools, relatively little is known about how teachers in this particular demographic perceive their effectiveness or what obstacles they encounter when attempting to integrate them into instruction. This study seeks to provide a thorough understanding of both the advantages and limitations of AI technology-supported writing instruction in the EFL classroom, offering practical insights for educators, policymakers, and curriculum designers who aim to use technology responsibly to improve learning outcomes.

1.1. Research Objectives and Questions

This article focuses on the component of a study that examines teacher perceptions. The primary objectives are:

1. To explore English teachers’ perceptions of how AI integration affects the development of students’ creative thinking and writing skills.

2. To identify the benefits and challenges that English teachers experience when integrating AI digital writing tools into their pedagogical practices.

These objectives are addressed through the following research questions:

•What are the perspectives of English teachers on the relationship between AI integration and the development of students’ creative thinking and writing skills?

•Do English teachers perceive writing assistance tools as having a positive, negative, or neutral impact on students’ creative thinking skills?

•What advantages and disadvantages do English teachers experience when integrating digital writing tools into their pedagogical practices?

2. Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

This study draws on three educational theories that provide a conceptual foundation for analyzing how AI-supported writing tools can influence learning: Sociocultural Theory, Cognitive Load Theory, and Connectivism.

Sociocultural Theory, as articulated by Vygotsky (1978), proposes that learning is fundamentally a social and mediated activity in which interaction and tools shape higher cognitive functions. AI tools like Grammarly can function as a digital scaffold within a student’s Zone of Proximal Development, providing automated, context-sensitive feedback that resembles the guidance of a more knowledgeable person and helps learners progress toward independence (Luckin et al., 2016).

Cognitive Load Theory suggests that effective learning depends on managing the constraints of working memory (Sweller, 1988). Writing in a second language places considerable cognitive demands on learners. By automating surface-level corrections such as grammar and punctuation, AI writing-assistant tools can reduce the cognitive burden on students, enabling them to dedicate more mental resources to higher-order activities like developing arguments and organizing ideas (Chapelle, 2017).

Connectivism, a theory developed for the digital era, conceptualizes learning as a process of forming connections within networks of information and online platforms (Siemens, 2005). AI tools function as interactive nodes in this network, offering learners continuous, on-demand formative feedback. This approach supports digital literacy, metacognitive awareness, and learner autonomy, reflecting the connectivism principles of dynamic, distributed, and self-directed learning (Downes, 2012).

2.1. The Role of AI in Education

The integration of AI in education offers potential benefits. It can serve as an assessment tool, personalize learning pathways based on student performance, and provide simulation-based instruction that enhances experiential learning (Neha, 2020). AI can also support instructors by automating routine tasks, creating individualized lesson plans, and providing data-informed insights to guide pedagogical decisions (Chen et al., 2020). However, the use of AI tools is not without limitations. Ethical concerns regarding student privacy and data security are significant, particularly when technology is used for profiling or behavior modification (Holmes et al., 2022). Furthermore, while current automated tutoring systems can teach foundational concepts, they often struggle to foster the higher-order and creative thinking skills that still require human instruction (Schiff, 2021).

2.2. AI, Creative Thinking, and Writing

The relationship between AI and creativity is complex and subject to ongoing debate. Some researchers oppose the idea that AI writing tools can enhance creativity by helping students overcome writer’s block and generate initial ideas (Newton & Newton, 2020). By managing the mechanical aspects of writing, these tools may allow learners to focus on expressing unique perspectives and constructing compelling narratives. However, there is also concern that excessive dependence on automated feedback may inhibit students’ ability to think independently, potentially leading to a standardization of thought and expression (Newton & Newton, 2020). This creates a challenge for educators: how to use AI to support creativity without compromising the fundamental creative process itself. The emerging compromise favors a balanced approach in which students are taught to critically evaluate automated suggestions and use them as a foundation for their own independent and creative work.

3. Methodology

This study employed a mixed-methods design to develop a comprehensive understanding of teacher perceptions. The quantitative component consisted of a structured questionnaire, while the qualitative component involved semi-structured interviews. This approach enabled data triangulation, allowing statistical findings from the questionnaire to be enriched and contextualized through the detailed narrative insights obtained from the interviews.

3.1. Participants

The study was conducted among Arab EFL teachers working in secondary schools within the Haifa District. The questionnaire sample consisted of 92 teachers. From this group, 15 teachers were selected for semi-structured interviews using purposive and voluntary sampling. Selection criteria included current high school teaching experience and the use of at least one digital writing tool in their instructional practice.

The demographic characteristics of the 92 questionnaire respondents are presented in Table 1.

Characteristic	Category	N	Percentage
Gender	Male	31	33.7%
	Female	61	66.3%
Age	20-30 years	25	27.2%
	31-40 years	29	31.5%
	41-40 years	28	30.4%
	51+ years	10	10.9%
Education Level	Bachelor’s degree	19	20.7%
	Master’s degree	64	69.6%
	Doctoral degree	9	9.8%
Teaching Experience	Less than 3 years	8	8.7%
	3-5 years	7	7.6%
	6-10 years	34	37.0%
	More than 10 years	43	46.7%
Training Courses	None	13	14.1%
	1-2 courses	43	46.7%
	3-5 courses	26	28.3%
	More than five courses	10	10.9%

Table 1. Demographic and professional characteristics of participating teachers (N = 92)

3.2. Study Instruments

A Questionnaire: A formal questionnaire was developed by the researcher to investigate teachers’ perceptions. It consisted of 33 items organized into six sections: (1) Demographic and Professional Background, including gender, age, education, and teaching experience; (2) Familiarity with AI Tools, assessing experience with tools like Grammarly and ChatGPT; (3) General Perceptions of AI in Teaching, examining views on how AI tools supports instruction and reduces workload; (4) Impact on Students’ Creative Thinking, exploring perceptions of effects on originality, idea generation, and organization; (5) Impact on Writing Skills, assessing perceptions of effects on grammar, coherence, and content; and (6) Recommendations and Future Use, gathering suggestions for curriculum integration and training needs.

Interviews: Semi-structured interviews were conducted to gain a deeper understanding of teachers’ experiences and reflections. The open-ended questions were designed to elicit detailed views on the role of AI in supporting or limiting creativity and writing development. Interviews were conducted in Arabic to ensure fluency and depth of response. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and translated into English for thematic analysis.

3.3. Data Analysis

Quantitative data from the questionnaire were analyzed using descriptive statistics (SPSS software) to summarize demographic information and perception trends. Thematic analysis using MAXQDA software was employed to extract the qualitative data from the interviews. The researcher identified, analyzed, and reported patterns within the data to provide a detailed account of the teachers’ perspectives.

4. Results

The findings from the questionnaire and interviews reveal both optimistic and cautious perceptions among Arab EFL teachers regarding the role of AI in their classrooms.

4.1. Questionnaire Findings: A Cautious Step

The questionnaire data indicate that while teachers are generally open to using AI tools (see Appendix A), they maintain specific reservations, particularly concerning creative thinking. The most frequently used tool among the respondents was ChatGPT (85.9%), followed by Grammarly (44.6%).

Teachers expressed concern about the impact on creative thinking. The statement “AI writing tools weaken students’ ability to create unique expressions” produced a low mean score (M = 1.88), with over 64% of teachers disagreeing or strongly disagreeing, suggesting a belief that these tools may actually limit rather than help creativity. Similarly, items related to limiting imagination and suppressing independent idea generation produced low mean scores (M = 2.77 and M = 2.34, respectively).

However, the perception was not entirely negative. The statement “AI writing tools help students organize their thoughts” received a relatively high mean score (M = 3.53), indicating that teachers recognize the use of these tools in the structural and organizational aspects of writing. This suggests a distinction in teachers’ minds between the mechanical process of organizing ideas and the more profound act of creative generation.

When asked about future integration, teachers remained reserved. The recommendation to formally integrate these tools into the curriculum received a neutral mean score of 3.07, with 62% of respondents choosing the midpoint. This indicates widespread uncertainty about system-wide adoption, despite acknowledging the practical benefits for improving distinct writing skills.

4.2. Interview Findings: Six Core Themes

Thematic analysis of the 15 interviews revealed six themes that capture the teachers’ experiences and perspectives (see Appendix B).

Theme 1: Teachers’ General Perceptions of Writing Assistance Tools

Participants expressed what might be termed “optimistic realism.” They appreciated tools like Grammarly as helpful pedagogical additions but not as replacements for traditional teaching. The tools were valued for their ability to assist students with grammar and vocabulary, freeing teacher time for higher-order instruction. However, this optimism was tempered by caution.

One teacher explained, “Grammarly is like an extra set of hands in the classroom. I can focus more on idea development because the tool takes care of minor grammar issues that otherwise eat up precious lesson time.”

Another teacher offered a contrasting perspective: “These tools correct the ‘how,’ but they do not teach the ‘why.’ I worry that some students will stop asking questions and blindly accept corrections.”

Theme 2: Impact on Students’ Creative Thinking

A strong division of opinion marked this theme. Some teachers felt that by reducing the cognitive burden of mechanics, digital tools liberated students to be more creative. Others, however, expressed serious concerns that automated feedback limits creativity by promoting conformity and discouraging authentic expression.

One teacher shared a positive experience: “Before Grammarly, my students were hesitant. They kept their sentences short and simple, afraid to make mistakes. Now, they are trying out metaphors, rhetorical questions, and even humor in their writing because they know someone is there to guide the mechanics.”

Another teacher described a different outcome: “The vivid personal touches in students’ writing, cultural references, humor, and creative twists, gradually disappeared. Their essays became grammatically perfect but emotionally flat.”

Theme 3: Influence on Students’ Writing Skills

There was a strong agreement that Grammarly significantly improved the technical quality of student writing, particularly in grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Teachers noted that students became more aware of their standard errors. However, they also pointed out that these improvements were often surface-level, with little impact on content development or argumentation.

One teacher observed, “One of the biggest benefits was seeing students independently identify subject-verb agreement errors or punctuation mistakes, issues they previously ignored completely.”

Another teacher cautioned, “Grammarly can catch a missing comma, sure. However, it will not help a student who does not know how to structure an argument or develop a persuasive paragraph.”

Theme 4: Limitations and Challenges of Integration

Teachers highlighted significant practical and pedagogical challenges. A major issue was the digital divide, with limited access to technology in underserved schools affecting effective implementation. Another dominant concern was students’ over-reliance on auto-corrections, leading to shallow learning.

One teacher explained the infrastructure challenge: “The idea is great, but when you have 30 students and only 10 working computers, it is impossible to make it part of a regular lesson. We need the tools before we can teach with the tools.”

Regarding student dependence, another teacher noted, “It becomes a habit. They click ‘accept’ without reading or thinking. They are not learning how to write better; they are just fixing surface mistakes.”

Theme 5: Suggestions and Recommendations for Effective Integration

Participants offered several practical recommendations. The most common was the need to incorporate AI writing tools within structured pedagogical guidelines, using them as one step in a comprehensive writing process that includes brainstorming, drafting, and peer review. Teachers also emphasized the need for explicit instruction in digital literacy to teach students how to evaluate automated suggestions critically.

One teacher described her approach: “Grammarly is powerful, but it should not replace teaching. I use it after students brainstorm, write, and revise. It becomes one step in a longer process.”

Theme 6: Views on the Future Role of Technology in Education

Teachers overwhelmingly believed that AI would play an increasingly central role in education, but it should remain a supportive tool rather than a substitute for human educators. They cited the emotional, ethical, and relational dimensions of teaching as aspects that automated systems cannot replicate.

One teacher articulated this view: “These tools can correct a sentence, but they cannot understand the emotion behind a story, or why a student is disengaged. Teaching is relational; it is not just about grammar.”

5. Discussion

The findings of this study reveal a teaching community coping with both the promise and the challenges of AI in the EFL classroom. The “optimistic realism” identified in the interviews, combined with the cautious responses in the questionnaire, suggests that Arab EFL teachers in the Haifa District approach digital writing tools not as simple solutions but as complex instruments with significant pedagogical implications.

The strong agreement on the effectiveness of these tools in improving the mechanical aspects of writing goes with the principles of Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1988). By automating lower-order tasks, tools like Grammarly free up students’ cognitive resources to focus on more complex aspects of writing. This was reflected in teachers’ comments about students feeling more confident and willing to experiment with language once their anxiety about making simple errors was reduced.

However, the deep-seated concern about the impact on creativity reveals a significant tension. Teachers worry that the standardizing nature of automated feedback may lead to a homogenization of student writing, discouraging the unique, culturally-influenced expressions that are particularly valuable in a diverse region like Haifa. This finding resonates with literature that cautions against the uncritical application of technology, which can promote conformity over originality (Newton & Newton, 2020). It also highlights the limitations of current systems in understanding the style, tone, and context, elements central to creative expression.

The teachers’ call for scaffolding and critical digital literacy goes with Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory (1978). They see their role not as passive observers of technology but as active mediators, guiding students on how to interact with AI tools in ways that foster learning. Their recommendations to use these tools as part of a broader writing process, incorporating peer review, reflective logs, and explicit instruction, demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of pedagogy that extends beyond simple error correction.

The practical challenges identified, such as the digital divide and the lack of professional development, are significant. These findings show that successful technology integration is not only a matter of pedagogical approach but also of reasonable access and institutional support. Without adequate resources and training, the potential of technology to enhance learning remains unrealized, and the risk of existing inequalities increases.

6. Conclusion and Recommendations

This study reveals that Arab EFL teachers in the Haifa District hold an optimistic and cautious view of integrating AI into their teaching practices. They recognize its value as a powerful tool for enhancing the technical accuracy of student writing but remain deeply concerned about its potential to inhibit creativity, originality, and critical thinking. The dominant perception is that AI tools should serve as a supplement to, not a replacement for, the essential role of the human teacher.

6.1. Recommendations for Practice

Based on the findings, several key recommendations emerge for educators, administrators, and policymakers:

Invest in Comprehensive Professional Development. Teachers require extensive, ongoing training that extends beyond basic tool usage. This training should focus on pedagogical strategies for integrating AI thoughtfully and effectively, including how to scaffold its use and teach digital literacy. Professional development programs should address both the technical aspects of using digital writing tools and the pedagogical considerations for maintaining student creativity and critical thinking.

Develop Clear Pedagogical Guidelines. Schools and districts should create explicit guidelines for AI integration that prioritize holistic learning. These guidelines should encourage a balanced approach in which AI is used to support, not dominate, the writing process, and where creativity and critical thinking are explicitly valued. Guidelines should also address ethical considerations, including student privacy and data security.

Address Infrastructure and Access Inequities. Educational leaders must work to ensure equitable access to technology. Without adequate infrastructure and resources, the potential benefits of AI writing tools will not be accessible to all students, spreading the educational gap. This includes providing sufficient hardware, reliable internet connectivity, and technical support for both teachers and students.

Promote Critical Digital Literacy. Educators should foster a classroom culture where students are encouraged to critically evaluate automated suggestions rather than accepting them passively. Activities such as reflective logs, group discussions about automated feedback, and explicit instruction in evaluating digital suggestions can help build this crucial skill. Students should learn to view AI tools as a tool that supports their thinking rather than replaces it.

Implement Scaffolded Integration. Rather than introducing AI writing tools as standalone solutions, educators should integrate them into a comprehensive writing process. This process should include brainstorming, drafting, peer review, revision, and reflection. AI should be positioned as one component of this process, not the entire solution.

Conduct Ongoing Assessment and Research. Schools should regularly assess the impact of AI integration on student learning outcomes, including both writing proficiency and creative thinking. This assessment should inform continuous improvement of implementation strategies and help identify best practices.

6.2. Limitations and Future Research

This study focused on teacher perceptions in a specific geographical and cultural context, and its findings may not be generalizable to other populations. The research relied on self-reported data, which can be subject to personal biases. Future research should incorporate direct observation of classroom practices and performance-based measures to create a more complete picture of technology’s impact. Long-term studies are also needed to track the long-term effects of AI writing tool use on students’ writing development and creative thinking. Additionally, research examining student perceptions would provide valuable complementary insights to the teacher perceptions documented in this study.

Ultimately, the successful integration of AI in education depends not on the sophistication of the tools themselves but on the wisdom and pedagogical skill of the teachers who use them. By implementing a human-centered approach, educators can connect the power of AI to support students in becoming more confident, capable, and creative writers.

References

Chapelle, C. A. (2017). Technology and second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 3, pp. 513–527). Routledge.

Chen, L., Chen, P., & Lin, Z. (2020). Artificial intelligence in education: A review. IEEE Access, 8, 75264-75278. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2988510

Downes, S. (2012). Connectivism and connective knowledge: Essays on meaning and learning networks. National Research Council Canada.

Holmes, W., Porayska-Pomsta, K., & Nemorin, S. (2022). Ethics of AI in education: Towards a community-wide framework. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32, 504–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00239-1

Kim, H. J., & Kim, Y. (2022). Investigation of AI grammar checkers on enhancing grammar accuracy and learners’ perceptions. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 22, 1009–1032.

Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Pearson.

Neha, V. (2020). Role of artificial intelligence in education. Alochana Chakra Journal, 9(9), 305–309.

Newton, D. P., & Newton, L. D. (2020). ‘It is a bit of a dilemma’: The challenges of teaching for creativity with and without artificial intelligence. In S. Poultsakis, S. Papadakis, & M. Kalogiannakis (Eds.), Handbook of research on using educational robotics to facilitate student learning (pp. 1–25). IGI Global.

Schiff, D. (2021). Out of the laboratory and into the classroom: The future of artificial intelligence in education. AI & Society, 36(1), 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01033-8

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Wu, H., Ge, S., & Luo, X. (2021). The effects of AI-powered writing assistance on students’ writing quality: A meta-analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(4), 1875-1897.

Appendices

Appendix A: Questionnaire on Technology Integration in Teaching

Section 1: Demographic and Professional Background

1. Gender: Male / Female

2. Age: 20-30 / 31-40 / 41-50 / 51+

3. Educational level: Bachelor’s / Master’s / Doctoral

4. Years of teaching experience: Less than 3 / 3-5 / 6-10 / More than 10

5.Classes taught: 10th / 11th / 12th / All

6. Number of training courses attended: None / 1-2 / 3-5 / More than 5

Section 2: Familiarity with Digital Tools (Scale: 1-Strongly Disagree to Agree 5-Strongly) 7. I am familiar with digital writing tools in education (e.g., Grammarly, ChatGPT). 8. I regularly incorporate digital writing tools into my teaching practices. 9. What types of digital writing tools do you commonly use?

Section 3: Teachers’ Perceptions of Integrating Technology in Teaching (Scale: 1-5) 10. Digital writing tools significantly enhance the quality and effectiveness of teaching practices. 11. Digital writing tools improve students’ overall learning outcomes. 12. Digital writing tools simplify complex tasks for students. 13. Digital writing tools encourage students to generate innovative and original ideas. 14. The use of digital writing tools limits students’ ability to experiment with unique language. 15. Digital writing tools enable students to explore topics in greater depth. 16. Digital writing tools positively affect students’ ability to explore alternative perspectives.

Section 4: Impact on Students’ Creative Thinking (Scale: 1-5) 17. Digital writing tools significantly improve aspects of creative thinking in general. 18. Students rely too much on digital writing tools instead of developing creative thinking skills. 19. I always encourage my students to use digital writing tools for creative tasks. 20. Digital writing tools improve students’ ability to refine and organize creative ideas. 21. The use of digital writing tools reduces students’ opportunities to think independently. 22. Digital writing tools influence how effectively students brainstorm and generate new ideas. 23. Digital writing tools positively affect students’ ability to organize creative ideas logically.

Section 5: The Impact on the Writing Skills of Students (Scale: 1-5) 24. Digital writing tools significantly improve the content quality of students’ writing. 25. Digital writing tools are effective in enhancing the organization of students’ written work. 26. Digital writing tools assist students in generating ideas and encourage creativity. 27. The use of digital writing tools positively impacts students’ ability to generate coherent arguments. 28. Digital writing tools positively affect students’ originality and uniqueness of writing. 29. Digital writing tools increase students’ motivation and engagement in the writing process. 30. Long-term use of digital writing tools enhances students’ ability to produce high-quality written work independently.

Section 6: Recommendations and Future Use 31. Digital writing tools should be integrated into the curriculum to the extent of: High / Moderate / Low 32. The role of digital writing tools in the future of education will be central to teaching and learning. (Scale: 1-5) 33. As a teacher, my concerns regarding the ethical implications of technology in education are…

Appendix B: Interview Questions

1. Can you describe your teaching background and any experience you have with integrating digital writing tools into your educational practices?

2. What are your general perceptions of the role of technology in education? How do you feel these tools have influenced teaching and learning in your context?

3. How do you perceive the impact of digital writing tools on students’ creative thinking skills, particularly in terms of enhancing originality and innovative expression?

4. In your opinion, how do digital writing tools affect students’ academic outcomes, particularly in areas like writing skills, critical thinking, and idea generation? Could you share examples from your teaching experience?

5. What challenges do teachers face when incorporating digital writing tools into their teaching, both in terms of pedagogy and student learning outcomes?

6. In your opinion, do you think technology has the potential to replace human teachers in the future, or will it continue to serve as a complementary tool in education?

7. Based on your experience, what recommendations would you make for integrating digital writing tools more effectively into teaching practices? What changes or improvements would you like to see in the future?