Tracking Editorial Footprints: A Process-Oriented Analysis of ChatGPT Reliance in Student Writing

Authors

  • Jungmin Kwon

    Department of Educational Technology, Seoul National University of Education, Seoul 06639, Republic of Korea
  • Youngsun Lee

    Department of Special Education, Ewha Womans University, Seoul 03760, Republic of Korea

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i6.9985
Received: 12 May 2025 | Revised: 3 June 2025 | Accepted: 9 June 2025 | Published Online: 14 June 2025

Abstract

In this study, we propose a process-oriented framework centered on “editorial footprints,”  which we define as the observable steps in a writer’s drafting and revision process when using generative AI. Fifteen female undergraduate students completed two writing tasks using ChatGPT: one under a quick, minimal-effort condition and another under a thorough, high-effort condition. Participants edited a shared rough draft in Google Docs, while their entire interactions with ChatGPT were recorded and qualitatively analyzed. Results show that while the final text lengths were similar, students in the thorough condition made significantly more edits and employed a broader range of ChatGPT prompts, producing work with greater depth, logical coherence, and style consistency, which left more editorial footprints throughout the writing process. These findings reveal distinct patterns of engagement, prompting, and revision between the two conditions and demonstrate the limitations of current AI detectors, which overlook the full scope of the writing process.  Our discussion emphasizes that detection of AI-generated writing should incorporate analysis of the writer's interaction histories and revision behaviors with generative AI tools. We further suggest that understanding these process-based indicators is essential not only for distinguishing AI-assisted writing but also for fostering educational practices that encourage meaningful, reflective engagement with AI in writing.

Keywords:

Writing; Higher Education; ChatGPT; LLM; AI Detection; Prompts

References

[1] Chaka, C., 2024. Reviewing the performance of AI detection tools in differentiating between AI-generated and human-written texts: A literature and integrative hybrid review. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching. 7(1), 115–126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2024.7.1.14

[2] Klein, A.B., 2023. New York City blocks ChatGPT at schools. Should other districts follow? Available from: https://www.edweek.org/technology/new-york-city-blocks-chatgpt-at-schools-should-other-districts-follow/2023/01 (cited 8 April 2025).

[3] Pearlman, J.B., 2024. Australian states block ChatGPT in schools even as critics say ban is futile. Available from: https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/australianz/australian-states-block–chatgpt-in-schools–even-as-critics-say-ban-is-futile (cited 10 October 2024).

[4] Yu, H., 2023. Reflection on whether Chat GPT should be banned by academia from the perspective of education and teaching. Frontiers in Psychology. 14, 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1181712

[5] Stone, B.W., 2024. Generative AI in higher education: Uncertain students, ambiguous use cases, and mercenary perspectives. Teaching of Psychology. Advance online publication. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00986283241305398

[6] Chaka, C., 2023. Detecting AI content in responses generated by ChatGPT, YouChat, and Chatsonic: The case of five AI content detection tools. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching. 6(2), 94–104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.2.12

[7] Desaire, H.B., Chua, A.E., Kim, M.G., et al., 2023. Accurately detecting AI text when ChatGPT is told to write like a chemist. Cell Reports Physical Science. 4(11), 101672. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrp.2023.101672

[8] Gao, C.A., Howard, F.M., Markov, N.S., et al., 2023. Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers. NPJ Digital Medicine. 6(1), 75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-023-00819-6

[9] Tian, E.B., 2023. GPTZero: Perplexity, burstiness, and statistical AI detection. Available from: https://gptzero.me/news/perplexity-and-burstiness-what-is-it/ (cited 1 March 2025).

[10] Turnitin, 2023. To ban or not to ban AI writing in schools? Available from: https://www.turnitin.com/blog/to-ban-or-not-to-ban-ai-writing-in-schools (cited 1 March 2024).

[11] Dwyer, M., Laird, E.B., 2024. Up in the air: Educators juggling the potential of generative AI with detection, discipline, and disrupt. Center for Democracy and Technology. Available from: https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2024-03-21-CDT-Civic-Tech-Generative-AI-Survey-Research-final.pdf (cited 10 March 2025).

[12] Bender, E.M., Koller, A.B., 2020. Climbing towards NLU: On meaning, form, and understanding in the age of data. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 5–10 July 2020. pp. 5185–5198. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.463

[13] Goldstein, S.B., Kern, R.B., 2023. Evaluating AI-generated writing: Challenges and emerging solutions. Journal of Educational Technology. 46(2), 175–190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2024.100899

[14] Weber-Wulff, D.B., Anohina-Naumeca, A.B., Bjelobaba, S., et al., 2023. Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text. International Journal for Educational Integrity. 19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00146-z

[15] Lancaster, T., 2023. Artificial intelligence, text generation tools and ChatGPT–does digital watermarking offer a solution? International Journal for Educational Integrity. 19(1), 10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00131-6

[16] Emig, J., 1977. Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication. 28(2), 122–128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/356095

[17] Flower, L.B., Hayes, J.R., 1981. A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication. 32(4), 365–387. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/356600

[18] Bereiter, C.B., Scardamalia, M.B., 1987. The Psychology of Written Composition. Routledge: New York, NY, USA. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203812310

[19] Sommers, N., 1980. Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication. 31(4), 378–388. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/356588

[20] Hayes, J.R., 2012. Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication. 29(3), 369–388.

[21] Salman, A.B., Alexandron, G.B., 2024. The digital fingerprint of learner behavior: Empirical evidence for individuality in learning using deep learning. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence. 7, 100322. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100322

[22] Myhill, D.B., Jones, S.B., 2007. More than just error correction. English Teaching: Practice and Critique. 6(2), 8–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312451260

[23] Waltzer, T.B., Pilegard, C.B., Heyman, G.D., 2024. Can you spot the bot? Identifying AI-generated writing in college essays. International Journal of Educational Integrity. 20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-024-00158-3

[24] Dilekli, Y.B., Boyraz, S.B., 2024. From “Can AI think?” to “Can AI help thinking deeper?”: International Journal of Modern Education Studies. 8(1), 49–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51383/ijonmes.2024.316

[25] Songkram, N., Chootongchai, S., Keereerat, C., et al., 2024. Potential of ChatGPT in academic research: Exploring innovative thinking skills. Interactive Learning Environments. 1–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2024.2375342

[26] Vygotsky, L.S.,1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4

[27] Grinschgl, S., Neubauer, A.C., 2022. Supporting cognition with modern technology: Distributed cognition today and in an AI-enhanced future. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 5, pp.1–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2022.908261

[28] White, E.M., 1994. Teaching and Assessing Writing: Recent Advances in Understanding, Evaluating, and Improving Student Performance (Revised and expanded ed.). Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, CA, USA.

Downloads

How to Cite

Kwon, J., & Lee, Y. (2025). Tracking Editorial Footprints: A Process-Oriented Analysis of ChatGPT Reliance in Student Writing. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 7(6), 941–954. https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i6.9985

Issue

Vol. 7 , Iss. 6 (July 2025)

Article Type

Article

License

Copyright © 2025 Jungmin Kwon, Youngsun Lee

Creative Commons License

This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License.