ArticleScientific reports2026
Enhancing creative writing through AI-powered co-creation with cognitive and emotional outcomes.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This research explored how generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools, specifically a writing assistant powered by large language models like ChatGPT, influence the development of creative writing (CW) skills in intermediate EFL learners, focusing on both cognitive and emotional aspects. The research included 92 male participants who were divided into three distinct groups: The High-AI Support Group, the Low-AI Support Group, and the Control Group (CG). Participants completed pretesting with some validated scales. After the pretest, the High-AI Support Group was provided with comprehensive AI-generated feedback, while the Low-AI Support Group received limited AI support, and the Control Group adhered to conventional writing instruction. After the treatment, posttests were given to all groups, and eight participants from each experimental group took part in interviews. Quantitative analyses revealed that both groups receiving AI support outperformed the Control Group, with the High-AI Support Group exhibiting the most significant enhancements. Qualitative insights revealed that students in the High-AI Support Group demonstrated increased engagement and creativity, attributed to tailored AI feedback that alleviated cognitive load by addressing technical aspects like grammatical accuracy. In contrast, members of the Low-AI Support Group appreciated the collaborative interaction between AI and instructor feedback, which enhanced their confidence, independence, and skills in grammar and writing conventions. In summary, this study emphasizes the importance of AI in enhancing both intellectual and emotional growth for EFL learners, advocating for its incorporation as a valuable resource in educational settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.