Overreliance on AWE may lower learners' critical thinking and creativity¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-15 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The review points out that learners relying too much on AWE could lower their critical thinking and creativity. → Gres 2026

Evidence¶

Gres 2026¶

Gres, E., Riyanti, D., & Yuliana, Y. G. S. (2026). AI-POWERED FEEDBACK SYSTEM FOR WRITING: A REVIEW OF AUTOMATED WRITING EVALUATION (AWE) TOOLS. Wiralodra English Journal, 10(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.31943/wej.v10i2.572

q3 · i? · review · r2

Risk finding from the systematic review's thematic analysis of 50 empirical studies. The review reports that "learners relying too much on AWE" could lower critical thinking and creativity; no effect size or test statistic is printed.

"However, the review pointed out that learners relying too much on AWE and the fact that it could lower their critical thinking and creativity."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Creativity — outcome: instruction changes it
• Academic and Critical Literacy — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Meta-reviews reach contradictory conclusions on whether AI reliance harms or helps critical thinking, with substantial design limitations limiting generalizability — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• Free ChatGPT use boosts originality on the assisted creative task but the advantage disappears when assistance is removed — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• A review of 50 studies reports that AWE tools can improve the organization and overall quality of writing and encourage self-directed learning — related
• AWE tools such as Grammarly, Quillbot and DeepL Write significantly improve writing precision, fluency and grammatical proficiency through immediate and customized feedback — related
• AWE feedback has limited depth and questionable accuracy for evaluating complex writing aspects — related
• Overreliance on AI is the most prevalent pedagogical limitation (27 studies, 50%), followed by reduced critical thinking (25 studies, 46%) — a broader claim this one bears on
• Students given AI assistance in peer feedback tended to rely on the AI-generated feedback and struggled to perform the task when the assistance was removed — related
• Reviewed studies consistently raise concerns about AI accuracy, overreliance, academic integrity, and reduced critical engagement in Arab EL2 contexts — related
• Reviewed literature reports risks of overreliance, AI errors in complex tasks, and students' uncritical acceptance of AI-generated outputs — related
• Structured integration of AI can enhance students' digital literacy, content retention, and critical thinking skills in the academic context — reports the opposite
• A 2026 text-mining review chapter reports that studies of ChatGPT in programming education find benefits where it is used with structured pedagogical guidance and teacher facilitation — related
• Customized AI writing systems show benefits in writing quality, learning processes, assessment reliability, and feedback literacy — related
• Three multilingual international students critically evaluated AI feedback, recognized peer-AI agreement, and maintained their voices while revising — related
• AI assistance raises individual creative self-assessments but reduces collective diversity of novel content (reviewed finding) — related
• Teachers express concern that student overreliance on AI may degrade independent thinking and hands-on scientific skills — related