Exploring EFL students’ use of generative AI for academic writing: An extension of the UTAUT2 model

Authors

  • Tri Agustini Solihati Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta
  • Endang Nurhayati Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta
  • Mulyana Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v30i3.5326

Keywords:

Academic writing, AI self-efficacy, AI trust, EFL students, GenAI, UTAUT2

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has shown potential in supporting academic writing, yet limited research addressed the intention and actual use of this technology by foreign language students. To address this gap, the study employs an extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2) model by integrating AI self-efficacy and AI trust to investigate the factors influencing EFL students’ intention and actual use of GenAI in academic writing. An online survey using a cross-sectional design involving 481 purposively selected EFL students from Indonesian universities was analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) with SmartPLS 4. The results revealed that performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, habit, and AI self-efficacy significantly shaped EFL students’ intentions to use GenAI for academic writing, while behavioral intention, habit, and AI self-efficacy significantly influence actual use. In contrast, AI trust, facilitating conditions, and hedonic motivation show no significant effect on either intention or actual use. The model demonstrated strong explanatory power, with R² values of 0.806 for behavioral intention and 0.617 for actual use. The study enhances the explanatory power of UTAUT2 in GenAI-supported academic writing and offers practical insights for pedagogy and policy to promote GenAI literacy, critical evaluation skills, and responsible use in academic writing.

Author Biographies

Endang Nurhayati, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta

Endang Nurhayati is a Professor in the Department of Javanese Language Education at Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta. Her research encompasses area such as Javanese linguistics and education, sociolinguistics and cultural studies, language learning and assessment. Orcid ID: 0000-0003-2866-9120. Email: endang_nurhayati@uny.ac.id

Mulyana, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta

Mulyana is A lecturer at the Faculty of Language, Arts, and Culture, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta. His research interests include discourse analysis, Javanese language and culture, linguistic anthropology, and language education. He is also active as a public speaker, cultural trainer, and opinion writer in national and local media. Email: mulyana@uny.ac.id.

References

Abdullah, M. Y. (2025). Probing into EFL students’ perceptions about the impact of utilizing AI-powered tools on their academic writing practices. Education and Information Technologies, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13601-w

Allen, T. J., & Mizumoto, A. (2024). ChatGPT over my friends: Japanese English-as-a-Foreign-Language learners’ preferences for editing and proofreading strategies. RELC Journal, 00336882241262533. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882241262533

Altikriti, S. (2021). Challenges facing Jordanian undergraduates in writing graduation research paper. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 18(1), 58–67. https://doi.org/10.52462/jlls.166

Amin, M. A., Kim, Y. S., & Noh, M. (2025). Unveiling the drivers of ChatGPT utilization in higher education sectors: The direct role of perceived knowledge and the mediating role of trust in ChatGPT. Education and Information Technologies, 30(6), 7265–7291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13095-y

Bae, H., Hur, J., Park, J., Choi, G. W., & Moon, J. (2024). Pre-service teachers’ dual perspectives on generative AI: Benefits, challenges, and integration into their teaching and learning. Online Learning, 28(3), 131–156. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v28i3.4543

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.

Baroni, I., Calegari, G. R., Scandolari, D., & Celino, I. (2022). AI-TAM: A model to investigate user acceptance and collaborative intention in human-in-the-loop AI applications. Human Computation, 9(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.15346/hc.v9i1.134

Bulqiyah, S., Mahbub, M., & Nugraheni, D. A. (2021). Investigating writing difficulties in essay writing: Tertiary students’ perspectives. English Language Teaching Educational Journal, 4(1), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v4i1.2371

Cardon, P., Fleischmann, C., Aritz, J., Logemann, M., & Heidewald, J. (2023). The challenges and opportunities of AI-assisted writing: Developing AI literacy for the AI age. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 86(3), 257–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294906231176517

Chanpradit, T. (2025). Generative artificial intelligence in academic writing in higher education: A systematic review. Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology, 9(4), 889–906. https://doi.org/10.55214/25768484.v9i4.6128

Chu, P. Q., Chowdhury, R., & Thu, L. T. T. (2025a). Factors affecting EFL students’ acceptance of blended learning for writing: Examining the mediating effect of self-efficacy and writing performance. Cogent Education, 12(1), 2538325. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2538325

Chu, P. Q., Chowdhury, R., & Thu, L. T. T. (2025b). Using the UTAUT2 model to determine the factors affecting students’ acceptance of blended learning for English writing. CALL-EJ, 26(3), 24–42. https://doi.org/10.54855/callej.252632

Chuenchaichon, Y. (2022). The problems of summary writing encountered by Thai EFL students: A case study of the fourth year English major students at Naresuan University. English Language Teaching, 15(6), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v15n6p15

Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 189–211. https://doi.org/10.2307/249688

Deutsch, M. (1960). The effect of motivational orientation upon trust and suspicion. Human Relations, 13(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872676001300202

Dietrich, L. K., & Grassini, S. (2025). Assessing ChatGPT acceptance and use in education: A comparative study among German-speaking students and teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13658-7

Dinh, K. P., Thang, P. C., & My, N. T. T. (2025). Unpacking the adoption and use of mobile education apps: A UTAUT2 perspective from a developing country. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 12, 101665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101665

Eastin, M. S., & LaRose, R. (2000). Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of the digital divide. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(1), JCMC611. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2000.tb00110.x

Faraon, M., Rönkkö, K., Milrad, M., & Tsui, E. (2025). International perspectives on artificial intelligence in higher education: An explorative study of students’ intention to use ChatGPT across the Nordic countries and the USA. Education and Information Technologies, 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13492-x

Feuerriegel, S., Hartmann, J., Janiesch, C., & Zschech, P. (2024). Generative AI. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 66(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-023-00834-

Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 51–90. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036519

Grassini, S., Aasen, M. L., & Møgelvang, A. (2024). Understanding university students’ acceptance of ChatGPT: Insights from the UTAUT2 model. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 38(1), 2371168. https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2024.2371168

Gupta, S., Jaiswal, A., Paramasivam, A., & Kotecha, J. (2022). Academic writing challenges and supports: Perspectives of international doctoral students and their supervisors. Frontiers in Education, 7, 891534. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.891534

Hair, J. F., Thomas, G., Hult, M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Sage.

Haryanto, S., Rahmatika, L., Islam, M. M., Setiyoningsih, T., Anandha, & Surachmi W., S. (2026). Investigating EFL students’ adoption of generative artificial intelligence for English learning through UTAUT2 and SDT: A mixed-methods study. Teaching English as a Second Language Electronic Journal (TESL-EJ), 29(4), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.29116a3

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8

Hsiao, C. H., & Tang, K. Y. (2024). Beyond acceptance: An empirical investigation of technological, ethical, social, and individual determinants of GenAI-supported learning in higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13263-0

Hsu, W. L., & Silalahi, A. D. K. (2024). Exploring the paradoxical use of ChatGPT in education: Analyzing benefits, risks, and coping strategies through integrated UTAUT and PMT theories using a hybrid approach of SEM and fsQCA. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100329

Kim, J., Yu, S., Detrick, R., & Li, N. (2025). Exploring students’ perspectives on generative AI-assisted academic writing. Education and Information Technologies, 30(1), 1265–1300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12878-7

Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101

Laver, K., George, S., Ratcliffe, J., & Crotty, M. (2012). Measuring technology self-efficacy: Reliability and construct validity of a modified computer self-efficacy scale in a clinical rehabilitation setting. Disability and Rehabilitation, 34(3), 220–227. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2011.593682

Lin, C. S., Kuo, Y. F., & Wang, T. Y. (2025). Trust and acceptance of AI caregiving robots: The role of ethics and self-efficacy. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 3, 100115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100115

Liu, N., Deng, W., & Ayub, A. F. M. (2025). Exploring the adoption of AI-enabled English learning applications among university students using extended UTAUT2 model. Education and Information Technologies, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13349-3

Malik, Pratiwi, Y., Andajani, K., Numertayasa, I. W., Suharti, S., Darwis, A., & Marzuki. (2023). Exploring artificial intelligence in academic essay: Higher education student’s perspective. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 5, 100296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2023.100296

Marzuki, Widiati, U., Rusdin, D., Darwin, & Indrawati, I. (2023). The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students’ writing: EFL teachers’ perspective. Cogent Education, 10(2), 2236469. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2023.2236469

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335

McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 334–359. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.13.3.334.81

Mizumoto, A., Yasuda, S., & Tamura, Y. (2024). Identifying ChatGPT-generated texts in EFL students’ writing: Through comparative analysis of linguistic fingerprints. Applied Corpus Linguistics, 4(3), 100106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acorp.2024.100106

Mo, Z., & Crosthwaite, P. (2025). Exploring the affordances of generative AI large language models for stance and engagement in academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 75, 101499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101499

Moradi, H. (2025). Integrating AI in higher education: Factors influencing ChatGPT acceptance among Chinese university EFL students. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-025-00530-4

Mustafa, A., Arbab, A. N., & El Sayed, A. A. (2022). Difficulties in academic writing in English as a second/foreign language from the perspective of undergraduate students in higher education institutions in Oman. Arab World English Journal, 13(3), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol13no3.3

Mustofa, R. H., Kuncoro, T. G., Atmono, D., & Hermawan, H. D. (2025). Extending the Technology Acceptance Model: The role of subjective norms, ethics, and trust in AI tool adoption among students. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 100379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100379

Picciano, A. G. (2024). Graduate teacher education students use and evaluate ChatGPT as an essay-writing tool. Online Learning, 28(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v28i2.4373

Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. F. (2022). Partial least squares structural equation modeling. In C. Homburg, M. Klarmann, & A. Vomberg (Eds.), Handbook of market research (pp. 587–632). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57413-4_15

Sarwanti, S., Sariasih, Y., Rahmatika, L., Islam, M. M., & Riantina, E. M. (2024). Are they literate on ChatGPT? University language students’ perceptions, benefits and challenges in higher education learning. Online Learning, 28(3), 105–130. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v28i3.4599

Stahl, B. C., & Eke, D. (2024). The ethics of ChatGPT–exploring the ethical issues of an emerging technology. International Journal of Information Management, 74, 102700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102700

Strzelecki, A. (2024). ChatGPT in higher education: Investigating bachelor and master students’ expectations towards AI tool. Education and Information Technologies, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13222-9

Surachmi, S. W., Solihati, T. A., Rahmatika, L., Musdalifah, Islam, M. M., & Haryanto, S. (2025). Understanding EFL students' adoption of generative AI for English learning: An integrated UTAUT2 model and self-determination theory. Online Learning, 29(4), 311–340. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v29i4.5129

Tiandem-Adamou, Y. (2024). Using generative artificial intelligence to support EFL students’ writing proficiency in university in China. Journal of Educational Technology and Innovation, 6(4), 59–81. https://doi.org/10.61414/jeti.v6i4.213

Toprak, Z., & Yücel, V. (2020). A peculiar practice of academic writing: Epidemic writing in the Turkish graduate education. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1774098. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1774098

Tran, T. N. M. (2025). Factors affecting the use of ChatGPT in academic writing perceived by English-majored students. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 41(3), 110–125. https://doi.org/10.63023/2525-2445/jfs.ulis.5519

Tyupa, S. (2011). A theoretical framework for back-translation as a quality assessment tool. New Voices in Translation Studies, 7(1), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.14456/nvts.2011.4

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412

Wang, Q. (2025). EFL learners’ motivation and acceptance of using large language models in English academic writing: An extension of the UTAUT model. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1514545. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1514545

Wang, Y. Y., & Chuang, Y. W. (2024). Artificial intelligence self-efficacy: Scale development and validation. Education and Information Technologies, 29(4), 4785–4808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12015-w

Wurisoedjatmiko, S. (2017). Guru wanita lebih banyak dari pria: Mengapa dirisaukan? Wurisoedjatmiko. https://wurisoedjatmiko.blogspot.com/2017/10/guru-wanita-lebih-banyak-dari-pria.html

Xu, J., Li, Y., Shadiev, R., & Li, C. (2025). College students’ use behavior of generative AI and its influencing factors under the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model. Education and Information Technologies, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13508-6

Yang, Y. (2025). Exploring factors influencing L2 learners’ use of GAI-assisted writing technology: Based on the UTAUT model. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2025.2505664

Zhao, J., Li, X., & Liao, H. (2025). A context-specific analysis of translation technology usage behavior among college EFL students: Insights from the UTAUT2 model. Education and Information Technologies, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13454-3

Zheng, Y., Wang, Y., Liu, K. S. X., & Jiang, M. Y. C. (2024). Examining the moderating effect of motivation on technology acceptance of generative AI for English as a foreign language learning. Education and Information Technologies, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12763-3

Zimmerman, A. (2023). A ghostwriter for the masses: ChatGPT and the future of writing. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 30(6), 3170–3173. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-023-13436-0

Downloads

Published

2026-09-01

How to Cite

Agustini Solihati, T., Nurhayati, E., & Mulyana. (2026). Exploring EFL students’ use of generative AI for academic writing: An extension of the UTAUT2 model. Online Learning, 30(3), 127–155. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v30i3.5326

Issue

Vol. 30 No. 3 (2026): Online Learning

Section

Section II

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Tri Agustini Solihati, Endang Nurhayati, Mulyana

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.

Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions