SOME AI TOOLS FUNCTIONALITY ABOUT GENERATED FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING MATERIALS
Keywords:
AI tools, generated stories, young learners, plagiarismAbstract
The paper is a further work closely related to previous articles where detailed information was given about the way children’s texts for teaching foreign language were generated by means of AI. One of these articles discusses their readability degree with suggestions matching the targeted age group supported by evidences from some online tools for calculating readability indices. The purpose of the current study is to depict another aspect concerning the functionality of the same AI tools, i.e. ChatGPT, DeepL and Grammarly based on previously discussed texts for young and very young learners. Their effectiveness is viewed in terms of reliability and authenticity of the obtained materials. Whereas a plenty of studies have been conducted to discern the authenticity of texts created by human activity among others generated by artificial intelligence, we haven’t come across many researches examining the AI judgment about its own production. Although it would be strange to classify it as an awareness, a closely related to the idea term might be used. To register the fact accordingly would be enough.
Our search provides data with the help of AI instruments in terms of plagiarism – a topic discussed while counting on QuillBot and ZeroGPT. The pivotal point is related to the AI capability, or rather degree of capability, to detect authenticity of its own generated materials. The applications mentioned above were used to check for plagiarism of the generated by ChatGPT text and the edited by DeepL and Grammarly versions. For these tests only free versions of the indicated detecting tools were used. The methodology followed included two stages, one for each application with one and the same steps: the story generated by ChatGPT 4o free was tested via ZeroGPT; the originally generated by ChatGPT 4o free story and then edited by DeepL was tested via ZeroGPT; the originally generated by ChatGPT 4o free story, edited by Grammarly, was tested via ZeroGPT; the story generated by ChatGPT 4o free was tested via QuillBot; the originally generated by ChatGPT 4o free story and then edited by DeepL was tested via QuillBot; the originally generated by ChatGPT 4o free story, edited by Grammarly, was tested via QuillBot.
Some of the results gave evidence for a certain need to be on the alert in case of trusting AI while at the same time others provided rationale for surprisingly clear and explicit categorization of the materials. Comparing the results by ZeroGPT and QuillBot we receive more realistic analysis by QuillBot, although in one out of three tests it is incorrect.
The article touches the issue about the way AI detector products work in search of explanations about the results received. The overall conclusion on the basis of our small scale study is that they are still not completely reliable but leverages feel to be closely at hand.
References
Briggs, M. (2025). AI Detectors vs Traditional Plagiarism Checkers: What’s the Difference?, Published January 23, 2025 Updated January 24, 2025. https://tweakyourbiz.com/posts/ai-detectors-vs-traditional-plagiarism-checkers-whats-the-difference
Chaka, Ch. (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 & Teaching 7(1):1-12.
Edwards, B. (2023). Why AI detectors think the US Constitution was written by AI. Ars Technica. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/07/why-ai-detectors-think-the-us-constitution-was-written-by-ai
Fowler, G.A. (2023). We tested a new ChatGPT-detector for teachers. It flagged an innocent student. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/04/01/chatgpt-cheating-detection-turnitin.
Glushka, J. (2025). How To Check If Something Was Written with AI (ChatGPT), Gold Penguin. https://goldpenguin.org/blog/check-for-ai-content/
Gotoman, J.E.J., Luna, H.L.T., Sangria, J.C.S., Santiago Jr, C.S., Barbuco, D.D. (2025). Accuracy and Reliability of AI-Generated Text Detection Tools: A Literature Review. American Journal of IR 4 0 and Beyond 4(1):1-9.
Harakchiyska,Ts., Ts. Vassilev. (2024). Pre-Service Teachers’ Perceptions of AI and Its Implementation in the Foreign (English) Language Classroom. Az-buki National Publishing House for Education and Science.04-10-2024. https://doi.org/10.53656/str2024-5s-22-pre
Kopczynski, K. & Silvia, C. (2024). Use of AI in a World Language Classroom. Creative Education, Vol.15 No.12, December 2024. DOI: 10.4236/ce.2024.1512163 https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=138662
Rocha, J., Soares, A., Honorato, M., Lima, L., Costa, N., Moreira, E. and Costa, E. (2015) Computers and Language Learning. Creative Education, 6, 1456-1465. doi: 10.4236/ce.2015.613146.
Shah, A., Ranka, P, Dedhia, U., Prasad, S., Muni, S., Bhowmick, K. (2023). Detecting and Unmasking AI-Generated Texts through Explainable Artificial Intelligence using Stylistic Features. (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, (14)10:1043-1053.
Sofronieva, E., C. Beleva, G. Georgieva. (2025). Use of Artificial Intelligence in Foreign Language Teaching. Az-buki National Publishing House for Education and Science. 01.04. 2025. https://doi.org/10.53656/ped2025-1s.03
Stockwell, G. (2024). ChatGPT in Language Teaching and Learning: Exploring the Road We’re Travelling. Technology in Language Teaching & Learning, 6(1), 2273 https://doi.org/10.29140/tltl.v6n1.2273
Weber‑Wulff, D., Anohina‑Naumeca, A., Bjelobaba, S., Foltýnek, Th., Guerrero‑Dib, J., Popoola, O., Šigut, P., Waddington, L. (2023). Testing of detection tools for AI‑generated Text. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 19:26.
Xia, X. (2025). What to teach and how to teach: Artificial intelligence education in primary and secondary schools. Science Insights Education Frontiers, 28(1):4613-4626.
