Human vs. AI: Comparing Student-Written and ChatGPT-Generated Essays in Terms of Thematic Progression and Rhetorical Organization

Abstract

This qualitative study compares 27 argumentative essays written by Grade 12 students at Pualas National High School in the Philippines with a ChatGPT-generated essay in response to the same prompt. Drawing on thematic progression and genre-based analysis, it examines textual organization, Theme–Rheme development, engagement and stance, contextualization, and the development of arguments and counterarguments. The analysis identifies both shared conventions and differences across the texts. Both student and AI-generated writing generally follow a recognizable argumentative structure and develop related themes concerning the potential effects of artificial intelligence on future employment. The student essays, however, display greater variation in paragraph development, more frequent personal positioning, and examples grounded in familiar contexts. The ChatGPT-generated essay presents a more consistently organized and generalized discussion, with explicit transitions and a comparatively impersonal tone. These observations describe the texts in this corpus and should not be interpreted as evidence of differences in students’ cognitive abilities or as defining characteristics of AI-generated writing more broadly. The study contributes a context-specific qualitative comparison of thematic and rhetorical features in secondary-level writing and highlights the value of assessing argument development and contextual relevance alongside linguistic accuracy. The findings support the use of AI-generated texts as materials for critical evaluation, provided that students remain responsible for developing and defending their own arguments.