AI vs Human Writers: A Comparative Analysis of Story Rewriting through Readability Metrics
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46328/ijtes.5909Keywords:
HCI, Generative AI, User Studies, Readability, Verbosity, Lexical DensityAbstract
This study examines how generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) might be used to rewrite narratives in comparison to texts written by humans, with an emphasis on writing style, readability, and verbosity. GenAI's performance is evaluated by means of quantitative analysis and readability metrics. The results indicate that GenAI often generates writings with higher verbosity and readability scores than stories written by humans. Furthermore, the examination of lexical density and diversity reveals subtle variations in writing styles between human, ChatGPT, and Gemini; GenAI exhibits competitive performance in these metrics. Although the results point to potential applications of GenAI in narrative, more research is needed to determine how effective the technology is when compared to human authors.
References
Al-Alami, S. E. (2025). Factors affecting language and narrative styles in prose fiction: A stylistic perspective. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i2.8144
Beguš, N. (2024). Experimental narratives: A comparison of human crowdsourced storytelling and AI storytelling. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03868-8
Castro, C. D., & Halliday, M. A. K. (1995). An introduction to functional grammar. Language, 71(4), 831. https://doi.org/10.2307/415759
Cheung, L. M. E., & Shi, H. (2025). Co-creating stories with generative AI. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.24101.che
Coleman, M., & Liau, T. L. (1975). A computer readability formula designed for machine scoring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 283–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076540
Durak, H. Y., Eğin, F., & Onan, A. (2025). A comparison of human-written versus AI-generated text in discussions at educational settings: Investigating features for ChatGPT, Gemini, and BingAI. European Journal of Education, 60(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.70014
Fang, X., Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., & Chu, S. K. W. (2023). A systematic review of artificial intelligence technologies used for story writing. Education and Information Technologies, 28(11), 14361–14397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11741-5
Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057532
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2018). IBM SPSS statistics 25 step by step. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351033909
Gunning, R. (1968). The technique of clear writing. McGraw-Hill.
Habib, M. Y., & ElTarabishi, M. (2024). The role of artificial intelligence in shaping the future of media production and the application of algorithm bias theory in storytelling. Journal of Media and Interdisciplinary Studies, 3(8), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.21608/jmis.2024.299137.1033
Hinton, P., McMurray, I., & Brownlow, C. (2014). SPSS explained. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315797298
Hodges, J. L., Morse, P. M., & Kimball, G. E. (1952). Methods of operations research. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 47(258), 315. https://doi.org/10.2307/2280756
Johnson, W. (1944). A program of research. Psychological Monographs, 56(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093508
Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P., Jr., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count, and Flesch reading ease formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. U.S. Navy.
Mariani, M., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence in innovation management: A preview of future research developments. Journal of Business Research, 175, 114542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114542
McLaughlin, G. H. (1969). SMOG grading—A new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12(8), 639–646.
Nick, T. G. (2007). Descriptive statistics. In Methods in molecular biology (pp. 33–52). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-530-5_3
Python. (n.d.). In Alalqab.com. Retrieved March 5, 2026, from https://alalqab.com/en/Python_(programming_language)
Sardinha, T. B. (2023). AI-generated vs human-authored texts: A multidimensional comparison. Applied Corpus Linguistics, 4(1), 100083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acorp.2023.100083
Smith, E. A., Senter, R. J., & Grether, W. F. (1967). Automated readability index. Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories.
Van Rossum, G. (2007). Python programming language. In Proceedings of the USENIX Annual Technical Conference. USENIX Association.
Wang, S., Liu, X., & Zhou, J. (2022). Readability is decreasing in language and linguistics. Scientometrics, 127(8), 4697–4729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04427-1
Wu, Q., & Xu, A. (2025). Poe or Gemini for fostering writing skills in Japanese upper-intermediate learners: Uncovering the consequences on positive emotions, boredom to write, academic self-efficacy, and writing development. British Educational Research Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.4119
Yang, S., Chen, S., Zhu, H., Lin, J., & Wang, X. (2024). A comparative study of thematic choices and thematic progression patterns in human-written and AI-generated texts. System, 103494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103494
Zhao, D. (2024). The impact of AI-enhanced natural language processing tools on writing proficiency: An analysis of language precision, content summarization, and creative writing facilitation. Education and Information Technologies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13145-5
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of Technology in Education and Science
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
