Available via license: CC BY-SA 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
182 | Vol. 10 No. 2 October 2023 Eka Fajar Rahmani
Undergraduate Students‘ Perceptions on Quillbot
Paraphrasing Tool
Eka Fajar Rahmani
{ekasastria10@fkip.untan.ac.id}
English Education Program, Universitas Tanjungpura, Indonesia
DOI: 10.37729/scripta.v10i2.3674
Abstract. The purpose is to investigate the students' perceptions of QuillBot utilization in writing class
based on the framework of TAM 3. The problems include the students' perceptions of QuillBot in terms
of usefulness, ease of use, and behavioral intention. The methodology is a descriptive study using a
closed-ended questionnaire in the form of a Likert scale with five scales from strongly disagree to
strongly agree. The questionnaire consists of 11 items covering three aspects: perceived usefulness,
perceived ease of use, and behavioral intention to use QuillBot. The responses were then analyzed
through a descriptive statistics framework, including frequency, percentage, and mean score. All
aspects of TAM are perceived positively by the students. The perceived usefulness reaches 81.6%,
categorized as positive perception, with a mean value of 4.26. The perceived ease of use reaches
90.75%, with a mean value of 4.34 categorized as strongly positive. The behavioral intention reaches
100% with a mean value of 4.82, categorized as strongly positive. This study has presented the result
of an investigation of students'' perceptions of three aspects of TAM, including PU, PEU, and BI,
towards QuillBot utilization. Therefore, QuillBot can be recommended as an alternative paraphrasing
tool for EFL learners, especially in writing class.
Keywords: Perception, Paraphrasing, Quillbot, Undergraduate
1. Introduction
Paraphrasing plays a crucial role in academic writing as it aids writers in avoiding plagiarism [1],
[2]. However, for EFL learners, especially those who are not experienced in the academic world,
paraphrasing is a challenging skill [3]. It is an essential skill in writing that plays a sinificant role in
helping EFL learners develop their writing ability successfully. According to Syahnaz and Fithriani
[4], there are many challenges when it comes to produce a well-structured piece of writing. EFL
learners need to consider many aspects of writing to produce one piece of writing such as language,
content, mechanics, structure, ideas, grammar, and so on [5]–[9]. An important aspect to cater all the
aspects is the skill to effectively rephrase and rearticulate the idea or the information. EFL learners
need to become proficient in paraphrasing to ensure their compositions are clear and origninal [4],
[10]–[14]. Thus, paraphrasing is highly significant in the academic context, particularly in when it
comes to writng. Paraphrasing not only helps to develop a better understanding of the source material
but also shows a scholar’s skill in critically analyzing and combining complex information which are
then presented in their writing product.
Study about artificial intelligent which connected to technology media. It scaffold the student to
produce more efficient and effective [15]–[18]. In writing, there is tool applying for new technic in
paraphrasing. It is quilbolt. This is the factor why these days paraphrasing tools is popular.
Paraphrasing tools have gained its popularity, especially among academics, because they play a crucial
role in improving the writing skills, of students, including the undergraduate students. The reason for
this growing prominence is the rising demand for higher writing standards in academic and
professional fields [19]–[21]. These tools have become essential aids in a time when plagiarism and
incorrect citation can seriously hinder students' academic progress. Several studies highlight the
importance of being skilled at paraphrasing, not just for maintaining academic honesty, but also for
improving critical thinking and comprehension skills [11], [22]–[24]. Paraphrasing tools offer a
convenient way to improve your skills while also reducing the unintentional risks of duplicating
content.
183 | Vol. 10 No. 2 October 2023 Eka Fajar Rahmani
Fitria in her studies observed that tools such as Quillbot have given EFL students, including the
undergraduates the ability to rephrase complex ideas and concepts more concisely [12], [25]. Quillbot
which was developed by Rohan Gupta in 2017 helped improve the clarity and coherence of studenys‘
written work. This quality becomes even more important in writing classes, where the goal is not just
to share information but to make it understandable to a wider audience. The use of this tool reflects the
changing teaching methods in writing courses, which focus on developing skills and applying them in
real-world situations [4], [12], [26]–[28]. Moreover, Quillbot has also completely changed how
students approach the skill of paraphrasing. The use of Quillbot in writing instruction reflects the
ongoing digital revolution in education. Integrating Quillbot paraphrasing tool into writing classrooms
has multiple benefits. It not only keeps students engaged and motivated but also helps avoiding
plagiarism, as well as develop essential digital literacy skills [4], [11], [12], [26], [29], [30].
In the light of the matter above, understanding how undergraduate students perceive Quillbot and
how it affects their writing skills is important for both educators and researchers. Nevertheless, within
the Indonesian context, a significant reserach gap emerges due to th eliited studies conducted in tis
specific area. The existing studies conducted by Kurniati and Fithriani [29], Fitria [12], [25], Syahnaz
and Fithriani [4], and Nurmayanti and Suryadi [26] are the examples. However, the gap of these studies
with the current research relies on the focus in which the current study used the framework of the latest
version of Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) 3 by Vanketesh and Bala in 2008 [31]. The reason
was primarily because Quillbot was still considered a relatively new technology for the students,
particularly in the participants context. It only gained popularity around 2020 during the outbreak of
COVID-19 where students needed to study online, as well as during the emergence of Artificial
Intelligence in the field of education [12], [32]–[34].
Therefore, it is crucial to consider the perceptions of students on the usefulness (PU), ease of use
(PEU), and behavioral intention (BI) while examining their behavior as users of new technology, such
as Quillbot, within the framework of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). The primary value of
this work lies in its provision of valuable insights for educators and researchers in the field.
Specifically, it addresses a gap in the existing literature by employing the Technology Acceptance
Model 3 (TAM 3) to investigate students' perceptions of Quillbot. This study represents a fresh
approach to understanding the attitudes and beliefs of students towards this particular technology. As
such, it serves as a valuable resource for educators and academics seeking to get a deeper understanding
of student perspectives on Quillbot.
2. Method
This study was conducted through the framework of descriptive research since the purpose was to
investigate EFL students’ perceptions or behaviors, and present their responses in detail. According to
Sahin and Mete [35], descriptive research entails the collection of data to examine hypotheses or
address inquiries pertaining to the present state of the issue under investigation. It aims to acquire
comprehensive and detailed facts and information regarding the object of inquiry. The participants
were 56 second-semester students of English Language Education, Teacher Training and Education
Faculty, Universitas Tanjungpura who enrolled in writing subject.
During the initial phase of the study, the researcher issued a survey questionnaire to the
participants in order to get data on the usage of the Quillbot paraphrasing tool in writing classes. The
questionnaire included an item that asked participants whether they utilized the Quillbot tool. This was
done to obtain an estimated count of the number of participants who had used Quillbot (Do you use
Quillbot paraphrasing tool in your writing class?). Subsequently, subsequentto obtaining the responses,
the researcher proceeded to administer the questionnaire as the principal instrument of data acquisition
to the students who utilized Quillbot in their composition course. The questionnaire comprises 12 items
that were formulated according to the framework of the TAM 3 model. These items are categorized
into three dimensions: perceived usefulness (consisting of 5 items), perceived ease of use (consisting
of 4 items), and behavioral intention (consisting of 3 items). Diagram 1 below presents these
dimensions.
184 | Vol. 10 No. 2 October 2023 Eka Fajar Rahmani
Fig 1. TAM 3 Model by Vankatesh and Bala (2008)
After gathering the intended data, the researcher analyzed the questionnaire items through descirptive
statistic analysis involving frequency, mean score, and percentile of each item resonse. Then, the
researcher describe and communicate the results in findings section. To interpret the descriptive
statistics data, the researcher used perception classification sugested by Gay et al. [36], as presented in
Table 1 below. Table 1. Perception Classification
Range of scale
Students’ Perception Positive Category
85-100
Strongly positive
69-84
Positive
53-68
Moderate
37-52
Negative
20-36
Strongly negative
3. Findings
Overall, the findings indicate that the students’ perceptions towards the use of Quillbot
paraphrasing tool in their writing class in strongly positive. The three aspects of the questionnaire:
perceive of usefulness, perceive of ease of use, and behavioral intentions were majorly responded by
the scale 4 to 5. Below is the detail of the data analysis and tabulation.
Initial Survey Result
The initial survey is distributed to the 98 students of second semester of English Language
Education Department. There is one item only asking about “Do you use Quillbot paraphrasing tool
in your writing class?”
185 | Vol. 10 No. 2 October 2023 Eka Fajar Rahmani
Fig 2. Initial survey result
As can be seen in Chart 1, out of a total of 98 students, 56 of them utilized Quillbot tool for paraphrasing
in their writing lessons. On the other hand, 29 students indicated that they did not use Quillbot by
selecting the option No. In addition to that, thirteen students decided not to answer the questions on
the questionnaire. These preliminary findings were quite important in deciding who would be included
in the final research participant’s pool. As a consequence of this, the research questionnaire was
delivered to the group of 56 students who were chosen for the study.
Perceive of Usefulness (PU)
There are four items asked in this aspect. The result is presented in Table 2 and Chart 2 below.
Table 2. Perceive of Usefulness (PU) Result
Statement
Frequency and Percentage
Mean
score
1
2
3
4
5
Using Quillbot features would help me with my
writing tasks
0
0%
0
0%
5
9%
29
52%
22
39%
4.30
Using Quillbot would help me paraphrase my writing
and make it much better and readable.
0
0%
0
0%
4
7%
21
38%
31
55%
4.48
Quillbot would help me improve my grammar skill and
vocabulary enrichment.
0
0%
0
0%
11
20%
30
54%
15
27%
4.07
Quillbot is useful to help me choose proper words
(diction) for my writing.
0
0%
0
0%
1
2%
32
57%
23
41%
4.39
Using Quillbot would enhance my productivity in
producing pieces of writing.
0
0%
0
0%
11
20%
32
57%
13
23%
4.03
The data above suggests that participants generally have a positive view when it comes to the
"Perceived Usefulness" (PU) aspect. Notably, none of the participants expressed strong disagreement
(Point 1) or disagreement (Point 2). The predominant responses fall within the range of 'agree' (Point
4) to 'strongly agree' (Point 5). Out of the five items presented, four received responses indicating
agreement, while one received a 'strongly agree.' In the first item, a majority of respondents (52%)
indicated their agreement that Quillbot's features would assist them in their writing tasks, with an
average score of 4.30. Moving on to the second item, a substantial 55% strongly agreed that using
Quillbot would greatly enhance the quality and readability of their paraphrased writing, earning it an
average score of 4.48. Similarly, the third item revealed that 54% (or 30 students) agreed that Quillbot
contributed to improving their grammar skills and enriching their vocabulary, with an average score of
4.07. As for the fourth and fifth items, 57% of students agreed with the statements regarding Quillbot's
usefulness in word choice and productivity enhancement, yielding mean scores of 4.39 and 4.03,
respectively. In accordance with the perception classification table, the "Perceived Usefulness" aspect
falls under the 'positive' category. This is based on an average percentage of positive responses of
81.6% (falling between 69% and 84%) and an overall mean value of 4.26.
56
29
13
Students who used Quillbot
Yes No No response
186 | Vol. 10 No. 2 October 2023 Eka Fajar Rahmani
Perceive Ease of Use (PEU)
There are four items asked in this aspect, as presented in Table 3 below.
Table 3. Perceive Ease of Use (PEU) result
Statement
Frequency and Percentage
Mean
score
1
2
3
4
5
I could access and use the features of Quillbot easily
0
0%
0
0%
15
27%
26
46%
15
27%
4.00
I would find it easy to paraphrase using Quillbot
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
21
38%
35
63%
4.63
I could choose modes of paraphrasing easily in
Quillbot
0
0%
0
0%
6
11%
29
52%
21
38%
4.27
I could change or choose appropriate words based on
my necessity in Quillbot easily
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
30
54%
26
46%
4.46
The data provided above illustrates the positive perceptions of the "Perceived Ease of Use" (PEU)
aspect of Quillbot. Interestingly, none of the participants expressed strong disagreement (Point 1) or
disagreement (Point 2) across all the items. Additionally, two out of the five items (Item 3 and Item 5)
did not receive any responses in these categories. For the four items that did receive responses, the
prevailing perception were either 'agree' (Point 3) or 'strongly agree' (Point 4), signifying the
participants' agreement and overall positive outlook on Quillbot's user-friendliness. For instance, in
Item 1, 46% of students agreed that accessing and using Quillbot's features was easy, with a mean score
of 4.00 followed by 27% of students strongly agreed. Moving to Item 2, the majority, at 63%, strongly
agreed that Quillbot was easy to use for paraphrasing, with a mean score of 4.63. Item 3, comparably,
indicates that 52% of students found it easy to choose modes of paraphrasing in Quillbot, followed by
38% who strongly agreed, and the mean score of 4.27. Lastly, Item 4 revealed that 54% of students
agreed that changing or selecting appropriate words based on their needs in Quillbot was a
straightforward process, while 46% strongly agreed, resulting in a mean score of 4.46. In summary,
the participants held positive views regarding the ease of using Quillbot, with an overall average
percentage of 90.75% and a mean value of 4.34, placing it in the 'strongly positive' category (85 <
90.75 < 100).
Behavioral Intention to Use (BI)
The behavioral intention aspects focus on three items as presented in Table 4 below.
Table 4. Behavioral Intention to Use (BI) Result
Statement
Frequency and Percentage
Mean
score
1
2
3
4
5
I presently intend to use Quillbot for my future
writings
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
12
21%
44
79%
4.79
I intend to learn and explore more features of Quillbot
effectively for my writings
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
56
100%
5.00
I intend to suggest my colleagues to use Quillbot for
paraphrasing their writing
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
18
32%
38
68%
4.68
Table 4 provides illustrates the positive perceptions associated with Behavioral Intention (BI)
regarding the utilization of Quillbot. Notably, the respondents uniformly refrained from expressing
'strongly disagree' (Point 1), 'disagree' (Point 2), or even opting for a 'neutral' stance (Point 3). Instead,
their responses were consistently aligned with 'agree' (Point 4) and 'strongly agree' (Point 5) options.
In the context of Item 1, a substantial 79% of students (44 individuals) expressed strong agreement
regarding their intention to utilize Quillbot for their future writings. This was followed by a 21%
response indicating agreement (12 students), resulting in a noteworthy mean score of 4.79. Moving to
Item 2, the data revealed that all participants (100%) firmly asserting their intention to explore and
harness Quillbot's features effectively for their writing tasks. This is reflected in the remarkable mean
score of 5, underlining their resolute commitment to learning and utilizing the tool comprehensively.
Lastly, Item 3 was responded dominantly (68% or 38 individuals) with strong agreement concerning
their intention to recommend Quillbot to their peers for paraphrasing purposes. Overall, the students
exhibit a strongly positive perception regarding their Behavioral Intention (BI) to use Quillbot,
achieving an average percentage of 100%. This classification aligns with the 'strongly positive'
category according to the conversion table, accompanied by an overall mean value of 4.82.
187 | Vol. 10 No. 2 October 2023 Eka Fajar Rahmani
4. Discussion
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the students’ perceptions of the English Language
Education Department towards Quillbot as the paraphrasing tool for their writing referring to the
framework of TAM 3. The researchers have presented three aspects of TAM 3 involving the perceive
of usefulness, perceive ease of use, and behavioral intention to use the Quillbot. From the findings, it
is indicated that all of the aspects are perceived positively by the students with the response range
within ‘agree’ and ‘strongly agree’. Referring to the conversion table of perception category, two
aspects (PEU and BI) are categorized strongly positive, and 1 aspect (PU) is categorized as positive.
It is important to note from the findings that more than 80% of the students agreed or strongly
agreed that Quillbot features are helpful for their writing tasks aligns closely with the framework of
Perceive of Usefulness (PEU) of TAM 3 model. It involves improving the quality and clarity of their
rephrased content, strengthening their grammar skills, and expanding their vocabulary, as well as
heling them selecting the right words for their writing. Quillbot’s assistance in this regard can be seen
as a valuable aid in enhancing the overall quality of their writing tasks [11], [12], [27], [29]. The
positive perception that Quillbot contributes to strengthening grammar skills and enriching vocabulary
is also in line with the educational goals in majority writing classes as those elements are the
fundamental aspects of effective writing [19], [24], [37], [38]. In a broader sense, this finding indicates
that students view Quillbot as a valuable tool. This aligns with its purpose of helping students enhance
their writing skills in an academic environment [4], [11], [30].
Another notable aspect of this study is that all the students agree that Quillbot is user-friendly or
easy to use. No one expressed any disagreement or neutrality on this matter. The fact that no student
expressed any disagreement or neutrality about Quillbot ease of use suggests that the tool is highly
accessible and intuitive. This accessibility likely contributes to a more positive user experience that
majority of the students found Quillbit’s features easy to access and use [11], [27]. A significant
percentage strongly agreed that it was straightforward tool for paraphrasing. The fact that students
strongly agree shows that they see Quillbot as a tool that is not just helpful, but also easy to use and
understand. This confirms that Quillbot has a positive effect on their writing assignments [12], [26],
[27], [29].
The strong agreement regarding Quillbot’s ease of use contributes to the overall positive effect of
the tools on students writing. The logic is when the students find a new tool is easy to use, they are
more likely integrate it seamlessly into their writing workflows. This can in turn lead to more efficient
paraphrasing, improved writing quality, and enhanced productivity [12], [25], [27], [29]. Furthermore,
the strong agreement that Quillbot as an easy-to-use tool could have been a broader implications for
the adoption of technology in educational setting, as the framework of TAM 3[39], [40].
Continuing to the aspect of behavioral intention (BI) to use Quillbot, the results indicates that the
students are highly committed to using Quillbot in their future writing projects. It is worth mentioning
that there were no negative responses in this aspect. Majority of students strongly agreed that they
intend to use Quillbot for future writing tasks. This shows that they genuinely want to include it in their
writing process. In addition, every participant strongly agrees that they want to thoroughly explore
Quillbot’s features and recommend it to others. This shows proactive exploration, commitment, and
intention to support this tool show a positive attitude towards using technology in education. They also
recognize that Quillbot has the potential to improve their writing skills and academic performance.
The novelty of this research lies in the aspect of behavioral intention (BI) to use Quillbot. Previous
studies did not report on how students’ behavioral intentions towards Quillbot. They reported on solely
the perceptions of students towards the use of Quillbot which can be inferred covering two aspects of
TAM: perceive of usefulness and perceive ease of use. On contrary, this current study explores the
students’ perceptions in terms of the usefulness of Quillbot, the easy use of it, and the students’
behavioral intention. Therefore, this study presents a more comprehensive content. Finally, this study
contributes to enrich and complete the research of technology in education field, focusing on Quillbot
as a paraphrasing tool used by EFL learners in English writing class.
5. Conclusion
This study aims to thoroughly investigate students' opinions on three important aspects of the
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) in relation to using Quillbot. These aspects include perceived
usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEU), and behavioral intention (BI). The results of this
investigation suggest a promising recommendation that Quillbot can be recommended as a valuable
188 | Vol. 10 No. 2 October 2023 Eka Fajar Rahmani
paraphrasing tool, especially for English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners, particularly in writing
classes.
However, it is important to recognize the limitations that have arisen during the course of this
research. One main limitation is related to the study's scope. Although the current investigation has
yielded valuable insights into students' overall perception, there is still a clear need for further
exploration of their views and experiences in greater detail. To overcome this limitation and gain a
better understanding of how Quillbot affects EFL learners, future researchers should consider using
open-ended questionnaires or conducting interviews with the students.
6. References
[1] A. Wallwork, “Paraphrasing and Plagiarism,” English for Writing Research Papers. Springer
US, pp. 151–159, 2011. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-7922-3_10.
[2] D. Macdonald, “Originality and the Paraphrasing Machine,” College Teaching, vol. 51, no. 4,
pp. 166–168, 2003, doi: 10.1080/87567550309596433.
[3] S. Bailey, “Summarising and Paraphrasing,” Academic Writing, no. Query date: 2023-10-23
18:52:53, pp. 46–54, 2017, doi: 10.4324/9781315169996-8.
[4] M. Syahnaz and R. Fithriani, “Utilizing Artificial Intelligence-based Paraphrasing Tool in EFL
Writing Class: A Focus on Indonesian University Students’ Perceptions,” Scope : Journal of
English Language Teaching, vol. 7, no. 2, 2023, doi: 10.30998/scope.v7i2.14882.
[5] R. Toba, W. N. Noor, and L. O. Sanu, “The current issues of Indonesian EFL students’ writing
skills: Ability, problem, and reason in writing comparison and contrast essay,” Dinamika Ilmu,
vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 57–73, 2019, doi: 10.21093/di.v19i1.1506.
[6] Y. C. Isgiarno, B. Y. Cahyono, and H. Rahmaningtyas, “Increasing EFL students’ writing skill
using Jigsaw and online searching strategy,” IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education),
vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 97–110, 2020, doi: 10.15408/ijee.v7i1.16383.
[7] A. Ariyanti, “Foreign Language Anxiety in Academic Writing,” Dinamika Ilmu, 2017, doi:
10.21093/di.v17i1.815.
[8] A. Ariyanti, “The teaching of EFL writing in Indonesia,” Dinamika Ilmu, vol. 16, no. 2, p. 263,
2016, doi: 10.21093/di.v16i2.274.
[9] T. J. Setiyorini, P. Dewi, and E. S. Masykuri, “The Grammatical Error Analysis Found in
Students’ Composition,” Lensa: Kajian Kebahasaan, Kesusastraan, dan Budaya, vol. 10, no. 2,
pp. 218–233, 2020.
[10] S. Wahyuningsih, “Challenges and opportunities of teaching academic writing skills: a case
study of students at IAIN Kudus,” Jurnal Edulingua |, vol. 5, no. 1, 2018.
[11] N. T. Xuyen, “Using the Online Paraphrasing Tool Quillbot to Assist Students in Paraphrasing
the Source Information: English-majored Students’ Perceptions,” in Proceedings of the 5th
Conference on Language Teaching and Learning, 2023. doi: 10.21467/proceedings.150.3.
[12] T. N. Fitria, “QuillBot as an online tool: Students’ alternative in paraphrasing and rewriting of
English writing,” Englisia: Journal of Language, Education, and Humanities, vol. 9, no. 1,
2021, doi: 10.22373/ej.v9i1.10233.
[13] Edi Sunjayanto Masykuri, S. Sukarni, T. Tusino, and P. Dewi, “The Cohessive Device in
Hiver.com and Its Implication in Teaching Online Writing,” Jurnal Ilmu Bahasa Sastra dan
Pengajarannya, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 124–135, 2022.
[14] P. Fawwaza Alya Paramarti, T. Tusino, Sri Widodo, and E. Sunjayanto Masykuri, “The
Students’ Writing Anxiety at The Fourth Semester Students in Academic Writing Class,”
Edulitics Journal, vol. 8, no. 1, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.52166/edulitics.v8i1.4099.
[15] E. Sunjayanto Masykuri, “Technology effect of EFL Listening Comprehension to Teaching
during Pandemic,” JetLi, vol. 5, no. 1, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.21043/jetli.v5i1.13913.
[16] Edi Sunjayanto Masykuri and B. Basuki, “Students’ perception of digital media for English
teaching learning,” Teaching Englis as A Foreign Language Jornal, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 64–73,
2022, doi: 10.12928/tefl.v1i1.171.
[17] Edi Sunjayanto Masykuri and A. T. Wan, “Kecenderungan Baru dalam Pendidikan Virtual di
Metaverse,” in Kumpulan Kajian Metaverse, 2023, pp. 111–130.
[18] Hari Purnomo Asmoro Aji, S. Widodo, E. S. Masykuri, and I. I. Nugraheni, “Students’ Problems
in Building up English Vocabulary,” scripta, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 44–58, May 2023, doi:
10.37729/scripta.v10i1.2353.
189 | Vol. 10 No. 2 October 2023 Eka Fajar Rahmani
[19] M. Mukhroji, “Exploring the academic writing needs to improve the academic literacy of the
Indonesian EFL undergraduate and masters students,” International Journal of Innovation,
Creativity and Change, vol. 10, no. 10, 2020.
[20] C. Dinneen, “students’ use of digital translation and paraphrasing tools in written assignments
on Direct entry english Programs,” English Australia Journal, vol. 37, no. 1, 2021.
[21] M. AlMarwani, “Academic Writing: Challenges and Potential Solutions,” Arab World English
Journal, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 114–121, 2020, doi: 10.24093/awej/call6.8.
[22] M. Stander, “Strategies to help university students avoid plagiarism: a focus on translation as an
intervention strategy,” Journal of Further and Higher Education, vol. 44, no. 2, 2020, doi:
10.1080/0309877X.2018.1526260.
[23] N. Fatimah, “Students’ Needs for Academic Writing at the English Education Department,”
English Language Teaching Educational Journal, vol. 1, no. 3, 2019, doi:
10.12928/eltej.v1i3.744.
[24] S. Oda and Y. Yamamoto, “Paraphrasing: An Essential Tool for EAP,” ICU Language Research
Bulletin, vol. 22, 2007.
[25] T. N. Fitria, “Avoiding Plagiarism of Students’ Scientific Writing by Using the QuillBot
Paraphraser,” Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 252–262, 2022,
doi: 10.31849/elsya.v4i3.9917.
[26] N. Nurmayanti and S. Suryadi, “The Effectiveness Of Using Quillbot In Improving Writing For
Students Of English Education Study Program,” Jurnal Teknologi Pendidikan : Jurnal
Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pembelajaran, vol. 8, no. 1, 2023, doi: 10.33394/jtp.v8i1.6392.
[27] Marzuki, U. Widiati, D. Rusdin, Darwin, and I. Indrawati, “The impact of AI writing tools on
the content and organization of students’ writing: EFL teachers’ perspective,” Cogent
Education, vol. 10, no. 2, 2023, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2023.2236469.
[28] L. Rakhmanina, R. Serasi, U. Fatmawati, and S. Bengkulu, “UTILIZING QUILLBOT
PARAPHRASER TO MINIMIZE PLAGIARISM IN STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC WRITING,”
Novateur Publications, 2022.
[29] E. Y. Kurniati and R. Fithriani, “Post-Graduate Students’ Perceptions of Quillbot Utilization in
English Academic Writing Class,” Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics, vol.
7, no. 3, 2022, doi: 10.21462/jeltl.v7i3.852.
[30] H. C. Chui, “The QuillBot Grammar Checker: Friend or Foe of ESL Student Writers?,” Journal
of Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT), vol. 10, no. 1, 2022.
[31] S. Zaineldeen, L. Hongbo, A. L. Koffi, and B. M. A. Hassan, “Technology acceptance model’
concepts, contribution, limitation, and adoption in education,” Universal Journal of Educational
Research, vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 5061–5071, 2020, doi: 10.13189/ujer.2020.081106.
[32] E. S. Masykuri and A. T. Wan, Pembelajaran Keteramplan Bahasa Inggris dengan
Penggunakan Beberapa Aplikasi Berbasis Android dan Windows. Malang, indonesia: Wineka
Media, 2020.
[33] T. Kew and S. Ebling, “Target-Level Sentence Simplification as Controlled Paraphrasing,”
Proceedings of the Workshop on Text Simplification, Accessibility, and Readability (TSAR-
2022), no. Query date: 2023-10-23 18:52:53, 2022, doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.tsar-1.4.
[34] D. Sirikasem and S. Pongpaichet, “Thai Paraphrasing Tool for Chatbot Intent Recognition
Training,” 2022 26th International Computer Science and Engineering Conference (ICSEC),
no. Query date: 2023-10-23 18:52:53, 2022, doi: 10.1109/icsec56337.2022.10049337.
[35] S. Sahin and J. Mete, “A Brief Study on Descriptive Research:,” International Journal of
Research and Analysis in Humanities, vol. 1, no. 1, 2021.
[36] L. R. Gay, G. E. Mills, and P. W. Airasian, Educational research; competencies for analysis
and applications. United States of America: Pearson Education, Inc., 2012.
[37] M. Fareed, A. Ashraf, and M. Bilal, “ESL learners’ writing skills: Problems, factors and
suggestions,” Journal of Education & Social Sciences, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 81–92, 2016, doi:
10.20547/jess0421604201.
[38] Y. S. Rezeki, “Collaborative written feedback experience: A case study of Indonesian EFL
students in an Essay Writing class,” International Journal of Educational Best Practices, vol.
1, no. 2, p. 24, 2017, doi: 10.31258/ijebp.v1n2.p24-37.
[39] M. Mortazavi, M. K. M. Nasution, F. Abdolahzadeh, M. Behroozi, and A. Davarpanah,
“Sustainable learning environment by mobile-assisted language learning methods on the
improvement of productive and receptive foreign language skills: A comparative study for asian
universities,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 2–15, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13116328.
190 | Vol. 10 No. 2 October 2023 Eka Fajar Rahmani
[40] A. Granić and N. Marangunić, “Technology acceptance model in educational context: A
systematic literature review,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 50, no. 5, pp.
2572–2593, 2019, doi: 10.1111/bjet.12864.
