CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 26Artificial Intelligence in EducationAcademic integrity and plagiarismEnglish Language Learning and Teaching

EFL students’ perception of using AI paraphrasing tools in English language research projects

Open access
Alammar, Ammar, Abdel-Reheem Amin, Eman·2023·Arab World English Journal
DOI 10.24093/awej/vol14no3.11

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Researchers and educators have different opinions on the use of AI-driven automated paraphrasing tools (APTs). Such tools can improve students’ writing performance but may result in accusations of plagiarism if students do not use them appropriately. This study aimed to examine EFL students’ perceptions of using APTs in their academic writing process. It fills a gap in the literature by highlighting the roles, appropriateness, and effectiveness of APTs use and identifying their advantages and disadvantages. During a research project course, the participants used APTs while writing their research papers. A questionnaire and semi-structured interviews were used to identify students’ perceptions of using APTs and to determine the advantages, disadvantages, and drawbacks of using them. The findings showed that EFL students’ perceptions toward using APTs are favorable; they view them as useful tools that have a significant impact on their academic writing process. The study recommended that APTs are helpful to EFL students but that students must not overly rely on them. Students must learn how to paraphrase to check the appropriateness of the texts produced by APTs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.24093/awej/vol14no3.11

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Alammar and Amin found that students used Grammarly and QuillBot not just for mechanical correction but to reduce language-related stress during drafting.

    “Their findings revealed that students used the tools not just for mechanical correction, but to reduce language-related stress during drafting.”

    From AI-Integrated Scaffolding to Enhance Agency and Creativity in K-12 English Language Learners: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [4]

    Appendix G (p. 181) reports that students agreed paraphrasing tools reduced their writing apprehension and improved grammar skills. Appendix H (p. 181) identifies QuillBot and Grammarly as tools students used. The paper does not establish that students used those specific tools to reduce stress during the drafting stage. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Excessive reliance on AI support can potentially undermine the benefit of cognitive support for creative development.

    “Studies by Alammar and Amin [4] indicate that the excessive reliance on AI support can potentially undermine this benefit, suggesting the need for the careful calibration of AI assistance levels.”

    From AI-Integrated Scaffolding to Enhance Agency and Creativity in K-12 English Language Learners: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [4]

    The Interview Results report that 13 of 25 students perceived AI paraphrasing tools as threatening their creativity in writing, and the Discussion links overreliance to weaker development of writing skills. The paper concerns EFL students using paraphrasing tools; it does not establish a broader effect on cognitive support for creative development or specify how to calibrate AI assistance levels. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The field lacks standardized metrics for evaluating how AI integration influences student autonomy and creative expression.

    “While studies like Song and Song [7] and Alammar and Amin [4] attempted to measure these constructs, the field lacks standardized metrics for evaluating how AI integration influences student autonomy and creative expression.”

    From AI-Integrated Scaffolding to Enhance Agency and Creativity in K-12 English Language Learners: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [4]

    The Interview Results report that 13 students (52%) perceived AI paraphrasing tools as threatening their creativity, and the Discussion records a concern about becoming less self-dependent. This supports the characterization of the study as examining these concerns, but the paper does not establish that the field lacks standardized metrics for measuring autonomy or creative expression. Its questionnaire instead measures perceptions of the tools’ roles, appropriateness, and effectiveness (Research Instruments Perception Questionnaire, p. 170). (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Chui, H. C. (2022). The QuillBot grammar checker: Friend or foe of ESL student writers?Journal of Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT), 10(1), 10-31.https://ir.uitm.edu.my/id/eprint/66534
  2. Miranda, D. (2021). The impact of paraphrasing tools on students' paraphrasing skills [Doctoral dissertation,Ar-Raniry State Islamic University]. UIN -Ar Raniry Repository.https://repository.ar-raniry.ac.id/id/eprint/20266
  3. Prentice, F. M., & Kinden, C. E. (2019, 19-21 June). An exploration of the identification of the use of paraphrasing tools and online language translation tools in student academic texts[Paper presentation]. 5 th International Conference: Plagiarism Across Europe and Beyond & 3 rd International Conference: Shaping Ethics in Academia and Society, Vilnius, Lithuania. https://academicintegrity.eu/conference/proceedings/2019/PrenticeKinden01.pdf
  4. Tran, T. T. T., & Nguyen, H. B. (2022). The effects of paraphrasing on EFL students' academic writing. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 18(1), 976-987.Doi: 10.52462/jlls.233 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Alammar, A., & Abdel-Reheem Amin, E.
Affiliations
Majmaah University (SA)
ORCID
Alammar, Ammar
Venue
Arab World English Journal
Publisher
AWEJ Publishing
Published
2023-09-24
Volume
14
Issue
3
Pages
166-181
ISSN
2229-9327 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.24093/awej/vol14no3.11
OpenAlex
W4386764896
Cited by
26
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 1
FWCI
6.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Arab World English Journal (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • SocArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nd)
Funders
Majmaah University (R-2023)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
Keywords
AI writing tools, EFL learners, student perceptions, academic writing, research papers, plagiarism, paraphrase, writing performance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review