University Students' Perceptions of the Use of QuillBot in an English Writing Class

Danh Thanh Ly, FPT University, Can Tho, Vietnam, danhlt5@fe.edu.vn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3719487.3719531
ICEEL 2024: 2024 8th International Conference on Education and E-Learning (ICEEL), Tokyo, Japan, November 2024

Writing is frequently perceived as an arduous language component due to the complex demands of articulating thoughts and emotions. To gain proficiency in writing, students require the assistance of instructional resources, such as writing tools or tutoring services. The challenges in writing, particularly in paraphrasing, may be alleviated by QuillBot, which is one of the most popular AI-driven tools. Nevertheless, the effects of QuillBot employment in a writing class have not been fully investigated. Thus, this study endeavors to examine EFL students’ viewpoints regarding QuillBot utilization in a writing class. The present study employed both quantitative and qualitative approaches with a 7-point Likert scale questionnaire and a semi-structured interview with the participation of 256 students at a private university in Vietnam experienced using QuillBot for at least two months. The results indicate that the university students in this study had a favorable response to utilizing QuillBot as a tool to enhance the caliber of their writing. This was evident in their perception of (1) usefulness, (2) ease of use, (3) attitude towards technology, (4) intention to use the system, and (5) satisfaction. In light of these research findings, the author has suggested several implications for school leaders, teachers, and students, including the moderate use of QuillBot to foster the development of writing skills.

CCS Concepts: • Social and professional topics → Governmental regulations;

KEYWORDS: QuillBot, writing class, perception

ACM Reference Format:
Danh Thanh Ly. 2024. University Students’ Perceptions of the Use of QuillBot in an English Writing Class. In 2024 8th International Conference on Education and E-Learning (ICEEL) (ICEEL 2024), November 23-25, 2024, Tokyo, Japan. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 8 Pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3719487.3719531

1 Introduction

Writing is a challenging task requiring a plethora of linguistic and cognitive abilities [1]. This skill expels a highly developed capability to express viewpoints and emotions through language; thus, students tend to find it challenging to learn writing [2]. In a similar vein, learners of foreign languages frequently struggle with writing since they must pay attention to grammar [3].

Artificial intelligence in teaching and learning has had significant advancements over the past ten years [4]. QuillBot is a renowned AI-driven paraphrasing tool for students offering free and premium versions [5]. Additionally, texts can be rewritten by QuillBot by pasting or typing text and selecting the paraphrase option [6]. QuillBot is a free online tool that enhances written content by rephrasing phrases, identifying plagiarism, and lengthening text sections [7]. Although utilizing QuillBot in academic writing has grabbed attention, the perspectives of university students regarding QuillBot employment have not been fully investigated, particularly in writing teaching. Consequently, this research investigates EFL students’ opinions of employing QuillBot in a writing class. This paper has two major research questions:

How do students view QuillBot in a writing class?
What are the benefits and drawbacks of QuillBot in a writing class?

2 Literature Review

2.1 Effectiveness of QuillBot in a writing class

QuillBot assists students in avoiding plagiarism by preserving the original essence and significance of their text. This tool enables students to rewrite any sentence, paragraph, or article, thereby allowing them to drastically cut down on the amount of time in writing [8]. Besides, QuillBot offers various features: paraphrasing, checking grammar, summarizing, and detecting plagiarism [9]. Furthermore, most students perceive Quillbot as a digital resource aiding them in academic writing performances, for it allows students to enhance their paraphrasing abilities, particularly in academic writing [10]. Additionally, QuillBot is user-friendly, simplifying its usage and implementation [11]. Additionally, students can benefit from some features such as summarizing complex sentences, avoiding plagiarism, and improving language to seem more polished and clearer [5, 8, 10, 12, 13]. Students reckoned that QuillBot could facilitate writing research when examining the opinions of post-graduate students in Indonesia [10]. Most students were predominantly favorable towards employing QuillBot to enhance their writing and identified its numerous student-friendly functionalities [14]. Meanwhile, QuillBot markedly enhanced students' writing abilities in producing hortatory exposition writings [15].

In Vietnam, few studies on the utilization of QuillBot have been undertaken. Vietnamese EFL students reported that QuillBot has improved their writing performance [16]. Moreover, learners had favorable opinions toward the use of QuillBot for paraphrasing, thus indirectly enhancing their linguistic competency and writing abilities [17]. Also, QuillBot is a supporting tool that indirectly helps postgraduates expand their vocabularies and grammar structures, thereby enhancing their paraphrasing skills [18].

2.2 Theoretical framework

The TAM, or Technology Acceptance Model: The main goal of the model is to depict how users behave regarding technological applications [15] [19]. The present investigation utilized this model to explore how students perceived QuillBot in a writing class.

3 Methodology

3.1 Research design

The study investigates how university students perceive QuillBot's usage in a writing class. As a result, a descriptive research design was used, allowing the researchers to explain real-world phenomena from the perspectives of various participants [20].

3.2 Research design

256 EFL students participated in the survey, which was based on convenience sampling. Convenience sampling was utilized, for it made it easier to gather information from the participants who were available during that time. All of the students are private university students in Vietnam, with ages ranging from 18 to 21. Over the two-month course, all participants also experienced QuillBot in writing.

3.3 Research instruments

This study was conducted using mixed methods research including a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. For quantitative data, the study utilized a questionnaire to gather data on how EFL students at a private university perceived applying QuillBot in their writing class. According to Davis (1989) [15], Jamoom created a customized questionnaire for the quantitative approach. Based on a 7-point Likert scale, the questionnaire consisted of 23 items divided into five main categories: perceived usefulness, perceived ease-of-use, attitude toward using technology, behavioral intention to use the system, and satisfaction, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

In terms of qualitative data, semi-structured interviews utilizing open-ended questions were utilized to extract perspectives from the students regarding the utilization of QuillBot during their writing class with the involvement of ten students. The interview comprised six questions (1) Do you find QuillBot beneficial in your writing class? (2) Is QuillBot user-friendly in your writing class? (3) Do you have a positive attitude regarding using QuillBot in your writing class? (4) Will you support QuillBot utilization in a writing class in the future? (5) What are the 3 primary benefits of QuillBot in your writing class? (6) What are three major drawbacks of QuillBot in your writing class?

4 Results

4.1 Results from the questionnaire

The results are displayed from a 23-item survey on how students felt about QuillBot in writing. The use of QuillBot in a writing class was investigated through a descriptive statistics test administered to students based on the TAM Model as illustrated in Figure 1. Findings from Table 1 indicate that students' perceptions of QuillBot's use in a writing class were generally positive (M = 5.98, SD =.83). Table 2 illustrates mean agreement degrees among the participants from 5.46 to 6.12, indicating a high level of agreement.

Table 1: Mean score regarding students’ opinions about QuillBot utilization in a writing class

	N	Min	Max	Mean	SD
Students’ opinions about QuillBot utilization in a writing class	256	2.87	6.87	5.98	.69

Table 2: Mean scores of five clusters regarding students’ opinions about QuillBot utilization in a writing class

Obstructs	N	Min	Max	Mean	SD
Perceived usefulness Perceived ease-of-use Attitude toward using technology Behavioral intention to use the system Satisfaction	256 256 256 256 256	2.33 4.00 1.67 2.50 2.00	7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00	6.12 6.04 5.46 6.02 5.96	.83 .49 1.35 1.01 1.09

Table 3 shows that students felt that they would be able to complete assignments more quickly if QuillBot was used in a writing class (M=6.52, SD= 1.09). Following that, they concluded that using QuillBot would be beneficial in a writing class (M=6.41, SD=.89), and using QuillBot in a writing class would enhance student performance (M=5.50, SD=1.35). Afterward, the students obtained the lowest degree of agreement when they believed that QuillBot would improve their efficacy in learning writing (M=5.40, SD= 1.21). In conclusion, a majority of students felt that using QuillBot in writing class would facilitate their writing study.

Table 3: Students’ opinions about QuillBot utilization in a writing class concerning “perceived usefulness”

	N		Min	Max	Mean	SD
1. The lecturer effectively conveyed crucial course subjects. 2. The lecturer effectively conveyed crucial course goals. 3. The lecturer delivered explicit guidelines on how to engage in the course activities. 4. The teacher effectively conveyed crucial deadlines for learning tasks. 5. The lecturer assisted me in showing agreement and disagreement on my course topics. 6. The lecturer assisted me in understanding the course	256 256 256 256 256 256		2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00	7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00	6.52 6.28 5.50 6.09 5.93 6.41	1.09 1.00 1.35 1.07 1.40 .89

According to Table 4 (M=5.63, SD= 1.35), QuillBot was intended to be effortless to use. Then, with the highest degree of agreement, students stated that they thought their interactions with QuillBot would be transparent and intelligible (M=6.75, SD=. 45). Next, the students assumed that they would quickly acquire proficiency with QuillBot (M=6.34, SD=.92). QuillBot, meanwhile, did not seem to be comprehensible to them (M=4.90, SD=1.35). In summary, most of the students who took part believed that using QuillBot in writing was simple.

Table 4: Students’ opinions about QuillBot utilization in a writing class concerning “perceived ease of use”

	N	Min	Max	Mean	SD
7. I would find it effortless to utilize QuillBot. 8. It would be effortless for me to use QuillBot in writing learning. 9. My interaction with QuillBot would be transparent and comprehensive. 10. I would find QuillBot would be transparent and comprehensive. 11. I would find it effortless to become competent in utilizing QuillBot. 12. I would find QuillBot user-friendly.	256 256 256 256 256 256	2.00 1.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 2.00	7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00	6.32 5.63 6.75 4.90 6.34 6.33	.94 1.35 .45 1.35 .92 1.05

According to Table 5, the opinion that utilizing QuillBot in the writing class is beneficial received the highest level of agreement (M=6.32, SD=1.61). The student then stated that it was enjoyable to use QuillBot in writing (M=6.27, SD=1.64). A few students (M=3.82, SD=2.44) suggested that QuillBot could spice up their writing class, despite this. QuillBot was regarded as a fantastic idea in a writing class overall.

Table 5: Students’ opinions about QuillBot utilization in a writing class concerning “attitude toward using technology”

	N	Min	Max	Mean	SD
13. Utilizing QuillBot in my writing class is beneficial. 14. QuillBot enhances the appeal of my writing class 15. QuillBot enables me to enjoy my writing class.	256 256 256	2.00 1.00 1.00	7.00 7.00 7.00	6.31 3.82 6.27	1.61 2.44 1.64

In Table 6, the highest degree of agreement was found when students said they are fond of using QuillBot in writing in the future (M= 6.28, SD=.96). In the following three months, they reckoned that they would employ QuillBot in their writing class (M=5.72, SD=1.55). Next, many students estimated that they would use QuillBot in writing class (M=6.22, SD=0.98). In short, most students seem to enjoy utilizing QuillBot in subsequent writing classes.

Table 6: Students’ opinions about QuillBot utilization in a writing class concerning “behavioral intention to use the system”

	N	Min	Max	Mean	SD
16. I enjoy utilizing QuillBot in my writing class 17. I plan d to utilize QuillBot in my writing class 18. I predict I will utilize QuillBot in my writing class in the next three months 19. I intend to utilize QuillBot in a writing class in the next three months	256 256 256 256	5.00 2.00 2.00 1.00	7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00	6.28 5.72 6.22 5.86	.96 1.55 0.98 1.41

According to Table 7, students expressed satisfaction with the functionality of QuillBot in their writing class, with the maximum level of agreement (M= 6.31, SD=1.14). In the same vein, the students asserted that they had authorized the utilization of QuillBot in their writing (M=6.26, SD=1.48). Subsequently, the students expressed their satisfaction with the writing capabilities of QuillBot (M=5.86, SD=1.50). The students subsequently expressed their satisfaction with the user-friendly interface of QuillBot in a writing class (M=5.43, SD=1.45). Overall, most of the students expressed satisfaction with the utilization of QuillBot in their writing class.

Table 7: Students’ opinions about QuillBot utilization in a writing class concerning “satisfaction”

	N	Min	Max	Mean	SD
20. I am content with the benefits of QuillBot in a writing class. 21. I am content with the simplicity of QuillBot in a writing class. 22. I am content with the functions of QuillBot in a writing class. 23. I accept the use of QuillBot in a writing class.	256 256 256 256	2.00 1.00 3.00 1.00	7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00	6.31 5.43 5.86 6.26	1.14 1.45 1.50 1.48

4.2 Results from the interview

4.2.1 Perceived usefulness. Based on the analysis of their interviews, ten students concurred that using QuillBot in their writing class is helpful. Most respondents thought Quilbot was a helpful tool for a writing class as it could help with idea generation, sentence structure, and writing skills. This viewpoint is supported by the following excerpt.

“To a certain extent, it can be a useful tool assisting my writing study as it enables me to learn a variety of grammar structures when I utilize this writing tool. Besides, my vocabulary range is significantly advanced thanks to using this paraphrasing tool.”

(Student 2, Interview extract)

4.2.2 Perceived ease-of-use. Ten students who participated in the interview analysis agreed that QuillBot is simple to utilize in writing lessons. Most students believed that it has a user-friendly interface and provides quick suggestions.

“QuillBot is a useful tool that is easy to use for many purposes in a writing classroom. Users only need to be equipped with a laptop and a basic understanding of the effects of the QuillBot tool on writing subjects.”

(Student 3, Interview extract)

“QuillBot's user-friendly interface has made it easy to integrate into my writing class, enhancing both efficiency and accessibility.”

(Student 7, Interview extract)

4.2.3 Attitude toward using technology. According to the research, seven out of ten students said they would be in favor of using QuillBot in their writing class because it would increase their engagement, knowledge, and interest. This excerpt demonstrates their point of view.

“I have a positive attitude towards the use of QuillBot in my writing class because it encourages me to enhance the quality of my writing by providing me with valuable feedback.”

(Student 9, Interview extract)

In the same way, three students felt negative about using QuillBot in the writing classroom because they believed it would reduce their ability to brainstorm and be creative, which would lead to them becoming lazy and reliant on technology.

“I don't support using QuillBot in the writing class. It is more suitable for home use to enhance writing skills independently.”

(Student 1, Interview extract)

“I think I have a negative attitude in my writing class. Because it can make students abuse QuillBot, which will create passive and lazy habits.”

(Student 5, Interview extract)

4.2.4 Behavioral intention to use the system. Seven students supported the use of QuillBot in writing class because of its huge advantages. Student 7 stated:

“Considering its benefits, I would support the continued use of QuillBot in my writing class to assist students in their learning journey.”

(Student 4, Interview extract)

Three students did not intend to use QuillBot in their writing class because it could prevent them from developing their writing skills.

“I think I don't advocate using QuillBot in my writing class. Because I don't want to see many students abusing QuillBot even though it is very useful and fast. However, I think using QuillBot should be used at home while self-studying.”

(Student 10, Interview extract)

4.2.5 Satisfaction. When asked in writing class to enumerate three advantages of QuillBot, ten students had varying opinions. All students concurred that using QuillBot to enhance word choice and paraphrase is a useful strategy. Furthermore, they thought that QuillBot promotes participation as well as understanding.

“Three main advantages of QuillBot can be mentioned as the ability to paraphrase, correcting vocabulary and grammar errors, and making students' writing more convincing with advanced vocabulary.”

(Student 3, Interview extract)

“QuillBot helps new ideas and variations of existing text, improves vocabulary, and saves time by automatically rewriting parts of student writing.”

(Student 6, Interview extract)

Ten students each had a different perspective on the challenges. The three most mentioned drawbacks include misuse of AI, technological dependence, and insufficiency of content.

“Three common disadvantages include potential AI abuse, a potential decline in writing skills, and over-reliance on the tool.”

(Student 1, Interview extract)

“Three main disadvantages of QuillBot can be mentioned as making students become too dependent on tools, reducing the ability to develop students' writing skills as well and QuillBot's interventions will make it more difficult for students to develop creativity about any issue while writing.”

(Student 1, Interview extract)

5 Discussion and Conclusion

5.1 Discussion

This research explores how students perceive QuillBot in writing class, specifically in relation to its (1) perceived usefulness, (2) perceived ease of use, (3) attitude toward technology use, (4) behavioral intention to use the system, and (5) satisfaction. The questionnaires and interviews revealed that most students had a positive attitude toward using QuillBot.

The findings of this investigation are in accordance with those of [9, 10] because QuillBot assists students in honing their paraphrasing abilities. Furthermore, QuillBot's ease of use and accessibility make it easy to comprehend and use in educational settings, which is consistent with the findings of [7]. The result also aligns with several studies [5, 8, 12, 10, 13]. These studies show that students can gain from QuillBot in a variety of ways: summarize complex sentences, avoid plagiarism, and refine language to seem more polished and clearer.

5.2 Conclusion

This research has offered profound implications for both the scientific and practical fields. From a scientific perspective, the investigation carries three crucial implications. First, the author illustrated the appropriateness of the model and evaluated the intention of utilizing AI tools following the TAM Model. Second, the investigation has determined the students' perspectives regarding the employment of QuillBot in the context of writing instruction. These perspectives are influenced by five factors: (1) perceived usefulness, (2) perceived ease of use, (3) attitude toward technology use, (4) behavioral intention to use the system, and (5) satisfaction. Thirdly, this study can be utilized as a reference for future investigations investigating the effect of QuillBot in writing.

Most students thought that using QuillBot in their writing class was advantageous because it could enhance word choice and paraphrase sentences. Most students thought that utilizing QuillBot in class would be easy to use, but it does require access to the Internet. Concerning most students' attitudes regarding QuillBot's use in writing class, those attitudes are overwhelmingly positive and strongly in favor of its use. Concerning QuillBot's behavioral intention, most students indicated that they intended to use it in an upcoming writing class. Teachers should permit students to use QuillBot appropriately and moderately because the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

Regarding practical implications, the paper aids stakeholders in the upgrade of QuillBot functions. For suppliers and developers, the study implies solutions to improve the quality of application products: (1) increasing investment in having stable Internet access, (2) permitting students to utilize QuillBot suitably, and (3) checking students’ writing to make sure that students use QuillBot in an appropriate time.

Limitations and Recommendations

Despite the accomplishment of the established research objectives, two certain limitations continue to exist within the investigation. Firstly, this study was solely conducted at a private university in Vietnam, resulting in a relatively limited sample size. Therefore, it is advisable to undertake future studies with a larger sample size and in diverse settings. This study exclusively investigated students' perspectives on the utilization of QuillBot in writing due to time constraints. As a result, it is recommended to undertake a study to ascertain the alignment of beliefs between teachers and students when deploying QuillBot.

Acknowledgement

In this study, the author expresses sincere gratitude to all participants, colleagues, and supervisors for their support and contributions.

References

Faller, J. M. V. (2018). Grammarly investigation into EFL writing issues involving Omani learners. International Journal of Language & Linguistics, 5(3), 165-174.
Meiningsih, S. (2021). Rolling Ball - Learning Cell dalam Pembelajaran untuk Meningkatkan Keterampilan Menulis Bahasa Inggris Siswa, 8(2), 190–196.
Pratama, Y. D. (2021). The investigation of using Grammarly as online grammar checker in the process of writing. Journal of English Language Education, 1(2), 46-54.
Hwang, G. J., Xie, H., Wah, B. W., & Gašević, D. (2020). Vision, challenges, roles and research issues of artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 1, 100001.
Fitria, T. N. (2021). QuillBot as an online tool: Students’ alternative in paraphrasing and rewriting of English writing. Journal of Language, Education, and Humanities, 9(1), 183-196. http://dx.doi.org/10.22373/ej.v9i1.10233
Kinga, S., & Gupta, G. S. (2021). Platforms as foundation of sharing economy. Delhi Business Review, 22(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.51768/dbr.v22i1.221202101
Nurmayanti, N., & Suryadi, S. (2023). The effectiveness of using QuillBot in improving writing for students of English education study program. Jurnal Teknologi Pendidikan: Jurnal Penelitian Dan Pengembangan Pembelajaran, 8(1), 32.
Fitria, T. N. (2022). Avoiding plagiarism of Students' scientific writing by using the QuillBot Paraphraser. Journal of English Language Studies, 4(3).
Dale, R. (2020). Natural language generation: The commercial state of the art in 2020. Natural Language Engineering, 26(4), 481–487. https://doi.org/10.1017/S135132492000025X
Kurniati, E. Y., & Fithriani, R. (2022). Post-graduate students’ perceptions of QuillBot utilization in English academic writing class. Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics, 7(3), 437–451.
Nurmayanti, N., & Suryadi, S. (2023). The effectiveness of using QuillBot in improving writing for students of English education study program. Jurnal Teknologi Pendidikan: Jurnal Penelitian Dan Pengembangan Pembelajaran, 8(1), 32.
Rakhmanina, L., & Serasi, R. (2022). Utilizing QuillBot paraphraser to minimize plagiarism in students' scientific writing. Novateur Publication, 26–33. Retrieved from http://novateurpublication.org/index.php/np/article/view/
Nurul, A. I., & Siti, S. D. (2021). Employing online paraphrasing tools to overcome students’ difficulties in paraphrasing. English Language Education Journal, 2(1), 52-59. Retrieved from https://journal.unj.ac.id/unj/index.php/stairs/article/view/21052
Amanda, A., Sukma, E. M., Lubis, N., & Dewi, U. (2023). Quillbot as an AI-powered English writing assistant: An alternative for students to write English. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Sastra Inggris, 3(2), 188-199.
Amyatun, R. L., & Kholis, A. (2023). Can Artificial Intelligence (AI) like QuillBot AI Assist Students’ Writing Skills? Assisting Learning to Write Texts using AI. ELE Reviews: English Language Education Reviews, 3(2), 135-154.
Hieu, B. V., Huy, H. M., & Hang, C. T. (2022). Employing the QuillBot application in order to sharpen paraphrasing skills in writing academic essays for English-majored students at the school of foreign languages - Thai Nguyen University. TNU Journal of Science and Technology, 227(13), 116-124. https://doi.org/10.34238/tnu-jst.6717
Xuyen, N. T. (2023, June). 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 (pp. 21-27).
Pham, N. Q. N. (2024). The Perspectives of Post-graduates Majoring in English Regarding the Usage of QuillBot to Enhance Paraphrasing Skills. International Journal of AI in Language Education, 1(1), 29-40.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Technology acceptance model: TAM. Al-Suqri, MN, Al-Aufi, AS: Information Seeking Behavior and Technology Adoption, 205, 219.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from permissions@acm.org.

ICEEL 2024, Tokyo, Japan