How AI Paraphrasing Tools Reshape Drafting Habits and Writing Development Among EFL University Students

The fast absorption of artificial intelligence (AI) paraphrasing tools into the academic writing institution has cast serious concerns regarding its effect on the second language academic writing. It is a qualitative phenomenological research study that examines the experiences of EFL university students in the application of AI paraphrasing tools and how the use repackages their drafting practices, writing processes, and assumes their roles in authorial agency and academic honesty. The data were gathered using the method of semi-structured and in-depth interviews with 12 undergraduate EFL students who claimed to use AI paraphrasing tools on a regular basis when composing academic texts. Using an interpretivist paradigm, the data were examined through a phenomenological thematic approach to obtain the lived experiences of the participants. This is demonstrated by the results that AI paraphrasing tools acted as both linguistic and affective scaffolds decreasing anxiety about accuracy in language and academic tone. Meanwhile, the drafting activities of students were also transformed: drafting was no longer achieved by an independent composition; instead, drafting involved rewriting, with revision now being concerned with surface rewording. The respondents have also had mixed perceptions when it comes to the development of their writing skills: some of them felt that their awareness of the language has heightened due to being exposed to AI-generated versions, but other respondents have been worried about becoming too dependent and less reliable in their ability to paraphrase without AI assistance. Also, students were actively involved in negotiating authorship and academic integrity through post-editing of AI output, but they had no certainty regarding ethical limits. The paper is an attempt to note that the role of AI paraphrasing tools in EFL academic writing is complex and ambivalent and contributes to the necessity to engage in pedagogical strategies that allow promoting reflective, self-regulated, and ethically informed AI use in higher education.

AI paraphrasing tools; EFL academic writing; drafting habits; phenomenological study; authorial agency

1. Barkaoui, K. (2016). What and when second-language learners revise when responding to timed writing tasks on the computer: The roles of task type, second language proficiency, and keyboarding skills. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 320–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12316 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. British Educational Research Association. (2018). Ethical guidelines for educational research (4th ed.). BERA. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Dizon, G., & Gayed, J. M. (2024). A systematic review of Grammarly in L2 English writing contexts. Cogent Education, 11(1), Article 2397882. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2397882 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Dizon, G., & Gold, J. (2023). Exploring the effects of Grammarly on EFL students’ foreign language anxiety and learner autonomy. The JALT CALL Journal, 19(3), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v19n3.1049 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. El-Garawany, M. S. M. (2024). QuillBot-based intervention and its effects on EFL writing performance, writing apprehension, and self-efficacy. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 43, 118–147. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2024.43.10 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing studies. Language Teaching, 45(4), 446–459. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000250 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Fleckenstein, J., Liebenow, J., & Meyer, J. (2023). Automated feedback and writing: A multi-level meta-analysis of effects on students’ performance. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 6, Article 1162454. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2023.1162454 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2012). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication, 29(3), 369–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312451260 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091–1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Keck, C. (2006). The use of paraphrase in summary writing: A comparison of L1 and L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(4), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.006 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Keck, C. (2014). Copying, paraphrasing, and academic writing development: A re-examination of L1 and L2 summarization practices. Journal of Second Language Writing, 25, 4–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.05.005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Keck, C. (2014). Copying, paraphrasing, and academic writing development: A re-examination of L1 and L2 summarization practices. Journal of Second Language Writing, 25, 4–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.05.005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Kohnke, L., Moorhouse, B. L., & Zou, D. (2023). ChatGPT for language teaching and learning. RELC Journal, 54(2), 537–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882231162868 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2015). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Li, J., Link, S., & Hegelheimer, V. (2015). Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback in ESL writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.10.004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Nazari, N., Shabbir, M. S., & Setiawan, R. (2021). Application of Artificial Intelligence powered digital writing assistant in higher education: Randomized controlled trial. Heliyon, 7(5), e07014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07014 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second-language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(4), 317–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2003.08.004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Pecorari, D., & Petrić, B. (2014). Plagiarism in second-language writing. Language Teaching, 47(3), 269–302. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000056 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Pecorari, D., & Petrić, B. (2014). Plagiarism in second-language writing. Language Teaching, 47(3), 269–302. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000056 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Prentice, F. M., & Kinden, C. E. (2018). Paraphrasing tools, language translation tools and plagiarism: An exploratory study. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 14(1), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-018-0036-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Stevenson, M., & Phakiti, A. (2014). The effects of computer-generated feedback on the quality of writing. Assessing Writing, 19, 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Temple, B., & Young, A. (2004). Qualitative research and translation dilemmas. Qualitative Research, 4(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794104044430 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2016). A questionnaire-based validation of multidimensional models of self-regulated learning strategies for EFL writing. The Modern Language Journal, 100(3), 674–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12339 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2020). Empowering learners in the second/foreign language classroom: The effects of self-regulated learning strategies-based writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 48, 100701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100701 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Tracy, S. J. (2020). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. van Manen, M. (2016). Researching lived experience (2nd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179–225. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X09349791 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Warschauer, M., Tseng, W., Yim, S., Webster, T., Jacob, S., Du, Q., & Tate, T. (2023). The affordances and contradictions of AI-generated text for writers of English as a second or foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 62, 101071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2023.101071 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Warschauer, M., Tseng, W., Yim, S., Webster, T., Jacob, S., Du, Q., & Tate, T. (2023). The affordances and contradictions of AI-generated text for writers of English as a second or foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 62, 101071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2023.101071 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15430421TIP4102_2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study