QuillBot Use in Student Writing: A Technology Acceptance Model Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30872/adjektiva.v8i2.5985Keywords:
TAM, Quillbot, AI-based writing tool, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, behavioral intentionAbstract
The purpose of this study is to determine the extent to which the use of Quillbot, an artificial intelligence-based writing tool, influences students' academic writing skills. This study examines the experiences, perceptions, and impact of Quillbot use on the quality of students' writing, employing a mixed-methods approach. The research respondents were students who actively used Quillbot to complete various academic tasks, such as essays and research reports. The results of the study indicate that students consider Quillbot to be a useful tool for enhancing the clarity and neatness of their writing, as well as correcting grammatical errors. The main indicators of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use, indicate positive perceptions of technology use and encourage its continued use. This study confirms that perceived utility and perceived ease of use have a considerable impact on students’ attitudes and behavioural intentions, supporting the theoretical assumptions of TAM. In addition to being a technological tool, QuillBot serves as a teaching tool that encourages students' self-assurance and independence in academic writing.
Downloads
References
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Chen, B., Song, X., & Cheng, G. (2020). An AI-powered system for supporting learners' self-regulated learning in online educational environments. Interactive Learning Environments, https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1837839
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
Fareed, M., Ashraf, A., & Bilal, M. (2016). ESL Learners’ Writing Skills: Problems, Factors and Suggestions. Journal of Education & Social Sciences, 4(2), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.20547/jess0421604201
Fitria, T. N. (2022). The Use of QuillBot to Improve Students’ Writing and Avoid Plagiarism in Academic Writing Class. Elsya: Journal of English Language Studies. https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i3.9917
Holmes, W., Porayska-Pomsta, K., Holstein, K., Sutherland, E., Baker, T., Shum, S. B., Santos, O. C., Rodrigo, M. T., Cukurova, M., Bittencourt, I. I., & Koedinger, K. R. (2022). Ethics of AI in Education: Towards a Community-Wide Framework. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32(3), 504–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00239-1
Hwang, G. J., & Fu, Q. K. (2020). Interactive technology-enhanced learning: a review of research on effective technology uses in education. 10.1080/10494820.2018.1508209
Hyland, K. (2019). Second Language Writing (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Latifah, A. U., et al. (2024). A Systematic Literature Review on the Use of QuillBot in Academic Writing. Journey: Journal of English Language and Pedagogy. https://doi.org/10.33503/journey.v7i1.872
Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a Design Science: Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and Technology. Routledge.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rahmani, E. F. (2023). Undergraduate Students’ Perceptions on Quillbot Paraphrasing Tool. https://doi.org/10.37729/scripta.v10i2.3674
Richards, J. C. & Renandya W. A. (2002). Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511667205
Richards, J. C., & Reppen, R. (2014). Towards a pedagogy of grammar instruction. RELC Journal, 45(1), 5-25. 10.1177/0033688213514482
Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach (7th ed., p.222). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Selwyn, N. (2019). Should we be worried about 'robot teachers'? Assessing the risks and rewards of artificial intelligence in education. 10.1080/17439884.2019.1601639
Selwyn, N., & Facer, K. (2013). The Politics of Education and Technology: Conflicts, Controversies, and Connections. Palgrave Macmillan.
Siddiq, F., Gochyyev, P., & Wilson, M. (2022). Does automated writing evaluation software have a place in the classroom? A systematic review of the research. Educational Technology Research and Development. 10.1007/s11423-022-10113-2
Sun, J. C. Y., & Wu, C. P. E. (2023). The effect of computer-assisted language learning on foreign language anxiety and learning motivation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior. 10.1016/j.chb.2023.107779
Susanti & Suparman (2023). Dukungan Parafrase. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/c7wre
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions. Decision Support Systems, 46(1), 273–280
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and Language (edisi revisi A. Kozulin). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100008172
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Devian Try Gustary, Silvia Putri Anjani, Anggit Laesa Oktaviani
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
