SHS Students' Usage of Paraphrasing Applications for Academic Activities

SHS Students’ Usage of Paraphrasing
Applications for Academic Activities
A Research Paper Presented to the

Basic Education Department
St. Mary’s College, Quezon City
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for Senior High School – Practical Research 2
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
Submitted to:
Ms. Anna Marie Buaron

Subject Teacher
Submitted by:
Portia Trisha B. Gamiao

Hilary Mikyla Keith L. Josef
Carmela Mae M. Tizon
Louise Jaina L. Vicente
28 October 2022
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The success of this research would not have been possible without the help and support of
certain people. The researchers extend their utmost gratitude to the following:
• Ms. Anna Marie Buaron for her unwavering support, patience, and guidance that ;
• Peers, families, and friends for their support and constant supervision;
• SHS Students of SMCQC for their participation in the study; and
• God for wisdom, strength, knowledge, and the opportunity to write.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. The Problem and Literature Review
1.1 Background of the Study 1-2
1.2 Literature Review 2-7
1.3 Theoretical Perspective and Conceptual Framework 8-9
1.4 Research Problems 9-10
1.5 Definition of Terms 11
2 Methods
2.1. Research Design 12
2.2. Sampling and Participants 13-14
2.3. Instruments 14-15
2.4. Data Gathering Procedure 15-16
2.5. Data Analysis 16-20
2.6. Ethical Considerations 20-21
3 Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation

3.1. Results 21-38
3.2. Discussion 39-42
4 Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations

4.1. Summary of the Study 43-44
4.2. Summary of Results 44-47
4.3. Limitations of the Study 47
4.4. Conclusions 48-50
4.5. Recommendations 50-51
Bibliography 58
Appendices
A. Survey Questionnaire 58-67
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Page
TABLES
1. Table 1: Sampling and Participants 13
2. Table 2: Gantt Chart 16
3. Table 3: Data Analysis Plan 17-20
4. Table 4: Grade, Section, and Academic Track/Strand of Respondents 21-22
5. Table 5: Verification of User Profile 22
6. Table 6: Paraphrasing Applications used by SHS Students 22-23
7. Table 7: Start of Using Paraphrasing Applications 23
8. Table 8: Frequency of Use 23
9. Table 9: Subjects in which Paraphrasing Applications are used for 24-25
Table 10: Academic Activities in which Paraphrasing Applications are
used for 26-27
10. Table 11: Reasons for Using Paraphrasing Applications 27-28
11. Table 12: Improvement in English Vocabulary 28
12. Table 13: Traditional or Online Learning Tools 28
13. Table 14: Struggles Encountered in Using Paraphrasing Applications 29
14. Table 15: Decline in Writing Proficiency Skills 29-30
15. Table 16: Plagiarism in Academic Writing 30
16. Table 17: Paraphrasing Tools promoting Laziness 30
17. Table 18: Paraphrasing Activities to Increase Confidence in Writing 31
18. Table 19: Building Better Vocabulary with Paraphrasing Applications 31
19. Table 20: Confidence in Face-to-Face Setting 32
20. Table 21: Paraphrasing Application that Produced the
Most Comprehensive Text 35
21. Table 22: Willingness to Consider Using Paraphrasing Applications 36
22. Table 23: Decline in Writing Proficiency Skills 36
23. Table 24: Plagiarism in Academic Writing 37
24. Table 25: Paraphrasing Tools promoting Laziness 37
25. Table 26: Paraphrasing Activities to Increase Confidence in Writing 37-38
26. Table 27: Building Better Vocabulary with Paraphrasing Applications 38
27. Table 28: Confidence in the Face-to-Face Setting 38
FIGURES/ILLUSTRATION
1. Literature Map 7
2. Conceptual Framework 9
3. Net Promoter Scale 32
ABSTRACT
Technology has brought various positive and negative effects on the education sector,
particularly in computer/artificial intelligence assisted learning. Paraphrasing services are in
demand today as academic writing has become essential to the fulfillment of activities in school.
In this study, the researchers discovered how SHS students at SMCQC use paraphrasing
applications; reasons for use, struggles encountered, and their perceptions were also emphasized.
A survey questionnaire containing profiling questions, rating scales, and Likert agreement scales
was distributed to 80 SHS students after pilot testing (40 students from each level). According to
the data, 72.5% of the respondents were users of paraphrasing applications, and 27.5% were not.
Grammarly and QuillBot are the most used paraphrasing applications by the respondents. English,
Practical Research, Oral Communication, and 21st Century Literature are the subjects in which
they mostly use these tools for. Research, Class Presentations, Essays, and Writing Activities are
the requirements in which they mostly use these tools on. The respondents said that they use
paraphrasing tools as they want to produce quality outputs, improve English vocabulary, and learn
proper grammar. However, the respondents encountered inaccuracies, limited features, and
artificial-sounding texts. The respondents agreed that paraphrasing tools may increase plagiarism
risks, promote laziness in writing, and cause a decline in writing proficiency. They also agreed that
there is a need for paraphrasing activities in school to hone skills, and they help build better
vocabulary. Most of the respondents have rated themselves Somewhat Confident in producing
outputs without paraphrasing tools in the face-to-face setting. Lastly, for their assessment of the
helpfulness of paraphrasing tools, 55.2% of the respondents were passives (satisfied but
unenthusiastic), 36.2% were promoters (recommenders), and 8.6% were detractors (unhappy about
the service). Further improvements to the methods and design is recommended by the researchers.
1
I. THE PROBLEM AND LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1 Background of the Study
According to Murphy (2009), paraphrasing is an important skill for students to master as
it allows them to express others’ ideas while maintaining the central concept of the original source
through their own words. Paraphrasing is highly useful as it helps students to control the temptation
of quoting too much from a direct source (Defiance College, 2022).
However, in a study conducted by Liao and Tseng (2010), postgraduates and
undergraduates from National Kaohsiung Normal University experienced difficulty in a
questionnaire designed primarily for paraphrasing activities after they failed to produce
“acceptable” or “commendable” texts. The students claimed to have understood the importance of
paraphrasing and denied committing the act of plagiarism, although their actions have shown
otherwise. The researchers stated two reasons explaining this phenomenon: 1) Not having
explicitly learned paraphrasing, and 2) unsuccessful transfer of paraphrasing knowledge to writing
due to lack of experience and practice. A study by Rahmayani (2018) on third-year English
students from Ar-Raniry State Islamic University had also shown comparable results, as the
students also lacked knowledge in paraphrasing and vocabulary, and they experienced difficulty
in changing word and sentence structures.
On the bright side, technology has had a profound impact on education. This involves the
creation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Intelligent Computer Assisted Language Learning
(ICALL). AI a versatile tool that allows people to reconsider how to integrate information, analyze
data, and use the resulting insights to make better decisions (West & Allen, 2018). Developing this
type of advanced technology involves the process of using computers and machines to mimic
human perception and other processes in order to complete a task (Jimenez & Boser, 2021). On
2
the other hand, according to IGI Global, ICALL employs the different expertise and techniques
that rooted from artificial intelligence to craft computer software that are specifically for learning
and mastering of languages. This type of technology is utilized to edit written text, check, and
correct writing errors (Mohammadi, Gorijan, & Alipour, 2012).
Several research studies have emphasized the advantages of technology that can positively
affect literacy development. Given AI’s ability to offer solutions regarding human-related
problems, online paraphrasing applications can be introduced to students to assist them in English
learning and writing areas. These paraphrasing services are in high demand today as they help
students produce academic outputs more easily and demonstrate fluency in writing and in research.
Even so, humans can face the possibility of reliance on these apps if used on a regular basis.
According to Enago Academy (2022), “The future of academic integrity is at risk when the use of
electronic tools is allowed to supersede authentic academic writing.” They suggested that proper
paraphrasing methodology should be complemented by educators providing clarity on assessment
tools and constructive feedback.
In this study, the researchers aim to assess how SHS students use paraphrasing applications
for their academic activities and requirements. The researchers also aim to discover the reasons
for use, struggles encountered by SHS students, and confidence in producing outputs in the face-
to-face setting. Moreover, the study would help educators and school curriculums in combining
linguistic and cognitive strategies to improve learning and writing areas.
1.2 Literature Review
In this section, subjects related to the study are explored to further contribute to its
credibility and foundation; this involves A) Effectiveness of Paraphrasing Applications, B)

3
Perceived Gaps and Barriers on the Use of Paraphrasing Applications, C) Enhancing Writing
Proficiency, and D) Perception of Students and Educators on Paraphrasing Applications. Figure 1:
Literature Map demonstrates the correlation of the concepts mentioned.
A. Effectiveness of Paraphrasing Applications
Holdich and Chung conducted a study on the effects of computers in 2003. A computer
tutor for narrative writing named “HARRY” was introduced among children ages 8 and 9.
According to their findings, children who used HARRY produced better, well-written stories. The
computer tutor also assisted children in dealing with a variety of writing tasks through presenting
several aspects of the writing process as needed.
In 2008, Reva Porter and Dorothy Fuller conducted a study involving seventh grade
students using grammar checker in writing instructions. Comparatively, results showed that the
grammar checker aided students in opting for more informed decisions, while at the same time,
learning proper grammar. According to Jayavalan & Razali (2018), the learning approach of using
paraphrasing tools (such as Grammarly) encourages self-directed learning in which students
become independent learners who know what they want and need to learn.
In 2012, Mohammadi, Gorijan, & Alipour performed a study to examine the impact of
computer-assisted language learning on descriptive essays written by pre-intermediate English as
a foreign language (EFL) learners employing spelling checker applications in their activities. The
study involved 140 EFL students whose ages ranged from 19 to 29; this population was grouped
into two of both experimental and control. Their theory of CALL as an aid to efficient writing was
evaluated as the two groups performed differently on the post-test that depicted the fact that CALL
word processing software or grammar applications did enhance the EFL learners’ writing
accuracy.
4
In contrast, as compared to human raters, an AI design is still not a perfect detector and
recommender of all error types in writing, though it aided in improving the grammatical accuracy
of English learners' writing (Park, 2020). Park’s findings contributed to the validity of
effectiveness of the online tool; although it has helped in decision-making and grammar,
improvements would still have to be considered as there are certain gaps. Additionally, Miranda
(2021) stated that students who often used paraphrasing tools indicated a dependence on it, which
showed the effect of using paraphrasing tools on the regular basis.
On what has been stated by various researchers, both good and bad effects of paraphrasing
tools were heavily scrutinized; though its development introduced an innovative approach in
learning instruction and education, it can possibly pose a threat to the dependence of students as
technology can offer a wider access to these resources at any place or time, with just a single click
on their mobile devices.
B. Perceived Gaps and Barriers with the Use of Paraphrasing Applications
“The ease of access to online paraphrasing tools provides the potential for students to
submit work they have not directly written themselves… to rewrite previously published materials
to sidestep self-plagiarism.” (Rogerson & McCarthy, 2017).
As we progress into the twenty-first century, the academic community battles with the
conduct of maintaining integrity among learners with the rise in the use of online resources and
services that have significantly altered learning instructions and research (Evans, 2001; Kezar &
Bernstein-Sierra, 2016). The world of academics is evidently infiltrated by innovative technology
and digitalized resources; this has become an emerging concern with regards to the complexity of
academic misconduct (Khan, 2021; Eysenbach, 2000).

5
On the contrary, technology did not completely impose threats of academic misconduct—
the advancement of technology has also aided in improving integrity. Digital tools, such as mobile
eye-tracking technologies, have also been developed to identify cheating or misconduct, especially
during examinations (Thomas & Jeffers, 2019).
To emphasize, Speak (2021) reiterated the negative impacts of technology in terms of the
decline in writing skills, listed as follows: 1) Plagiarism, 2) Impatience with the writing process,
3) More confidence in technology than themselves, 4) Students become helpless without
technology, and 5) Use of cyber slangs or writing in an informal manner.
C. Enhancing Writing Proficiency
To avoid errors, proofreading is undertaken to identify and correct any grammatical
mistakes. In 2020, Camp conducted a research about Developing Proofreading and Editing Skills.
Camp stated that "The material progresses from easy-to-recognize errors to those more difficult to
spot, allowing students to build confidence and skill". In relation to this statement, grammar
checker applications can be regarded as technological aids that help develop students’ sense of
confidence in their use of the English language.
According to Markus (2015), Students must be encouraged to read, write and think
critically at a college level of thinking. To emphasize his study, the reading material in "Write
Time, Write Place", exposes students to the various types of reading that they will encounter in
their coursework in college years.
Given these points, QuillBot, which is one of the well-known paraphrasing software
companies, published an online article entitled “Introduction to College-Level Writing: Quoting
and Paraphrasing” regarding the basics of their services and how students can use it to transform
their academic writing. The company mentioned how students can prevent problematic
6
generalizations in writing by creating an air of authority in the paper that would bring the readers
“along the path that brought you to your intellectual conclusion.”
Paraphrasing is simply an alternative to direct quoting; through this, researchers may
emanate a good grasp of the source material in their study. Introducing paraphrasing applications
to students, especially to those who are conducting research, may be beneficial to the outturn of
their performance as certain sections in most studies involve high demands of summary and
evidence-based writing.
D. Perception of Students and Educators on Paraphrasing Applications
In 2018, Randy Ventayen and Caren Ventayen conducted a study on the usability of
Grammarly based on graduate students’ perspectives in Pangasinan State University. In the
analysis, majority of the graduate students agree that the paraphrasing software is indeed usable.
They have observed that the strength of the software involves the improvement of writing
including identification of mistakes in grammar, punctuation and the like. However, some users
encountered weaknesses that the software can indicate misleading feedback (Adeseye, 2019). In
accordance with Adeseye’s analysis, the tools can be helpful to students however it can still be not
completely accurate, and plagiarism can still be present within the paraphrased text.
In 2018, Yang conducted a study among Chinese and Korean EFL learners about the
efficiency of online grammar checker in English writing performance and their perceptions on the
use of grammar checkers. In the conclusion of the study, Yang mentioned that it may be
worthwhile to discover more potential factors (specifically the method of class instruction or
different essays genres) to truly confirm the effectiveness of grammar checkers on the reduction
of error rates in summary writing; educators reiterated that grammar checkers still face the
possibility of inaccuracies. On the contrary, the perceptions of the EFL students that participated
7
in the study expressed both positive responses and pessimistic views. Fourteen (14) students
confirmed their positive responses through a Likert scale, saying that the grammar checker helped
in pointing out their weaknesses in the English language, verb form, and tenses, giving them
instructions on how they can improve their writing. However, some students believed that real
improvements in writing can progress through practice and writing a lot of papers, instead of using
grammar checkers. They reported that grammar checkers cannot fully detect deficiencies within a
certain selection or excerpt.
Figure 1: Literature Map

8
1.3 Theoretical Perspective and Conceptual Framework
The researchers have based the premise of the study on the following concepts:
a) The Rational Choice Theory emphasizes the importance of rational decision-
making and behavior. It defines rational choice as evaluating available options and
choosing among them based on a balance of benefits, costs, and other
considerations. Even though rational decision-making is regarded as the highest
form of individual reasonableness in the world, people can make better decisions
when confronted with complex problems requiring detailed analysis. According to
Green (2022), this theory is "an approach used to understand human behavior."
Individual preferences, beliefs, and constraints, according to Wittek (2013), are the
key elements of all rational choice explanations.
As students become more familiar and equipped with technology, they will
be able to use the services of artificial intelligence, such as paraphrasing
applications, to aid in their academic activities or requirements in school. As a
result, they shall bear full responsibility for the outcomes of using paraphrasing
applications for academic purposes.
b) Conceptual Framework
The paradigm below (Figure 2) shows the relationship between the
variables identified in the study, aligned with the original framework of the
Rational Choice Theory. In this study, the researchers have perceived that the action
of using paraphrasing applications roots from the information or knowledge of the
existing paraphrasing tools. Belief and interest become factors of the decision-
making process of SHS students as well.

9
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework
1.4 Research Problems
Paraphrasing software is one of the resources that can help students in terms of sentence or
paragraph rewriting. One of the reasons why students resort to Paraphrasing tools in improving
their writing is because of their lack of proficiency with the use of English language (Adeseye,
2019).
As the full face-to-face learning modality has gradually been implemented in St. Mary’s
College Quezon City for SHS students, they no longer have the option to utilize paraphrasing tools
at school when they produce academic-related outputs. The purpose of this study is to assess, using
a quantitative research approach, how paraphrasing tools have been used by the students for their
academic activities. More specifically, it aims to answer the following questions:
MAIN QUESTION:
How do SHS students use paraphrasing applications for academic activities/requirements?

10
SUB-QUESTIONS (for users):
1) What are the paraphrasing applications used for academic activities?
A. For which academic activities/requirements are the paraphrasing applications
mostly used?
B. For what subjects are the paraphrasing applications mostly used?
C. How helpful are paraphrasing applications in their academic activities?
2) What are the reasons of SHS students for their usage of paraphrasing applications?
A. What are the struggles that SHS students encountered?
B. How do SHS students assess the gravity of the repercussions that paraphrasing
applications may entail on students?
C. Did SHS students notice an improvement in their English vocabulary through
the guidance of paraphrasing applications?
3) Which method of instruction do SHS students prefer: using traditional learning materials
(dictionary, thesaurus, etc.) or online paraphrasing tools?
4) How confident are SHS students in producing an output without the use of paraphrasing
tools in the face-to-face setting?

11
1.5 Definition of Terms
• Paraphrasing – restatement of the meaning of a text or passage using other words, usually to
achieve greater clarity.
• Paraphrasing Applications – online tools used to rewrite or rephrase a sentence without
changing its meaning; it restructures specific words, phrases, sentences, or whole paragraphs
to create a slightly different variant.
• Plagiarism – the practice of taking others’ work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.
• Proficiency – high level of competence or skill about a specific field/subject.
• Resort – a strategy to resolve a difficult situation.
• English as a Foreign Language or EFL Learners – students that partake in the practice of
studying English in a country where it is not the dominant language.
• Academic Integrity – as defined by Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, it is
the “expectation that teachers, students, researchers and all members of the academic
community act with: honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility.”
• Academic Misconduct – refers to committing or contributing to dishonest acts by those
engaged in teaching, learning, research, and related academic activities, and it applies not just
to students, but to everyone in the academic environment (Cizek, 2003; Whitley, Jr. & Keith-
Spiegel, 2002).
• Digitalized Resources – information sources in electronic form.

12
II. METHODS
2.1 Research Design
The study was conducted through a quantitative research approach. With this method, the
researchers attained a better understanding of the SHS students’ usage of paraphrasing tools in St.
Mary’s College Quezon City for their academic activities. This approach objectively provided the
researchers with data that can be interpreted through statistical methods on the latter part of the
study.
Under a quantitative research design, the study can be classified primarily as descriptive.
Descriptive research is most often used to examine a situation in its current state. This method
involves identification of attributes of a particular phenomenon based on an observational basis,
providing room for further exploration of the correlation between the phenomena in the future
(Leedy and Ormrod, 2001; Williams, 2007). Though this design may not necessarily establish a
cause-and-effect relationship, the findings of this study may be beneficial in the aspect of
identifying certain gaps or barriers that can be used for improving services that are yet to be
administered.
Though several research questions have leaned toward addressing a more correlational
design, the absence of experimental and control groups because of time constraints have greatly
lessened the experimental validity of the study. Thus, the main objective was narrowed into
describing significant data, including means and reasons for use, and struggles encountered from
the use of paraphrasing applications; furthermore, the theory of whether these applications have
aided in their academic activities based on the students’ assessments and perceptions can be
explained.
13
2.2 Sampling and Participants
Using stratified random sampling, members of the target population were equitably chosen
as a part of the participants. Stratified random sampling can be defined as a sampling method in
which researchers first divide a certain population into smaller subgroups, or strata, based on
shared characteristics and then randomly select from the selected groups to form the final sample
(Simkus, 2022). This method conformed to the objective of the study on assessing Senior High
School students’ usage of paraphrasing applications for their academic activities.
The study involved eighty (80) Senior High School respondents who are bona fide students
at St. Mary's College Quezon City; the researchers have set the target at 65% of the total population
for the SHS level, which amounts to one hundred twenty-three (123) students. The final sample
was selected through the assistance of the RANDBETWEEN function of Microsoft Excel that
selects a random integer from user-specified numbers, which will then be used to identify the final
sample from the SHS population. Moreover, this study is highly relevant to Grade 11 students who
are about to take their research subjects, and Grade 12 students who conducted research in
fulfillment of their subject requirements. The target population is distributed as presented in the
table below.
Table 1: Sampling and Participants
TARGET POPULATION DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPANTS (%)
GRADE 11 40 students 50% of the target sampling population
GRADE 12 40 students 50% of the target sampling population

TOTAL SAMPLING POPULATION
80 SHS Students
14
The researchers, however, believe that this study entails a higher sample population to
secure its validity and credibility; however, time and other conflicting matters have been identified
and considered. Thus, the target sample was reduced to only eighty (80) SHS respondents to ensure
the feasibility of the data gathering measures of the study in a limited period of time.
2.3 Instruments
To collect the necessary data for this study, researchers used an online survey
questionnaire using Microsoft Forms in the conduct of self-assessment. Through this approach,
the theories presented by the researchers were validated through the SHS students’ perceptions
and firsthand experiences towards the use of paraphrasing applications.
During the preparatory phase, the survey questionnaire draft was developed aligned with
the research problems, questions, and hypotheses identified by the researchers. Survey questions
that involved standardized factors and multiple choices were derived from the related literature of
the study. On the other hand, open-ended questions are also provided to the respondents to obtain
additional input. In this manner, other research questions that lacked readily available
literature/resources to use as basis can be briefly answered in text by the respondents.
The survey questionnaire began with a question pertaining to their profile of either users
or non-users of paraphrasing applications. The questionnaire is then branched out into two sections
in accordance with their response. Users of paraphrasing applications are asked to complete the
common scales of Likert, Rating, Ranking, and Checklists. On the other hand, non-users are
presented with an essay paraphrased by 5 different applications, namely: QuillBot, Grammarly,
Copy.ai, Ginger Software, and Top One Uwu. Upon reading the information presented, their
willingness to use paraphrasing applications is also assessed through rating scales and checklists.
15
The preference for choosing these platforms is based on a number of factors, including: 1)
ease of access and navigation, 2) inexpensive method of data collection, 3) accurate presentation
of data by Microsoft Forms, and 4) increased sense of anonymity in the final sample.
2.4 Data Gathering Procedure
To obtain a complete list of the target population, the researchers requested this from the
Basic Education office through the assistance of their subject teacher. Upon its dissemination, the
final sample was selected through a stratified random sampling method, as stated in 2.2 Sampling
and Participants. A directory containing the final names of the respondents was made by the
researchers for progress checking purposes.
However, to ensure the reliability of the survey questionnaire, it must be checked by the
research teacher for necessary revisions; a ‘pilot test’ is also conducted among five (5) members
of the target population, which were chosen through convenience sampling.
Data gathering measures shall begin once the survey questionnaire, pilot testing, and final
sample have been approved, which the researchers aim to accomplish on or before October 4,
2022; the survey questionnaire is distributed through Microsoft Teams and Facebook Messenger.
The researchers utilized the allotted consultation time after class to give SHS students ample time
to accomplish the form. The respondent directory made by the researchers is vital in this step for
it includes checkboxes regarding the respondents’ progress on accomplishing the survey.
Once completed, the researchers shall tally or encode the data and administer statistical
treatment for proper analysis. This is tabulated through the assistance of Microsoft Excel and
interpreted with the assistance of the readily available ‘Insights’ feature of Microsoft Forms.
16
Moreover, the following variables were considered in the study:
A) Independent Variable: Usage of Paraphrasing Applications
B) Dependent Variable: Personal Assessment/Perception on their
Performance/Writing Proficiency in Academic Activities
C) Constant Variable: Academic Demands/Activities for Completion
Figure 4 (Gantt Chart) presents the activities that were accomplished throughout the course of the
study. Further adjustments were also done due to time constraints and learning modality changes
for SHS students as per the instruction of the school during the month of September 2022.
Table 2: Gantt Chart
GANTT CHART
Oct 27-
Oct Oct
AGENDA Sept 1-2 Sept 3-6 Sept 4-9 Sept 15-23 Sept 24-29 Sept 30-Oct 3 Oct 4-7 Oct 11-17 Oct 18-25 30
26 28
FORMULATION OF
RESEARCH TOPICS
FINALIZATION OF
RESEARCH TOPIC
COLLATING OF RELATED
LITERATURE AND
LITERATURE MAP
CHAPTER 1 AND
SURVEY FORM
CHAPTER 2 AND
DATA GATHERING
DATA ANALYSIS
AND INTERPRETATION
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
RESEARCH DEFENSE
REVISIONS ON
FINAL PAPER
SUBMISSION OF
FINAL PAPER
2.5 Data Analysis
Following a descriptive research design, the researchers used nominal and ordinal scales,
and statistical tests of Frequency Counts, Ranking, and Net Promoter Score with the assistance of
Microsoft Excel for the analysis of data. In reference to the research handouts provided by the
17
research teacher, the researchers have aligned the research questions and their corresponding
survey questions, scales, and classification of data, representing the data analysis plan in Table 3:
Data Analysis Plan.
Table 3: Data Analysis Plan
RESEARCH SURVEY SCALE OF STATISTICAL

TYPE OF DATA
QUESTION QUESTION MEASUREMENT TEST
Choice
• 11 - Jose Rizal
• 11 - Marcela
Agoncillo
• 11 - Juan Luna
• 11 - Melchora
Aquino
Grade and Section • 12 - Fe del
Mundo
• 12 - Miguel
Cuaderno Sr.
• 12 - Josefa
Llanes Escoda
• 12 - Jesus
Antonio
Villamor
Choice
Demographics
• Science, Frequency
Technology, Nominal Count
Engineering, (%)
Mathematics
(STEM)
• Humanities and
Academic Track/Strand Social Sciences
(HumSS)
• Accountancy,
Business, and
Management
(ABM)
• General
Academic
Strand (GAS)
Do you use
paraphrasing Dichotomous
applications for your Scale
academic activities?
Which paraphrasing
What are the
application/tool do Open-ended
paraphrasing
you use?
18
applications used for

When did you start
using paraphrasing
applications?
Rating Scale
(4-1, according
to usage)
How often do you
use paraphrasing Ordinal Ranking
1 - Rarely
applications?
2 - Occasionally
3 - Almost Always
4 - Always
Choice
Which among
the following • Grammarly Frequency
applications do you
• Quillbot Nominal Count
think produced the
• Copy AI (%)
most comprehensive
paraphrased text? • Ginger Software
• Top One Uwu
Likert Scale
(5-1, according
to usage)
On what online • Recitation

For which academic • Essay
academic
activities/requirements • Class
activities/requirements
are the paraphrasing Presentation Ordinal Ranking
do you use
applications mostly
paraphrasing • Creative Output
used?
applications for? • Writing Activity
• Performance
Task
• Examination
• Research
For what subjects are On what particular

the paraphrasing subjects do you usually
Open-ended
applications mostly use paraphrasing
used? applications for? Frequency
Count
What are your reasons (%)
for using paraphrasing
Checklist Nominal
What are the reasons applications to
of SHS students for complete your outputs?
their usage of
paraphrasing What are your reasons
applications? for not using
paraphrasing Open-ended Codebook
applications on
19
Rating Scale
(5-1)
Rate your willingness • Not at all willing
now to consider using
• Somewhat
paraphrasing Ordinal Ranking
unwilling
applications for
• Undecided
academic activities.
• Somewhat
willing
• Very willing
What are some of the

What are the struggles struggles you have Frequency
that SHS students encountered in using Checklist Nominal Count
encountered? paraphrasing (%)
applications?
How do SHS students

assess the gravity of
the repercussions How much do you Likert Scale
that paraphrasing agree with the (5-1, according Ordinal Ranking
applications may following statements? to agreement)
entail on SHS
students?
Did SHS
students notice an
Did you notice an
improvement in their
improvement in your Dichotomous
English vocabulary
English vocabulary Scale
through the guidance
because of this?
of paraphrasing
applications? Frequency
Nominal Count
Which method of (%)
Knowing that these
instruction do SHS
apps exist, would you
students prefer: using
still choose traditional
traditional learning
learning materials Choice
materials (dictionary,
(dictionary, thesaurus,
thesaurus, etc.) or
etc.) or online
online paraphrasing
paraphrasing tools?
tools?
How confident are you
How confident are in producing academic
Rating Scale
SHS students in outputs without the use
(5-1, according to Ordinal Ranking
producing an output of paraphrasing
confidence)
without the use of applications in the face-
paraphrasing tools in to-face setting?
20
the face-to-face
setting? For your overall
assessment, how Net Promoter
helpful are Score Net Promoter
paraphrasing (10-1, according Score (NPS)
applications on your to helpfulness)
The data was presented through a descriptive statistics and frequency count tables. In
addition, descriptive statistics in research are used to summarize complex quantitative data and a
simplified interpretation of the set in question (Corporate Finance Institute, 2021). The researchers
believe that this type of data representation will ensure that the variables and expressions are well-
aligned with the study. For the data that is gathered through sections that include open-ended
questions, the researchers made use of a codebook to effectively organize these responses. Though
this practice is often employed on qualitative research designs, it is of greatly help the researchers
to analyze additional valuable insights from the respondents.
2.6 Ethical Considerations
The researchers acknowledge that the value of ethics is crucial to the conduct of the study.
With this, the researchers have taken steps to ensure that the study is conducted in a responsible
manner, especially on the ethical grounds and standards of confidentiality, legitimacy,
transparency, unbiased representation, and social responsibility.
In adherence to the above-stated obligations, the researchers have included a data privacy
and consent form on the forefront of the online survey questionnaire. To increase the validity of
the study, the researchers have also included a section in the survey questionnaire that caters to
those who have not used paraphrasing applications; this is to prevent the assumption or
generalization about the use of paraphrasing applications for all students in the Senior High School
21
levels. To further avoid any potential conflict in the study, the researchers protected the
respondents' identities by presenting the data, if applicable, under a pseudonym.
III. PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
3.1 Results
40 students of the Grade 11 level and 40 students of the Grade 12 level were surveyed for
this study, amounting to a total sampling population of 80. Fortunately, amidst time constrictions,
all of the target respondents from both levels have chosen to participate in the study.
A. Demographics
The respondents were asked about their respective grade and section for school year 2022-
2023. 50% of the students were from the Grade 11 level and 50% were from the Grade 12, with a
total of 80 respondents.
In the Grade 11 level, 30% are from Jose Rizal (STEM). 11.5% belonged to Marcela
Agoncillo (ABM), while 5% were from Melchora Aquino (GAS). The remaining 3.75 were from
Juan Luna (HumSS). In the Grade 12 level, 25% were from Fe Del Mundo (STEM). Followed by
12.5% from Miguel Cuaderno Sr. (ABM). 7.5% from Jose Antonio Villamor (GAS), and the
remaining 5% belonged to Josefa Llanes Escoda (HumSS).
Table 4: Grade, Section, and Academic Track/Strand of Respondents
Grade, Section, and Academic Track/Strand F %

TOTAL 80 100
Jose Rizal (STEM) 24 30
Marcela Agoncillo (ABM) 9 11.25
GRADE 11
Juan Luna (HumSS) 3 3.75
Melchora Aquino (GAS) 4 5
Fe del Mundo (STEM) 20 25
GRADE 12
Miguel Cuaderno Sr. (ABM) 10 12.5
22
Josefa Llanes Escoda (HumSS) 4 5

Jesus Antonio Villamor (GAS) 6 7.5
As means of validation, the respondents were asked if they use paraphrasing application
for their academic activities. 72.5% of the students had answered that they use paraphrasing
application. While 27.5% had the opposite answer and stated that they do not use paraphrasing
applications.
Table 5: Verification of User Profile
Do you use paraphrasing applications for your

F %
TOTAL 80 100
Yes 58 72.5
No 22 27.5
B. Findings of the Study
Section 1: Users of Paraphrasing Applications
The total number of respondents that uses paraphrasing applications were 58 which
represents 72.5% of the target sampling population. Most of the students with the percentage of
77.6% considers QuillBot as their primary paraphrasing application. 63.8%, on the other hand,
uses Grammarly. The remaining applications use by the students were ProWritingAid and
Paraphraseapp.com with both 1.7%.
Table 6: Paraphrasing Applications used by SHS Students
Which paraphrasing application/tool do you use? F %
TOTAL 58 100
QuillBot 45 77.6
Grammarly 37 63.8
23
ProWritingAid 1 1.7
Paraphraseapp.com 1 1.7
The respondents were asked about the year they started using the said paraphrasing
applications. 3.5% of the respondents started in the year 2018. 8.6% started in 2019. 50% started
in the year 2020, while 37.9% started in 2021. None of the respondents started using paraphrasing
applications in the present year 2022.
Table 7: Start of Using Paraphrasing Applications
When did you start using paraphrasing applications? F %
TOTAL 58 100
2018 2 3.5
2019 5 8.6
2020 29 50
2021 22 37.9
2022 0 0
According to the data, only 3.5% of the respondents use paraphrasing applications Always.
44.8% percent stated that they use these applications Almost Always and 43.1% said that they only
use it Occasionally. 8.6% of the respondents use it Rarely.
Table 8: Frequency of Use
How often do you use paraphrasing applications? F %
TOTAL 58 100
4 – Always 2 3.5
3 – Almost Always 26 44.8
2 – Occasionally 25 43.1
1 – Rarely 5 8.6
24
The students were asked on what particular subjects they usually use paraphrasing
applications for. 37.93% of the total students’ population answered that they use paraphrasing
applications for their outputs in English. On Oral Communication, 20.69% students use
paraphrasing applications for the said subject. 15.52% students use paraphrasing applications for
their Practical Research subject. 3.44% of students answered that they use paraphrasing
applications for their subject, Pagbasa at Pagsusuri. 10.34% of students answered that they use
paraphrasing applications for their subject, Religious Studies. 6.89% of students answered that
they use paraphrasing applications for their subjects namely, Reading and Writing, Filipino and
Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person. For Disaster Readiness and Risk Reduction
(DRRR), 8.62% of students answered that they use paraphrasing applications for their written
outputs. On Christian Living, 5.17% of students answered that they use paraphrasing applications
for the said subject. 8.62% of students answered that they use paraphrasing applications for their
subject, Robotics. 1.72% of students answered that they use paraphrasing applications for their
subjects namely Science, Earth and Life Science, Health-Optimizing Physical Education (HOPE),
Komunikasyon at Pananaliksik and Music, Arts, Physical Education, and Health (MAPEH). About
5 respondents, 8.62% percent of the total respondents answered Others (Miscellaneous).
Table 9: Subjects in which Paraphrasing Applications are used for
On what particular subjects do you usually use

F %
paraphrasing applications for?
TOTAL 58 100
English 22 37.93
Practical Research 17 29.31
Oral Communication 12 20.69
21st Century Literature 9 15.52
Religious Studies 6 10.34
Disaster Readiness and Risk Reduction (DRRR) 5 8.62
Robotics 5 8.62
25
Reading and Writing 4 6.89

Filipino 4 6.89
Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person 4 6.89
Christian Living 3 5.17
Pagbasa at Pagsusuri 2 3.44
Science 1 1.72
Earth and Life Science 1 1.72
Health-Optimizing Physical Education (HOPE) 1 1.72
Komunikasyon at Pananaliksik 1 1.72
Music, Arts, Physical Education, and Health (MAPEH) 1 1.72
Others (Miscellaneous) 5 8.62
The students were asked to rate the following activities depending on what online academic
requirements do they use paraphrasing applications for. For recitation, 1.72% of the respondents
answered that they always use paraphrasing tools for recitation. 5.17% answered almost always
and 6.90% answered sometimes. Some students answered rarely with 39.66% while the rest of the
respondents answered never with 46.55%.
29.31% expressed that they use paraphrasing tools on their essays always while 31.03%
answered almost always. 25.86% answered sometimes and 10.34% answered rarely on the other
hand. The remaining 3.45% expressed that they never use paraphrasing tools for essay writing.
For the class presentation, 8.62% of the respondents answered that they always use these
tools in their class presentations. 32.76% answered almost always and 24.14% answered
sometimes. Some students answered rarely with 20.69% while the rest of the respondents answered
never with 13.79%.
In creative output, 13.79% of the students stated that they always utilize paraphrasing tools
in their creative outputs while 25.86% answered almost always. 31.03% answered sometimes and
15.52% answered rarely. There were 13.79% respondents who answered never.
26
20.69% expressed that they use paraphrasing tools on their writing activities always while
27.59% answered almost always. 25.86% answered sometimes and 17.24% answered rarely on
the other hand. The remaining 8.62% expressed that they never use paraphrasing tools during
writing activities.
22.41% of the respondents always use paraphrasers in their performance tasks and 22.41%
answered almost always. 31.03% answered sometimes while 17.24% answered rarely. There were
10.34% of the students who answered never.
During examination, 1.72% of the respondents access paraphrasing applications while
6.90% answered almost always. There were 10.34% who answered sometimes, 22.41% in rarely
and in 58.62% never.
In research making, most of the students use paraphrasing applications always with
32.76%. Respondents who answered sometimes were 31.03%, 10.34% in rarely and 3.45% in
never.
Table 10: Academic Activities in which Paraphrasing Applications are used for
On what online academic activities/requirements do you use paraphrasing applications for?

Rate your usage of these apps according to the scale below.
Almost
ACTIVITY Never Rarely Sometimes Always TOTAL
Always
27 23 4 3 1
Recitation 58
46.6% 39.7% 6.9% 5.2% 1.7%
2 6 15 18 17
Essay 58
3.5% 10.3% 25.9% 31% 29.3%
8 12 14 19 5
Class Presentation 58
13.8% 20.7% 24.1% 32.8% 8.6%
8 9 18 15 8
Creative Output 58
13.8% 15.5% 31% 25.9% 13.8%
5 10 15 16 12
Writing Activity 58
8.6% 17.2% 25.9% 27.6% 20.7%
Performance Task 6 8 18 13 13 58
27
10.3% 13.8% 31% 22.4% 22.4%

34 13 6 4 1
Examination 58
58.6% 22.4% 10.3% 6.9% 1.7%
2 6 13 18 19
Research 58
3.5% 10.3% 22.4% 31% 32.8%
The students were asked about the reason for using paraphrasing applications in completing their
outputs. 67.24% answered that they want to produce quality outputs, students who answered that
they want to learn proper grammar and as well as to widen and improve their English vocabulary
has acquired both 63.79% while 59.90% experiences difficulty in changing word and sentence
structures. 48.28% of the respondents wanted to express their understanding of an excerpt from a
direct source, 25.86% of them answered that they are not fond of writing, 12.07% answered that
they are not knowledgeable in paraphrasing, 10.34% answered that they want to produce quality
outputs and 5.17% answered other.
Table 11: Reasons for Using Paraphrasing Applications
What are your reasons for using paraphrasing applications to complete your outputs?
Check all that apply.
STATEMENT Count Scale and Percentage
I want to learn
37/58 63.79%
proper grammar.
I experience difficulty in
changing word and sentence 33/58 59.90%
structures.
I want to widen and improve
37/58 63.79%
my English vocabulary.
I am not knowledgeable in
7/58 12.07%
paraphrasing.
I want to fluently express my
understanding of an excerpt 28/58 48.28%
from a direct source.
28
I want to produce quality

39/58 67.24%
outputs.
I want to impress my teacher. 6/58 10.34%
I am not fond of writing. 15/58 25.86%
Other 3/58 5.17%
89.7% of the respondents noticed an improvement with their English vocabulary while
10.3% stated otherwise.
Table 12: Improvement in English Vocabulary
Did you notice an improvement in your English

F %
vocabulary because of this?
TOTAL 58 100
Yes, I noticed an improvement. 52 89.7
No, I did not. 6 10.3
The students were asked about their preference on the following means of learning. 6.9%
of respondents still consider traditional learning materials while 24.1% prefer online paraphrasing
tools. 69%, on the other hand, prefer both.
Table 13: Traditional or Online Learning Tools
Knowing that these apps exist, would you still choose traditional
learning materials (dictionary, thesaurus, etc.) or online F %
paraphrasing tools?
TOTAL 58 100
Traditional Learning Materials 4 6.9
Online Paraphrasing Tools 14 24.1
Both 40 69
The respondents were asked about the different struggles they encountered as they use
paraphrasing applications. Most students considered the grammar inaccuracies with 60.34%.
Followed by having limited features as it requires subscriptions with the total percentage of
29
53.45%. Third, the paraphrased text sounds too artificial with 48.28% and 46.55% in having a
complete change in the thought of the original writing. 39.66% stated about increased plagiarism
risks, 32.76% encountered inappropriate suggestions of synonyms and only 3.45% answered about
the difficulty in navigation.
Table 14: Struggles Encountered in Using Paraphrasing Applications
What are some of the struggles you have encountered in using paraphrasing applications?
Check all that apply.
STATEMENT Count Scale and Percentage
Grammar
35/58 60.34%
inaccuracies
Increased
23/58 39.66%
plagiarism risks
The paraphrased text sounds
28/58 48.28%
too artificial
It suggested inappropriate
19/58 32.76%
synonyms
It completely changed the
27/58 46.55%
thought of my original writing
The tools are not free; I can
31/58 53.45%
only access limited features
Difficulty in navigation; the
2/58 3.45%
interface is hard to understand
According to the data which has the overall mean of 4.12, the respondents agree that if
paraphrasing applications are used regularly for academic purposes, it may cause a decline in
writing proficiency skills.
Table 15: Decline in Writing Proficiency Skills
Value Frequency Mean Description

S1: Writing proficiency skills may decline if paraphrasing applications
are regularly used for academic activities.
5 – Strongly Agree 5 1.14
4 – Agree 22 1.52 4.12 Agree
3 – Neutral 24 1.24
30
2 – Disagree 6 0.20
1 – Strongly Disagree 1 0.02
TOTAL 58 4.12
With an overall mean of 3.6, the students agreed that the usage of paraphrasing applications
can increase the risk of plagiarism in academic writing.
Table 16: Plagiarism in Academic Writing

S2: Using paraphrasing applications increase the risks of committing
plagiarism in academic writing.
4 – Agree 26 1.79
3 – Neutral 17 0.88
3.6 Agree
1 – Strongly Disagree 0 0
TOTAL 58 3.6
With an overall mean of 3.48, the respondents agreed that paraphrasing tools can promote
laziness when it comes to writing.
Table 17: Paraphrasing Tools promoting Laziness
S3: Paraphrasing tools can promote laziness when it comes to writing.

4 – Agree 22 1.54
3 – Neutral 12 0.63 3.48 Agree
TOTAL 57 3.48
31
The data garnered an overall mean of 3.69 in which the respondents agreed on the need for
paraphrasing activities in school to increase the students’ confidence in academic and research
writing.
Table 18: Paraphrasing Activities to Increase Confidence in Writing

S4: There is a need for paraphrasing activities in school to increase
confidence in academic and research writing.
4 – Agree 20 1.38
3 – Neutral 25 1.29 3.69 Agree
TOTAL 58 3.69
An overall mean of 4.01 indicated that the students agreed that paraphrasing applications
help in building better vocabulary.
Table 19: Building Better Vocabulary with Paraphrasing Applications
S5: Paraphrasing applications help in building better vocabulary.

4 – Agree 29 2.04
3 – Neutral 14 0.74
4.01 Agree
2 – Disagree 0 0
TOTAL 57 4.01
The students were asked about their confidence in producing academic outputs without
using paraphrasing applications in the face-to-face modality. 5.2% of the respondents were Very
Confident while 55.2% expressed that they are Somewhat Confident. 36.2% stated that they are
32
Neutral on this matter and 3.5% were Somewhat Unconfident. None of the respondents answered
Not at all Confident.
Table 20: Confidence in Face-to-Face Setting
How confident are you in producing academic outputs without

F %
the use of paraphrasing applications in the face-to-face setting?
TOTAL 58 100
5 – Very Confident 3 5.2
4 – Somewhat Confident 32 55.2
3 – Neutral 21 36.2
2 – Somewhat Unconfident 2 3.5
1 – Not at all Confident 0 0
With the use of the Net Promoter Score (NPS), the overall assessment rating is 27, with
promoters garnering 21, 32 in passives, and 5 in Detractors.
Figure 3: Net Promoter Score
Section 2: Non-users of Paraphrasing Applications
The researchers have gathered 21 answers out of 22 respondents under the non-user’s
section about the reasons for not using paraphrasing applications on academic activities. The
respondent’s answers were identified to belong into five (5) categories: A) Student’s Unfamiliarity
on Using Paraphrasing Tools, B) Fear of Getting Caught and Academic Misconduct, C)

33
Uncertainty on How Paraphrasing Applications Work, D) Honing Own Writing Skills, and E) Not
in Favor in of Using Paraphrasing Applications.
A. Student’s Unfamiliarity on Using Paraphrasing Tools
Four (4) out of twenty-two (22) non-users of paraphrasing applications have said that they
are not familiar with using such applications. Either they have no knowledge about paraphrasing
tools, or they have never tried using it.
• “I always tend to forget the apps' names and their information.” G1102 – NP
• “I'm not familiar with how they work because I've never tried using them for
academic activities.” G1204 – NP
• “To be honest, This the first time that I've found out that paraphrasing tool exists.”
G1208 – NP
• “To be honest, I didn't know they existed.” G1218 – NP
• “I am not too familiar with these paraphrasing applications…” G1207 – NP
B. Fear of Getting Caught and Committing Academic Misconduct
The researchers gathered four (4) respondents saying that they do not use paraphrasing
applications because of plagiarism, and it can violate school rules, which can give the students
sanctions.
• “Because paraphrasing apps is also a form of plagiarism.” G1209 – NP
• “It might affect my grade and I might have major offense.” G1217 – NP
• “I could be caught cheating” G1113 – NP
C. Uncertainty on how Paraphrasing Applications Work

34
In the survey, three (3) senior high students have reckoned that they are not sure if
paraphrasing applications are accurate and reliable to revise the data that they need.
• “I'm uncertain if it's accurate” G1105 – NP
• “…I find them very inaccurate and unreliable." G1111 – NP
• “I never really trusted them …”. G1114 – NP
D. Honing Own Writing Skills
Most of the respondents of those who are non-users of paraphrasing applications answered
that they prefer writing and paraphrasing their own work to hone their skills rather than relying on
using paraphrasing tools. It is evident that they trust their own words that the ones that are computer
generated.
• “I'd like to answer the questions presented to me with my rawest thoughts and I'd
like to train and motivate myself to write more.” G1203 – NP
• “I rely on my own paraphrasing capabilities.” G1106 – NP
• “…often times I try to practice wording things on my own accord as much as
possible” G1207 – NP
• “I prefer to use my own created phrases and sentences, rather than relying on
applications.” G1112 – NP
• “…though id rather try to learn as i go is probably the best reason i can come up
with.” G1114 – NP
• “Because I want to practice my skills in writing in my own ways.” G1115 – NP
• “I can hone my thinking in writing.” G1216 – NP
• “I prefer to write on my own without the help of these apps.” G1119 – NP

35
• “I usually make paragraphs on my own and I have not really used these
applications before, just once maybe.” G1120 – NP
• “I usually just directly quote the phrase and provide the source. I do paraphrase
on some occasions but usually do not use an application for it.” G1121 – NP
E. Not in Favor of Using Paraphrasing Applications
Two (2) out of twenty-two (22) respondents answered that they are just not in favor of
using paraphrasing applications.
• “I don't really like using it” G1101 – NP
• “I just don’t want to use it” G1122 – NP
As shown in the table below, respondents were asked to select which of the aforementioned
paraphrasing applications can produce the most comprehensive paraphrased text. According to the
data gathered, Grammarly and QuillBot have an equal number of 6 respondents and a percentage
of 27.3. Copy AI has 22.7%, while Ginger Software has 13.6%. Top One Uwu garnered 4.6%.
Meanwhile, a respondent chose None with 4.6%.
Table 21: Paraphrasing Application that Produced the Most Comprehensive Text
Which among the following applications do you think produced F %

the most comprehensive paraphrased text?
TOTAL 22 100
Grammarly 6 27.3
QuillBot 6 27.3
Copy AI 5 22.7
Ginger Software 3 13.6
Top One Uwu 1 4.6
None 1 4.6
36
As shown in Table 22, the respondents were asked about their willingness to use
paraphrasing applications for academic purposes.
Table 22: Willingness to Consider Using Paraphrasing Applications
After reading the paraphrased texts shown above, rate your

willingness now to consider using paraphrasing applications F %
for academic activities.
TOTAL 22 100
5 – Very Willing 1 4.6
4 – Somewhat Willing 11 50
3 – Undecided 8 36.4
2 – Somewhat Unwilling 0 0
1 – Not at all Willing 2 9.1
According to the data shown in Table 23, students agree that writing skills may decline
when paraphrasing tools are often used for academic activities and it garnered an overall mean of
3.79.
Table 23: Decline in Writing Proficiency Skills

S1: Writing proficiency skills may decline if paraphrasing applications
are regularly used for academic activities.
4 – Agree 11 2
3 – Neutral 3 0.41
3.64 Agree
TOTAL 22 3.64
With an overall mean of 3.64, The table shows that students who do not use paraphrasing
applications agree that there is a high risk of plagiarism in academic activity when using it.
Table 24: Plagiarism in Academic Writing

37

S2: Using paraphrasing applications increase the risks of committing
plagiarism in academic writing.
4 – Agree 10 1.82
3 – Neutral 2 0.27
3.64 Agree
TOTAL 22 3.64
According to the data, non-users agree that paraphrasing tools promote laziness when it
comes to writing and it has an overall mean of 3.97.
Table 25: Paraphrasing Tools promoting Laziness
S3: Paraphrasing tools can promote laziness when it comes to writing.

4 – Agree 14 2.55
3 – Neutral 1 0.14
3.97 Agree
TOTAL 22 3.97
According to the shown below, students agree that there should be activities where they
can learn more about paraphrasing, which can help increase confidence in academic and research
writing. This garnered an overall mean of 3.63.
Table 26: Paraphrasing Activities to Increase Confidence in Writing

S4: There is a need for paraphrasing activities in school to increase
confidence in academic and research writing.
5 – Strongly Agree 6 1.36 3.63 Agree
38
4 – Agree 6 1.09
3 – Neutral 7 0.95
TOTAL 22 3.63
With an overall mean of 3.63, the data shows that students who do not use paraphrasing
applications agree that these tools can help in building better vocabulary.
Table 27: Building Better Vocabulary with Paraphrasing Applications
S5: Paraphrasing applications help in building better vocabulary.

4 – Agree 6 1.09
3 – Neutral 6 0.82
3.63 Agree
TOTAL 22 3.63
The table below shows that 27.3% of the respondents are Very Confident when it comes
to producing outputs without the use of paraphrasing tools. 50% of the respondents answered that
they are Somewhat Confident. Only 22.7% said that they are Neutral.
Table 28: Confidence in the Face-to-Face Setting
How confident are you in producing academic outputs without

F %
the use of paraphrasing applications in the face-to-face setting?
TOTAL 22 100
5 – Very Confident 6 27.3
4 – Somewhat Confident 11 50
3 – Neutral 5 22.7
2 – Somewhat Unconfident 0 0
1 – Not at all Confident 0 0
39
3.2 Discussions
The data gathered showed the self-assessment of the students on their usage of
paraphrasing applications. The findings of the study were categorized into two sections: Users and
Non-users.
Out of the total responses of 58 for the question regarding the paraphrasing application
used by SHS students, QuillBot appeared in 77.6% of the responses, Grammarly in 63.8% of the
responses, ProWritingAid in 1.7% of the responses, and Paraphraseapp.com in also 1.7 of the
responses. For the years that marked the start of SHS students’ usage of these applications, 2020
appeared in 50% of the responses, 2021 in 37.9% of the responses, 2019 in 8.6% of the responses,
and 2018 on 3.5% of the responses.
On the frequency of their usage, 44.8% respondents have answered Almost Always on the
scale, 43.1% have answered Occasionally, 8.6% have answered Rarely, and 3.5 have answered
Always. The respondents were asked about the particular subjects in which they use paraphrasing
applications for, and four (4) subjects have garnered the most responses, respectively: English on
37.9% of the responses, Practical Research on 29.3% of the responses, Oral Communication on
20.7%, and 21st Century Literature on 15.5%. Other subjects in Araling Panlipunan, Filipino, and
Science areas were also mentioned, as seen in Section 1, Table 9.
On their usage of paraphrasing applications in academic activities/requirements, those with
the highest frequencies in terms of usage in the scale Almost Always and Always are as follows:
40
Research with 32. 8% of the responses for Always, Class Presentation with 32.8% of the responses
for Almost Always, Essay with 31% of the responses for Almost Always, Writing Activity with
27.6% of the responses for Almost Always, Creative Output with 25.9% of the responses for
Almost Always, and Performance Task with 22.41% of the responses for Almost Always.
For their reasons on using paraphrasing applications, 67.2% of the respondents want to
produce quality outputs, 63.8% want to improve their English vocabulary and as well learn proper
grammar, 59.9% use paraphrasing apps because of difficulty in changing word/sentence structures,
48.3% want to fluently express their understanding of an excerpt from a source, 25.9% are not
fond of writing, 12.1% use tools as they are not knowledgeable in paraphrasing, 10.3% want to
impress their teacher, and 5.2% have subjectively answered reasons involving checking for
inconsistencies, convenience of time, and acknowledging authors. With regards to the noticing of
the improvement in their English vocabulary through paraphrasing applications, 89.7% of the
respondents have answered Yes, and 10.3% have answered No. For the preferred learning
material/instruction of the students, 6.9% of the respondents answered traditional learning
materials, 24.1% answered online paraphrasing tools, and 69% answered both.
For the struggles encountered on paraphrasing applications, 60.3% have encountered
grammar inaccuracies, 53.5% have experienced that the tools are not free and are only providing
limited features, 48.3% have said that the paraphrased text sounds too artificial, 46.6% have said
that the tools changed the thought of their original writing, 39.7% have experienced increased
plagiarism risks, 32.8% said the tools suggested inappropriate synonyms, and 3.5% have said that
they experience difficulty in navigating on its interface.
On the Likert scale for Section 1, the respondents agreed that writing proficiency skills
may decline if these tools are used regularly, achieving an overall mean of 4.12. They also agreed
41
that paraphrasing apps may increase the risks of committing plagiarism in academic writing, and
it can promote laziness in writing, garnering an overall mean of 3.6 and 3.48, respectively. The
respondents also agreed that there is a need for paraphrasing activities in school to increase
confidence in academic/research writing, with an overall mean of 3.69. They have also agreed that
paraphrasing tools can help in building better vocabulary, with an overall mean of 4.01.
The users were asked about their assessment of their confidence in producing outputs in
the face-to-face setting without the help of paraphrasing tools in a rating scale of 5-1. 55.2%
answered Somewhat Confident, 36.2% were Neutral, 5.2% answered Very Confident, and 3.5%
have answered Somewhat Unconfident. None of the respondents answered Not at all Confident in
the scale.
Lastly, for the users’ overall assessment of the helpfulness of these paraphrasing
applications in academic activities, 55.2% of the respondents were passives (satisfied users but
unenthusiastic about the application), 36.2% were promoters (recommenders), and 8.6% were
detractors (unhappy about the service).
Out of the 22 non-users, 21 respondents had given out their reasons for not using
paraphrasing applications, which involved the following terms: A) Student’s Unfamiliarity on
Using Paraphrasing Tools, B) Fear of Getting Caught and Committing Academic Misconduct, C)
Uncertainty on How Paraphrasing Applications Work, D) Honing Own Writing Skills, and E) Not
in Favor in of Using Paraphrasing Applications. Most of the respondents, amounting to 10
responses, have said that they prefer writing on their own and practicing their skills, aligned with
D) Honing their Own Writing Skills.

42
On the paraphrasing application/s that produced the most comprehensive text, 27.3% of
the respondents answered QuillBot, and 27.3% have also answered Grammarly. On their
willingness to consider using paraphrasing applications, 50% of the respondents were Somewhat
Willing, 36.4% were Undecided, 4.6% were Very Willing, and 9.1% were Not at all Willing. None
of the respondents answered Somewhat Unwilling.
On the Likert scale for Section 2, the respondents agreed that writing proficiency skills
may decline if these tools are used regularly, achieving an overall mean of 3.64. They also agreed
that paraphrasing apps may increase the risks of committing plagiarism in academic writing, and
it can promote laziness in writing, garnering an overall mean of 3.64 and 3.97, respectively. The
respondents also agreed that there is a need for paraphrasing activities in school to increase
confidence in academic/research writing, with an overall mean of 3.63. They have also agreed that
paraphrasing tools can help in building better vocabulary, with an overall mean of 3.63.
Lastly, the non-users were also asked about their assessment of their confidence in
producing outputs in the face-to-face setting without the help of paraphrasing tools in a rating scale
of 5-1. 50% answered Somewhat Confident, 27.3% answered Very Confident, and 22.7% were
Neutral. None of the respondents answered Somewhat Unconfident and Not at all Confident in the
rating scale.
43
IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Summary of the Study
In this technological based era, the students were introduced to different applications or
online tools which can be utilized to make the work easier and more convenient to do. Moreover,
as the Philippines was declared under lockdown in the year 2020, the Department of Education
and Institutions made an alternative learning modality wherein the students will no longer be going
to the school physically and will be taught in Online Distance Learning or ODL and Modular
Modality. In the case of St. Mary's College Quezon City, students were given the Online Distance
Learning as the mode of learning. With this, the study aimed to know about how the students use
of paraphrasing tools with the title "SHS Students’ Usage of Paraphrasing Applications for
Academic Activities". The study also aimed to know how these paraphrasing tools were used by
the students for academic purposes in Grades 11 and 12.
The researchers conducted an online survey that was sent through Microsoft Teams. Pilot
testing was conducted and were sent to three (3) students for possible revisions and to ensure
Before the data gathering proper, the first page of the online questionnaire contained the consent
form to assure that the respondents are aware that their information will only be used for research
purposes and any data will not be disclosed in any way. The survey consists of profiling questions
and statements in assessing the students' usage of online paraphrasers. With the data gathered,
frequency count was applied to the profiling questions as well as the question pertaining to the
paraphrasing tools they use, the subjects where they use these tools, the struggles encountered in
while using paraphrasing applications, their preference between traditional learning materials or
44
paraphrasing tools and as well as the year they started using paraphrasers. Furthermore, the mean
is calculated under ordinal scale through which it was based on the questions in the ranking scale
while the stated reasons of the non-users for not using paraphrasing applications were written
under the codebook. The question pertaining to the overall assessment were tested using Net
Promoter Score (NPS).
4.2 Summary of Results
Based on the gathered data, the demographic of the study is shown in the Table 4 and 5,
which verify and validate the respondent’s identity. The researchers have reached their targets
sampling population of 80 students from the Grades 11 and 12 level. As means of verification, the
respondents were asked if they use paraphrasing applications in academic activities. Users of
paraphrasing tools generated 72.5% of the population, while non-users made up the remaining
27.5%.
The data for the users of paraphrasing applications can be found in the Tables 6-20 and
Figure 3. To start off, the respondents were asked if what paraphrasing applications were they
using. It is evident that QuillBot and Grammarly are the most use applications in terms of
Paraphrasing. With QuillBot having a 77.6% and Grammarly with 63.8% of the population. Tables
7-9 shows the year when they started to use paraphrasing applications, how often do they use it,
and on what particular subjects were they usually use it for. Half of the population of the users
started in the 2020 with a percentage of 50% and from there 44.8% of the respondents said that
they use it Almost Always and 43.1% of them stated that they use it Occasionally. There are four
prominent subjects that were frequently used for paraphrasing applications. The English subject
listed first on the list with a percentage of 37.93%, while Practical Research received a percentage
45
of 29.69%. Oral Communications receives 20.69% of the population, while 21st Century
Literature receives 15.52%.
In line with this, respondents were asked about their online academic activities (as shown
in Table 10) where they use paraphrasing applications. According to the data gathered, Research
is the most frequently occurring academic activity with a percentage of 32.8%, followed by Essay
at 29.7%, Performance Tasks at 22.4%, and Writing Activity at 20.7 In addition, Table 11 shows
the reasons for using paraphrasing applications and the garnered data shows that students use this
kind of applications because they want to produce quality outputs with the percentage of 67.24%,
to widen and improve their English vocabulary and learn proper grammar with 63.79%. And
because they experience difficulty in changing the word and sentence structure with a percentage
of 59.90%.
The data gathered in Table 12 shows if there is an improvement in their English vocabulary
and 89.7% of the respondents said yes. In line with that, Table 13 shows the students’ preferred
method of learning and the choice Both (Traditional Learning Materials & Online Paraphrasing
Tools) garnered the highest frequency with the percentage of 69%. The researchers also asked the
respondents about their struggles in using paraphrasing applications and most of them stated that
they encountered Grammar inaccuracies (60.34%), tools were not free or can only access limited
features (53.45%), paraphrased text sounds to artificial (48.28%), and completely changed the
thoughts of their original writing (46.55%).
The data gathered that is depicted from Tables 15-19 shows about the student’s assessment
on how effective is paraphrasing tools in helping them in academic activities. From Tables 15-19,
the respondents agreed that writing proficiency may decline if paraphrasing applications are
regularly used with an overall mean of 4.12, using paraphrasing applications can increase the risk
46
of committing plagiarism with an overall mean of 3.6, paraphrasing tools can promote laziness
when it comes to writing with an overall mean of 3.48, there is a need for paraphrasing activities
in school to increase confidence in academic and research writing with an overall mean of 3.69,
and it can help in building vocabulary with an overall mean of 4.01. According to the data in Figure
3, there are 32 passives about their overall assessment in using paraphrasing tools. Finally, most
of the students are still Somewhat Confident in producing outputs without the use of paraphrasing
applications in the face-to-face set up with a percentage of 55.2%.
The data gathered about the reasons for not using paraphrasing applications on academic
activities were identified to belong into five (5) categories: A) Student’s Unfamiliarity on Using
Paraphrasing Tools, B) Fear of Getting Caught and Academic Misconduct, C) Uncertainty on How
Paraphrasing Applications Work, D) Honing Own Writing Skills, and E) Not in Favor in of Using
Paraphrasing Applications. In addition, non-users were asked among 5 paraphrasing applications
can produce the most comprehensive text. The highest frequented application is Grammarly and
QuillBot with the same percentage of 27.3%. Followed by Copy AI with 22.7% and Ginger
Software with 13.6%. After that, they are asked about how willing they are to consider using
paraphrasing applications for their academic activities. 50% of the users have stated that they are
Somewhat Willing to use it, while 36.4% are Undecided.
The data gathered that is depicted from Tables 23-27 shows about the non-user’s
assessment on how effective is paraphrasing tools in helping them in academic activities. From
Tables 23-27, the respondents agreed that writing proficiency may decline if paraphrasing
applications are regularly used with an overall mean of 3.64, using paraphrasing applications can
47
increase the risk of committing plagiarism with an overall mean of 3.64, paraphrasing tools can
promote laziness when it comes to writing with an overall mean of 3.97, there is a need for
paraphrasing activities in school to increase confidence in academic and research writing with an
overall mean of 3.63, and it can help in building vocabulary with an overall mean of 3.63.
Lastly, the students were asked about their confidence in producing academic outputs
without the use of paraphrasing applications in the face-to-face setting and it garnered half of the
population of the non-users (50%) saying that they are Somewhat Confident.
4.3 Limitations of the Study
During the course of the study, some of the plans of action and initial methods of the
researchers were not met. This is due to the following limitations:
• Resampling of the Target Population. The researchers initially set their sampling
population to 100 SHS students (50 from the Grade 11, and 50 from the Grade 12).
However, the total population of the Grade 11 students were only 48; therefore, the
sampling was reduced to 80 (40 students from each SHS level).
• Shifting of Research Design. From the initially planned correlational approach
with their academic performance, the researchers opted to pursue the descriptive
design in the latter part of accomplishing the Chapter 2 as the lack of experimental
or correlational aspects (because of the lack in material time) lessened the
experimental/correlational validity of the study. There were also intervening
variables such as the evaluation systems of teachers, and varying subjects per
strand. Moreover, the researchers believe that a descriptive study would be best to
be conducted first before pursuing a more complex design.

48
4.4 Conclusions
Upon the analysis of the data gathered from the SHS Students, it provided data that
supported the main question: “How do SHS students use paraphrasing applications for academic
activities/requirements?” Moreover, the researchers have concluded the following, aligned with
the topics covered by the other significant research questions/sub-questions of the study:
1) Paraphrasing Applications Used for Academic Activities
According to the data, QuillBot, Grammarly, ProWritingAid, and Paraphraseapp.com are some
of the paraphrasing applications used by SHS students. The researchers discovered that
research, class presentations, essays, and writing activities are the academic
activities/requirements that students most frequently use paraphrasing applications for.
Subjects in which they needed the assistance of paraphrasing tools mostly are English,
Practical Research, Oral Communication, and 21st Century Literature. The data also showed
that the respondents were mostly passives (satisfied users but unenthusiastic about the
application), some were promoters (recommenders), and very little were detractors (unhappy
about the service). The net promoter score achieved by the data, 27, or overall is a good rating
for a paraphrasing service, still depicted that are some existing gaps that greatly affected its
“helpfulness” factor to the SHS students.
2) Reasons for Usage of Paraphrasing Applications
On the survey checklist for the question on their reasons for using paraphrasing apps, the
researchers found that the following received the highest frequencies: 1) To produce quality
outputs, 2) To learn proper grammar, 3) To widen and improve English vocabulary, 4)

49
Experiencing difficulty in changing word and sentence structures, and 5) To fluently express
the understanding of an excerpt/direct source. Some of the more prominent struggles that SHS
students encountered were also brought into light: 1) Grammar inaccuracies, 2) Tools not being
free/having access to only limited features, 3) Paraphrased texts sounding too artificial, and 4)
Completely changing the thought of the original writing. With regards to the Likert scale for
Section 1 (Users), the respondents agreed that writing proficiency skills may decline, there are
increased plagiarism risks, and tools can promote laziness in writing. However, they also
agreed that paraphrasing tools can help build better vocabulary, and there is a need for
paraphrasing activities in school to increase confidence in academic writing. The results for
the Likert scale in Section 2 (Non-users) had positively shown identical results. The
researchers also discovered that most of the respondents noticed an improvement in their
English vocabulary from their usage of paraphrasing applications.
3) Preferred Method of Instruction/Learning Material
Most of the respondents of the paraphrasing application users have said that they opt for both
traditional learning materials (dictionary, thesaurus, etc.) and online paraphrasing tools.
However, some have chosen only online paraphrasing tools, and very little have chosen
traditional learning materials.
4) Confidence in Producing Outputs in the Face-to-Face Setting
For Section 1 (Users), 55.2% of the respondents rated themselves Somewhat Confident, and
36.2% were Neutral on this matter. With regards to Section 2 (Non-users), 50% of the
respondents rated themselves Somewhat Confident as well, and 27.3% rated themselves Very
Confident. None of the respondents for Section 2 answered the 2-1 scale (lowest in rating of
confidence), however, there were 3.5% of the respondents that rated themselves Somewhat
50
Unconfident in Section 1. The researchers concluded that their profile as users or non-users
were not exactly highly significant with respect to their confidence to perform in school, if
done on a self-assessment approach.
4.5 Recommendations
Limitations, revisions, and narrowing down of objectives were observed within the course
of the study. In this line, the researchers have identified vital rooms for improvement that would
be beneficial particularly to this field of study. These recommendations are directed to the
following:
• For Future Researchers. This descriptive study is recommended to be used as a pre-
requisite for two (2) research topics, to be conducted in the future: 1) BEd Faculty’s
Usage of Plagiarism Checkers on Students’ Academic Activities, and 2) An
Experimental Study on Students’ Usage of Paraphrasing Applications to Improve
Writing Proficiency and Academic Performance. These topics will further validate
the data that has been described in this study. Additionally, as per the
recommendations of the concerned individuals, include the data on the respondents’
gender or sex for future references of other studies.
• SMCQC’s Center for Research and Professional Development. To regularly
conduct research development seminars, particularly on finding and writing related
literature wherein paraphrasing and/or paraphrasing applications are most used. This
is to help the students to have a better understanding when it comes to in-depth
paraphrasing so that students will not use applications and rely on it.
51
• Larger Sampling Population. To add more respondents in the lower grade and
college level that started using paraphrasing tools.
• For Students. To participate on more activities that enhances their writing skills in
academic activities like joining essay competitions, poem-making contests, and many
more.
• For English Areas. To conduct multiple paraphrasing activities in school to hone
paraphrasing skills in academic and research writing. Conduct writing activities to
increase profundity in English vocabulary, proper grammar, and word/sentence
structures. Conduct multiple paraphrasing activities in school to hone paraphrasing
skills in academic and research writing.
• For the Discipline Coordinators and Academic Council of SMCQC. To make use
of this descriptive study as one of the means to improve the Pupil/Student-Parent
Handbook and the necessary reinforcements on school policies, with the controversy
discovered from the study referring to the use of paraphrasing applications on
examinations and the risks of plagiarism with its usage.
• For Teachers and BEd Faculty Members. Promote writing without the use of
technological devices, or online tools. Additionally, check for plagiarism risks,
inaccuracies, and other possible misconduct on the submitted academic activities of
students.
52
Bibliography
Academy, E. (2020, September 9). Are Paraphrasing Tools Affecting the Development of Academic
Writing Skills? Retrieved from Enago Academy: https://www.enago.com/academy/are-
paraphrasing-tools-affecting-the-development-of-academic-writing-
skills/?fbclid=IwAR1PiPB9yDxP24QhER1S7ZHDHftIy55qUxr_3N4VEQen743by_tdpy7hLnU
Adeseye, A. (2019). Are Paraphrasing Tools Really Worth It? . AcademicianHelp.
Alhusban, A. (2016). The Impact of Modern Technological Tools on Students Writing Skills in English as a
Second Language .
Ansorge, L. (2021). Plagiarism through Paraphrasing Tools—The Story of One Plagiarized Text.
Bailey, S. (2015). The Essentials of Academic Writing for International Students. London: Taylor & Francis
Group.
Jayavalan, K. a. (2018). Effectiveness of online grammar checker to improve secondary students' English
narrative essay writing. Retrieved from UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA INSTITUTIONAL
REPOSITORY: http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/14442/
McCarthy, A. M. (2017). Using Internet based paraphrasing tools: Original work, patchwriting or
facilitated plagiarism? International Journal for Educational Integrity.
Miranda, D. (2021). Korean Language Assessment Society.
Mohammad, G. A. (2012). Effects of computer assisted language learning (CALL) approach on EFL
learners’descriptive essay writing: the evaluation of computer grammar and spelling checker
software. United States: World Science Publisher.
Orlanda-Ventayen, R. J. (2018). Graduate Students’ Perspective on the Usability of Grammarly® in One

ASEAN State University. Asian ESP Journal, 24.
Park, J. (2019). Implications of AI-based Grammar Checker in EFL Learning and Testing: Korean High
School Students' Writing. 11-39.
Speak, C. (2021). Is There a Decline in Writing Skills Due To Technology. Prague Post.
Yang, H. (2018). Effieciency of Online Grammar Checker in English Writing Performance and Students'
Perceptions. Retrieved from
http://journal.kasell.or.kr/xml/15806/15806.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3oLarwN9e0133vxig3NT6Da31e5m
RMLBGiG4Zu6zJqPnVjHPq350h8dbU
Appendices
Appendix A: Survey Questionnaire (10 pages)
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61

SHS Students&#39; Usage of Paraphrasing Applications for Academic Activities

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SHS Students&#39; Usage of Paraphrasing Applications for Academic Activities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SHS Students’ Usage of Paraphrasing

Applications for Academic Activities

A Research Paper Presented to the

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

Ms. Anna Marie Buaron

Portia Trisha B. Gamiao

• SHS Students of SMCQC for their participation in the study; and

• God for wisdom, strength, knowledge, and the opportunity to write.

3 Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation

4 Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations

particularly in computer/artificial intelligence assisted learning. Paraphrasing services are in

I. THE PROBLEM AND LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1 Background of the Study

According to Murphy (2009), paraphrasing is an important skill for students to master as

of quoting too much from a direct source (Defiance College, 2022).

However, in a study conducted by Liao and Tseng (2010), postgraduates and

undergraduates from National Kaohsiung Normal University experienced difficulty in a

explicitly learned paraphrasing, and 2) unsuccessful transfer of paraphrasing knowledge to writing

in changing word and sentence structures.

correct writing errors (Mohammadi, Gorijan, & Alipour, 2012).

paraphrasing methodology should be complemented by educators providing clarity on assessment

tools and constructive feedback.

linguistic and cognitive strategies to improve learning and writing areas.

1.2 Literature Review

credibility and foundation; this involves A) Effectiveness of Paraphrasing Applications, B)

Proficiency, and D) Perception of Students and Educators on Paraphrasing Applications. Figure 1:

Literature Map demonstrates the correlation of the concepts mentioned.

A. Effectiveness of Paraphrasing Applications

several aspects of the writing process as needed.

paraphrasing tools (such as Grammarly) encourages self-directed learning in which students

computer-assisted language learning on descriptive essays written by pre-intermediate English as

showed the effect of using paraphrasing tools on the regular basis.

on their mobile devices.

B. Perceived Gaps and Barriers with the Use of Paraphrasing Applications

to sidestep self-plagiarism.” (Rogerson & McCarthy, 2017).

Bernstein-Sierra, 2016). The world of academics is evidently infiltrated by innovative technology

academic misconduct (Khan, 2021; Eysenbach, 2000).

during examinations (Thomas & Jeffers, 2019).

3) More confidence in technology than themselves, 4) Students become helpless without

technology, and 5) Use of cyber slangs or writing in an informal manner.

C. Enhancing Writing Proficiency

To avoid errors, proofreading is undertaken to identify and correct any grammatical

confidence in their use of the English language.

their coursework in college years.

companies, published an online article entitled “Introduction to College-Level Writing: Quoting

“along the path that brought you to your intellectual conclusion.”

Paraphrasing is simply an alternative to direct quoting; through this, researchers may

D. Perception of Students and Educators on Paraphrasing Applications

Grammarly based on graduate students’ perspectives in Pangasinan State University. In the

certain selection or excerpt.

Figure 1: Literature Map

1.3 Theoretical Perspective and Conceptual Framework

a) The Rational Choice Theory emphasizes the importance of rational decision-

choosing among them based on a balance of benefits, costs, and other

considerations. Even though rational decision-making is regarded as the highest

when confronted with complex problems requiring detailed analysis. According to

key elements of all rational choice explanations.

be able to use the services of artificial intelligence, such as paraphrasing

applications, to aid in their academic activities or requirements in school. As a

applications for academic purposes.

The paradigm below (Figure 2) shows the relationship between the

of using paraphrasing applications roots from the information or knowledge of the

making process of SHS students as well.

Figure 2: Conceptual Framework

SHS Students' Usage of Paraphrasing Applications for Academic Activities

SHS Students' Usage of Paraphrasing Applications for Academic Activities