EFL Students’ Perceptions and Challenges in Using Paperpal as an AI Feedback Tool for Research Paper Writing
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24256/ideas.v14i1.9394Keywords:
AI feedback; EFL academic writing; feedback literacy; research paper revision; PaperpalAbstract
This study investigates undergraduate EFL students’ perceptions and challenges in using Paperpal as an AI feedback tool for research paper writing. Although AI-assisted writing tools are increasingly integrated into higher education, empirical research examining students’ experiences with AI-generated feedback in research-oriented writing remains limited, particularly in EFL contexts. Employing a qualitative case study design, this study involved 25 undergraduate English Education students at a state university in Indonesia. Data were collected through a descriptive questionnaire administered to all participants and semi-structured interviews with 10 selected students. Questionnaire data were analyzed using Likert-scale frequency analysis, while interview data were examined through thematic analysis. The findings indicate that students generally perceived Paperpal as a useful and accessible tool that supported grammatical accuracy, sentence clarity, academic vocabulary development, revision efficiency, and confidence during the research paper revision process. However, the study also reveals notable challenges. Students reported difficulty maintaining intended meaning and authorial control when applying AI-generated feedback, particularly in complex argumentative sections. In addition, a tendency toward over-reliance on AI feedback was identified, especially among less confident writers, which occasionally reduced critical evaluation of revisions. Overall, the study concludes that Paperpal functions most effectively as a complementary linguistic support rather than a standalone solution. Its pedagogical value depends on students’ feedback literacy and their ability to engage critically with AI-generated feedback, underscoring the need for guided and responsible integration of AI tools in EFL academic writing instruction.
References
Alcaraz, J. L. G., Chávez, C. C. R., & Alcaraz, P. G. (2025). Grammarly y Paperpal: Dos herramientas de inteligencia artificial para la revisión gramatical para no angloparlantes. Dilemas Contemporáneos: Educación, Política y Valores, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.46377/dilemas.v13i1.4765
Aldosemani, T. I., Assalahi, H., Lhothali, A., & Albsisi, M. (2023). Automated writing evaluation in EFL contexts. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 13(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCALLT.329962
Alharbi, M. A. (2022). Exploring the impact of teacher feedback modes and features on students’ text revisions in writing. Assessing Writing, 52, 100610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2022.100610
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
Charalampous, A. K., & Darra, M. (2024). The contribution of teacher feedback to the revision of students’ work in primary and secondary education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Learning and Development, 14(3), 18. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijld.v14i3.21991
Chow, M. F. (2024). Understanding student perspectives on peer feedback: Written versus video versus face-to-face dialog. Active Learning in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874241301263
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dong, Y., & Shi, L. (2021). Using Grammarly to support students’ source-based writing practices. Assessing Writing, 50, 100564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100564
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600
Huang, S. (2025). Chinese EFL students’ perceptions about the role of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in their second language (L2) self-concept. Acta Psychologica, 258, 105211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105211
Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Islamiyah, M., & Fajri, M. S. A. (2020). Investigating Indonesian master’s students’ perception of critical thinking in academic writing in a British university. The Qualitative Report. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2020.4058
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2015). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Mazgutova, D. (2020). Changes in revision behaviours of L2 writers in an intensive English for academic purposes program. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 6(4), 715–727. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.6.4.715
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miranty, D., Widiati, U., Cahyono, B. Y., & Sharif, T. I. S. T. (2025). The effectiveness of Grammarly application and teacher feedback for undergraduate EFL students’ writing skills. Innoeduca International Journal of Technology and Educational Innovation, 11(1), 108–133. https://doi.org/10.24310/ijtei.111.2025.20521
Pratama, Y., Fridolini, F., & Pitaloka, R. M. (2025). The impact of AI QuillBot in improving student writing ability to write argumentative essays. English Review: Journal of English Education, 13(1), 215–222. https://doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v13i1.9746
Putri, G. I., & Azhar, F. (2025). Students' Perception of Using Webtoon Application to Enrich English Vocabulary. IDEAS: Journal on English Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature, 13(1), 1491-1504.
Sapan, M., & Uzun, L. (2024). The effect of ChatGPT-integrated English teaching on high school EFL learners’ writing skills and vocabulary development. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 12(6), 1679–1699. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.4655
Seo, J. (2024). Exploring the educational potential of ChatGPT: AI-assisted narrative writing for EFL college students. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 43, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2024.43.01
Seow, A. (2002). The writing process and process writing. In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 315–320). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Singh, S., & Singh, S. (2024). Addressing peer review feedback and mastering manuscript revisions with Paperpal’s research feature. Paperpal Blog. https://paperpal.com/blog/news-updates/product-updates/addressing-peer-review-feedback-and-manuscript-revisions-with-paperpal
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wingate, U., & Hakim, A. (2022). Moving beyond ‘infancy’: Towards a cross-fertilization between EMI and EAP scholarship. ELT Journal, 76(4), 529–537. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccac032
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yunus, A., & Salmiah, M. (2025). Students' Perceptions on Memorylingo to Improve Their Listening Skill. IDEAS: Journal on English Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature, 13(1), 2038-2049.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
Citation Check
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Hilyati Fitria Harahap, Rahmah Fithriani, Utami Dewi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under an Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See the Effect of Open Access)
