EFL Students’ Perceptions on Grammarly Use in Proofreading Essay Tasks

Tri Wahyu, Sarjaniah Zur

Abstract


The mixed method sequential explanatory study aimed to investigate the EFL students’ responses to writing acquisition learning facilitated by Grammarly in terms of lexical process based on their cognitive perspectives in one of the higher Islamic universities in Kendari. The study utilized documentation, questionnaires, and reflection in collecting the data. The data was gathered from 8 participants based on inclusion criteria. The study found that students had responded positively to using Grammarly in proofreading essay tasks. The findings showed that Grammarly had several strengths, such as easiness in using Grammarly, increased student confidence in writing, efficiency in revision, writing improvement, convenience in using Grammarly, writing accuracy, time management, and satisfaction with feedback provided by Grammarly. Meanwhile, Grammarly's weaknesses were consistency and accuracy with the feedback. The study implied that the lecturer or prospective teacher could help improve students' writing in proofreading by using a helpful technology such as Grammarly.

Keywords: EFL student’s perceptions; essay tasks; Grammarly; proofreading.


Full Text:

104-119

References


AsAsadoorian, M. O., & Kantarelis, D. (2005). Essentials of inferential statistics.

Barrot, J. S. (2022). Integrating Technology into ESL/EFL Writing through Grammarly. RELC Journal, 53(3), 764–768. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220966632

Cavaleri & Dianati. (2016). You want me to check your grammar again? The usefulness of an online grammar checker as perceived by students. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 10(1), 223–236.

Creswell. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. In Sage.

Daniels, P., & Leslie, D. (2013). Grammar Software Ready for EFL Writers? OnCue Journal, 9(4), 391–401.

Darayani, Karyuatry, & R. (2018). Grammarly as a tool to improve students’ writing quality. Edulitics (Education, Literature, and Linguistics) Journal, 3(11), 36–42.

Dizon, G., & Gayed, J. M. (2021). Examining The Impact Of Grammarly On The Quality Of Mobile L2 Writing. JALT CALL Journal, 17(2), 74–92. https://doi.org/10.29140/JALTCALL.V17N2.336

Dong & Shi. (2021). Using Grammarly to support students’ source-based writing practices. Assessing Writing.

Fisher, M. J., & Marshall, A. P. (2009). Understanding descriptive statistics. Australian Critical Care, 22(2), 93–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2008.11.003

Fitria, R. A., Sabarun, S., & Miftah, M. Z. (2022). Students’ Perception of the Use of Grammarly in Undergraduate Thesis Writing. PROJECT (Professional Journal of English Education), 5(2), 366. https://doi.org/10.22460/project.v5i2.p366-371

Ghufron, M. A., Saleh, M., Warsono, ., & Sofwan, A. (2016). A Model of Research Paper Writing Instructional Materials for Academic Writing Course: Needs & Documents Analysis and Model Design. English Language Teaching, 9(3), 1. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n3p1

Guo, Q., Feng, R., & Hua, Y. (2022). How effectively can EFL students use automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) in research writing? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(9), 2312–2331. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1879161

Halim, A., Sharina, S., & Zur, S. (2022). Grammarly as a Tool to Enhance Students’ Self-Directed Learning. KnE Social Sciences, 2022, 5–13. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v7i8.10719

Holladay, B. &. (1981). Teacher’s manual, options in rhetoric, writing and reading. Prentice-Hall.

Koltovskaia, S. (2020). Student engagement with automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) provided by Grammarly: A multiple case study. Assessing Writing, 44(February), 100450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100450

Nova, M. (2018). Utilizing Grammarly in Evaluating Academic Writing: a Narrative Research on Efl Students’ Experience. Premise: Journal of English Education, 7(1), 80. https://doi.org/10.24127/pj.v7i1.1300

O’Neill, R., & Russell, A. M. T. (2019). Stop! Grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Grammarly. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1), 42–56. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3795

Park, J. (2019). An AI-based English Grammar Checker vs. Human Raters in Evaluating EFL Learners’ Writing. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 22(1), 112–131. http://journal.kamall.or.kr/wp-content/uploads/2019/3/Park_22_1_04.pdfhttp://www.kamall.or.kr

Perdana, I., Manullang, S. O., & Masri, F. A. (2021). Effectiveness of online Grammarly application in improving academic writing: review of experts experience. International Journal of Social Sciences, 4(1), 122–130. https://doi.org/10.31295/ijss.v4n1.1444

Ranalli, J. (2018). Automated written corrective feedback: how well can students make use of it? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(7), 653–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1428994

Suzuki, W., Nassaji, H., & Sato, K. (2019). The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System, 81, 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.017

Wilson, J., & Czik, A. (2016). Automated essay evaluation software in English Language Arts classrooms: Effects on teacher feedback, student motivation, and writing quality. Computers and Education, 100, 94–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.004

ZAPPELLI, P., ROSSODIVITA, A., PROSPERI, G., PAPPA, R., & Luciano, R. (1976). New Coenzymically‐Active Soluble and Insoluble Macromolecular NAD + Derivatives. In European Journal of Biochemistry (Vol. 62, Issue 1). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1432-1033.1976.tb10115.x




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.31332/alg.v4i2.8046

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2024 AL LUGHAWIYAAT

Indexing:

 

Web Analytics Made Easy - Statcounter View My Stats