An automated writing evaluation (AWE) in higher education
Keywords:Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE), Grammarly use, Indonesian EFL writing students
Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) has been considered a potential pedagogical technique that exploits technology to assist the students' writing. However, little attention has been devoted to examining students’ perceptions of Grammarly use in higher education context. This paper reports on a study to obtain information regarding the writing process and the merits and drawbacks of Grammarly use among Indonesian undergraduate EFL students. A hundred (n=100) students majoring in English education from a public university in Banten Province were involved in this research. They were divided into three groups of users, i.e., first-, second-, and third-year student cohorts, to test whether the frequency of using Grammarly can affect their perceptions of Grammarly use in a writing class. A questionnaire and an interview guide were used to obtain the data. While the questionnaire results were analyzed using SPSS version 20, the interview results were coded and categorized based on common themes. The findings showed that there is no difference among student cohorts in their perceiving that the use of Grammarly was considered necessary to compose and revise their writing because they still dealt with several writing constraints. They thought they got immediate and comprehensive feedback, notifications of errors, and suggestions to revise the errors. Furthermore, the frequency of using Grammarly, as viewed from the student cohorts, may affect their perceptions of usefulness and drawbacks of Grammarly use, especially whether Grammarly's feedback is always helpful or not. Examining the opportunities of using Grammarly in sparking a constructive learning atmosphere in EFL writing class is worth-researching further.
Azar, B. (2007). Grammar-based teaching: A practitioner's perspective. TESL-EJ, 11(2), 1–12.
Bai, L., & Hu, G. (2017). In the face of fallible AWE feedback: How do students respond? Educational Psychology, 37(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2016.122327.
Caveleri, M., & Dianati, S. (2016). You want me to recheck your grammar? The usefulness of an online grammar checker as perceived by students. Journal of Academic Language and Learning. 10(1), 223–236. http://www.journal.aall.org.au/index.php/jall/article/view/393/246
Chen, C. F. E., & Cheng, W. Y. E. (2008). Beyond the design of automated writing evaluation: Pedagogical practices and perceived learning effectiveness in EFL writing classes. Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), 94-112. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45681611
Cotos, E. (2014). Genre-based automated writing evaluation for L2 research writing: From design to evaluation and enhancement. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Daniels, P., & Leslie, D. (2013). @ CUE Grammar Software Ready for EFL Writers ? 391–401
Dodgson, A. N., Tariq, B., Alauyah, M., & Yusof, M. (2016). The Secondary School Students' Usage of English Learning Websites to Self-Correct Writing Errors. Asian TEFL, 1(11), 2503–2569. http://doi.org/10.21462/asiantefl.v1i1.3
El-Ebyary, K., & Windeatt, S. (2010). The impact of computer-based feedback on students' written work. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 121–142.
Elliot, S. M., & Mikulas, C. (2004, April). The impact of MY access!™ use on student writing performance: A technology overview and four studies. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Ghufron, M. A., & Rosyida, F. (2018). The role of Grammarly in assessing English as a foreign language (EFL) writing. Lingua Cultura, 12(4), 395-403.
Grammarly. (2020). About Grammarly. Retrieved from https://support.grammarly.com/hc/en-us/categories/115000018611-About-Grammarly
Isnawati, I., Sulistyo, G. H., Widiati, U., & Suryati, N. (2019). Impacts of Teacher-Written Corrective Feedback with Teacher-Student Conference on Students' Revision. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 669-684.
Japos, G. (2013). Effectiveness of coaching interventions using Grammarly
software and plagiarism detection software in reducing grammatical errors and plagiarism of undergraduate researches. JPAIR Institutional Research, 1(1), 97–109.
Karyuatry, L., Rizqan, M. D., & Darayani, N. A. (2020) Grammarly as a tool to improve students' writing quality (Free online proofreader across the boundaries). Jurnal Sains Sosial dan Humaniora, 2(1), 83-89.
Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Introduction. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 1–19). London: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, I. (2020). Utility of focused/comprehensive written corrective feedback research for authentic L2 writing classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100734
Liao, H. (2015). Using automated writing evaluation to reduce grammar errors in writing. ELT Journal, 70(3), 308–319.
Lim, F. V., & Phua, J. (2019). Teaching Writing with Language Feedback Technology. Computers and Composition, 54, 102518. https://doi.org/10.1016/ jcompcom.2019.102518
Li, J., Link, S., & Hegelheimer, V. (2015). Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback in ESL writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 1–18.
Nova, M. (2018). Utilizing Grammarly in evaluating academic writing A narrative research on EFL students' experience. Premise: Journal of English Education and Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 80-96.
O'Neill, R., & Russell, A. (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
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Ranalli, J. (2018). Automated written corrective feedback: How well can students make use of it? Computer Assisted Language Learning. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2018.1428994
Rezaei, A.R., & Lovorn, M. (2010). Reliability and validity of rubrics for assessment through writing. Assessing Writing, 15, 18–39.
Salteh, M. A., & Sadeghi, K. (2010). Teachers’ and students’ attitudes toward error correction in L2 writing. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 12(3), 1-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2015.12.3.1.1
Shermis, M. D., Mzumara, H. R., Olson, J., & Harrington S. (2001). Online grading of student essays: PEG goes on the World Wide Web. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(3), 247–259.
Stevenson, M., & Phakiti, A. (2019). Automated feedback and second language writing. In K. Hyland, & F. Hyland (Eds.). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 125–142). (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Qassemzadeh, A., & Soleimani, H. (2016). The impact of feedback provision by Grammarly software and teachers on learning passive structures by Iranian EFL learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(9), 1884. http://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0609.23
Ventayen, R. J. M., Orlanda-ventayen, C. C. (2018). Graduate students' perspective on the usability of Grammarly® in one ASEAN state university. Asian ESP Journal, 14(7.2), 9-30.
Wang, Y-J., Shang, H-F., & Briody, P. (2013). Exploring the impact of using automated writing evaluation in English as a foreign language university students' writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(3), 234–257.
Ware, P. D., & Warschauer, M. (2006). Electronic feedback and second language writing. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Context and issues (pp. 104–122). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, J., & Andrada, G. N. (2016). Using automated feedback to improve writing quality: opportunities and challenges. In Rosen, Y., Ferrara, S., Mosharraf, M. (eds). (2016). Handbook of Research on Technology Tools for Real-World Skill Development (pp. 678-703). IGI Global: US. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-9441-5.ch026
Yang, Y.F. (2010). Students' reflection on online self-correction and peer review to improve writing. Computers & Education, 55, 1202–1210.
Zhang, Z. (2017). Student Engagement with computer-generated feedback: A case study. ELT Journal, 71(3), 317–328.
Zhang, Z., & Hyland, K. (2018). Student engagement with the teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.02.004.
Zheng, Y., & Yu, S. (2018). Student engagement with teacher-written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing Writing, 37, 13–24.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2021 Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.