Stop! Grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Grammarly

O'Neill, Ruth; Russell, Alex

doi:10.14742/ajet.3795

Cited by 91 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 21 publications

(27 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They found large discrepancies: the instructor provided more and better-quality feedback. Others focused on instructional applications of automated feedback (e.g., Cavaleri & Dianati, 2016;O'Neill & Russell, 2019a, 2019bVentayen & Orlanda-Ventayen, 2018). A study by O'Neill and Russell (2019b) found that the Grammarly group responded more positively and was better satisfied with the grammar advice than the non-Grammarly group.…”

Section: Affordances and Limitations Of Automated Feedback In L2 Writingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Others focused on instructional applications of automated feedback (e.g., Cavaleri & Dianati, 2016;O'Neill & Russell, 2019a, 2019bVentayen & Orlanda-Ventayen, 2018). A study by O'Neill and Russell (2019b) found that the Grammarly group responded more positively and was better satisfied with the grammar advice than the non-Grammarly group. Another study, by Qassemzadeh and Soleimani (2016) found that both teacher and Grammarly feedback positively influenced students' study of passive structures.…”

Section: Affordances and Limitations Of Automated Feedback In L2 Writingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How Teacher and Grammarly Feedback Complement One Another in Myanmar EFL Students’ Writing

Thi

Nikolov

2021

Asia-Pacific Edu Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Providing feedback on students’ writing is considered important by both writing teachers and students. However, contextual constraints including excess workloads and large classes pose major and recurrent challenges for teachers. To lighten the feedback burden, teachers can take advantage of a range of automated feedback tools. This paper investigated how automated feedback can be integrated into traditional teacher feedback by analyzing the focus of teacher and Grammarly feedback through a written feedback analysis of language- and content-related issues. This inquiry considered whether and how successfully students exploited feedback from different sources in their revisions and how the feedback provisions helped improve their writing performance. The study sample of texts was made up of 216 argumentative and narrative essays written by 27 low-intermediate level students at a Myanmar university over a 13-week semester. By analyzing data from the feedback analysis, we found that Grammarly provided feedback on surface-level errors, whereas teacher feedback covered both lower- and higher-level writing concerns, suggesting a potential for integration. The results from the revision analysis and pre- and post-tests suggested that students made effective use of the feedback received, and their writing performance improved according to the assessment criteria. The data were triangulated with self-assessment questionnaires regarding students’ emic perspectives on how useful they found the feedback. The pedagogical implications for integrating automated and teacher feedback are presented.

show abstract

Section: Affordances and Limitations Of Automated Feedback In L2 Writingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Affordances and Limitations Of Automated Feedback In L2 Writingmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Teacher and Grammarly Feedback Complement One Another in Myanmar EFL Students’ Writing

Thi

Nikolov

2021

Asia-Pacific Edu Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Their evidence of robotic input innovation in Australian tertiary organizations has focused on examining language structures. According to ONeill & Russell (2019) checking this machine regarding the views of students being lazy to think critically is right. They suggest that this Grammarly application be used as an input tool for academic-related tasks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of online Grammarly application in improving academic writing: review of experts experience

Perdana

Manullang

Masri

2021

ijss

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to discuss the effectiveness of the Grammarly online application in improving academic writing through the experience of reviewing published papers. For that, we have reviewed a variety of literature and listened to the experiences of other academics published in various international journals. We chose descriptive qualitative content analysis. For example, it involves an in-depth analysis of each expert's experience with an exploratory phenomenological approach. To do this, we involve a coding analysis system, critically evaluate the content and ensure the results are valid and reliable. As for literature sources, we do with the help of the Google Doc application, Eric Publications, Google scholars, and other online literature sources. We do this considering that we did this study in a dynamic era and responded to the pandemic protocol and public restriction in Indonesia. We follow the guidelines of descriptive qualitative studies experts in academic writing and application technology. The result is that most academics say that the Grammarly online application is very suitable for use by writers because its usefulness is beneficial in tracking writing errors.

show abstract

“…A large body of literature has revealed the practical functionality of CEA in producing constructive comments (Dembsey, 2017;O'Neill & Russell, 2019), offering explicit over generic feedback (Ranalli, 2018), assisting the reduction in the number of errors (i.e., related to vocabulary, grammar, spelling; Ghufron & Rosyida, 2018), and offering more suitable local surface-level errors (e.g., articles, preposition, and verb-noun agreement) (Bailey & Lee, 2020), and easing the assessment and evaluation process (Al-Ahdal, 2020), including self-assessment to motivate learners (Dikli & Bleyle, 2014).…”

Section: Computer-aided Error Analysis (Cea)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender‐Based EFL Writing Error Analysis Using Human and Computer‐Aided Approaches

Almusharraf

Alotaibi

2020

Educational Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Committing errors is expected in the development of language acquisition and learning; however, there is limited research that contributes to the literature on the effect of gender of English as a foreign language (EFL) writing. This study explored the gender differences in EFL students' writing using two approaches: human evaluation and computer-aided error analysis (CEA). A corpus of 90,753 words was compiled from written samples collected from 197 participants (98 males and 99 females [freshmen or sophomores]) who were studying on a full-time basis in a private institution in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). By utilizing descriptive analysis and factorial two-way ANOVA to detect counting errors, the findings reveal that the distinctions between male and female writings are nonsignificantly related to specific errors. Generally, the results exhibit noteworthy differences between the error types of the two male and female groups (more error frequency in the male-written productions). The findings support educators and decision-makers on implementing more learner-conscious teaching approaches, enhancing male and female students' EFL writing skills. This study further suggests diagnostic information about challenging EFL writing areas, which can benefit educators and course designers in establishing effective teaching strategies and feedback approaches that should be implemented to promote EFL writing skills.

show abstract

Stop! Grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Grammarly

Cited by 91 publications

References 21 publications

How Teacher and Grammarly Feedback Complement One Another in Myanmar EFL Students’ Writing

How Teacher and Grammarly Feedback Complement One Another in Myanmar EFL Students’ Writing

Effectiveness of online Grammarly application in improving academic writing: review of experts experience

Gender‐Based EFL Writing Error Analysis Using Human and Computer‐Aided Approaches

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About