EFL postgraduate students’ perceptions on the use of Grammarly and peer feedback to improve their academic writing skills
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54855/ijte.25512Keywords:
EFL postgraduate students, perception, Grammarly, peer feedback, peer response activities, academic writing skillsAbstract
Grammarly and peer feedback have recently become two evaluative approaches that are commonly used in writing classes to provide effective comments on students’ writing (Fahmi & Cahyono, 2021). However, recent studies have only examined their effectiveness on students’ writing skills, neglecting their thoughts and perceptions. To address this gap, the paper explores EFL postgraduate students’ perceptions of using Grammarly and peer feedback activities to enhance their academic writing skills. The interview approach was incorporated to collect data, using the participation of 10 EFL postgraduate students who were learning at Van Lang University. The qualitative study indicates that students feel satisfied with both approaches; however, they all claimed that although their peers take more time to complete revision, those comments are more in-depth and constructive. Grammarly is fast but sometimes inappropriate and limited. Moreover, more learners prefer peer feedback. It is highly recommended that this study serve as a database for further quantitative research on other groups of participants.References
Aidil, T. M. (2021). Exploring Students’ Perception On The Effectiveness Of “Grammarly Software” In Academic Writing. UIN Ar-Raniry.
Andrade, C. (2021). The inconvenient truth about convenience and purposive samples. Indian journal of psychological medicine, 43(1), 86-88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0253717620977000.
Asper, G., Faria, C., Serra, P., & Galvão, C. (2024). Peer feedback and learning: a case study with 8th-grade Portuguese students. Education 3-13, 1-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2024.2364610
Astuti, D., Darmahusni, D., Sumarni, S., & Suseno, M. (2023, June). The Use of Grammarly in the Academic Writing of Undergraduate Students: Advantages, Weaknesses, and Challenges (Systematic Review). English Language and Literature International Conference (ELLiC) Proceedings, 6 (1), 593-607.
Bridwell, L. S. (1980). Revising strategies in twelfth grade students’ transactional writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 14, 197-222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.58680/rte198015795.
Bui, T. X. T., Ha, Y. N., Nguyen, T. B. U., Nguyen, V. U. T., & Ngo, T. C. T. (2021). A Study on Collaborative Online Learning among EFL Students in Van Lang University (VLU). AsiaCALL Online Journal, 12(3), 13. Retrieved from https://asiacall.info/acoj/index.php/journal/article/view/32.
Burgess, A. W., Roberts, C., Black, K. I., & Mellis, C. (2013). Senior medical students perceived ability and experience in giving peer feedback in formative long case examinations. BMC Medical Education, 13(1), 1–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-13-79.
Butler, J. A., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Investigating instruction for improving revision of argumentative essays. Written Communication, 28(1), 70-96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088310387891.
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. DOI: https://doi.org/10125/44145.
Cotos, E. (2011). Potential of automated writing evaluation feedback. Calico Journal, 28(2), 420-459. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11139/cj.28.2.420-459.
Crane, T. (2005). What is the problem of perception?. Synthesis Philosophica, 20(2), 237-264.
Crossley, S., & McNamara, D. (2011). Text coherence and judgments of essay quality: Models of quality and coherence. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 33 (33), 101.
Dang, T. H. N. (2024). EFL Students’ Perceptions of Peer Feedback in Writing Classes at a University in HCM City. International Journal of Language Instruction, 3(2), 18–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54855/ijli.24322.
Dewi, U. (2022). Grammarly as automated writing evaluation: Its effectiveness from EFL students’ perceptions. Lingua Cultura, 16(2), 155-161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v16i2.8315.
Dewi, U. (2023). Grammarly as automated writing evaluation: Its effectiveness from EFL students’ perceptions. Lingua Cultura, 16(2), 155-161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v16i2.8315.
Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2017). Exploring the impact of online peer-editing using Google Docs on EFL learners’ academic writing skills: A mixed methods study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(8), 787-815. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1363056.
Efron, R. (1969). What is perception?. Proceedings of the Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy of Science 1966/1968. 137-173. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3378-7_4.
Ekahitanond, V. (2013). Promoting university students’ critical thinking skills through peer feedback activity in an online discussion forum. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 59(2), 247-265. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11575/ajer.v59i2.55617.
Epstein, W., West, L.J., & Dember, W.N., (2023). Britannica: Psychology and Mental Health. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/perception.
Fahmi, M. A., & Cahyono, B. Y. (2021). EFL students’ perception on the use of Grammarly and teacher feedback. JEES (Journal of English Educators Society), 6(1), 18-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21070/jees.v6i1.849.
Fitria, T. N. (2021). Grammarly as AI-powered English writing assistant: Students’ alternative for writing English. Metathesis: Journal of English Language, Literature, and Teaching, 5(1), 65-78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31002/metathesis.v5i1.3519.
Fitriana, K., & Nurazni, L. (2022). Exploring English Department Students' Perceptions on Using Grammarly to Check the Grammar in Their Writing. Journal of English Teaching, 8(1), 15-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33541/jet.v8i1.3044.
Fitriana, K., & Nurazni, L. (2022). Exploring English Department Students' Perceptions on Using Grammarly to Check the Grammar in Their Writing. Journal of English Teaching, 8(1), 15-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33541/jet.v8i1.3044.
Freiberg, H. J. (Ed.). (1999). School climate: Measuring, improving, and sustaining healthy learning environments. Psychology Press.
Gaynor, J. W. (2020). Peer review in the classroom: Student perceptions, peer feedback quality and the role of assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(5), 758-775. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1697424.
Ghadirian, H., Fauzi Mohd Ayub, A., & Salehi, K. (2018). Students’ perceptions of online discussions, participation and e-moderation behaviours in peer-moderated asynchronous online discussions. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 27(1), 85-100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2017.1380695.
Ghufron, M. (2019, July). Exploring an automated feedback program ‘Grammarly And teacher corrective feedback in EFL writing assessment: Modern vs. traditional assessment. ELLiC 2019: Proceedings of the 3rd English Language and Literature International Conference, ELLiC, 27th April 2019, Semarang, Indonesia, 307.
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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v12i4.4582.
Grammarly. (2020). About Grammarly. Retrieved from https://support.grammarly.com/hc/enus/categories/115000018611-About-Grammrly
Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010). Utility in a Fallible Tool: A Multi-Site Case Study of Automated Writing Evaluation. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 8(6). Retrieved from https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/jtla/article/view/1625.
Hayes, J. R. (2000). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. Perspectives on writing: Research, theory, and practice, 6-44.
Ho, P. V. P., Thien, N. M., Ly, H. H., & Vy, N. N. H. (2020). The Practical Perceptions of Vietnamese Lecturers and Students Towards Written Peer Feedback. International Journal of English Linguistics, 10(6), 2006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v10n6p347.
Hockly, N. (2019). Automated writing evaluation. ELT Journal, 73(1), 82-88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccy044.
Huang, H. W., Li, Z., & Taylor, L. (2020, May). The Effectiveness of Using Grammarly to Improve Students' Writing Skills. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Distance Education and Learning, 122-127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3402569.3402594.
Huisman, B., Saab, N., Van Driel, J., & Van Den Broek, P. (2018). Peer feedback on academic writing: undergraduate students’ peer feedback role, peer feedback perceptions and essay performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(6), 955-968. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1424318.
Hutt, S., DePiro, A., Wang, J., Rhodes, S., Baker, R.S., Hieb, G., Sethuraman, S., Ocumpaugh, J., Mills, C. (2024). Feedback on Feedback: Comparing Classic Natural Language Processing and Generative AI to Evaluate Peer Feedback. Proceedings of the 14th Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference (Kyoto Japan, 2024), 55–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3636555.3636850.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Iftanti, E. (2016). Improving students' writing skills through writing journal articles. IAIN Tulungagung Research Collections, 8(1), 1-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21274/ls.2016.8.1.1-22.
Irvin, L. L. (2010). What is academic writing. Writing spaces: Readings on writing, 1, 3-17.
Javier, D. R. (2022). App Review Using Tech Tools for Academic Writing:" Grammarly" as a Pedagogical Tool. MEXTESOL Journal, 46(2), 120.
Kasch, J., van Rosmalen, P., Löhr, A., Klemke, R., Antonaci, A., & Kalz, M. (2021). Students’ perceptions of the peer-feedback experience in MOOCs. Distance Education, 42(1), 145-163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1869522.
Kunwongse, S. (2013). Peer feedback, benefits and drawbacks. Thammasat Review, 16(3), 277-288.
Kuyyogsuy, S. (2019). Promoting Peer Feedback in Developing Students' English Writing Ability in L2 Writing Class. International Education Studies, 12(9), 76-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v12n9p76.
Lailika, H. I. (2019). Students' Peceptions of The Use of Grammarly as an Online Grammar Checker in Thesis Writing, 5 (1), 366-371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22460/project.v5i2.p366-371.
Latifi, S., Noroozi, O., & Talaee, E. (2023). Worked example or scripting? Fostering students’ online argumentative peer feedback, essay writing and learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(2), 655-669. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1799032.
Le, P. T. N. (2023). The Effectiveness of and Students’ Perceptions of Peer Feedback: A Vietnam Action Research Project. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 15(1), 12-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21659/rupkatha.v15n1.
Lee, I. (2017). Classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Singapore: Springer Nature.
Levashina, J., Hartwell, C. J., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2014). The structured employment interview: Narrative and quantitative review of the recent literature. Personnel Psychology, 67, 241–293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12052.
Liu, J., & Hansen, G. J. (2005). Peer response in second language writing classroom. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Liu, N. F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600680582.
McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Graesser, A. C. (2002). Coh-Metrix: Automated cohesion and coherence scores to predict text readability and facilitate comprehension. Technical report, Institute for Intelligent Systems, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.
Misiejuk, K., Wasson, B., & Egelandsdal, K. (2021). Using learning analytics to understand student perceptions of peer feedback. Computers in human behavior, 117(1), 10-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106658.
Noroozi, O., & Mulder, M. (2017). Design and evaluation of a digital module with guided peer feedback for student learning biotechnology and molecular life sciences, attitudinal change, and satisfaction. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 45(1), 31–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20981.
Nova, M., & Lukmana, I. (2018). The detected and undetected errors in automated writing evaluation program’s result. English Language and Literature International Conference, 7(2), 120-126.
Novakovich, J. (2016). Fostering critical thinking and reflection through blog‐mediated peer feedback. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(1), 16-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12114.
NURZAKIAH, A. (2021). The Analysis of Students Perception of Online English Learning During Pandemic Covid 19 at The Eleventh Grade Students of SMAN 1 SAPE in Academic Year 2020/2021. Undergraduate thesis, Universitas Muhammadiyah Mataram.
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. Retrieved from https://journal.aall.org.au/index.php/jall/article/view/591.
Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (2007). Introduction to academic writing. New York: Pearson Longman.
Oxford Learner's Dictionaries. (n.d.). Perception. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/perception.
Parra G, L., & Calero S, X. (2019). Automated writing evaluation tools in the improvement of the writing skill. International Journal of Instruction, 12(2), 209-226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12214a.
Peus, C., Braun, S., & Frey, D. (2013). Situation-based measurement of the full range of leadership model - development and validation of a situational judgment test. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 777–795. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.07.006.
Pham, N. T. (2020). Factors influencing interaction in an online English course in Vietnam. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 36(3). 10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25073/2525-2445/vnufs.4562.
Pham, V. P. H., & Usaha, S. (2016). Blog-based peer response for L2 writing revision. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 724-748. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2015.1026355.
Pham, V. P. Ho., Phung, L. T., Oanh, T. T., & Giao, N. Q. (2020). Should peer e-comments replace traditional peer comments? International Journal of Instruction, 13(1), 295–314. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13120a.
Pratama, P., & Arriyani, N. (2021). Descriptive Text Writing: Peer Response Strategy and Students’ Learning Motivation. English Language in Focus (ELIF), 4(1), 81-88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24853/elif.4.1.81-88.
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), 1884-1894. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0609.23.
Ramage, J. D., Bean, J. C., & Johnson, J. (2003). The Allyn & Bacon guide to writing. Longman.
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT journal, 59(1), 23-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci003.
Ryan, T., & Henderson, M. (2017). Feeling feedback: Students’ emotional responses to educator feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(6), 880–892. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1416456.
Shermis, M., & Burstein, J. (2003). Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Routledge.
Stevenson, M., & Phakiti, A. (2014). The effects of computer-generated feedback on the quality of writing. Assessing Writing, 19, 51–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.007.
Taghizadeh Kerman, N., Banihashem, S. K., Noroozi, O., & Biemans, H. J. (2022). The effects of students’ perceived usefulness and trustworthiness of peer feedback on learning satisfaction in online learning environments. 8th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd’22), Universitat Politecnica de Valencia. 265-268. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/HEAd22.2022.14445.
Tai, J. H. M., Canny, B. J., Haines, T. P., & Molloy, E. K. (2015). The role of peer-assisted learning in building evaluative judgement: opportunities in clinical medical education. Advances in Health Sciences Education 2015, 21(3), 659–676. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/S10459-015-9659-0.
Thi, N. K., Nikolov, M., & Simon, K. (2022). Higher-proficiency students’ engagement with and uptake of teacher and Grammarly feedback in an EFL writing course. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2022.2122476.
Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Vo, T. T. M. (2022). EFL Students’ Attitudes Towards Teacher Correction and Peer Correction in Writing Skills. International Journal of Language Instruction, 1(1), 155–173. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54855/ijli.221113.
Wakabayashi, R. (2013). The Effects of the Peer Feedback Process on Reviewers' Own Writing. English Language Teaching, 6(9), 177-192. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n9p177.
Warschauer, M., & Ware P. (2006). Automated writing evaluation: Defining the classroom research agenda. Language teaching research, 10(2), 157-180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr190oa.
Wilson, J., & Andrada, G. N. (2016). Using automated feedback to improve writing quality: Opportunities and challenges. Handbook of research on technology tools for real-world skill development, 679-704. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-9441-5.ch026.
Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Learning, 15(3), 179-200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004.
Yang, Y. F. (2016). Transforming and constructing academic knowledge through online peer feedback in summary writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 683-702. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2015.1016440.
Zeevy-Solovey, O. (2024). Comparing peers, ChatGPT, and teacher corrective feedback in EFL writing: Students' perceptions and preferences. Technology in Language Teaching & Learning, 6(3), 1-23. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.29140/tltl.v6n3.1482
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Ha Yen Nhi, Ho Ngoc Phuong
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The copyright of all articles published in the International Journal of TESOL & Education (ijte) remains with the Authors, i.e. Authors retain full ownership of their article. Permitted third-party reuse of the open access articles is defined by the applicable Creative Commons (CC) end-user license which is accepted by the Authors upon submission of their paper. All articles in the ijte are published under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license, meaning that end users can freely share an article (i.e. copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and adapt it (i.e. remix, transform and build upon the material) on the condition that proper attribution is given (i.e. appropriate credit, a link to the applicable license and an indication if any changes were made; all in such a way that does not suggest that the licensor endorses the user or the use) and the material is only used for non-commercial purposes.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment 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, in a journal or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
