The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics

Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 24
[Paper List] [Goto Volume List]

[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 24, No. 0, pp. 531-553
Abbreviation: KASELL
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2024
Received 27 Dec 2023 Revised 25 Mar 2024 Accepted 01 Jun 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.24..202406.531

Investigation of AI Grammar Checkers on Grammar Learning and Students’ Perception in L2 Writing Context
Hea-Suk Kim ; Eunhye Song
(1st author) Associate Professor, Department of General Education, Seoul Women’s University, South Korea, Tel: phone (shskim@swu.ac.kr)
(corresponding author) Associate Professor, Department of General English Education, Baird College of Education, Soongsil University (edujws@hanmail.net)


© 2024 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract

This study investigates three distinct AI Grammar Checkers (AI GCs) in English writing to assess their impact on grammar enhancement and learners’ perceptions. The study included 125 students divided into three experimental groups, each employing SpellCheckPlus, Virtual Writing Tutor, or Grammarly. The first question pertains to how three AI GCs contribute to grammar learning. While all groups demonstrated improved grammar after using AI GCs, there were no significant discrepancies in the post-test between the groups. That is, no significant variations in improvement were observed across the different GCs. The second question explored learners’ perceptions of the three AI GCs. Results from a questionnaire revealed that all groups exhibited favorable aspects towards the AI GCs, highlighting benefits in active involvement, error identification, convenience of use, easiness, and others. However, aspects like interests, motivation to write, and comprehensive feedback demonstrated no substantial changes before and after AI GCs use. Regardless of the benefits and drawbacks of the three AI GCs of the study, Grammarly's ability to enhance learning stood out in particular in terms of error identification, writing feedback, and user-friendliness. All groups presented diverse opinions on drawbacks, including accuracy issues, inconvenience, feedback inadequacy, and tool dependency for all three programs.

Keywords: AI grammar checker, SpellCheckPlus, Virtual Writing Tutor, Grammarly, grammar, process writing
References
1. Al-Ahdal, A. 2020. Using computer software as a tool of error analysis: Giving EFL teachers and learners a much-needed impetus. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change 12(2), 418-437.
2. Agustin, R. and S. Wulandari. 2022. The analysis of grammatical errors on students’ essay writing by using Grammarly. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Proficiency 4(1), 39-46.
3. Badi, A., M. Osman and A. Al-Mekhlafi. 2020. The impact of Virtual Writing Tutor on writing skills and attitudes of Omani college students. The Journal of Education and Development 4(3), 101-116.
4. Chun, H., S. Lee and I. Park. 2021. A systematic review of AI technology use in English education. Multimedia- Assisted Language Learning 24(1), 87-103.
5. Chung, S. 2018. Use of rubric-referenced self-assessment in EFL instruction: A tool for self-regulated learning. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction 18(10), 767-789.
6. Dale, R. 2016. Checking in on grammar checking. Natural Language Engineering 22(3), 491-495.
7. Ferris, D. 2003. Response to Writing: Implications for Second Language Students. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8. Ferris, D. and B. Roberts. 2001. Error feedback in the L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing 10, 161-184.
9. Ghufron, M. A. and F. Rosyida. 2018. The role of Grammarly assessing English as a foreign language (EFL) writing. Lingua Cultura 12(4), 395-403.
10. Hadiat, A.W.F., W. Tarwana and L. Irianti. 2022. The use of Grammarly to enhance students’ accuracy in writing Descriptive text (A case study at eighth grade of a Junior High School in Ciamis). Journal of English Education Program (JEEP) 9(2), 1-10.
11. Hedgecock, J. 2005. Taking stock of research and pedagogy in L2 writing. In E. Hinkel, ed., Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, 597-613. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12. Hyland, F. 2003. Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback? System 31(2), 217-230.
13. Hyland, K. and F. Hyland. 2006. Feedback in Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Im, H. 2021. The use of an online grammar checker in English writing learning. Journal of Digital Convergence 19(1), 51-58.
15. John, P. and N. Woll. 2020. Using grammar checkers in an ESL context: An investigation of automatic corrective feedback. CALICO Journal 37(2), 169-192.
16. Joo, H. 2020. An investigation of the effect of self-correction on error and syntactic complexity of Korean adults’ English writing. English Language Assessment, 15(2), 215-233.
17. Junqueira, L. and C. Payant. 2015. I just want to do it right, but it’s so hard: A novice teacher’s written feedback beliefs and practices. Journal of Second Language Writing 27, 19-36.
18. Kang, D. 2008. Feedback on EFL writing: Teacher, peer, and self-review. Foreign Languages Education 15(1), 1-22.
19. Kim, Y. 2013. Exploring English writing feedback employed Korean collegiate students. The Mirae Journal of English Language and Literature 18(1), 177-205.
20. Kim, Y. and N. Kim. 2013. The types and characteristics of teacher feedback and peer feedback in process-based writing classes. Studies in Linguistics 29, 1-26.
21. Lee, I., P. Mak and R. Yuan. 2019. Assessment as learning in primary writing classrooms: An exploratory study. Studies in Educational Evaluation 62, 72-81.
22. Lindblom-ylanne, S., H. Pihlajamaki and T. Kotkas. 2006. Self-, peer- and teacher-assessment of student essay. The Journal of the Institute for Learning and Teaching 7(1), 51-62.
23. Link, S., A. Dursun, K. Karakaya and V. Hegelheimer. 2014. Towards best ESL practices for implementing automated writing evaluation. CALICO Journal 31(3), 323-344.
24. Long, R. 2022. Online grammar checkers versus self-editing: An investigation of error correction rates and writing quality. Journal of Nusantara Studies 7(1), 441-458.
25. Mansoor, G. 2009. Teacher-correction, peer-correction and self-correction: Their impacts on Iranian students’ IELTS essay writing performance. The Journal of Asia TEFL 6(1), 117-139.
26. Min, J. 2020. Korean university students’ perceptions of feedback activities on English composition: Self-review, peer feedback, and computer feedback. Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics 20(1), 335-362.
27. Moon, D. 2021. Evaluating corrective feedback generated by an AI-powered online grammar checker. International Journal of Internet, Broadcasting and Communication 13(4), 22-29.
28. Nazari, N., M. Shabbir and R. Setiawan. 2021. Application of Artificial Intelligence powered digital writing assistant in higher education: randomized controlled trial. Heliyon 7(5), 1-9.
29. O’Neill, R. and A. M. T. Russell. 2019. Stop! Grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Grammarly. Australian Journal of Educational Technology 35(1), 42-56.
30. Park, C. and H. Kim. 2016. The effect of self and peer feedback: Learner autonomy in high school writing classes. Modern English Education 17(3), 53-77.
31. Park, J. 2019. An AI-based English grammar checker vs. human raters in evaluation EFL learners' writing. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning 22(1), 112-131.
32. Park, J. and I. Yang. 2020. Utilizing an AI-based grammar checker in an EFL writing classroom. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics 36(1), 97-120.
33. Ranalli, J. 2018. Automated written corrective feedback: How well can students make use of it? Computer Assisted Language Learning 31(7), 653-674.
34. Sahu, S., Y. Vishwakarma, J. Kori and J. Thakur. 2020. Evaluating performance of different grammar checking tools. International Journal of Advanced Trends in Computer Science and Engineering 9(2), 2227-2233.
35. Song, E. and H. Kim. 2021. The effects of AI grammar checker and self-feedback on English grammar of EFL college students. Journal of Foreign Studies 57, 91-120.
36. Tompkins, G. E. 2008. Teaching Writing: Balancing Process and Product (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ : Pearson Merrill Prentice-Hall.
37. Van Beuningen, C. G., N. H. De Jong and F. Kuiken. 2012. Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in Dutch multilingual classrooms. Language Learning 62, 1–41.
38. Wang, X. 2023. Chinese English learner’s perspectives on automated writing feedback. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning 26(2), 33-58.
39. Yang, H. 2010. SpellCheckPlus. CALICO Journal 28(1), 261-267.
40. Yang, H. 2018. Efficiency of online grammar checker in English writing performance and students’ perceptions. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 18(3), 328-348.
41. Zhang, Z. and K. Hyland. 2018. Students engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing 36, 90-10.
42. Zhang, J., H. Ozer and R. Bayazeed. 2020. Grammarly vs. face-to-face tutoring at the writing center: ESL student writer’s perceptions. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal 17(2), 33-48.