Cogent Education
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/oaed20
Grammarly deployment (in)efficacy within EFL academic writing classrooms: an attitudinal report from Afghanistan
Rohullah Yousofi
To cite this article: Rohullah Yousofi (2022) Grammarly deployment (in)efficacy within EFL academic writing classrooms: an attitudinal report from Afghanistan, Cogent Education, 9:1, 2142446, DOI: 10.1080/2331186X.2022.2142446
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2142446
© 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
Published online: 09 Nov 2022. Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1745
Received: 26 June 2022
Accepted: 28 October 2022
*Corresponding author: Rohullah Yousofi, English Department, Herat University, Herat, Daneshjoo Street, 3001, Afghanistan
E-mail: rohullahyousufi4859@gmail. com
Reviewing editor:
Debra Laier Chapman, School of Computing, University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama, United States
Additional information is available at the end of the article
INFORMATION & COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION | RESEARCH ARTICLE
Grammarly deployment (in)efficacy within EFL academic writing classrooms: an attitudinal report from Afghanistan
Abstract: Automated writing evaluation (AWE) programs have been widely utilized in writing classrooms and have been increasing gradually, yet teachers’ and stu- dents’ attitudes in relation to AWE, Grammarly, have still remained uncharted in Afghanistan. The current study explored teachers’ and students’ attitudes toward the efficacy and/or inefficacy of Grammarly deployment in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) academic writing classrooms. This study employed mixed methods, sending a questionnaire to 66 students and interviewing five Afghan English lan- guage (EL) teachers and four students from private language schools (PLSs) and public universities (PUs). Also, the ABC model of attitudes has been used to measure teachers’ and students’ attitudes in this study. Statistical analysis showed that students’ attitudes were quite favorable toward Grammarly deployment in writing classrooms. Besides, inferential statistics uncovered that no significant difference exists between students’ attitudes toward Grammarly use and students’ gender, level of proficiency, and institution types. In addition, the results revealed that
ABOUT THE AUTHOR PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT
Rohullah Yousofi is a lecturer in the English Integrating AWE programs seem to be vitally Department, Faculty of Languages and impactful in academic writing classes. Also, the Literature at Herat University, Afghanistan. He extent to which teachers and students integrate holds a bachelor’s degree in English Literature these programs in their classrooms directly cor- and has participated in a variety of professional relates with their attitudes. Therefore, this study development programs. Also, he has been aimed to explore teachers’ and students’ atti- tutoring a variety of English courses at public tudes toward Grammarly deployment in EFL aca- and private universities for the past six years. His demic writing classrooms. Additionally, the study research interests include identity, technology sought to examine if any significant difference integration, and L2 writing. exists between students’ attitudes toward
Grammarly use and students’ gender, level of proficiency and institution types. This study sent a questionnaire to 66 students and interviewed five Afghan EL teachers and four students from PLSs and PUs. The findings revealed that both teachers’ and students’ attitudes were almost positive toward Grammarly deployment plus
a myriad of affordances. Besides, the researcher suggested Grammarly to teachers, students and the English department’s curriculum, computer lab or library; however, teachers should facilitate Grammarly’s feedback, and policymakers should hold technology training courses at institutions to alleviate the shortcomings.
© 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
teachers had almost positive attitudes toward Grammarly deployment in writing classrooms considering students’ writing skills development. Furthermore, the study also unveiled some exhaustive merits, plus some shortages of Grammarly applica- tions. Moreover, the study’s findings indicated that Grammarly can be included in the English department’s curriculum, computer lab, or library, as well as in profes- sors’ and students’ writing courses. This research also suggested that professors facilitate Grammarly feedback and that policymakers hold technology training courses at institutions.
Subjects: Educational Technology; Writing & Composition; Technology in Education; Language Teaching & Learning
Keywords: Grammarly; L2 writing; teacher’s attitude; student’s attitude; ABC model; automated writing evaluation
Modern EFL instructors incorporate technology into their lessons, offering a range of tools to help them build productive learning environments and enhance their students’ writing abilities (Miranty et al., 2021). One aspect of technology integration is employing AWE programs in the second language (L2) writing classes. Those programs are cutting-edge computer tools that may be applied in a variety of settings, such as educational contexts where they are utilized to provide writing students with evaluative feedback (Li et al., 2015; Nova & Lukmana, 2018; Parra & Calero, 2019). Thus, a considerable amount of research has been devoted to examining their usabilities in late years (Barrot, 2021; H. C. Liao, 2015; Farjadnasab & Khodashenas, 2017; Kisnanto, 2016; Parra & Calero, 2019; Z. Zhang & Hyland, 2018), especially the efficacy and/or inefficacy of Grammarly deployment in evaluating writing compositions (Caveleri & Dianati, 2016; Nova, 2018; Ghufron & Rosyida, 2018; O’Neill & Russell, 2019; Lailika, 2019; Pratama, 2020). The researchers have scruti- nized various parts of AWE tools; they, for example, examined if AWE programs reduce grammar errors (H. C. Liao, 2015), particularly writing accuracy (Barrot, 2021; Farjadnasab & Khodashenas, 2017; Kisnanto, 2016). Likewise, the researchers have inspected Grammarly employment and whether or not it improves students’ writing quality (Karyuatry et al., 2018), has a positive role in assessing writing (Ghufron & Rosyida, 2018), affects evaluating academic writing (Nova, 2018), and what students’ perception is toward Grammarly deployment (Lailika, 2019; O’Neill & Russell, 2019; Pratama, 2020).
Lately, some researchers also paid attention to Grammarly deployment and its merits and shortages in writing development (Agustin & Wulandari, 2022; Ashrafganjoe et al., 2022; Fitriana & Nurazni, 2022; Long, 2022). Agustin and Wulandari (2022) considered Grammarly application to classify students’ common errors in writing essays as it found 7 types (articles, punctuation, plural/singular, infinitive, and pronoun errors) and recommended this application to students in order to become aware of their writing issues and develop their writing skills. Likewise, Ashrafganjoe et al. (2022) administered an interventional study to check out students’ develop- ment of four writing variables (articles, punctuations, passive voice, and spelling), resulting in positive students’ attitudes toward Grammarly deployment and students’ development in those four variables. Furthermore, Fitriana and Nurazni (2022) conducted an attitudinal study to explore students’ perspectives of Grammarly deployment as a grammar-checker tool in their composi- tions. The result revealed that Grammarly was really helpful and effective in correcting students’ writing, whereas miscorrection and limited features of its free version were reported as shortages (Dembsey, 2017; Fahmi & Cahyono, 2021; Fitria et al., 2022; Fitriana & Nurazni, 2022; Lailika, 2019; Nova, 2018; O’Neill & Russell, 2019). In addition, Long (2022) carried out a study to compare self- editing with Grammarly feedback. The findings unveiled that the results of students whom they utilized Grammarly were better; although, no significant differences were reported in their editing methods.
Attitudes defined as “a person’s psychological evaluations of an object, person, or event” were seen to be strongly correlated with technology integration (Alzaidiyeen, 2017; Watson et al., 2020, p. 91). Teachers’ and students’ attitudes were designated to be an influential factor in integrating technology into learning contexts such as the L2 writing classes (Al-Emran et al., 2016; Chiu & Churchill, 2015; González-Sanmamed et al., 2017; Mohebi, 2021; Njiku, 2022). In terms of attitu- dinal studies, various research used the ABC model of attitudes, or the affective-behavioral- cognitive model, to examine attitudes toward technology integration (e.g., Mauricio & Genuino, 2020; Njiku et al., 2019). All in all, Hoffmann and Ramirez (2018) believed that to come up with the concepts for teacher-technology integration in the classroom, it would be exciting to do co- mentorship research between students and instructors. Therefore, this study seeks to find out the attitudes of both teachers and students toward Grammarly deployment into academic writing classrooms as no study has been done to date in the Afghan context to reveal teachers’ attitudes along with students’ attitudes in this regard. Doing this study fills the existing gap in which what attitudes both teachers and students display and provides essential information to policymakers, instructors, students, and other researchers. The current study attempts to answer the following inquiries:
What are teachers’ attitudes toward efficacy and/or inefficacy of Grammarly deployment in Afghani EFL academic writing classrooms?
What are students’ attitudes toward efficacy and/or inefficacy of Grammarly deployment in Afghani EFL academic writing classrooms?
To what extent do students’ attitudes toward Grammarly deployment differ by gender, proficiency level, and institution types?
What merits and shortages does Grammarly deployment cater to Afghani EFL academic writing classrooms?
It also tests the following three null hypotheses:
H0: Students’ attitudes toward Grammarly deployment do not differ by gender.
H0: Students’ attitudes toward Grammarly deployment do not differ by students’ English profi- ciency level.
H0: Students’ attitudes toward Grammarly deployment do not differ by students’ institution types.
A person’s overall assessment of an attitudinal object, which is derived from prior learning experiences and shapes our thinking and behavior regarding the object, is referred to as an attitude (Rheu, 2020). To identify the attitudes, the researcher utilized a tripartite model—the ABC model of attitudes—to evaluate teachers’ and students’ attitudes in this study. Verešová and Malá (2016) defined the ABC model (Affective, Behavioral, and Cognitive) as follows: (A) Affective is the emotions and feelings one has toward an attitude object(s); (B) Behavioral is the way one acts or behaves toward an attitude object(s); and (C) Cognitive is the belief or knowledge one has toward an attitude object(s).
Distinctly, J. Zhang and Zhang (2020) explained each component of attitudes in detail. A person’s attitude toward the study item, its existence or absence, favorable or unfavorable emotion, sentiment, and assessment is referred to as the affective component. These elements are based on the affective factors that the user established all across the research procedure. The behavioral component contains the individual’s knowledge of the usage and administration of the
Affective
Behavioral
Cognitive
Figure 1. ABC Model of Attitudes.
Grammarly as an automated writing evaluation tool
An automated writing evaluation program, which is a computer program, is used for evaluating and assessing writing (Nova & Lukmana, 2018). It has two main constituents—scoring and feed- back engines. The scoring engine provides automatic scoring, and the feedback engine gives automated written feedback (Bai & Hu, 2017). To elaborate on different types of feedback, Barrot (2021) classified written corrective feedback into three central categories with brief clar- ifications: Direct corrective feedback, indirect corrective feedback, and metalinguistic corrective feedback. (1) Direct corrective Feedback gives the correct forms of mistakes for learners; (2) Indirect corrective feedback draws learners’ attention to their mistakes without correcting them so that learners have to do the correction themselves; and (3) Metalinguistic corrective feedback either identifies or labels the mistakes based on their categories; it provides annotations which explain the mistakes concisely whether giving examples or not.
There was a controversy between advocates of indirect and direct feedback. Direct feedback supporters believed that the teacher should correct the mistakes expressly (Bitchener, 2008). Indirect feedback advocates, however, believed that the learners should correct the mistakes by themselves; the teacher should merely identify the mistakes (Jamalinesari et al., 2015). To cope with this argument, Grammarly, which gives teachers the chance to employ both direct and indirect feedback, makes peace between these notional means (O’Neill and Russell (2019). Likewise, Lailika (2019) found out that direct and indirect feedback was provided by Grammarly (Nova, 2018; Pratama, 2020).
Grammarly, which is an English automated written evaluation tool, is powered by artificial intelligence (AI). It checks grammatical errors, writing tones, and duplicate content and suggests synonyms for developing compositions coupled with many more features (Grammarly, 2021). Nova (2018) asserted that Grammarly has two versions: the free version, providing general features (e.g., grammar, spelling, and punctuation), and the premium version, providing more complete features (e.g., duplicate-content detection and vocabulary suggestion). Also, Grammarly free-version checks 150 error types. However, premium-version checks more than 400 error types (Nova, 2018).
A myriad of studies was conducted to investigate Grammarly’s application in education, specifi- cally in writing aspects (Nova, 2018; Karyuatry et al., 2018; O’Neill & Russell, 2019; Lailika, 2019; Pratama, 2020). O’Neill and Russell (2019) examined students’ perceptions of Grammarly employed with the advice of academic learning advisors (ALAs). They used a mixed method to compare two groups of students—students who responded to the feedback provided by Grammarly, and students who responded to the traditional feedback (non-automated feedback) given by the Academic Learning Center of CQUniversity. The results revealed that students with Grammarly feedback had more positive perceptions than their counterparts. Grammarly group
considered Grammarly deployment effective in terms of enough time spent on obtaining adequate feedback, improving their grades in a short time and their writing in a long time, building their writing confidence, and enhancing learners’ proofreading skills. They were also impressed with AWE’s responsiveness, error-detection capabilities, and ability to provide customized feedback, among other favorable aspects. However, some shortages were in the accuracy of Grammarly, the tendency of passing over errors, miscorrection, and problems related to technology.
Nova (2018) conducted a study that revealed Grammarly’s merits and shortcomings as an AWE program in academic writing evaluation. The analysis of three Indonesian postgraduate students’ experiences revealed that this software offers helpful color-coding comments with an explanation and an example, convenient account accessibility, a high rate of assessment, and a free service for reviewing academic writing. However, there were also a number of cautions in the program application, including multiple false feedbacks, errors in identifying the range of English and reference lists, and a lack of ability to evaluate content and context.
Lailika (2019) investigated students’ perceptions toward Grammarly use. It was based on survey research by distributing a questionnaire to 54-English-Teacher-Education-Department students of UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya; they have had the experience of utilizing Grammarly and were doing their thesis. The results revealed that students had both positive and negative perceptions toward Grammarly use. They believed that Grammarly can be helpful for students in checking their writings’ grammar, punctuation, spelling, and style. Additionally, they believed that direct and indirect feedback is supplied by Grammarly, and also Grammarly eschews wasting time—it pre- serves time. Some of the students displayed negative perceptions of using Grammarly; stable internet access and invalid correction were the two reasons.
Pratama (2020) explored perceptions of students toward an online grammar checker, Grammarly, in the writing process. The researcher used a survey and qualitative research design—questionnaire and interview—, and 30-English-Education-Department students from a governmental university of Karawang participated in the study. The findings disclosed students’ perceptions both positive and negative toward the application of Grammarly in checking composition. On the one hand, they believed and found Grammarly quite helpful in checking mechanisms (spelling and punctuation) and grammar. In addition, they believed that Grammarly’s use can be beneficial in developing their grammar, and also its effortless employment was expressed positively by students. Moreover, students agreed that feedback received from Grammarly increased their confidence since it corrects their errors. On the other hand, several shortages were found in this study for students. Namely, constant internet access and improper results, occasionally, were the downsides.
Karyuatry et al. (2018) conducted a study entitled Grammarly as a Tool to Improve Students’ Writing Quality to find out if Grammarly deployment affects on developing writing quality of students. The researchers observed a lecturer whose students had difficulty with diction and grammar. They did an interview with the lecturer, distributed the questionnaire to students—40 people—and analyzed students’ essays. The findings revealed that Grammarly is a suitable tool that can reduce students’ errors and develop the quality of students’ writing.
All in all, Grammarly deployment had a plethora of positive performances like time effectiveness, motivation, and self-independence in addition to writing development (O’Neill & Russell, 2019). Similarly, students agreed that using Grammarly developed their confidence in writing and under- standing of grammar (Caveleri & Dianati, 2016). Furthermore, Perdana and Farida (2019) declared that using online grammar checkers like Grammarly enhanced EFL learners’ writing skills (Rao et al., 2019). On the other hand, albeit Grammarly beneficially impacted the betterment of writing in myriad terms, content, and organization, which were two writing indicators, were affected lesser (Ghufron & Rosyida, 2018).
Attitudes toward exerting automated written corrective feedback (AWCF)
Many researchers explored the positive impacts and benefits of automated writing evaluation programs in students’ composition. Nova (2018) noted that the automated writing evaluation program provided opportunities for writers to check their academic writing easily, indicating a positive behavioral attitude. Meanwhile, Hoang and Kunnan (2016) believed that EFL writing classes would benefit from the valuable features of automated essay evaluation programs, such as instant scores and feedback, which make daily practice possible without contributing to the workload of classroom teachers. Notably, AWE programs displayed positive behavioral attitudes since they are capable of generating immediate feedback (H. C. Liao, 2015; Parra & Calero, 2019; Z. Zhang & Hyland, 2018), developing students’ writing accuracy (Barrot, 2021; Farjadnasab & Khodashenas, 2017; Kisnanto, 2016; Parra & Calero, 2019), and enabling students to be autonomy learners (H. C. Liao, 2015; Parra & Calero, 2019). Finally, H. C. Liao (2015) asserted that integrating AWE programs into the writing curriculum assists in saving writing instructors’ time, and they can concentrate more on other important parts of stu- dents’ writing.
However, some of the researchers showed negative attitudes toward AWE programs. Dikli (2010) claimed that automated feedback would confuse students with low English profi- ciency, and H. Liao (2016) accepted that automated feedback is preferred for higher- performing writers because they have the higher cognitive techniques required to improve long-term grammatical accuracy. By contrast, Hoang and Kunnan (2016) proposed a combined pedagogy in which the writing teacher acts as an interface between the work of the students and the feedback to counteract these problems and make automated feed- back useful. Feedback delivered in this way is more beneficial, so teachers can provide instructions about how best to use the software, explain mistakes and remove mistakes created by the program (Hoang & Kunnan, 2016).
According to Tian and Zhou (2020), low-proficiency Chinese English learners benefited more from the instructors’ comments than from the automated feedback functionality. The advanced-level test takers, however, employed linguistic devices (e.g., AWE programs) less frequently than the other two competence groups (intermediate and primary), presumably because they were more assured of their language skills (Shin et al., 2021). Furthermore, low English proficiency among students might have a negative impact on their cognitive and behavioral engagement with written corrective feedback; This suggests that there may be a mismatch between the three dimensions of engagement among students, as they appeared to have relatively high levels of affective engagement but low levels of behavioral and cognitive engagement (Zheng & Yu, 2018).
In addition to other variables, gender and the type of institution might have an impact on the attitudes of students and teachers. Rafique (2022) discovered that attitudes toward using technology in the classroom were similar across gender lines. However, González-Sanmamed et al. (2017) found that female teachers in the classrooms appeared to have a more favorable perception of information and communication technology (ICT) than men. Additionally, Sotiloye et al. (2016) investigated that participants’ perceptions of ICT integration in learning and teaching varied across various institution types. Their findings suggested that participants’ perceptions might be significantly influenced by the availability of ICT facilities and the provision of ICT as a course of study.
An explanatory sequential mixed-method design is used to examine students’ and teachers’ attitudes toward the efficacy and/or inefficacy of Grammarly deployment into academic writing classrooms in Afghanistan. In a sequential mixed methods approach, quantitative data are initially gathered, and thereafter qualitative data are gathered to further explain or build on the quantitative results, offering a basic image of the study topic through the quantitative approach and a more in-depth analysis of the findings through the qualitative
one (Creswell & Guetterman, 2021). Furthermore, the researcher employed this method because it is an appropriate method for any project and generates favorable results since the employment of several ways can deliver greater in-depth information than solitary methods alone (Almalki, 2016).
Technology integration within writing classrooms in Afghanistan has been a grueling task as a few Afghan researchers walked through its challenges and barriers as well as some novel means of dealing with those hindrances (e.g., Golzar, 2019; Jami, 2020). Along their research pathway, this research was done in the same context. The researcher targeted Afghan EL teachers and students from private language schools and public universities in Afghanistan.
66 students who had taken writing courses at public universities (PUs) and private language schools (PLSs) comprised the entire target population of the study. The online survey questionnaire was sent to the target population to fill it out. The students were 30 people from private language schools and 36 people from public universities. Regarding gender distinction, there were 33 females and 33 males of whom 45 students were advanced and 21 students were intermediate levels of English proficiency. The students who participated in the data collection were in TOEFL iBT preparation and English literature classes. In reality, their levels were intermediate and advanced because all students had already taken Pre-TOEFL classes and successfully passed the tests. In the questionnaire, students were asked to state their proficiency level self-reported because the questionnaire was distributed online, and the researcher could not use any other tools to deter- mine their proficiency level.
NO | Setting | Gender | Age | Year of Schooling | |
Students | 1 | PU | Female | 23 | Senior |
2 | PU | Male | 25 | Senior | |
3 | PLS | Female | 22 | TOEFL Class | |
4 | PLS | Male | 20 | TOEFL Class | |
NO | Setting | Gender | Year of using Grammarly | Educational background | |
Teachers | 1 | PLS | Male | 3 Years | BA in English Literature |
2 | PLS | Male | 2 Years | BA in English Literature | |
3 | PU | Male | 3 Years | MA in TESOL | |
4 | PU | Male | 1 Year | MA in TESOL | |
5 | PU | Male | 4 Years | MA in TESOL | |
The data set for this study was gathered by two instruments, a questionnaire, and semi-structured interviews. First, the questionnaire was sent to the target population, students, to examine students’ attitudes toward Grammarly deployment. The questionnaire was comprised of demo- graphic information and 12 five-Likert-scale items, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and 3 as (neutral) in between (see Appendix A). The items consisted of a questionnaire made up of the ABC model of attitudes. Items “1, 2, 7, 12” were based on the affective construct, items “3, 4, 8, 9” were based on the behavioral construct, and items “5, 6, 10, 11” were based on the cognitive construct of ABC model of attitudes. Quantitative data collection almost took 15 days to end up after sending the questionnaire to the participants through social media, Telegram, and Messenger.
This study also utilized semi-structured interviews to collect the data set in relation to students’ attitudes toward teachers’ Grammarly deployment in academic writing classes and teachers’ attitudes toward Grammarly deployment in academic writing classrooms. The students’ interview questions were comprised of demographic information questions (name, gender, age, and year of schooling/which English class), 10 attitudinal questions, and an ending question (see Appendix B). The teachers’ interview questions encompassed three stages; demographical information (name, gender, setting, years of teaching writing skills integrated with Grammarly and educational back- ground), main questions (10 inquiries exposing attitudes; based on ABC construct), and an ending question asking participants to share whatever they could not express within the interview but willing to share (see Appendix C). In addition to interview questions, the researcher accompanied the interviewees with follow-up questions. Antecedently, the target participants were invited through a formal email mentioning the aim of the study and an assumed timing. Upon their consent, the interviews were scheduled and taken from the participants.
Quantitative data were analyzed through the Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS) 27 to gain descriptive analysis and the independent sample t-test results. It also passed the reliability test, having a somewhat high internal consistency of 12 items—The Cronbach’s Alpha value was 0.805. The author categorized the students in relation to their gender (male and female), proficiency level (advanced and intermediate), and institution types (public universities and private language schools) to test the hypotheses through an independent t-test. Then, in light of quantitative findings, interview questions for students and teachers were developed. After the participants were interviewed, the researcher continued the process of analyzing and interpreting the qualitative data through thematic analysis, which is “a method for systematically identifying, organizing, and offering insights into patterns of meaning (themes) across a data set” (Braun & Clarke, 2012, p. 57). All of the participant’s speech samples were transcribed verbatim, and they were double-checked by the researcher. Then, color-coding was used to identify the relevant themes and organize the main findings led by the theoretical framework and research questions. Afterward, a TESOL professor also monitored the data analysis process to be sure of its credibility and trustworthiness.
N | Mean | Median | Std. Deviation | Range | Minimum | Maximum | ||
Valid | Missing | |||||||
Affective | 66 | 0 | 4.2159 | 4.2500 | .46178 | 1.75 | 3.25 | 5.00 |
Behavioral | 66 | 0 | 3.9280 | 4.0000 | .50908 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 5.00 |
Cognitive | 66 | 0 | 3.9886 | 4.0000 | .57918 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 5.00 |
Composite | 66 | 0 | 4.0442 | 4.0417 | .44270 | 1.92 | 3.00 | 4.92 |
Running the t-test revealed that the three null hypotheses came to be true. The inferential statistics showed that there is no significant difference between students’ attitudes toward Grammarly deployment and gender. It means that students’ attitudes are the same for males and females toward Grammarly use (see, Table 3). Also, it unveiled that there is no significant difference between students’ attitudes toward Grammarly deployment and their English profi- ciency level since the p-value is greater than 0.05 (see, Table 4). Hence, students with varying English proficiency levels have the same attitudes toward Grammarly use. Remarkably, the statis- tics uncovered that there is no significant difference between students’ attitudes toward Grammarly deployment and their institution types (see, Table 5). It implies that students at different institutions have the same attitudes toward Grammarly use.
In this section, the researcher presented the attitudinal results from four students (S1 to S4) whose teachers deployed Grammarly in their academic writing classrooms, along with the results of five Afghan English language teachers’ attitudes (T1 to T5) toward the effects of Grammarly integra- tion in academic writing classrooms at PLSs and English Department, PUs.
In relation to teachers’ Grammarly deployment in academic writing classrooms, students dis- played almost positive attitudes with rationales, including the merits and shortages (see, Table 6). To fulfill the existing gap, the students were interviewed through semi-structured interviews.
All of the students disclosed positive affective attitudes toward teachers’ Grammarly deploy- ment and the way Grammarly provides feedback in their academic writing classrooms. They were liking the feedback Grammarly provided since it gave them feedback “about punctuation, different kinds of grammatical sentence structures and things that are essential and fundamental in a student’s writing skill” (S4). Besides, one of the students pointed out that Grammarly’s feedback helped her to boost the quality of her writing, as S3 said; “Generally I was satisfied [with Grammarly’s feedback] because the feedback Grammarly provided was constructive. They were useful owing to the fact that when I received feedback through Grammarly, I revised my writing, and it improved my writing’s quality”. Additionally, Grammarly’s feedback was reported helpful not only for students but also for teachers, as it benefits students “to have somehow sooner feed- backs” (S2), and teachers to “save their times” in checking papers (S1).
In relation to the behavioral aspect of students’ attitudes, all of the participants almost showed positive attitudes toward teachers’ Grammarly use in their academic writing classes. First, in terms of causing changes and development by Grammarly, students reported variously. For instance, Grammarly developed their “collocations” (S1), “gerunds and infinitives” (S2), “mechanics of writ- ing” (S3), and “punctuation, sentence structures, and capitalization” (S4). Likewise, regarding the way Grammarly was deployed by the teachers, students noted two different means of utilization. First, “when we just turned in our papers, our teacher put it in Grammarly and then just send a report of the Grammarly to us. After that, we could just revise our paper based on Grammarly’s
Table 3. Independent samples test of students’ gender | ||||||||||
Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances | t-test for Equality of Means | |||||||||
F | Sig. | t | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | Mean Difference | Std. Error Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | |||
Lower | Upper | |||||||||
Affective | Equal variances assumed | 1.091 | .300 | .331 | 64 | .742 | .03788 | .11447 | −.19080 | .26656 |
Equal variances not assumed | .331 | 63.596 | .742 | .03788 | .11447 | −.19083 | .26659 | |||
Behavioral | Equal variances assumed | 1.871 | .176 | 1.276 | 64 | .207 | .15909 | .12473 | −.09008 | .40826 |
Equal variances not assumed | 1.276 | 61.134 | .207 | .15909 | .12473 | −.09031 | .40849 | |||
Cognitive | Equal variances assumed | .004 | .952 | −.475 | 64 | .636 | −.06818 | .14344 | −.35474 | .21837 |
Equal variances not assumed | −.475 | 63.997 | .636 | −.06818 | .14344 | −.35474 | .21837 | |||
Composite | Equal variances assumed | .050 | .823 | .391 | 64 | .697 | .04293 | .10970 | −.17623 | .26209 |
Equal variances not assumed | .391 | 63.366 | .697 | .04293 | .10970 | −.17627 | .26213 | |||
Yousofi, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2142446
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2142446
Page 10 of 27
Table 4. Independent samples test of students’ English proficiency level | ||||||||||
Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances | t-test for Equality of Means | |||||||||
F | Sig. | t | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | Mean Difference | Std. Error Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | |||
Lower | Upper | |||||||||
Affective | Equal variances assumed | .044 | .835 | −1.021 | 64 | .311 | −.12460 | .12200 | −.36832 | .11911 |
Equal variances not assumed | −1.017 | 38.753 | .315 | −.12460 | .12250 | −.37243 | .12322 | |||
Behavioral | Equal variances assumed | .029 | .865 | −.901 | 64 | .371 | −.12143 | .13473 | −.39059 | .14773 |
Equal variances not assumed | −.896 | 38.600 | .376 | −.12143 | .13550 | −.39560 | .15275 | |||
Cognitive | Equal variances assumed | .237 | .628 | .108 | 64 | .914 | .01667 | .15424 | −.29146 | .32479 |
Equal variances not assumed | .112 | 43.130 | .911 | .01667 | .14843 | −.28264 | .31598 | |||
Composite | Equal variances assumed | .218 | .642 | −.651 | 64 | .518 | −.07646 | .11752 | −.31122 | .15831 |
Equal variances not assumed | −.661 | 40.657 | .513 | −.07646 | .11575 | −.31027 | .15736 | |||
Yousofi, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2142446
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2142446
Page 11 of 27
Table 5. Independent samples test of students’ institution types | ||||||||||
Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances | t-test for Equality of Means | |||||||||
F | Sig. | t | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | Mean Difference | Std. Error Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | |||
Lower | Upper | |||||||||
Affective | Equal variances assumed | .353 | .555 | 1.059 | 64 | .293 | .12083 | .11405 | −.10700 | .34867 |
Equal variances not assumed | 1.063 | 62.546 | .292 | .12083 | .11370 | −.10641 | .34808 | |||
Behavioral | Equal variances assumed | .030 | .862 | .527 | 64 | .600 | .06667 | .12655 | −.18615 | .31949 |
Equal variances not assumed | .523 | 60.017 | .603 | .06667 | .12741 | −.18819 | .32152 | |||
Cognitive | Equal variances assumed | .192 | .663 | 1.029 | 64 | .307 | .14722 | .14311 | −.13868 | .43312 |
Equal variances not assumed | 1.020 | 59.515 | .312 | .14722 | .14431 | −.14149 | .43593 | |||
Composite | Equal variances assumed | .018 | .893 | 1.020 | 64 | .312 | .11157 | .10941 | −.10699 | .33014 |
Equal variances not assumed | 1.019 | 61.699 | .312 | .11157 | .10948 | −.10730 | .33045 | |||
Yousofi, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2142446
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2142446
Page 12 of 27
Table 6. Students reported experiences with Grammarly deployment | ||
Themes | Merits | Shortages |
Grammarly Deployment in Academic Writing Classrooms | ||
Developing writing’s quality
Providing immediate feedback
Saving teachers’ time
Developing the mechanics of writing
Being good assistance for a writer
Not adequate for primary learners
Not able to provide feedback on the content of the writing
feedback” (S3). Second, some of the teachers made the process of revision easier for the students, using Grammarly in the classroom and explaining Grammarly’s reports.
Some of the teachers may just directly give you the feedback of Grammarly without any explanations, and you are going to have to track the mistakes . . . but our teacher has specifically given us instructions that why Grammarly took this as a fault, as a mistake, or as an error. And then, he would tell us [that] this is the revision and this is how we are going to have to practice next time to avoid mistakes. (S4)
However, a few students exposed negative attitudes toward Grammarly feedback, claiming that face-to-face feedback is preferable. Namely, S1 stated, “I prefer that when a teacher starts teaching, for example, an essay or a paragraph, the teacher themselves checks our assignment in the class and give feedback to us face to face” (S1).
All participants revealed positive cognitive attitudes toward teachers’ Grammarly use and Grammarly feedback in academic writing classes. They believed that Grammarly is quite useful as S4 stated that “I think that basically, Grammarly’s feedback is pretty productive and efficient in a student’s writing skill.” Besides, they believed that Grammarly is an adequate AWE tool for all students with different English proficiency levels apart from the primary level.
I think [Grammarly is not adequate for students with different levels] because Grammarly does not vary or differ based on a level. So, a very primary student does not know how to use grammar, so if you are going to use Grammarly for him, definitely Grammarly is going to bring you and pop up a lot of errors that he does not understand what the problems are. (S4)
Furthermore, the students thought that Grammarly could be a good assistant for a writer, claiming that “even the most knowledgeable person in the world need[s] feedback. So, if any piece of writing we write, we check in Grammarly, at least it will identify some of our mistakes that we did not notice” (S2). Moreover, the students believed that Grammarly develops “the mechanic part of writing like grammar, spelling, sentence structures, collocations, and vocabulary but not other parts” (S3). S2 maintained the argument, saying that one of the “downsides of Grammarly is that it cannot identify the whole sentence meaning, the content.”
All in all, the participants exposed almost positive attitudes toward the deployment of Grammarly by the teachers and the feedback of Grammarly. They stated some merits that caused them to disclose positive attitudes toward this tool/program. Namely, developing the quality of writing, providing immediate feedback, saving teachers’ time, improving the mechanics of writing, and being good assistance for a writer. However, two deficiencies were reported, not being adequate for primary learners and not being able to provide feedback on the content of the writing.
Affective load of Grammarly use. All teachers disclosed positive emotional attitudes toward the effects of using Grammarly in developing students’ writing skills. However, they had various motives for exposing their feelings toward Grammarly use. As notably, T4 asserted, “I feel good and empowered [toward Grammarly deployment in writing classes] because it eases most of the tensions which were the results of too many students’ paper-based writing assignments. I could handle heavy workloads in this regard.” Besides, there were some other reasoning behind their affective attitudes; some teachers claimed that Grammarly supports teachers, just as T3 says “when students submit very lengthy compositions, usually as a draft without proofreading. Then, I check them with Grammarly and I send the report of Grammarly to students saying that bring these changes and send it back to me” (T3). Also, the teachers reported being confident while using Grammarly since “it gives feedback in a variety of areas, consisting collocation, language use, sentence structures, and other areas” (T1). Last but not least, T2 said that:
I feel really positive [toward effects of Grammarly deployment in writing classrooms] because mostly while using Grammarly, it really saves my time and really helps develop students’ spelling. Also, I really like the style of writing Grammarly provide[s] while checking writing. For example, academic writing, general writing, and so on.
To sum up, teachers displayed positive attitudes toward employing Grammarly in developing students writing skills since it provides students feedback in different areas or style of writing and backing for teachers with handling heavy workloads. It also saves teachers’ time, develops students’ spelling, and many more areas.
Behavioral load of Grammarly use. The teachers revealed positive behavioral attitudes toward the effects of Grammarly deployment in developing students’ writing skills. They declared how behaviorally Grammarly affected their academic writing classrooms with regard to “checking the essay at a quick glance and providing immediate feedback in classrooms” (T1); furthermore, T4 explained explicitly that “I randomly select one of the reports [in the class] and then start explaining the writing issues, why it happened and how to fix it.” In spite of prior rationales provided by teachers, some of the teachers maintained that they learned “how and what to give feedback on students’ writing. Grammarly told me, for example, that we should check students’ homework based on spelling, punctuation, structures and so on” (T2). In addition, T3 added to the previous motives caused them to have positive behavioral attitudes toward employing Grammarly saying that:
It can affect my decision in teaching because if I see that majority of my students have similar problem[s] in their writing, then I might allocate some sessions focusing on the specific topics, or I might add extra materials to the course. I understand it based on the different reports
I get from Grammarly.
In short, all teachers disclosed positive behavioral attitudes toward the effects of using Grammarly in developing students’ writing skills because it provides immediate feedback, guides teachers on
Table 7. Teachers’ reported experiences regarding Grammarly use in their writing classes | |
Topic | Summary of the Response |
Affective | |
Behavioral | |
Cognitive | |
Providing feedback in various areas
Saving time
Style of text provided by Grammarly
Developing students spelling
Supporting teachers
Handling heavy workload
Providing on-time feedback
Providing immediate feedback
Learning what to take into account while giving feedback
Making decisions based on the Grammarly stu- dents’ reports
Easing teachers’ work
Developing students’ writing (vocabulary, collo- cation and essay)
Technology is more accurate than humans
Teachers as facilitators
Giving teachers confidence
Developing students’ spelling
Helping students to write on their own
Not good for beginner students
Learning doesn’t happen in direct feedback
Not using Grammarly excessively—causing addiction
Grammarly is neither good nor bad
(Continued)
Table 7. (Continued) | |
Topic | Summary of the Response |
Grammarly Merits and Shortages | Merits Shortages |
Minimizing time consumption
Detailed feedback
Avoiding plagiarism
Suggesting for betterment
Giving confidence
Style of writing
Spelling errors detector
Giving chance to teachers to invest more time on other parts rather than providing feedback
Internet connection
Cost
Bringing down students’ motivation and con- fusing students due to a large amount of feedback
Relying too much on Grammarly
Absence of electricity
Not detecting some writing issues properly (context, coherency, . . .)
Not having professional punctuation
Some incorrect suggestions
Not having a strong plagiarism checker
Customizing options to set for giving feedback accordingly
what to take into account while giving feedback, eases teachers’ work, and helps teachers in decision-making what to teach and how to solve students’ problems in writing.
Cognitive load of Grammarly use. The teachers exposed not only positive but also negative cognitive attitudes toward the effects of using Grammarly on students’ writing betterment. Some of them disclosed positive attitudes and believed that “Grammarly can support students in devel- oping writing skills by providing them a detailed report of the writing issues they need to fix” (T4). Besides developing students’ writing, some of the teachers believed that teachers should, “Help them—[the students]—understand the report or the result of the Grammarly check they receive, and let them know that some of the comments are only alternatives” (T3). In other words, “Grammarly use for students can be facilitated by teachers because it provides a range of feed- back in different areas, and teachers are responsible here to remind their students of the fact that what matters for the beginning and next” (T1). In addition, they believed that “technologies, [Grammarly as a technology tool], are more accurate than humans” (T1). The teacher elaborated that a teacher might miss some parts of the sentences because of lack of time or lack of attention, yet Grammarly does not. However, T2 thought that Grammarly is “like a robot, and as most of the robots, they cannot be always correct, and they may have some mistakes, I believe that it does not really support the student to learn something.” Besides, T1 believed that Grammarly helps tea- chers to be confident “because the teacher does not have to worry whether he has missed any part or not.” Along the same lines, T2 believed that “Grammarly only improves students’ spelling.”
Noticeably, T3 believed that Grammarly is an asset—plagiarism detection feature—to compelling students to write on their own. He clarified by stating his own experience:
I had some students who are still thinking that if they plagiarize, then the teacher doesn’t know. So, when I showed them Grammarly in my classroom. I said, “okay, this is Grammarly. I have access to the software in addition to checking your writing on the internet and googling some parts of your text. Grammarly helps me to check if you have plagiarized or not.” So, this option of Grammarly was an asset in my courses stopping students from plagiarism and helping them to write on their own.
However, some of the teachers displayed negative attitudes toward Grammarly use and thought that “Grammarly is not useful for beginner students because it makes them confused by providing that various feedback” (T1) and “learning does not happen in direct feedback. Grammarly, which directly tells the students the correct answers, is not useful in developing students’ writing skills” (T2). Importantly, some of the teachers believed that if the teachers and students “rely too much on Grammarly, they might be addicted” (T3). This dependency might affect negatively both teachers and students, saying T2 that “whenever I’m writing something, I feel really dependent on Grammarly. I have to go and check it.” However, beyond all attitudes teachers reported, T3 believed that Grammarly is neither good nor bad, so it depends on how the users employ it.
Grammarly itself is not good or bad, but the way teachers or users use them differs. Also, the person who writes, their attitude should be learning through Grammarly, not fixing the paper. I mean, Grammarly should be used in a way to help the user to become a better writer, but if only focus on fixing a text, then we have limited our focus.
To conclude, teachers showed both positive and negative cognitive attitudes toward the effects of using Grammarly in developing students’ writing skills. They firmly believed that Grammarly is helpful because it improves students’ writing abilities, is a technological advancement thus it is more accurate, should be assisted by instructors to have an influence, increases teachers’ con- fidence, and aids in students’ independent writing. However, there were some negative disposi- tions toward Grammarly’s use in students’ writing development. Namely, Grammarly’s use is not good for novice students, and direct feedback provided by Grammarly is not efficient for learning. Also, dependency or addiction happens due to employing Grammarly too much, and the flexibility of Grammarly whose goodness and badness depend on how users utilize it.
Grammarly merits and shortages. Everything has its applications which implies that they have their merits and shortages regarding their employment. Grammarly, according to the tea- chers who participated in this study, has not only a plethora of merits or advantages but also a couple of shortages and/or tensions in integrating with academic writing classrooms.
Merits. Most of the teachers asserted that Grammarly “really affects time consumption” (T1). To extend the topic of time consumption, “Grammarly [also] can be helpful in case of giving scores. It increases the speed of grading” (T3) and “giving detailed feedback on students’ papers” (T1). Additionally, the plagiarism checker, which is a notable asset of Grammarly, was reported really positive by the participants of the study claiming, “students tend to copy a lot, and Grammarly does really help me to cope with this issue” (T1). Besides, Grammarly “gives the students the opportunity to feel where they really make mistakes” (T2). However, “Grammarly in addition to finding mistakes, it gives suggestions. It gives the correct answer, then students learn the correct answer as well, this is what I think” (T3). In addition to the previous advantages mentioned by the participants, T1 stated that “Grammarly boosts teachers’ and students’ confidence.” Moreover, two features of Grammarly, style of writing and detecting spelling errors, were T2’s favor, expressing his experience,
Grammarly gives me this opportunity to choose whether I am going to check a general, academic or professional text. Also, I feel doubt whether the spelling of the words is correct or not, so I use Grammarly to be sure.
Last, T4 claimed that “Grammarly support[s] teaching writing classes by giving teachers more chances to invest cognitively on other parts of learning rather than spending too many hours checking papers.”
Shortages. One of the challenging deficiencies of Grammarly, which was mentioned by all parti- cipants, “would be the internet connection” (T2). “Grammarly relies too much on the internet; you need to have internet. Sometimes [it needs] high-speed internet and this is another limitation” (T3) because “having access to internet here and in our context is a little bit difficult” (T2), and also “some teachers and students do not have access to such a facility” (T4). Therefore, “If there is no internet access, then Grammarly doesn’t work” (T3). Another considerable shortage of Grammarly is its cost. Grammarly has “two versions, basic, premium” (T2). The basic version is free; however, the premium version has to be purchased. Thus, “Grammarly is not cheap. Although Grammarly is good, it is expensive” (T3).
Most of the teachers declared that “Grammarly might demotivate learners because they see a lot of errors” (T3). Similarly, T1 stated that students would be overwhelmed by the large amount of feedback they receive. Moreover, most of the teachers alleged that “frequent use of Grammarly is sometimes counterproductive because students heavily rely on its correction instead of paying attention and thinking carefully about the writing processes, constituents, and structures” (T4). Distinctively, T2 utilized the term, spoon-feeding, clarifying that “Grammarly spoon-feeds the students. It directly tells the answer, namely substitute this preposition with another. It does not give them a chance to go and explore the correct answer themselves.” Additionally, not having electricity is another barrier or shortage which were reported by the teachers:
One tension comes from the absence of electricity. When there is no electricity [or] electricity goes out, teachers have to figure out how to get connected to the internet. If the devices run out of charge, they have to think of a way to get access to electricity and get connected to the internet in order to check these students’ essays through Grammarly.com. (T1)
Furthermore, some of the teachers claimed that “Grammarly cannot provide feedback on the paper in terms of organization of ideas, use of supporting sentences, coherency, and use of rhetorics” (T4). T2 narrowed it down into contextualizing a word saying:
Grammarly doesn’t really understand the words in the context. For example, sometimes you’re using a word in that specific context. When you just go and check it through Grammarly, Grammarly gives you a different word, and that different word is not exactly based on the context that should be used.
Finally, some deficiencies were mentioned less frequently by the participants.
Grammarly doesn’t have all these options that you choose the different grammar points, and grammatical items when you check. And, sometimes Grammarly gives incorrect suggestions. Sometimes the plagiarism checker is not very strong. When some students paraphrase a little bit, then Grammarly doesn’t identify. (T3)
T2 maintained the deficiencies saying that “some parts of feedback provided by Grammarly is not that much professional. For example, using a comma before ‘and’, active instead of passive voice, and some misusing tenses.” All in all, considering all deficiencies in Grammarly deployment, T5 suggested a minimal use of Grammarly in providing feedback saying that “the teacher can compare the number of errors to the number of the words in the original texts to know how
many percent of the text is wrong.” By doing so, the teacher can easily provide feedback to the students about the percentages they made mistakes, and give oral feedback in detail if needed.
In a nutshell, with regard to participants’ responses took part in this study, Grammarly had several merits and shortages. Teachers stated that Grammarly is useful because it minimizes time consumption and provides detailed feedback. Besides, it avoids plagiarism and suggests improving writing along with boosting teachers’ and students’ confidence. Likewise, it has various styles of writing while checking, and it checks the spelling. In addition, it gives teachers a chance to invest more time in other parts of learning and teaching rather than providing feedback. However, there were some shortages as well. Namely, not having an internet connection, having a cost for complete features, demotivating students, relying too much on Grammarly, not having electricity, not having professional punctuation and strong plagiarism checker, suggesting incorrect answers, and not having customized options to set to provide feedback accordingly.
The descriptive analysis revealed that students’ attitudes were positive toward Grammarly deploy- ment in academic writing classrooms. Similarly, Hoffmann and Ramirez (2018) discovered that students’ attitudes were positive toward integrating technology into classrooms. Besides, quantita- tive data uncovered that both genders (males and females) had the same attitudes toward Grammarly application in academic writing classes. In the same way, Rafique (2022) found out that different genders had the same attitudes toward integrating technology into the educational setting. In addition, inferential statistics showed that students’ attitudes toward Grammarly deploy- ment were corresponding in relation to students’ English proficiency levels and their institution types.
The teachers’ use of Grammarly and its feedback were met with almost entirely favorable attitudes from the students. They gave some justifications for their positive opinions of this application. Specifically, improving writing mechanics, saving teachers’ time, enhancing the quality of writing, and being a good support for a writer. Similarly, many other studies found that Grammarly is quite beneficial in writing mechanics development (Lailika, 2019; Pratama, 2020), preserving teachers’ time (H. C. Liao, 2015; Lailika, 2019; O’Neill & Russell, 2019), and developing writing quality (Karyuatry et al., 2018). However, it was noted that there were two shortcomings: it was not adequate for primary learners, and it could not give content-related feedback. Likewise, Dikli (2010) found out that Grammarly might not be adequate for beginner students, and H. Liao (2016) stated that Grammarly is preferable for high proficiency level writers. Besides, not being able to provide feedback on the content of writing was also recognized by Ghufron and Rosyida (2018) and Nova (2018).
Teachers showed highly positive emotional attitudes toward the effects of using Grammarly in developing students’ writing skills. Despite a myriad of advantages Grammarly provided, their rationales for displaying positive attitudes were based on certain merits. First of all, Grammarly provides a variety of feedback which includes different areas. Second, Grammarly saves teachers’ time as T2 said, “I feel really positive [toward Grammarly use], because mostly when I use Grammarly, it really saves my time.” Similarly, the saving-time quality of AWE, specifically Grammarly, has also been found as the result of H. C. Liao’s (2015) and Lailika’s (2019) studies. Third, it has the attribute of setting the style of writing before checking a text for getting certain feedback. Fourth, it is beneficial for developing students’ spelling as T2 mentioned that Grammarly “really help[s] the students’ writing with the spelling.” Fifth, “Grammarly provides a lot of support for teachers” (T3). They stated that Grammarly is a good supporter of teachers due to helping in providing on-time feedback and handling heavy workloads.
The teachers displayed positive behavioral attitudes toward the effects of Grammarly use on students’ writing development. The result revealed that some specific motives influenced teachers’ behavioral attitudes toward Grammarly application in students’ writing betterment. First, Grammarly provides immediate feedback. Likewise, this coincides with many studies that have been done revealing that AWE programs, like Grammarly, are capable of generating immediate
feedback (H. C. Liao, 2015; Parra & Calero, 2019; Z. Zhang & Hyland, 2018). Second, Grammarly use guides teachers to learn what to take into account while giving feedback. Third, Grammarly makes teachers’ work more effortless. Last but not least, Grammarly helps teachers in making decisions regarding teaching and providing solutions for students’ writing issues.
Teachers disclosed both positive and negative cognitive attitudes toward the effects of Grammarly employment in developing students’ writing skills. There were some specific beliefs affecting teachers to have diverse cognitive attitudes—neither positive nor negative wholly—toward the effects of Grammarly use in improving students’ writing skills. Concerning positive beliefs, First, they believed that Grammarly develops students’ writing skills. Second, technology is more accurate than humans, so they believed that Grammarly as a part of technology provides more accurate feedback rather than human beings’. Third, they believed that teachers should role as a facilitator to make Grammarly’s feedback more comprehendible for students (Hoang & Kunnan, 2016). Fourth, Grammarly develops teachers’ confidence. Fifth, they believed that Grammarly assists students to write on their own. However, with regard to negative notions, first, they believed that using Grammarly is not adequate for beginner students as Dikli (2010) also believed. Second, Grammarly provides direct feedback which is not effective in learning. On the contrary, other researchers exclaimed that Grammarly provides both direct and indirect feedback which is effective in learning (Lailika, 2019; Nova, 2018; Pratama, 2020). Third, using too much from Grammarly creates dependency and addicts the users. Finally, Grammarly itself is not bad or good, but rather it depends on the users that how they use it.
According to teachers’ responses, the result revealed many merits and shortages concerning Grammarly’s employment in developing students’ writing skills. Considering the merits, first, Grammarly decreases time consumption. Similarly, the time effectiveness of Grammarly, an AWE program, has been found by a myriad of researchers (H. C. Liao, 2015; Lailika, 2019; O’Neill & Russell, 2019). Second, it obtains detailed feedback. Third, it prevents duplicate content or avoids plagiarism. Fourth, it gives suggestions for writing betterment. Correspondingly, it is also reported by Lailika (2019) and Caveleri and Dianati (2016). Fifth, it develops both teachers’ and students’ confidence. In the same vein, many studies have found Grammarly increasing confidence (O’Neill & Russell, 2019; Pratama, 2020). Sixth, it contains a variety of styles of writing for checking a text. It is similar to the result O’Neill and Russell (2019) have revealed. Seventh, it is efficient in checking to spell accurately; this merit is also reported by many other researchers (Lailika, 2019; Pratama, 2020). Eighth, it provides chances for teachers to invest more time in different parts of learning rather than checking papers. In the same way, H. C. Liao (2015) claimed that utilizing AWE— Grammarly—helps teachers to invest more time in other parts of writing. However, taking shortages into account, first, Grammarly needs an internet connection for checking compositions, so this is a deficiency in this context as reported by the participants. Likewise, Lailika (2019) and Pratama (2020) declared that steady internet connectivity was a lack. Second, more complete features of Grammarly need to be purchased, so it is costly. Third, it brings students’ motivation down because of detecting many errors; however, not considering the number of errors it detects, O’Neill and Russell (2019) claimed that it motivates the users. Fourth, the users may rely too much on Grammarly corrections, so it may cause the users, specifically students, not to learn. Fifth, in order to be connected to Grammarly, it is necessary to have electricity, so this is another shortage in this context. Sixth, Grammarly provides feedback in a way that is spoon-feeding for the students, so they do not learn because everything is ready and provided; students do not contemplate the correct answer. Seventh, Grammarly does not have professional punctuation and strong plagiarism detection. Eighth, Grammarly sometimes may suggest incorrect answers as some recent studies have found the same downside (Dembsey, 2017; Fahmi & Cahyono, 2021; Fitria et al., 2022; Fitriana & Nurazni, 2022; Lailika, 2019; Nova, 2018; O’Neill & Russell, 2019). Lastly, Grammarly does not have the feature of customized options to get specific feedback accordingly.
The descriptive analysis revealed that students’ attitudes were positive toward Grammarly deploy- ment in academic writing classrooms. Besides, quantitative data uncovered that both genders
(males and females) had the same attitudes toward Grammarly application in writing classes. In addition, inferential statistics showed that students’ attitudes toward Grammarly deployment were corresponding in relation to students’ English proficiency levels and their institution types.
The students displayed almost favorable sentiments regarding the professors’ use of Grammarly and its feedback. They cited certain advantages that led them to express favorable opinions of this tool or software. These include enhancing writing quality, offering immediate feedback, saving instructors’ time, enhancing writing mechanics, and generally being helpful to writers. Two short- comings were noted, though: the inability to give comments on the writing’s content and inade- quacy for elementary learners.
The participants, both teachers and students, who took part in this study almost displayed positive attitudes toward Grammarly deployment as it reveals that it has affected students writing develop- ment. Thereupon, this study has carried some practical pedagogical implications, assisting both teachers and students. It offers Grammarly to the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) adding it to the curriculum of the English language and literature department, deducting teachers’ workloads in checking students’ written assignments and giving feedback. However, there need to be some neces- sities available to make it possible, namely stable electricity and internet connection (Sotiloye et al., 2016). MOHE can also provide premium accounts for the university computer labs and libraries as they have almost stable electricity and high-speed internet connectivity to access complete features of Grammarly, allowing students to check their written English assignments before submission and those who cannot afford to access to Grammarly elsewhere. Moreover, it offers this program to teachers and students in order to take advantage of Grammarly in their writing courses, whereas they should consider the provided results, merits and shortages, to evaluate if Grammarly’s utilization suits them. In addition, due to a plethora of inadequacy in Grammarly feedback, first, it would be better that Grammarly developers consider the deficiencies reported to meliorate its feedback, and second, it would be more effective that teachers facilitate Grammarly use for students by giving clear instructions on how to use productively (Hoang & Kunnan, 2016) and minimizing the problems Grammarly provides. Along the same line, in the light of both merits and shortages, Grammarly deployment efficacy and/or inefficacy directly depend on how the users deploy it. Hence, digital training workshops—in particular, Grammarly use—would be quite beneficial for both teachers and students to enhance their technolo- gical use capacity, and utilize digital tools and programs usefully. Also, technology utilization should not be overused, inasmuch as it may lead to adverse effects; thus, teachers and students should balance their Grammarly deployment in order to get sufficient benefit from it.
Furthermore, the result of this study has brought many more sets of implications in relation to Grammarly deployment. Teachers and students should think of technology, like Grammarly, as a way of enhancing their cognitive ability to be able to develop their performances, not just a means of paving the way for doing a task without contemplating. Specifically, Grammarly’s use should be considered as a way of developing writers’ abilities, not only fixing writers’ composi- tions. Likewise, as writing skill is grueling and arduous for English learners, they are not willing to go for it (Gao, 2022; Hartati & Andriani, 2022; Saori, 2022); however, Grammarly deployment makes sure that students do not plagiarize, and it acts as a trigger to push students forward doing their writing tasks themselves.
The current study has done its best to answer the researcher’s queries, but it has a number of limitations. First of all, there were not enough English writing teachers using Grammarly in their courses to contribute to the data set, and because technology in general, and especially Grammarly, is a new concept in Afghanistan, the researcher was unable to enroll more participants in the study. Additionally, this study’s qualitative technique of evaluating teachers’ attitudes only included male instructors, which makes it impossible to generalize the results to the entire population. Therefore, it is advised that future studies take into account the aforementioned restrictions in order to provide thorough results in the same setting.
The author would like to express his gratitude to the reviewers and editorial board of the journal for their constructive feed- back. The author also cordially would like to extend his special thanks to Professor Jawad Golzar for his advisory feedback as well as to the EL teachers who participated in this study and the students who cooperated in the data collection.
This research did not receive any specific grant from fund- ing agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Rohullah Yousofi1
E-mail: rohullahyousufi4859@gmail.com
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3065-0170
1 English Department, Herat University, Herat, Afghanistan.
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Citation information
Cite this article as: Grammarly deployment (in)efficacy within EFL academic writing classrooms: an attitudinal report from Afghanistan, Rohullah Yousofi, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2142446.
Agustin, R., & Wulandari, S. (2022). The analysis of grammatical errors on students’essay writing by using grammarly. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Proficiency, 4(1), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.32503/pro ficiency.v4i1.2247
Al-Emran, M., Elsherif, H. M., & Shaalan, K. (2016).
Investigating attitudes towards the use of mobile learning in higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.
Almalki, S. (2016). Integrating quantitative and qualita- tive data in mixed methods research–challenges and benefits. Journal of Education and Learning, 5(3), 288–296. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v5n3p288
Alzaidiyeen, N. J. (2017). English as a foreign language students attitudes towards the utilization of iPad in language learning. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5(3), 16–24. https://files.eric. ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1150412.pdf
Ashrafganjoe, M., Rezai, M. J., & Elhambakhsh, S. E. (2022). Providing computer-based feedback through
Grammarly® in writing classes. Journal of Language and Translation, 12(2), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.
Bai, L., & Hu, G. (2017). In the face of fallible AWE feed- back: How do students respond? Educational Psychology, 37(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Barrot, J. S. (2021). Using automated written corrective feedback in the writing classrooms: Effects on L2 writing accuracy. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1936071
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written cor- rective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jslw.2007.11.004
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In
H. Cooper (Ed.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, 2 (pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association.
Caveleri, M., & Dianati, S. (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. http://www.journal.aall.org.au/index.php/ jall/article/view/393/246
Chiu, T. K., & Churchill, D. (2015). Adoption of mobile devices in teaching: Changes in teacher beliefs, atti- tudes and anxiety. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.
Creswell, J. W., & Guetterman, T. C. (2021). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quan- titative and qualitative research (6th) ed.). Pearson.
Dembsey, J. M. (2017). Closing the Grammarly gaps:
A study of claims and feedback from an online grammar program. The Writing Center Journal, 36(1), 63–100. https://doi.org/10.7771/2832-9414.1815
Dikli, S. (2010). The nature of automated essay feedback.
CALICO Journal, 28(1), 99–134. https://doi.org/10. 11139/cj.28.1.99-134
Fahmi, M. A., & Cahyono, B. Y. (2021). EFL students’ per- ception on the use of Grammarly and teacher feed- back. JEES (Journal of English Educators Society), 6(1), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.21070/jees.v6i1.849
Farjadnasab, A. H., & Khodashenas, M. R. (2017). The effect of written corrective feedback on EFL students’ writing accuracy. International Journal of Research in English Education. https://www.sid.ir/paper/349625/en
Fitriana, K., & Nurazni, L. (2022). Exploring students’ per- ception of using Grammarly to check grammar in their writing. JET (Journal of English Teaching), 8(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.33541/jet.v8i1.3044
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–
371. https://doi.org/10.22460/project.v5i2.p366-371 Gao, H. (2022). Application of Iwrite English writing teaching
and appraising system in college English teaching.
International Journal of Social Sciences in Universities, 5 (3), 255–256. http://www.acadpubl.com/Papers/Vol% 205,%20No%203%20(IJSSU%202022).pdf#page=263
Ghufron, M. A., & Rosyida, F. (2018). The role of Grammarly in assessing English as a foreign lan- guage (EFL) writing. Lingua Cultura, 12(4), 395–403. https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v12i4.4582
Golzar, J. (2019). Educational technology use at Afghan public universities: A study of technology integration (Unpublished master’s thesis). Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
González-Sanmamed, M., Sangrà, A., & Muñoz-Carril, P. C. (2017). We can, we know how. But do we want to? Teaching attitudes towards ICT based on the level of technology integration in schools. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(5), 633–647. https://doi. org/10.1080/1475939X.2017.1313775
Grammarly. (2021 August) https://support.grammarly.com/ hc/en-us/articles/115000090792-What-is-Grammarly- Hartati, H., & Andriani, D. (2022). Using Juxtaposing pic- ture in improving students’writing ability in descrip-
tive text at the eight grade Of SMPN 45 Merangin academic year 2020/2021. Selecting, 5(5), 83–87. http://journal.stkipypmbangko.ac.id/index.php/ Selecting/article/download/786/512
Hoang, G. T. L., & Kunnan, A. J. (2016). Automated essay evaluation for English language learners: A case study of MY Access. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(4), 359–
376. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2016.1230121
Hoffmann, M. M., & Ramirez, A. Y. (2018). Students’ atti- tudes toward teacher use of technology in
classrooms. Multicultural Education, 25(2), 51–56. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1181619.pdf
Jamalinesari, A., Rahimi, F., Gowhary, H., & Azizifar, A. (2015). The effects of teacher-written direct vs. indirect feedback on students’ writing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 116–123. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.018
Jami, M. Q. (2020). An exploratory study of integrating social networks into academic writing classrooms at Afghanistan universities. Master’s thesis, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Kisnanto, Y. P. (2016). The effect of written corrective feedback on higher education students’ writing accuracy. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Bahasa, 16(2). http:// dx.doi.org/10.17509/bs_jpbsp.v16i2.4476
Lailika, H. I. (2019). Students’ perception of the use of Grammarly as an online grammar checker in thesis writing. Digilib UIN Sunan Ampel.
Liao, H. C. (2015). Using automated writing evaluation to reduce grammar errors in writing. ELT Journal, 70(3), 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv058
Liao, H. (2016). Enhancing the grammatical accuracy of EFL writing by using an AWE-assisted process approach. System, 62, 77–92. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.system.2016.02.007
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.
Long, R. (2022). Online grammar checkers versus
self-editing: An investigation of error correction rates and writing quality. Journal of Nusantara Studies (JONUS), 7(1), 441–458. https://doi.org/10.24200/ jonus.vol7iss1pp441-458
Mauricio, M. C., & Genuino, C. F. (2020). Writing perfor- mance and attitude of ESL learners engaged in smartphone assisted collaborative activity. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 13(2), 445–468. https://files.eric. ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1258661.pdf
Miranty, D., Widiati, U., Cahyono, B. Y., & Sharif, T. I. S. T. (2021, December). The effectiveness of using gram- marly in teaching writing among indonesian under- graduate EFL students. In International seminar on language, education, and culture (ISoLEC 2021) (pp. 41–45 doi:). Atlantis Press.
Mohebi, L. (2021). Theoretical models of integration of interactive learning technologies into teaching:
A systematic literature review. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 20(12). https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.12.14
Njiku, J. (2022). Attitude and technological pedagogical and content knowledge: The reciprocal predictors? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2022.2089409
Njiku, J., Maniraho, J. F., & Mutarutinya, V. (2019).
Understanding teachers’ attitude towards computer technology integration in education: A review of litera- ture. Education and Information Technologies, 24(5), 3041–3052. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-
Nova, M. (2018). Utilizing Grammarly in evaluating academic writing: A narrative research on EFL students’ experi- ence. Premise: Journal of English Education and Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 80–97. https://doi.org/10.24127/pj.v7i1
Nova, M., & Lukmana, I. (2018). The detected and unde- tected errors in automated writing evaluation pro- gram’s result. English Language and Literature International Conference, 7(2), 120–126. https://jur nal.unimus.ac.id/index.php/ELLIC/article/view/3501
O’Neill, R., & Russell, A. M. T. (2019). Stop! grammar time: university students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program grammarly. Australasian Journal of Technology, 35(1). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3795
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. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12214a
Perdana, I., & Farida, M. (2019). Online grammar checkers and their use for EFL writing. Journal of English Teaching, Applied Linguistics and Literatures (JETALL), 2(2), 67–76. https://doi.org/ 10.20527/jetall.v2i2.7332
Pratama, Y. D. (2020). The investigation of using Grammarly as online grammar checker in the pro- cess of writing. English Ideas: Journal of English Language Education, 1(1), 46–54. https://journal. unsika.ac.id/index.php/IDEAS/article/view/4180
Rafique, A. (2022). A study on effectiveness of ICT inte- gration in colleges: Teaching and learning with technology. Shaping the Next Normal: Rebound Reimagine, Reinnovate, Rearchitect, 124 .
Rao, M., Gain, A., & Bhat, S. (2019). Usage of Grammarly – online grammar and spelling checker tool at the health Sciences Library, Manipal academy of higher education, Manipal: A study. Library Philosophy and Practice (Ejournal), 2610. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphil prac/2610
Rheu, M. (2020). Attitude. The International Encyclopedia of Media Psychology, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/ 9781119011071.iemp0181
Saori, S. (2022). The students’writing improvement through English movies watching reports. JOEL: Journal of Educational and Language Research, 1(12), 2127–2132. https://www.bajangjournal.com/index. php/JOEL/article/view/3017
Shin, D., Kwon, S. K., & Lee, Y. (2021). The effect of using online language-support resources on L2 writing performance. Language Testing in Asia, 11(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10. 1186/s40468-021-00119-4
Sotiloye, B., Bodunde, H., Adebiyi, A., & Aduradola, R. (2016, July). Teachers and students’ perception of mobile technology in teaching and learning. In 3rd European Conference on Social M di R h Media Research EM Normandie, Caen, France (p. 379).
Tian, L., & Zhou, Y. (2020). Learner engagement with automated feedback, peer feedback and teacher feedback in an online EFL writing context. System, 91, 102247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102247
Verešová, M., & Malá, D. (2016). Attitude toward school and learning and academic achievement of adolescents. In 7th International Conference on Education and Educational Psychology, Published by Future Academy.
Watson, S. L., Ann, M., Alamri, H., & Watson, W. R. (2020). Preservice teachers’ technology integration attitude change in a course implementing digital badges. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(1), 89–116. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/211054/
Zhang, Z., & Hyland, K. (2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing.
Assessing Writing, 36, 90–102. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.asw.2018.02.004
Zhang, J., & Zhang, L. (2020). Computer simulation research of desk design based on ABC attitude theory. Journal of Physics. Conference Series, 1578(1), 012075. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/ 1742-6596/1578/1/012075/meta
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.001
Appendix A. Questionnaire Based on ABC Model of Attitude
This questionnaire aims to examine EFL students’ attitudes toward teachers’ Grammarly deploy- ment in academic writing classrooms. Thank you for taking the time to fill out this survey. Please provide the best response you can to each question. Your sincerity and attention would be immensely appreciated. Your personal information, such as your name or ID number, will never be linked to your replies. Your answers will be kept confidential.
Are you willing to participate in this study? Yes No
Are you an English student at . . . ” Public Universities Private Language Schools What is your gender? Male Female
What is your English level of proficiency? Intermediate Advanced
Statements | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree |
I am satisfied with the feedback Grammarly provides. | |||||
I feel that Grammarly’s feedback is good for developing writing skills. | |||||
I prefer Grammarly feedback to other kinds of feedback, even if Grammarly seems to be complicated due to its in- detail feedback. | |||||
I want teachers to keep providing feedback through Grammarly in my classroom. | |||||
I think Grammarly helps students to become autonomous. | |||||
In my opinion, Grammarly boosts students’ self-confidence in writing. | |||||
I like the way Grammarly provides in- detail feedback. | |||||
I will follow Grammarly feedback to enhance my writing skills. | |||||
I prefer automated written corrective feedback (Grammarly) to direct or indirect feedback. | |||||
From my point of view, Grammarly is adequate for students with different levels. | |||||
I think that Grammarly is a good assistant for a writer. | |||||
Considering all aspects of Grammarly, I am very happy with Grammarly utilization in writing classrooms. |
Appendix B. Interview Questions Based on ABC Model of Attitude
Interview Questions Students Attitudes
Would you mind if I recorded your voice?
Would you introduce yourself? (Name, Age, Gender, and Year of Schooling/English Class) Are you a student at Public Universities or Private Language Schools?
Affective
Do you feel satisfied with the feedback Grammarly provides? Why? Which parts?
Do you feel that Grammarly’s feedback is good at developing writing skills? How?
How has your teacher deployed Grammarly in your writing class? Did you like the way the teacher used it?
Behavioral
Do you prefer Grammarly feedback to other kinds of feedback? Why? Why not?
I want teachers to keep providing feedback through Grammarly in my classroom.
Has Grammarly deployment enhanced any specific part of your writing? Mention some instances with a brief explanation.
Cognitive
From my point of view, is Grammarly adequate for students with different levels?
Do you think that Grammarly is a good assistant for a writer? Why?
From your point of view, what are the writing areas that Grammarly really develops?
What are the downsides of Grammarly, from your point of view?
Do you have anything else to share that we did not discuss or talk about throughout the interview?
Appendix C. Interview Questions Based on ABC Model of Attitude
Interview Questions Teachers’ Attitudes
Full Name:
Age:
Years of using Grammarly in writing Classes:
Affective
How do you feel when you use Grammarly in your writing classes?
Do you feel that using Grammarly helps in developing students’ writing skills? If yes, how? If not, why?
What are the tensions if any when using Grammarly?
Behavioral
Does Grammarly alter your teaching methodology in your writing classes? If yes, how? Explain, please!
Does Grammarly have any effect on how to provide feedback? If yes, how? Explain with clear instances!
Which parts of Grammarly do you use and consider the most in your writing classes? Why?
Cognitive
From your point of view, what are the barriers of using Grammarly?
Which parts of Grammarly are more useful in developing students writing skills?
What do you think of using Grammarly in writing classes?
What are the cognitive affordances (Pros and Cons) of using Grammarly?
© 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
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. No additional restrictions
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Immediate, universal access to your article on publication
High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online
Download and citation statistics for your article
Rapid online publication
Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards
Retention of full copyright of your article
Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article
Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions
Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com