Computer-based Feedback through Grammarly: Impact on Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners’ Writing Skills and Attitudes
محورهای موضوعی : نشریه زبان و ترجمه
Mohden Ashrafganjoe
1
(English Department, Maybod Branch, Islamic Azad University, Maybod, Iran)
Mohammad Javad Rezai
2
(English Department, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran)
Seyede Elham Elhambakhsh
3
(English Department, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran)
کلید واژه: Computer-based Feedback, Grammarly®, software, L2 Writing Skills, Teacher Feedback, Writing Attitudes,
چکیده مقاله :
Abstract The present study was an attempt to investigate the effects of computer-based feedback through Grammarly® on the L2 writing skills and writing attitudes of Iranian EFL learners. Forty lower intermediate and 40 upper intermediate level male and female learners with the age range of 20 to 26 studying TEFL were chosen through a standard version of OQPT as the homogeneity test. These participants represented the two experimental sub-groups namely, Grammarly® Correction Group (GCG) and the Teacher-Correction Group (TCG). To apply the treatment, the subjects in the GCG were asked to develop eight writing tasks all in 150-190 words during the treatment using the Grammarly® software. However, in TCG, the teacher himself provided feedback and assessed the students’ process of learning. Following intervention sessions, the writing posttest was run to measure the learners’ ability in L2 writing skills. Employing two sets of Two-way analysis of covariance (Two-way ANCOVA) and a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA), the learners' attitude towards Grammarly ® by proficiency levels was collected and then a thematic analysis was conducted to analyze the interview data. The findings of the present investigation revealed Grammarly® software had a positive and significant effect on improvement of the EFL learners’ writing skills. Moreover, the results showed that the participants had a positive attitude after taking the instruction based on Grammarly® software. The findings have implications for EFL classroom.
Abstract The present study was an attempt to investigate the effects of computer-based feedback through Grammarly® on the L2 writing skills and writing attitudes of Iranian EFL learners. Forty lower intermediate and 40 upper intermediate level male and female learners with the age range of 20 to 26 studying TEFL were chosen through a standard version of OQPT as the homogeneity test. These participants represented the two experimental sub-groups namely, Grammarly® Correction Group (GCG) and the Teacher-Correction Group (TCG). To apply the treatment, the subjects in the GCG were asked to develop eight writing tasks all in 150-190 words during the treatment using the Grammarly® software. However, in TCG, the teacher himself provided feedback and assessed the students’ process of learning. Following intervention sessions, the writing posttest was run to measure the learners’ ability in L2 writing skills. Employing two sets of Two-way analysis of covariance (Two-way ANCOVA) and a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA), the learners' attitude towards Grammarly ® by proficiency levels was collected and then a thematic analysis was conducted to analyze the interview data. The findings of the present investigation revealed Grammarly® software had a positive and significant effect on improvement of the EFL learners’ writing skills. Moreover, the results showed that the participants had a positive attitude after taking the instruction based on Grammarly® software. The findings have implications for EFL classroom.
Ahmadi, M. A. (2018). The use of technology in English language learning. International Journal of Research in English Education, 3(2), 115-125.
Alipour, F., Fathi, J., & Saeedian, A. (2019). Enhancing vocabulary learning and self-regulation via a mobile application: An investigation of the Memrise App. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies 5(1), 27-46.
Amrhein, H.R., & Nssaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers prefer and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 95-127.
Belali, J., & Sadeghi, K. (2019). The role of corrective feedback timing in task engagement and oral performance. Applied Research on English Language, 9(2), 229-252.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(1). 34.
Brockbank, A., & McGill, I. (1998). Facilitating reflecting learning in higher education, Buckingham, England: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Chirimbu, S., & Tafazoli, D. (2013). Technology & media: Applications in language classrooms (TEFL, TESL & TESOL). Professional Communication and Translation Studies, 6(1-2), 187-194.
Cheng, G. (2017). The impact of online automated feedback on students' reflective journal writing in an EFL course. The Internet and Higher Education, 34, 18–27.
Creswell, J. W., & Hirose, M. (2019). Mixed methods and survey research in family medicine and community health. Family Medicine and Community Health, 7(2), 1-6.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.
Dikli, S., & Bleyle, S. (2014). Automated Essay Scoring feedback for second language writers: How does it compare to instructor feedback? Assessing Writing, 22, 1–17.
El Ebyary, K., & Windeatt, S. (2010). The impact of computer-based feedback on students’ written work. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 121-142.
Esfahani, F., Hashemifardnia, A., & Namaziandost, E. (2018). The effect of using WhatsApp on Iranian EFL learners’ vocabulary learning. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 5(3), 256-267.
Ellis, R. (2009b). A typology of written corrective feedback. English Language Teaching, 66, 97-107. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccn023.
Ghahari, SH., Piruznejad, M. (2016). Recast and explicit feedback to young language learners: impacts on grammar uptake and willingness to communicate. Issues in Language Teaching (ILT),5(2), 187-209.
Ghafoori, B., Dastgoshadeh, A., Aminpanah, A., & Ziaei, S. (2016). The effect of CALL on Iranian EFL learners’ grammar of writing. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 12(3), 14-23.
Ghufron, M. A., & Rosyida, F. (2018). The role of Grammarly in assessing English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing. Lingua Cultural, 12(4), 395-403.
Gulley, D. S. (2003). Grammarly® software glosses and their effect on L2 text comprehension and vocabulary learning. Language learning & Technology, 13(2), 48-67.
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
Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-10.
Hazarika, Z. (2017). Exploring the impact of technology in teaching English: TESOL In the context. European Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 5(10), 19-28.
Jahangard, A., Rahimi, A., Norouzizadeh, M. (2020). Students’ attitudes towards computer-assisted language learning and its effect on their EFL writing. International Journal of Learning and Teaching. 12(3), 14-22.
Jean, G., & Simard, D. (2011) Grammar learning in English and French L2: Students’ and teachers’ beliefs and perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 44(3), 465-492.
Kang, T. (2021). The effect of using technology in l2 listening: A meta-analysis of studies from 1980 to 2020. In V. Turel (Ed.), Design solutions for adaptive hypermedia listening software (pp. 1-30). IGI Global.
Kia Heirati, J., & Ahmadi Alashti, L. (2015). Attitudes toward using the Internet for language learning: A case of Iranian English teachers and learners. International Journal of Research Studies in Educational Technology, 4(1), 63-78.
Lenkaitis, C. A. (2020). Valuing technology in the L2 classroom: Student and teacher perceptions, preferences, and digital identity. In M. Kalantzis & B. Cope (Eds.), Handbook of research on digital learning (pp. 173-189). IGI Global.
Li, S. (2018). What is the ideal time to provide corrective feedback? replication of li, Zhu & Ellis (2016) and Arroyo & Vilmaz (2018). Language Teaching, 53(1), 1-13.
Marzban, A., Mojtahedzadeh, S.S. (2014). Collaborative negotiated feedback versus teacher-written feedback: impact on Iranian intermediate EFL learners‟ writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(2), 293-302.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2016). Merriam-Webster, Inc.: New York, NY, USA.
Motallebzadeh, K., & Nematizadeh, S. (2011). Does gender play a role in the assessment of oral proficiency? English Language Teaching, 4(4), 165-172.
O’Neill, R., & Russell, A. M. T. (2019). Stop! Grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Grammarly. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1), 42-56.
Parra G., L., & Calero S., X. (2019). Automated writing evaluation tools in the improvement of writing skills. International Journal of Instruction, 12(2), 209-226.
Patel, C. (2013). Use of multimedia technology in teaching and learning communication skill: An analysis. International Journal of Advancements in Research & Technology, 2(7), 116-123.
Paulus, M., T. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 256-289.
Perelman, L. (2017). Automated essay scoring and NAPLAN: A summary report. Retrieved from https://www.nswtf.org.au/files/automated_essay_scoring_and_naplan.pdf.
Rafanello, D. (2008). Writing well: It’s all about attitude. Professional Writing, 2(3), 58-60.
Ruetten, M. K. (2003). Developing composition skills: Rhetoric and grammar. Boston, Heinle.
Qassemzadeh, A., & Soleimani, H. (2016). The impact of feedback provision by Grammarly software and teachers on learning passive structures by Iranian EFL learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(9), 1884-1894.
Sahragard, R., & Sadri, M. (2009). On the relationship between multiple intelligences, vocabulary learning knowledge, and vocabulary learning strategies among the Iranian EFL learners. The Iranian EFL Journal Quarterly, 3(82), p.18.
Schachter J, (1991). Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Interlanguage studies bulletin, 7(2), 89-102.
Schraudner, M. (2013). The online teacher’s assistant: Using automated correction programs to supplement learning and lesson planning. Taiwan: Asia University.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283.
Shokrpour, N., Fallahzadeh, M.H. (2007). A Survey of the Students and Interns EFL Writing Problems in Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. The Asian EFL Journal, 9(1), 147-163.
Sormunen, M. (2014). Opinions about EFL grammar learning and teaching: A study of Finnish upper-secondary-school students. Master’s Thesis, University of Jyväskylä.
Thornbury, S. (1999). How to teach grammar. Harlow, Pearson Education.
Zhang, Z., & Hyland, K. (2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36(1), 90-102.
