Providing Computer-Based Feedback through Grammarly® in Writing Classes
محورهای موضوعی : نشریه زبان و ترجمهمحسن اشرف گنجویی 1 , Mohammad Javad Rezai 2 , Seyedeh Elham Elhambakhsh 3
1 - English Department, Maybod Branch, Islamic Azad University, Maybod, Iran
2 - English Department, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran
3 - English Department, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran
کلید واژه: Corrective feedback, Noticing, writing skill, Grammarly®,
چکیده مقاله :
This study aimed at evaluating the impact of Grammarly® software as a new technology-based immediate corrective feedback on improving EFL learners’ writing achievements. To this end, 40 sophomore Iranian EFL students from Islamic Azad University, Kerman Branch, were selected. Before initiating the 15-session treatment, a pretest including 20 questions based on four different variables such as definite and indefinite articles, punctuations, passive voice, and correct spelling was administered. The participants were randomly divided into control and experimental groups. At the end of the treatment and based on the principles of noticing hypothesis, a posttest was administered to evaluate the impact of each intervention on the final writing skill in each group. Employing the independent samples t-test, the data analysis revealed that there was a significant relationship between the use of Grammarly® software and learners’ writing achievement in each of the four writing skills variables. The experimental group outperformed the control group. In addition, the results indicated that utilizing Grammarly® software had a positive effect on EFL learners’ attitudes. The pedagogical implications of this study are that both teachers and students should learn to employ different technology-based applications to improve language learning.
این مطالعه با هدف ارزیابی تأثیر نرم افزار Grammarly® به عنوان یک بازخورد اصلاحی فوری مبتنی بر فناوری جدید در بهبود دستاوردهای نوشتاری زبان آموزان زبان انگلیسی انجام شد. بدین منظور 40 نفر از دانشجویان ایرانی EFL سال دوم دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد کرمان انتخاب شدند. قبل از شروع درمان 15 جلسه ای، یک پیش آزمون شامل 20 سوال بر اساس چهار متغیر مختلف از جمله معین و نامعین، علائم نگارشی، صدای غیرفعال و املای صحیح اجرا شد. شرکت کنندگان به طور تصادفی به دو گروه کنترل و آزمایش تقسیم شدند. در پایان درمان و بر اساس اصول توجه به فرضیه، پس آزمون برای ارزیابی تأثیر هر مداخله بر مهارت نوشتاری نهایی در هر گروه اجرا شد. با استفاده از آزمون t نمونه های مستقل، تجزیه و تحلیل داده ها نشان داد که بین استفاده از نرم افزار Grammarly® و پیشرفت نوشتاری زبان آموزان در هر یک از چهار متغیر مهارت نوشتاری رابطه معناداری وجود دارد. گروه آزمایش بهتر از گروه کنترل عمل کرد. علاوه بر این، نتایج نشان داد که استفاده از نرم افزار Grammarly® تأثیر مثبتی بر نگرش زبان آموزان زبان انگلیسی دارد. پیامدهای آموزشی این مطالعه این است که هم معلمان و هم دانش آموزان باید یاد بگیرند که از برنامه های کاربردی مختلف مبتنی بر فناوری برای بهبود یادگیری زبان استفاده کنند
Ahmadi, M. A. (2018). The use of technology in English language learning. International Journal of Research in English Education, 3(2), 115-125.
Al Shekaili, B. (2016). Investigating teachers’ actual levels of use of WhatsApp application with English foundation and credit program students at Sultan Qaboos University in Oman. Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 4(1), 39-48.
Aleek, A. O. (2016). Analyzing recent research in computer-mediated corrective feedback from the period 2008-2014. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 5(1), 178-191.
Arifah, A. (2014). Study on the use of technology in ELT classroom: Teachers’ perspective. M.A. Thesis, Department of English and Humanities, BRAC University, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Bailey, D., & Lee, A. R. (2020). An exploratory study of Grammarly in the language learning context: An analysis of test-based, textbook-based, and Facebook corpora. TESOL International Journal, 15(2), 427.
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.
Bikowski, D. (2018). Technology for teaching grammar. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching. DOI: 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0441
Chapelle, C. A., Cotos, E., & Lee, J. (2015). Validity arguments for the diagnostic assessment using automated writing evaluation. Language. Testing, 32(3), 385–405.
Chirimbu, S., & Tafazoli, D. (2013). Technology & media: Applications in language classrooms (TEFL, TESL & TESOL). Professional Communication and Translation Studies, 6(1-2), 187-194.
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3- 18.
Enayati, F., & Gilakjani, A. (2020). The impact of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) on improving intermediate EFL learners’ vocabulary learning. International Journal of Language Education, 4(1), 96-112.
Geist, M. (2017). Noticing grammar in L2 writing and problem-solving. strategies. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 471-487. DOI: 10.14746/ssllt.2017.7.3.6
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.
Ghanizadeh, A., & Razavi, A. (2015). The impact of using multimedia in English high school classes on students’ language achievement and goal orientation. International Journal of Research Studies in Educational Technology, 4(2), 31-42.
Ghufron, M. A., & Rosyida, F. (2018). The role of Grammarly in assessing English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing. Lingua Cultura, 12(4), 395-403.
Gilakjani, A., & Sabouri, N. B. (2017). Advantages of using the computer in teaching English pronunciation. International Journal of Research in English Education (IJREE), 2(3), 78-85.
Hanaoka, O., & Izumi, S. (2012). Noticing and uptake: Addressing pre-articulated covert problems in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 332-347.
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.
Huang, H. W., Li, Z., & Taylor, L. (2020). The effectiveness of using Grammarly to improve students’ writing skills. Proceedings of the International Conference on Distance Education and Learning, 5, 122-127. 10. DOI: 10.30595/jssh.v2i1.2297.
Karyuatry, L. (2018). Grammarly as a tool to improve students’ writing quality: Free online proofreader across the boundaries. Jurnal Sains Sosial dan Humaniora, 2(1), 83.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & B. K. Bahtia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (2017). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: research, theory, applications, implications (p. 14). New York; London: Routledge.
Park, J. (2020). Implications of AI-based grammar checker in EFL learning and testing: Korean high school students' writing (Master’s thesis, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea), Retrieved from http://scholar.dkyobobook.co.kr/searchDetail.laf?barcode=401002748542.
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.
Parra, L. G., & Calero, X. S. (2019). Automated writing evaluation tools for 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 skills: An analysis. International Journal of Advancements in Research & Technology, 2(7). 1-28.
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.
Rao, P. S. (2017). The characteristics of effective writing skills in English language teaching. Research Journal of English, 2(2), 75-86.
Rao, P. S. (2019). The advantages of mobile apps for young learners in EFL/ESL Classrooms. Research Journal of English, 4(4), 191-207.
Salehi, H., & Amiri, B. (2019). Impacts of using Microsoft Word (MS) software on Iranian EFL lecturers’ grammar knowledge. International Journal of Research in English Education, 4(1), 1-10.
Schmidt, R. (1994). Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: of artificial grammars and SLA. In Ellis, N.C., (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages. London: Academic Press.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 34-36, 82). Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R. (2010). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In W. M. Chan, S. Chi, K. N. Cin, J. Istanto, M. Nagami, J. W. Sew, T. Suthiwan, & I. Walker, Proceedings of CLaSIC 2010 (pp. 721-737). Singapore: the National University of Singapore, Centre for Language Studies.
Seiffedin, A.H., & El-Sakka, S.M. (2017). The impact of direct-indirect corrective E-feedback on EFL students’ writing accuracy. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(3), 166-175.
Ünlü, A. (2015). How alert should I be to learn a language? The noticing hypothesis and its implications for language teaching. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 261-267.
