Which helps me better? Students’ reasons of using online grammar-checking tools in academic writing
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.28918/erudita.v5i1.10166Abstract
Recent studies have mainly focused on the student’s perceptions and the effectiveness of online grammar-checking tools during the academic writing process. The concerns related to the kind of online grammar checkers and reasons for using the tools also need to be taken into attention. This present research aims to answer the research questions which are (1) What online grammar-checking tools do students use to correct grammar in academic writing, and (2) What are the reasons behind students’ use of online grammar-checking tools in academic writing. Data were collected by face-to-face interviewing 9 students who were purposefully selected using online grammar checkers during their article writing process. The research findings revealed that (1) Online grammar checkers used by students to correct grammar in academic writing are Grammarly, QuillBot, Sider AI, and Google Docs Automatic Correction, (2) There are four reasons behind students’ use of online grammar checkers in academic writing; offering convenience and time-saving, improving accuracy and readability, helping students in the process of editing & revising the draft, and to learn and improve grammar skills. It is recommended, however, that students should manually review and correct for missed grammatical errors considering that online grammar checkers are not perfect.
Keywords:
References
Alkamillah, M. (2020). Grammatical analysis of fifth semester students essay on Microsoft Office Grammar Checker 2013. Proceedings of International Conference on The Teaching of English and Literature, 1(1) (pp. 46–50). http://ejournal.karinosseff.org/index.php/icotel/article/download/76/69/627
Ariyanti, A., & Anam, S. (2021). Technology-enhanced paraphrasing tool to improve EFL students’ writing achievement and enjoyment. Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics, 6(3), 715–726. https://doi.org/10.21462/jeltl.v6i3.698
Barrot, J. S. (2022). Integrating technology into ESL/EFL writing through grammarly. RELC Journal, 53(3), 764–768. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220966632
Chin, P. (2012). Academic writing skills : Student’s book 1. 122.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage
Cushing, I., & Helks, M. (2021). Exploring primary and secondary students’ experiences of grammar teaching and testing in England. English in Education, 55(3), 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/04250494.2021.1898282
Dale, R. (2020). Natural language generation: The commercial state of the art in 2020. Natural Language Engineering, 26(4), 481–487. https://doi.org/10.1017/S135132492000025X
Dale, R. (2021). GPT-3: What’s it good for? Natural Language Engineering, 27(1), 113–118. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1351324920000601
Escalante, J., Pack, A., & Barrett, A. (2023). AI-generated feedback on writing: Insights into efficacy and ENL student preference. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00425-2
Faisal, F., & Carabella, P. A. (2023). Utilizing grammarly in an academic writing process: Higher-education students’ perceived views. Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics, 8(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.21462/jeltl.v8i1.1006
Gain, A., Rao, M., & Bhat, K. 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, 2019.
Harrer, S. (2023). Attention is not all you need: The complicated case of ethically using large language models in healthcare and medicine. EBioMedicine, 90, 104512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2023.104512
John, P., & Woll, N. (2020). Using grammar checkers in an ESL context: An investigation of automatic corrective feedback. CALICO Journal, 37(2), 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.36523
Kartepe, B. N., & Atmaca, C. (2024). The effects of using Google Docs on writing skills of turkish EFL learners. Journal of Language Education and Research, 10(1), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.31464/jlere.1393853
Khabib, S. (2022). Introducing artificial intelligence (AI)-based digital writing assistants for teachers in writing scientific articles. Teaching English As a Foreign Language Journal, 1(2), 114–124. https://doi.org/10.12928/tefl.v1i2.249
Klare, G. R. (2000). The measurement of readability: useful information for communicators. ACM J. Comput. Doc., 24(3), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1145/344599.344630
Kurniati, E. Y., & Fithriani, R. (2022). Post-graduate students’ perceptions of QuillBot utilization in English academic writing class. Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics, 7(3), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.21462/jeltl.v7i3.852
Lailika, H. I. (2019). Students’ perceptions of the use of Grammarly as an online grammar checker in thesis writing. [Master’s thesis, Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Ampel Surabaya]. Digilib Universitas Islam Negeri Surabaya. http://digilib.uinsa.ac.id/id/eprint/34607
Lim, F. V., & Phua, J. (2019). Teaching writing with language feedback technology. Computers and Composition, 54, 102518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2019.102518
Lin, L. H. F., & Morrison, B. (2021). Challenges in academic writing: Perspectives of Engineering faculty and L2 postgraduate research students. English for Specific Purposes, 63, 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.03.004
McCarthy, K. S., Roscoe, R. D., Allen, L. K., Likens, A. D., & McNamara, D. S. (2022). Automated writing evaluation: Does spelling and grammar feedback support high-quality writing and revision? Assessing Writing, 52(February 2021), 100608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2022.100608
Nazari, N., Shabbir, M. S., & Setiawan, R. (2021). Application of artificial intelligence powered digital writing assistant in higher education: Randomized controlled trial. Heliyon, 7(5), e07014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07014
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. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3795
Park, J. (2019). An AI-based English grammar checker vs. human raters in evaluating efl learners’ writing. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 22(1), 112–131. http://journal.kamall.or.kr/wp-content/uploads/2019/3/Park_22_1_04.pdfhttp://www.kamall.or.kr
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), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.20527/jetall.v2i2.7332
Perdana, I., Manullang, S. O., & Masri, F. A. (2021). Effectiveness of online Grammarly application in improving academic writing: Review of experts experience. International Journal of Social Sciences, 4(1), 122–130. https://doi.org/10.31295/ijss.v4n1.1444
Rahma, M., & Zen, E. L. (2023). Errors in students’ writing (Reports from prowritingaid). SCOPE: Journal of English Language Teaching, 7(2), 202–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.30998/scope.v7i2.15528
Rejeki, S. (2023). Students’ perceived knowledge of using Grammarly application in academic writing (Issue 21210140000002) [Master’s thesis, Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University]. UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta Repository. https://repository.uinjkt.ac.id/dspace/handle/123456789/73691
Simanjuntak, M. B., Lustyantie, N., & Iskandar, I. (2022). Pembelajaran berbasis Telegram group dan Microsoft Team di kelas bahasa Inggris (Penilaian berbasis persepsi siswa) [Telegram group and Microsoft Team-based learning in English classes (Student perception-based assessment)]. Jurnal Pendidikan Tambusai, 6(2), 11114–11119. https://doi.org/10.31004/jptam.v6i2.4199
Syahnaz, M., & Fithriani, R. (2023). Utilizing artificial intelligence-based paraphrasing tool in EFL writing class: A focus on Indonesian university students’ perceptions. SCOPE: Journal of English Language Teaching, 7(2), 210–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.30998/scope.v7i2.14882
Downloads
Published
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Anindya Alfianofita
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Erudita: Journal of English Language Teaching is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. An author who publishes in Erudita: Journal of English Language Teaching agrees to the following terms:
- Author retains the copyright and grants the journal the right of first publication of the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal
- Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal’s published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book) with the acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Author is permitted and encouraged to post his/her work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of the published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
