Grammarly Literature Review

Student

Institution

Course

Instructor

Date
 2

Keywords

The second language (L2), Automatic Writing Evaluation (AWE)

Introduction

While the use of Automatic Writing Evaluation (AWE) in testing is currently

controversial, the time-saving benefits of computer-generated feedback are undeniable.

Grammarly's accuracy improves year after year, and Professors of language discuss whether or

not students should be allowed to use it to improve their L2 writing. AWE algorithms are

analogous to instructor corrections in terms of detecting errors. Writing quality and engagement

can both benefit from AWE programs (Gauthier, 2013). This increase in precision is followed

by a boost in enthusiasm and self-assurance (Potter & Fuller, 2008). Grammarly's corrected

feedback is preferred by students, especially when accompanied by a human rater (O'Neill &

Russell, 2019).

Literature review

Grammar is a cloud-based writer who examines errors in orthodoxy, grammar,

punctuation, clarity, commitment, and performance. It uses AI to discover and find a suitable

substitute for the error it identifies. It also enables users to personalize their unique style, tone,

and context. Alex Shevchenko, Max Lytvyn, and Dmytro Lider founded the project in 2009.

Automatic Writing Evaluation

With Grammarly, L2 learners can get feedback on language and content as well as

automatic scores. According to Anson (2006) and Dikli (2010), AWE research has shown

benefits to writing accuracy. The use of automatic corrective feedback during classes sessions is

supported by Zhang & Hyland's (2018) study. It's still used to judge linguistic precision (Li et
 3

al., 2015. They discovered that using automatic writing evaluation tools boosted the number of

revisions and the accuracy of the work. According to Li et al. (2015), asking learners to reach a

specific AWE score boosted their writing engagement and motivation.

Grammarly also stops children from using language learning tactics like researching

unfamiliar words or seeking help. The comprehensible output hypothesis holds that what

students do when pushed contributes to language acquisition (Swain, 2000). Language

development involves clarifying meaning when writing, although this requires less cognitive

involvement with AWE. Student time spent seeking up words or debating feedback with more

informed peers is reduced.

Conclusion

Grammarly's usefulness for students with varying L2 competence levels is still debated.

Negotiating feedback supplied in L2 requires a specific level of expertise, but that proficiency is

unclear. Stronger writers may benefit more from Grammarly's systems than weaker authors since

they better grasp the target language's communicative and rhetorical features. Dikli (2010) states

that some AWEs are too compelling for low-performance authors since they have little expertise

or knowledge of basic metacognitive materials (Liao, 2016) (Caveleri & Dianati, 2016; Hoang &

Kunnan, 2016).
 4

References

Anson, C. (2006). Can't touch this: Reflections on the servitude of computers as readers. In PF

Ericsson, R Haswell (eds), Machine scoring of human essays (pp. 38–56). Logan, UT:

Utah State University Press.

Cavaleri, 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. Retrieved from

https://journal.aall.org.au/index.php/jall/issue/view/22

Dikli, S. (2010). The nature of automated essay feedback. CALICO Journal, 28(1), 99-134.

Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/calicojournal.28.1.99

Gauthier, M. (2013). Anglophone high school boys" engagement and achievement in editing

their French writing using the Bon Patron Pro. Journal of Classroom Research in

Literacy, 6, 24-35. Retrieved from

https://jcrl.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/jcrl/article/view/16093

Gauthier, M. (2013). Anglophone high school boys" engagement and achievement in editing

their French writing using the Bon Patron Pro. Journal of Classroom Research in

Literacy, 6, 24-35. Retrieved from

https://jcrl.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/jcrl/article/view/16093

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
 5

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),

1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.10.004

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

Potter, R., & Fuller, D. (2008). My new teaching partner? Using the grammar checker in writing

instruction. English Journal, 98(1), 36-41. Retrieved from

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40503205?seq=1

Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through

collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and second language

learning (pp. 97- 114). London: Oxford University Press.

Zhang, Z., & Hyland, K. (2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on

L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36(1), 90-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.02.004