The Role of Grammarly in Assessing English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Writing


  • Muhammad Ali Ghufron IKIP PGRI Bojonegoro
  • Fathia Rosyida IKIP PGRI Bojonegoro



Grammarly software, English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing, indirect corrective feedback, teacher corrective feedback


This research aimed at investigating the use of Grammarly software and in what terms it was more effective in reducing students’ errors in EFL writing compared to teacher corrective feedback (indirect corrective feedback). This research used the quantitative approach with a quasi-experimental design. There were 40 university students from English Education Study Program of a private university in Indonesia who were selected and randomized clustered into two; experimental and control groups. The students were tested at the beginning and the end of the research. The quantitative data were analyzed by using t-test formula. The results of the research confirm that the students whose work is evaluated by using Grammarly have a significant reduction in their errors compared to those whose work is evaluated by the teacher (indirect corrective feedback). The software is shown to be more effective to reduce the errors in terms of vocabulary usages (diction), language use (grammar), and mechanics of writing (spelling and punctuation). However, it is less effective to improve the content and organization of students’ EFL writing. This research can suggest EFL/ESL teachers with an alternative assessment for students’ writing that supports an autonomous learning environment.


Plum Analytics

Author Biographies

Muhammad Ali Ghufron, IKIP PGRI Bojonegoro

Faculty of Languages and Arts Education

Fathia Rosyida, IKIP PGRI Bojonegoro

Faculty of Languages and Arts Education,


Ahmadi-Azad, S. (2014). The effect of coded and uncoded written corrective feedback types on Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(5), 1001–1008.

Arikunto, S. (2004). Prosedur penelitian suatu pendekatan praktik: Edisi revisi VI. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Arteaga Sánchez, R., Cortijo, V., & Javed, U. (2014). Students’ perceptions of Facebook for academic purposes. Computers and Education, 70, 138–149.

Barani, G. (2011). The relationship between Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) and listening skill of iranian EFL learners. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 4059–4063.

Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different typess of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191–205.

Blattner, G., & Fiori, M. (2009). Facebook in the language classroom: Promises and possibilities. Instructional Technology and Distance Learning (ITDL), 6(1), 17–28.

Bloch, J. (2008). From the special issue editor. Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), 2–6.

Budiyono. (2004). Statistika untuk penelitian. Surakarta: UNS Press.

Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267–296.

Chappelle, C. A. (2004). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing and research. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 229–245.

Daniels, P., & Leslie, D. (2013). Grammar software ready for EFL writers? OnCue Journal, 9(4), 391–401.

Dodgson, A. N., Tariq, B., Alauyah, M., & Yusof, M. (2016). The secondary school students’ usage of English learning websites to self-correct writing errors. Asian Tefl, 1(11), 2503–2569.

Fageeh, A. I. (2011). EFL learners’ use of blogging for developing writing skills and enhancing attitudes towards English learning: An exploratory study. Journal of Language and Literature, 2(1), 31–48.

Firth, S. (1987). Developing self-correcting and self-monitoring strategies. TESL Talk, 17(1), 148–152.

Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ghandi, M., & Maghsoudi, M. (2014). The effects of direct and indirect corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ spelling errors. English Language Teaching, 7(8), 53–60.

Ghufron, M. A., Saleh, M., Sofwan, A., & Java, E. (2016). A model of research paper writing instructional materials for academic writing course: Needs & documents analysis and model design. English Language Teaching: Canadian Center of Science and Education, 9(3), 1–12.

Godwin, M. (2016). International students use of technology for improving writing skills in college (Dissertation). Retrieved from

Hughes, A. (1996). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jafarian, K., Soori, A., & Kafipour, R. (2012). The effect of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) on EFL high school students’ writing achievement. European Journal of Social Sciences, 27(2), 138–148. Retrieved from Assisted Language.pdf.

Kabilan, M. K., Ahmad, N., & Abidin, M. J. Z. (2010). Facebook: An online environment for learning of English in institutions of higher education? Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 179–187.

Kabilan, M. K., & Rajab, B. M. (2010). The utilisation of the Internet by Palestinian English language teachers focusing on uses, practices and barriers, and overall contribution to professional development. International Journal of Education & Development Using Information & Communication Technology, 6(3), 56–72. Retrieved from

Kuteeva, M. (2011). Wikis and academic writing: Changing the writer-reader relationship. English for Specific Purposes, 30(1), 44–57.

Maleki, A., & Eslami, E. (2013). The effects of written corrective feedback techniques on EFL students’ control over grammatical construction of their written English. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(7), 1250–1257.

Melor M. Y., & Salehi, H. (2012). The effectiveness of Facebook groups on teaching and improving writing: Students’ perceptions. International Journal of Educational and Information Technologies, 6(1), 87–96.

Muñoz, D. (2009). Reliability as a context-dependent requirement for writing proficiency assessment. Language Studies Working Papers, 1, 46–54.

Naba’h, A. A., Hussain, J., Al-omari, A., & Shdeifat, S. (2009). The effect of computer assisted language learning in teaching english grammar on the achievement of secondary students in Jordan. The International Arab Journal of Information Technology, 6(4), 431–439.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital inmigrants: Part I. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.

Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. London, UK: Sage Publishers.

Prvinchandar, S., & Ayub, A. F. M. (2014). Comparison of the effectiveness of style writer and microsoft word computer software to improve english writing skills. English Language Teaching, 7(1), 93–102.

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.

Razak, N. A., Saeed, M., & Ahmad, Z. (2013). Adopting social networking sites (SNSs) as interactive communities among English foreign language (EFL) learners in writing: Opportunities and challenges. English Language Teaching, 6(11), 187–198.

Reid, J. M. (1993). Teaching ESL writing. London, UK: Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs.

Saadi, Z. K., & Saadat, M. (2015). EFL learners’ writing accuracy: Effects of direct and metalinguistic electronic feedback. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(10), 2053–2063.

Schraudner, M. (2013). The online teacher’s assistant: Using automated correction programs to supplement learning and lesson planning. Taiwan: Asia University.

Shirazi, M. A. (2013). Using an analytic dichotomous evaluation checklist to increase inter-and intra-rater reliability of EFL writing evaluation. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 16(1), 25–57.

Shweta., Bajpai, R. C., & Chaturvedi, H. K. (2015). Evaluation of inter-rater agreement and inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview of concepts and methods. Journal of the Indian Academic of Applied Psychology, 41(3), 20–27.

Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies on Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303–334.

Talebinezhad, M. R., & Abarghoui, M. A. (2013). The Iranian high school students’ attitude toward CALL and the use of CALL for EFL receptive skills. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(2), 329–337.

Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2008). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. London, UK: Atlantic Books.

Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2010). Innovating the 21st century university: It’s time. EDUCAUSE Review, 45(1), 17–29.

Thompson, P. (2013). The digital natives as learners: Technology use patterns and approaches to learning. Computers & Education, 65(1), 12–33.

Tocalli-Beller, A. & Swain, M. (2005). Reformulation: The cognitive conflict and L2 learning it generates. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 5–28.

Unknown. (2004). Literature review of interrater reliability. Retrieved from

Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41.

Vickers, C. (2001). Indirect negative evidence as corrective feedback in second language writing: Comparing output to input. Arizona Working Papers in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching, 8, 27–44.

Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2006). Electronic feedback and second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wichadee, S. (2013). Peer feedback on Facebook: The use of social networking websites to develop writing ability of undergraduate students. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(4), 260–270.

Wuensch, K. L. (2014). Inter-rater agreement. USA: East Carolina University. Retrieved from

Yunus, M., Salehi, H., Sun, C. H. U. I., Yong, J., Yen, P., Kwan, L., &

Li, S. U. (2011). Using Facebook groups in teaching ESL writing. Recent Researches in Chemistry, Biology, Enviroment and Culture, 75–80.

Yunus, M. M., Salehi, H., & Chenzi, C. (2012). Integrating social networking tools into ESL writing classroom: Strengths and weaknesses. English Language Teaching, 5(8), 42–48.



Abstract 4390  .
PDF downloaded 1239  .