PAIC – ISSN: 2833-6836 Proceedings of the AsiaCALL International Conference Vol.

6; 2024

Using Grammarly in Enhancing Students’ Grammatical Accuracy in English

Writing: A Case at a Private College in Hanoi

Vu Phuong Thao1*
1
FPT University, Ha Noi, Vietnam
*
Corresponding author’s email: [email protected]
*
https://orcid.org/0009-0008-4381-0210
https://doi.org/10.54855/paic.2466
®
Copyright (c) 2024 Vu Phuong Thao

Received: 26/09/2024 Revision: 24/10/2024 Accepted: 25 /10/2024 Online: 01/11/2024

ABSTRACT

Writing is regarded as a hard-to-deal skill in English, and achieving

grammatical accuracy in writing is considered challenging for most
English learners. As technologies advance, Automated Writing
Evaluation (AWE) tools have increasingly been implemented in
English language education to enhance learning outcomes. As an
AWE assistant, Grammarly has been found beneficial in improving
English learners' writing skills. This study aimed to investigate the
effectiveness of using Grammarly in enhancing learners’
grammatical accuracy in writing. The study utilized a case study
design with qualitative and quantitative data collected from thirty-
two second-year college students. Learners’ writing assignments
were analyzed using surface structure taxonomy followed by a
survey questionnaire to get quantitative data for the research.
Qualitative data was provided through a focus-group interview. The
Keywords: Automated findings revealed a reduction in learners’ grammatical errors after
Writing Evaluation, Grammarly intervention and their positive attitude toward using
Grammarly, writing Grammarly to improve their English writing. Afterward, there were
skills, grammatical several recommendations for teachers to foster their students’
accuracy English writing skills.

Introduction
Writing is undeniably an essential skill in English learning. According to Sharma (2004, as cited
in Fitria, 2021), writing is one of the productive skills for learners to achieve in order to ensure
communicative competence. However, writing is seemingly challenging and demanding for
most English learners. Brown (2001) states that writing requires a process of thinking, drafting,
and revising with specialized skills. Similarly, Faller (2018) and Maharani (2018) indicate that
it is a difficult task involving cognitive and linguistic abilities.

Empirical studies have pointed out a new trend of using Automated Writing Evaluation
(hereafter referred to as AWE) software has emerged in English language teaching and learning.
More importantly, the application of AWE tools has been found to be effective in enhancing
learners’ writing skills. Bailey and Lee (2020) indicate that the development of AWE tools has

CITATION | Vu, P. T. (2024). Using Grammarly in Enhancing Students’ Grammatical Accuracy in English
Writing: A Case at a Private College in Hanoi. Proceedings of the AsiaCALL International Conference, 6, 81-96.
ISSN: 2833-6836, ISBN: 979-8-9870112-6-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54855/paic.2466
ISBN: 979-8-9870112-6-3 Vu Phuong Thao Vol. 6; 2024

enabled language learners to receive feedback in terms of language, content, and automated
scores. Furthermore, O’Neil and Russell's (2019) research emphasized that Grammarly was a
supporting tool that gave learners grammatical feedback in their writing. Similarly, Fitria (2021)
points out that Grammarly could foster students’ writing performance.

As the current literature has indicated, undergraduate students encounter numerous challenges
in writing skills ranging from micro to macro dimensions (Faisal & Carabella, 2023). The
former dimension refers to linguistic features known as grammar, vocabulary, and sentence
construction while the latter is associated with content, idea generation and development,
organization, and coherence (Yan, 2016). Noticeably, the students at the researcher’s institution
frequently make mistakes at the micro level in their writing. To illustrate, they keep using the
base form of the verb as in “He go to school.” or often misuse the verb tobe as in “I’m come
from Hanoi.”. In addition, some students struggle with selecting an appropriate word to denote
a particular meaning. For example, in the sentence “I think the worst thing about the job is the
many things to do.”, the expression “many things to do” should be replaced by “heavy
workload” to make it understandable. From the above-mentioned issue, there is a need for an
AI-powered tool to assist learners in tackling their writing difficulties.

From the above, this research was conducted to investigate the effectiveness of using
Grammarly in fostering students’ grammatical accuracy in writing and their attitude toward the
intervention in English classes.

Literature review
Writing
Peter and Singaravelu (2020, as cited in Phan, 2023) explain that writing is a tool for self-
expression, communication, information interpretation, recording experiences, and effective
learning. In Nunan’s (2003, as cited in Tran, 2024) viewpoint, writing is defined as a mental
process of inventing, articulating, and organizing ideas into statements, sentences, or
paragraphs that are clear and understandable to readers.
Writing skills play a paramount role in English learning. Bello (1997, as cited in Nguyen &
Huynh, 2023) demonstrates that writing skills can enhance language acquisition since
practicing words, sentences, and paragraphs by writing can help English learners communicate
ideas effectively and reinforce grammar and vocabulary knowledge. From Asmuti's (2002)
viewpoint, language learners can formulate their ideas systematically and logically by
mastering writing skills. Moreover, Al-Jumaily (2015) emphasizes that writing, among the four
language skills, is the mirror that reflects an individual's language knowledge and ability; hence,
language learners should work hard to master it.
From the above, writing can be understood as a method of conveying ideas or thoughts through
a system of symbols or letters. Additionally, writing is considered an essential skill in language
learning that requires language learners’ efforts and hard work to achieve competence.
Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) tools
AWE innovation has been a growing area in language teaching and learning. Dong (2023), in
his research, mentions numerous AI-powered writing tools such as Grammarly, Turnitin,
ProWritingAid, Qillbot, Hemingway Editor, WriteLab, Scribens, and AutoCrit. Studies have
shown the merits of AWE tools implementation in English language classes for teachers and

82
PAIC – ISSN: 2833-6836 Proceedings of the AsiaCALL International Conference Vol. 6; 2024

learners. Feedback from AWE tools is beneficial for learners to modify their writing
immediately, and it can help reduce teachers’ workload in evaluating their students’ writing
(Chou et al., 2016). In addition, Brinkman et al. (2020, as cited in Dong, 2023) developed a
writing tool that provided personalized feedback to learners of an introductory writing course.
The report indicated the tool effectively assisted learners in improving their writing skills, and
the learners positively perceived the intervention. Moreover, Liu et al. (2020) report that a
writing tool developed with his colleagues was beneficial in upgrading their students’ reasoning
skills and was well-received by students.
Despite the potential of AWE application in English language classes, there are several
concerns, one of which is learners’ adaptation to AWE tools. Dong (2023) indicates that students
are used to receiving feedback from human instructors, so they are likely to find it difficult to
understand and apply the feedback from AI systems. Gao et al. (2021) claim that students tend
to revise their writing work based on feedback from their teachers rather than from AWE tools.
However, the authors also note that students are likely to change their writing when they receive
feedback from a human instructor and an AI tool.
From the above, there is no doubt that AWE intervention offers merits to both teachers and
students. However, the application of the AWE tools in education should be approached with
ongoing efforts, support, and guidance from human instructors to maximize their effectiveness.
Grammarly
Harris et al. (2003) emphasize that writing is a communication tool that involves sub-skills such
as spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Moreover, grammar is an undoubtedly important
component of writing since grammatical accuracy helps ensure the writers’ intended meaning
and avoid misunderstanding in communication (Lush, 2002; Larsen-Freeman, 2003).
Grammarly is an AWE tool Lytvun and Alext Shevchenk created in 2009 (Pratama, 2020, as
cited in Faisal & Carabella, 2023). Currently, Grammarly is available as an app that users can
install on their computers or mobile phones and as a browser extension that can be accessed via
https://www.grammarly.com/. Users can create a Grammarly account by using their Gmail
address. Figure 1 illustrates the interface of Grammarly when users successfully sign in.

Figure 1. The interface of Grammarly

To have a writing work checked, users can either click the “New” option to type or paste their
texts or upload their writing with the “Upload” function. Afterward, the system would scan,
check, and provide corrections and suggestions on the parts that need improvement in the
document. Noticeably, Grammarly can identify errors in six categories: (1) spelling, (2)

83
ISBN: 979-8-9870112-6-3 Vu Phuong Thao Vol. 6; 2024

grammar, (3) punctuation, (4) sentence structure, (5) style, and (6) vocabulary enhancement
(O’Neil & Russell, 2019).

Figure 2. The interface of Grammarly as the evaluation of a writing work is in progress

Grammarly offers users two service options, free and premium. The free grammar check service
provides access to a limited number of features focusing mainly on the three aspects known as
spelling, grammar, and punctuation (Fitria, 2021). However, the premium service option, which
charges users a certain amount of fee, offers access to all features and several advanced features
in addition to the ones provided by the free checker version. In this research, Grammarly’s free
check service was chosen and suggested to the participants.
Grammarly has been reviewed as one of the most accurate online grammar checkers (O’Neil &
Russell, 2019). The system can automatically analyze and correct a wide range of grammatical
errors, which is beneficial for students struggling with English grammar rules and spelling
(Nova, 2018; Ummah & Bisriyah, 2022). In the same line, Ghufron (2019) highlights the
positive contribution in reducing errors when using Grammarly software in EFL writing classes.
Surface strategy taxonomy
Dulay et al. (1982) classify grammatical errors into four categories including (1) linguistic
category taxonomy, (2) surface strategy taxonomy, (3) comparative taxonomy, and (4)
communicative taxonomy. Among these four categories, surface strategy taxonomy (also
known as surface structure taxonomy) was selected as the fundament for this research. The
taxonomy of the surface structure mainly focuses on how the mechanisms of linguistic
organizations are altered (Maniam & Rajagopal, 2026). Moreover, Aziz et al. (2020) claim that
analyzing errors based on the surface strategy taxonomy may offer us a glimpse of the student’s
cognitive process underlying their constructions of a target language system.
According to the surface structure taxonomy, grammatical errors are segmented into four
categories including omission, addition, misformation, and misordering. The four categories
are explained in detail in Table 1 hereafter.

84
PAIC – ISSN: 2833-6836 Proceedings of the AsiaCALL International Conference Vol. 6; 2024

Table 1.
Four types of errors in surface strategy taxonomy
Types Explanations
Omission Omission occurs when a required linguistic item is omitted in the sentence
(Maodilao & Hidayat, 2021). Utami and Mahardika (2023) indicate seven subtypes
of omission such as prepositional omission, article omission, tobe omission,
conjunction omission, marker omission, verb omission, and pronoun omission.
Example:
“He wash the dishes.” – is an example of pronoun omission. The marker -s/-es of
the present verb for the third-person singular subject he was omitted in the
sentence.
Addition Addition errors refer to the presence of an element or form that must not appear in
a well-formed utterance or sentence (Maodilao & Hidayat, 2021). There are three
subtypes of addition known as regularization (the rules used for irregular cases are
applied to those exceptions to the rules), double-making (a language feature is
marked at two levels), and simple additions (errors that are neither regularizations
nor double-makings).
Examples:
“He sees three mouses running in the kitchen.” – is an example of regularization
since the marker -s/-es for plural nouns was wrongly applied to the word mouse,
which is an exception to the rule (the correct form is mice).
“I didn’t wanted to be a member of this team.” – illustrates a double making error.
There is no need to use the past simple form of “want” after auxiliary “didn’t”.
“You should to see the doctor.” – exemplifies a simple addition error as the addition
of “to” is not necessary after “should”, a modal verb.
Misformation Misformation errors refer to the use of the wrong form of a morpheme in an
utterance (Maodilao & Hidayat, 2021). There are three types of misformation
errors including regularization (a regular marker is used for an irregular one), archi-
forms (the selection of a member of a class or forms to represent others in the class),
and alternative forms (when the writer fails to construct proper forms).
Examples:
“Last night, he readed a book before going to bed.” – illustrates a regularization
error when the “-ed” ending was added to the verb read, an irregular verb.
“That roses are so beautiful.” – is an example of archi-form error as “that” was
used instead of “those”. “those” is correct in this case.
“I swum after he had went home.” – exemplifies an alternative form error because
the writer constructed an inaccurate form of the past simple verb “swim”. It should
be “swam”.
Misordering Utami and Mahardika (2023) explain that misordering errors occur when a certain
part is misplaced in a sentence.
Example:
“He is dating a girl beautiful.” – illustrates a misordering error since the adjective
“beautiful” was misplaced. It must precede the noun “girl” according to the English
rules.

Perception
In psychology, the term perception has been defined by many scholars. In Solomon’s (2019)
words, perception indicates how an individual makes meaning through the comprehension and
interpretation of a stimulus. Sharing the same viewpoint, Otara (2011, as cited in Faisal &
Carabella, 2023) explains that perception represents the human sensory experience of the world,
which includes the awareness of the stimuli and an individual’s decisions on how to respond to

85
ISBN: 979-8-9870112-6-3 Vu Phuong Thao Vol. 6; 2024

them. From the above, it can be inferred that perception, from the view of psychology, primarily
focuses on a particular process that affects how a person perceives and responds to stimuli.
In the field of language teaching and learning, perception indicates personal desire and the
process of acquiring knowledge of the surrounding world. Latif and Sahla (2018, as cited in
Faisal & Carabella, 2023) state that perception is a sensitive process beginning with a desire to
understand the surrounding world. Furthermore, Talis et al. (2018) highlight that perception
involves a process in which individuals select, receive, organize, and interpret information from
the outside world to make it meaningful to them. It is noticeable that the perception of the same
senses may vary from human to human since each human’s brain interprets a stimulus
differently based on their memory, experience, emotions, or expectations (Lailika, 2019).
Robbins (2018) indicates three indicators of perception named acceptance, understanding, and
evaluation. Firstly, acceptance concerns with how a person accepts information from visual,
auditory, touch, taste, or sense. Secondly, understanding refers to how a person perceives
information based on background knowledge. Finally, evaluation displays how one evaluates
and assesses a stimulus associated with his or her existing knowledge and experience. This
research utilized the theory proposed by Robbins (2018) to investigate students’ perceptions
toward the Grammarly intervention.
Previous studies
Numerous studies have been conducted to examine the impacts of Grammarly in enhancing
students’ writing skills. Maudilia and Wibowo's (2022) action study investigated the
effectiveness of using Grammarly learning activities in improving the writing abilities of thirty-
three students. The qualitative and quantitative findings confirmed an improvement in the
participants' writing skills. Moreover, a case study by Huang et al. (2020) studied the
effectiveness of using Grammarly in EFL writing during a 16-week experimental period in
China. The participants were forty-three English-majored sophomores. The results of the pre-
test, post-test, and questionnaire revealed a significant increase in students’ writing performance
through the 16-week intervention and their satisfaction with the tool. Furthermore, Sanosi
(2022) conducted a between-group experimental study with sixty-four college students to
investigate the impact of Grammarly on students’ academic writing accuracy. The results
indicated that after fourteen weeks of using Grammarly, the experimental group showed a
significant improvement in writing accuracy compared to their counterparts. Dewi's (2022)
research investigated EFL students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of Grammarly. The study
utilized a mixed method with qualitative and quantitative data from a questionnaire and
interviews with seventy-five students in an EFL writing class. The findings showed that the
students had positive perceptions of using Grammarly. The results also suggested that
Grammarly had positive impacts on student’s writing performance. Quantitative research by
Faisal and Carabella (2023) examined the students’ attitudes toward using Grammarly in their
writing classes. Twenty-three fourth-semester students of the English Language Education
Study Program at a private university in Central Java were engaged in the study. The results
suggested that 73.3% of the students positively perceived using Grammarly in the academic
writing process.

The above-mentioned studies have significantly contributed to identifying the positive effects
of using Grammarly in enhancing students’ writing performance. Noticeably, most of the
studies separately investigated the students’ perceptions of the Grammarly tool and the
effectiveness of the tool in improving their writing performance. Nevertheless, there may be an
interplay between students’ attitudes toward Grammarly and the effectiveness of such an

86
PAIC – ISSN: 2833-6836 Proceedings of the AsiaCALL International Conference Vol. 6; 2024

intervention to enhance their writing skills. In addition, as indicated in the literature, Grammarly
is regarded as a reliable and potential tool for grammar error reduction. However, not many
studies took Grammarly into consideration as a tool to improve students’ grammatical accuracy
in writing. More importantly, at the researcher’s college, most students are low-leveled in
English, so enhancing their grammatical accuracy in writing can provide them with a foundation
to achieve competence in the English language. Therefore, this research was conducted to study
the effectiveness of using Grammarly in enhancing students’ grammatical accuracy in writing
and their perceptions toward the intervention.
Research Questions
The research aimed to investigate the effectiveness of using Grammarly in fostering students’
grammatical accuracy in writing and their attitude toward the intervention in English classes.
In other words, the study addressed the two following research questions:

1. How effectively can Grammarly assist students in reducing grammatical errors in

writing?
2. What are students’ perceptions of using Grammarly?

Methods
Pedagogical Setting & Participants
The study was conducted at a private college where students were required to take four courses
in general English as a condition to graduate. The English program that students are enrolling
in employs the blended learning method. The coursebook used for the students is American
Language Hub, Level 1. Each course lasts six weeks containing seventy-five hours (thirty-four
hours for offline lessons and forty-one hours for self-study). There are three two-hour lessons
per week. Before class, students have to log in to an online learning system to self-study
vocabulary and grammar knowledge and finish practice exercises. In class, the teachers hold
activities to review what students learned at home and to help them practice the four skills of
English.

Grammarly intervention was implemented with the second-year students in one English class
during a six-week period. The students were non-English majors, and they were currently taking
the third English course. Upon the course requirement, students were to complete two writing
assignments in the second and fifth weeks. The two assignments account for 30% of the total
score gained for the course. These assignments were assigned to be finished at home and
submitted via the online learning system. In class, teachers gave students detailed instructions
on the writing format, content, and how to use Grammarly to proofread their writing before
submission. For each writing assignment, students were to write two versions. After finishing
the first version, they must have it proofread by the Grammarly free service version to make
possible changes and upgrade to version 2, which was marked by the teacher. The first writing
assignment was assigned in week 1 and collected in week 2. Following the same process, the
second one was assigned and collected in week 5 and week 6, respectively. Noticeably, students
had to submit both versions for the teacher to ensure that they had their writing checked and
improved with Grammarly. Additionally, students had to highlight the parts that they had made
changes after revising the pre-checked version with Grammarly.

The participants were chosen based on a purposive sampling approach. Cohen et al. (2007)
explain that purposive sampling is an approach in which the researchers handpick the cases to

87
ISBN: 979-8-9870112-6-3 Vu Phuong Thao Vol. 6; 2024

be included in the sample based on their judgment of their typicality or possession of specific
characteristics being sought. Despite the disadvantage of not representing a significant
population, Cohen et al. (2007) emphasize that the purposive sampling technique was
advantageous since it is easy and less expensive to set up. This technique was beneficial as the
study did not primarily aim at generalizing the findings for a large population. Utilizing the
above approach, students who used the Grammarly tool in both writing assignments were
selected. Therefore, there were officially thirty-two students participating in the study though
the targeted number was thirty-six. In the first place, the students' writing assignments
throughout the course were collected for analysis. Afterward, at the end of the course, the
students were invited to respond to a survey questionnaire. Then, ten out of thirty-two students
were randomly chosen for a focus-group discussion.
Design of the Study
The study employed a case study as the main design. A case study is a study of a ‘bounded
system’ that emphasizes the unity and wholeness of that system but confides the attention to
those aspects that are relevant to the research problems at the time (Stake, 1995). It is often used
to narrow down a broad field of research into one or a few easily researchable examples. Hassan
(2024) highlights that case study research allows a detailed exploration and analysis of a
specific phenomenon in its real-life context. Therefore, the research design can provide a
comprehensive understanding of the case and its dynamics, which may not be possible through
other research methods. The main reason for the author to select this research design was its
practical application in the educational field. According to Hassan (2024), case studies can help
teachers evaluate students’ learning progress, identify areas for improvement, and develop
effective teaching strategies. Thanks to this, the researcher can observe the effectiveness of
Grammarly intervention and the student’s attitude toward the implementation in order to make
some modifications in her class if necessary.

With the selected design, the study utilized explanatory sequential mixed-method approach with
quantitative and qualitative data to get objective and subjective viewpoints. Firstly, quantitative
data was used because it is found to produce objective results that can be interpreted through
statistics and numbers (Hoover, 2021). Nevertheless, he also stated that quantitative can be a
restrictive form of study because participants cannot tailor their responses or add contexts. In
that respect, qualitative data can be a solution to such a limitation. From Ritchie and Lewi's
(2003) viewpoint, qualitative data provides an in-depth understanding of the research
participants related to their experiences, thoughts, history, social, and material situations. In this
research, the quantitative findings gained through students’ writing analyses and a questionnaire
provided an overview of students’ grammatical accuracy after using Grammarly and their
perceptions toward the intervention. In addition to this, qualitative findings gained from the
group discussion provided an in-depth understanding of the features known based on students’
responses to the questionnaire.
Data collection & analysis

The data collection process underwent two phases. In the first phase, quantitative data was
collected through two sources. Firstly, students’ writing version 2, corrected and revised with
Grammarly, of the two writing assignments were gathered and analyzed. The data gained from
this source would help identify grammatical accuracy enhancement between the two writing
assignments after the intervention. The second source of quantitative data was collected via a
questionnaire which was designed based on the theory of the three perception indicators
suggested by Robbins (2018) reviewed in the literature. The questionnaire was adapted and

88
PAIC – ISSN: 2833-6836 Proceedings of the AsiaCALL International Conference Vol. 6; 2024

modified from Dewi's (2022) questionnaire. It included eleven Likert-scale items ranging from
1 for strong agreement to 5 for strong disagreement. One rationale for adapting Dewi's (2022)
questionnaire was that the research had a comparable goal to one of the two goals of this study,
which was to investigate learners' perceptions of integrating Grammarly in English classes. The
survey was piloted with ten students who were not taking part in the study, then it was revised
before being officially sent to the participants.

In the second phase, a focus-group discussion with ten participants was held. Two open-ended
questions were asked to get a deeper understanding of students’ opinions toward the
intervention regarding possible strengths and limitations of the tool based on their experience.
Prior to the interview, the participants were informed about the time, location, and general
purpose. The researcher also asked the participants for their permission to audio record the
group discussion. The interview protocols of this study followed Creswell's (2009) guidelines,
which included a heading, instructions for the interviewees to follow, questions for
interviewees, and a thank-you statement. For analytical purposes, the discussion was audio-
recorded and transcribed into text with the participants coded as Student A, B, C, and so on.
In terms of data analyses, quantitative data was analyzed using descriptive statistical
approaches. Firstly, the grammatical errors in students' two writing assignments were analyzed.
During the analysis process, the researcher counted the frequency of errors according to the
four types of surface strategy taxonomy and calculated the mean score for each type. Afterward,
the questionnaire results were synthesized by calculating the percentage frequency of each item.
Furthermore, the qualitative data from the group discussion was analyzed following the
sequential stages by Braun and Clarke (2006). Specifically, there are six steps in analyzing
qualitative data. The first step, known as familiarizing with the data, involves transcribing the
interviews and reading the transcripts repeatedly. In the second step, the initial lists of code are
identified as a base for the next stage in which the researcher searches for the themes. In other
words, in the third step, the researcher considers how different codes may fit together into a
broader theme. The themes can be organized hierarchically, with higher-order themes or sub-
themes. Afterward, the fourth step is to review the themes, in which the irrelevant themes are
eliminated while other themes may be combined into broader ones. In the fifth step, there is a
critical task to identify the central idea in each and provide a name that concisely captures that
idea to support the last stage of the process, reporting the data. In the final stage of the analysis
process, data from all sources were synthesized and compared to conclude the outcomes of the
study.

Findings and discussion

Quantitative findings

Firstly, the results gained from the analyses of the students’ writing assignments are presented
in Table 2 hereafter.

From Table 2, students’ improvement in grammatical accuracy from the first to the second
writing assignment could be observable. The mean frequency revealed a moderate decrease in
errors between the two assignments in total frequency and all four types of errors. On average,
the number of total errors one student made decreased nearly one error from assignment 1 to
assignment 2. Additionally, there was a decrease from 1.34 to 0.91 omission mistakes found in
one student’s assignment 2. Similarly, addition errors and misformation errors fell slightly 0.1
and reached 0.5 and 0.53 errors per student in assignment 2, respectively. Finally, a minor

89
ISBN: 979-8-9870112-6-3 Vu Phuong Thao Vol. 6; 2024

decrease from 0.25 to 0.16 misordering errors was found between the two writing assignments.
Table 2.
The frequency of students’ grammatical errors through the two writing assignments
Types of errors Writing Assignment 1 Writing Assignment 2
Frequency Mean Frequency Mean
Total 93 2.91 67 2.09
Omission 43 1.34 29 0.91
Addition 22 0.69 16 0.5
Misformation 20 0.63 17 0.53
Misordering 8 0.25 5 0.16

The results of the questionnaire regarding students’ perceptions toward Grammarly intervention
are summarized in Table 3 as follows.
Table 3.
Participants’ perceptions of using Grammarly
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
agree (%) (%) (%) disagree
(%) (%)
1. Students’ perceptions of the interface of Grammarly
1a. I find Grammarly easy to use. 78.13 15.62 3.12 0 3.12
1b. I find Grammarly easy to access. 64.95 28.81 3.12 0 3.12
1c. I find the Grammarly free service 68.76 15.62 9.38 3.12 3.12
version efficient to my needs.
1d. I will continue using Grammarly 71.88 25.00 3.12 0 0
in the future.
2. Students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of Grammarly
2a. Grammarly helps me identify and 71.88 25.00 3.12 0 0
correct my grammar mistakes easily.
2b. Grammarly helps identify and 75.00 21.88 3.12 0 0
correct my spelling mistakes easily.
2c. Grammarly helps identify and 75.00 15.62 9.38 0 0
correct other kinds of mistakes like
punctuation and word choice.
2d. Grammarly helps expand my 71.88 18.74 9.38 0 0
grammar knowledge.
2e. Grammarly helps expand my 65.64 31.24 3.12 0 0
vocabulary knowledge.
2f. Grammarly helps improve my 68.76 18.74 12.50 0 0
expressions in writing.
2g. Grammarly helps me be more 65.64 15.62 18.74 0 0
confident when I have to write
something in English.
As reviewed in the literature, acceptance was one of the perception indicators (Robins, 2018).
Generally, the statistics shown in Table 3 indicated that the participants positvely accepted the
Grammarly intervention. In the first four question items, a large majority of participants
confirmed that they were satisfied with the interface of the Grammarly tool. More than 90% of

90
PAIC – ISSN: 2833-6836 Proceedings of the AsiaCALL International Conference Vol. 6; 2024

participants believed that Grammarly was easy to use, and more than 80% thought it was easy
to access. Additionally, approximately 85% of the participants indicated their satisfaction with
experiencing the free service version of Grammarly, while nearly one-tenth of the students
shared a neutral opinion. Remarkably, a total percent of 96.88% of the respondents indicated
that they would continue using Grammarly in the future despite a minor percentage being
neutral (3.12%).

The other two indicators of perception, understanding and evaluation, were examined in the
second section of the survey. The section asked about participants’ perceptions of the
effectiveness of using Grammarly. Overall, a vast majority of participants shared positive
responses about the intervention since no disagreement was recorded in all question items of
this section. Firstly, they indicated that Grammarly was beneficial to them in identifying and
correcting their grammar and spelling mistakes. The percentage of the agreement and strong
agreement was up to 96.88%. Moreover, around 90% of the respondents agreed that Grammarly
could help them improve other types of mistakes like punctuation or word choice. Noticeably,
that same percentage was observed in the number of participants whose grammar knowledge
could improve thanks to Grammarly. Similarly, a majority of participants (96.88%) reported
that Grammarly was effective in helping them improve their vocabulary knowledge. In addition,
a considerable number of respondents indicated that Grammarly could help improve their
writing expressions and foster their confidence in writing, with the percentage of agreement up
to 87.5% and 81.62%, respectively. However, a noticeable number of participants shared a
neutral opinion that Grammarly could help them express their ideas in writing more easily
(18.74%) or be more confident in writing something in English (18.74%).

Qualitative results

Generally, the findings of the group discussion revealed several merits of Grammarly perceived
by the interviewees. However, they also indicated the limitations of the tool. The results are
explained in detail as follows.
Strengths of Grammarly
Sub-themes: convenience, error reduction, vocabulary and grammar knowledge enhancement
Around three-fourths of the interviewees revealed that the tool was convenient and easy to use.
“I think that it is very convenient to use Grammarly. I just need to log in and copy my
writing, then it will immediately help me to check the errors.” (Student E)

More importantly, a majority of the interviewees emphasized that Grammarly effectively

assisted them in reducing the mistakes in their writing. Specifically, eight students indicated
that Grammarly helped them find and correct grammatical and lexical mistakes, and other kinds
of mistakes such as punctuation or word choice in their writing.
“The use of Grammarly can identify errors in terms of grammar, spelling, and punctuation
quickly and easily, which can help me improve my vocabulary and grammar knowledge
and English expressions. Grammarly also suggests useful ways to correct the mistakes in
my writing. I find the suggestions by Grammar understandable and useful to me.”
(Student A)

In addition to this, most of the interviewees emphasized that Grammarly was beneficial in
enhancing their vocabulary and grammar knowledge.

91
ISBN: 979-8-9870112-6-3 Vu Phuong Thao Vol. 6; 2024

“Grammarly helps me to find the mistakes I made in grammar or vocabulary. The

explanations of these mistakes help me to know why I made them and I think I can learn
from them. So, I will try to avoid such mistakes in the future. I think I can improve my
grammar and vocabulary knowledge thanks to that.” (Student C).

From the above, it could be drawn out that the results of the group discussion were associated
with the quantitative results of the questionnaire. They reflected that students had positive
perceptions of the interface of Grammarly and its functions. Besides, the tool could help
improve their accuracy and foster their knowledge of grammar and vocabulary.
Limitations of Grammarly
Sub-themes: internet dependence, limited functions, writing contexts

One of the limitations of Grammarly revealed by the interviewees was that the tool depended
on the internet connection to be accessed.
“The only thing that I am not happy about Grammarly is that sometimes I cannot access
it due to the internet interruption or unstable connection.” (Student H)

Furthermore, another unfavorable feature of Grammarly revealed in the interview results was
that the free version of Grammarly offered learners a limited number of functions. In other
words, students were charged if they would like to use additional advanced correction functions.
“Grammarly helps me to identify my mistakes. However, for some kinds of mistakes, I
need to pay some money to get suggestions on how to improve them.” (Student D)

Noticeably, some interviewees indicated a limitation in favor of the checker functions of

Grammarly. Specifically, Grammarly tended to offer the feedback without considering the
specific contexts, which could make the suggestions sometimes inappropriate to students’
meanings or intentions in writing. This result was in line with Barrot (2022) and Winans (2021)
that Grammarly tends to give feedback without considering the specific contexts, which may
alter the students’ intended meanings or tone in their writing.
“Sometimes I see that the suggestions of Grammarly are inappropriate to the contexts or
my writing styles, which makes the correction irrelevant or unnecessary to me.” (Student
B)

Discussion

First of all, Grammarly was found to help students reduce the frequency of grammatical
mistakes in English writing. This was in line with the results of Sanosi's (2022) study which
indicated that Grammarly assisted students in reducing the number of grammatical errors in
their writing. Moreover, the findings of the survey and group discussion suggested students’
positive perceptions of the Grammarly intervention. This was consistent with the studies by
Faisal and Carabella (2023) and Dewi (2022). Noticeably, the study is hoped to contribute to
the investigation of Grammarly intervention in enhancing grammatical accuracy in the context
of a private college. In other words, it is expected that the study could help to solve a research
gap mentioned in the literature regarding a few studies investigating the impact of Grammarly
on grammatical accuracy in English writing.

92
PAIC – ISSN: 2833-6836 Proceedings of the AsiaCALL International Conference Vol. 6; 2024

Conclusion
This research aimed to investigate the effectiveness of using Grammarly in improving students'
grammatical accuracy in writing and their attitude toward the intervention in English classes.
Several conclusions could be drawn out from the quantitative and qualitative findings. Firstly,
the analyses of the collected assignments revealed a reduction of grammatical errors between
the two writing assignments. Secondly, the findings from the questionnaire indicated students’
positive perceptions of Grammarly intervention. Finally, the group discussion highlighted
students’ attitudes toward the strengths and limitations of the tool. Noticeably, the strengths
shared by students were in line with the questionnaire results.

Although the study was believed to be successful in achieving the research aims, there were
still limitations to be considered. Firstly, although the quantitative findings indicated a decrease
in grammatical errors between the two writing assignments, it was moderate. Hence, it is
suggested that future studies should consider integrating other research instruments in addition
to students’ writing analyses or extending the time for Grammarly implementation so that
students’ progress in reducing grammatical mistakes could be more clearly observable.
Secondly, the scope of the investigation was restricted to a limited number of 32 students.
Therefore, the results of this study might be workable with other groups of students with some
similar characteristics to the studied group. In other words, it would be hard to generalize the
findings of this study to the whole population. Therefore, other researchers can consider
expanding the scope of the study with more participants for a better and more reliable
generalization of the results.

Based on the findings of this research, there are suggestions for English teachers to improve
English teaching. First and foremost, the research findings indicated that the implementation of
Grammarly could bolster learners’ grammatical accuracy and were well perceived by students.
Therefore, English teachers are highly recommended to apply the tool in their classes to help
students upgrade their writing performance. Moreover, the findings highlighted several
limitations of the Grammarly free version regarding the limited functions and the impractical
correction suggestions. Hence, it is advisable for teachers to implement Grammarly in
combination with other writing evaluation methods such as peer-checking or teachers’ feedback
to maximize the effectiveness of the writing evaluation activities.
Acknowledgement
This study would not be accomplished without the motivation and support of the following
people. First of all, my sincere gratitude is to my institution, FPT Polytechnic College, for
giving me permission to conduct this study. Secondly, my whole-hearted thanks are to my
students for being the source of inspiration for me to carry out this study. I am also thankful for
their enthusiastic contribution to my study as research participants.

References
Al-Jumaily, S. (2015). Improving My Students’ Writing Skill: An Intensive Course for ESL
Learners by Using Processapproach to Writing with the Assistance of Computer Word
Processor. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 2(1), 29-35.
https://doi.org/10.5430/ijelt.v2n1p29
Asmuti, W. (2002). A Correlation between the Vocabulary Mastery and the Writing Ability of
the Second Year of the SMUN 06 Students of Bengkulu. Universities Bengkulu.

93
ISBN: 979-8-9870112-6-3 Vu Phuong Thao Vol. 6; 2024

Aziz, Z. A., Fitriani, S. S., & Amalina, Z. (2020). Linguistic Errors Made by Islamic University
EFL Students. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 9(3), 733–745.
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), 4-17.
Barrot, J. S. (2022). Integrating Technology into ESL/EFL Writing through Grammarly. Relc
Journal, 53(3), 764-768.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research
in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to LanguagePedagogy.
Pearson PTR Interactive.
Chou, H. C., Moslehpour, M., & Yang, C. Y. (2016). My Access and Writing Error Corrections
of EFL College Preintermediate Students. International Journal of Education, 8(1), 144-
161.
Cohen. L., Manion. L., & Morrison. K. (2007). Research Methods in Education. Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches. (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Dewi, U. (2022). Grammarly as Automated Writing Evaluation: Its Effectiveness from EFL
Students’ Perceptions. Lingua Cultura, 16(2), 155-161.
https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v16i2.8315
Dong, Y. (2023). Revolutionizing Academic English Writing through AI-Powered Pedagogy:
Practical Exploration of Teaching Process and Assessment. Journal of Higher Education
Research, 4(2), 52-57.
Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language Two. Oxford University Press.
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.21462/jeltl.v8.i1.1006
Faller, J. M. V. (2018). Grammarly Investigation into EFL Writing Issues Involving Omani
Learners. International Journal of Language & Linguistics, 5(3).
https://doi.org/10.30845/ijll.v5n316
Fitria, T. N. (2021). “Grammarly” as AI-powered English Writing Assistant: Students’
Alternative for English Writing. Metathesis: Journal of English Language Literature and
Teaching, 5(1), 65-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.31002/metathesis.v5i1.3519
Gao, X., Chen, Y., Zhang, Y., & Liu, Y. (2021). To What Extent Can AI Writing Feedback
Improve EFL Undergraduates’ Writing Performance? A Study on an AI Writing Feedback
System. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(6), 1496-1518.
Ghufron, M. A. (2019, April). Exploring an automated feedback program ‘Grammarly’ and
teacher corrective feedback in EFL writing assessment: Modern vs. traditional
assessment [Paper presented]. The 3rd English Language and Literature International
Conference, Semarang, Indonesia.
Harris, P., McKenzie, B., Fitzsimmons, P., & Turbill, J. (2003). Writing in The Primary School
Years. Social Science Press.

94
PAIC – ISSN: 2833-6836 Proceedings of the AsiaCALL International Conference Vol. 6; 2024

Hassan, M. (2024, March 26). Case Study - Methods, Examples and Guide - Research Method.
Research Method. https://researchmethod.net/case-study-research/
Hoover, L. (2021, May 21). What is Qualitative vs. Quantitative Study?. GCU.
https://www.gcu.edu/blog/doctoral-journey/what-qualitative-vs-quantitative-study
Huang, H-W., Li, Z., & Taylor, L. (2020). The Effectiveness of Using Grammarly to Improve
Students’ Writing Skills. In ICDEL '20: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference
on Distance Education and Learning (pp. 122-127). The Association for Computing
Machinery.
Lailika, H. I. (2019). Students' Perceptions of the Use of Grammarly as an Online Grammar
Checker in Thesis Writing [Unpublished Bachelor's thesis]. Universitas Islam Negeri
Sunan Ampel Surabaya.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching Language: From Grammar to Grammaring. Heinle.
Liu, X., Xu, J., Xu, Y., & Liu, B. (2020). An Intelligent Writing Assistant for Argumentation
Skills Development. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 13(4), 573-586.
Lush, B. (2002). Writing Errors: A Study of Thai Students’ Writing Errors. ThaiTESOL
BULLETIN, 15(1), 75–82.
Maharani, M. M. (2018). Graphic Organizers to Improve Students’ Writing on Recount
Paragraphs. Metathesis: Journal of English Language, Literature, and Teaching, 2(2),
211–221. https://doi.org/10.31002/metathesis.v2i2.942
Maniam, D. M., & Rajagopal, P. (2016). Simple Past Tense Errors Based on Surface Structure
Taxonomy in ESL Malaysian Undergraduates Writing. Global Journal of Advanced
Research, 3(6), 547–553.
Maodilao, E. H., & Hidayat, M. V. C. (2021). Writing Errors Based on Surface Structure
Taxonmony: A Case of Indonesian EFL Students’ Personal Letters. In M., Helmie, J.,
Kurniawati, N., Maodila, E. H., Salsabila, V. A., & Sofarini, A. (Eds), Proceeding 1st
International Conference on Education of Surykancana, “Embrassing future education
in new society” (pp.336-344). Unsur Press.
Maudilidina, P., & Wibowo, H. (2022). The Use of Grammarly Tools to Enrich Students’
Writing Ability. Lingua: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa, 18(2), 179-189.
Nguyen, T. T. H, & Huynh, T. Y. (2023). Difficulties in Writing Skill of English Majored
Freshmen at Tay Do University. International Journals of All Research Writing, 5(2), 75-
83.
Nova, M. (2018). Utilizing Grammarly in Evaluating Academic Writing: A Narrative Research
on EFL Students’ Experience. Premise: Journal of English Education and Applied
Linguistics, 7(1), 80-96.
O’Neil, R., & Russell, A. (2019). Stop! Grammar Time: University Students’ Perceptions of the
Automated Feedback Program Grammarly. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 35(1), 42-56.
Phan, T. N. L. (2023). Students' Perceptions of the AI Technology Application in English
Writing Classes. Proceedings of the AsiaCALL International Conference, 4, 45-62.
ISSN:2833-6836, ISBN:979-8-9870112-4-9.DOI: https://doi.org/10.54855/paic.2344
Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative Research Practice. SAGE.

95
ISBN: 979-8-9870112-6-3 Vu Phuong Thao Vol. 6; 2024

Robbins, S. (2018). Organizational Behavior. Pearson Education Limited.

Sanosi, A., B. (2022). The Impact of Automated Written Corrective Feedback on EFL Learners’
Academic Accuracy. The Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic
Purposes, 7(2), 301-317. https://doi.org/10.22190/JTESAP2202301S
Solomon, M. R. (2019). Consumer Behaviour: A European Perspective. Pearson Education.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. SAGE.
Talis, S. S. N., Akib, E., & Baso, F. A. (2018). The Students’ Perception Toward Implementing
Blended Learning Method in English Language Teaching (ELT) at the 5th-Semester
Students of English Education Department (A Descriptive Qualitative Research). Jurnal
Keguruan Dan Ilmu Pendidikan, 5, 37-51.
Tran, T. T. H. (2024). AI Tools in Teaching and Learning English Academic Writing Skills.
Proceedings of the AsiaCALL InternationalConference, 4, 170-187. ISSN:2833-6836;
ISBN: 979-8-9870112-4-9.DOI: https://doi.org/10.54855/paic.23413
Ummah, L. K., & Bisriyah, M. (2022). EFL Students' Perception of Grammarly Premium's
Feedback and Dealing with Inaccuracies. Journal of English Educators Society, 7(2), 163-
172.
Utami, I. G. A. L. P., & Mahardika, I. G. N. A. W. (2023). Grammarly and Grammatical Errors
Reduction: A Case for Non-Native English Teachers’ Professional Learning.
International Journal of Language Education, 7(2).
https://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v7i2.46431
Winans, M. D. (2021). Grammarly’s Tone Detector: Helping Students Write Pragmatically
Appropriate Texts. Relc Journal, 52(2), 348-352.
Yan, G. (2016). Conceptualizing Effective Feedback Practice Through an Online Community
of Inquiry. Computers & Education, 94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.023

Biodata
Vu Phuong Thao is currently working as an English lecturer at FPT Polytechnic College, Hanoi,
Vietnam, teaching General English to non-English-majored students. She finished her
Master's degree in English Language Teaching Methodology in 2023. Her fields of interest
include applying technology in English teaching and learning and investigating innovative
teaching techniques.
Orcid: https://orcid.org/0009-0008-4381-0210

96