Exploring an Automated Feedback Program ‘Grammarly’ and Teacher Corrective Feedback in EFL Writing Assessment: Modern vs. Traditional Assessment

M. Ghufron
{"title":"Exploring an Automated Feedback Program ‘Grammarly’ and Teacher Corrective Feedback in EFL Writing Assessment: Modern vs. Traditional Assessment","authors":"M. Ghufron","doi":"10.4108/EAI.27-4-2019.2285308","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aimed at (1) exploring the teachers and students’ perceptions and attitudes toward the implementation of ‘Grammarly’ and teacher corrective feedback, (2) uncovering the strengths and weaknesses of the use of ‘Grammarly’ and teacher corrective feedback in EFL writing class. This study employs a case study design. The findings of this study show the positive perceptions and attitudes of teachers and students on the implementation of both ‘Grammarly’ and teacher corrective feedback. ‘Grammarly’ is better in reducing 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. On the contrary, teacher corrective feedback is better in terms of improving the content, organization, and mechanics of writing, but it is less effective in terms of language use and diction.","PeriodicalId":202366,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 3rd English Language and Literature International Conference, ELLiC, 27th April 2019, Semarang, Indonesia","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"19","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 3rd English Language and Literature International Conference, ELLiC, 27th April 2019, Semarang, Indonesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4108/EAI.27-4-2019.2285308","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

Abstract

This study aimed at (1) exploring the teachers and students’ perceptions and attitudes toward the implementation of ‘Grammarly’ and teacher corrective feedback, (2) uncovering the strengths and weaknesses of the use of ‘Grammarly’ and teacher corrective feedback in EFL writing class. This study employs a case study design. The findings of this study show the positive perceptions and attitudes of teachers and students on the implementation of both ‘Grammarly’ and teacher corrective feedback. ‘Grammarly’ is better in reducing 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. On the contrary, teacher corrective feedback is better in terms of improving the content, organization, and mechanics of writing, but it is less effective in terms of language use and diction.
探索自动反馈程序“语法”和教师纠正反馈在英语写作评估:现代与传统的评估
本研究旨在(1)探索教师和学生对“Grammarly”的使用和教师纠正反馈的看法和态度;(2)揭示“Grammarly”的使用和教师纠正反馈在英语写作课堂上的优势和劣势。本研究采用个案研究设计。本研究的结果表明,教师和学生对“语法”和教师纠正反馈的实施都有积极的看法和态度。“Grammarly”在减少词汇用法(措辞)、语言使用(语法)和写作机制(拼写和标点符号)方面的错误方面做得更好。然而,在提高学生英语写作的内容和组织方面收效甚微。相反,教师纠正反馈在改善写作内容、组织和机制方面效果更好,但在语言使用和措辞方面效果较差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信