Postsecondary L2 writing teachers' use and perceptions of Grammarly as a complement to their feedback

被引:19
作者
Koltovskaia, Svetlana [1 ]
机构
[1] Northeastern State Univ, Tahlequah, OK 74464 USA
关键词
Grammarly; L2; writing; teachers' perceptions; automated writing evaluation; WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK;
D O I
10.1017/S0958344022000179
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Although it has been suggested that automated writing evaluation (AWE) can liberate teachers' time to focus more on higher-order concerns as it can take care of lower-order concerns, AWE's impact on teachers' feedback practice is underexplored. Additionally, scant literature exists on teachers' perception of AWE when they use it to complement their feedback. This study explored how Grammarly shaped postsecondary L2 writing teachers' feedback when it was used to complement teacher feedback as well as teachers' perceptions of the tool. To understand Grammarly's impact, teachers' comments on 10 essays were analyzed. The teachers then had a semi-structured interview aimed at exploring their perceptions of Grammarly. The findings showed that teachers provided feedback both on global and local aspects of writing despite using Grammarly as a complement, and there was no division of labor such as that a teacher takes care of higher-order and Grammarly takes care of lower-order concerns. The findings also revealed factors that impacted teachers' feedback, including teachers' use of Grammarly reports, their attitudes toward automated feedback, as well as their beliefs about feedback and course objectives. Overall, of the six teachers, four were positive about Grammarly, while two were skeptical. The study provides implications on how to use Grammarly meaningfully as a complement to teacher feedback.
引用
收藏
页码:290 / 304
页数:15
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]   Using automated written corrective feedback in the writing classrooms: effects on L2 writing accuracy [J].
Barrot, Jessie S. .
COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING, 2023, 36 (04) :584-607
[2]  
Chen CFE, 2008, LANG LEARN TECHNOL, V12, P94
[3]  
Cotos E., 2018, The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching
[4]  
Creswell J.W., 2019, Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
[5]   Learner uptake of teacher electronic feedback in ESL composition [J].
Ene, Estela ;
Upton, Thomas A. .
SYSTEM, 2014, 46 :80-95
[6]  
Ericsson PF, 2006, MACHINE SCORING OF STUDENT ESSAYS: TRUTH AND CONSEQUENCES, P28
[7]  
Ericsson PF, 2006, MACHINE SCORING OF STUDENT ESSAYS: TRUTH AND CONSEQUENCES, P1
[8]  
Ferris D., 2011, TREATMENT ERROR 2 LA
[9]  
Ferris D.R., 2006, FEEDBACK 2 LANGUAGE, P81, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9781139524742.007
[10]  
Grammarly, 2022, CHOOS YOUR PLAN