TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION ON THE EVECTIVENESS USING GRAMMARLY AS A TOOL FOR WRITING ASSESSMENT

Siti Deti Wijayanti, Sumarta Sumarta, Maya Rahmawati

Abstract


In this digital era the progress writing assessment changes rapidly to monitor and determine students writing has developed tools in order to assessing the students’ writing automatically to help the teacher. The tools called Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) which are more commonly known as computer-generated feedback. In other hand, Grammarly as one of developed AWE program is effective to help teachers in correcting EFL writing. Most previous study, however, are primarily concerned with students’ improvement and perceptions using Grammarly. While, limited study taking yet on Teachers’ perception on the effectiveness of Grammarly application as a tool of writing assessment. This research aimed at investigating teachers’ perception on the effectiveness of Grammarly application as a tool of writing assessment. This research used the qualitative approach with descriptive case study design. The subject of the research was three EFL teacher who has been teaching English language for many years and used grammarly as a tool for writing assessment.  The findings from three participants indicates that the teachers respond positive perception. Positive perception refers toward that grammarly had helped the teachers in assessing students’ writing assessment effectively and efficiently at gramamar, punctuation and spelling features based on principle assessment by (brown, 2004) that is practically, reliability, validity, authenticity and washback.

Keywords


Grammarly, Teacher Perception

Full Text:

PDF

References


Creswell, J. W. 2012. Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

Creswell, J. W. 2014. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mix Method Approach (4th ed.). London: Sage Publication Ltd.

Brown, H. Douglas. 2004. Language Assessment – Principle and Classroom Practices. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.

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

Dikli, S. 2006. An overview of automated scoring of essays. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 5(1), 1–35.

Ferster, B, Hammond, T. C., Alexander, C., & Lyman, H. (2012). Automated formative assessment as a tool to scaffold student documentary writing. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 23(1), 21-39.

Gufron, A, Mochammad., & Roshida F. 2018. The Role Of Grammarly In Assessing English As A Foreign Language (EFL) Writing. Lingua Curtura, 12(4),395-403. https://doi.org/ 10.21512/lc.v12i4.4582

Grammarly.2017.AboutGrammarly.

Kabilan, M. K., Ahmad, N., & Abidin, M. J. Z. 2010. Facebook: An online environment for learning of English in institutions of higher education? Internetand Higher Education, 13(4), 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.07.003.

Kabilan, M. K., & Rajab, B. M. 2010. The utilization of the Internet by Palestinian English language teachers focusing on uses, practices and barriers, and overall contribution to professional development. International Journal of Education & DevelopmentUsing Information & Communication Technology,6(3), 56–72. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=55305153&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

agement with automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) provided by Grammarly: A multiple case study. Assessing Writing, 44, p.100450.

Lailika, H. 2019. Students’ Perceptions Of The Use Of Grammarly As An Online Grammar Checker In Thesis Writing. Uinsby.

Nunan, D. 1999. Second Language Teaching nd Learning. USA: Heinle & Heinle.

O‟Neill, Ruth, and Alex M.T. Russell. (2019). “Stop! Grammar Time: University Students‟ Perceptions of The Automated Feedback Program Grammarly”. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. Vol. 35 No. 1, 2019.

Roscoe, R., Wilson, J., Johnson, A. & Mayra, C., (2017). Presentation expectation, and experience: source of student perceptions of automated writing evaluation. Computer in Human Behavior, 70, 207-221.

Stevenson, M., & Phakiti, A. (2014). The effects of computer-generated feedback on the quality of writing. Assessing Writing, 19, 51–65.

Wichadee, S. (2013). Peer feedback on Facebook: The use of social networking websites to develop writing ability of undergraduate students. Turkish OnlineJournal of Distance Education, 14(4), 260–270. https://doi.org/10.17718/TOJDE.25470.

Yulianti, Erni, and Reni. (2018). “Utilizing Grammarly in Teaching Recount Text Through Genre Based Approach”. International Journal of Science, Technology and Society, Vol. 6 No. 1, 2018.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.31604/linguistik.v6i2.342-355

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 2037 times
PDF - 802 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Linguistik: Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra

issn online : 2548-9402 | issn cetak : 2541-3775
Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan Universitas Muhammadiyah Tapanuli Selatan
Jl.Stn Mhd Arief No 32 Padangsidimpuan, Sumatera Utara
Email: jurnal.linguistik@um-tapsel.ac.id