Nhận thức của sinh viên tiếng anh về việc sử dụng grammarly trong việc viết bài luận

HUE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES ENGLISH DEPARTMENT -   - GRADUATION THESIS EFL UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' REFLECTIONS ON THE USE OF GRAMMALY IN ESSAY WRITING NAME : PHAN BAO ANH CLASS : ANH SPK14B STUDENT ID : 17F7011002 SUPERVISOR : LE PHAM HOAI HUONG Hue, May 2021 HUE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES ENGLISH DEPARTMENT -   - GRADUATION THESIS EFL UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' REFLECTIONS ON THE USE OF GRAMMALY IN ESSAY WRITING NAME : PHAN BAO ANH CLASS : ANH SPK14B STUDENT ID : 17F7011002 SUPERVISOR : LE PHAM HOAI HUONG Hue, May 2021 LỜI CAM ĐOAN Tôi xin cam đoan kết đạt khóa luận sản phẩm riêng cá nhân, không chép lại người khác Tất tài liệu tham khảo có xuất xứ rõ ràng trích dẫn hợp pháp Huế, ngày 22 tháng 05 năm 2021 Sinh viên thực (ký ghi rõ họ tên) Phan Bao Anh i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Firstly, I would like to show my deepest gratitude toward my supervisor, Ph.D Le Pham Hoai Huong who wholeheartedly guided me to accomplish the thesis I must admit that her advice is such a treat for me because I have learned more lessons and can be more mature Secondly, I would like to thank my closest friends, Khanh Ngoc, Doan Thien, and Yen Nhi, especially Nhat Phuong who have stayed by my side to support me in the darkest time The completion of my thesis cannot come true without your help and advice I also would like to thank my parents who allowed me to go to the coffee shops all day I know you did that to make me feel more comfortable and happy to write the graduation thesis Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to the English Department of the University of Foreign Languages, Hue University for creating an opportunity for the students like me to have more interesting experiences in the final year of university students ii ABSTRACT The aim of the study is to investigate EFL university students at the University of Foreign Languages, Hue University whose reflections on the use of Grammarly in essay writing The researcher collected data from three instruments: questionnaire, reflection journals and interview The study gathered 75 university students (fourth-year students accounted for 76%) to fill in the questionnaire After that, 11 participants were asked to take part in writing reflection journals and answering interviews The data from the questionnaire was statistically analysed and the data from the reflection journals and interviews were thematically analysed The study found that a large majority of the participants had a positive attitude toward the use of Grammarly in essay writing From the reflection journals and interviews, EFL university students expressed their opinions about both benefits and difficulties of using Grammarly The study also revealed that, despite flaws in Grammarly, students still favoured Grammarly because of its positive uses and could learn more from it The researcher introduced implications for EFL teaching and learning based on the findings of the study Finally, the researcher suggested more potential research in the future iii LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1: The reliability of the questionnaire Error! Bookmark not defined Table 4.2: Mean score of the questionnaire for the students Error! Bookmark not defined Table 4.3: Mean score of students’ attitudes towards the Grammarly writing suggestions on correctness Error! Bookmark not defined Table 4.4: Students’ responses to each item of the “Mechanics” category Error! Bookmark not defined Table 4.5: Students’ responses to each item of the “Mechanics” category Error! Bookmark not defined Table 4.6: Students’ responses to each item of “Diction” category Error! Bookmark not defined Table 4.7: Summary of responses to each item of “Conciseness” category Error! Bookmark not defined Table 4.8: Summary of responses to each item of “Readability” category Error! Bookmark not defined Table 4.9: Summary of responses to the item of “plagiarism” Error! Bookmark not defined Table 4.10: Summary of responses to each items of the cluster “Evaluation” 51 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.2.1 Grammarly free version and Grammarly Premium features 17 Figure 2.5.1 Figure 4.1 Writing errors of a student’s essay revised by Grammarly Premium 37 Figure 4.2 Writing errors of a participant’ essay revised by Grammarly iv Premium 46 Figure 4.3 Grammarly Premium’s suggestions on a participant’ essay v 47 TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ii ABSTRACT iii LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ix CHAPTER INTRODUCTIONS 1.1 Rationale of the research 1.2 Aims of the research 1.3 Research questions 1.4 Scope of the research 1.5 Significant of the study 1.6 Overview CHAPTER LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Definitions of key terms 2.1.1 Writing skill 2.1.2 Writing errors 2.1.3 Error correction or corrective feedback 2.1.4 Reflection 2.2 The use of error correction in essay writing 2.3 The use of technology in EFL writing vi 13 2.4 The use of Grammarly 15 2.5 Previous studies on the use of Grammarly 18 2.6 Summary 20 CHAPTER METHODOLOGY 21 3.1 Research approaches 21 3.2 Research participants 21 3.3 Data collection tools 22 3.4 Procedure of the data collection 24 3.5 Data analysis 25 3.6 Summary 25 CHAPTER FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 26 A Findings 26 4.1 Analysis of data from the questionnaire 26 4.2 University students’ perceptions about the use of Grammarly in essay writing 27 4.2.1 University students’ perceptions about the use of Grammarly writing suggestions on correctness 27 4.2.1.1 Responses to the Grammarly features of mechanics 28 4.2.1.2 Responses to the grammar Grammarly features of 31 4.2.1.3 Responses to the Grammarly features of diction 37 vii 4.2.2 University students’ perceptions about the use of Grammarly writing suggestions on clarity 39 4.2.2.1 Responses to the Grammarly features of conciseness 40 4.2.2.2 Responses to the Grammarly features of readability 42 4.2.2.3 Responses to the Grammarly feature of plagiarism 4.3 University students’ reflections on the use of Grammarly in essay writing 45 4.3.1 University students’ reflections on the benefits of using Grammarly in essay writing 45 4.3.2 University students’ reflections about the difficulties of using Grammarly in essay writing 50 4.3.3 University students’ evaluation towards the experience of using Grammarly in essay writing B Discussion 52 55 4.4 Summary 59 CHAPTER CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 60 5.1 Conclusion 60 5.2 Implications 61 5.2.1 Implications for EFL teaching 61 5.2.2 Implications for EFL learning 62 5.3 Limitation 62 5.4 Suggestions for future research 63 viii REFERENCES 1) Akmal, S., Dahliana, S., & Fadhila, R (2020) Cooperative Assessment Writing Practices At An Acehnese Private University: Helping Or Troubling? JL3T ( Journal of Linguistics Literature and Language Teaching), 5(2), 107-119 2) Ashwell, T (2000) Patterns of Teacher Response to Student Writing in a MultipleDraft Composition Classroom: Is Content Feedback Followed by Form Feedback the Best Method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-257 3) Barrass, R (2007) Students must write: A guide to better writing in coursework and examinations Routledge 4) Beuningen, C G., Jong, N H., & Kuiken, F (2011) Evidence on the Effectiveness of Comprehensive Error Correction in Second Language Writing Language Learning, 62(1), 1-41 5) Bhela, B (1999) Native language interference in learning a second language: Exploratory case studies of native language interference with target language usage International Education Journal 1(2), 22-31 6) Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D (2005) The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191-205 7) Boom, G V., Paas, F., & Merriënboer, J J (2007) Effects of elicited reflections combined with tutor or peer feedback on self-regulated learning and learning outcomes Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 532-548 8) Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D (2015) Reflection: Turning experience into learning Routledge 9) Bull, S., & Ma, Y (2001) Raising learner awareness of language learning strategies in situations of limited resources Interactive Learning Environments, 9(2), 171-200 10) Byrne, D (1998) Teaching writing skills Harlow, UK: Longman 64 11) Cavaleri, M R., & Dianati, S (2016) You want me to check your grammar again? The usefulness of an online grammar checker as perceived by students Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 10(1), A223-A236 12) 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(3), 267-296 13) Daniels, P., & Leslie, D (2013) Grammar software ready for EFL writers OnCue Journal, 9(4), 391-401 14) Denny, H C (2008) Dangerous liaisons: Reflections on a pilot project for statemandated outcomes assessment of written communication Assessing Writing, 13(1), 26-44 15) Edge, J (1989) Mistakes and correction London: Longman 16) Ellis, R (1997) SLA research and language teaching Cambridge University Press 17) Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H (2008) The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context System, 36(3), 353-371 18) Fathman, A K., & Whalley, E (n.d.) Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content Second Language Writing, 178-190 19) Ferris, D (1999) The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996) Journal of second language writing, 8(1), 1-11 20) Ferris, D R (1995) Student Reactions to Teacher Response in Multiple-Draft Composition Classrooms TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 33-53 21) Ferris, D R (1997) The Influence of Teacher Commentary on Student Revision TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315 22) Ferris, D R., & Hedgcock, J S (2012) Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice Routledge 65 23) Ferris, D., & Roberts, B (2001) Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of second language writing, 10(3), 161-184 24) Ferris, D R (2011) Treatment of error in second language student writing University of Michigan Press 25) Frantzen, D (1995) The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish content course The Modern Language Journal, 79(3), 329-344 26) Gamper, J., & Knapp, J (2002) A review of intelligent CALL systems Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(4), 329-342 27) Ghandi, M., & Maghsoudi, M (2014) The Effect of Direct and Indirect Corrective Feedback on Iranian EFL Learners’ Spelling Errors English Language Teaching, 7(8) 28) Ghufron, M (2019) Exploring an Automated Feedback Program ‘Grammarly’ and Teacher Corrective Feedback in EFL Writing Assessment: Modern vs Traditional Assessment Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 3rd English Language and Literature International Conference, ELLiC, 27th April 2019, Semarang, Indonesia 29) Ghufron, M A., & Rosyida, F (2018) The role of Grammarly in assessing English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing Lingua Cultura, 12(4), 395-403 30) Gilakjani, A P (2017) A Review of the Literature on the Integration of Technology into the Learning and Teaching of English Language Skills International Journal of English Linguistics, 7(5), 95 31) Grabe, W., and R B Kaplan 1996 Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective London: Longman 66 32) Graham, S., & Perin, D (2007) A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445-476 33) Hyland, K (2003) Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 17-29 34) Hyland, K., & Hyland, F (2006) Feedback on second language students' writing Language teaching, 39(2), 83 35) James, C (1998) Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis New York: Longman 36) Jayavalan, K., & Razali, A B (2018) Effectiveness of online grammar checker to improve secondary students’ English narrative essay writing International Research Journal of Education and Sciences (IRJES), 2(1), 1-6 37) Johnson, K E., & Ma, P (1999) Understanding language teaching: Reasoning in action Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle 38) Karyuatry, L (2018) Grammarly as a Tool to Improve Students’ Writing Quality: Free Online-Proofreader across the Boundaries JSSH (Jurnal Sains Sosial Dan Humaniora), 2(1), 83 39) Kellogg, R T (2001) Competition for Working Memory among Writing Processes The American Journal of Psychology, 114(2), 175 40) Kitchakarn, O (2015) EFL Learners' Attitudes towards Using Computers as a Learning Tool in Language Learning Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 14(2), 52-58 41) Koltovskaia, S (2020) Student engagement with automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) provided by Grammarly: A multiple case study Assessing Writing, 44, 100450 67 42) Krashen, S (1985) The input hypothesis: Issues and implications New York: Longman 43) Lam, Y., & Lawrence, G (2002) Teacher-student role redefinition during a computer-based second language project: Are computers catalysts for empowering change? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(3), 295-315 44) Langan, J (2005) College writing skills with reading New York: McGraw-Hill Companies 45) Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J M (2003) Students' evaluation of CALL software programs Educational Media International, 40(3-4), 293-304 46) Lee, I (1997) ESL learners' performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for teaching System, 25(4), 465-477 47) Lee, I (2004) Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong Journal of second language writing, 13(4), 285-312 48) Levy, M (1997) Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization Oxford University Press 49) Li, J., & Cumming, A (2001) Word processing and second language writing: A longitudinal case study International Journal of English Studies, 1(2), 127-152 50) MacArthur, C A (1999) Overcoming barriers to writing: computer support for basic writing skills Reading & Writing Quarterly, 15(2), 169-192 51) McAlexander, P J (2000) Checking the grammar checker: Integrating grammar instruction with writing Journal of Basic Writing, 124-140 52) Mollaei, F., & Riasati, M J (2013) Teachers’ perceptions of using technology in teaching EFL International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 2(1), 13-22 68 53) Moon, J.A (1999) Reflection in learning and professional development, theory and practice London: Kogan Page 54) Murphy, D F (1986) Communication and correction in the classroom Elt Journal, 40(2), 146-151 55) Nadasdi, T., & Sinclair, S (2007) Anything I can do, CPU can better: A comparison of human and computer grammar correction for L2 writing using BonPatron com Unpublished manuscript Retrieved Sept, 1, 2010 56) Norrish, J (1983) Language learners and their errors London: Macmillan Press 57) Noytim, U (2010) Weblogs enhancing EFL students’ English language learning Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1127-1132 58) Nunan, D (1999) Second Language Teaching & Learning Heinle & Heinle Publishers 59) O’Neill, 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 60) Potter, R., & Fuller, D (2008) My New Teaching Partner? Using the Grammar Checker in Writing Instruction English Journal, 98(1), 36-41 61) 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 62) Reid, J M (1993) Teaching ESL writing Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents 63) Robb, T., Ross, S., Shortreed, I., 1986 Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality TESOL Quarterly 20(1), 83–93 69 64) Russell, J., & Spada, N (2006) The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching, 13, 133-164 65) Saadi, Z K., & Saadat, M (2015) Iranian EFL Learners' Grammatical Knowledge: Effect of Direct and Metalinguistic Corrective Feedback English Language Teaching, 8(8), 112-120 66) Schön, D A (1987) Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions Jossey-Bass 67) Semke, H (1984) The effects of the red pen Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195– 202 68) Sermsook, K., Liamnimit, J., & Pochakorn, R (2017) An Analysis of Errors in Written English Sentences: A Case Study of Thai EFL Students English Language Teaching, 10(3), 101-110 69) Sharples, M (1999) How we write-writing as creative design London: Routledge 70) Sheen, Y (2007) The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners' acquisition of articles Tesol Quarterly, 41(2), 255-283 71) Sheppard, K (1992) Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103–110 72) Storch, N (2005) Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections Journal of second language writing, 14(3), 153-173 73) Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G (2010) LEARNERS' PROCESSING, UPTAKE, AND RETENTION OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING: Case Studies Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 303-334 74) Tribble, C 1996 Writing Oxford: Oxford University Press 70 75) Truscott, J (1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes Language learning, 46(2), 327-369 76) Truscott, J (1999) The case for ‘‘the case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes’’: A response to Ferris Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111–122 77) Truscott, J (2004) Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler Journal of second language writing, 13(4), 337-343 78) Truscott, J (2007) The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately Journal of second language Writing, 16(4), 255-272 79) Ur, P (1996) A Course in Language Teaching Practice and Theory Cambridge Teacher Training and Development Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 80) Van Beuningen, C G (2011) The effectiveness of comprehensive corrective feedback in second Studies, 10(2), 1-27 81) Van Beuningen, C G., De Jong, N H., & Kuiken, F (2012) Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing Language learning, 62(1), 1-41 82) Van den Boom, G., Paas, F., & Van Merrienboer, J J (2007) Effects of elicited reflections combined with tutor or peer feedback on self-regulated learning and learning outcomes Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 532-548 83) Warschauer, M., & Healey, D (1998) Computers and language learning: An overview Language Teaching, 31(2), 57-71 84) Yang, H (2018) Efficiency of online grammar checker in English writing performance and students’ perceptions 영어학, 18(3), 328-348 71 85) Yarrow, F., & Topping, K J (2001) Collaborative writing: The effects of metacognitive prompting and structured peer interaction British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 261-282 86) Zaini, A., & Mazdayasna, G (2014) The Effect of Computer Assisted Language Learning on the Development of EFL Learners’ Writing Skills Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1975-1982 87) Zinsser, W (2006) On writing well: The classic guide to writing nonfiction HarperCollins 72 APPENDICES Appendix A: Questionnaire Hello! I am currently a fourth-year student at the University of Foreign Languages, Hue University I am conducting a study for my graduation thesis The thesis title is “EFL UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ REFLECTIONS ON THE USE OF GRAMMARLY IN ESSAY WRITING” The questionnaire aimed to investigate the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) university students’ perceptions and attitudes towards the use of Grammarly application I guarantee you that your information will be kept confidential and is only used for research Thank you! A Background information Age: _ Gender: Male Female You are a _ student first-year second-year third-year fourth-year How many years have you learned English? Your email is B Questionnaire On a scale from to 5, for each following statements, please indicate your agreement by choosing in an appropriate number according to following scale : 1=Strongly disagree 2=Disagree 3= Neutral 4=Agree 5=Strongly agree Statements Scale 73 Features ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ Diction Scale Statements Diction I think Grammarly suggestions on spelling errors in essays are excellent ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ I think Grammarly suggestions on punctuation errors are excellent ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ I think Grammarly suggestions on apostrophes or quotation marks errors are excellent ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ I think Grammarly fixes tense errors well ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ I think Grammarly fixes conjunctions well ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ I think Grammarly fixes plural forms of nouns well ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ I think Grammarly fixes conditionals well ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 74 I think Grammarly fixes word order well ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ Grammar I think Grammarly fixes subjectverb agreement well ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 10 I think Grammarly fixes prepositions errors well ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 11 I think Grammarly fixes unclear antecedents well ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 12 I think Grammarly suggests appropriate articles well ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 13 I think Grammarly fixes relative pronouns well ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 14 I think Grammarly fixes relative clauses well ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 15 I think Grammarly fixes misplaced modifiers well ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 16 I think Grammarly replaces overused words with better synonyms ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 17 I think Grammarly fixes repeated words well ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 18 I think Grammarly eliminates unnecessary words well ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 19 I think Grammarly rephrases wordy sentences well ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ Diction 20 I think Grammarly suggests replacing wordy phrases by changing the wording well 75 Conciseness 21 I think Grammarly suggests rewriting passive voice into active voice sentences, which is great ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 22 I think the reflection of sentence length in Grammarly can help my writing skill positively ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 23 I think the reflection of word length can help my writing skill positively ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 24 It is essential that Grammarly indicates the readability score of my text ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 25 I think the tone detection of Grammarly helps me easily to find the appropriate tone ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 26 I think Grammarly showed users unclear or hard-to-read sentences and asked them to consider, which is great ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 27 I think the plagiarism detection of Grammarly helps me refrain from copying others’ work in writing essays ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 28 I think Grammarly is a useful tool to assist university students in writing essays ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 29 I will use Grammarly in the future ○ Readability Plagiarism Evaluation ○ ○ Thank you so much! 76 ○ ○ Appendix B: Reflection journals This reflection journal is to collect students’ reflections on the use of Grammarly in essay writing Please read the questions carefully and answer the questions in detail How did you use Grammarly in essay writing before? How did Grammarly help you with your essay writing? Please give as many specific examples as possible from what you have experienced Did you have any difficulties with the use of Grammarly for you essay writing? If no, why not? If yes, please give as many examples as possible from what you have experienced Overall, how you evaluate the experience of using Grammarly for your essay writing? Thank you so much! 77 Appendix C: Interview The interview aims to collect students’ reflections on the use of Grammarly in essays to clarify their answers in reflection journals Sau xem clip so sánh hai viết trước sau sử dụng Grammarly để đối chiếu, bạn thấy chất lượng viết nào? (After watching the short clip about the process of revising and then comparing the two essays with using Grammarly and without using Grammarly, what you think about the quality of your essay? Bạn thấy lợi ích dùng Grammarly việc viết luận sao? (What benefit you see when using Grammarly in essay writing?) Bạn có cảm thấy hài lòng với cách Grammarly sửa cho bạn không? (Do you feel satisfied with the Grammarly suggestions?) Những khó khăn bạn gặp dùng Grammarly gì? (What are difficulties you can encounter when using Grammarly?) Bạn đánh giá Grammarly nào? (How you evaluate Grammarly?) Thank you so much! 78