EFFECT OF USING AN AUTOMATED CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK TOOL ON L2 NARRATIVE WRITING OF ESL LEARNERS

Authors: Siddharth Thapa & Revathi Srinivas

ABSTRACT

Feedback literacy, defined as the ability to interpret, apply, and reflect on feedback effectively, is essential for the development of writing skills. However, in ESL contexts, learners often struggled to fully comprehend and integrate feedback, which might hinder their writing development. This study examined the impact of an automated corrective feedback tool, Grammarly, on the L2 narrative writing skills and feedback literacy of ESL undergraduate students. It aimed to assess Grammarly’s effectiveness in improving grammatical accuracy, syntactic complexity, vocabulary usage, and writing mechanics, while also exploring students’ perceptions of automated feedback and their ability to engage with it meaningfully. A mixed-methods approach was employed, involving twenty ESL learners from a university in Hyderabad, India. The study followed a pre-test, intervention, and post-test design, during which participants were trained in narrative writing using a process-based approach and introduced to Grammarly for feedback support. Data were collected through writing samples, questionnaires, and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative analysis revealed significant improvements in linguistic accuracy and overall writing quality. Thematic analysis showed that while students found Grammarly helpful, they faced challenges with certain feedback, especially stylistic suggestions. The study highlights the potential of automated tools in enhancing writing and feedback literacy, while underscoring the need for explicit instruction in feedback interpretation.

Keywords: Grammarly, narrative writing, feedback literacy, ESL learners, automated corrective feedback

REFERENCES

  • Carlberger, J. &Domeij, Rickard &Kann, Viggo &Knutsson, Ola. (2000). The Development and Performance of a Grammar Checker for Swedish: A Language Engineering Perspective.
  • Carless, D., &Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315-1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
  • Chapelle, C., & Jamieson, J. (2008). Tips for teaching with CALL: Practical approaches to computer-assisted language learning. Pearson Longman.
  • Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second‐language proficiency*. Language Learning, 39(1), 81-135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1989.tb00592.x
  • Dikli, S., &Bleyle, S. (2014). Automated essay scoring feedback for second language writers: How does it compare to instructor feedback? Assessing Writing, 22, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2014.03.006
  • Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023
  • Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “Grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime …?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 49-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005
  • Gang Li, Wei Chen, &Duanmu, J. (2009). Determinants of international students’ academic performance. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(4), 389-405. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315309331490
  • Gerrig, R. J., Berman, R. A., &Slobin, D. I. (1995). Relating events in narrative: A Crosslinguistic developmental study. Language, 71(4), 806. https://doi.org/10.2307/415747
  • Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.
  • Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83-101. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444806003399
  • Lantolf, J. P., &Pavlenko, A. (1995). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 155-178. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0267190500002646
  • Lee, I. (2012). Research into practice: Written corrective feedback. Language Teaching, 46(1), 108-119. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444812000390
  • Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta‐analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309-365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x
  • Liu, J., & Sadler, R. W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 193-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1475-1585(03)00025-0
  • Maghsoudi, M. (2013). The impact of brainstorming strategies Iranian EFL learners’ writing skill regarding their social class status. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 1(1), 60. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.s.20130101.20
  • McNamara, T. F., &Röver, C. (2010). Language testing: The social dimension.
  • O’Neill, R., & Russell, A. (2019). Grammarly: Help or hindrance? Academic Learning Advisors’ perceptions of an online grammar checker. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 13.
  • Paul Gee, J. (1985). The Narrativization of experience in the oral style. Journal of Education, 167(1), 9-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205748516700103
  • Qassemzadeh, H., & Soleimani, H. (2016). The impact of Grammarly on the improvement of intermediate EFL learners’ writing accuracy. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(2), 37-45.
  • Rad, H. S., Alipour, R., &Jafarpour, A. (2023). Using artificial intelligence to foster students’ writing feedback literacy, engagement, and outcome: A case of Wordtune application. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2208170
  • Schiffrin, D. (1981). Tense variation in narrative. Language, 57(1), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1981.0011
  • Silva, T. J., & Matsuda, P. K. (2001). Landmark essays on ESL writing.