ONLINE GRAMMAR CHECKERS VERSUS SELF-EDITING: AN INVESTIGATION OF ERROR CORRECTION RATES AND WRITING QUALITY

Robert  Long

doi:10.24200/jonus.vol7iss1pp441-458

Robert Long Department of Foreign Languages, Kyushu Institute of Technology, Kyushu, Fukuoka 804-8550, Japan. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8693-1783

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol7iss1pp441-458

Abstract

Background and Purpose: In order to compete with native speakers, EFL and ESL students are under more pressure to produce native-like academic papers. This has led to more reliance on online grammar checkers, but these can be ineffective with regards to identifying and giving feedback on particular grammatical forms, phrasing and issues relating to style. Language learners may not be effectively correcting these errors. Hence, this study aims to examine the effectiveness of one online grammar checker, grammarly.com, with that of self-editing.

Methodology: This case study employed a descriptive approach to data analysis. 199 essays were collected from undergraduates at four universities in Kyushu, dated from April, 2019 to January, 2020. 99 essays were proofed by an online grammar checker, while 100 essays were self-edited. The English proficiency level of the participants was at the lower to intermediate range (i.e., TOEIC 300 to a TOEIC 500). The online grammar checker Grammarly was utilized by all participants to minimize issues relating to feedback. In the analysis of data, the complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) of the essays was assessed in order to examine the significant changes between the first and other drafts, and the types of errors produced.

Findings: Results showed that there were no significant differences found in terms of the methods of editing, although the participants who employed online grammar checkers had better results. It was also shown that there were no significant differences in terms of syntactical complexity with either method of editing. There were fewer errors committed by the participants who self-edited, but there were no significant differences in the edited drafts with regards to errors/100 ratios, error-free clauses, and error-free clause ratios. The study showed marginal differences between the two methods of proofing but indicated that online tools can be useful for identifying certain grammatical errors.

Contributions: This paper argues that educators need to work more with EFL learners on the editorial and proofing process, but online grammar checkers may be a useful pedagogical tool to help low-proficient L2 learners.

Keywords: Writing quality, editing, online grammar checkers, proofing, syntactical complexity.

Cite as: Long, R. (2022). Online grammar checkers versus self-editing: An investigation of error correction rates and writing quality. Journal of Nusantara Studies, 7(1), 441-458. http://dx.doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol7iss1pp441-458

Author Biography

Robert Long, Department of Foreign Languages, Kyushu Institute of Technology, Kyushu, Fukuoka 804-8550, Japan.

Robert Long has lived and worked in Japan for 24 years. He grew up in Florida and graduated from the University of Florida and Florida State University, with a Specialist Degree in Multilingual and Multicultural Education. He has traveled extensively and has worked at Kyushu Institute of Technology for the past 25 years, where he is a professor. His interests include pragmatics, poetry, creative writing (fables), jogging, gardening, yoga, and literature.

References

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118.

Cavaleri, M. (2016). You want me to check your grammar again? The usefulness of an online grammar checker as perceived by students. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 10(1), A223-A236.

Coffin, C., Curry, M. J., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lillis, T., & Swann, J. (2005). Teaching academic writing: A toolkit for higher education. Routledge.

Day, C., Kington, A., Stobart, G., & Sammons, P. (2006). The personal and professional selves of teachers: Stable and unstable identities. British Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 601–616.

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.

Gain, A., Mahabaleshwara, R., & Bhat, S. (2019). Usage of grammarly — Online grammar and spelling checker tool at the health sciences library, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal: A study. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal),
4(17), 1-13.

Haiyang, Ai. (2021). Web-based L2 syntactical complexity analyzer. http://aihaiyang.com/software/l2sca/

McCarthy, K. S., Roscoe, R. D., Likens, A. D., & McNamara, D. S. (2019). Checking it twice: Does adding spelling and grammar checkers improve essay quality in an automated writing tutor? In S. Isotani, E. Millán, A. Ogan, P. Hastings, B. McLaren, R.
Luckin (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education, AIED (pp. 270–282). Springer.

Myhill, D. (2009). Becoming a designer: Trajectories of linguistic development. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, M. Nystrand & J. Riley (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of writing development (pp. 402-415). SAGE Publications.

Narita, M. (2012). Developing a corpus-based online grammar tutorial prototype. Language Teacher, 36(5), 23-31.

Szmrecsanyi, B. (2004). On operationalizing syntactic complexity. In JADT 2004: 7es Journées Internationales d'Analyse statistique des Données Textuelles (pp. 1031-1038). http://www.benszm.net/omnibuslit/Szmrecsanyi2004.pdf

Warner, A. (2021). 8 free online grammar checkers: A clear winner in 2021. www.free-online-grammar-checkers-find-best-one/