EFL students’ Perception of Grammarly in Academic Writing
Keywords:
Academic Writing Process, AI Dependency Process, Automated Writing Evaluation, Grammarly, Perceptions, Technology AcceptanceAbstract
This qualitative descriptive study examined how seventh-semester English Education students at Institut Pendidikan Indonesia Garut perceived Grammarly's strengths and weaknesses in academic thesis writing. The researchers applied perception theory, the Technology Acceptance Model, process writing approaches, and the AI dependency dilemma framework. Through semi-structured interviews and reflexive thematic analysis, the study explored how students experienced and navigated Grammarly in their academic writing. Results showed that students valued Grammarly for surface-level corrections, time efficiency, and increased confidence. However, they identified significant limitations regarding disciplinary understanding, text coherence, and authorial voice. Students oscillated between critical engagement and uncritical tool dependence, revealing tensions between technological convenience and autonomous writing development. The research transcended traditional evaluation methods and highlighted students' perspectives on Grammarly's affordances and constraints in authentic writing contexts. Findings indicated that EFL writing instruction required AI literacy and critical thinking training to ensure students utilized Grammarly as a supplementary tool rather than a substitute for human feedback and deep linguistic reflection. Future research should employ mixed-methods approaches across multiple institutions and test interventions promoting independent academic writing competence.
References
References
Abbas, Q., Nawaz, R., Tariq Malik, M., Yar, A., & Arif, H. M. (2025). The Impact of Innovative Strategies on Improving Writing Skills of English Learners at University Level. Inverge Journal of Social Sciences, 4(1), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.63544/ijss.v4i1.120
Abu Qub’a, A., Abu Guba, M. N., & Fareh, S. (2024). Exploring the use of grammarly in assessing English academic writing. Heliyon, 10(15), e34893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e34893
Alnemrat, A., Aldamen, H., Almashour, M., Al-Deaibes, M., & AlSharefeen, R. (2025). AI vs. teacher feedback on EFL argumentative writing: a quantitative study. Frontiers in Education, 10(July). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1614673
Armanda, M. L., Nugraheni, A. F., Wulansari, A., & Imron, A. (2022). “Grammarly” as English Writing Assistant from EFL Students’ Perspective. English Education:Journal of English Teaching and Research, 7(2), 128–137. https://doi.org/10.29407/jetar.v7i2.17988
Baker, M. A. (2024). Perception and Perspective (Vol. 32, Issue 3).
Barrot, J. (2023). Writing skills in CALL: Effects of L2MSS vision-inspired instruction on L2 students’ motivation and achievement. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103063
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 21(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12360
Castillo-Montoya, M. (2016). Preparing for interview research: The interview protocol refinement framework. Qualitative Report, 21(5), 811–831. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2016.2337
Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023). Students’ voices on generative AI: perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8
Conijn, R., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Knight, S., Buckingham Shum, S., Van Waes, L., & van Zaanen, M. (2022). How to provide automated feedback on the writing process? A participatory approach to design writing analytics tools. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(8), 1838–1868. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1839503
Dahal, N., Neupane, B. P., Pant, B. P., Dhakal, R. K., Giri, D. R., Ghimire, P. R., & Bhandari, L. P. (2024). Participant selection procedures in qualitative research: experiences and some points for consideration. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2024.1512747
Davis, F. D., & Granic, A. (2024). Book Review : The Technology Acceptance Model - 30 Years of TAM The background to TAM The Evolution , Revolution and Future of TAM. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 21(2), 1–6.
Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S., Giardina, M. D., & Cannella, G. S. (2023). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research.
Dewi, U. (2023). Grammarly as Automated Writing Evaluation: Its Effectiveness from EFL Students’ Perceptions. Lingua Cultura, 16(2), 155–161. https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v16i2.8315
Driane, L. A., Roza, V., Melani, M., & Reflinda. (2024). EFL Students’ Perceptions on Using Grammarly in Thesis Writing at English Education Department Students Luthfi. 5(1), 167–186.
Dy, D., Ly Sovann, Mork, V., Sokun, V., & Touch, S. (2024). Online Grammar Learning of Students in Bachelor of English Literature Program: A Focus on How the Learners Perceive Their Improvement. Journal of English for Specific Purposes in Indonesia, 3(2), 115–124. https://doi.org/10.33369/espindonesia.v3i2.35954
Elizabeth J. Tisdell, Sharan B. Merriam, H. L. S.-P. (2025). Qualitative research : a guide to design and implementation. https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/in00000412183
Elliot, V., Kosteniuk, J., O’Connell, M. E., Cameron, C., & Morgan, D. (2024). Services for older adults in rural primary care memory clinic communities and surrounding areas: a qualitative descriptive study. BMC Health Services Research, 24(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11167-w
Faisal, F., & Carabella, P. A. (2023). Utilizing Grammarly in an Academic Writing Process: Higher-Education Students’ Perceived Views. Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics, 8(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.21462/jeltl.v8i1.1006
Fan, N. (2023). Exploring the Effects of Automated Written Corrective Feedback on EFL Students’ Writing Quality: A Mixed-Methods Study. SAGE Open, 13(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231181296
Fei, Y., Cui, L., Yang, S., Lam, W., Lan, Z., & Shi, S. (2023). Enhancing Grammatical Error Correction Systems with Explanations. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1, 7489–7501. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.413
Fitriana, K., Nurazni, L. (2022). Exploring English Department Students’ Perceptions on Using Grammarly to Check the Grammar in Their Writing. Journal of English Teaching, 7(1), 15–25. http://ejournal.unp.ac.id/index.php/jelt
Gholami, M., & Vakili, S. (2022). Investigating the Effects of Using Grammarly in EFL Writing: The Case of Articles. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2022.2150067
Hall, S., & Liebenberg, L. (2024). Qualitative Description as an Introductory Method to Qualitative Research for Master’s-Level Students and Research Trainees. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241242264
Isma, A., Rasmin, L. O., & Samsudin. (2023). Decoding the Challenges: A Study of English Writing Errors Among EFL Students. GLENS: Global English Insights Journal, 1(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.61220/glens.v1i1.2023a1
Junnier, F. (2024). Action and understanding in the semi-structured research interview: Using CA to analyse European research scientists’ attitudes to linguistic (dis)advantage. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 68(June 2023), 101355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101355
Koltovskaia, S. (2022). Student engagement with automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) provided by Grammarly: A multiple case study. Assessing Writing, 44(September 2019), 100450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100450
Lenzner, T., Höhne, J. K., & Gavras, K. (2024). Innovating Web Probing: Comparing Written and Oral Answers To Open-Ended Probing Questions in a Smartphone Survey. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 12(5), 1295–1317. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smae031
Lubiano, J. V. (2025). Beyond The Surface : A Parental Examination of Elementary Students ’ Social Media Usage.
McCombie, C., Miguel Esponda, G., Ouazzane, H., Knowles, G., Gayer-Anderson, C., Schmidt, U., & Lawrence, V. (2024). Qualitative Digital Diary Methods: Participant-Led Values for Ethical and Insightful Mental Health Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods , 23, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241296189
Ngo, T. T. N., Chen, H. H. J., & Lai, K. K. W. (2024). The effectiveness of automated writing evaluation in EFL/ESL writing: a three-level meta-analysis. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(2), 727–744. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2096642
Saglam, Y. (2024). Which Data Gathering Method is Superior: An Open-Ended Questionnaire or a Semi-Structured Interview? International Journal on Studies in Education, 6(3), 375–386. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijonse.220
Selim, A. S. M. (2024). The Transformative Impact of AI-Powered Tools on Academic Writing: Perspectives of EFL University Students. International Journal of English Linguistics, 14(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v14n1p14
Shephard, K. (2025). Learning and Teaching. Subject Librarians: Engaging with the Learning and Teaching Environment, 49–63. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315611204-5
Stracke, C. M., Bozkurt, A., McGreal, R., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2023). Open Educational Resources and their global needs, benefits and practices: The call for a future research agenda. Bulletin of the Technical Committee on Learning Technology, 23(1), 20–23.
Sultan, U., & Abidin, Z. (2022). ONLINE GRAMMAR CHECKERS VERSUS SELF-EDITING : AN INVESTIGATION OF ERROR CORRECTION RATES AND WRITING QUALITY Robert Long Department of Foreign Languages , Kyushu Institute of Technology , Kyushu , Fukuoka 804- As universities around the world have been tr. 7(1), 441–458.
Tambunan, A.R.S., Andayani, W., Sari, W. S. & L. F. . (2022). Investigating EFL Students’ linguistic problems using Grammarly as automated writing evaluation feedback. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistic, 2(1), 54–46.
Ummah, L. K., & Bisriyah, M. (2022). EFL students’ perception of Grammarly’s feedback and how they deal with the inaccuracy. JEES (Journal of English Educators Society), 7(2), 163–172. https://doi.org/10.21070/jees.v7i2.1687
Yang, Y., Tian, T. Y., Woodruff, T. K., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2022). Gender-diverse teams produce more novel and higher-impact scientific ideas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119(36). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2200841119
Yousofi, R. (2022). Grammarly deployment (in)efficacy within EFL academic writing classrooms: an attitudinal report from Afghanistan. Cogent Education, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2142446
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Citation Check
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Sania, Lucky, Eva, Satria
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share and adapt the work with an acknowledgement of the work’s authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal’s published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Upon receiving the proofs, the Author/Editor agrees to promptly check the proofs carefully, correct any errors, and authorize the publication of the corrected proofs.
