BEYOND THE RED PEN: EXPLORING EFL STUDENTS’ AUTONOMY AND STRUGGLES IN GRAMMAR CORRECTION

Yunita  Widiyantari; Kresna  Rahma Aji

doi:10.55340/e2j.v11i1.1860

Authors

Yunita Widiyantari Surakarta University
Kresna Rahma Aji Politeknik Balekambang Jepara

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55340/e2j.v11i1.1860

Keywords:

Learner Autonomy, Grammar Correction, Grammarly

Abstract

This study investigates how Grammarly, an automated writing feedback tool, supports the development of learner autonomy in grammar correction among EFL students; uncovers students’ perceptions of Grammarly’s role in grammar correction, their self-perceived responsibility in revision, and the challenges they face in becoming autonomous writers. This qualitative case study research involved ten students from the English Education Program at UIN Walisongo Semarang, representing both fifth and seventh semesters. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, classroom observations, and document analysis of student writing samples. The findings reveal that Grammarly contributes to learner autonomy by providing real-time, non-judgmental feedback that encourages revision and raises grammatical awareness. Students demonstrated increasing responsibility for their learning by combining Grammarly feedback with self-editing and peer consultation. However, challenges such as tool over-reliance, limited grammar knowledge, and emotional barriers were also evident. The study concludes that while Grammarly has significant potential to support grammar learning autonomy, its effectiveness depends on students’ critical engagement and reflective use. Pedagogical guidance is needed to help learners maximize the tool’s benefits and avoid passive dependence

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

O. Duhlicher, “Providing effective feedback and correcting errors in the EFL classroom,” Stud. Univ. Mold., vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 72–78, 2019.

F. Gunady, “Written corrective feedback given to errors in sentence structure: a case study,” K@ta Kita, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 64–72, 2018, doi: 10.9744/katakita.6.1.64-72.

D. Bailey and A. R. Lee, “An exploratory study of Grammarly in the language learning context: an analysis of test-based, textbook-based, and Facebook corpora,” TESOL Int. J., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 4–27, 2020.

D. T. N. Anh, “EFL student’s writing skills: challenges and remedies,” IOSR J. Res. Method Educ., vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 74–84, 2019, doi: 10.9790/7388-0906017484.

A. Wijnands, J. van Rijt, and P.-A. Coppen, “Learning to think about language step by step: a pedagogical template for the development of cognitive and reflective thinking skills in L1 grammar education,” Lang. Aware., vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 317–335, 2021.

Kurniasih, N. Mukminatien, M. A. Arianto, R. N. Sari, M. P. Anggraini, and A. Umamah, “Affective Factors in Online Writing Performance: Do They Matter?,” Mextesol J., vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 1–9, 2022.

H. Saeli, “Teachers’ Practices and Students’ Preferences: Grammar-Centered Written Corrective Feedback in Iran,” Res. English Lang. Pedagog., vol. 7, Mar. 2019.

S. Li, L. Ou, and I. Lee, “The timing of corrective feedback in second language learning,” Lang. Teach., pp. 1–17, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1017/S0261444824000478.

X. Li and W. Alharbi, “Impact of digital feedback, self-efficacy, and autonomy on motivation and general english performance in online courses,” Learn. Motiv., vol. 90, p. 102121, May 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.lmot.2025.102121.

M. I. Martinez, D. L. Guadalupe, and C. R. and Whitney, “The role of teacher beliefs in teacher learning and practice: implications for meeting the needs of English learners/emergent bilinguals,” Lang. Educ., vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 717–735, May 2025, doi: 10.1080/09500782.2024.2362305.

J. Ranalli, “Automated written corrective feedback: how well can students make use of it?,” Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn., vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 653–674, Sep. 2018, doi: 10.1080/09588221.2018.1428994.

R. K. Yin, The case study research: design and methods. London: SAGE Publications, 2003.

O. A. Adeoye‐Olatunde and N. L. Olenik, “Research and scholarly methods: Semi‐structured interviews,” J. Am. Coll. Clin. Pharm., vol. 4, no. 10, pp. 1358–1367, 2021.

G. Dizon and J. Gold, “Exploring the effects of grammarly on EFL students’ foreign language anxiety and learner autonomy,” JALT CALL J., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 299–316, 2023.

V. Braun and V. Clarke, “Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be (com) ing a knowing researcher,” Int. J. transgender Heal., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 2023.

B. Klimova, “Impact of mobile learning on students’ achievement results,” Education Sciences, vol. 9, no. 2. 2019. doi: 10.3390/educsci9020090.

G. M. Harrison and L. M. Vallin, “Evaluating the metacognitiv