SKKN The effects of applying the grammarly app on efl learners’ grammar accuracy in writing skill at Nam Dan I High School

their writing, as demonstrated by a counterbalanced treatment study involving non-Grammarly and Grammarly conditions over the school year. During Semester 1, when the non-Grammarly condition was used, students struggled to improve their grammar, especially with verb tenses, subject-verb agreement, singular/plural nouns, and the use of articles in their writing. However, in Semester 2, with the support of Grammarly, students outperformed their earlier performance. The regular use of this app during the learning process was reflected in their improved writing performance. Students highly appreciated the role of Grammarly in their language development, particularly in improving their grammar and writing skills. This improvement was in favor of students' perspectives, as they confirmed in the post-questionnaire that Grammarly was more helpful than their teachers' grammar feedback, which they rated as low in the pre-questionnaire.
Based on the interview results, it was found that eight students displayed a high level of interest in studying English despite making multiple grammatical errors in their writing. Nevertheless, the specific types of errors made by each participant varied to some extent.
To begin with, interviewees experienced difficulties with verb tenses in their sentences. Additionally, students acknowledged that they frequently made errors with nouns, prepositions, and punctuation. Concerning noun-related errors, they sometimes neglected to include the plural markers "-s" or were unsure about using the correct forms of particular nouns. Additionally, mistakes in selecting prepositions and punctuations occurred from time to time. Furthermore, the use of passive voice was identified as a common area of grammar-related errors. Qualitative data suggested that interviewees and other students found it challenging to practice writing with a passive voice. These errors could be attributed to the differences in the plurality systems between Vietnamese and English. Vietnamese primarily uses the words "đã," "đang," and "sẽ" to indicate past, present, and future tense, respectively. In Vietnamese, quantifiers are used before nouns instead of affixed plural markers as in English. Moreover, interviewees struggled with using prepositions and articles. They also encountered difficulties with writing mechanics, such as punctuation and spelling. The least common grammar-related errors identified by interviewees in their writing were word order, subject-verb agreement, reported speech, and relative clauses. Misspelled words were also a frequent source of vocabulary-usage errors. Additionally, two interviewees expressed confusion about using articles when writing in English, leading them to use unnecessary or incorrect articles in their sentences.
The findings regarding the second research question have implications for this study as well as others. Firstly, students were able to improve their grammar and writing skills in general by using Grammarly to detect and correct errors. The suggestions provided by Grammarly also helped students make their writing more concise. Additionally, EFL students were able to use Grammarly from the comfort of their own homes, allowing for flexibility in checking their writing at any time or place. All interviewees expressed a desire to continue using the Grammarly app in the future, recognizing its potential as a valuable tool to support their English learning. Most students in this study had a positive perception of using the Grammarly app for writing. They found its simultaneous suggestions, variety of grammar advice, and straightforward explanations to be particularly useful for their learning. This study's results align with other related research, as students across various studies have found that Grammarly can help them identify errors in grammar, vocabulary use, and mechanics of writing.
3.2. Limitations
Despite the considerable effort put into this study, the researcher acknowledges several limitations. Firstly, the sample size was small, consisting of only 50 students from two classes. The lack of a sampling method was due to the researcher's limited access to the classes for research purposes. Additionally, the findings were solely based on questionnaires and interviews, and there was no triangulation of data from other sources.
3.3. Recommendations for future research
The present study provides a foundation for future research in several areas. Firstly, action research could be conducted to explore the potential benefits of using Grammarly for collaborative learning between teachers and students. This would involve gathering data through various protocols to better understand the impact of such collaboration on students' learning outcomes. Secondly, future studies could focus on the effectiveness of other features of the Grammarly app, such as its lexical choices and plagiarism checker, and their impact on students' writing skills. These areas of inquiry could provide valuable insights into the potential benefits of technology-assisted language learning and contribute to the development of effective pedagogical practices.
REFERENCES
Ananda, M., Nisa, R., & Safura, S. (2022). Students’ perceptions toward the use of Grammarly in checking grammar in assignments. ACCENT: Journal of English Language and Education, 1(2), 72-77. DOI: 
Berthoff, A. (1981). The making of meaning. NJ: Boynton Cook
Blee, K. M., & Taylor, V. (2002). Semi-structured interviewing in social movement research. Methods of social movement research, 16, 92-117. Retrieved from: 
Cavaleri, M. R., & Dianati, S. (2016). Do you want me to recheck your grammar? The usefulness of an online grammar checker as perceived by students. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 10(1), A223-A236. Retrieved from: 
Coit, 2004. PA12&dq=Coit&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj244HxsdL6AhWUF4gKHUxu DjgQ6AF6BAgEEAI 
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative, (4th, ed.). NY: Prentice Hall. 61 Creswell, J.W., 
Dizon, G., & Gayed, J. M. (2021). Examining the impact of Grammarly on the quality of mobile L2 writing. JALT CALL Journal, 17(2), 74-92. DOI: 
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107. 
Faller, J. M. V. (2018). Grammarly investigation into EFL writing issues involving Omani learners. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 5(3), 2374- 8869. DOI:10.30845/jill.v5n3p16 
Fitria, T. N. (2021b). 'Grammarly' is a teacher's alternative to evaluating non-EFL students’ writings. LEKSEMA: Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra, 6(2), 141-152. 
George, D. & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows: A simple guide and reference 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon 
Gillham, W. E., (2007). Developing a Questionnaire, (2nd, ed.). London: Continuum. Hakiki, 
Howard, S. (2015). A study of students' perceptions and attitudes toward using SMS to support learning and teaching at Kuwait University (Doctoral thesis, the University of Wollongong, Australia). 
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), 83-89. DOI: 10.30595/josh.v2i1.2297
Nassaji, H. (2015). Qualitative and descriptive research: Data type versus data analysis. Language teaching research, 19(2), 129-132. . 
Pearson, C., & Hussain, Z. (2015). Smartphone use, addiction, narcissism, and personality: A mixed methods investigation. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology, and Learning (IJCBPL), 5(1), 17-32. DOI: 10.4018/978- 1-5225-0778-9.ch011 
Pimentel, J. (2010). A note on the usage of Likert Scaling for research data analysis. USM R & D, 18, 109-112. Retrieved from: 
Pratama, Y. D. (2021). The investigation of using Grammarly as an online grammar checker in writing. English Ideas: Journal of English Language Education, 1(2). Retrieved from: 
APPENDIX
APPENDIX 1
QUESTIONAIRE (English version)
THE EFFECTS OF APPLYING THE GRAMMARLY APP ON EFL LEARNERS’ GRAMMAR ACCURACY IN WRITING SKILL
The questionnaire is designed in order to survey information THE EFFECTS OF APPLYING THE GRAMMARLY APP ON EFL LEARNERS’ GRAMMAR ACCURACY IN WRITING SKILL
RESEARCHER: Lê Thị Cẩm Linh
I am Le Thi Cam Linh, a teacher at Nam Dan 1 high school, Nghe An province, Vietnam. I am conducting research on “THE EFFECTS OF APPLYING THE GRAMMARLY APP ON EFL LEARNERS’ GRAMMAR ACCURACY IN WRITING SKILL”
This questionnaire is highly appreciated. You should answer and choose the information with each other. Your name is not required to be filled in. Please give your response sincerely to guarantee the success of the study. I would like to thank all of you so much for your assistance. 
PHẦN A. PERSONAL INFORMATION 
1. Which grade are you in?
o Grade 10 
o Grade 11 
o Grade 12 
2. Do you learn English at school? 
o Yes 
o No 
If yes, how many periods do you learn English at your school? ..
3. Do you learn extra English courses in other places? 
o Yes 
o No 
If yes, how many hours do you learn English more in other places? ..
4. How long have you been learning English? 
o Below 5 years
o From 5 years to 10 years
o Over 10 years
PHẦN B. THE EVALUATION OF THE IMPACTS OF GRAMMARLY APP ON HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’ WRITING SKILL
1. Do you often learn English writing skills at your school or center,  
o Yes 
o No 
If yes, how many periods of writing do you learn at your school ..
3. Have you ever had difficulty learning writing skills? 
o Yes 
o No 
If yes, what are the difficulties? 
3. Do you often learn English writing skills with applications? 
o Yes 
o No 
II. THE EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS 
Please tick in the number corresponding to the rating for each other 
To answer the question: What are the students’ perceptions of Grammarly app in EFL classes to students’ writing essay performance at high school?
Question 1. How often do you learn writing skills with the Grammarly app?
Usually 	B. Often 	 C. Sometimes 	D. Rarely 	E. Never
Question 2. Are you interested in learning essay writing with Gramarly app?
Very interested 	B. Interested 	 C. So - so 	 D. Not at all
Question 3. Do you think that learning the writing skill with elicitation techniques is important?
Very important 	B. Important 	 C. So - so 	 D. Not important
To answer the question: To what extent can the Grammarly app effect students’ writing essay?
Question 5. Do you agree or disagree with the manners of using Grammarly app in preparation?
Please tick in the number corresponding to the rating for each other 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = No opinion; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly agree 
The content of evaluation
The level of evaluation
1.
The preparation

5.1
Students are provided the detailed instructions and understanding about the Grammarly app. 
① ② ③ ④ ⑤
5.2
Students are approached the Grammarly app in the process of learning English writing skill. 
① ② ③ ④ ⑤
5.3
Students are used the Grammarly app to develop the ideas for writing 
① ② ③ ④ ⑤
5.4
Students are provided a range of activities to learn writing skill with the Grammarly app. 
① ② ③ ④ ⑤
5.5
Students are guided and assisted carefully in the process of using the Grammarly app in writing. 
① ② ③ ④ ⑤
Question 6. Is your background knowledge activated?
Very much 	B. Much 	C. So - so 	D. Not at all
Question 7. Is your interaction activated?
Very much 	B. Much 	C. So - so 	D. Not at all
Question 8. Is your Grammarly application activated?
Very much 	B. Much 	C. So - so 	D. Not at all
Question 9. Do you have positive behavior to writing skill rather than before?
Very much 	B. Much 	C. So - so 	D. Not at all
Question 10. Do you improve your essay writing by using Grammarly?
Very much 	B. Much 	C. So - so 	D. Not at all
The content of this form are absolutely confidential. Information identifying the respondent will not be disclosed under any circumstances.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION!
APPENDIX 2
THE QUESTIONNAIRE TO SURVEY THE NECESSITY AND FEASIBILITY OF APPLYING GRAMMARLY FOR WRITING SKILL BY TEACHERS AT HIGH SCHOOLS.
Question 1: How familiar are you with the Grammarly application? 
Have been introduced and looked at 
Have researched Have applied in teaching hours 
Have used and found it effective 
Never used before 
Question 2: How interested are you in applying the Grammarly application?
Very interested
Interested 
Slightly interested 
Not interested 
Question 3: How often do you think teachers should use the Grammarly application to improve writing skills in EFL classes? 
Very often 
Often 
Sometimes 
Rarely 
Question 4: How necessary do you think Grammarly is in teaching writing skills for students? 
Very necessary 
Necessary 
Slightly necessary 
Not necessary 
Question 5: How feasible do you think the application of Grammarly is in improving students' writing skills? 
Very feasible 
Feasible 
Slightly feasible 
Not feasible 
Question 6: Are you willing to apply the Grammarly software in teaching writing skills for students? 
Very willing 
Not willing yet
Link the survey of the necessity and feasibility
APPENDIX 3
EVIDENCES OF THE GRAMMARLY’S APPICATION
APPENDIX 4
Results of pre-test and post-test (Class 12D1)
STT
STUDENTS OF 12D1
PRE - TEST
POST - TEST
1.
Lê Trần Khánh An
6.0
7.5
2. 
Lê Thị Quỳnh Anh
5.0
6.5
3.
Nguyễn Thị Hà Anh
6.0
8
4. 
Nguyễn Linh Chi
6.5
7.5
5. 
Nguyễn Thị Quỳnh Anh
5
6.5
6. 
Phan Thùy Dương
6.5
8
7. 
Nguyễn Ý Mỹ Đức
4.0
5.0
8. 
Nguyễn Thị Lam Giang
6
6.5
9. 
Nguyễn Khắc Nguyên Giáp
4,5
6,5
10.
Phan Thị Thu Hoài
6
6.5
11. 
Trần Thị Thu Hòa
5.0
7.0
12. 
Trần Thị Khánh Hoàn
6.0
7.5
13.
Phan Huy Hoàng
6.5
8.0
14. 
Bùi Thị Phương Linh
7.0
8.0
15.
Nguyễn Thị Khánh Linh
6.0
6.5
16. 
Nguyễn Quanh Minh
4.0
6.5
17. 
Nguyễn Thị Phương Nga
7.0
8.5
18. 
Nguyễn Thị Ngọc
4.0
6.5
19. 
Nguyễn Trần An Phương
5.0
6.5
20. 
Nguyễn Thị Phương Thảo
6.0
8.5
21. 
Nguyễn Thị Minh Thu
7.5
8.5
22.
Đặng Lê Mai Trâm
6.5
8.5
23.
Nguyễn Thị Hà Vi
5.0
8.5
24. 
Lê Nguyễn Hà Vy
6.5
8.5
Results of pre-test and post-test (Class 12A1)
STT
STUDENTS OF 12A1
PRE - TEST
POST - TEST
1.
Nguyễn Ngọc Trâm Anh
4.0
5.0
2. 
Nguyễn Thị Phương Anh
7.0
8.5
3.
Cáp Thị Quỳnh Chi
5.0
5.0
4. 
Đậu Linh Chi
6.0
6.5
5. 
Bùi Danh Đăng
5.5
6.5
6. 
Nguyễn Thị Việt Hà
5.0
6.5
7. 
Nguyễn Thị Hằng
4.5
5.0
8. 
Phan Thị Thanh Hiền
5.0
6.0
9. 
Đinh Thị Khánh Huyền
5.5
6.5
10.
Nguyễn Mai Ngọc Huyền
6.5
8.0
11. 
Nguyễn Thị Khánh Huyền A
5.0
7.0
12. 
Nguyễn Thị Khánh Huyền B
4.5
5.0
13.
Phan Thị Huyền
4.0
5.0
14. 
Văn Thị Mai Linh
6.0
7.5
15.
Lê Hoàng Long
6.5
7.0
16. 
Trần Song Lộc
5.5
6.0
17. 
Hoàng Thị Kim Oanh
5.5
7.0
18. 
Nguyễn Thị Ngọc Quỳnh
7.0
8.5
19. 
Lê Nguyễn Thiên Tân
5.5
7.0
20. 
Lê Thị Phương Thảo
6.5
7.5
21. 
Lê Nam Thắng
6.5
7.5
22.
Lê Anh Thư
6.5
8.0
23.
Nguyễn Minh Thư
8.0
9.0
24. 
Nguyễn Thị Huyền Trang
6.5
7.5

APPENDIX 5 
LINKS OF VIDEO AS EVIDENCES