[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-596065-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":84,"doc-detail-596065-en":134},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":77,"head_meta":79,"extra_data":81,"updated_unix":83},105,"en","using-grammar-checkers-in-an-esl-context-an-investigation-of-automatic-corrective-feedback","Using Grammar Checkers in an ESL Context: An Investigation of Automatic Corrective Feedback","","The study examines written corrective feedback produced by two online grammar checkers—Grammarly and Virtual Writing Tutor—and by Microsoft Word’s grammar checking function. It tests performance across a range of grammatical error types using authentic ESL compositions and generated simple sentences. Evaluation focuses on error coverage, appropriacy of replacement suggestions, and rates of false alarms. Results show Grammarly and Virtual Writing Tutor outperform Word, but both still have low overall coverage (\u003C50%), limiting reliability. Misleading feedback is rare, though error-type handling varies. The study recommends targeted classroom activities before independent use.",{"@graph":14,"@context":76},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/using-grammar-checkers-in-an-esl-context-an-investigation-of-automatic-corrective-feedback/596065/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/using-grammar-checkers-in-an-esl-context-an-investigation-of-automatic-corrective-feedback/596065.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Anna Hans","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-19","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":30},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68,72],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"Which grammar checkers and tools were evaluated in the study?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"The study evaluated Grammarly, Virtual Writing Tutor, and the grammar checking function in Microsoft Word.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"How were the grammar checkers assessed?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"They were assessed by coverage (errors flagged), appropriacy of proposed replacement forms, and false alarm rates (correct forms flagged as incorrect).",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"What is the main limitation of relying on these grammar checkers for student writing?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"Overall error coverage was low for the online tools (under 50%), so they cannot provide comprehensive feedback on compositions.",{"name":73,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":74},"How should teachers use grammar checkers based on the findings?",{"text":75,"@type":63},"Teachers should use grammar checkers with specially designed classroom activities that target selected error types before learners apply the tools to their own writing.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":78,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":80,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":82,"site_id":7},596065,1792190302,{"code":4,"msg":85,"data":86},"success",[87,91,95,99,104,109,114,118,123,126,130],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":88,"show_sort_weight":89,"slug":90},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":92,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":96,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":98},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":100,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":101,"show_sort_weight":102,"slug":103},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":105,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":106,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":110,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":116,"slug":117},8,30,"research-report",{"id":119,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":122},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":121,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":125},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":127,"slug":129},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":131,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":132,"show_sort_weight":100,"slug":133},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":85,"data":135},{"doc_id":82,"user_id":136,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":137,"doc_module":4,"category_id":115,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":138,"file_id":139,"file_url":140,"file_type":141,"file_size":142,"view_count":30,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":143,"language":144,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":145,"faqs":146,"seo_title":147,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":148,"read_time":102},5909892332657,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_994ba38a5ba835b3df7d355c54d3ed8d","calico journal (online) issn 2056–9017  \nArticle  \nUsing Grammar Checkers in an ESL Context: An Investigation of Automatic Corrective Feedback  \nPaul John 1 and Nina Woll2  \nAbstract  \nOur study examines written corrective feedback generated by two online grammar checkers (GCs), Grammarly and Virtual Writing Tutor, and by the grammar checking function of Microsoft Word. We tested the technology on a wide range of grammatical error types from two sources: a set of authentic ESL compositions and a series of simple sentences we generated ourselves. The GCs were evaluated in terms of (1) coverage (number of errors flagged),(2) appropriacy of proposed replacement forms, and (3) rates of “false alarms”(forms mistakenly flagged as incorrect). Although Grammarly and Virtual Writing Tutor outperformed Microsoft Word, neither of the online GCs had high rates of overall coverage (\u003C50%). Consequently, they cannot be relied on to supply comprehensive feedback on student compositions. The finding of higher identification rates for errors from simple rather than authentic sentences reinforces this conclusion. Nonetheless, since few inaccurate replacement forms and false alarms were observed, only rarely is the feedback actively misleading. In addition, the GCs were better at handling some error types than others. Ultimately, we suggest that teachers use GCs with specially designed classroom activities that target selected error types before learners apply the technology to their own writing.  \nKeywords:grammar checkers; written corrective feedback; focus on form; English second language learning.  \nAffiliations  \n1Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Canada.  \n[email: paul.john@uqtr.ca](email: paul.john@uqtr.ca)  \n2Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Canada.  \nemail: [nina.woll@uqtr.ca](nina.woll@uqtr.ca)  \ncalico journal vol 37.2 2020 169–192 [https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.36523](https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.36523)  \n©2020, equinox publishing   \n170 Using Grammar Checkers in an ESL Context  \n1. Introduction  \nThe study reported on here investigates automatic corrective feedback generated by grammar checkers (GCs) in order to assess the appropriacy of using this technology for English second language (ESL) learning. Alongside communicative competence, an important element of learning a second/ foreign language (L2) is the development of grammatical accuracy, notably via written corrective feedback. Through such feedback, teachers can effectively incorporate a focus on form into the communicative classroom, thus promoting accuracy and preventing fossilization (Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener & Knoch, 2010; Chandler, 2003; Ellis, 2009; Ellis, Sheen, Murakami,& Takashima, 2008; Ferris, 2006, 2011; Ferris, Liu, Sinha, & Senna, 2013; Shintani, Ellis & Suzuki, 2014; cf. Truscott, 2007). All the same, written feedback has the drawback of being time-consuming and impractical for teachers, especially when applied to multiple drafts. The potential of grammar checking software to reduce teachers’ workloads by generating automatic feedback is thus appealing.1 Moreover, it can be frustrating for teachers to note that learners often ignore the feedback they have so carefully prepared (Guénette, 2007). Part of the problem is that learners receive teacher feedback too long after the composition process. The feedback from GCs, on the other hand, has the advantage of immediacy: it can be accessed right away, while learners are still engaged in the task (for the benefits of immediate feedback, see Jurma & Deidre, 1984; Samuels & Wu, 2003; see also Lavolette, Polio, & Kahng, 2014 for an opposing view). A further advantage is that learners can receive the feedback from GCs independently, beyond the confines of the classroom. The technology can thus be used for autonomous and ubiquitous (anywhere, anytime) learning. In essence, GCs look like an invaluable tool for use in an ESL context.  \nNonetheless, important questions remain regarding the accuracy of automatic corr","cbCaii1Jyeq7nZQy","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaii1Jyeq7nZQy","pdf",298073,24,"English","# Introduction\n## Accuracy and coverage of automatic corrective feedback\n## Online tools evaluated\n## Evaluation criteria and implications","[{\"question\":\"Which grammar checkers and tools were evaluated in the study?\",\"answer\":\"The study evaluated Grammarly, Virtual Writing Tutor, and the grammar checking function in Microsoft Word.\"},{\"question\":\"How were the grammar checkers assessed?\",\"answer\":\"They were assessed by coverage (errors flagged), appropriacy of proposed replacement forms, and false alarm rates (correct forms flagged as incorrect).\"},{\"question\":\"What is the main limitation of relying on these grammar checkers for student writing?\",\"answer\":\"Overall error coverage was low for the online tools (under 50%), so they cannot provide comprehensive feedback on compositions.\"},{\"question\":\"How should teachers use grammar checkers based on the findings?\",\"answer\":\"Teachers should use grammar checkers with specially designed classroom activities that target selected error types before learners apply the tools to their own writing.\"}]","Using Grammar Checkers in an ESL Context: An Investigation of Automatic Corrective Feedback | PDF",1792082373]