Email this article Penggunaan Program Grammarly dan Kegiatan Noticing untuk Mengevaluasi Keterampilan Menulis Tulisan Akademik Mahasiswa
Abstract
Abstract: This study aims to determine the effectiveness of using corrective feedback from Grammarly combined with noticing activities to evaluate students' academic writing. A quantitative method with a quasi-experimental method design was used to analyze the academic writing of fourth-semester students majoring in English Education at a private university in Sidoarjo. The results of this study are that the experimental class has a higher average value than the control class. This is in line with the significant reduction in grammatical errors in students' academic writing in the experimental class. This proves that using corrective feedback from Grammarly combined with noticing activities successfully reduces grammatical errors in students' academic writing.
Abstrak: Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui efektifitas penggunaan corrective feedback dari Grammarly yang digabung dengan kegiatan noticing untuk mengevaluasi tulisan akademik mahasiswa. Metode kuantitatif dengan desain quasi-experimental method digunakan untuk menganalisis tulisan akademik mahasiswa semester empat jurusan Pendidikan bahasa Inggris sebuah universitas swasta di Sidoarjo. Hasil penelitian ini adalah kelas eksperimen memiliki nilai rata-rata lebih tinggi dibandingkan kelas kontrol. Hal ini sejalan dengan adanya penurunan yang signifikan pada kesalahan tata bahasa dalam tulisan akademik pemelajar di kelas eksperimen. Ini membuktikan bahwa penggunaan corrective feedback dari Grammarly yang digabung dengan kegiatan noticing berhasil dalam menurunkan kesalahan tata bahasa pada tulisan akademik pemelajar.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Al-Ahmad, S., Al-Jarrah, R. S., & Al-Jarrah, R. (2015). The impact of direct corrective feedback type on the linguistic accuracy of EFL students’ writing. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly June 2015 Volume 17 Issue 2, 8.
Almusharraf, N., & Alotaibi, H. (2022). An error-analysis study from an EFL writing context: Human and Automated Essay Scoring Approaches. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 1-17.
Baleghizadeh, S., & Gordani, Y. (2012). Academic writing and grammatical accuracy: The role of corrective feedback. Gist: Education and Learning Research Journal (6), 159-
Barrot, J. S. (2021). Using automated written corrective feedback in the writing classrooms: effects on L2 writing accuracy. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1936071
Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, Enhanced Pearson eText with Loose-Leaf Version--Access Card Package. Pearson Education, Inc.Christison, M., & Murray, D.E. (2021). What English Language Teachers Need to Know Volume III: Designing Curriculum (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429275746
Cross, J. (2002). Noticing'in SLA: Is it a valid concept. TESL-EJ, 6(3), 1-9.
Daniels, P., & Leslie, D. (2013). Grammar software ready for EFL writers. OnCue Journal,
Defazio, J., Jones, J., Tennant, F., & Hook, S. A. (2010). Academic Literacy: The Importance and Impact of Writing across the Curriculum--A Case Study. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 34-47.
Dokchandra, D. (2018). The effects of process writing approach on performance of an overcrowded EFL writing class at a university in Thailand. KnE Social Sciences, 191-206.
Fatimah, N. (2018). Students' Needs for Academic Writing at the English Education Department. English Language Teaching Educational Journal, 1(3), 161-175.
Ghufron, M. A. (2019, April). Exploring an automated feedback program ‘Grammarly’and teacher corrective feedback in EFL writing assessment: Modern vs. traditional assessment. In Proceedings of the 3rd English language and literature international conference, ELLiC (pp. 307-315).
Ghufron, M. A., & Rosyida, F. (2018). The role of Grammarly in assessing English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing. Lingua Cultura, 12(4), 395-403.
Guo, Q., Feng, R., & Hua, Y. (2021). How effectively can EFL students use automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) in research writing?. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-20.
Hassani, M., Azarnoosh, M., & Naeini, J. (2015). The role of noticing and input enhancement on the acquisition of English prepositions. International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics, 1(4), 47-52.
Irmalia, M. (2016). Indonesian interference in students’ writing. English Education Journal, 7(4), 496-508.
Irvin, L. L. (2010). What Is “Academic” Writing?. Writing spaces: Readings on writing, 1, 3-17.
Lock, G., & Jones, R. (2011). Functional Grammar in the ESL Classroom: Noticing, Exploring and Practicing. Palgrave Macmillan.
Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation.
Koltovskaia, S. (2020). Student engagement with automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) provided by Grammarly: A multiple case study. Assessing Writing, 44, 100450.
Liao, H. C. (2016). Enhancing the grammatical accuracy of EFL writing by using an AWE-assisted process approach. System, 62, 77-92.
ONeill, R., & Russell, A. (2019). Stop! Grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Grammarly. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1).
Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (2000). Writing academic english. Longman.
Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (2007). Introduction to academic writing (p. 3). Pearson/Longman.
Oshima, A., Hogue, A., Wesley, A. (1996). Introduction to academic writing. Pearson: Longman.
Purinanda, F. H., & Sutrisno, A. (2022). Morphosyntax Errors in Undergraduate Research Articles from English Education Department. English Education: Journal of English Teaching and Research, 7(1), 67-79.
Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of second language writing, 10(4), 277-303. https://doi.org/10.1080/105735699278305
Rahmatunisa, W. (2014). Problems faced by Indonesian EFL learners in writing argumentative essay. English Review: Journal of English Education, 3(1), 41-49.Ranalli, J. (2018). Automated written corrective feedback: How well can students make use of it? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(7), 653-674.
Ranalli, J., Link, S., & Chukharev-Hudilainen, E. (2017). Automated writing evaluation for formative assessment of second language writing: Investigating the accuracy and usefulness of feedback as part of argument-based validation. Educational Psychology, 37(1), 8-25.,
Santos, M., Serrano, S. L., & Manchón, R. M. (2010). The differential effect of two types of direct written corrective feedback on noticing and uptake: Reformulation vs. error correction. International Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 131-154.
Toba, R., & Noor, W. N. (2019). The current issues of Indonesian EFL students’ writing skills: Ability, problem, and reason in writing comparison and contrast essay. Dinamika Ilmu, 57-73.
Wei, W., Lun, M., Yong-An, L., & Qianqian, Q. (2021, June). An Analysis of AI Technology Assisted English Teaching Based on the Noticing Hypothesis. In 2021 2nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education (ICAIE) (pp. 158-162). IEEE.
Wu, H. P., & Garza, E. V. (2014). Types and attributes of English writing errors in the EFL context-A study of error analysis. Journal of language teaching and research, 5(6), 1256.
Copyright (c) 2023 Jurnal Pendidikan Humaniora
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Jurnal Pendidikan Humaniora Graduate School, Universitas Negeri Malang
|
