CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 24EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningEnglish Language Learning and TeachingSecond Language Acquisition and Learning

Exploring the effects of Grammarly on EFL students’ foreign language anxiety and learner autonomy

Open access
Dizon, Gilbert, Gold, Jason·2023·The JALT CALL Journal
DOI 10.29140/jaltcall.v19n3.1049
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

There is a rich body of literature that details the effects of automated writing evaluation (AWE) on second language (L2) students. However, these studies mostly focus on the impact that automated feedback has on writing performance, i.e., there is a dearth of research on its influence on affective factors. Hence, this study was conducted to fill this gap in the literature. The study explored the impact of Grammarly, a popular AWE tool, on English as a foreign language (EFL) students’ foreign language anxiety (FLA) and learner autonomy (LA). Four academic writing courses (N = 58) taught by one of the researchers at a public Japanese university participated in the study. Students received training on Grammarly at the start of the Fall 2022 semester and were required to use the tool while editing their English writing during the 16-week course. Pre- and post-surveys were administered to measure the effects that Grammarly had on FLA and LA. Qualitative data in the form of written reflective reports was also collected from the participants to gain deeper insight into their perceptions of Grammarly to improve their writing. Results from the analyses indicated that Grammarly had a significant positive effect on both FLA and LA. The students also had largely positive perceptions toward Grammarly as an English writing tool. These findings have important implications for the L2 writing classroom and demonstrate that AWE can be used to reduce anxiety and promote autonomy among language learners.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.29140/jaltcall.v19n3.1049

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • AI tools such as Grammarly, QuillBot, and ChatGPT can improve writing fluency and lower anxiety by assisting students in overcoming language barriers.

    “According to preliminary research, by assisting students in overcoming language barriers, these resources can improve writing fluency and lower anxiety [9].”

    From Evaluating the impact of using ChatGPT on EFL students’ argumentative skills (2026) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Abstract reports that Grammarly reduced foreign language anxiety among EFL students in Japanese university writing courses. The Automated writing evaluation section reports no statistically significant improvement in writing fluency in a study it discusses. This paper does not establish the claimed effects for QuillBot or ChatGPT, or show that overcoming language barriers was the mechanism. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • ChatGPT and other AI tools can help students produce more grammatically correct and fluent texts.

    “This study found that ChatGPT and other AI tools can help students produce more grammatically correct and fluent texts, which is in line with previous research [9, 17].”

    From Evaluating the impact of using ChatGPT on EFL students’ argumentative skills (2026) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Automated writing evaluation section (page unavailable) reports improved grammatical accuracy with Grammarly, an AI-based writing tool. It does not address ChatGPT, and the study it summarizes found no statistically significant difference in writing fluency between Grammarly and non-Grammarly groups. Thus the source supports the grammatical-correctness part, but not the ChatGPT or fluency parts. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2018). Content analysis. In B. B. Frey (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation (pp. 393-394). Sage.
  2. Little, D. (2007). Language learner autonomy: Some fundamental considerations revisited. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 14-29. https://doi.org/10.2167/illt040. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Dizon, G., & Gold, J.
Affiliations
  • Himeji Dokkyo University (JP)
  • Kobe University (JP)
ORCID
Venue
The JALT CALL Journal
Publisher
Castledown Publishers
Published
2023-12-31
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
299-316
ISSN
1832-4215 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.29140/jaltcall.v19n3.1049
OpenAlex
W4388688216
Cited by
24
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 1
FWCI
26.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
The JALT CALL Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
Keywords
Grammarly, automated writing evaluation, foreign language anxiety, learner autonomy, EFL writing, affective factors in language learning, L2 writing instruction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review