HO CHI MINH UNIVERSITY OF BANKING FACULTY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES GRADUATION THESIS ENGLISH MAJORS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS THE USE OF AI GRAMMAR CHECKER TOOLS IN ACADEMIC WRITING COURSES: A CA
INTRODUCTION
Background of the study
The rise of information technology, especially Artificial Intelligence (AI), has become a significant focus in linguistic research, particularly in education The integration of AI tools has revolutionized the teaching and learning process, with writing being one area that has seen substantial improvements Since the 1950s, when the concept of "Artificial Intelligence" was first introduced, the field has evolved dramatically Alan Turing's pivotal question, "Can machines think?" laid the groundwork for the Turing Test, which assessed machine intelligence This inquiry was further formalized when John McCarthy coined the term "Artificial Intelligence" at the inaugural AI conference at Dartmouth, establishing AI as a recognized academic discipline.
The emergence of AI as a significant field has led to the development of various educational technologies, notably AI grammar checker tools, which have proven beneficial for both learners and educators Research indicates that these tools have a positive effect on writing performance, confidence, and linguistic skills among students (O’Neil & Russel, 2019a; O’Neil & Russel, 2019b; Park & Yang, 2020; Toncic, 2020) Students find AI grammar checkers to be useful and user-friendly, contributing to their overall improvement in writing.
Research indicates that AI grammar checker tools can alleviate the workload for teachers by assisting students in refining their writing These technologies empower learners to edit their own texts, which in turn allows educators to dedicate less time to reviewing and assessing student work.
Supporters of AI grammar checker tools highlight their significant advantages for users, while critics raise concerns about inaccuracies in error detection, potential privacy and security threats, and the risk of promoting academic dishonesty (Le, 2021; Park, 2019; Steiss et al., 2024).
To address urgent economic challenges and nearly two decades of slow advancement since the Doi Moi reforms, Vietnam is actively fostering the integration of technology in education to guarantee quality education for all In this fast-paced era, embracing technological innovations is essential for enhancing educational outcomes and meeting the diverse needs of learners.
Technological advancements have made it essential to integrate technology into education, prompting the Vietnamese government to implement various reforms and policies to support this digital transformation (Tran & Jordan, 2022) To achieve its digital transformation goals, the government has introduced initiatives aimed at incorporating technology across different educational levels and regions (Tran & Jordan, 2022) Following the National Digital Transformation Program (Vietnam Government, 2020), higher education institutions are increasingly incorporating technology into their educational, training, and research programs (Le et al., 2023) Consequently, a diverse array of technologies has been employed to enhance higher education, including in the area of assessment.
The Circular 22/2021/TT-BGDĐT issued by the Ministry of Education and Training in 2021 introduces updated student assessment guidelines that prioritize diverse evaluation methods These methods include learning products, projects, presentations, and peer feedback, aiming to enhance the integration of artificial intelligence in educational assessments.
Vietnamese educators and students are increasingly utilizing various AI tools for technology-based assessments, with a significant focus on integrating AI grammar checkers across all educational levels These tools effectively address fundamental linguistic challenges, particularly in grammar, proving advantageous for students during the editing and drafting phases of their work (Tubino, 2021) This initiative is a crucial component of the government's broader efforts to advance digital transformation and enhance the globalization of higher education in Vietnam.
AI grammar checker tools are integral to various initiatives proposed by the Government and the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) in Vietnam Key documents include Decision No 749/QĐ-TTg, which endorses the national digital transformation program through 2025 with a vision for 2030, and Official Dispatch No 4096/BGDDT-IT, which promotes the integration of technology in education Additionally, Circular No 22/2021/TT-BGDDT outlines assessment regulations for middle and high school students, while Decision No 131/QD-TTg focuses on applying information technology in education from 2022 to 2025 Collectively, these documents highlight the importance of AI grammar checker tools in improving the quality of higher education in Vietnam.
Improving education standards is essential for fostering human resource development and enhancing graduates' competitiveness in the global job market By integrating English proficiency and technological literacy into teaching and learning, we can significantly elevate the skills of students and better prepare them for future challenges.
The Faculty of Foreign Languages at Ho Chi Minh University of Banking offers academic writing courses designed to equip students with essential knowledge and skills for proficient writing The curriculum focuses on idea development, sentence construction, and the application of linguistic and cognitive elements to create effective written works, including essays and research papers Despite the potential benefits, the integration of AI grammar checker tools in these courses remains limited, and there is a lack of attention on students' perceptions of such technologies Research indicates that these AI tools can significantly enhance students' writing abilities Therefore, this undergraduate thesis, titled "English Majors’ Perceptions Towards the Use of AI Grammar Checker Tools in Academic Writing Courses: A Case Study of Ho Chi Minh University of Banking," seeks to investigate student perceptions regarding the use of AI grammar checkers in their academic writing courses and aims to explore effective strategies for incorporating these tools into the learning and teaching processes.
Research rationale
Research highlights the crucial impact of AI grammar checker tools on improving academic writing and grammar accuracy (Caveleri & Dianati, 2016; O’Neil & Russell, 2019) Most studies have concentrated on native English speakers, leaving a gap in understanding their effectiveness in non-English-speaking countries Furthermore, there is a scarcity of research exploring university students' perceptions of AI grammar checker tools in the context of their academic writing.
An academic writing course that incorporates AI grammar checker tools in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) universities, particularly at HUB, aims to equip students with vital knowledge and skills for producing effective academic writing The effectiveness of this approach in achieving desired outcomes remains to be evaluated.
4 these expectations has not yet been investigated Therefore, the undergraduate thesis
This study investigates the perceptions of English majors at Ho Chi Minh University of Banking regarding AI grammar checker tools in academic writing courses It aims to explore how these students view the effectiveness and utility of such tools based on their prior experiences Due to time constraints and the researcher’s limited skills and knowledge, the focus remains solely on students’ perceptions rather than a broader analysis of the tools themselves.
Scope of the study
This undergraduate thesis investigates the perceptions of students regarding AI grammar checker tools, which are a specific category of AI-supported writing resources within Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) The research is limited to academic writing contexts and does not include other AI-powered writing tools due to time constraints.
Writing is a diverse genre that includes sub-genres such as academic, descriptive, and narrative writing This study specifically focuses on academic writing due to its vital role in higher education, serving as a primary communication method among students, professors, and lecturers across different disciplines (Greene & Lidinsky, 2015; Johnson, 2016) Additionally, academic writing is an essential professional skill that facilitates effective idea communication in various professional settings (Pradesh, 2024), highlighting its significance for comprehensive research.
This study focuses exclusively on academic writing courses, an area not extensively covered by previous research on AI grammar tools, which typically addresses general writing skills By examining academic writing in the specific context of the Faculty of Foreign Languages at Ho Chi Minh University of Banking, the research aims to produce relevant findings for language teaching and offer targeted implications for improving academic writing instruction.
This study aims to provide a detailed analysis of the effects of AI grammar checkers on the academic writing skills and perceptions of English majors, emphasizing both the advantages and possible challenges The findings are intended to facilitate the successful incorporation of AI grammar checkers into academic practices.
5 writing courses at Ho Chi Minh University of Banking.
Research objectives
This undergraduate thesis explores the distinct features of AI grammar checker tools and addresses the limited understanding of users' perceptions towards these tools, focusing on three key research objectives.
1 To explore the factors that influence English majors’ perceptions of accepting and using the AI grammar checker tools
2 To explore English majors’ perceptions of the benefits of AI grammar checker tools in academic writing courses
3 To explore English majors’ perceptions of the drawbacks of AI grammar checker tools in academic writing courses.
Research questions
To achieve the research objectives, the researcher develops three key research questions that function as both a theoretical framework and a practical guide These questions direct the exploration of various aspects of the study, ensuring a comprehensive analysis Crucially, the practical implications of these questions help maintain focus and lead to deeper insights into the subject matter.
Within the time restraint and the researcher’s limited capacity, this study aims to address the following research questions:
1 What factors influence English majors’ perceptions of accepting and using the
2 What are English majors’ perceptions of the benefits of AI grammar checker tools in academic writing courses?
3 What are English majors’ perceptions of the drawbacks of AI grammar checker tools in academic writing courses?
Significance of the study
This study investigates the perceptions of English majors regarding the use of AI grammar checker tools at Ho Chi Minh University of Banking It contributes to the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis et al., 1989) and reinforces the findings of O'Neill & Russell (2019a) concerning the acceptance of AI grammar tools among students.
Six user-friendly checker tools serve as valuable writing aids that extend beyond academic contexts This study seeks to enhance the existing literature on artificial intelligence, specifically focusing on AI grammar checker tools Furthermore, the researcher aims for the findings of this study to provide a solid foundation for future research on the integration of AI grammar checker tools in academic writing.
This study aims to enhance understanding of English-majored students' perceptions of AI grammar checker tools at Ho Chi Minh University of Banking, with implications for improving language teaching and learning By comprehensively investigating these perceptions, academic writing instructors can gain valuable insights to offer more effective grammatical feedback, thereby enhancing the overall teaching process Additionally, the findings are intended to encourage second language (L2) writers to appropriately integrate these tools into their academic writing, ultimately improving their skills and reducing teachers' feedback workload Furthermore, the researcher hopes to inspire student interest in this area and motivate further studies at the university to advance academic writing instruction for English majors.
Structure of the study
This study is organized into five chapters as follows:
This chapter provides a detailed background to the study, outlining the research problems, objectives, research questions, and significance It also establishes the context and rationale for the research
This chapter examines the current literature on AI grammar checker tools, emphasizing their evolution, usage in academic writing, and the theoretical foundations of the research Additionally, it identifies existing gaps in the literature, underscoring the contributions of this study.
This chapter presents the research design and methodology employed in the study It details the data collection process, instruments used, data analysis methods, and rationale for these choices
Chapter Four: Findings and Discussion
This chapter analyzes the findings derived from participant data, interpreting the results in relation to the research questions and existing literature It provides valuable insights into students' perceptions of AI grammar checker tools.
Chapter Five: Conclusion and Recommendations
The concluding chapter encapsulates the main findings of the study, addresses its limitations, and offers recommendations for the successful incorporation of AI grammar checker tools in academic writing courses Additionally, it outlines potential avenues for future research.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Writing skills
Writing is a multifaceted skill defined differently by various scholars, emphasizing its nature as both a mental and physical act It involves manually inscribing symbols while simultaneously generating and organizing ideas into coherent text The primary purposes of writing are to express the writer's thoughts and emotions and to impact the audience Writing can be seen as both a process, which encompasses the steps taken to create a final piece, and a product, which is the completed work itself As noted by Nunan (2003), writing serves as a communication tool for conveying feelings and opinions Byrne (1988) described it as the process of using graphic symbols to translate thoughts into language, while Brown (2003) highlighted that writing is a critical thinking process, requiring reflection and analysis Yakhontova (2009) further asserted that writing is a complex cognitive process, transcending mere mechanical tasks.
Writing is widely regarded as a challenging skill due to its inherent complexity, which encompasses various elements such as memory, language, and cognitive processes (McCutchen, 2006; Nickerson, Perkins, & Smith, 1985; Kellogg, 2008) Achieving coherence in writing necessitates learners to develop a diverse set of competencies, including vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics (Bitchener, 2012) In essence, writing is a multifaceted skill that combines mental and physical processes, serving as a means of communication through text It demands critical thinking, reflection, and a comprehensive understanding of language, making it a formidable skill to master.
Academic writing is a vital skill in higher education, serving as a primary mode of communication among professors, lecturers, and students across diverse subjects (Greene & Lidinsky, 2015; Johnson, 2016) It is also an essential form of professional communication that effectively conveys ideas in various professional contexts (Pradesh, 2024) Furthermore, academic writing fosters critical thinking, enhances communication skills, and promotes intellectual development (Bonnett, 2001).
Academic writing is uniquely defined by its specific characteristics, which include a deep understanding of the content, context, purpose, and target audience (Ferris, 2018) This distinct nature is enhanced by the variety of genres and styles within academic writing, each demanding adherence to particular rules and conventions.
Academic writing typically consists of four key phases: first, prewriting, which involves generating ideas and selecting a topic; second, organizing, where those ideas are structured into a standardized format; third, writing, during which the initial draft is created; and finally, polishing, which encompasses revising and editing the work (Hogue & Oshima, 2007).
2.1.3 The role of grammar in academic writing
Grammar encompasses the rules that dictate language structure, primarily focusing on syntax and morphology These components are vital for creating coherent and meaningful communication, allowing writers and speakers to express their ideas effectively In academic writing, the importance of grammar is amplified, as it significantly enhances clarity, precision, and the overall quality of the text.
Grammar serves as the essential framework for creating sentences that are both syntactically accurate and logically coherent It operates on a set of established linguistic rules that dictate the arrangement of words and phrases, as well as the interaction of various parts of speech Adhering to these rules ensures that sentence components work together harmoniously, allowing for clear communication of meaning and effective expression of ideas to the reader.
10 morphology collaborate to form structure and meaning, offering a framework for expression that is readily comprehensible to others
Without proper grammar, sentences may become ambiguous or difficult to follow, which can hinder the writer's ability to communicate their intended message
As Batstone (2002) noted, grammar "enhances and sharpens the expression of meaning," allowing the writer to articulate complex ideas in a clear, organized manner
In academic writing, grammar plays a crucial role in achieving precision and clarity, enabling writers to construct logical arguments and present their ideas in a coherent and persuasive manner.
Grammar is essential for effective communication, especially in academic settings where precise language is crucial for the success of scholarly work By mastering grammatical structures, writers can create clear and coherent sentences that enhance the quality of their writing.
2.1.4 The importance of grammatical accuracy in academic writing
Grammatical competence is among the four critical elements of English language proficiency, alongside sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic competence (Canale & Swain, 1980, as cited in Murray, 2010) As stated by Cavaleri & Dianati
In higher education, students must adhere to grammar conventions to create coherent academic texts, as grammatical accuracy significantly influences clarity, meaning, and argument development While grammar alone may not determine the overall success of an assignment, its impact on communication can affect assessment outcomes both positively and negatively This relationship underscores the importance of grammar in effectively conveying subject knowledge Consequently, students are required to employ precise and correct grammar to fulfill academic standards and successfully complete their assignments.
Formative writing classrooms
The term formative assessment highlights teaching strategies that instructors use to enhance students' learning processes Specifically, instructors' feedback is one of the
11 five formative assessment strategies Black et al (2003) developed, aiming to "provide feedback that moves learning forward" by creating actionable next steps Heritage
Feedback plays a crucial role in the teaching and learning process, as it provides essential guidance and directions for both instructors and students According to Hattie and Timperley (2007), feedback comes from various sources, including teachers, peers, and self-reflection, and is vital for improving individual performance and understanding In the context of writing, feedback is particularly important as it helps students correct and refine their drafts, motivating them to enhance the quality of their work throughout the writing process (Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Bitchener & Knoch, 2008; Ferris, 2010).
Feedback can be sourced from teachers, peers, and self-assessment, but each method has its limitations Instructors often struggle with environmental barriers that limit their ability to provide adequate grammatical feedback, while peer feedback can be affected by factors like friendship dynamics and self-confidence (Muamaroh & Pratiwi, 2022) Additionally, self-feedback is flawed, as highlighted by Dunning et al (2024), who note that "human beings are imperfect at assessing themselves." In light of these challenges, AI grammar checker tools present a promising alternative for enhancing feedback practices The following sections will explore the implementation and potential obstacles associated with these feedback-giving methods.
Instructor feedback is conceptualized as “directing responses, making improvements, and reducing grammatical errors” (Chandler, 2003, as cited in Nguyen,
2024) It is generally accepted that instructor feedback is integral to improving writing skills (Hyland, 2003; Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Kang, 2008; Lindblom-Ylọnne et al.,
Instructors' feedback, particularly regarding grammar, plays a crucial role in student development Nguyen (2024) emphasizes that written feedback serves as an effective means for students to recognize their strengths and weaknesses, providing clear guidance for enhancing their writing skills Similarly, Wahyuni (2017) highlights the importance of this feedback in fostering student improvement.
12 receiving helpful and individualized teacher feedback from perform better in their writing In short, it is undeniable that teachers' guidance and feedback positively impact students’ writing accuracy and motivation
Instructor feedback in writing classes faces significant challenges, primarily due to large class sizes and limited consultation time Kim & Fortner (2007) identified environmental barriers as a key factor discouraging secondary teachers from engaging in writing instruction Similarly, Park (2019) noted that the overwhelming number of students and time constraints hinder the delivery of explicit writing feedback Research by Jones, Myhill, and Bailey (2013) revealed that instructors struggle to provide comprehensive grammatical corrections, often feeling it is not their responsibility and lacking confidence in addressing complex grammar issues Even when instructors are willing to offer feedback, time limitations often prevent them from delivering thorough grammatical guidance Additionally, feedback can shift students' focus from their writing objectives to the instructors' comments, as noted by Sommers (1982) In conclusion, while instructor feedback is crucial for enhancing students' writing, it is often compromised by environmental barriers, instructors' confidence and willingness, and a tendency to redirect students' writing intentions.
While peer feedback, including oral and written exchanges among students, can significantly enhance writing skills and critical thinking (Priyantin, Lengkanawati & Suherdi, 2020), it also has its drawbacks This collaborative process is often viewed as a powerful tool that promotes deeper learning and knowledge retention (Noroozi & Hatami, 2019; Tian & Li).
2019) Additionally, peer response has benefited both the writer and the reviewer, since
13 the writer has an excellent opportunity to obtain diverse peer perspectives In contrast, the reviewer can gain confidence and develop higher linguistic skills (Ferris, 2003)
Empirical evidence highlights challenges associated with feedback in educational settings Saidalavi & Samad (2019) found that students with limited language skills often hesitate to provide comments, indicating that linguistic capability significantly influences feedback effectiveness Additionally, students with higher language proficiency may feel demotivated by peer feedback that fails to meet their expectations, while those with lower proficiency may struggle to implement suggestions from peers (Allen & Mills, 2015; Wu).
Self-feedback involves students acting as both providers and receivers of feedback, leading to a dual role in their learning process Research indicates that self-feedback can foster greater student engagement in their own development (Daniel, 2001; Lew et al., 2010, as cited in Geoffrey, 2023) However, it also presents challenges, as individuals often overlook feedback from external sources that contradict their established views of performance and ability (Dunning, Heath & Suls, 2004).
Computer-based feedback has emerged as an effective alternative to traditional feedback methods, particularly in modern educational settings enhanced by technological advancements This shift has transformed the feedback process from reliance on teachers and peers to utilizing computer-based systems (Saidalvi & Samad, 2019) Research indicates that such feedback is particularly advantageous for writers in second language (L2) learning environments, significantly benefiting the writing process (Elmahdi et al., 2018; Ngo, 2021; Siau et al., 2006).
Artificial Intelligence (AI)
The term "Artificial Intelligence" (AI) has diverse definitions among scholars since its inception in the 1950s, highlighting its growing relevance in numerous areas of human life (Park, 2019) Broadly, AI is recognized as a scientific discipline within computer science that aims to develop machines capable of functioning and responding similarly to the human brain.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is an academic discipline focused on programming machines, particularly computers, to replicate human intelligence This technology operates through the use of neural networks, enabling machines to perform tasks that typically require human cognitive functions (Karsenti, 2019).
Programmatic structures are developed to analyze extensive datasets of conversational text for predictive insights Various AI technologies, such as speech recognition, natural language processing, and computer vision, play a crucial role in this process The integration of AI has accelerated across numerous sectors, significantly enhancing areas like technology, healthcare, marketing, and notably, education.
2.3.1 Development of AI in education
The early 2000s marked a significant transformation in higher education with the implementation of AI technologies, particularly through learning management systems (LMS) that enhanced teaching and learning experiences by organizing course materials and assessments effectively (Cavus, 2010) By the mid-2010s, the demand for personalized AI applications rose, enabling customized learning experiences, while the late 2010s saw the rise of chatbots, virtual assistants, and predictive analytics in educational settings These AI models have become essential for providing targeted support to specific student groups (Shilbayed & Abonamah, 2012) In the post-Covid-19 era, there has been an increased reliance on AI tools to facilitate distance learning (Singh et al., 2022) The ongoing integration of AI-automated content generators, scoring tools, and corrective feedback systems continues to enhance the higher education landscape by offering accessible and efficient feedback on student assignments and instructor assessments (Alharbi, 2023; Ramesh & Sanampudi, 2022; Schroeder et al., 2022).
2.3.2 AI grammar checker tools in language teaching and learning
2.3.2.1.Overview of AI grammar checker tools
AI grammar checker tools are advanced proofreading solutions that utilize syntactic analysis through language models to enhance writing quality By employing technologies such as machine learning, AI algorithms, and natural language processing (NLP), these tools effectively identify grammatical errors and offer constructive feedback for improvement.
AI grammar checker tools primarily target lower-level language issues, such as grammar, spelling, and punctuation (Fang, 2010; Tubino, 2021) These tools play a crucial role in the editing and drafting stages of students' writing, with a significant emphasis on identifying grammatical errors (Alharbi, 2023) Additionally, they also assess other aspects like tone and style, ensuring comprehensive support for writers (Cano et al., 2024).
2.3.2.2 Development of AI grammar checker tools in academic writing
Since the 1980s, there has been a growing development of advanced computer-based programs aimed at supporting teachers and students in language classrooms, especially in academic writing courses.
Since 2016, AI grammar checkers have evolved significantly, transitioning from basic pattern-matching tools like RightWriter and Grammatik to more advanced systems Early versions often struggled with error detection and provided irrelevant suggestions, as noted by Fischer & Grusin (1993) and McAlexander (2000) Gerrard (1989) highlighted the limitations of these older tools in understanding sentence context, which affected their accuracy and reliability This underscored the urgent need for more sophisticated AI grammar checkers that could meet users' demands for precise and context-aware corrections.
The advancement of deep neural network learning has significantly enhanced the robustness and effectiveness of grammar-checking systems (Goldberg, 2016; Kurdi, 2017) Additionally, the integration of rule-based systems into various applications has further improved their functionality.
The development of AI grammar checker tools, such as those integrated into Microsoft Word, has significantly advanced the identification of grammatical errors and the suggestion of corrections Despite these advancements, there is still a need for comprehensive rule design to enhance these systems The latest AI-driven grammar checkers utilize deep neural networks, processing vast amounts of text data from various sources, including web pages and social media, to effectively detect errors and propose solutions (Soni & Thakur, 2018).
2.3.2.3 Integration of AI grammar checker tools in academic writing
The introduction of computer-based programs in the L2 context has led to the development of advanced language tools that are now essential for teachers and learners alike Among these, artificial intelligence grammar checkers have emerged as key resources, offering significant benefits in analyzing writing errors and enhancing grammar accuracy (Austin & Wulandari, 2022; Im, 2021; Moon, 2021; Nazari, Shabbir, & Setiawan, 2021) Research highlights the user-friendliness and effectiveness of tools like Grammarly, with O’Neill and Russell (2019a) noting that students find these resources valuable for improving their writing confidence and linguistic skills (Hadiat, Tarwana, & Irianti, 2022; O’Neill & Russell, 2019a).
Park and Song (2024) examined the effectiveness of SpellCheckPlus, Grammarly, and Virtual Writing Tutor among Korean students in L2 writing, revealing that these tools significantly enhance grammar knowledge Key features contributing to their success included helpfulness, active engagement, clarity in error detection, ease of use, and potential for future application Similarly, Syahnaz and Fithriani (2023) explored student perceptions of Quillbot in an EFL academic writing course, finding notable improvements in content enhancement, grammatical accuracy, and overall language usage.
On the other hand, a substantial portion of existing studies has raised concerns regarding the adverse effects of AI grammar checker tools Brock (1991) found that
Research indicates that ESL students often rely on the feedback from tools like the Grammatik III program, leading them to adjust their writing based on incorrect suggestions rather than creating original text Additionally, Phan and Chen (2020) highlight that Google Translate frequently falls short in providing accurate translations, as it depends on rigid structures instead of offering contextually rich interpretations Furthermore, Cassidy (2023) raises ethical concerns about the potential misuse of AI tools like ChatGPT for cheating, emphasizing the necessity for effective anti-plagiarism measures to maintain the integrity of student work, particularly when utilizing AI grammar checkers (Aydın & Karaarslan).
In conclusion, AI grammar checker tools offer substantial advantages for students' writing development; however, it is crucial to remain aware of their potential drawbacks to maintain a balanced approach in the realm of academic writing.
AI grammar checker tools in higher education
The emergence of AI grammar checker tools in higher education, particularly in non-dominant English-speaking countries, has sparked significant research interest Most studies are small-scale case analyses that investigate students' perceptions of these tools within specific courses or programs at various institutions The research primarily centers on two key areas: students' views on AI grammar checker tools and the effects of these tools on their academic performance and learning outcomes.
The following sub-sections will review seminal studies on AI grammar checker tools, concentrating on these two central aspects of the research
2.4.1 Students’ perceptions towards AI grammar checker tools
The literature on students' perceptions of AI grammar checker tools reveals diverse data collection methods, including quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method designs Most studies are small-scale and limited to single institutions, featuring few participants and a narrow range of AI tools Students' reactions to these tools vary significantly, influenced by their cultural and social backgrounds, as well as the unique contexts of their institutions.
Research indicates that AI grammar checker tools are positively viewed by students, particularly in non-dominant English-speaking countries like Australia and various Asian nations These students appreciate the tools for their effectiveness, user-friendliness, and ability to enhance linguistic skills, improve grammar accuracy, and offer real-time, personalized feedback (O’Neill & Russell, 2019a).
O’Neill and Russell's experimental study (2019a) surveyed 54 students in an experimental group and 42 in a control group at an Australian university's English Language Center, using closed-ended questionnaires and open-ended questions The results revealed strong support for AI grammar checker tools like Grammarly, with students highlighting its usefulness, ease of use, and timely grammatical feedback, which positively influenced their assignments and grades Many participants experienced increased confidence and improved language skills beyond their coursework Additionally, addressing high-frequency errors was a key motivator for seeking feedback from Grammarly, as targeted error correction significantly enhanced writing quality Consequently, students recognized the importance of integrating AI grammar checker tools into their writing processes.
Kim and Song (2023) explored the perceptions of 125 undergraduate Korean students from three colleges regarding three AI grammar checker tools: SpellCheckPlus, Virtual Writing Tutor, and Grammarly The study, conducted over 15 weeks of English writing classes, utilized pre-test and post-test scores to evaluate the tools' effectiveness across three experimental groups Results showed that all tools significantly enhanced students' grammar knowledge, with key features such as helpfulness, active engagement, clarity in error detection, and user-friendliness contributing to their success Notably, despite encountering some grammatical issues while using the tools, most students expressed a desire to continue using these AI grammar checkers in the future.
Studies in East and Southeast Asia show that students primarily prefer AI grammar checker tools for academic purposes A phenomenological study by Syahnaz and Fithriani (2023) involving 20 Indonesian students indicated that the use of Quillbot in an EFL academic writing course was positively received for three reasons: it improved content and arguments, reduced grammatical errors, and enhanced overall language proficiency Similarly, Utami et al (2023) investigated the perceptions of 58 Indonesian students on artificial intelligence in academic writing, using questionnaires and in-depth interviews via WhatsApp The findings revealed that students felt their writing performance was significantly improved by these AI tools.
(2) the tools to be accessible and readily available, and (3) the AI tools motivated them to use technology in their writing
Recent studies on AI grammar checker tools in Vietnamese higher education, particularly in academic writing, have gained moderate attention For instance, Hoang and Nguyen (2022) explored the effects of Grammarly in writing classes, where students in the treatment group combined instructor feedback with Grammarly's suggestions for revising drafts The findings revealed that these students achieved significantly higher scores compared to those who only received instructor feedback Moreover, they reported notable improvements in writing quality and grammar accuracy, as the instant and consistent feedback from Grammarly enhanced their proofreading awareness, boosted their confidence, and promoted self-regulated learning.
While AI grammar checker tools offer numerous advantages, there are ongoing concerns about their use in academic writing Le (2021) highlighted important privacy and security risks, particularly the potential for sensitive user data to be misused.
A 2023 study highlighted students' dissatisfaction with educational tools, citing their repetitive nature, lack of engagement, and insufficient accuracy in managing long sentences and contextual relevance Additionally, students reported a concerning reliance on these applications, indicating that their inclination to use such tools was significantly affected.
20 by factors like internet access, digital literacy, and personal motivation This highlighted the need for a more effective and balanced approach to integrating AI technology in educational settings
2.4.2 Impacts of AI grammar checker tools on students’ performance and learning outcomes
Research has explored the effects of AI grammar checker tools on student performance and learning outcomes, yielding both positive and mixed results These tools significantly enhance English language learning and academic writing, especially in grammar accuracy Studies by Austin and Wulandari (2022), Im (2021), Moon (2021), and Nazari et al (2021), as referenced in Kim & Song (2024), highlight the effectiveness of AI grammar checkers in detecting writing errors and improving grammatical precision.
Research shows that AI grammar checker tools can enhance students' self-confidence in academic writing (Hadiat, Tarwana, & Irianti, 2022; O’Neill & Russell, 2019a) However, student perceptions of these tools vary widely, with some studies highlighting differing effectiveness based on language proficiency levels For example, high-proficiency students often report minimal challenges when revising drafts after utilizing grammatical suggestions from AI grammar checkers (Caveleri & Dianati, 2016; Liao, 2016).
Research indicates that many students struggle to understand the grammatical feedback provided by AI grammar checker tools (Chen & Cheng, 2008; Dikli, 2010) Lower-level English learners, in particular, require additional grammatical input, as a deficiency in this area can hinder their overall linguistic development and grammatical knowledge (Caveleri & Dianati, 2016) Chen and Cheng (2008) emphasized that automated feedback is especially beneficial for beginner and intermediate learners, a sentiment echoed by Liao (2016) regarding the needs of higher-level students.
Students with higher English proficiency often prefer feedback from AI grammar checkers, as they have developed metacognitive strategies that support their long-term grammatical growth This underscores the importance of students' differing levels of English proficiency in determining the effectiveness of AI grammar checking tools.
21 was also worth noting that while these tools can offer substantial benefits, their utility may be influenced by individual student's language skills and understanding of the feedback provided
Students’ difficulties in comprehending the feedback from AI grammar checker tools have been attributed to the limitations of the tools themselves For instance, Park’s
A 2019 comparative study examined the effectiveness of AI-based English grammar checkers against human raters by evaluating writing samples from 40 Korean EFL high school students The results revealed that while AI grammar checkers struggled to identify common grammatical errors and occasionally offered inaccurate feedback, they outperformed human raters in certain aspects of writing assessment.
(2023) study revealed students' dissatisfaction with these tools, noting their repetitive nature, lack of engagement, and insufficient accuracy in handling long sentences and contextual appropriateness
Students have significant concerns about security and privacy when using AI grammar checker tools, with studies revealing ethical implications, such as the risk of sensitive data exploitation (Le, 2021) Research indicates that students often develop an overreliance on tools like Google Translate, scoring an average of 4.25 in a survey (Phan, 2023) This tendency is further supported by findings that students frequently seek quick fixes from AI grammar checkers for unfamiliar words or idioms, instead of striving to comprehend their meanings (Kim & Han, 2021; Nguyen, 2023) Moreover, students face various challenges in their willingness to use these tools, which are influenced by factors such as internet access, digital literacy, and personal motivation.
Research gaps in AI grammar checker tools in Vietnamese higher education 21 2.6 Theoretical framework: The Technology Acceptance Model
The integration of technological tools in education has attracted considerable interest from researchers in Vietnam; however, AI grammar checker tools have not received adequate attention from scholars, both locally and internationally Consequently, empirical research on the use of AI grammar checker tools in higher education in Vietnam is notably scarce in terms of both quantity and scope within the current literature.
A review of 22 journals indicates a significant lack of studies on AI grammar checker tools within the Vietnamese context This gap underscores the pressing necessity for in-depth research to explore the potential advantages and challenges of incorporating AI grammar checkers into educational practices.
In Vietnam, research on AI grammar checker tools has largely concentrated on their effectiveness in improving various writing skills, with studies by Ha (2023) highlighting significant enhancements in essay writing through Quillbot, and Thai (2023) noting university students' positive responses to ChatGPT for quick feedback Despite these findings, there is a notable gap in understanding students' perceptions, particularly among English majors, regarding the advantages and disadvantages of using AI grammar checkers in academic writing This lack of focus on students' viewpoints underscores the need for further investigation into their experiences and attitudes toward these technological tools.
Therefore, the undergraduate thesis titled English Majors’ Perceptions Towards the Use of AI Grammar Checker Tools in Academic Writing Courses: A Case Study of
Ho Chi Minh University of Banking seeks to fill the gap in existing literature by thoroughly examining English majors' perceptions of academic writing tools This study offers valuable insights for future research and aims to strengthen empirical evidence in the field Additionally, it intends to enhance the curriculum of academic writing courses and promote the effective integration of these technologies within Vietnamese higher education.
2.6 Theoretical framework: The Technology Acceptance Model
Understanding how students embrace and integrate technology into their learning is crucial Chun et al (2021) highlight that the availability of various AI grammar checker tools allows for the selection of suitable programs, which can enhance educational effectiveness This research focuses on technology acceptance in the context of educational tools.
23 extent to which students are willing to embrace technology to succeed in academic writing courses
Several models, including the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), help explain students' acceptance of technology in educational settings Notably, the TAM model stands out as one of the most widely adopted frameworks due to its validity, simplicity, and robustness, as highlighted by Chun and Yunus (2022) and supported by Venkatesh and Davis (2000, as cited in Ma & Liu, 2005).
Due to time limitations and the researcher's limited understanding of user technology acceptance, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is identified as the most appropriate framework for this study By concentrating on Automated Teller Machines (ATMs), we can gain valuable insights into how students interact with technology to improve their academic writing abilities.
The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), adapted from the TRA model, effectively explains and predicts technology acceptance and usage, particularly in educational contexts TAM serves as a valuable predictive framework for understanding both current and future user acceptance of technology The model outlines a three-phase process: the first phase focuses on external factors, such as the design features of AI grammar checker tools, which trigger cognitive responses like perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use In the second phase, these cognitive responses lead to affective reactions, influencing users' attitudes toward technology and their behavioral intentions to use it Finally, the third phase demonstrates how these attitudes ultimately affect actual system usage (Davis, 1989).
According to Davis (1993), perceived usefulness and attitude toward usage directly influence the behavioral intention to use technology, while perceived ease of use enhances the effect of perceived usefulness When users find a technology easy to use, they are more likely to view it as beneficial, thereby increasing the chances of acceptance and actual use Furthermore, the intention to use is strongly linked to actual usage, with other factors impacting usage indirectly through this intention.
Figure 1: The Technology Acceptance Model
Source: Adapted from TAM model (Davis et al., 1989)
External variables significantly impact an individual's willingness to adopt a product or service, stemming primarily from social influence and personal perception According to Venkatesh and Davis (2002), these factors shape how individuals form their beliefs based on their experiences.
Perceived usefulness (PU) refers to the extent to which users believe that utilizing a specific technology will enhance their job performance (Venkatesh et al.,
Research highlights that perceived usefulness (PU) is a significant predictor of behavioral intention, supported by extensive prior experience with the tool This concept has been established in various studies, underscoring its importance in understanding user engagement and technology adoption.
2014) Applying this theoretical understanding suggests that the perceived usefulness of AI grammar checker tools will positively influence users' intentions to accept and use them in academic writing courses
Perceived ease of use (PEOU) refers to the belief that using a specific technology will require little effort (Venkatesh et al., 2003) Research shows that PEOU indirectly influences behavioral intention through perceived usefulness (PU) (Thong, Hong, & Tam, 2002; Thong, Hong, & Tam, 2006b) Specifically, when users have limited experience with AI grammar checker tools, a higher PEOU leads to an increased intention to adopt these technologies.
As users become more familiar with these tools, learning to use them becomes less effortful, and any initial difficulties are likely to diminish over time with increased
25 experience This theoretical understanding indicates that the perceived ease of use of
AI grammar checker tools will have a positive impact on users' intentions to accept and use them in academic writing courses
Attitude toward use is defined as the positive or negative feelings associated with engaging in a specific behavior, as outlined by Ajzen and Fishbein (1975) This construct plays a vital role in determining students' success in adopting and utilizing AI grammar checker tools effectively.
The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) gained significant research attention throughout the 20th century, particularly between 1989 and 2001, with around 100 studies examining its application to various end-user technologies These technologies included email, word processors, groupware, spreadsheets, and the World Wide Web, highlighting the model's widespread relevance and empirical support in understanding user acceptance of technology (Ma & Liu, 2005).
In the 21st century, numerous studies have validated the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) as an effective framework for evaluating learners' acceptance of educational tools Research has successfully applied TAM to various technologies, such as e-learning platforms, online learning tools, cloud computing, and AI applications, showcasing its adaptability in diverse educational contexts These findings provide critical insights into how both students and educators adopt new technologies Leveraging the strengths of TAM can significantly enhance our understanding and integration of AI tools in education.
Chapter conclusion
AI grammar checker tools have become vital in language learning and academic writing Grounded in the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) by Davis (1989), the analysis of students' perceptions is informed by existing empirical literature This framework emphasizes how individual experiences and emotions shape the acceptance and use of AI grammar checkers in academic settings The adapted model provides insights into students' interactions with these tools, highlighting both positive and negative perceptions, as well as their emotional responses By utilizing this model, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of students' acceptance and integration of AI grammar checkers in their academic writing courses.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research context
This study explores student perceptions of AI grammar checker tools in the academic writing context at the Faculty of Foreign Languages, Ho Chi Minh University of Banking The integration of tools like Grammarly, QuillBot, and ChatGPT has significantly influenced students' writing approaches As AI technology evolves, it is crucial to understand students' views on these tools regarding their usefulness, ease of use, and overall impact on learning outcomes, including grammatical accuracy, enhancement of academic writing skills, confidence building, and the development of linguistic abilities.
- becomes essential for optimizing the educational benefits of AI grammar checker tools in academic writing courses
While previous research has predominantly concentrated on the technical aspects of AI grammar checkers and their overall effects on writing performance, there is a notable lack of studies exploring the perceptions of English majors regarding these tools, especially in the context of Vietnamese universities where technological resources and academic standards differ This study seeks to fill this gap by investigating the views of second- to fourth-year English majors on the usefulness, ease of use, attitudes, benefits, and drawbacks of AI grammar checkers in their academic writing courses, particularly focusing on how these tools impact their writing objectives.
The research focuses on English majors in their second to fourth years, who have varying levels of exposure to AI grammar checkers and technological proficiency This demographic is particularly relevant as English majors are expected to hone advanced writing and editing skills, allowing for unique interactions with AI tools compared to students in other fields Consequently, this setting serves as an ideal environment to evaluate the perceived advantages and disadvantages of AI grammar checkers in enhancing grammatical accuracy and overall writing quality.
Ho Chi Minh University of Banking provides a supportive institutional context that enhances students' access to technology resources for their coursework The encouragement from faculty and the availability of digital tools facilitate students' experimentation with AI grammar checkers in their academic writing As students regularly engage in essays, reports, and assignments, the importance of precision in grammar, vocabulary, and structure becomes evident Consequently, their experiences offer valuable insights into how AI grammar checker tools align with their academic goals.
This study adopts a quantitative research approach to gather data on the factors affecting students' perceptions of AI grammar checkers By contextualizing the research within the academic environment, the aim is to provide valuable insights that can guide the future use of AI grammar checkers in language education and facilitate the creation of customized tools for English majors in academic writing.
Research design
Student perceptions of AI grammar checker tools are multifaceted, indicating that a singular data collection method may not provide adequate insights into their use in academic writing courses at Ho Chi Minh University of Banking To achieve a thorough understanding of student practices and preferences, it is essential to combine structured closed-ended questions with open-ended questions in the research approach.
Encouraging students to express their views on AI grammar checker tools provides valuable insights that traditional closed-ended surveys may miss Open-ended questions facilitate a deeper understanding of students' experiences and reduce biases associated with standard survey formats Furthermore, the use of a questionnaire survey enables the researcher to collect responses from a large number of students effectively.
A recent study explored the perceptions of English majors regarding AI grammar checker tools across four different year groups Utilizing a quantitative approach that incorporated both closed-ended and open-ended questions, the research aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of students' views This methodology notably improves the generalizability and representativeness of the study's findings.
This study applied quantitative approach to answer the research question The reasons for choosing this approach will be described in detailed in the following sections
Quantitative research focuses on quantifying data and generalizing findings from a study sample, as noted by Ghanad (2023) This approach involves the systematic collection, organization, analysis, and interpretation of data to test theories or hypotheses By employing quantitative methods, researchers can maintain objectivity and credibility, leading to reliable results and predictions (Kumar, 2011) It is particularly effective in structured data collection methods, such as surveys and polls, which enable the analysis of large datasets (Fowler, 2013).
Quantitative surveys serve as a powerful tool for data collection, effectively capturing the characteristics, attitudes, behaviors, and opinions of large populations (Ghanad, 2023) These surveys yield quantifiable data that enable researchers to generalize findings across broader groups (Fowler, 2009) Additionally, they are recognized for their time-saving and cost-efficient nature, providing unbiased measurement solutions (Creswell, 2008; Gillham, 2000).
Using a survey as the research instrument was appropriate for this study, considering the research objectives, the researcher’s expertise, available resources, and time constraints However, limitations existed, such as potential misunderstandings of the questions leading to unclear responses and the risk of participants not fully engaging with the survey, which could compromise data reliability (Gillham, 2000) To address these issues, an English instructor reviewed the survey for readability and comprehension prior to distribution.
The survey design, detailed in Appendix 1, was shaped by empirical research on the use of AI grammar checker tools in academic writing This study leveraged instruments from previous research conducted by O'Neill and Russell (2019a) and Phan (2023) O'Neill and Russell's (2019) study specifically examined Australian university students' perceptions of Grammarly, gathering insights into participants' opinions regarding the application's effectiveness.
A study by Phan (2023) explored the perceptions of Vietnamese higher education students regarding the benefits and drawbacks of tools like Grammarly, Paraphrasing Tool, and Google Translate The researcher tailored questions and items from existing literature to align with the specific context of this research.
The empirical literature provided a strong foundation for the research, keeping the researcher informed and the research questions focused Fourteen statements were adapted from O'Neill and Russell's (2019) study to align with the current research objectives Additionally, fourteen statements in part 4 were derived from Phan's work.
Prior to the questionnaire, participants engaged in five online sessions via Google Forms, which gathered demographic information, explored perceptions of AI grammar checker tools, assessed their benefits and drawbacks, and included open-ended questions from students.
The demographic information section included 10 questions, organized into two parts The first six questions focused on participants' demographics, collecting data such as name, email address, year of study, language proficiency, and technology proficiency The remaining four questions aimed to gather insights on students' prior experience with AI grammar checker tools and their frequency of use in academic writing courses.
The second section comprised 12 statements that examined students' perceptions regarding the usefulness, ease of use, and attitudes towards AI grammar checker tools, with the goal of assessing their current and anticipated future usage.
The third segment comprised 14 statements assessing students' responses to the benefits of AI grammar checker tools
The fourth part featured 14 statements exploring students' perceptions of both the subjective and objective drawbacks of these tools
Responses were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale, from "strongly disagree" (1) to "strongly agree" (5) The survey was created by adapting the empirical research of Phan (2023) and O'Neill & Russell (2019a), guided by the theoretical framework of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) proposed by Davis et al (1989), which focuses on four key constructs.
The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) was utilized to examine how perceived usefulness, ease of use, and students' attitudes toward AI grammar checker tools influence their acceptance and usage of these technologies.
The current study utilized open-ended questions in the survey's final section to capture participants' opinions, providing a deeper understanding of students' perceptions and attitudes These questions are essential in qualitative research, as they yield rich insights that closed-ended questions often miss By employing open-ended questions, the researcher saved time, effort, and costs while accommodating the tight schedules of students This flexible approach enabled participants to share their thoughts on AI grammar checker tools at their convenience Specifically, the first question explored positive aspects of these tools, while the second addressed negative experiences Distributed via email on a voluntary basis, these questions encouraged detailed responses about the benefits and potential drawbacks of using AI grammar-checking tools.
Participants
In this study, the researcher utilized purposive sampling to select participants who are particularly knowledgeable about the phenomenon of interest, as defined by Creswell & Plano Clark (2011) This method was chosen based on participants' willingness to engage and their ability to express reflective opinions, as noted by Bernard (2002) and Spradley (1979) The focus was specifically on undergraduate English majors currently enrolled in academic writing courses, who also have prior experience using AI grammar checker tools, ensuring that the selected individuals align closely with the research question.
A study involving 100 undergraduate English majors from the Faculty of Foreign Languages at Ho Chi Minh University of Banking revealed the distribution of participants by year of study Among the respondents, 32% were second-year students, 21% were third-year students, and 47% were fourth-year students, highlighting a diverse representation across different academic levels.
The researcher categorized participants into two groups—junior students (second-year) and senior students (third- and fourth-year)—to explore differences in their perceptions of AI grammar checker tools in academic writing courses This study aimed to identify the advantages and disadvantages perceived by each cohort regarding the use of these tools.
The study examines the perceptions of two groups of students regarding the use of AI grammar checker tools in academic writing: individuals with emerging experience and senior students The former group, with limited exposure to such tools, is still developing foundational writing skills, while senior students are expected to have advanced proficiency and greater familiarity due to their extensive coursework To analyze the differences between these groups, the researcher utilized the independent samples t-test method, aiming to uncover how academic level and experience shape students' attitudes towards integrating AI grammar checkers into their writing processes.
The role of the researcher
As a student researcher, the study was conducted as part of the curriculum, with responsibilities that included designing and distributing a questionnaire, collecting responses, and analyzing the data using statistical software To promote honest and unbiased responses, the researcher prioritized anonymity and confidentiality, as confirmed in an email that included a consent form for participants prior to starting the survey Additionally, the researcher remained aware of her own assumptions throughout the process.
AI grammar checker tools and made efforts to remain neutral and objective during data collection and analysis by using standardized questions and consulting my supervisor to minimize potential biases.
Research instruments
The survey, conducted at Ho Chi Minh University of Banking from September to November, utilized a variety of question formats, including multiple-choice, Likert scale, and open-ended questions, to effectively gather quantitative data.
The researcher employed SPSS 2023 software for quantitative data analysis and to create visual representations like bars and charts, which improved data visibility Additionally, NVivo was utilized for further analysis.
2015 software, a well-known and widely used tool for analyzing open-ended data.
Procedures of data collection and analysis
The researcher employed a structured questionnaire to investigate students' perceptions regarding the use, advantages, and disadvantages of AI grammar checker tools in academic writing courses This questionnaire effectively measures independent variables, including facts, preferences, and behaviors, as outlined by Kabir (2016).
The researcher employed descriptive statistics to analyze quantitative data using SPSS Statistics software version 23 To ensure the reliability and validity of the data, factor analysis was conducted to confirm that items aligned with the expected constructs Subsequently, reliability was assessed through Cronbach’s Alpha for each construct, including Perceived Usefulness (PU), Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU), and Attitude (ATT) Furthermore, independent samples t-tests were performed to investigate differences in perceptions of AI grammar checker tools between junior and senior students.
The study involved 100 participants, which is sufficient for quantitative research, and found no overlapping items, ensuring scale development and reliability were intact The researcher effectively addressed response bias, minimizing subjective influences and clarifying the distinct constructs measured It is crucial to consider temporal and external validity, as students' perceptions of AI grammar checker tools may evolve with technological advancements; thus, longitudinal studies could offer valuable insights into the changing attitudes and usage of these tools However, the findings are specific to students at Ho Chi Minh University of Banking and may not be applicable to wider populations Future research should aim to include samples from various universities and academic contexts to improve external validity and generalizability.
A study explored students' perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of AI grammar checker tools It also analyzed how students' perceived usefulness, ease of use, and attitudes towards these tools affect their willingness to adopt and utilize them.
To gain deeper insights into students' perceptions of AI grammar checker tools, the study utilized open-ended questions alongside a questionnaire, resulting in rich and varied data (see Appendix) The researcher included two additional open-ended questions to capture further information that students might have overlooked in the closed-ended format The first question encouraged students to share any extra benefits they experienced from using these tools, while the second allowed them to express any additional challenges faced during their academic writing courses This comprehensive methodology provides a thorough understanding of students' experiences and perspectives regarding AI grammar checker tools.
The analysis of open-ended questions was performed using NVivo 15 software, guided by empirical literature and research questions that shaped the coding framework Thematic analysis, a recognized method in qualitative research, was employed to interpret the data This study utilized the six-phase approach outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006) to ensure a thorough and systematic analysis.
“identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data” (Braun & Clarke,
2006, p 79), making it particularly effective for studies aimed at understanding people's perceptions and experiences
The six-phased thematic analysis approach the researcher adapted in the current study is explained as follows:
To effectively analyze the collected data, the researcher immersed themselves in it to understand its depth and breadth, as emphasized by Braun and Clarke (2006) By selecting phrases and sentences as units of analysis, the researcher aimed to capture meaningful chunks of data while preserving the richness of context and the participants' intended meanings Additionally, using sentences for text analysis highlighted syntactical differences, as noted by Giang (2021) The analysis was ultimately facilitated by NVivo 15 software.
37 prepared to establish a preliminary coding framework based on existing themes in the literature
Initial codes were developed to highlight key features of the data pertinent to the research question The researcher created a coding scheme based on the insights of O’Neil and Russell (2019a) and Phan (2023), leading to a preliminary framework comprising twelve elements that students take into account when utilizing AI grammar checker tools.
Table 3.1: Preliminary coding framework of the current study adapted from Giang (2021)
Benefits Assessing with ease Discussions related to the access to
Discussions related to the contextual understanding
Discussions related to further linguistic skills’ development
Discussions related to the enhancement of writing quality
Having detailed and precise feedback
Discussions related to the detailed and concise feedback given by AI grammar checker tools
Discussions related to the quick feedback given by AI grammar checker tools
Discussions related to the contextual understanding issues
Cost-related challenges Discussions related to cost-related challenges
Independence issues Discussions related to the over- dependence or under-dependence on AI grammar checker tools
Discussions related to the ability to provide accurate and comprehensive linguistic feedback
Discussions related to further linguistics’ development issues
Technical problems Discussions related to technical problems
In the theme selection phase, the researcher concentrated on the overarching relationships among the codes, creating new themes, merging relevant ones, and eliminating those that lacked significance (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
The researcher refined the themes through a iterative process that involved comparing coded extracts with the entire dataset This included consolidating similar sub-codes and eliminating redundant ones to enhance the clarity and coherence of the analysis.
The themes were meticulously refined and clearly defined, enabling the researcher to pinpoint their core essence and specify the aspects of the data they represented Comprehensive explanations and references to previous studies were incorporated to deepen understanding.
The researcher developed a well-structured report, drawing on data extracts and illustrative examples to highlight key themes and substantiate arguments relevant to the research question This meticulous methodology provided a deeper insight into participants' views on the importance of AI grammar checker tools in their academic writing experiences.
Ensuring trustworthiness in thematic analysis is crucial for the credibility and reliability of research findings Guba and Lincoln (1985) highlighted that the researcher’s prior experiences and values can influence interpretation, potentially introducing subjective bias To enhance the trustworthiness of qualitative data and reduce bias, this study utilized the four criteria of trustworthiness established by Lincoln and Guba: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.
Specifically, each phase of thematic analysis was aligned with these criteria to ensure trustworthiness The trustworthiness established in the current study is described as follows:
Table 3.2: Establishing trustworthiness during each phase of thematic analysis adapted from Giang (2021)
Phase of thematic analysis Explanations of establishing trustworthiness
Phase 1: Familiarizing yourself with your data
Reading and re-reading data
Comparing different data collection modes
Documenting thoughts about potential codes
Storing and organizing data in NVivo 15
Setting up a parent node system in NVivo 15
Phase 2: Generating initial codes Developing a coding framework
Using a coding framework Documentation of code generation
Phase 3: Searching for themes Detailed notes about development and hierarchies of concepts and themes
Diagramming to make sense of theme connections
Phase 4: Reviewing themes Returning to original framework for ensuring the themes were grounded in the data
Revisiting codes and sub-codes
Phase 5: Defining and naming themes Documentation of theme naming
Phase 6: Producing the report Describing process of coding and analysis in sufficient detail Referring to all reflective journaling
Reporting on rich, thick descriptions of the research context, participants, and findings
Due to the study's rationale and time limitations, the researcher concentrated on identifying dominant themes while analyzing counts and frequencies to assess the strengths and weaknesses of AI grammar checker tools in enhancing students' academic writing Additionally, open-ended questions were examined to enrich the analysis The quantitative data was analyzed in distinct sessions, and the findings were subsequently integrated to address the research questions effectively.
Ethical consideration
Prior to the survey, participants received a consent form with the questionnaire via email (see Appendix 2) This form outlined the study's purpose, emphasized voluntary participation, and highlighted participants' rights to withdraw at any time without repercussions It assured confidentiality and anonymity, informing participants that their responses would be used exclusively for academic purposes and securely stored to prevent unauthorized access.
The research was carried out at Ho Chi Minh University of Banking from September to November 2024, focusing on the Faculty of Foreign Languages due to the frequent use of AI grammar checker tools in English language learning and academic writing To recruit participants, an email containing a survey link was sent to English majors, inviting voluntary participation Furthermore, two instructors were engaged to help distribute the survey and motivate their students to join, ensuring a diverse representation and meeting the targeted sample size.
To reduce bias and encourage honest feedback, participants were assured of their anonymity, with no personal identifiers collected This approach created a judgment-free environment, allowing for genuine responses Additionally, participants had the choice to answer in either Vietnamese or English, ensuring clarity in their perceptions, especially for open-ended questions.
Email served as the main method for data collection, chosen for its accessibility and convenience, which aligns with ethical standards aimed at reducing participant burden To ensure participants had realistic expectations, they were informed that completing the closed-ended questions would take around 10 to 15 minutes, while open-ended questions would require about 5 minutes.
The researcher followed institutional ethical guidelines to maintain transparency during the study, ensuring that all data was stored in password-protected files and will be securely deleted upon completion These precautions were taken to uphold ethical principles such as respect for persons, beneficence, and justice, prioritizing the rights and welfare of all participants involved.
Chapter conclusion
This chapter outlines the quantitative approach utilized in the study, detailing the rationale for choosing specific data analysis methods The researcher separately analyzed both closed-ended and open-ended data, subsequently integrating the results to facilitate final discussions This methodology enabled a thorough understanding of the research questions by corroborating findings from various quantitative data sources.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Participant demographics
The study involved undergraduate students majoring in English from the Faculty of Foreign Languages, all of whom had either completed or were enrolled in academic writing courses Each participant had prior experience using AI grammar checker tools in their academic writing.
The survey gathered responses from 100 students across four academic years, with the largest participation coming from fourth-year English majors, followed by second-year students and third-year students.
Table 4.1: Distribution of students responding to the survey by year level
4.1.1.1 Students’ self-assessment of English proficiency
A recent survey revealed that 67% of students self-assess their English proficiency as Intermediate, while 24% consider themselves Advanced Only 6% rate their skills as Beginner, and a mere 3% feel Fluent in the language.
The dominance of the Intermediate student group over others can be attributed to targeted curriculum design in academic writing courses, which were tailored specifically for these students, excluding the Advanced course To enroll in these courses, students needed to demonstrate their qualification by meeting the English standard, even though Ho Chi Minh University of Banking did not mandate proof of English competence The relatively high admission scores of students indicate that they successfully met the university's English requirements.
Table 4.2: Distribution of students’ self-assessment of English proficiency
4.1.1.2 Students’ self-assessment of technology proficiency
A survey analysis revealed that 67% of students consider their technology proficiency as 'good,' while 22% rate it as 'fair.' Additionally, 9% of participants view their skills as 'excellent,' and only 2% assess their proficiency as 'poor.'
Students in the 'good' and 'fair' proficiency groups generally exhibit a strong comfort level with technology, enabling them to effectively utilize AI grammar checker tools This moderate proficiency empowers them to easily access and leverage these tools to improve their writing skills.
45 quality of their academic writing
Table 4.3: Distribution of students’ self-assessment of technology proficiency
4.1.1.3 Students’ frequency of using AI grammar checker tools
A significant portion of students, 33%, reported using AI grammar checker tools a few times daily, while 32% indicated they relied on these tools multiple times each day Additionally, 14% used them once a day, and 15% admitted to using them rarely, only once a week A small percentage, 6%, utilized these tools once a month Notably, there were no responses for the 'Less than once a month' category, highlighting a general disinterest in AI grammar checker tools among some students.
Table 4.4: Students’ frequency of using AI grammar checker tools by regularity
Table 4.5: Distribution for frequency of using AI grammar checker tools between junior students and senior students by regularity
The table highlights the contrasting usage patterns of AI grammar checker tools among junior and senior students Notably, senior students showed a much greater tendency for frequent use, with 39.7% utilizing these tools "many times a day" and another 39.7% employing them "a few times a day."
A study of 47 seniors revealed significantly lower usage rates in categories like "about once a day" (7.4%), "about once a week" (10.3%), and "about once a month" (2.9%) This indicates that senior students, equipped with advanced metalinguistic skills from extensive academic writing experience, tend to utilize these tools during focused, high-intensity sessions instead of frequent, low-level usage.
Junior students exhibit a balanced usage of AI grammar checker tools, with 28.1% using them "about once a day" and 25.0% "about once a week." In contrast, only 18.8% utilize these tools "a few times a day," 15.6% "many times a day," and 12.5% "about once a month." This moderate usage pattern indicates that junior students, who are likely in the early stages of developing their academic writing and self-editing skills, rely on AI tools for consistent support as they build confidence in their writing abilities The differences in usage frequency highlight how experience and exposure influence the adoption of AI grammar checker tools among students at varying academic levels.
In academic writing courses, 43% of students reported using AI tools for 25-50% of their writing tasks, making this the most common usage range Following closely, 23% utilized these tools for 10-25% of their assignments Additionally, 21% of students integrated AI grammar checkers into 50-75% of their academic work, while 11% used them for 75-100% of their tasks Lastly, only 2% of students indicated that they employed these tools in less than 10% of their writing activities.
Table 4.7: Distribution for frequency of using AI grammar checker tools between junior students and senior students by percentage range
The data reveals a distinct contrast in AI grammar checker tool usage between junior and senior students, with seniors utilizing these tools more frequently across various ranges Specifically, 47.1% of senior students reported using AI grammar checkers for 25-50% of their writing tasks, while 27.9% used them for 50-75%, and 14.7% for 75-100% Conversely, seniors exhibited significantly lower usage rates in the 10-25% category (10.3%) and did not report any usage below 10% (0.0%) This pattern underscores the increasing reliance on AI tools among senior students.
Table 4.6: Students’ frequency of using AI grammar checker tools by percentage range
Senior students at Ho Chi Minh University of Banking demonstrate the versatility of AI grammar checkers by utilizing these tools not only in academic writing courses but also across various subjects within the English curricula of the Faculty of Foreign Languages This widespread integration of AI grammar checkers in multiple writing tasks may account for the higher percentage of usage, as students seek to enhance their written assignments in diverse academic contexts.
Junior students reported lower usage of AI tools for academic writing, with 34.4% utilizing them for 25-50% of tasks, 6.3% for 50-75%, and only 3.1% for 75-100% Half of the students indicated using these tools for 10-25% of their writing, while 6.3% used them for less than 10% This data suggests that juniors primarily rely on AI grammar checkers as they navigate fewer and less demanding writing assignments Their cautious approach reflects their ongoing exploration of these tools as they develop their writing skills, highlighting the influence of academic level and course requirements on the usage of AI grammar checkers.
Table 4.8: Descriptive statistics for frequency of using AI grammar checker tools between junior students and senior students
An independent-samples t-test revealed a significant difference in the frequency of AI grammar checker tool usage between two student groups, with junior students reporting a mean score of 3.00 (SD = 0.50) The results indicated a notable statistical difference (t(98) = 4.20, p < 001), highlighting the varying regularity of usage among the groups.
1.25) and senior students (M = 4.03, SD = 1.07) Similarly, the difference in the scores for the frequency by percentage range between junior students (M = 2.50, SD = 0.83) and senior students (M = 3.47, SD = 0.87) was statistically significant (t(98) = -5.24, p
< 001) Scores on both scales were significantly higher for senior students than junior students
Students’ usage of AI grammar checker tools
4.1.2.1 Students' aspects of using AI grammar checker tools
Analysis of the collected data revealed that AI grammar checker tools can greatly assist students in improving their academic writing The most valuable feature identified was grammar and punctuation correction, which received 150% of total responses Following this, vocabulary enhancement ranked second with 130%, while error explanations were recognized as the third most beneficial feature at 120% Additionally, readability improvement and spell checking were also noted as important, with scores of 110% and 100% respectively.
The students found the tool to be highly beneficial, with 51 features being utilized to enhance their academic writing Notably, style and tone suggestions, as well as plagiarism detection, were considered particularly helpful, with 90% and 80% response rates, respectively Furthermore, evaluations and insights received an overwhelmingly positive response, with 95% of students finding them useful Additionally, 30% of students highlighted other features as being beneficial in supporting their academic writing needs.
Table 4.9: Students' aspects of using AI grammar checker tools
4.1.2.2 Students’ usage patterns of AI grammar checker tools
A recent study on AI grammar checker tools in academic writing found that ChatGPT was the most popular choice among students, with 83% reporting its use Grammarly followed closely behind, utilized by 78% of respondents Additionally, 49% of students indicated they used Google Translate, while 44% preferred Quillbot Other tools such as Google Bard and Microsoft Copilot were used by 14% and 11% of students, respectively, and 10% of participants mentioned additional tools not specified in the survey.
Students predominantly utilize ChatGPT due to its advanced features and capabilities This platform, trained on an extensive dataset, effectively extracts information from diverse sources (Steiss et al., 2024) Additionally, ChatGPT serves as a comprehensive writing tool that addresses various writing aspects, rather than just grammar Research indicates its effectiveness in improving students' writing, which likely contributes to its widespread use in the current study Notably, Grammarly ranks as the second most popular writing aid among students.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 grammar and punctuation… vocabulary enhancement error explanation radability improvement spell checking evaluations and insights style and tone suggestions plagiarism detection others
A recent study identified a widely used tool focused on grammar correction, which has proven effective in enhancing students' grammar and overall writing skills (Lee & Lee, 2024; O’Neill & Russells’, 2019a) Additionally, Google Translate emerged as the third most commonly utilized tool, primarily due to its robust translation capabilities that enable students to quickly and efficiently translate between languages (Briggs, 2018; Jeong, 2021).
Table 4.10: Students’ usage patterns of AI grammar checker tools
Factors influence English majors’ perceptions of accepting and using the AI
This section comprises twelve statements categorized into three constructs, with each construct containing four statements These statements were specifically developed to explore the research question: What factors influence English majors' perceptions of accepting and utilizing AI grammar checker tools? The statements were adapted from the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis et al., 1989), focusing on the determinants that shape English majors' acceptance and usage of these AI tools.
A Principal Components Factor Analysis was used for the four items’ factor extraction (see Appendix 4) with varimax rotation Only the first of the four items was
Quillbot Google Bard Microsoft Copilot
53 retained, suggesting that the four items measured a unidimensional construct
The extracted factor explained 70.8% of the total variance, demonstrating a robust underlying factor structure The component matrix revealed that all four items exhibited strong loadings on the single retained component, with factor loadings varying significantly.
Table 4.11: Students’ Perceived Usefulness Factor loading
1 Using AI grammar checker tools improves my performance in academic writing courses .87
Research indicates that the perceived usefulness of AI grammar checker tools significantly influences students' acceptance and utilization of these resources in academic writing courses, supporting existing literature (Davis et al., 1989; O’Neill).
4.2.2 Perceived Ease Of Use (PEOU)
A Principal Components Factor Analysis with varimax rotation was conducted on four items, resulting in the retention of only the first item This indicates that the four items collectively measure a unidimensional construct.
The sole extracted factor explained 65.2% of the total variance, highlighting a robust underlying factor structure The component matrix revealed that all four items demonstrated strong loadings on the retained component, with factor loadings varying significantly.
Table 4.12: Students' Perceived Ease Of Use Factor loading
Perceived Ease Of Use Factor loading
1 Learning to operate AI grammar checker tools is easy for me .74 The findings were aligned with the prediction that the perceived ease of use of
AI grammar checker tools would impact students’ perceptions in accepting and using
54 these tools in academic writing courses (Davis et al., 1989; O’Neill & Russels’, 2019a)
A Principal Components Factor Analysis with varimax rotation was conducted to extract factors from four items, revealing that only the first item was retained This outcome indicates that the four items collectively measure a unidimensional construct.
The sole extracted factor explained 69.7% of the total variance, highlighting a robust underlying factor structure The component matrix revealed that all four items exhibited strong loadings on the retained component, with factor loadings varying significantly.
Table 4.13: Students’ Attitude Factor loading
1 Using AI grammar checker tools for academic writing courses is a good idea .86
The research supports existing literature indicating that students' attitudes significantly influence their perceptions and acceptance of AI grammar checker tools in academic writing courses (Davis et al., 1989; O’Neill & Russels).
English majors’ perceptions of the benefits of AI grammar checker tools in
Table 4.14: Mean and SD ratings for students’ statements about AI grammar checker tools’ benefits
1 It is important for me to get
AI grammar checker tools to provide grammar feedback on my academic writing
2 The AI grammar checker tools spend enough time on grammar feedback to help me improve my academic writing
AI grammar checker tools focuses on my main errors
4 I make the grammar corrections recommended by
AI grammar checker tools during my academic writing courses
5 I receive many useful suggestions about how to improve my grammar in academic writing
6 It is easy for me to access
7 It is easy for me to make grammatical changes to my academic writing using the feedback from AI grammar checker tools
8 It is easy to understand the errors because the explanations given by AI grammar checker tools are clear
9 The grammar feedback from AI grammar checker tools makes me feel more confident about handing in the assignment in my academic writing
10 The grammar feedback from AI grammar checker tools improves my grade
11 The grammar feedback develops my language long- term (not just for academic writing) as I can understand the grammatical rules more
12 The grammar feedback develops my confidence in my language use long-term (not just for academic writing) as I can understand the grammatical rules more
13 I find myself more engaged in academic writing courses that integrate AI grammar checker tools
14 I am satisfied with the grammar advice I receive from
Note: df = degrees of freedom, with decimal places indicating Welch t-tests was used d refers to Cohen’s d (effect size)
Statement 1: "It is important for me to get AI grammar checker tools to provide grammar feedback on my academic writing." There was a significant difference (t = -
A study revealed a significant difference in the perceived importance of AI grammar checker tools' feedback between junior and senior students, with junior students scoring an average of 3.34 (SD = 0.93) and senior students scoring 3.83 (SD = 0.74), resulting in a p-value of 005 The medium effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.60) indicates that senior students value grammar feedback from AI tools more than their junior counterparts Despite this difference, both groups acknowledged the importance of receiving feedback from AI grammar checkers.
The findings were aligned with O’Neill and Russell’s (2019) study, in which the authors showed that students reported the importance of Grammarly feedback for their writing
Statement 2: "The AI grammar checker tools spend enough time on grammar feedback to help me improve my academic writing." There was no significant difference between junior students (M = 3.68, SD = 0.78) and senior students (M = 3.73, SD 0.87) in terms of the perceived time effectiveness (t = -0.26, p = 793) Overall, both groups were satisfied with the amount of time AI tools spend providing feedback
Statement 3: "The grammar feedback from AI grammar checker tools focuses on my main errors." Junior students (M = 3.71, SD = 0.72) and senior students (M 3.83, SD = 0.80) both agreed that the feedback is targeted at their main errors, but the difference was not statistically significant (t = -0.71, p = 477) This indicates that both groups found the feedback relevant and focused on major writing’s errors
The findings were aligned with previous studies (Hyland & Hyland, 2006; O’Neill & Russells’, 2019a) in which students liked the fact that AI grammar checker tools focused on their main grammatical errors
4.3.4 Useful and Ese-of-Use feedback
Statement 5: "I receive many useful suggestions about how to improve my grammar in academic writing." Junior students (M = 3.71, SD = 0.68) and senior students (M = 3.85, SD = 0.81) reported fairly high levels of agreement with this statement, but the difference was not statistically significant (t = -0.80, p = 422) This suggests that both groups perceived the suggestions from AI tools as useful for improving grammar
Statement 6: "It is easy for me to access AI grammar checker tools." Junior students (M = 3.75, SD = 0.80) and senior students (M = 3.79, SD = 0.78) both rated this positively, with no significant difference between the groups (t = -0.26, p = 795) This indicates that both groups found the AI grammar checker tools easy to access
Statement 7: "It is easy for me to make grammatical changes to my academic writing using the feedback from AI grammar checker tools." Junior students (M = 3.46,
SD = 0.80) and senior students (M = 3.58, SD = 0.83) rated this statement similarly, with no statistically significant difference (t = -0.67, p = 500) Overall, both groups found it relatively easy to apply grammatical corrections suggested by these tools
Statement 8: "It is easy to understand the errors because the explanations given by AI grammar checker tools are clear." Junior students (M = 3.56, SD = 0.80) rated this statement slightly higher than senior students (M = 3.48, SD = 0.81), but the difference was not significant (t = 0.44, p = 659) Both groups seem to find the explanations provided by the AI tools understandable, with no major difference between the groups
The findings were aligned with empirical literature (Lee & Lee, 2024; O’Neill
According to Russells (2019a), AI grammar checker tools are both useful and user-friendly, making them accessible for students seeking to improve their grammar and enhance the quality of their writing.
Statement 13: "I find myself more engaged in academic writing courses that
A study on the integration of AI grammar checker tools in academic writing courses revealed that both junior (M = 3.43, SD = 0.94) and senior students (M = 3.60, SD = 0.86) reported moderate levels of engagement The analysis showed no significant difference in engagement between the two groups (t = -0.86, p = 390), indicating that students at different academic levels felt similarly engaged with the use of these tools.
Statement 14: "I am satisfied with the grammar advice I receive from AI grammar checker tools." Junior students (M = 3.53, SD = 0.80) and senior students (M
= 3.72, SD = 0.80) expressed satisfaction, with no significant difference (t = -1.09, p 276) Overall, both groups were generally satisfied with the feedback they received from these tools
The findings were informed by O’Neill & Russells' (2019a), as the authors' study revealed that students showed a significant increase in their personal confidence levels when integrating Grammarly into their writing
Statement 10: "The grammar feedback from AI grammar checker tools improves my grade." Junior students (M = 3.46, SD = 0.80) rated this statement lower than senior students (M = 3.72, SD = 0.84), but the difference was not significant (t = - 1.41, p = 161) While both groups believe the feedback can improve grades, senior students were more positive about this aspect
Statement 11: "The grammar feedback develops my language long-term (not just for academic writing) as I can understand the grammatical rules more." Junior students (M = 3.53, SD = 0.84) and senior students (M = 3.61, SD = 0.75) both recognized the AI tools as contributing to long-term language development, but the difference was not statistically significant (t = -0.51, p = 608) This indicated that both groups felt the AI feedback contributed to broader language skills The findings were aligned with O’Neill & Russell’s (2019a) study and other established studies, which showed that using AI grammar checker tools could slightly to moderately enhance students' long-term metalinguistic skills
Statement 13: "I find myself more engaged in academic writing courses that integrate AI grammar checker tools." Junior students (M = 3.43, SD = 0.94) and senior
60 students (M = 3.60, SD = 0.86) reported moderate engagement, with no significant difference (t = -0.86, p = 390) Both groups felt similarly engaged when AI tools were integrated into writing courses
Statement 14: "I am satisfied with the grammar advice I receive from AI grammar checker tools." Junior students (M = 3.53, SD = 0.80) and senior students (M
= 3.72, SD = 0.80) expressed satisfaction, with no significant difference (t = -1.09, p 276) Both groups were generally satisfied with the feedback they received from the
While no significant differences were observed for some statements (p-values > 05), specific statements revealed statistically significant differences Notably, senior students placed greater importance on AI grammar feedback than junior students (t = -2.84, p = 005) This disparity may stem from seniors having more experience with AI grammar checker tools, which enhances their understanding of these tools' benefits in refining academic writing Furthermore, seniors likely utilize AI grammar tools across various subjects, fostering a deeper appreciation for their role in improving writing quality In contrast, junior students may still be in the early stages of adopting these tools, resulting in less emphasis on their significance in academic writing.
English majors’ perceptions of the drawbacks of AI grammar checker tools in
Table 4.15: Mean and SD ratings for students’ statements about AI grammar checker tools’ drawbacks
1 I find it difficult to access AI grammar checker tools
2 I often rely on AI grammar checker tools without critically evaluating their suggestions
3 My lack of technical skills hinders my effective use of AI grammar checker tools
4 I worry about potential plagiarism issues when using
5 AI grammar checker tools sometimes misunderstand the context of my writing
6 The AI grammar checker tools occasionally suggest changes that alter my intended meaning
7 AI grammar checker tools struggle with discipline-specific terminology in my field
8 Using AI grammar checker tools may hinder my ability to learn and remember grammar rules
9 I sometimes accept suggestions without understanding the underlying grammar principles
10 I am concerned about the fairness of using AI tools in academic assessments
11 I find it difficult to write without the assistance of AI grammar checker tools now
12 I notice inconsistencies in suggestions provided by different AI grammar checker tools
13 I am worried about the privacy of my writing when using online AI grammar checker tools
14 The AI grammar checker tools do not adequately address issues of style and tone in academic writing
Note: df = degrees of freedom, with decimal places indicating Welch t-tests was used d refers to Cohen’s d (effect size)
Statement 1: “I find it difficult to access AI grammar checker tools.” Junior students (M = 2.50, SD = 87) reported slightly fewer difficulties accessing AI grammar checker tools compared to senior students (M = 2.75, SD = 1.04) The difference, however, was not statistically significant (t = -1.17, p = 243) This indicates that
63 accessibility challenges were minimal for both groups, possibly due to the availability of free or easily accessible tools
Statement 2: “I often rely on AI grammar checker tools without critically evaluating their suggestions.” Junior students (M = 2.96, SD = 93) and senior students
A study revealed that participants (M = 3.02, SD = 91) exhibited a comparable reliance on AI grammar checker tools without critically evaluating the provided suggestions The minimal difference observed between the groups was not statistically significant (t = -0.30, p = 759), suggesting a shared tendency to trust AI-generated recommendations, which may result in reduced critical engagement with their writing.
Statement 11: “I find it difficult to write without the assistance of AI grammar checker tools now.” Junior students (M = 3.18, SD = 99) found it slightly less challenging to write independently of AI tools compared to senior students (M = 3.42,
The study found a moderate dependence on AI tools among senior students (SD = 93), although the difference was not statistically significant (t = -1.16, p = 246) This indicates that senior students may exhibit a slightly higher reliance on AI tools, likely due to their extended exposure throughout their academic experience.
The findings were aligned with empirical literature (Lee & Lee, 2024; Phan,
2023) which showed a similar trend of students' dependence on these tools for a variety of writing purposes
Statement 3: “My lack of technical skills hinders my effective use of AI grammar checker tools.” Both groups reported moderate difficulty due to technical skills, with juniors (M = 3.00, SD = 1.07) and seniors (M = 3.13, SD = 1.00) showing no significant difference (t = -0.60, p = 550) This reflects a shared need for further training or support in navigating these tools effectively
Statement 4: “I worry about potential plagiarism issues when using AI grammar checker tools.” Concerns about plagiarism were moderately high among both juniors (M = 3.56, SD = 94) and seniors (M = 3.73, SD = 85), with no significant difference (t = -0.90, p = 366) This highlights a common apprehension about the
64 ethical use of AI tools, regardless of academic level
Statement 5: “AI grammar checker tools sometimes misunderstand the context of my writing.” Both junior students (M = 3.71, SD = 92) and senior students (M 3.73, SD = 85) expressed concern that AI grammar checkers occasionally fail to understand the context of their writing The difference between the two groups was negligible and not statistically significant (t = -0.84, p = 399)
Statement 6: “The AI grammar checker tools occasionally suggest changes that alter my intended meaning.” Senior students (M = 3.72, SD = 76) reported slightly greater concern about AI tools altering their intended meaning than junior students (M
= 3.50, SD = 87) However, this difference was not statistically significant (t = -1.27, p = 205)
Statement 7: “AI grammar checker tools struggle with discipline-specific terminology in my field.” Seniors (M = 3.50, SD = 76) reported slightly more issues with AI tools handling discipline-specific terminology compared to juniors (M = 3.34,
SD = 86) The difference, however, was not significant (t = -0.91, p = 363)
Statement 12: “I notice inconsistencies in suggestions provided by different AI grammar checker tools.” Junior students (M = 3.46, SD = 91) and senior students (M
= 3.41, SD = 83) agreed on inconsistencies across AI grammar checkers, with no significant difference (t = 0.30, p = 758)
Statement 14: “The AI grammar checker tools do not adequately address issues of style and tone in academic writing.” Senior students (M = 3.61, SD = 89) perceived greater inadequacies in addressing style and tone compared to juniors (M 3.31, SD = 85) Although this difference approached significance, it did not reach the threshold (t = -1.60, p = 111)
Recent studies (Lee & Lee, 2024; O’Neill & Russells’, 2019a; Phan, 2023) highlight that AI grammar checker tools often struggle with contextual understanding, resulting in issues like irrelevant suggestions and inaccurate feedback Consequently, it is essential to adopt a more careful strategy when utilizing these tools for writing tasks.
Statement 8: “Using AI grammar checker tools may hinder my ability to learn and remember grammar rules.” Both groups reported moderate agreement with this statement (M = 3.46 for juniors and M = 3.48 for seniors), with no significant difference (t = -0.08, p = 933) This suggests that while AI tools are beneficial, they may not effectively support long-term grammar retention
These findings align with O’Neill & Russells’ (2019a) study where students expressed concerns about over-dependence on Grammarly could hinder the development of critical thinking and other linguistic skills
Statement 9: “I sometimes accept suggestions without understanding the underlying grammar principles.” Junior students (M = 3.38, SD = 1.05) reported a slightly higher tendency to accept AI grammar checker suggestions without fully understanding the grammar rules compared to senior students (M = 3.23, SD = 89) However, this difference was not statistically significant (t = 0.22, p = 822, d = 04)
Junior students are still in the process of developing essential critical skills, which results in their limited ability to independently write and edit their texts Consequently, they tend to rely on AI grammar checker tools for suggestions.
Statement 10: “I am concerned about the fairness of using AI tools in academic assessments.” Juniors (M = 3.65, SD = 90) expressed slightly higher concerns about fairness compared to seniors (M = 3.54, SD = 87) This difference was not statistically significant (t = 0.59, p = 554), suggesting consistent concern about equity in AI usage during assessments
Statement 13: “I am worried about the privacy of my writing when using online
AI grammar checker tools.” Both groups reported moderate concerns about privacy (M
= 3.46 for juniors, M = 3.44 for seniors), with no significant difference (t = 0.12, p 899) This reflects a shared apprehension about the security of personal and academic work uploaded to AI grammar checker tools
The results were informed by previous studies (Alharbi, 2023; Phan, 2023), in which the researchers highlighted areas of concern regarding the ethical problems
66 reported by students, and from the analysis of the collected studies
The study examined junior and senior students' perceptions of AI grammar checker tools Although there were variations in the mean scores, statistical analysis showed no significant differences between the two groups across all 14 statements, with p-values exceeding 05.
English majors’ perceptions of the additional benefits and drawbacks of AI
grammar checker tools in academic writing courses
This section delves into a comprehensive analysis of students' perceptions of AI grammar checker tools, building on the insights gained from closed-ended survey data By utilizing thematic analysis through NVivo 15, responses to open-ended questions were systematically coded and organized based on common characteristics This approach allows for a nuanced interpretation of the data, highlighting both the positive and negative aspects that students associate with these tools Ultimately, the findings aim to provide substantial evidence that addresses the core research questions.
4.5.1 Additional benefits of AI grammar checker tools
Table 4.16: Additional benefits of AI grammar checker tools
- Provided great features like grammar checking and improving
- Give me advanced vocabularies that I do not know
- Suggesting more straightforward ways to phrase sentences, which helps avoid overly complex wording
- Using AI for my homework 24 24%
- AI helps me find a lot of useful information
- It makes me more confident
- It can help me find mistakes
- It can help me find mistakes
- These tools help users learn and internalize grammar rules over time
- They allowed me to adjust my writing while expanding my vocabulary and improving my understanding of grammatical structures
- It solves the problem quickly
- AI grammar tools were convenient
Respondents highlighted the positive impact of AI grammar checker tools on their writing, particularly in enhancing grammar skills Students noted that these tools effectively identify grammar mistakes and offer a variety of grammatical rules, leading to significant improvements One student remarked on the "great features like grammar checking and improving," while another specifically mentioned tools like Grammarly as beneficial resources for their writing development.
Microsoft Editor not only check for grammatical errors …”
Students recognized that AI grammar checker tools significantly enhance their writing skills by enriching their vocabulary They reported improvements, stating that these tools help them “get great vocabulary and repair” their work, ultimately contributing to their overall writing proficiency.
68 participant wrote that “… give me advanced vocabularies that I do not know.”
AI grammar checker tools offer a valuable paraphrasing function that significantly enhances students' writing skills They suggest simpler ways to phrase sentences, helping to eliminate overly complex wording One student noted that these tools provide excellent rewritten statements, making their writing more academic Additionally, another student highlighted that AI suggestions for alternative phrasings can improve writing by recommending the removal of unnecessary words, leading to more direct and effective communication.
Students in the survey expressed a preference for AI grammar checker tools due to their ability to assist with tone adjustments, making it easier to adapt writing for various contexts One student highlighted this benefit by sharing her perspective on the importance of such tools.
“… provide tone adjustments, offering suggestions to make your writing sound more formal, friendly, or neutral depending on the context.”
Students expressed a strong preference for AI grammar checker tools, highlighting their effectiveness in refining writing styles to meet specific communication needs One student noted that these tools help to enhance writing across various formats, including business proposals, blog posts, and emails Another participant emphasized that certain tools provide style improvements, suggesting more assertive language, such as changing "I think this project is important" to "This project is crucial."
Students struggling to generate ideas on unfamiliar topics expressed optimism about AI grammar checker tools, which offer rich and diverse suggestions These tools assist them in understanding new concepts and gathering recommendations to kickstart their writing process.
“… helps me develop and implement ideas”
“… change simple words in my writing.”
There was no doubt that AI grammar checker tools were a valuable resource for
AI grammar checker tools significantly enhance students' writing skills by effectively addressing various complex writing aspects As a result, students often express positive feedback regarding the integration of these tools into their academic tasks Ultimately, users have reported notable improvements in grammar, vocabulary, style, tone, idea generation, and spelling.
In addition to academic writing, students find AI grammar checker tools beneficial for a range of academic tasks, including answering questions, completing homework, preparing presentations, and assisting with translations Many students shared their positive experiences using these tools, highlighting their versatility and support in various educational activities.
“It is more suitable for academic writing, but I also want to use it for normal writing.”
“When I have a script for my presentations, I usually use AI to check my mistakes when using words in sentences ….”
“Using AI grammar checker tools help me improve how to deliver my messages on different situations: conversation, presentations …”
The reasons students chose these tools for various academic purposes likely stemmed from the usefulness of AI grammar checkers, as these programs provided valuable information to address users' inquiries
“Al is very useful for me to my writing course.”
“AI helps me find a lot of useful information.”
AI grammar checker tools not only suggest corrections but also offer references to relevant sources, enhancing users' understanding of the reasoning behind these suggestions A student noted that "AI grammar checker tools can provide some potential links that are relevant for the assignment."
AI grammar checker tools have enhanced the clarity and comprehension of students' projects, leading to improved quality outcomes Many students reflected on their previous experiences with these tools, highlighting their positive impact on their work.
“I found the feedback from AI grammar-checking tools highly beneficial, as they … provided clear guidance on how to improve.”
“It offers insights into language rules”
“For instance, they enhance clarity and conciseness …”
“…ensure clarity and precision, whether in business proposals, blog posts, or emails.”
“These tools … improved coherence, making my writing more readable.”
Participants reported an enhanced study experience through the use of AI grammar checker tools One student expressed her positive perspective on how these tools have benefited her academic work.
“When I check like that [using AI grammar checker tools], I can find other [suggestions] that excited [that] I have never seen [before]”
A participant highlighted the potential benefits of incorporating AI grammar checker tools in educational settings, emphasizing their use should be restricted to particular tasks, like earning bonus points, rather than being applied more broadly.
Using AI grammar platforms in class increased my engagement, as my teacher allowed us to utilize these tools for extra credit activities However, it’s important to note that they were not permitted for significant tests.
The use of writing tools significantly enhanced students' personal confidence, particularly in managing their writing drafts and overall linguistic skills Regular exposure to different types of errors helped students become more adept at recognizing and addressing these issues Notably, senior students exhibited greater assurance in their writing abilities than juniors, likely due to their extensive experience with academic writing courses and familiarity with various AI grammar checker tools.
“It makes me more confident.”
“… make me feel more confident when stand in front of the crowded to present.”
In sum, results in the open-ended questions’ data reported that AI grammar
Chapter conclusion
The closed-ended analysis explored undergraduate students' perceptions of AI grammar checker tools, revealing significant insights from their demographic data, self-assessments of English and technology proficiency, and usage patterns A total of 100 English-major undergraduate students participated in the questionnaire survey, with the majority providing self-ratings of their skills.
A significant number of students identified themselves as having intermediate English proficiency, alongside a strong aptitude for technology that facilitated the effective use of various tools Furthermore, these students often relied on AI grammar checkers to enhance their academic writing across multiple purposes.
This study aimed to investigate the impact of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and attitude on students' acceptance and utilization of AI grammar checker tools Through Principal Components Factor Analysis, it was found that each construct—Perceived Usefulness (PU), Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU), and Attitude (ATT)—was represented by a single, significant factor, with high factor loadings indicating a strong relationship among the items within each construct The researcher ensured the reliability and validity of the measurement model by employing the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) framework, confirming that these constructs effectively captured students' perceptions of AI grammar checker tools in academic writing courses Factor analysis further validated that the items aligned with the anticipated factors.
The study effectively measured the constructs of Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and Attitude regarding AI grammar checker tools in academic writing Results indicated that students found these tools both beneficial and user-friendly, fostering a positive attitude towards their application These insights directly address the research question, highlighting that the perceived usefulness, ease of use, and students' favorable attitudes significantly influenced their acceptance and utilization of AI grammar checkers in their coursework.
The study aimed to investigate students' perceptions regarding the advantages and disadvantages of AI grammar checker tools Utilizing descriptive statistics, the research analyzed quantitative responses from students, while independent samples t-tests were employed to identify differences in perceptions between junior and senior students.
AI grammar checker tools offer significant benefits for students by enhancing their writing skills in various crucial aspects Key advantages include the importance of receiving timely feedback, increased efficiency in the writing process, and the provision of targeted suggestions Additionally, these tools are user-friendly, boost students' confidence, lead to improved grades, enhance linguistic abilities, and foster greater engagement and satisfaction in writing tasks Students highlighted the essential role these tools play in their overall writing development.
Students reported substantial time savings and improved confidence in their writing through the use of AI grammar checker tools, which provided clear suggestions and targeted key errors Their overall satisfaction with these tools indicates a positive impact on their academic writing process Furthermore, the open-ended feedback emphasizes additional benefits, such as enhanced writing skills, improved academic performance, effective error detection, and greater accessibility, showcasing the comprehensive advantages of integrating AI tools into academic settings.
Students have expressed several concerns regarding AI grammar checker tools, highlighting issues such as accessibility challenges, dependence on the technology, and a lack of sufficient technical skills Plagiarism worries and problems with feedback were also noted, alongside concerns about underdeveloped grammar rules and the uncritical acceptance of suggestions Many students reported dissatisfaction due to the tools' inability to accurately grasp contextual meanings, often resulting in irrelevant recommendations Furthermore, the analysis indicated a negative impact on students' autonomy, as some became overly reliant on these tools Additional challenges included high costs and technical difficulties, which impeded their effective use for academic purposes.
While the advantages of AI grammar checker tools generally surpass the disadvantages, it is crucial to tackle the negative effects to successfully incorporate them into academic environments The findings underscore the importance of careful integration of these tools in academic writing curricula The subsequent sections will present conclusions derived from the analysis of the benefits and drawbacks associated with AI grammar checker tools.
Students’ academic writing quality and linguistic skills development
Students expressed positive views on the acceptance and use of AI grammar checker tools, highlighting their effectiveness in meeting academic writing needs Reports revealed that these tools serve as valuable writing assistants, improving grammar, vocabulary, style, tone, idea generation, and spelling Additionally, the benefits of these tools extend beyond writing, providing support in various other disciplines Participants showed enthusiasm for utilizing these resources for both personal and academic purposes, enhancing their overall learning experience.
84 answers on specific topics, assisting with the translation process, supporting students’ homework, and helping with preparation for presentations and more
Increased exposure to various error correction methods significantly boosted students' confidence in writing, enabling them to independently review and revise their assignments These tools not only fostered metalinguistic skills but also improved their overall language proficiency beyond individual tasks By taking the initiative to correct their own mistakes, students became more attentive and dedicated to revising their work, which naturally enhanced their linguistic abilities and reduced the chances of future errors.
Artificial Intelligence grammar checker tools’ usefulness and ease-of-use
Students prefer AI grammar checker tools mainly due to their usefulness and the rapid responses they offer Many users express satisfaction with the real-time feedback, which allows them to focus on their writing rather than wasting time on ineffective support that can be demotivating The quick responses enable students to optimize their time and effort, leading to improved concentration on refining their work and ultimately resulting in higher-quality writing.
AI grammar checker tools significantly enhance students' writing by effectively flagging errors and providing clear, well-explained suggestions for improvement These tools excel at detecting grammatical mistakes that may be overlooked during manual proofreading, facilitating better revisions Their standout feature of highlighting errors in color allows for easy visual identification Students appreciate the detailed feedback from AI grammar checkers, which not only helps them recognize mistakes but also offers valuable insights into their writing challenges A major benefit reported by students is the tools' ability to provide sufficient explanations and alternative examples, enabling them to select the most suitable options for their writing goals and strengthen the persuasive impact of their texts Additionally, the variety of examples aids in a deeper understanding of grammatical rules, empowering students to apply these concepts effectively in future writing endeavors.
AI grammar checker tools’ contextual understanding
Students faced challenges when using AI grammar checkers due to their limitations in understanding context These tools, reliant on extensive datasets, often generated rigid and unnatural suggestions Consequently, the emotionless modifications could distort the writers' intended meanings, compromising the clarity of their ideas and resulting in revisions that appeared mechanical and devoid of emotional nuance.
AI grammar checkers often fail to understand the unique inquiries of students, leading to incorrect suggestions and unnecessary alternatives that create ambiguity These tools can oversimplify texts, causing key messages to be lost, or complicate clear writing, resulting in confusing modifications This is especially challenging for students with lower English proficiency, who may struggle to differentiate between effective suggestions and unnecessary changes, ultimately accepting modifications that are not needed Over time, this can undermine their confidence in managing both their original writing and the AI-suggested revisions.
AI grammar checker tools’ cost-related issues and technical challenges
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary of the key findings
In this section, the research questions will be revisited and drawn some conclusions from the collected results
Research question 1: What factors influence English majors’ perceptions of accepting and using the AI grammar checker tools?
The qualitative data revealed that students' adoption of technology is significantly influenced by three key constructs of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM): perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and attitude These factors collectively shape how students view and engage with technology, ultimately affecting their willingness to embrace it.
AI grammar checker tools play a significant role in academic writing courses, as they enhance the writing process by improving grammar and clarity According to the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), the effectiveness of these tools is influenced by perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and the user's attitude towards the technology These factors collectively impact the acceptance and utilization of AI grammar checkers among students and educators.
Research question 2: What are English majors’ perceptions of the benefits of
AI grammar checker tools in academic writing courses?
The analysis of the collected data revealed significant insights regarding the benefits of AI grammar checker tools for students Key findings indicated that these tools play a crucial role in improving writing skills by providing targeted error correction, easy-to-understand feedback, and ample support, which ultimately enhances students' grades and boosts their confidence Moreover, students expressed satisfaction with these tools, citing their contributions to future linguistic skill development Open-ended responses further highlighted additional advantages that were not captured in the closed-ended questions, emphasizing the comprehensive impact of AI grammar checkers on student writing.
The study explored 88 questions regarding the impact of AI grammar checker tools on writing skills and academic performance It highlighted their effectiveness in detecting and correcting errors, as well as fostering further linguistic skill development Additionally, the research emphasized the accessibility and availability of these tools The findings were consistent with previous literature, particularly O’Neil and Russell’s (2019), effectively addressing the second research question.
Research question 3: What are English majors’ perceptions of the drawbacks of
AI grammar checker tools in academic writing courses?
The research findings indicated that while students generally viewed AI grammar checker tools positively, they expressed significant concerns regarding their limitations Analysis of closed-ended data highlighted various drawbacks, including accessibility issues, over-reliance on the tools, insufficient technical skills, plagiarism risks, and ethical considerations Furthermore, open-ended responses revealed additional challenges such as contextual understanding, language accuracy, and technical difficulties These insights corroborated existing literature, particularly Phan (2023), demonstrating that students maintained a critical awareness of the tools' limitations, effectively addressing the third research question.
Students found AI grammar checker tools to be beneficial and user-friendly for their academic writing courses, displaying generally positive attitudes towards their use English majors recognized the advantages of these tools for enhancing their writing, yet they also voiced concerns about their limitations and potential effects on long-term learning and academic integrity The findings highlighted the need to balance the benefits of AI grammar checkers with awareness of their drawbacks to optimize their effectiveness in educational settings This perspective aligns with existing research, indicating that higher education institutions, educators, and students should advocate for the mindful integration of AI grammar checkers, ensuring they support rather than hinder students' linguistic development and critical thinking skills.
89 development in general Accordingly, a set of recommendations for the effective integration of AI grammar checker tools was provided.
Recommendations for effective integration of AI grammar checker tools
Students' prior knowledge of language and technology significantly impacts their effective use of AI grammar checker tools To maximize the benefits of these tools, it is essential for students to develop a strong understanding of grammar and linguistics, enabling them to critically evaluate the feedback they receive Furthermore, a solid foundation in technological literacy allows students to navigate and utilize the features of these tools with confidence and ease.
Students should utilize AI grammar checker tools according to their English writing proficiency For those with lower English levels, caution is advised, as these tools may impede the development of their linguistic skills Conversely, students at higher English levels can benefit from these tools as a means of self-checking their written work.
Students should effectively integrate AI grammar checker tools into their academic writing to enhance their studies While these tools serve as valuable complementary resources, excessive reliance on them may impede linguistic growth and development.
The current study reveals that many instructors maintain traditional views on the use of AI grammar checker tools in academic writing and language instruction Additionally, these educators encounter challenges in effectively integrating and utilizing these tools in their teaching practices.
Research indicates that educators employing traditional grammar and language teaching methods tend to adopt a rigid feedback approach, leading to increased workload and health issues like burnout and stress To mitigate these challenges, it is advisable for teachers to adopt a more flexible mindset and integrate new technologies, particularly AI grammar tools, into their teaching practices.
AI grammar checker tools have demonstrated their effectiveness in easing the feedback workload for teachers By embracing these beneficial tools, educators can significantly reduce the time spent on student feedback, allowing them to better balance their diverse responsibilities.
A significant challenge in the effective use of AI grammar checker tools by teachers is their varying levels of technical knowledge Senior teachers often possess lower technical literacy compared to their younger counterparts, who have grown up in the digital age and are more adept with technology Enhancing technical literacy among educators is essential, as it allows them to seamlessly integrate these advanced tools into their teaching practices, ultimately improving the learning experience for students.
The Board of the School and other stakeholders must actively support the effective integration of AI grammar checker tools in education Schools should establish appropriate regulations that promote the use of these tools to enhance grammar feedback and overall language development It is equally important to address potential drawbacks to ensure that the use of AI tools does not negatively impact students' long-term learning outcomes.
Universities must invest in facilities to effectively implement AI grammar checker tools, which will enhance students' learning experiences and alleviate instructors' feedback burdens Embracing these modern tools aligns with national objectives to transform Vietnam's education system into a digitalized framework.
Schools should also regularly set up conferences, workshops, and webinars for both teachers and students to better understand how to integrate these tools effectively into their teaching and learning
Schools should prioritize enhancing teachers' acceptance and utilization of AI grammar checker tools by offering more opportunities for professional development, such as studying abroad and attending local and international conferences These initiatives will help educators improve their pedagogical strategies for integrating AI grammar checkers into the academic environment, ultimately benefiting the learning experience Regular training programs should be implemented to support this integration effectively.
91 among stakeholders should be established to update new technologies and raise awareness of the relevant considerations
Integrating AI grammar checker tools into the academic curriculum is essential for addressing students' academic needs while offering instructors valuable exposure to innovative resources This thoughtful implementation can significantly reduce workload for both students and teachers, ultimately making the teaching process more efficient and streamlined.
Policymakers, course developers, educational institutions, and instructors should work together to enhance students' grammatical and linguistic knowledge, as well as their technological literacy This collaboration will empower students to utilize language learning tools effectively and conveniently.
Developers should prioritize enhancing the accessibility and affordability of educational tools for students Current findings indicate that while students find these tools useful and user-friendly for academic purposes, they often face challenges that can result in dissatisfaction By addressing these issues, developers can improve the overall student experience and effectiveness of these tools.
Limitations of the study
The current study, which involved 100 undergraduate English-major students, had a relatively small sample size that may limit the diversity and depth of responses related to the research objectives To validate these findings, it is advisable to conduct further research with a larger participant group.
A recent study investigates English-major students' perceptions of AI grammar checker tools within the academic writing context at Ho Chi Minh University of Banking This specific setting may offer unique insights, suggesting that further research in different environments could enhance understanding The study examines various AI grammar checker tools to provide a comprehensive view of their application in Vietnam's higher education Future research could focus on specific tools for deeper analysis, and as technology evolves, comparative studies between older and newer tools would be advantageous.
92 explore instructors' perceptions or incorporating perspectives from a variety of stakeholders could also allow for more in-depth and varied insights into the study.
Contribution of the study
The current study plays an important role in informing previous empirical and theoretical findings and frameworks It also makes a humble contribution toward bridging gaps in the existing literature
The study provides valuable insights into the integration of AI grammar checker tools in academic settings, emphasizing user acceptance, perceived benefits, and potential drawbacks Policymakers and course developers should harness the positive effects of these tools to improve teaching and learning experiences, while also addressing any negative impacts that may impede students' natural language acquisition and skill development.
Suggestions for further research
Investigating AI grammar checker tools through an extension of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is crucial, as alternative models with additional factors may better assess user acceptance and utilization of emerging technologies With the continuous evolution of these tools, employing a suitable model to analyze their advanced features will yield thorough and accurate insights.
This quantitative study may not fully capture participants' perceptions of the research topic To gain deeper insights, future research should consider employing mixed methods or longitudinal designs to assess how participants' views evolve over time and to explore whether new tools offer distinct features compared to traditional ones.
Future research should broaden the study to include various academic disciplines beyond English, as exploring other fields may yield valuable insights and enhance our understanding of the subject.
Chapter conclusion
It is undeniable that AI grammar checker tools will impact the educational landscape in general and academic writing in particular in the future However, most
A consensus among 93 educators indicates that while AI tools are expected to become more prevalent in education, they should not be viewed as a primary element of the learning process The importance of the instructor's role in delivering feedback will continue to be essential and unwavering.
In conclusion, AI grammar checker tools are set to become essential for educators and learners in their lifelong teaching and learning journeys Rather than banning these tools due to perceived negative impacts, it is crucial to explore effective ways to adapt them to enhance second language (L2) teaching and academic writing Stakeholders must collaborate to create guidelines and strategies for integrating these tools within the university context, while acknowledging their potential and limitations As we embrace the AI era, the wise integration of AI grammar checkers will significantly improve the academic teaching and learning experiences for both instructors and students.
Agustin, R., & Wulandari, S (2022) The analysis of grammatical errors on students’ essay writing by using Grammarly Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Proficiency, 4(1), 39-46
Alharbi, S., & Alsharif, M (2019) Acceptance of mobile learning applications among university students in Saudi Arabia: An extended TAM framework
International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 13(10), 50-64 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v13i10.10987
Alharbi, W (2023) AI in the foreign language classroom: A pedagogical overview of automated writing assistance tools Education Research International https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/4253331
Allen, D., & Mills, A (2015) The impact of second language proficiency in dyadic peer feedback Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 504-523 https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814561902
Axiak, G (2023) Self-assessment: Its good and bad points ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371082082_Self-Assessment_-
Its_Good_and_Bad_Points
Aydın, ệ., & Karaarslan, E (2022) OpenAI ChatGPT generated literature review: Digital twin in healthcare In ệ Aydın (Ed.), Emerging computer technologies
Baker, J D (2010) Students' acceptance of online learning tools: Utilizing the Technology Acceptance Model to assess factors influencing engagement and satisfaction Internet and Higher Education, 13(3), 157-165 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.02.003
Batstone, R (2002) Grammar Oxford University Press
Beals, T J (1998) Between teachers and computers: Does text-checking software really improve student writing? The English Journal, 87(1), 67-72
Bernard, H R (2002) Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (3rd ed.) Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press
Bhirud, N S., Bhavsar, R P., & Pawar, B V (2017) Grammar checkers for natural languages: A review International Journal on Natural Language Computing,
Bitchener, J (2008) Evidence in support of written corrective feedback
Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
Bitchener, J and Knoch, U (2008) The Value of Written Corrective Feedback for Migrant and International Students Language Teaching Research, 12, 409-431 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N (2016) Written corrective feedback for L2 development Multilingual Matters https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783095056
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D (2003) Assessment for learning:putting it into practice Buckingham: Open University Press
(14) (PDF) Developing the theory of formative assessment Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225590759_Developing_the_theory_of_for mative_assessment
Bonnett, A (2001) How to Argue: a student’s guide Harlow: Pearson Education
Bower, M (2009) Discourse analysis of teaching computing online Computer
Science Education, 19(2), 69–92 https://doi.org/10.1080/08993400902909500
Braun, V., & Clarke, V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology
Briggs, N (2018) Neural machine translation tools in the language learning classroom: Students’ use, perceptions, and analyses Jalt Call Journal, 14(1), 2-24 https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v14n1.221
Brock, M N (1990) Can the computer tutor? An analysis of a disk-based text analyzer System, 18(3), 351-359
Brown, H D (2001) Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.) Addison Wesley Longman
Byrne, D (1988) Teaching writing skills Harlow, UK: Longman
Canale, M., & Swain, M (1980) Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47
Cano, P M A., Catiggay, J M L., Florida, J M M., Pua, J M R., & Samonte,
M J C (2024) Natural language processing of grammar checker tools for academic writing: A systematic literature review Journal of Electrical Systems, 20(7s), 1151–
Concerns are rising over the use of artificial intelligence in educational assessments, as a lecturer has identified that bots are being utilized in one-fifth of evaluations This trend raises significant issues regarding academic integrity and the effectiveness of traditional examination methods The increasing reliance on AI tools in academic settings underscores the need for institutions to adapt their assessment strategies to maintain fairness and authenticity in student evaluations.
Caveleri and Dianati (2016) explore the perceived benefits of online grammar checkers among students in their study published in the Journal of Academic Language and Learning The research highlights how these tools assist learners in improving their writing skills and enhancing their understanding of grammar The findings suggest that students find online grammar checkers valuable for providing immediate feedback, which can lead to greater confidence in their writing abilities Overall, the study emphasizes the importance of integrating technology into language learning to support academic success.
Cavus, N (2010) The evaluation of Learning Management Systems using an artificial intelligence fuzzy logic algorithm Advances in Engineering Software, 41(2), 248-254 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2009.07.009
Chandler, J (2003) The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296
Chen and Cheng (2008) explore the impact of automated writing evaluation (AWE) on pedagogical practices and perceived learning effectiveness in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing classes Their study highlights how AWE tools can enhance student engagement and writing skills by providing immediate feedback The authors emphasize the importance of integrating these technologies into the curriculum to foster a more interactive and effective learning environment Ultimately, the findings suggest that AWE not only supports teachers in assessing writing but also empowers students to take charge of their learning process.
Chomsky, N (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax M.I.T Press
Coffin, C., Curry, M J., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lillis, T., & Swann, J
(2005) Teaching academic writing: A toolkit for higher education Routledge
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K (2011) Research Methods in Education (7th ed.) London: Routledge
Creswell, J W (2008) Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc
Creswell, J W (2013) Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.) Sage Publications
Creswell, J.W and Plano Clark, V.L (2011) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research 2nd Edition, Sage Publications, Los Angeles
Dale, R (2016) Checking in on grammar checking Natural Language Engineering, 22(3), 491-495
Daniel, R (2001) Self-assessment in performance British Journal of Music Education, 18(3), 215–226 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051701000316
Davis, F D (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340 https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Davis, F D (2000) A review of the original Technology Acceptance Model in the context of e-learning, emphasizing perceived ease of use and usefulness
Deng, L., & Tavares, N J (2013) Acceptance of cloud computing in higher education institutions: Assessing faculty perceptions using TAM Computers & Education, 67, 49-57 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.001
Denscombe, M (2008) Communities of practice: A research paradigm for the mixed methods approach Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 270–283 https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689808316807
Dikli, S (2010) The nature of automated essay feedback CALICO Journal, 28(1), 99–134 Retrieved from https://calico.org/page.php?id=5
Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J M (2004) Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, education, and the workplace Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 69-106 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00018.x
Dyson, B (2014) Are onshore pathway students prepared for effective university participation? A case study of an international postgraduate cohort Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 8(2), A28–A42
Elmahdi, I., Al-Hattami, A., & Fawzi, H (2018) Using Technology for Formative Assessment to Improve Students’ Learning The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 17, 182-188
Erdogan, M., Ozdemir, D., & Altun, A (2023) Acceptance of artificial intelligence tools in educational settings: Examining factors influencing teachers' adoption willingness Education and Information Technologies, 28(4), 2547-2570 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11191-y
Ferris, D (2003) Responding to writing In B Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing (pp 119–140) Northridge: Cambridge
University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524810.010
Ferris, D (2010) Second Language Writing Research and Written Corrective Feedback in SLA Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181-201
Ferris, D R (2018) English language learners in the writing classroom: Understanding and supporting students in a multilingual context University of
Fischer, R., & Grusin, E K (1993) Grammar checkers: Programs that may not enhance learning Journalism Educator, 47(4), 20-27
Fowler, F J (2013) Survey Research Methods (5th ed.) SAGE Publications
Gerard, F.-M (2003) The Assessment of the Effectiveness of Training Management, 20, 13-33 http://www.fmgerard.be/textes/Outil.pdf
Gerrard, L (1989) Computers and basic writers: A critical view In G E Hawisher & C L Selfe (Eds.), Critical Perspectives on Computers and Composition
Instruction (pp 20-27) New York: Teachers College, Columbia University
Giang, N N H (2021) ỨNG DỤNG PHƯƠNG PHÁP PHÂN TÍCH CHỦ ĐỀ VÀO PHÂN TÍCH HỘI THOẠI VỀ THIẾT KẾ BÀI GIẢNG CỦA GIÁO
SINH Tạp Chí Khoa học Ngoại ngữ, (67), 26–43 https://doi.org/10.56844/tckhnn.67.88
Goldberg, Y (2016) A primer on neural network models for natural language processing Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 57, 345-420 https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1.11219
Grammarly (2024) About Grammarly Grammarly https://www.grammarly.com/about
Greene, S., & Lidinsky, A (2015) From inquiry to academic writing: A text and reader Bedford/St Martin's
Ha, T H (2023) Using Quillbot for enhancing EFL learners’ essay writing skills HNUE Journal of Science, Educational Sciences, 68(3), 41-50 https://doi.org/10.18173/2354-1075.2023-0060
In their 2022 study published in the Journal of English Education Program, Hadiat, Tarwana, and Irianti explored how Grammarly can improve the accuracy of eighth-grade students' writing in descriptive texts at a junior high school in Ciamis The research highlights the effectiveness of using digital tools like Grammarly to enhance students' writing skills, ultimately leading to better academic performance in English.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H (2007) The power of feedback Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112 https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Heritage, M (2007, October 1) Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do? Feature article
Hoang, N., & Nguyen, Q (2022) Applying Grammarly as an online grammar checker tool to enhance writing skills for English-major students In Proceedings of the
9th Open TESOL International Conference
Hogue, A., & Oshima, A (2006) Introduction to academic writing (3rd ed.) Pearson Longman https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490
Hwang, G J., Chang, S C., & Chien, S Y (2021) Acceptance of augmented reality in education: Applying the Technology Acceptance Model to gauge effectiveness and usability Educational Technology & Society, 24(2), 1-16
Hyland, F (2003) Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback System, 31(2), 217-230
Hyland, K (2002) Activity and evaluation: Reporting practices in academic writing In J Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp 115-130) Longman
Hyland, K (2003) Second language writing Cambridge University Press
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F (2006) Feedback on second language students' writing Language Teaching, 39(2), 83-101 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399
Im, H (2021) The use of an online grammar checker in English writing learning Journal of Digital Convergence, 19(1), 51-58
Jeong, N S (2021) A study on the effects of machine translators on college students’ writing proficiency and affective attitude Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 24(1), 134-157 https://doi.org/10.15702/mall.2021.24.1.134
Johnson, A (2016) Academic writing: A handbook for international students Routledge
Johnson, R B., Onwuegbuzie, A J., & Turner, L A (2007) Toward a definition of mixed methods research Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–
Jones, S M., Myhill, D A., & Bailey, T C (2013) Grammar for writing? An investigation into the effect of contextualized grammar teaching on student writing
Kabir, S M S (2016) Methods of Data Collection In Basic Guidelines for Research: An Introductory Approach for All Disciplines (Chap 9, pp 201-275)
Bangladesh: Book Zone Publication https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325846997_METHODS_OF_DATA_COL LECTION
Kang, D (2008) Feedback on EFL writing: Teacher, peer, and self-review
Karsenti, T (2019) Artificial intelligence in education: The urgent need to prepare teachers for tomorrow’s schools Formation et profession, 27(1), 112–116 https://doi.org/10.18162/fp.2019.a166
Kellogg, R T (2008) Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective Journal of Writing Research, 1(1), 1-26
Khan, M N., Alkahtani, B S., & Khan, A N (2021) Acceptance of educational technology during the COVID-19 pandemic: Applying the Technology Acceptance
Model to understand shifts in attitudes Education and Information Technologies, 26(5), 6225-6243 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10464-4
Kim, C., & Fortner, R W (2006) Issue-specific barriers to addressing environmental issues in the classroom: An exploratory study The Journal of Environmental Education, 37(3), 15-22 https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.37.3.15-22
Kim, H K., & Han, S M (2021) College students’ perceptions of AI-based writing learning tools: With a focus on Google Translate, Naver Papago, and
Grammarly Modern English Education, 22(4), 90-100 https://doi.org/10.18095/meeso.2021.22.4.90
Kim, H.-S., & Song, E (2024) Investigation of AI grammar checkers on grammar learning and students’ perception in L2 writing context Korean Journal of
English Language and Linguistics, 24, 531–553 https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.24 202406.531
Koh, J H L., & Chai, C S (2016) Seven design frames that teachers use when considering technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) Computers & Education, 102, 244–257 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.09.003
Kumar, R (2011) Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners 3rd Edition Sage, New Delhi
Kurdi, M Z (2017) Natural language processing and computational linguistics 2: Semantics, discourse, and applications ISTE Ltd https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119419686
Le, Q P (2016) The role of technology in English language education in Vietnam Vietnam Journal of Education, 1(1), 34-41
Le, T M (2021) Exploring the effectiveness of AI grammar checkers in academic writing Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 12(6), 1010-1019 https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1206.17
Lee, Y.-J., Davis, R O., & Lee, S O (2024) University students’ perceptions of artificial intelligence-based tools for English writing courses Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 14(1), e202412 https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/14195
Lew, M D N., Alwis, W A M., & Schmidt, H G (2010) Accuracy of students' self-assessment and their beliefs about its utility Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 35(2), 135–156 https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930802687737
Liao, H (2016) Enhancing the grammatical accuracy of EFL writing by using an AWE-assisted process approach System, 62, 77–92 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.02.007
Lidén, A., & Nilros, K (2020) Perceived benefits and limitations of chatbots in higher education Linnaeus University https://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:1442044/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Lin, X., Chan, R Y., Sharma, S., & Bista, K (Eds.) (2024) ChatGPT and global higher education: Using artificial intelligence in teaching and learning STAR
Lindblom-Ylọnne, S., Pihlajamọki, H., & Kotkas, T (2006) Self-, peer-, and teacher-assessment of student essays Active Learning in Higher Education, 7(1), 51–
Linville, C (2009) Editing line by line In S Bruce & B Rafoth (Eds.), ESL writers: A guide for writing center tutors (2nd ed., pp 116–131) Portsmouth, NH:
Manchanda, B., Athvale, V A., & Sharma, S K (2016) Various techniques used for grammar checking International Journal of Computer Application & Information Technology, 9(1)
Mathison, S (2011) Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(2), 2–10 https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X01700201
Mayer, R E., & Moreno, R (2003) Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–
McAlexander, P J (2000) Checking the grammar checker: Integrating grammar instruction with writing Journal of Basic Writing, 19(2), 124-140
McCutchen, D (2006) Cognitive factors in the development of children’s writing In C A MacArthur, S Graham, & J Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp 115–130) Guilford Press
Ministry of Education and Training (2021) Official Dispatch No 4096/BGDDT-IT
Moon, B (2014) The literacy skills of secondary teaching undergraduates: Results of diagnostic testing and a discussion of findings Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(12), 111–130
Moon, D (2021) Evaluating corrective feedback generated by an AI-powered online grammar checker International Journal of Internet, Broadcasting and Communication, 13(4), 22-29
Moser, A., & Korstjens, I (2017) Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research Part 1: Introduction European Journal of General Practice, 23(1), 271-273 https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375093
Muamaroh, M., & Pratiwi, U S (2022) Advantages and disadvantages of peer feedback on EFL students’ essay writing at tertiary level In Advances in Social Science,
Education and Humanities Research (Vol 662) Proceedings of the International
Conference of Learning on Advance Education (ICOLAE 2021)
Murray, N (2010) Conceptualizing the English language needs of first-year university students The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education,
Narciss, S (2008) Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks In J M Spector, M D Merrill, J J G van Merrienboer, & M P Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., Chapter 11)
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Nazari, N., Shabbir, M., & Setiawan, R (2021) Application of artificial intelligence powered digital writing assistant in higher education: Randomized controlled trial Heliyon, 7(5), 1-9
Ngo, V T (2021) Effects of computer-based feedback and formative assessment on learning outcomes Can Tho University Journal of Science, 13(1), 66–
70 https://doi.org/10.22144/ctu.jen.2021.008
Nguyen, T L (2024) Analysis of teachers' written feedback on writing skills of third-year English-majored students at a Vietnamese university VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 40(1), 103 https://doi.org/10.1234/vnufsjournal2024
Nguyen, T T H (2023) EFL teachers’ perspectives toward the use of ChatGPT in writing classes: A case study at Van Lang University International Journal of Language Instruction, 2(3), 1-47 https://doi.org/10.54855/ijli.23231
Nickerson, R S., Perkins, D N., & Smith, E E (1985) The teaching of thinking Erlbaum
Noroozi, O., & Hatami, J (2019) The effects of online peer feedback and epistemic beliefs on students’ argumentation-based learning Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 56(5), 548–557 https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2018.1431143
Nunan, D (2003) Practical English language teaching McGraw Hill
O’Neil, H F., & Russels, J (2021) The impact of AI tools on writing instruction Journal of Educational Technology, 19(3), 67-80 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00600-5
O’Neill, R., & Russell, A M (2019b) Grammarly: Help or hindrance? Academic Learning Advisors’ perceptions of an online grammar checker Journal of
Academic Language and Learning, 13(1), A88-A107 Retrieved from https://journal.aall.org.au/index.php/jall/article/view/591
O’Neill, R., & Russell, A M T (2019a) Stop! Grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Grammarly Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1), 42-56
Onwuegbuzie, A J., Johnson, R B., & Collins, K M T (2009) Call for mixed analysis: A philosophical framework for combining qualitative and quantitative approaches International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3(2), 114–139 https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.3.2.114
Purposeful sampling is a key strategy in qualitative research, particularly for identifying and selecting cases rich in information related to the research phenomenon Among the various sampling methods, criterion sampling is frequently utilized in implementation research The paper discusses the principles and practices of purposeful sampling, outlines different types and categories of sampling strategies, and offers recommendations for employing either a single sampling strategy or a multistage design, specifically tailored for state implementation research.
Park, J (2019) An AI-based English grammar checker vs human raters in evaluating EFL learners' writing Multilingual Academic Journal of Social Science and
Humanities, 22(1), 112-125 https://doi.org/10.15702/mall.2019.22.1.112
Park, J., & Yang, I (2020) Utilizing an AI-based grammar checker in an EFL writing classroom Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 97-120
Party Central Committee (2013) Resolution No 29-NQ/TW on fundamental and comprehensive innovation in education and training
Perera, K (1984) Children’s writing and reading: Analyzing classroom language Wiley-Blackwell
Pham, L T D (2024) An exploratory study of conceptual metaphors in English news articles: Implications for translation study at Ho Chi Minh University of Banking
(Unpublished undergraduate thesis) Ho Chi Minh University of Banking https://library.hub.edu.vn/Components/pdfjs/web/viewer.html?file=/Services/Docume ntReading.ashx?bookid%3d25435
Phan, N T T., & Chen, C.-H (2021) Vietnamese engineering students’ perceptions of the use of Google Translation tool Journal of Science and Technology
- IUH, 48(6), 157-165 https://doi.org/10.46242/jst-iuh.v48i6.1610
Phan, T N L (2023) Students' perceptions of the AI technology application in English writing classes Proceedings of the AsiaCALL International Conference, 4, 45-
Poulisse, N., Bongaerts, T., & Kellerman, E (1990) The use of compensatory strategies by Dutch learners of English Studies on Language Acquisition, 8, 71-94
Pradesh, R (2024) Professional communication in the digital age Cambridge University Press
Priyantin, T., Lengkanawati, N S., & Suherdi, D (2020) Oral peer feedback in online settings to foster self-regulated learning: Students’ perceptions and preferences
In Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference on Applied Linguistics (CONAPLIN 2020) (Vol 546)
Ramesh, D., & Sanampudi, S K (2022) An automated essay scoring systems:
A systematic literature review Artificial Intelligence Review, 55(3), 2495-2527 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-021-10068-2
Ryan, R M., & Deci, E L (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being American Psychologist,
Saidalvi, A., & Abdul Samad, A (2019) Online peer motivational feedback in a public speaking course GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 19(4), 144-
Schroeder, K T., Hubertz, M., Van Campenhout, R., & Johnson, B G (2022) Teaching and learning with AI-generated courseware: Lessons from the classroom
Selim, H (2024) The role of AI in transforming educational practices Journal of Educational Research, 115(2), 139-158 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2024.1837920
Shilbayeh, S., & Abonamah, A (2021) Predicting student enrollments and attrition patterns in higher educational institutions using machine learning
International Arab Journal of Information Technology, 18(4), 562-567 https://doi.org/10.34028/18/4/8
Siau, K., Sheng, H., & Nah, F.-H (2006) Use of a classroom response system to enhance classroom interactivity IEEE Transactions on Education, 49(3), 398–403 https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2006.879802
The article by Singh, J., Singh, L., and Matthees, B (2022) discusses the critical role of establishing social, cognitive, and teaching presence in online learning environments, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic and in the subsequent post-vaccine and post-pandemic periods It emphasizes that fostering these presences is essential for enhancing student engagement and learning outcomes in virtual classrooms The study highlights strategies for educators to create a supportive online learning atmosphere that addresses the challenges posed by the pandemic, ultimately serving as a comprehensive guide for effective online teaching practices.
Sommers, N (1982) Responding to student writing College Composition and
Soni, M., & Thakur, J S (2018) A systematic review of automated grammar checking in English language arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.00540 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1804.00540
Spradley, J (1979) The Ethnographic Interview Holt Rinehart & Winston, New York
Steiss, J., Tate, T P., Graham, S., Cruz, J., Hebert, M., & Wang, J (2023) Comparing the Quality of Human and ChatGPT Feedback on STrantudents’ Writing
Learning and Instruction https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101894
Sweller, J (1988) Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–
Syahnaz, M., & Fithriani, R (2023) Utilizing artificial intelligence-based paraphrasing tool in EFL writing class: A focus on Indonesian university students’ perceptions Journal of English Language Teaching, 7(2), 211-218 https://doi.org/10.30998/scope.v7i2.14882
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C (1998) Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches Sage Publications, Inc
Teo, T (2009) Teachers' acceptance of technology in Singaporean schools: Applying the Technology Acceptance Model to understand adoption of digital tools
Computers & Education, 52(1), 255-264 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.006
Thai, H N (2023) The effectiveness of ChatGPT as a feedback tool in academic writing Asia-Pacific Journal of Education, 43(1), 75-89 https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2022.2113625
Tian, L., & Li, L (2019) Chinese EFL learners’ perception of peer oral and written feedback as providers, receivers, and observers Language Awareness, 28(4),
Toncic, A (2020) AI feedback tools in higher education: A study of perceptions and practices Computers in Human Behavior, 107, 105885 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.105885
Tran, T H., & Jordan, A (2022) Integrating technology in Vietnamese higher education: Challenges and opportunities Higher Education, 83(4), 859-876 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00759-5
Tran, T Q N., & Dao, N T T (2023) An investigation into English-majored undergraduates’ difficulties in English essay writing TNU Journal of Science and Technology, 228(12), 458-465 Retrieved from http://jst.tnu.edu.vn
Tran, T T H (2024) AI tools in teaching and learning English academic writing skills Proceedings of the AsiaCALL International Conference, 4, 170-187 https://doi.org/10.54855/paic.23413
Tubino, F M (2021) The application of AI in language learning and assessment International Journal of Language Studies, 15(2), 145-162
Utami, S P., Andayani, A., Winarni, R., & Sumarwati, S (2023) Utilization of artificial intelligence technology in an academic writing class: How do Indonesian students perceive? Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(4), ep450 https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13419
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F D (2000) TAM2: How social influence and cognitive instrumental processes affect technology acceptance in educational environments Management Science, 46(2), 186-204 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Vietnam Government (2020) Decision No 749/QĐ-TTg approving the national digital transformation program until 2025, with a vision towards 2030
Vietnam Government (2022) Decision No 131/QD-TTg on the application of information technology in education from 2022 to 2025
Wu, Z (2019) Lower English proficiency means poorer feedback performance? A mixed-methods study Assessing Writing, 42, 32-42
The study by Zheng, Wu, and Li (2022) explores the acceptance of online collaborative tools among students, emphasizing the importance of perceived usefulness and ease of use This research, published in the Journal of Educational Computing Research, highlights how these factors significantly influence students' willingness to adopt such technologies for educational purposes Unfortunately, the DOI provided for this article appears to be invalid, indicating that it may not be accessible through the DOI system.