Grammarly in Academic Support: Advisors' Perceptions of an Automated Grammar Checker

As universities welcome increasingly diverse student populations, the need for effective grammar support has grown. Academic Learning Centers (ALCs) are often tasked with providing this assistance, but face challenges in balancing grammar feedback with higher-order concerns. This study examines how the online grammar checker Grammarly may help address these challenges by comparing Academic Learning Advisors' (ALAs) perceptions of Grammarly-assisted feedback to traditional feedback methods.

Grammar proficiency is crucial for academic success, yet many students struggle with grammatical accuracy. While ALCs are expected to provide grammar support, they often prioritize higher-order concerns due to time constraints and anti-proofreading policies. This can lead to student dissatisfaction and hinder language development. Automated feedback programs like Grammarly have been proposed as a potential solution, allowing ALAs to provide grammar input while focusing on global issues. Previous research on Grammarly has shown positive student perceptions, but instructor perspectives remain understudied.

This study employed a mixed-methods approach at CQUniversity, Australia. Six ALAs provided feedback to 76 students, with three advisors using Grammarly (n=51) and three using traditional Word-based methods (n=25). Advisors completed surveys rating their perceptions of the feedback process across 15 criteria. Quantitative data was analyzed using t-tests, while qualitative responses were thematically coded.

Statistical analysis revealed that ALAs using Grammarly rated their feedback significantly higher on 13 of 15 criteria compared to those using traditional methods. Key findings include: 1. Time efficiency: Grammarly users felt they provided sufficient feedback in less time, addressing a major constraint of grammar instruction. 2. Feedback quality: Advisors perceived Grammarly-assisted feedback as more detailed, targeted, and easier for students to integrate. 3. Student motivation: ALAs believed students receiving Grammarly feedback were more likely to make corrections both during and after consultations. 4. Advisor satisfaction: Grammarly users expressed greater satisfaction with their grammar advice and reduced feelings of dissonance between student expectations and service provided. 5. Student independence: Grammarly was seen as promoting independent learning, aligning with ALC goals. However, advisors also noted limitations of Grammarly, including missed errors and occasional inaccurate suggestions, particularly regarding passive voice in academic writing.

The findings suggest that Grammarly can be a valuable tool for ALCs, potentially addressing time constraints and improving feedback quality. However, the tool's limitations highlight the continued importance of ALA expertise. Recommendations include: 1. Integrating Grammarly into ALC grammar feedback processes, with ALAs mediating between the tool and students. 2. Providing training for ALAs on effectively using Grammarly and addressing its limitations. 3. Educating students on Grammarly's strengths and weaknesses, particularly in academic contexts. 4. Conducting further research on long-term impacts of Grammarly use on student writing development.

This study demonstrates that Academic Learning Advisors generally perceive Grammarly as a helpful tool for providing grammar feedback, offering benefits in time management, feedback quality, and student engagement. While not without limitations, Grammarly shows promise in helping ALCs balance grammar support with higher-order concerns. As automated tools continue to evolve, ongoing evaluation of their role in academic support services will be crucial for maximizing their potential benefits while maintaining the essential human element of writing instruction.