STUDENTS’ EXPERIENCES IN NAVIGATING GRAMMARLY-BASED FEEDBACK IN ACADEMIC WRITING: A PHENOMENOLOGICAL STUDY AT STAIN MANDAILING NATAL
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.34125/jkps.v11i4.2931Keywords:
Penulisan Akademik, Grammarly, AWE, Fenomenologi, Pengerjaan DigitalAbstract
This study explores the subjective experiences of fourth-semester students at STAIN Mandailing Natal in navigating Grammarly-based feedback in academic writing. Using a qualitative phenomenological design, data were collected from 15 participants through semi-structured interviews, reflective journals, and document analysis. The findings reveal eight dimensions of navigation: cognitive authority conflict, blind acceptance patterns, affective euphoria, L1 interference, feedback fatigue, strategic cross-verification, the "fake score" realization, and reduced social shame. While Grammarly provides essential scaffolding within the Zone of Proximal Development, the study highlights the risks of over-reliance and the necessity for pedagogical intervention to foster critical feedback literacy. The results suggest that students' engagement with AI is a complex negotiation between technological precision and human agency.
References
Barrot, J. S. (2020). Using Grammarly in academic writing: Focus on EFL learners. System, 99, 102513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102513
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315-1325.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publications.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools. Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.
Link, S., Mehrzad, M., & Rahimi, M. (2020). Reconceptualizing the AWE feedback loop: The case of Grammarly. Journal of Writing Research, 12(3), 589-624.
Lubis, W. A. (2023). Pengembangan Kemampuan Menulis dalam Mengurangi Plagiarisme Karya Tulis Ilmiah Mahasiswa Prodi PAI STAIN Mandailing Natal. Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat Bumi Raflesia, 6(1), 152–158. https://jurnal.umb.ac.id/index.php/pengabdianbumir/article/view/4566
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. SAGE Publications.
O’Neill, R., & Russell, A. (2019). Stop! Grammar time: University students' perceptions of the automated feedback program Grammarly. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1), 42-56.
Ranalli, J. (2018). Automated written evaluation in the classroom: Effects on EFL outcomes. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(7), 744-777.
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Zhang, Z. V., & Hyland, K. (2018). Student engagement with computer-generated feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 20-31.
