@CUE

Grammar Software Ready for EFL
Writers?
Paul Daniels
Kochi University of Technology
Davey Leslie
Kochi National University
Most of us have grown accustomed to having our software tell us what to do.
From auto-completing our texts and correcting our spelling, to alerting us tosoftware updates, to pocket-dialing people we don’t actually want to talk to on
our smart phones, we have come to accept a certain amount of intrusion fromtechnology. For good or ill, it is simply the way we live—or at least, the way welive online. And to live online is to write online. As Chatfield (2013), a prominenttechnology theorist recently pointed out, “…for the first time ever we live not
only in an era of mass literacy, but also; thanks to the act of typing onto screens;in one of mass participation in written culture.”
One of the challenges facing EFL teachers is getting students to participate
in this global, written English-language culture. It is a natural extension of inclass writing and can provide students with opportunities for authentic secondlanguage interaction. Part of this challenge is helping students use the spellingand grammar checking technology that is already embedded in many writing
interfaces. We can only expect these functions to become more ubiquitous andpowerful in the coming years. As EFL instructors, we need to understand how
these applications intersect with our students, and, more importantly, we needto make our peace with them. This study attempts determine which grammar
392

Grammar Software Ready for EFL Writers?, OnCUE Journal, 9(4), pages 392-402

check software is most suitable for L2 writers. The study then looks at students’attitudes towards a grammar check application called Ginger.
Writing in an online environment is a popular approach used to improvesecond language writers’ fluency. Participating in the online writing community
through blogs, forums, and Wikis has been shown to significantly improvestudents’ writing proficiency (Sun, 2010; Lavin & Beaufait, 2003) and encourage
self-directed learning (Godwin-Jones, 2011). When writing for real audiences,fluency as well as complexity and accuracy become important. But there ismuch debate on the extent of grammar instruction and correction in ESL/EFL
composition (Semke, 1984). Frodensen and Holten (2003) examine the roleof explicit grammar instruction in the ESL composition class. They strongly
advocate for an interventionist stance, but one aimed at helping students learn
to become self-editors.
Research on grammar correction has also shed light on what kinds of error
feedback are most effective for L2 writers. Ferris and Roberts (2001) suggest that
feedback is both desired by students and necessary for effective revision. Whatis interesting is that they found that simply calling attention to an error is often
as effective as analyzing the error type, even though students may prefer thesecond. Also, it is clear that students often want teachers to do more than justmark English errors and many would prefer that instructors just go ahead andcorrect their errors. In an EFL setting, Lee (2004) found that both instructors
and learners favored extensive error feedback but often the teacher’s correctionsof student writing were inaccurate. This is an interesting point as we often thinkof computerized grammar checkers as inaccurate, but rarely question instructor
feedback.
There is certainly growing support among researchers on the benefits ofgrammar and spelling tools (Shane-Joyce, 1989; Macarthur, 1999). Stapleton andRadia (2010) include improvements in student writing, motivation, and abilities
to efficiently process writing feedback. Potter and Fuller (2008) suggest thatgrammar checkers, in an L1 junior high composition class, can be useful to bringerrors to the attention of the writer but they also point out the limitations ofsoftware to actually teach grammar. McAlexander (2000) suggests that grammar393

Daniels & Lesliecheckers can also aid in the learning process by introducing grammatical terms
and rules to the writer. While there is growing support for spelling and grammar
checking tools, limitations do exist. These tools are often prone to missing errors,
providing incorrect suggestions to accurate writing, and providing feedback thatis too complex for L2 writers (Macarthur, 1999).
Microsoft Office Word has long been the viewed as an indispensable
application for drafting and revising documents. While Microsoft Office isa proprietary application, and rather expensive (approximately 24,000 JPY),
it is the predominant word processing application installed on institutional
computers and most learners have access to Microsoft Office on campus. Until
recently, there were not many alternatives to the Microsoft Office spell checkfor students to use during the writing process. With the release of Microsoft
Office 2013, it appears that Microsoft’s spell and edit checking tool development
remains stagnant. In response to its lack of advanced English usage and grammar
checks, a number of alternative and innovative spelling and grammar tools areappearing.
Grammarly is one such web-based spelling and grammar application. It isavailable from any browser, with no download required. Grammarly integrates
seamlessly with the Microsoft Office Suite, including Word and Outlook. Thisplugin is quite expensive. A subscription to use Grammarly costs approximately
3,600 JPY a month or 1,440 JPY a month if paying annually. It offers a free
7-day trial, but you must first provide a credit card number and remember tocancel your subscription before the trial period ends. Grammarly checks forspelling errors, provides a list of synonyms and offers feedback to users on theirmistakes. The software developers claim that the plug-in is able to check 250
grammar rules including subject-verb agreement, article usage and modifier
placement, preposition use, and quantifiers. Their website offers a grammar andwriting discussion area for student writers to ask questions. The software alsooffers plagiarism checking and provides suggestions on how to fix instances ofplagiarism.
A recent addition to the field of free, online grammar/spelling checkers isGinger a cross-platform browser extension. Ginger employs a Natural Language394

Grammar Software Ready for EFL Writers?, OnCUE Journal, 9(4), pages 392-402

Processing (NLP) technology that tries to guess the semantic meaning andcontext of text input by comparing it to similar text found on the web. Thedevelopers offer a free version as well as paid versions that range from 7,00010,000 JPY a year. The paid versions offer additional tools such as a sentencere-phraser, a text reader and a personal trainer.
How useful are these three writing tools at the moment? This article evaluates
three online spelling and grammar tools, Grammarly, Ginger as well as Microsoft
Word’s spelling and grammar checking tool, to determine to what extent thesetools might aid in the student writing process. The article then summarizes
student feedback on their experiences using the online writing tool Ginger
as an aid in writing. The purpose of this research was to answer the following
questions. Is grammar-checking software developed enough to be a useful tool
for the EFL composition classroom? And, is Ginger accurate and useful enoughfor students to take the trouble to learn how to use it and incorporate it into
their daily writing assignments?

Methods

In order to compare the robustness of the three spelling and grammar tools, anauthentic student writing sample was run through Microsoft Word, Grammarly,
and Ginger as shown in Figures 1-3.
Then the most useful tool was selected (Ginger) and student writers wereencouraged to make use of it during the writing process. Students were thengiven a questionnaire to determine to what extent the tools were useful tocomplete their writing assignments.
Twelve students from an intensive English program at Kochi National
University were selected to participate in a trial. The participants, ten females
and two males were all second-year, native Japanese students whose English
proficiencies ranged from Eiken Second to Pre-first levels. All students hadbasic English typing skills with some experience using Microsoft Word andPowerPoint although none were regular writers in English.

395

Daniels & LeslieResults

Microsoft Word was able to identify most spelling and spacing errors, with theexception of spelling mistakes that also contained punctuation mistakes (seeTable 1 and Figure 1). Word also made suggestions on article usage, but offered
incorrect advice regarding fragments, and provided little help with usage orgrammar mistakes.
Grammarly was able to identify the missing spaces after the periods and thespelling mistakes, including the proper noun and provided several alternative
possibilities for the misspelled words (see Table 1 and Figure 2). It also identified
fragments and offered advice on verb form, although often no suggested
corrections were presented and explanations were complex.
Ginger was comparable to Grammarly in identifying spelling andpunctuation mistakes, and it outperformed Microsoft Word, especially in thecase of misspelled proper nouns and the simultaneous occurrence of misspelledwords and punctuation mistakes (see Table 1 and Figure 3). Most importantly
Ginger offered the most robust grammar check out of the three.

Figure 1. Example of errors in a sample or a student’s composition in Microsoft Word.

396

Grammar Software Ready for EFL Writers?, OnCUE Journal, 9(4), pages 392-402

Figure 2. Example of errors in a sample or a student’s composition in Grammerly.

Figure 3. Example of errors in a sample or a student’s composition in Ginger.

397

Daniels & Leslie
Table 1
Software Evaluation by Authors
Error types

MS WordGrammarly

Gingerspelling errors

fair

good

good

punctuation errors

fair

good

good

spelling & punctuation
errors occurring together

poor

fair

good

proper noun errors

poor

fair

fair

word use errors

poor

fair

fair

common grammar errors(i.e., articles, agreement,tense)

poor

fair

good

Little feedback
provided & tended
to be nonspecific.
Often feedback wasincorrect.

Often identified
errors but didn’t
provide corrections.
Feedback tended tobe too complex forL2 learners.

Identified the mosterrors & offeredcorrections to thelearner.

error feedback for user
generated by software

After an in-depth review of the three spell and grammar checkers, Ginger
was selected not only because it was free, but also because it had an intuitive andsimple user interface. It also provided weaker writers with a “corrected version”
of an error rather than lengthy grammar explanations and it corrected the mostgrammar errors (see Table 2). For these reasons, students were encouraged to use
Ginger over the course of a 15-week semester to determine to what extent thistechnology aided students in their writing process.

Discussion

The purpose of this research was to determine if widely available English grammar
checking software might be useful in an L2 composition class, and if so, whether
students would take to it or not. The answers are “yes” and “maybe.” Students
were first introduced to Ginger, shown how to install the plug in, and then given
398Grammar Software Ready for EFL Writers?, OnCUE Journal, 9(4), pages 392-402
Table 2Sample Grammar Mistakes and Corrections
Original textMS Word correction

Grammarlycorrection

Ginger correction

when it driving in thehighway

no correction

no correction

when it’s driving on
the highway

has many handyfunctionno correction

has many handyfunctionshas many handyfunctions

Prius is kind of hibrid
car

Prius is kind of
hybrid car

Prius is kind of
hybrid car

Prius is kind of a
hybrid car that

it is understandno correction

it is understood

it is understooda writing assignment to try the software out. Afterwards, they answered a few
questions about the experience.
Initially many were somewhat skeptical and made comments such as:“I think, when we use these tools, we need to check again by our own eyes.”
Student D“I should not rely on this web site and software.” Student K
However a few students seemed more open to using the software:“Ginger is also good. When I make sentences, I made so many small mistakes.
(For example, forget to put “the”, “s”, ”of ”, etc.…) It might help me to write collect(sic) sentence.” Student J“The best way of using like this software is using only the time when you need tohelp or check because it’s not perfect.” Student K
Five weeks and several writing assignments later, learners were given anonline survey to find out if they were still using the software, and if so, what
they thought about it after extensive experience with it. Results were mixed.
Five students had stopped using the software for various reasons, including theinappropriateness of suggested corrections and the inability to use the software399

Daniels & Leslie

off-line. It is important to note that Ginger sells a standalone application forMicrosoft Windows; however, students who can’t afford Internet access athome are unlikely to be able to afford such software. Also, students expressed
frustration with its somewhat cumbersome functionality. However, seven of
the twelve students were still using that software five weeks later. They found it
helpful especially for catching small grammatical errors (such as article errors)
and spelling mistakes that they never would have noticed otherwise.
“I can use the grammar check function for free. Usually, I make a lot of spelling
mistakes, so Ginger helps me to find them. In addition, it can point out grammar
mistakes.” Student D“When I write a long sentence in English, I make some small mistakes like ”a” ”
the” “to” etc… Ginger improves the mistake and check automatically.” Student K
But even students who continued to use Ginger were wary of depending on
it too much and feared that it might interfere with their own progress in English
proficiency:“Sometimes I become lazy because I don’t have to fix by myself. Except for that,
there is no problem!” Student K“I think it makes me lazy because if I depend on Ginger too much, I would forget
grammar and it’s not a good way of writing English.” Student FConclusion

At present, there are serious limitations to using such software, especially forstudents who either do not have enough English to recognize software-generated
errors or who are not particularly technologically savvy. It seems likely, however,that such software will continue to develop both its accuracy in grammaticalerror correction and in ease-of-use through improved user interface. Many
students (and teachers!) already rely on the built-in grammar and spell checker
in dedicated writing software such as Word. As cloud computing continues togrow more common, such grammar and spell checking applications are likely tobecome standard features of text editing interfaces. This may be how the majority
400Grammar Software Ready for EFL Writers?, OnCUE Journal, 9(4), pages 392-402

of writing will be done from now on and it will be important for all writers,
perhaps especially L2 writers, to learn how to use these features effectively tobecome more independent self-editors.
Ginger and its competitors may also point to a future where ESL
composition instructors are freer to spend more time with larger concerns, suchas the conventions of a specific genre, and less time worrying over important,though often idiosyncratic and instruction-resistant, grammar errors. We havealready ceded spelling to the computer, after all. Why not let software do what it
can–when it can–to help us all become better writers?

References

Chatfield, T. (2013). I type, therefore I am. Aeon Magazine. Retrieved fromhttp://aeon.co/magazine/world-views/tom-chatfield-language-and-digitalidentity/Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How
explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161184.
Frodesen, J., & Holten, C. (2003). Grammar in the ESL writing class. In B.
Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing, (pp. 141161). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2011). Emerging technologies: Autonomous language
learning. Language Learning & Technology, 15(3), 4-11.
Lavin, R.S., & Beaufait, P. A. (2003). Ezboard as a medium for extensive writingin Japanese tertiary EFL classes. Language Issues, 9(1), 37-59.
Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case ofHong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 285-312.
MacArthur, C. A. (1999). Overcoming barriers to writing: computer support
for basic writing skills. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 15(2), 169-192.
McAlexander, P. J. (2000). Checking the grammar checker: Integratinggrammar instruction with writing. Journal of Basic Writing, 19(2), 124-140.
Potter, R, & Fuller, D. (2008). My new teaching partner? Using the grammar
checker in writing instruction. English Journal, 98(1), 36–41.
401Daniels & LeslieSemke, H. D. (1984) Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17(3),195-202.
Shane-Joyce, M. P. (1989). Proofreading skills for today’s electronic office.
Journal of Education for Business, 65(2), 89-90.
Stapleton P., & Radia, P. (2010). Tech-era L2 writing: Towards a new kind ofprocess. ELT J, 64(2), 175-183.
Sun, Y. (2010). Extensive writing in foreign-language classrooms: A blogging
approach. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(3),327–339.

Author biosPaul Daniels is a Professor of English at Kochi University of Technology in Japan.
His research interests include CALL, ESP and project-based instruction. daniels@kochi-tech.ac.jp
David Leslie is a language teacher at Kochi University in Japan. He is interested inEFL writing techniques and critical thinking skills. davey.leslie@gmail.com
Recieved: September 16, 2015
Accepted: November 15, 2015

402