Article Sidebar

Submitted
October 23, 2025
Accepted
May 28, 2026
Published
May 31, 2026
Download
Statistic
Read Counter : 4

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study investigates the effectiveness of ChatGPT and Grammarly as AI-powered tools for providing corrective feedback and supporting academic writing development among English as a Foreign Language (EFL) university students. A mixed-methods quasi-experimental design was employed, involving 300 participants divided into two experimental groups: one using ChatGPT and the other using Grammarly, over a four-week intervention period. Data were collected through perception questionnaires, writing tasks, grammar correction accuracy analysis, and student reflection journals. Descriptive statistics and paired samples t-tests indicated that students perceived ChatGPT to be more effective in improving grammar, increasing confidence, and enhancing understanding of grammar rules. Simultaneously, both tools were similarly rated in terms of clarity of feedback. The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test revealed that ChatGPT significantly outperformed Grammarly in terms of correction accuracy across most grammar categories. A Chi-square test of independence confirmed a statistically significant association between tool use and correction performance according to error type. Thematic analysis of student reflections identified five key themes: awareness of grammar rules, writing confidence, vocabulary and style, motivation to improve, and learning autonomy. ChatGPT was more closely associated with deeper learning and critical engagement, whereas Grammarly was valued for quick, surface-level corrections. Overall, the findings suggest that while both tools contribute to EFL writing development, ChatGPT offers greater pedagogical value through its interactive and explanatory feedback, making it a more effective tool for fostering writing improvement and learner autonomy in academic contexts.

Keywords

Academic Writing Chatgpt EFL learners Corrective Feedback Grammarly

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Rizky Prasetya, Adnan Mayof

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
How to Cite
Prasetya, R., & Mayof, A. (2026). Comparative analysis of ChatGPT and Grammarly in supporting grammar correction and writing development in EFL students. Journal of English and Education (JEE), 12(1). Retrieved from https://journal.uii.ac.id/JEE/article/view/44160
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Aladini, A., Ismail, S. M., Khasawneh, M. A. S., & Shakibaei, G. (2025). Self-directed writing development across computer/AI-based tasks: Unraveling the traces on L2 writing outcomes, growth mindfulness, and grammatical knowledge. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 17, 100566.
  2. Algburi, E. A., & Razali, A. B. (2022). Role of feedback on English academic writing skills of tertiary level Iraqi English as a foreign language (EFL) students: A review of literature. Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 11(1), 689–702.
  3. AMINA, F. (2024). Exploring EFL Students ‘Perceptions on the use of Grammarly as an AI Writing Tool to Enhance Academic Writing Proficiency The Case Study of Master Two English Students at Mohammed Kheider University.
  4. Asadi, M., Ebadi, S., & Mohammadi, L. (2025). The impact of integrating ChatGPT with teachers’ feedback on EFL writing skills. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 56, 101766.
  5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597.
  6. Chen, Q. (2025). Students’ Perceptions of AI-Powered Feedback in English Writing: Benefits and Challenges in Higher Education. International Journal of Changes in Education.
  7. Creely, E. (2023). The possibilities, limitations, and dangers of generative AI in language learning and literacy practices. International Graduate Research Symposium 2023. Proceedings, 1–14.
  8. Dong, L. (2024). “Brave New World” or not?: A mixed-methods study of the relationship between second language writing learners’ perceptions of ChatGPT, behaviors of using ChatGPT, and writing proficiency. Current Psychology, 43(21), 19481–19495.
  9. Giray, L. (2024). “Don’t Let Grammarly Overwrite Your Style and Voice:” Writers’ Advice on Using Grammarly in Writing. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 28(3), 293–303.
  10. Godwin-Jones, R. (2024). Distributed agency in second language learning and teaching through generative AI. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:2403.20216.
  11. Iorliam, A., & Ingio, J. A. (2024). A comparative analysis of generative artificial intelligence tools for natural language processing. Journal of Computing Theories and Applications, 1(3), 311–325.
  12. Ismailia, T., & Novawan, A. (2025). Enhancing EFL Students’ Recount Writing: A Comparative Analysis of Grammarly, QuillBot, and GrammarCheck Applications. Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication, 11(2), 89–102.
  13. Ladeinde, O. J. (2023). An adaptive feedback framework for a language-independent intelligent programming tutor (IPT) using ANTLR.
  14. Lo, C. K., Yu, P. L. H., Xu, S., Ng, D. T. K., & Jong, M. S. (2024). Exploring the application of ChatGPT in ESL/EFL education and related research issues: A systematic review of empirical studies. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1), 50.
  15. Mali, Y. C. G. (2025). Exploring the Use of ChatGPT in EFL/ESL Writing Classrooms: A Systematic Review. Journal of Language and Education, 11(2 (42)), 137–156.
  16. Matusov, E., Gpt, C., Smith, M. P., & Shugurova, O. (2024). Does ChatGPT4 have a dialogical self?: A Bakhtinian perspective. Culture & Psychology, 30(4), 841–870.
  17. Mekheimer, M. (2025). Generative AI-assisted feedback and EFL writing: a study on proficiency, revision frequency and writing quality. Discover Education, 4(1), 170.
  18. Mun, C. (2024). EFL learners’ English writing feedback and their perception of using ChatGPT. Journal of English Teaching through Movies and Media, 25(2), 26–39.
  19. Muntazar, T., & Hajar, I. (2025). Discursive and Metalinguistic Perspectives on AI-Generated Writing Feedback: A Student Perception Study. Journal Informatic, Education and Management (JIEM), 7(2), 516–526.
  20. Paff, J. B. (2023). Cognitive Feedback Theories and Artificial Intelligence: A Case for A Grammarly of UI/UX Design.
  21. Perifanou, M., & Economides, A. A. (2025). Students Collaboratively Prompting ChatGPT. Computers, 14(5), 156.
  22. Prasetya, R. E., Hariyadi Didik Hariyadi, R., & Sofiani, F. (2024). Identifying Grammarly Automated Writing Evaluation and Self-Editing by Administrative Officer. JELLT (Journal of English Language and Language Teaching), 8(1), 120–133.
  23. Raheem, B. R., Anjum, F., & Ghafar, Z. N. (2023). Exploring the profound impact of artificial intelligence applications (Quillbot, Grammarly and ChatGPT) on English academic writing: A systematic review. International Journal of Integrative Research (IJIR), 1(10), 599–622.
  24. Roffarello, A. M., Calò, T., Scibetta, L., & De Russis, L. (2025). Investigating How Computer Science Researchers Design Their Co-Writing Experiences With AI.
  25. Saito, K. (2021). Effects of corrective feedback on second language pronunciation development. Cambridge University Press.
  26. Shadiev, R., & Yang, M. (2020). Review of studies on technology-enhanced language learning and teaching. Sustainability, 12(2), 524.
  27. Taj, S., & Khan, M. A. (2024). COMPARING GRAMMARLY AND CHATGPT FOR AUTOMATED WRITING EVALUATION OF ESL LEARNERS. Bahria University Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences, 7(2), 63–90.
  28. Takallou, F. (2025). The Impact of Grammarly AI-powered Writing Tool on the EFL Students’ Writing Proficiency and Autonomy. Technology Assisted Language Education, 3(2), 99–119.
  29. Tan, X., Reynolds, B. L., & Ha, X. Van. (2024). Oral corrective feedback on lexical errors: a systematic review. Applied Linguistics Review, 15(3), 1177–1221.
  30. VanPatten, B., & Smith, M. (2022). Explicit and implicit learning in second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
  31. Wang, C., Li, Z., & Bonk, C. (2024). Understanding self-directed learning in AI-Assisted writing: A mixed methods study of postsecondary learners. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100247.
  32. Zotzmann, K., & Sheldrake, R. (2021). Postgraduate students’ beliefs about and confidence for academic writing in the field of applied linguistics. Journal of Second Language Writing, 52, 100810.
  33. Кot, S. O., & Nykyporets, S. S. (2025). Activating studentscognitive engagement in technical English learning with AI tools. Science and Education in the Third Millennium: Information Technology, Education, Law, Psychology, Social Security and Work, Management: Іnternational Collective Monograph. Vol. I. Lublin, Polska. Chap. 9: 295-332.