Comparing Grammarly Feedback and Teacher Feedback in ESLWriting: AQuantitative Study of Students’ Perceptions

Abstract

This study investigated ESL university students’ perceptions of teacher-written feedback and automated feedback provided by Grammarly in academic writing, with the aim of exploring the benefits, challenges, and overall effectiveness of each feedback modality. Grounded in Sociocultural Theory, the study examined how human and technological mediators support learners’ writing development, skill improvement, and autonomy. A quantitative research design was employed, involving 40 non-English major undergraduate students from two intact classes at a Pakistani university, purposively sampled based on prior English proficiency. One group of 20 students received teacher-written feedback, while the other 20 students received automated feedback via Grammarly across a four-week guided writing intervention. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire designed to measure perceived benefits, skill improvement, perceived challenges, and overall effectiveness of feedback. Reliability analyses indicated high internal consistency across the scale (Cronbach’s α = 0.70–0.82). Descriptive statistics revealed that students recognized multiple benefits from both feedback types, including enhanced accuracy, motivation, and awareness of recurring errors. Independent samples t-tests indicated no statistically significant differences between groups in perceived benefits, skill improvement, or perceived challenges, while teacher feedback was perceived as significantly more effective overall (t = 2.496, p = .017). The findings highlight the complementary nature of teacher and automated feedback: teacher feedback supports higher-order skills such as coherence, organization, and argumentation, while Grammarly facilitates surface-level linguistic accuracy, autonomous revision, and self-monitoring. The study underscores the importance of an integrated feedback approach in ESL writing instruction, combining human interpretive guidance with automated support to maximize learning outcomes. Pedagogical implications include the need for targeted instruction in interpreting automated feedback and prioritizing teacher feedback for conceptual and discourse-level guidance. Limitations related to sample size, self-reported measures, and study duration are discussed, alongside recommendations for longitudinal and performance-based research. The study contributes to the understanding of feedback-mediated learning in ESL contexts and provides evidence-based strategies for optimizing both teacher and technology- enhanced writing instruction.