پیوندهای مفید
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 32 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 591 |
| تعداد مقالات | 5,779 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 8,660,782 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 6,342,639 |
The Effect of Microsoft Word AutoCorrection and Grammarly on Iranian Elementary EFL Learners' Grammar and Spelling Development: A Sociocultural Perspective | ||
| Interdisciplinary Studies in English Language Teaching | ||
| دوره 5، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 9، 2027، صفحه 60-75 اصل مقاله (469.09 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Original Article | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22080/iselt.2026.31628.1185 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Mahmoud Nabilou؛ Abbas Ali Zarei* | ||
| Department of English Language Teaching, Faculty of Humanities, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 09 اردیبهشت 1405، تاریخ بازنگری: 17 مرداد 1405، تاریخ پذیرش: 23 مرداد 1405 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Grounded in Vygotskian sociocultural theory, this quasi-experimental study compared the effects of two distinct types of automated corrective feedback—the rule‑based Microsoft Word AutoCorrection and the AI‑powered Grammarly—against traditional paper‑based teacher correction on learning grammar and the development of spelling among Iranian elementary English as a foreign language (EFL) learners. Ninety‑six male secondary students (aged 15) in Alvand, Qazvin, were recruited in the 2025–2026 academic year and randomly assigned to Microsoft Word (n = 32), Grammarly (n = 32), or control (n = 32) groups. The participants completed grammar and spelling exercises over six 75‑minute sessions. Separate ANCOVAs on posttest scores, covarying pretest scores, yielded statistically significant main effects of instructional method: grammar, F(2, 89) = 11.83, p < .001, partial η² = .20; spelling, F(2, 89) = 7.41, p = .001, partial η² = .14, representing large effects. Bonferroni‑corrected pairwise comparisons showed both experimental groups significantly outperformed the control group on both measures. For spelling, Grammarly significantly outperformed Microsoft Word (p = .041, d = 0.42); for grammar, the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant. Drawing on the constructs of mediation, Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), and scaffolding, the tools are interpreted as mediational artifacts that provided immediate, scaffolded feedback within learners’ ZPDs, thereby facilitating a gradual shift from other‑regulation to self‑regulation. These findings contribute to the literature on automated written corrective feedback by demonstrating the differential effectiveness of general‑purpose and AI‑powered grammar checkers across linguistic domains and offer practical implications for integrating widely available digital tools into EFL grammar and spelling instruction. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Automated Written Corrective Feedback؛ Grammar Learning؛ Grammarly؛ Microsoft Word؛ Spelling Development | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Ali, H. F., Nakshbandi, L. J., Saadi, F., & Barzani, S. H. H. (2022). The effect of spell‑checker features on spelling competence among EFL learners: An empirical study. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 9(3), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.23918/ijsses.v9i3p101
Alshalan, R., & Alharthi, T. (2026). An inquiry into Grammarly’s precision and recall: A comparative study with human annotators. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 8, Article 100273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2026.101283
Alshayban, A. (2024). A comparative study of the error‑detection accuracy of Grammarly and Microsoft Word Editor in formal English writing. World Journal of English Language, 14(5), 535-544. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v14n5p535
Asipi, L. S., Williyan, A., & Saputra, A. A. (2026). EFL students’ perceptions of Grammarly for grammar accuracy and independent learning in the era of Education 5.0. Indonesian EFL Journal, 12(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.25134/ieflj.v12i1.35
Beatty, K. (2013). Teaching and researching computer‑assisted language learning (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Cheraghpour Samvati, G., Maftoon, P., & Rashtchi, M. (2024). Applying the activity theory framework to raise EFL learners’ ecological critical language awareness. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 12(50), 79-93. http://doi.org/10.30495/JFL.2023.703378
Delmadorou, E. I. (2026). Generative artificial intelligence in language education: Ethical dimensions and the equitable AI in language education model. Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning, 15(1), 96–105.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83–107. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264512
Fardadmehr, L., Najafi Karimi, S., & Marzban, A. (2026). Enhancing writing accuracy, fluency, and complexity in Iranian intermediate EFL learners through mobile‑assisted language learning. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 14(56), 1–18.
Fleckenstein, J., Liebenow, L. W., & Meyer, J. (2023). Automated feedback and writing: A multi‑level meta‑analysis of effects on students’ performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1196454. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2023.1162454
Graham, S., & Santangelo, T. (2014). Does spelling instruction make students better spellers, readers, and writers? A meta‑analytic review. Reading and Writing, 27(9), 1703–1743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9517-0
Hamid, S., & Abbas, S. (2025). Artificial intelligence as a pedagogical scaffold in K–12 language and literacy education. Annals of Human and Social Sciences, 6(4), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.35484/ahss.2025(6-IV)04
Hsu, H.‑L. (2026). Examining the impact of feedback from automated writing evaluation tools on learners’ grammar accuracy. CALICO Journal, 43(1), 81–107. https://doi.org/10.3138/calico-2024-0021
Jafari, S., Rostampour, M., & Akbarpour, L. (2025). Investigating the impact of mobile‑assisted metalinguistic corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ grammar proficiency: A mixed‑methods approach. Journal of Education Experiences, 8(2), 215–239. https://doi.org/10.71922/jee.2025.1219901
John, P., & Woll, N. (2020). Using grammar checkers in an ESL context: An investigation of automatic corrective feedback. CALICO Journal, 37(2), 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.36523
Jomaa, N. J., & Jibroo, H. M. (2024). Corrective feedback of Grammarly in enhancing L2 writing by EFL Kurdish students. Bulletin of Advanced English Studies, 9(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.31559/BAES2024.9.1.1
Karimpour, S., Namaziandost, E., & Kargar Behbahani, H. (2025). Contributions of computerized dynamic assessment and digitalized feedback to L2 learners’ grammar acquisition: Technology‑enhanced learning facilitation theory. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 63(1), 147–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331241296889
Lai, Z.CC. (2026). AI in EFL blended learning: impact on speaking performance and learning resilience. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education. 11, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-025-00367-4
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education. Routledge.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press.
Lekamge, R., & Smith, C. (2025). Impact of auto‑correction features in text‑processing software on the academic writing of ESL learners. ELOPE: English Language Overseas Perspectives and Enquiries, 22(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.4312/elope.22.1.69-91
Li, L., Zhang, X., Zou, B., & Yang, Q. (2025). AI partner or peer partner? Exploring AI-mediated interaction in EFL pronunciation from a socio-cultural perspective. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 55, Article 100958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2025.100958
Macías‑Borrego, M. (2026). Artificial intelligence and error analysis: Effects on feedback of recurrent errors and fossilisation tendencies. Education Sciences, 16(3), Article 393. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16030393
Mirza Suzani, S. (2025). A comparison of Iranian EFL learners’ spelling knowledge enhancement through computer-mediated vs. conventional written corrective feedback. Applications of Language Studies, e720284. https://doi.org/10.22034/jals.2025.2042702.1046
Mooney, G., & Imandin, L. (2026). Leveraging artificial intelligence in higher education: A Vygotsky‑inspired framework. African Perspectives of Research in Teaching and Learning, 10(1), 184–197. https://doi.org/10.70875/v10i1article14
Murtisari, E. T., Januardi, J. I., Bonar, G., & Kurniawan, D. (2025). Beyond error correction: Lower‑proficiency EFL learners’ engagement with Grammarly. Language Awareness, advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2025.2585004
Nabilou, M., Torki, R., & Moradi, P. (2019). A microgenetic development study of learning English grammar through CALL in Iranian EFL beginner learners. Journal of Foreign Language Research, 9(3), 763–787. https://doi.org/10.22059/jflr.2019.264666.547
Nabilou, M., & Zarei, A. A. (2023). The effects of three types of flipped learning through Shad application on EFL learners’ lexical and grammatical achievement. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 10(4), 113–133. https://doi.org/10.30479/jmrels.2023.18868.2219
Nabilou, M., & Zarei, A. A. (2025). Flipped instruction and its potential to control foreign language classroom anxiety through Shad application. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances, 13(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.22049/JALDA.2024.29687.1681
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form‑focused instruction in communicative context. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203850961
Pust, D. (2026). Learning grammar the explorative way: Integrating interactive grammar animations into CALL. Language Learning & Technology, 30(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.64152/10125/73667
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2018). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Salehi, D. H., Amiri, B. (2019). Impacts of using Microsoft Word (MS) software on Iranian EFL lecturers’ grammar knowledge. IJREE. 4(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.29252/ijree.4.1.1
Shavinka, D., & Retnowati, N. (2026). EFL students' experiences using Grammarly in English writing classrooms. In The 6th Bogor English Student and Teacher (BEST) Conference 2026 (p. 49). Universitas Ibn Khaldun Bogor.
Sigvaldsen, N., & Kristiansen, K. (2024). The effect of spell and grammar checkers on pupils’ English: A study of texts written by Norwegian school children aged 13–14 years [Master’s thesis, UiT, The Arctic University of Norway]. Munin. https://munin.uit.no/handle/10037/33999
Simatupang, M. S., Tambunsaribu, G., Peter, R., Gunawan, R., & Murniarti, E. (2026). The mediating role of social influence in ChatGPT‑assisted English learning performance: A sociocultural analysis in Indonesian higher education. International Journal of Education and Practice, 14(1), 554–579. https://doi.org/10.18488/61.v14i1.4770
Song, C. & Song, Y. (2023). Enhancing academic writing skills and motivation: assessing the efficacy of ChatGPT in AI-assisted language learning for EFL students. Front. Psychol. 14:1260843. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1260843
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
Yokokura, Y. (2026). AI‑assisted self‑paced grammar instruction in secondary education: Balancing individualized and collaborative EFL learning. The English Teacher, 54(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.52696/LZVK1985
Zhang, C. (2026). Unlocking academic gains in smart‑classroom settings: A moderated‑mediation study among Chinese undergraduates. Acta Psychologica, 262, Article 106175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.106175
Zhang, R., & Zou, D. (2022). Types, purposes, and effectiveness of state-of-the-art technologies for second and foreign language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(4), 696–742. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1744666
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 59 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 57 |
||