Fostering Learner Autonomy through Grammarly in EFL Writing Classrooms: A Classroom-Based Study

Pham Khanh Hang

Le Thu An

Dai Nam University

Abstract  

Learner autonomy is essential in L2 writing, yet its relationship with automated writing evaluation (AWE) tools remains underexplored, especially among non-English majors. This study examines learner autonomy before and after Grammarly use in EFL writing classrooms. Using a mixed-methods design, data from 125 Vietnamese university students were collected through surveys and interviews over eight weeks. Results show improvements in involvement, reflection, and target language use. Grammarly supported autonomy by providing immediate feedback that encouraged independent revision and error awareness. However, engagement varied, with some students relying on surface-level corrections, and target language use remained inconsistent. Overall, Grammarly can promote autonomy with appropriate pedagogical support. 

Keywords: autonomous learning; EFL learners; Grammarly; writing skills 

Introduction 

Previous research highlights a strong relationship between learner autonomy (LA) and academic achievement in L2 learning (Tajmirriahi & Rezvani, 2021). In writing contexts, autonomy enables self-monitoring, reflection, and independent revision, which are essential for long-term development (Mohammadi et al., 2023). These findings underscore the importance of promoting learner autonomy in writing instruction.

Automated writing evaluation (AWE) tools have recently been introduced to support the writing process by providing individualised feedback and reducing cognitive demands related to grammar and mechanics, allowing greater focus on idea development and organisation (Shi et al., 2025). However, while AWE has been widely studied in relation to writing achievement, its role in fostering learner autonomy remains underexplored (Fu et al., 2024).

 To address this gap, this study examines the use of Grammarly in supporting learner autonomy among EFL university students through surveys and interviews conducted over an eight-week writing course.

Literature Review  

Learner’s autonomy  

Learner autonomy is widely recognised as a key factor in effective L2 learning, particularly as learners are expected to develop beyond classroom contexts. Holec (1981) defines autonomy as the ability to take responsibility for one’s own learning, including setting goals, selecting methods, monitoring progress, and maintaining motivation.

Later research reconceptualises autonomy as a complex and evolving construct. Benson (2011) describes it as comprising cognitive, technical, and affective dimensions, shaped by factors such as learning tools, instructional contexts, and educational culture.

From a pedagogical perspective, fostering autonomy requires active engagement. Little (2007) identifies three key conditions: involvement, reflection, and target language use. These enable learners to manage their learning, develop awareness, and strengthen control over their progress. Overall, learner autonomy is a dynamic construct that requires intentional instructional support.

An overview of Grammarly and its impacts on learners’ autonomy  

Automated writing evaluation (AWE) refers to AI-based systems that provide feedback on writing using natural language processing (Zhai & Ma, 2022). In L2 contexts, these tools offer immediate feedback, reduce teachers’ workload, and support learner-centered practices (Haddadian et al., 2025). By addressing grammar and mechanics, AWE enables learners to focus on higher-level aspects and engage more actively in revision. However, limitations exist, as learners may misinterpret feedback or rely on it excessively, prioritising scores over writing development (Zhao, 2025). This underscores the need for careful pedagogical integration.

Among AWE tools, Grammarly is widely used to improve grammar, clarity, and tone (Grammarly, 2023). Research reports positive effects on accuracy and language awareness (Dizon & Gayed, 2024), though results are less consistent for fluency and complexity. Grammarly is most effective when combined with teacher feedback, as teachers address content and organisation. Despite its convenience, learners often consider teacher input more reliable (Barrot, 2023).

Research gap  

Although prior research highlights the importance of learner autonomy in L2 learning and reports positive outcomes of Grammarly, its role in AWE contexts remains underexplored. Existing studies mainly focus on learners’ perceptions (Bailey & Lee, 2020; Fitriana & Nurazni, 2022; ONeill & Russell, 2019), with limited attention to how engagement with automated feedback supports autonomy development over time.

This gap is particularly evident in the Vietnamese EFL context, where empirical research on AWE is still limited. Few studies have examined how autonomy develops when Grammarly is integrated into classroom practice or explored autonomy as a multidimensional construct. Accordingly, this study addresses the following research questions:

RQ1: To what extent is learner autonomy in English writing exhibited by students before Grammarly is introduced?  

RQ2:  In what ways does Grammarly contribute to the development of learner autonomy in English writing among students? 

Research Methodology  

Methodological Approach 

This study employed a mixed methods design to investigate the integration of Grammarly in the L2 writing classroom. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected concurrently at two points in time - at the beginning and at the end of the course. Surveys were used to examine changes in learners’ autonomy, while semi-structured interviews provided in-depth insights into students’ perceptions and experiences with Grammarly throughout the writing process. 

Context and participants 

The study was conducted with 125 second-year non-English major students at a private university in Vietnam. While previous research on Grammarly in the Vietnamese context has mainly focused on improvements in writing accuracy, such studies have been largely limited to English-major students. In contrast, non-English major contexts remain underexplored, despite their distinct learning characteristics and practical language needs.

 The participants represented a typical EFL population, with English proficiency ranging from elementary to lower-intermediate levels (approximately A1–B1 CEFR). They were selected based on proficiency levels determined by performance in previous English courses. This context provides a relevant setting to examine how tools such as Grammarly can foster learner autonomy in writing among non-specialist learners.

The course adopted a process-based writing approach integrating Grammarly to support revision and learner autonomy. Each task followed a four-stage sequence. Students first produced an initial draft without Grammarly. They then reviewed feedback to identify and categorise errors, promoting awareness of form. This was followed by group reflection, where students analysed errors under teacher supervision and considered improvement strategies. Finally, students revised their drafts based on feedback and reflection. This cycle was implemented throughout the course to foster learners’ ability to monitor, evaluate, and improve their writing independently.

Data collection instruments  

Two instruments were designed to address the objectives of this study. The first was a questionnaire comprising 8 items measured on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). These items were intended to assess learner autonomy and were adapted from McCrocklin’s (2016) work on autonomy. The scale demonstrated strong internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients exceeding 0.8 in both the pre- and post-administrations. A semi-structured interview protocol was also employed to collect qualitative data. The interview questions, adapted from Lee (2011), included eight items and were designed to elicit 10 students’ reflections on their experiences using Grammarly before and over the duration of the course. 

Data analysis   

Quantitative data were analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics 27. Descriptive statistics were computed to examine mean scores and standard deviations across three dimensions of learner autonomy: involvement, reflection, and target language use, with overall autonomy calculated as their composite mean.

The dataset was screened to remove uniform response patterns (e.g., identical answers across items), ensuring data reliability. Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare pre- and post-intervention results. Due to unmatched responses, the datasets were treated as independent samples to identify group-level changes over time.

Qualitative data from interviews were analyzed thematically to explore involvement, reflection, and target language use. A triangulation approach integrated quantitative and qualitative findings to provide a comprehensive understanding of learner autonomy development.

Findings 

RQ1: To what extent is learner autonomy in English writing exhibited by students before using Grammarly?  

The descriptive statistics from the pre-survey indicate that overall learner autonomy was moderate in extent (M = 3.39, SD = 0.74), with variation across the three dimensions (see Table 1).  

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Pre-survey Variables 

In terms of learner involvement, students reported the highest mean score among the three dimensions (M = 3.60, SD = 0.79). This suggests a moderate level of engagement in the writing process. Qualitative data further corroborates this pattern, showing that students commonly set specific goals such as producing writing with accurate content, richer vocabulary, and grammatically correct structures. These findings imply that learners had begun to take some responsibility for their learning, especially in goal setting.  

 With regard to learner reflection, the mean score was lower (M = 3.43, SD = 0.79), indicating a more limited engagement in reflective practices. Qualitative responses support this finding, as most students noted that they rarely investigated why they made mistakes. Although a small number of learners reported using strategies such as note-taking or additional practice to avoid repeating errors, these strategies were not widely adopted. This suggests that systematic self-evaluation and deeper metacognitive awareness were only partially developed. 

A similar pattern is observed in target language use, which recorded the lowest mean score (M = 3.15, SD = 0.93). This indicates that students’ independent use of English in writing was relatively limited. Qualitative data reveal that many learners relied on external resources such as machine translation tools, teachers, and AI-based support (e.g., ChatGPT) when completing writing tasks. In addition, students frequently reported low confidence in their grammar and vocabulary, which likely reduced their willingness to write independently in English. 

Overall, the findings indicate that learner autonomy in English writing prior to the use of Grammarly was present but not fully developed. While students demonstrated a moderate level of involvement (M = 3.60), their autonomy was constrained by comparatively lower levels of reflection (M = 3.43) and especially target language use (M = 3.15).  

RQ 2: In what ways does Grammarly contribute to the development of learner autonomy in English writing among students? 

Drawing on both quantitative and qualitative data, the findings indicate that Grammarly contributed to the development of learner autonomy (LA) in English writing across three dimensions: learner involvement, learner reflection, and target language use (see Table 2).  

Table 2. Pre- and post-survey results 

Note. M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation; df= degrees of freedom; t = t-statistic; p = probability value. * p < .05, ** p < .01. 

For learner involvement, the mean score increased from M = 3.60 (SD = 0.79) to M = 3.79 (SD = 0.77). However, this difference did not reach statistical significance (t(190) = -1.658, p = .099), with a small effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.24). This pattern should be interpreted in light of students’ initial level of involvement, which was already moderate and largely reflected in goal-setting behaviors (e.g., aiming for accurate content, appropriate vocabulary, and correct grammar). Building on this baseline, qualitative data indicate a shift toward greater behavioral engagement and responsibility. Students described moving from reliance on teacher feedback to a more active role in identifying and correcting their own errors. This suggests a gradual transition from goal setting to active participation, although the small and non-significant quantitative change indicates that such development was not consistent across all learners.

Regarding learner reflection, this dimension showed the most substantial improvement. The mean score increased from M = 3.42 (SD = 0.79) to M = 3.86 (SD = 0.76), with a statistically significant difference (t(190) = -3.788, p < .001) and a moderate effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.55). Qualitative findings suggest that Grammarly facilitated deeper metacognitive engagement. Many students reported attempting to understand the causes of their errors rather than correcting them mechanically. They also became more aware of recurring error patterns, which supported the development of self-monitoring and self-regulation strategies. In addition, Grammarly’s explanations helped learners internalize grammatical rules. However, this reflective engagement was not uniform, as some learners prioritised efficiency by accepting corrections without deeper analysis. These findings suggest that Grammarly played a significant role in enhancing reflective capacity, a core component of learner autonomy.

With respect to target language use, the mean score increased from M = 3.15 (SD = 0.93) to M = 3.44 (SD = 0.77). This improvement was statistically significant (t(190) = -2.286, p = .023), with a small to moderate effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.33). In this study, target language use refers to learners’ ability to engage with English as a medium for self-directed learning, particularly when interacting with Grammarly feedback. Qualitative findings indicate that Grammarly encouraged more independent engagement with English, as students attempted to process feedback and revise their writing without constant teacher support. Students also reported increased confidence and independence in revision, suggesting that English was increasingly used as a functional resource for problem-solving. Many learners attempted to understand feedback in English before resorting to translation, indicating a growing reliance on English for meaning-making. However, this development remained partial, as students continued to use translation tools when encountering more complex input.

Overall learner autonomy, calculated as the composite mean of the three dimensions, increased from M = 3.39 (SD = 0.74) to M = 3.70 (SD = 0.65). This difference was statistically significant (t(190) = -2.940, p = .004), with a moderate effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.43). These findings suggest that Grammarly contributed to learner autonomy by supporting engagement, enhancing reflection, and facilitating more independent use of the target language. The strongest effect was observed in reflection, while changes in involvement were more modest, indicating that autonomy development may begin with increased awareness before being fully reflected in consistent behavior.

Discussions  

4.1. Emerging Learner Agency in the Revision Process 

A prominent theme across the data was the growth of learner agency. Many participants described taking a more active role in revising their writing, particularly in identifying and correcting errors independently. This suggests a movement away from reliance on teacher-provided corrections toward greater self-direction. This finding supports previous studies that link autonomy with active learner involvement and decision-making in the learning process (Murtisari et al., 2025). The availability of immediate feedback appeared to encourage students to engage more directly with their writing, reinforcing the idea that technological tools can facilitate more learner-centered practices.  

However, this shift was not consistent among all participants. Some students continued to rely heavily on external input, indicating that the development of autonomy is not uniform. This divergence reflects earlier research suggesting that autonomy evolves gradually and is influenced by individual learner differences (Zhai, 2025). 

4.2. Surface-Level Versus Deep Reflection 

Reflection emerged as a central but unevenly developed aspect of autonomy. While several participants reported attempting to understand the reasons behind their errors, others focused primarily on correcting mistakes without deeper analysis. These findings partially align with existing literature that emphasizes the role of reflection in fostering metacognitive awareness (Ranalli, 2021). For some learners, Grammarly functioned as a tool that supported noticing and pattern recognition, enabling them to reflect on recurring errors. 

At the same time, the data revealed clear tension. Not all learners engaged in meaningful reflection, with some adopting a more superficial approach to feedback. This extends prior research by illustrating that exposure to automated feedback does not necessarily lead to deeper cognitive processing (Zhan & Zhou, 2026). Instead, reflective engagement appears to depend on how learners interact with the feedback rather than the tool itself. 

4.3. Partial Shift Toward Target Language Use 

Another theme concerned learners’ use of the target language during the revision process. Some participants reported increased reliance on English when interpreting feedback and revising their writing, suggesting a gradual shift toward more independent language use. This finding is consistent with theoretical perspectives that view target language use as a key component of learner autonomy (Koltovskaia, 2020). Engagement with feedback in English may help learners internalize linguistic patterns and reduce dependence on their first language. 

Nevertheless, this shift remained incomplete. Several participants continued to use translation tools to understand feedback, particularly when encountering complex explanations. This highlights a gap between exposure to the target language and full autonomous use of it, especially among learners with lower proficiency levels (Dizon & Gold, 2023). 

Conclusions 

This study examined learner autonomy in L2 writing and Grammarly’s role in its development in an EFL context. Findings show that autonomy emerged across three dimensions: involvement, reflection, and target language use. Students became more engaged in revision, more reflective about errors, and gradually used English more during the process.

Grammarly supported these developments by providing immediate feedback that encouraged independent revision and raised language awareness. However, autonomy development was uneven. Some learners engaged deeply with feedback, while others relied on surface-level corrections. Although Grammarly increased exposure to English, some students continued to depend on translation tools.

These findings suggest that Grammarly’s effectiveness depends on learners’ engagement and pedagogical support. Simply integrating AWE tools is insufficient; guided reflection and active engagement are essential.

This study has several limitations, including its single institutional context, short duration, reliance on self-reported data, and the use of independent samples due to unmatched pre- and post-surveys, which may underestimate changes. Future research should adopt longitudinal designs with matched data, examine diverse contexts, and explore instructional strategies and behavioral data to better understand autonomy development.

Acknowledgements

The paper was conducted within the framework of the project “Applying Grammarly to Enhance Students’ Autonomy in General English Writing” at Dai Nam University.

References 

Bailey, D., & Lee, A. R. (2020). An exploratory study of Grammarly in the language learning context: An analysis of test-based, textbook-based and Facebook corpora. TESOL International Journal, 15(2), 4–27. 

Barrot, J. S. (2023). Using automated written corrective feedback in the writing classrooms: Effects on L2 writing accuracy. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(4), 584–607. 

Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy (2nd ed.). Routledge. 

Dizon, G., & Gayed, J. M. (2024). A systematic review of Grammarly in L2 English writing contexts. Cogent Education, 11(1), 2397882. 

Dizon, G., & Gold, J. (2023). Exploring the effects of Grammarly on EFL students' foreign language anxiety and learner autonomy. JALT CALL Journal, 19(3), 299–316. 

Fitriana, K., & Nurazni, L. (2022). Exploring English department students' perceptions on using Grammarly to check the grammar in their writing. Journal of English Teaching, 8(1), 15–25. 

Fu, Q. K., Zou, D., Xie, H., & Cheng, G. (2024). A review of AWE feedback: Types, learning outcomes, and implications. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37(1–2), 179–221. 

Haddadian, G., Kim, M. K., & Haddadian, N. (2025). A systematic review of automated writing evaluation tools in argumentative writing for English as foreign language education. Research Synthesis in Applied Linguistics, 1–51. 

Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Pergamon. 

Koltovskaia, S. (2020). Student engagement with automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) provided by Grammarly: A multiple case study. Assessing Writing, 44, 100450. 

Lee, L. (2011). Blogging: Promoting learner autonomy and intercultural competence through study abroad. Language Learning & Technology, 15(3), 87–109. http://dx.doi.org/10125/44264 

Little, D. (2007). Language learner autonomy: Some fundamental considerations revisited. International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 14–29. 

McCrocklin, S. M. (2016). Pronunciation learner autonomy: The potential of automatic speech recognition. System, 57, 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.12.013 

Mohammadi Zenouzagh, Z., Admiraal, W., & Saab, N. (2023). Learner autonomy, learner engagement and learner satisfaction in text-based and multimodal computer mediated writing environments. Education and Information Technologies, 28(11), 14283–14323. 

Murtisari, E. T., Januardi, J. I., Bonar, G., & Kurniawan, D. (2025). Beyond error correction: Lower-proficiency EFL learners’ engagement with Grammarly. Language Awareness, 1–25. 

ONeill, R., & Russell, A. (2019). Stop! Grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Grammarly. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1). 

Ranalli, J. (2021). L2 student engagement with automated feedback on writing: Potential for learning and issues of trust. Journal of Second Language Writing, 52, 100816. 

Shi, H., Chai, C. S., Zhou, S., & Aubrey, S. (2025). Comparing the effects of ChatGPT and automated writing evaluation on students’ writing and ideal L2 writing self. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–28. 

Tajmirriahi, T., & Rezvani, E. (2021). Learner autonomy in L2 writing: The role of academic self‐concept and academic achievement. Education Research International, 2021(1), 6074039. 

Zhai, N., & Ma, X. (2022). Automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback: A systematic investigation of college students’ acceptance. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(9), 2817–2842. 

Zhai, Y. (2025). Automated written corrective feedback: Fostering writing accuracy, self-regulation, and motivational dynamics in EFL learners. BMC Psychology. 

Zhan, J., & Zhou, C. (2026). Unpacking the role of Grammarly in iterative continuation tasks to develop L2 grammar learning strategies, grit, and competence. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 49(1), 112–132. 

Zhao, D. (2025). The impact of AI-enhanced natural language processing tools on writing proficiency: An analysis of language precision, content summarization, and creative writing facilitation. Education and Information Technologies, 30(6), 8055–8086.