Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ figsharearrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
figshare
Other literature type . 2025
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
figshare
Other literature type . 2025
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
SSRN Electronic Journal
Article . 2025 . Peer-reviewed
Data sources: Crossref
mEDRA
Article . 2025
Data sources: mEDRA
versions View all 4 versions
addClaim

At a Crossroad: Comparing ChatGPT and Grammarly in Enhancing EFL Learners' Use of the Article 'The'

Authors: Ahmadzade, Mahtab; Farahian, Majid;

At a Crossroad: Comparing ChatGPT and Grammarly in Enhancing EFL Learners' Use of the Article 'The'

Abstract

The present study investigated the effectiveness of ChatGPT and Grammarly as automated writing evaluation (AWE) tools in improving Iranian EFL learners’ use of the article ‘the’. As such, we selected 60 intermediate learners and divided them into three groups including two experimental groups that received ChatGPT and Grammarly feedbacks and a control group that was given teacher feedback. A pretest and a posttest were administered before and after the Intervention. After we ran a one-way ANOVA, the results indicated a statistically significant difference among the groups, with the Grammarly group performing significantly better than the control group, though not significantly better than the ChatGPT group. Additionally, qualitative findings from semi-structured interviews revealed that the participants had positive perceptions of using the tools for bridging the gap between instruction and practice, providing immediate feedback, and enhancing motivation and engagement. However, they reported limitations such as limited availability, dependency, potential for plagiarism, and the need for digital literacy. These findings underscore the potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, specifically Grammarly as a supplementary aid in EFL contexts, particularly for helping learners improve their grammatical accuracy.

Related Organizations
  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Green