LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 2, October 2022, pp. 461-473 LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Learning http://e-journal.usd.ac.id/index.php/LLT Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia 461 PEER AND AUTOMATED WRITING EVALUATION (AWE): INDONESIAN EFL COLLEGE STUDENTS’ PREFERENCE FOR ESSAY EVALUATION Rita Seroja Br Ginting1 and Rahmah Fithriani2, Universitas Islam Negeri Sumatera Utara, Indonesia1,2 ritaserojabr.ginting@uinsu.ac.id1 and rahmahfithriani@uinsu.ac.id2 correspondence: ritaserojabr.ginting@uinsu.ac.id https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v25i2.4879 received 10 July 2022; accepted 30 September 2022 Abstract Numerous studies have investigated the effects of peer evaluation (PE) and computerized writing evaluation (AWE) on the writing products and attitudes of English as a foreign language (EFL) students. However, few studies have compared student preferences regarding its application to essay evaluation. This research aimed to determine which method EFL college students prefer for assessing the quality of their academic writing in English. Students' utilization of feedback was determined through the distribution of a questionnaire. Twenty English Education students responded to the questionnaire. The open-ended interview was then administered to three students in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of their perspectives on these two evaluation methods. For data analysis, frequency count and thematic analysis were employed. Students prefer peer feedback over Grammarly, the AWE software used in this study, for two reasons, according to the results. First, they consider their peers to be their true audience, and second, they place a higher value on their peers' feedback than Grammarly's. However, Grammarly also received high marks because students enjoyed using it to write. Consequently, it is believed that combining these two strategies will result in the most essay writing progress. Keywords: automated writing evaluation, college students, English academic writing, Grammarly, peer evaluation Introduction In recent decades, automated writing evaluation (AWE) has become widespread in EFL (English as a foreign language) writing classes. As a result, this topic has attracted a growing number of researchers worldwide. Jiang & Yu (2020) investigated the incorporation of AWE in Chinese EFL students' L2 writing classes. In addition, Barrot (2020) examined the use of AWE in English as a Second Language (ESL) and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing in the Philippines, and (Liao, 2016a) investigated the use of AWE to reduce grammatical errors in the writing of Taiwanese students. The majority of their findings mailto:ritaserojabr.ginting@uinsu.ac.id1 mailto:rahmahfithriani@uinsu.ac.id mailto:ritaserojabr.ginting@uinsu.ac.idm https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v25i2.4879 LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 2, October 2022, pp. 461-473 462 indicated that AWE appears to improve students' writing in terms of grammar, structure, and meaning (Barrot, 2020; Jiang & Yu, 2020; Liao, 2016b). One prominent AWE software that is currently widely utilized in writing classes is Grammarly. Grammarly is a digital writing tool that provides automated essay feedback by detecting errors in grammar, vocabulary, mechanics, and style. It is compatible with Mac, Windows, Android, and iOS devices and is accessible through popular web browsers such as Chrome, Safari, and Firefox (Barrot, 2020). An increasing number of empirical studies have demonstrated its straightforward usefulness in enabling students and academies to write with remarkable accuracy and evaluation speed (Gao & Ma, 2020; Guo et al., 2021; Hassanzadeh & Fotoohnejad, 2021; Jiang et al., 2020; Li, 2021; Link et al., 2020; Waer, 2021). Grammarly is beneficial for writing instruction, particularly during the revision and editing phases, as noted by Barrot (2020). It can be used to detect instances of plagiarism during the revision phase, allowing students to eliminate duplicate content and properly attribute sources. While AWE-assisted writing indicates the incorporation of artificial intelligence in language classrooms, other methods that rely on human cognition, such as peer evaluation, are still widely used in essay evaluation (PE). PE, also known as peer feedback, refers to any verbal or written comments made by classmates or group members (Hyland & Hyland, 2006). PE has also been the subject of investigation in EFL writing classrooms. Altstaedter (2018) examined the impact of peer feedback on EFL writing and found that it significantly improved the quality of students' final drafts. Furthermore, Su & Huang, (2021) found that Chinese students enjoyed physical education, particularly when they were encouraged to provide feedback for their peers. PE is is also suggested in Indonesia for monitoring the writing process, negotiating meaning, fostering collaborative learning, and enhancing audience awareness (Fithriani, 2018, 2019; Hentasmaka & Cahyono, 2021; Huisman et al., 2019; Iswandari & Jiang, 2020) Both PE and Grammarly are beginning to be used to improve the English writing skills of university-level students in Indonesia. Students provided constructive feedback and suggestions for improving the writing of their peers. The process of giving and receiving feedback motivates students to think critically, indicating that PE has a positive impact on English writing classrooms in higher education. (Dewi, 2019; Fithriani, 2018; Hentasmaka & Cahyono, 2021; Iswandari & Jiang, 2020). Similarly, the research on the use of Grammarly's feedback in the writing classroom appeared to have a positive effect on students' writing products, as it reduces the amount of time required to obtain feedback and reviews grammar, vocabulary, and sentence mechanics, thereby boosting students' confidence in their writing compositions (Ariyanto et al., 2021; Fahmi & Cahyono, 2021; Ghufron, 2019; Karlina Ambarwati, 2021; Miranty et al., 2022). Despite the proliferation of research on the effectiveness of PE and AWE, particularly Grammarly, these two modes of writing evaluation are typically discussed separately in the context of Indonesian EFL. In most cases, comparative research on AWE and peer evaluation (PE) is disregarded. Lai (2010) argues that the interaction between students' cognition and these two evaluative modes must be elaborated upon in the L2 description. Additionally, Shang, (2022) believed comparing these two sorts of evaluations, pedagogical EFL writing consequences can be investigated in greater depth. Students’ perceptions may have a significant LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 2, October 2022, pp. 461-473 463 impact on their attitudes and behaviors concerning English writing, making it worthwhile to conduct research in this area. To fill this empirical void, this study is aimed to discover the preference of Indonesian EFL students between having their peers to give an evaluation on their writing or utilizing AWE (in this case is Grammarly) as a tool to correct their writing. To achieve this objective, the following research questions guide this study: 1. How frequently do students use PE or AWE to evaluate their essays? 2. According to the students' perceptions, in what ways does AWE differ from PE? Eventually, it is anticipated that the findings of this study will aid educators in designing the optimal writing process and selecting an acceptable writing evaluation technique to complement EFL writing instructions. Literature Review Evaluation or Feedback as Part of Writing Process Critical to the writing process is obtaining constructive criticism. Idea generation (pre-writing); producing a first draft with an emphasis on content ("discovering" meaning/ideas); the author's second and third (and perhaps more) drafts to edit ideas and their communication; and a final draft to express the updated ideas. The author is motivated to complete the final manuscript by the reader's feedback on the multiple drafts. Input from a reader to a writer that provides revision-related information in the form of comments, questions, and suggestions is referred to as feedback. Through feedback, the author discovers where he or she has misled or confused the reader due to insufficient information, illogical structure, failure to develop ideas, or inappropriate word choice or tense (Keh, 1990). Recently, three major types of feedback have been utilized in writing classrooms. These areas include peer feedback, instructor comments as feedback, and automated writing evaluation (AWE). Peer feedback is also known as peer editing, peer critiquing, and peer evaluation. Each categorization represents a distinct perspective on the input, most notably in terms of where along the continuum this feedback is supplied and its focus. Hyland & Hyland (2006) define physical education as any verbal or written comments made by classmates or group members. There are numerous benefits to incorporating peer input in any format. It is designed to save teachers time, allowing them to concentrate on providing more valuable instruction. It is believed that feedback is more relevant to the level of language development of the learner. With multiple readers, students can enhance their audience consciousness (i.e., readers other than the teacher). By analyzing the papers of others, the reader acquires writing expertise (Keh, 1990). In addition, teacher feedback occurs when a teacher responds to a writer as a concerned reader, as opposed to as a grammarian or grader. Instructors must differentiate between "higher order" and "lower order" concerns not only when commenting on final manuscripts, but also while offering written comments throughout the writing process (Keh, 1990). Several aspects of teacher feedback have been identified in the literature as motivating students to revise and improve their writing, particularly in an EFL context. Previous research indicated that instructor feedback would aid students in revising their written work and enhancing their writing skills for future success as the writing process progresses LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 2, October 2022, pp. 461-473 464 (Ferris, 1997). Vardi (2009) reported that students improved in areas where they received frequent teacher comments (e.g., language and mechanics) compared to those who received little or no feedback (e.g., content and organization). Additionally, Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) provides timely, individualized feedback to enhance student writing skills (Li, 2021; Link et al., 2020). First, the correlation between automated and human grading of student writing (Bridgeman et al., 2012); and second, the effects of automated analysis on student writing performance (Jiang et al., 2020; Ranalli, 2021). A recent study conducted by Wang & Brown (2008) revealed that human and machine marking are comparable. Nonetheless, human–machine disparities remained. Even the most sophisticated computerized essay grading systems may overlook important intrinsic qualities. There are currently a number of AWE products, such as My Access, Criterion, and Grammarly, that are widely utilized by English writers for essay evaluation. Li (2021) utilized Criterion error reports (the number of errors identified and classified by Criterion) and found an increase in linguistic precision between the initial and final versions. Lai (2010) evaluated the extent to which MY Access improved EFL college students' writing skills. The majority of students responded positively to this AWE strategy and appreciated the prompt feedback. Nonetheless, they perceived some input to be predetermined, repetitive, and ambiguous. Barrot (2020) concluded that Grammarly is beneficial for writing instruction, particularly when it comes to revising and editing. Peer Evaluation versus Grammarly From the perspective of feedback, PE has been extensively documented in English writing for ESL/EFL students in many countries. As an example, Levi Altstaedter, (2018) investigated the effect of peer feedback on EFL writing and found that peer feedback significantly improved the final draft quality of students. Huisman et al. (2019) investigated the effect of peer feedback on the academic writing of Australian students and discovered that when students provided and/or received peer feedback, their writing improved significantly more than when they did not. Moreover, Su & Huang (2021) also found that PE brought enjoyment to the Chinese students, especially when they were instructed to give comments t their peers. In Indonesia, PE is also being examined by some researchers to see its effectiveness both based on students’ perspectives or students’ writing performances. Fithriani, (2019), for instance, investigated college English language education students to find out the benefits of written feedback. The findings indicated that written peer feedback assists students in improving their writing quality and abilities, encourages critical reasoning, and promotes learner autonomy. Dewi (2019) found that English Education students in Indonesia tended to give constructive comments as their feedback when evaluating their peers’ essays. This finding illustrates that PE has a positive impact on students. Additionally, Hentasmaka & Cahyono (2021) investigated the uptakes and outcomes of peer feedback by proficiency level. They discovered that peer feedback had a significant impact on students' writing, regardless of their proficiency levels, and that there was no significant difference in the number of responses and outcomes. Iswandari & Jiang (2020) examined 16 empirical studies of peer feedback in college EFL to determine how peer feedback has been LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 2, October 2022, pp. 461-473 465 investigated over the past decade. As a result, they discovered that the researchers tested four types of feedback criteria, and the majority of the research focuses on the students' perspectives on peer feedback. Independent studies on Grammarly, on the other hand, have only recently emerged (Barrot, 2020; Gao & Ma, 2020; Guo et al., 2021; Jiang et al., 2020; Link et al., 2020; Waer, 2021; Ariyanto et al., 2021; Fahmi & Cahyono, 2021; Ghufron, 2019; Karlina Ambarwati, 2021; Miranty et al., 2022)) and have exerted an increasing influence on the L2 writing field. Barrot (2020), for instance, examined the integration of Grammarly into ESL/EFL writing. It promotes students' use of their cognitive and metacognitive operations through noticing and provides effective grammar support in a variety of learning contexts, whether they involve international or domestic students or are adopted online or face-to-face. Guo et al. (2021) examined 36 students at a prestigious Chinese university to determine the efficacy of Grammarly for EFL writers. They found that the students’ grammatical errors were significantly decreased after they used feedback from Grammarly to evaluate their essay. Similarly, Fahmi & Cahyono (2021) examined 26 undergraduate students’ perspectives on the feedback given by Grammarly and their teacher, and the results show that either students with low English proficiency or high English proficiency give positive attitudes towards this type of feedback. The effectiveness of peer response groups and automated writing responses in EFL composition classes has been largely overlooked, particularly in Indonesia, despite the limitations of previous reports. To date, research by Lai (2010) who examined 22 EFL Taiwanese students is the first research comparing AWE and peer evaluation to evaluate the students’ essays. The researcher examined it in three dimensions: product, process, and student perceptions. Current research by Shang, (2022) found that by comparing peer evaluation and online peer feedback, pedagogical EFL writing consequences can be investigated in greater detail. Therefore, it requires more elaboration about these two types of feedback experienced by Indonesian students. Based on previous research, the current study employed both PE and AWE to examine their effects and utility in EFL English composition classes in Indonesia, as well as to determine whether students' opinions of these two types of evaluation changed over time. Method This research employed qualitative research with a case study design because as Ary, et al. (2015) stated a case study is appropriate for research aimed to find a detailed description and understanding of a case in one particular group. In this study, 20 Indonesian university students majoring in English language education who have completed 16 weeks of English writing instruction were chosen. During those 16 weeks, this group was required by their instructor to receive both peer and Grammarly feedback on their essays. Therefore, in this study, they were investigated to find out their preference for peer feedback or AWE to evaluate their essay. For data collection, questionnaires and interviews were administered to the class. The questionnaires were adapted from (Lai, 2010) with minor modifications to investigate the frequency with which students used feedback to revise their drafts for specific types of revision. In Lai (2010), the types of revision was adopted from My Access while in this research the types of feedback were adopted from Grammarly. Responses to the items in this LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 2, October 2022, pp. 461-473 466 questionnaire were to be given according to a 5-point scale: ‘Seldom, Not often, Sometimes, Often, Always’. Aside from the surveys, an individual interview with open-ended questions was undertaken to get particular remarks from the students on these two writing assignments. Three students were chosen by the lecturer to check the data from the questionnaire. The collected data were then analyzed using two methods: frequency count for quantitative data on the frequency with which students used Grammarly and PE feedback, and thematic content analysis for qualitative data on students' preference for AWE and PE feedback. The researchers, who were also instructors of English composition, compiled the data and categorized the comments. In addition, member checks were conducted to ensure the validity and dependability of the data to be described and to determine whether the results of the questionnaire and interview matched or did not match. Findings and Discussion The objective of this study was to find out the EFL Indonesian students’ preference for the feedback given by Grammarly and peers as the means of evaluating their essays. The findings are categorized into two quantitative and qualitative: first, the students’ frequency of using feedback from Grammarly and peers to revise their essays; second, the students’ preference and perspective on Grammarly and peers to evaluate their essays. Both of the findings are described and discussed below: Frequency in Using Feedback from Grammarly and Peer Evaluation The frequency with which students used feedback from Grammarly and peers was investigated to see the extent to which these two forms of evaluation were used differently. The results were then displayed in chart (figure 1) and tabular (table 1) form based on the total frequency count for each type of evaluation. Figure 1. Students’ frequency in using feedback from Grammarly and Peers From the data above, it can be noted that the 20 students generally reported positive impressions about these two sources of writing evaluation, with 57 percent of students occasionally using Grammarly comments to rewrite their essays and 60 percent frequently using peer feedback. Furthermore, the frequency of the types of revisions used most often by students when they receive feedback from Grammarly and Peers can be seen as follows: 57% 60% Grammarly Peer LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 2, October 2022, pp. 461-473 467 Table 1. Types of revision and frequency in Grammarly and peer evaluation No Items Evaluation n Frequency (F) 1 Correctness (CR) Grammarly 20 61% Peers 20 62% 2 Clarity (CL) Grammarly 20 59% Peers 20 64% 3 Engagement (EN) Grammarly 20 45% Peers 20 66% 4 Delivery (DL) Grammarly 20 54% Peers 20 64% Table 1 displays the four fundamental types of revision received by EFL college students from Grammarly and PE. According to the frequency (F), the most popular revision frequency in Grammarly was (1) CR, followed by (2) CL, (3) DL, and (4) EN. Throughout their revision, these students followed Grammarly input on CR the most frequently, but EN the least. Contrary to the previous ranking, these students followed peer critique for revision on EN the most, but on CR the least. The revision frequency of peer feedback was as follows: (1) EN, (2) DL, (3) CL, and (4) CR. Furthermore, higher mean PE scores suggested a much greater frequency of students’ reviewing with peer feedback. They used Grammarly much less frequently to revise their writing. These results complement the findings of Lai (2010), who reported significant differences (p 0.01) in the frequency with which students revised their essays with the assistance of peer feedback versus AWE (My Access). However, different from this study, Lai (2010), found that the types of frequency in his research were content and development (CD), focus and meaning (FM), organisation (OR), language use and style (LU), and mechanics and convention (MC) for My Access and MC, LU, CD, OR, and FM for peer feedback. In addition, the most recent research conducted by Shang (2022) revealed that correctness (CR) and clarity (CL) were the students' top two objectives when using AWE comments to evaluate their essay. According to the AWE feedback evaluation, their grammatical accuracy has improved. Preference in Incorporating Feedback from Grammarly and Peer Evaluation Students’ preference for Grammarly or peer evaluation to evaluate their essays was investigated based on the analysis of data found in the questionnaire and interview. After the initial information was found in the questionnaire, the interview questions were designed to find deeper information. Eventually, the reasons for their preferences were then described in more detail. The findings of a statistical analysis of students' perceptions of Grammarly and peer review are shown in Table 2 below. Item 1, 2, 4, 6, and 10 elicited statistically varied replies from these students. On the basis of the mean scores, it is possible to conclude that students perceived their peers as a more authentic audience (Item 1) and greatly valued peer feedback (Item 2). However, they preferred using Grammarly during the writing process (Item 4), but they felt more confident about their writing after receiving peer feedback (Item 6). Consequently, it was reasonable for them to anticipate an increase in PE activities the following semester (Item 10). LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 2, October 2022, pp. 461-473 468 Table 2. Students’ perception towards Grammarly and Peer Evaluation No Items Evaluation n Mean 1 I regard (Grammarly/Peer) as real audience Grammarly 22 13.6 Peers 22 15.6 2 I highly value the comments from (Grammarly/Peer) on my writing Grammarly 22 15 Peers 22 16.4 3 I adopt comments from (Grammarly/Peer) for revision Grammarly 22 15 Peers 22 15.2 4 I like writing with (Grammarly/Peer) Grammarly 22 15.2 Peers 22 14 5 I revise my writing more when I use (Grammarly/Peer) Grammarly 22 14.8 Peers 22 14.2 6 Writing with (Grammarly/Peer) has increased my confidence in my writing. Grammarly 22 15.4 Peers 22 14.2 7 The essay scores (Grammarly/Peer) gives are fair. Grammarly 22 13.8 Peers 22 14.4 8 I feel (Grammarly/Peer) won’t avoid giving negative feedback for fear of hurting the writer. Grammarly 22 13.4 Peers 22 13.4 9 I enjoy (Grammarly/Peer) activities during this semester. Grammarly 22 13.8 Peers 22 13.8 10 I hope my teacher in writing class will continue peer revision activities next semester. Grammarly 22 14 Peers 22 15 Based on the aforementioned questionnaire results, the researchers found that there were three. Based on the aforementioned survey results, the researchers determined that there were three primary reasons why students preferred their essays to be evaluated by their peers rather than by AWE, which can be described as follows: Theme One: Real Audiences The first reason why EFL learners in Indonesia chose PE over AWE is that they view their classmates as authentic audiences, whereas Grammarly is merely a tool. This outcome backed social constructivism (D. et al., 1979; Liu & Matthews, 2005). Peer scaffolding occurred when students worked in pairs (Levine et al., 2012; O’Neill & Russell, 2019; Storch, 2002), and peer evaluation increased interaction and co-construction of knowledge. In contrast, students in AWE's virtual classroom were exposed to dehumanizing training with minimal peer contact. As seen by the students' self-reflections (Table 2), peers were perceived as more authentic audiences than computers. Peer reviews were advantageous because they promoted interactive social learning and raised audience awareness. This concept is also reinforced by the interview results listed below: For me, peers are the real audiences with whom I can communicate and discuss my reviewed essays. Meanwhile, Grammarly is only a tool managed by a machine to check general mistakes in my writing. I also cannot ask for further information about the given feedback. It is just me who accepts or denies the feedback (Excerpt 1, interview). LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 2, October 2022, pp. 461-473 469 This finding is also supported by the frequency with which students utilize feedback from PE and AWE, as seen in Table 1. This summary reveals that around 13 pupils commonly adopted feedback from PE due to its engagement feedback (which makes the writing more interesting and effective). Since then, only nine students have taken Grammarly's advice on how to make their writing more interesting. I believe that in order to make my writing more interesting and effective, I should discuss with the reviewer the best strategy for delivering my writing without confusing the readers. Compared to Grammarly, I do not have a chance to negotiate the purpose of my writing for the application (Excerpt 2, interview). Similarly, Lai (2010) discovered that 22 Taiwanese EFL college students viewed their peers as the true audience, as opposed to My Access (AWE). It is also supported by Fithriani (2019), who found social interaction helped students extend their Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), which at the same time encouraged them to improve their writing skills after providing feedback from peers. Thus, it has been demonstrated that EFL students prefer peer feedback to AWE, as peer feedback is regarded as a genuine audience that may speak with students about their written essays. Theme Two: Peer Comment Values Commentary is deemed valuable if it has a substantial impact on the evaluation process for writing. According to the results of the survey (Table 2), EFL college students in Indonesia place peer feedback above Grammarly. The discrepancy in the mean scores is 1.4 points, which is the second largest in the table. The interview then investigates this circumstance in greater depth to determine the students' motivations. I believe my peers' comments were more valuable because they were not only showing me which part of my writing was incorrect, but they were also attempting to give me a solution on how to fix it. They were also willing to have a discussion with me to choose the best idea to evaluate my essay (Excerpt 3, interview). Different feedback systems may explain why kids prefer PE to AWE, as seen by this condition. In writing studies, direct and indirect feedback mechanisms have been recognized and researched (Chandler, 2003; Ferris, 1997; van Beuningen et al., 2008). The former consisted of recognizing an error and supplying the correct form, whereas the latter consisted of making broad observations without offering a particular solution. According to the frequency with which students used feedback (table 1), three-fifths of the Indonesian EFL learners in this study felt that automated feedback was too generic for revision; they would only use Grammarly to assess the clarity and correctness of their writing. Two-fourths of the students reported that they could not rely on Grammarly to offer feedback on the quality of their writing. This issue was not identified during peer review, during which peers identified writing errors and discussed how to correct them. This conclusion was supported by research showing that students prefer explicit, direct feedback to indirect feedback (Chandler, 2003; van Beuningen et al., 2008). LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 2, October 2022, pp. 461-473 470 Theme Three: Grammarly for Writing Process The strength of computer-generated feedback, including immediate holistic and analytical feedback of Grammarly (Barrot, 2020; Fahmi & Cahyono, 2021; Karlina Ambarwati, 2021; O’Neill & Russell, 2019; Ranalli, 2021; Waer, 2021), could not be overlooked despite the claim that PE was superior to AWE in the current study. It can be seen in the questionnaire result (table 2) on average, students love to write with Grammarly over peers during the writing process. It is also supported by the interview results, as follows: During the writing process, I would like to check my writing on Grammarly first. It is fast and saves time. I also frequently write my essays directly to the Grammarly page so that I can check the grammatical of my writing directly. Writing with peers will be more hassle because I need to concentrate to generate my ideas into writing. Afterwards, I can ask my peers to give me feedback on it (Excerpt 4, Interview). As Barrot (2020) reviews, multiple researchers have discovered that Grammarly facilitates faster feedback from writers. In addition, grammatical input is at the top of the list for essay revisions. Grammarly's comments will greatly reduce the number of grammatical errors (Guo et al., 2021). As shown in Table 1, the two forms of feedback students use to rewrite their essays are Correctness (CR) and Clarity (CL). Delivery (DL) and Engagement (EN) are the final two alternatives. Therefore, it must be acknowledged that bringing about the necessary modifications to Grammarly would be difficult, so we cannot fault AWE for placing second. Although often inaccurate, computer-generated feedback could motivate students and save writing instructors time. As stressed by Matsumura & Hann (2004), in order for student writers to achieve the maximum development in essay writing, it was essential to provide a variety of feedback alternatives. Conclusion Students' perspectives on feedback may significantly influence their writing- related attitudes and behaviors. It is likely that students will not fully commit if they do not perceive the process as meaningful and beneficial. Given this insight, it is critical for teachers to examine students' opinions of their preferences in using PE and Grammarly to analyze their essays, as these perceptions play a significant influence in influencing the efficiency of their implementation. This study revealed that in the setting of EFL in Indonesia, college students exhibited generally positive sentiments toward these two modes of writing evaluation. However, they prefer to use feedback from their peers more to evaluate their essays than Grammarly. The students frequently use feedback from their peers to check the correctness, clarity, engagement, and delivery of their writing. In addition, two main reasons to support their ideas are: first, they consider peers as the real audiences while Grammarly only as a tool; second, the strategy of giving feedback by peers is considered to be more valuable since they give direct feedback to the writers. Therefore, it is recommended that peer feedback is incorporated into the EFL writing instruction more than AWE. In this case, it is Grammarly. However, Grammarly also received positive points as the students like writing with this tool. Therefore, it is believed that the combination of these two feedbacks could make the most progress in essay writing. Therefore, it is suggested for future educators and researchers to examine whether this combination will have a more positive impact on students’ writing LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 2, October 2022, pp. 461-473 471 performance so a more comprehensive framework can be achieved. This study could be replicated with a bigger sample size in order to increase the generalizability of the results. In the future, it would be interesting to do research that compares the perceived benefits of peer feedback and AWE to how they affect student writing. This would help find out if what students think about the benefits of peer feedback and AWE match up with what they actually get out of them. References Ariyanto, M. S. A., Mukminatien, N., & Tresnadewi, S. (2021). College students’ perceptions of an automated writing evaluation as a supplementary feedback tool in a writing class. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, 27(1), 41. https://doi.org/10.17977/um048v27i1p41-51 Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Barrot, J. S. (2020). Integrating technology into ESL/EFL writing through grammarly. RELC Journal, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220966632 Bridgeman, B., Trapani, C., & Attali, Y. (2012). Comparison of human and machine scoring of essays: Differences by gender, ethnicity, and country. Applied Measurement in Education, 25(1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2012.635502 Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267–296. C. P. D. (1979). [Review of L. S. Vygotsky: Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes; Recent trends in Soviet psycholinguistics, by L. S. Vygotsky, M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, E. Souberman, & J. V. Wertsch]. The American Journal of Psychology, 92(1), 166–167. https://doi.org/10.2307/1421493 Dewi, U. (2019). Peer feedback in reviewing essay. SALTeL Journal (Southeast Asia Language Teaching and Learning), 2(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.35307/saltel.v2i2.26 Fahmi, M. A., & Cahyono, B. Y. (2021). EFL students’ perception on the use of Grammarly and teacher feedback. JEES (Journal of English Educators Society), 6(1), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.21070/jees.v6i1.849 Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588049 Fithriani, R. (2018). Cultural influences on students’ perceptions of written feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Foreign Languange Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.18196/ftl.3124 Fithriani, R. (2019). ZPD and the benefits of written feedback in L2 writing: Focusing on students’ perceptions. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 19(1), 63–73. Gao, J., & Ma, S. (2020). Instructor feedback on free writing and automated corrective feedback in drills: Intensity and efficacy. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820915337 Ghufron, M. (2019). Exploring an automated feedback program ‘Grammarly’ and teacher corrective feedback in EFL writing assessment: Modern vs. traditional assessment. Proceedings of the 3rd English Language and Literature https://doi.org/10.17977/um048v27i1p41-51 https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220966632 https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2012.635502 https://doi.org/10.2307/1421493 https://doi.org/10.35307/saltel.v2i2.26 https://doi.org/10.21070/jees.v6i1.849 https://doi.org/10.2307/3588049 https://doi.org/10.18196/ftl.3124 https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820915337 LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 2, October 2022, pp. 461-473 472 International Conference, ELLiC, 27th April 2019, Semarang, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.27-4-2019.2285308 Guo, Q., Feng, R., & Hua, Y. (2021). How effectively can EFL students use automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) in research writing? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 0(0), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1879161 Hassanzadeh, M., & Fotoohnejad, S. (2021). Implementing an automated feedback program for a foreign language writing course: A learner-centric study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(5), 1494–1507. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12587 Hentasmaka, D., & Cahyono, B. Y. (2021). Peer feedback uptakes and outcomes across EFL students’ proficiency levels: A study at tertiary education in Indonesia. International Journal of Instruction, 14(3), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14316a Huisman, B., Saab, N., van den Broek, P., & van Driel, J. (2019). The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: A Meta-Analysis. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 863– 880. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896 Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399 Iswandari, Y., & Jiang, Y. (2020). Peer feedback in college EFL writing: A review of empirical research. LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 23(2), 399–413. https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v23i2.2799 Jiang, L., & Yu, S. (2020). Appropriating automated feedback in L2 writing: Experiences of Chinese EFL student writers. Computer Assisted Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1799824 Jiang, L., Yu, S., & Wang, C. (2020). Second language writing instructors’ feedback practice in response to automated writing evaluation: A sociocultural perspective. System, 93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102302 Karlina Ambarwati, E. (2021). Indonesian university students’ appropriating Grammarly for formative feedback. ELT in Focus, 3(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.35706/eltinfc.v4i1.5216 Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal, 44(4), 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/44.4.294 Lai, Y. H. (2010). Which do students prefer to evaluate their essays: Peers or computer program. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 432– 454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00959.x Levi Altstaedter, L. (2018). Investigating the impact of peer feedback in foreign language writing. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 12(2), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2015.1115052 Levine, G. S., Glenn S., Phipps, A. M., & American Association of University Supervisors, C. (2012). Critical and intercultural theory and language pedagogy. 241. Li, Z. (2021). Teachers in automated writing evaluation (AWE) system-supported ESL writing classes: Perception, implementation, and influence. System, 99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102505 https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.27-4-2019.2285308 https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1879161 https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12587 https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14316a https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399 https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v23i2.2799 https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1799824 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102302 https://doi.org/10.35706/eltinfc.v4i1.5216 https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/44.4.294 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00959.x https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2015.1115052 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102505 LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 2, October 2022, pp. 461-473 473 Liao, H. C. (2016a). Using automated writing evaluation to reduce grammar errors in writing. ELT Journal, 70(3), 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv058 Liao, H. C. (2016b). Enhancing the grammatical accuracy of EFL writing by using an AWE-assisted process approach. System, 62, 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.02.007 Link, S., Mehrzad, M., & Rahimi, M. (2020). Impact of automated writing evaluation on teacher feedback, student revision, and writing improvement. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 0(0), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1743323 Liu, C. H., & Matthews, R. (2005). Vygotsky’s philosophy: Constructivism and its criticisms examined. International Education Journal, 6(3), 386–399. Matsumura, S. & Hann, G. (2004). Anxiety and students' preferred feedback methods in EFL writing. The Modern Language Journal, 88(3), 403–415. Miranty, D., Widiati, U., Cahyono, B. Y., & Sharif, T. I. S. T. (2022). The effectiveness of using Grammarly in teaching writing among Indonesian undergraduate EFL students. Proceedings of the International Seminar on Language, Education, and Culture (ISoLEC 2021), 612(ISoLEC), 41–45. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.211212.008 O’Neill, R., & Russell, A. M. T. (2019). Stop! grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Grammarly. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1), 42–56. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3795 Ranalli, J. (2021). L2 student engagement with automated feedback on writing: Potential for learning and issues of trust. Journal of Second Language Writing, 52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100816 Shang, H. F. (2022). Exploring online peer feedback and automated corrective feedback on EFL writing performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(1), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1629601 Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00179 Su, W., & Huang, A. (2021). More enjoyable to give or to receive? Exploring students’ emotional status in their peer feedback of academic writing. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 0(0), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.2004389 van Beuningen, C., de Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156(December), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.2143/itl.156.0.2034439 Vardi, I. (2009). The relationship between feedback and change in tertiary student writing in the disciplines. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(3), 350–361. http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/ Waer, H. (2021). The effect of integrating automated writing evaluation on EFL writing apprehension and grammatical knowledge. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2021.1914062 Wang, J., & Brown, M. S. (2008). Automated essay scoring versus human scoring: A correlational study. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 310–325. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv058 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.02.007 https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1743323 https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.211212.008 https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3795 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100816 https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1629601 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00179 https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.2004389 https://doi.org/10.2143/itl.156.0.2034439 http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/ https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2021.1914062