The Students’ Perception On Writing Tools Application For Essay Writing Class

Lestari Setyowati* -  Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia
Fahmi Rizky Abiyasa -  Universitas PGRI Wiranegara, Indonesia
Ana Ahsana El-Sulukiyyah -  Universitas PGRI Wiranegara, Indonesia
Nova - Ariani -  Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia

DOI : 10.24269/dpp.v10i1.4446

The purpose of this study is to describe the students’ opinion 1) about writing in general, 2) the type of writing tools application used by the students in writing, 3) the most preferable writing tools application.  The research uses a cross-section design. In this design, quantitative data collection and analysis are followed by qualitative data collection and analysis before the results are interpreted.  The subject of this research was 32 fourth-semester students in English Education Study Program, Faculty of Pedagogy and Psychology of the University of PGRI Wiranegara, Pasuruan. The instruments used in this study were a questionnaire, interview, and documentation. The result reveals that half of the participants feel writing is difficult, while the other half feel writing is easy. Almost half of the students (47%) state that language/grammar is the most difficult element in writing. The types of writing tool applications used by the students are Grammarly (55%), U_Dictionary (24%), and Goggle Translate (21%). These writing tools help the students to solve the writing problems, such as in language, vocabulary, idea development, and drafting. The students think that writing tools application is practical and timesaving (74%). The students also believe that the writing tools application is beneficial and helpful to improve the quality of their essay. Interestingly, the students confess that they are uncertain if they can write well without writing tools application. Some of them feel that they cannot write well without the help of the application. The implication of the finding is discussed. 

application, essay, perception, writing tools
  1. M. 2005. An instructional model for web-based e-learning education with a blended learning process approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36 (2), 217–235
  2. Ary, Donald. 2006. Introduction to Research in Education. Canada: Wadsworth
  3. Azah, Dewi Nuroh 2019. The Effectiveness Of Grammarly Checker Toward Student'a Writing Quality Of The Fourth Semester Of English Departement At Iain Tulungagung. Thesis. English Education Department. Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teacher Training. State Islamic Institute (IAIN) of Tulungagung.
  4. Creswell, J. 2012. Educational Research. Boston: Pearson Education
  5. Gilakjani, A.P. 2017. A Review of the Literature on the Integration of Technology into the Learning and Teaching of English Language Skills International Journal of English Linguistics, 7 (5), 95-106. doi:
  6. Genclter, B. 2015. How does technology affect language learning process at an earlyage? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 311 - 316. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.552
  7. Grabe, M., &Grabe, C. 2007. Integrating technology for meaningful learning (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
  8. Grami, G. 2020. An Evaluation of Online and Automated English Writing Assistants: Collocations and Idioms Checkers. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(4), 218-226.
  9. Harmer, Jeremy. 2002. The Practice of English Language Teaching 3rd Edition. Essex: Longman
  10. Hanafizadeh, Payam., Gandchi, Samira.,&Asgarimehr, Masoud. 2017. Impact of Information Technology on Lifestyle: A Literature Review and Classification. International Journal of Virtual Communities and Social Networking. 9 (2): 1-4. doi:10.4018/ijvcsn.2017040101
  11. Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. 2006. Using Mixed-Methods Sequential Explanatory Design: From Theory to Practice. Field Methods. Research Methods and Evaluation. 18 (1), 3-20.
  12. Kavanoz, S. 2017. An Explanatory Mixed Method Study On Pre-Service Language Teachers’ Communication Apprehension Towards Their Instructors. International Journal of Languages’ Education. 5 (1), 631-650.
  13. Kroll, B. 1990. Second Language Writing: Research Insights for Classroom. Cambridge: CUP.
  14. Kumala, B. P., Aimah, S., & Ifadah, M. (2018, July). An Analysis of Grammatical Errors on Students' Writing. In English Language and Literature International Conference (ELLiC) Proceedings. 2, 144-149.
  15. Lee, H.K. 2004. A comparative study of ESL writers' performance in a paper-based and a computer-delivered writing test. Assessing Writing, 9, 4–26.
  16. Lee, S. M. 2020. The impact of using machine translation on EFL students' Writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(3), 157-175.
  17. Li, Y. 2007. The application of computers in English writing teaching and learning. Journal of Hubei Normal University, 27(5), 139–141.
  18. Liao, H.-C. 2016. Enhancing the grammatical accuracy of EFL writing by using an AWE-assisted process approach. System, 62, 77–92.
  19. Mingying Zheng. 2015. Conceptualization Of Cross-Sectional Mixed Methods Studies In Health Science: A Methodological Review Mingying Zheng University of Nebraska-Lincoln. International Journal of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods.3 (2) 66-87.
  20. Nunan, David. 2003. Practical English Language Teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
  21. Parra G., L., & Calero S., X. 2019. Automated Writing Evaluation Tools in the Improvement of the Writing Skill. International Journal of Instruction, 12(2), 209-226.
  22. Raimes, A. 1983. Technique in teaching writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
  23. Rass, R. A. 2001. Integrating Reading and Writing for Effective Language Teaching. Forum, 39 (1).
  24. Setia, M. S. 2016. Methodology series module 3: Cross-sectional studies. Indian Journal of Dermatology. 61(3):261-4.
  25. Setyowati, L., Sukmawan, S., Latief, M.A. 2017.Solving the Students’ Problems in Writing Argumentative Essay through the Provision of Planning. CELT, 17 (1), 86-102.
  26. Setyowati, L. & Sukmawan, S. 2019. Authentic Materials For Teaching Writing: A Critical Look. International Journal of Language Education, 3(2), 68 - 77.
  27. Williams, C., & Beam, S. 2019. Technology and writing: Review of research. Computers & Education, 128, 227-242.
  28. Wang, Y.-J., Shang, H.-F., & Briody, P. 2013. Exploring the impact of using automated writing evaluation in English as a foreign language university students' writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26 (3), 234–257. 09588221.2012.655300 .
  29. Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. 2008. Automated Writing Assessment in the classroom. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 3(1), 22–36. 01771580 .
  30. Williams, C., & Beam, S. 2019. Technology and writing: Review of research. Computers & Education. 128, 227-242.

Full Text:
Article Info
Submitted: 2021-12-10
Published: 2022-01-31
Section: Artikel
Article Statistics: