Grammarly: Help or hindrance? Academic learning advisors’ perceptions of an online grammar checker

O'Neill, R ORCiD: 0000-0001-6345-8375; Russell, AM ORCiD: 0000-0002-3685-7220Online technology has been advocated as a means of providing students with the grammatical support needed to succeed in higher education without com-promising the mission of university Academic Learning Centres (ALCs). Re-cent research into automated feedback technology in Australian tertiary insti-tutions has focused on the grammar checker, Grammarly. This study builds on O’Neill and Russell’s (2019) analysis of student perceptions’ of Grammarly at one multi-campus Australian university by evaluating Academic Learning Advisors’ (ALAs) perceptions of Grammarly and comparing its performance with the traditional feedback method using Word. A mixed method design was applied with three advisors surveyed on the perceived usefulness of incorpo-rating Grammarly feedback into student assessments (n = 51), and another three advisors surveyed on providing grammar feedback on assignments using Word (n = 25). Statistical analysis showed that the advisors using Grammarly agreed with all 15 statements about the effectiveness of their grammar instruc-tion, and for 13 of these statements, their mean scores were significantly higher than those of advisors not using Grammarly. The effect sizes for these comparisons indicated that the differences were quite large, suggesting that, while the advisors agreed that Grammarly and non-Grammarly feedback were useful to the students, Grammarly feedback was perceived to be more useful. Qualitative analysis explained the responses to Grammarly in terms of posi-tive implications for student and ALA practice, whilst also identifying issues the advisors had with the program. As a result of these reservations, it is rec-ommended that Grammarly be used as a feedback tool for assignments in con-junction with an ALA