Abstrak
*ABSTRACT* This study aims to examine the use of Grammarly in academic writing through a thematic literature review of scholarly studies published between 2021 and 2026. The study focuses on identifying the key themes emerging from previous research, examining the benefits and limitations of Grammarly in academic writing, and analyzing the research methodologies employed in the existing literature. This study employed a qualitative thematic literature review approach. Relevant scholarly articles were collected and analyzed thematically to identify recurring patterns, relationships, and findings regarding the use of Grammarly in academic writing. The findings revealed four major themes: (1) the effectiveness of Grammarly in improving academic writing quality, (2) students’ perceptions toward the use of Grammarly, (3) the role of Grammarly within the writing process, and (4) the limitations and challenges associated with its use. The reviewed studies indicate that Grammarly is generally perceived as an accessible, efficient, and useful tool for detecting and correcting surface-level writing errors. It also contributes to students’ writing confidence, grammatical awareness, and efficiency during the proofreading and revision processes. However, Grammarly has limitations in addressing macro-level aspects of writing, such as idea development, argumentation, organization, and coherence. In addition, the tool may occasionally provide inaccurate feedback, including in its premium version, and excessive reliance on automated suggestions may hinder the development of students’ independent editing skills. The review also found that most previous studies employed descriptive qualitative and mixed-methods approaches, primarily using questionnaires, interviews, and perception-based surveys, while relatively few employed experimental or quasi-experimental designs. Therefore, the existing evidence tends to reflect users’ perceptions rather than objectively measured improvements in writing quality. Overall, Grammarly functions effectively as a supplementary automated writing support tool at the mechanical level, but it should not replace instructor or peer feedback. Its effective use requires pedagogical guidance and integration with explicit instruction in higher-order writing skills.