This study investigated the influence of using machine translation (MT) for second language (L2) writing on the subsequent L2 writing produced without the use of MT. A total of 130 Korean university learners of L2 English at three proficiency levels generated English essays without utilizing MT during the first and last classes of a general English course. Between these two occasions of writing, they wrote in English employing MT on four occasions. The first and final essays were compared via syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency (CALF) measures. The learners were also asked about their attitudes toward and use of MT. The results indicated that MT use affected L2 writing differently according to proficiency levels. The advanced learners and the low-intermediate learners, who represented the lowest-level learners in this study, improved more in terms of lexical complexity and syntactic complexity, respectively. The high-intermediate learners benefited less than those in the other two proficiency groups. Regarding accuracy and fluency, the learners across the proficiency levels produced higher quality writing. Concerning their attitudes toward MT, the lower their proficiency levels were, the more positive their attitudes were.
AhnS.ChungE.S. (2020). Students’ perceptions of the use of online machine translation in L2 writing. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 23(2), 10–35.
2.
AnsarifarA.ShahriariH.PishghadamR. (2018). Phrasal complexity in academic writing: A comparison of abstracts written by graduate students and expert writers in applied linguistics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 31, 58–71.
3.
AtaM.DebreliE. (2021). Machine translation in the language classroom: Turkish EFL learners’ and instructors’ perceptions and use. IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education, 9(4), 103–122.
4.
BaileyD.R.AlmusharrafN.A. (2022). A structural equation model of second language writing strategies and their influence on anxiety, proficiency, and perceived benefits with online writing. Education and Information Technologies, 27(8), 10497–10516.
5.
BasterrecheaM.WeinertR. (2017). Examining the concept of subordination in spoken L1 and L2 English: The case of if-clauses. TESOL Quarterly, 51(4), 897–919.
6.
BosmanA.M.T.JanssenM. (2017). Differential relationships between language skills and working memory in Turkish–Dutch and native-Dutch first-graders from low-income families. Reading and Writing, 30(9), 1945–1964.
7.
BowkerL.CiroJ.B. (2019). Machine translation and global research: Towards improved machine translation literacy in the scholarly community. Emerald Publishing.
8.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
9.
BriggsN. (2018). Neural machine translation tools in the language learning classroom: Students’ use, perceptions, and analyses. The JALT CALL Journal, 14(1), 3–24.
10.
ButlerD. B. (2015). Developing international EFL/ESL scholarly writers. Walter de Gruyter.
11.
CancinoM.PanesJ. (2021). The impact of Google Translate on L2 writing quality measures: Evidence from Chilean EFL high school learners. System, 98, 102464.
12.
ChengX.ZhangL.J. (2022). Teachers helping EFL students improve their writing through written feedback: The case of native and non-native English-speaking teachers’ beliefs. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 804313.
13.
ChonY. V.ShinD.KimG. E. (2021). Comparing L2 learners’ writing against parallel machine-translated texts: Raters’ assessment, linguistic complexity and errors. System, 96, 102408.
14.
ChunD.M. (2017). Research methods for investigating technology for language and culture learning. In ChapelleC.A.SauroS. (Eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 393–408). Wiley.
15.
ChungE.S.AhnS. (2022): The effect of using machine translation on linguistic features in L2 writing across proficiency levels and text genres. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(9), 2239–2264.
16.
ChungI.-F. (2013). Crammed to learn English: What are learners’ motivation and approach?Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(4), 585–592.
17.
CliffordJ.MerschelL.MunnéJ. (2013). Surveying the landscape: What is the role of machine translation in language learning?@tic.Revista d’Innovació Educativa, 10, 108–121.
18.
CoyleY.RocadeLariosJ. (2014). Exploring the role played by error correction and models on children’s reported noticing and output production in a L2 writing task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(3), 451–485.
19.
DavinK.J. (2024). The issue: New technologies and language education. Modern Language Journal, 108(2), 513–514.
20.
DeygersB. (2018). How institutional and interpersonal variables impact international L2 students’ language gains at university. System, 76, 91–102.
21.
DucarC.SchocketD.H. (2018). Machine translation and the L2 classroom: Pedagogical solutions for making peace with Google translate. Foreign Language Annals, 51(4), 779–795.
22.
DuszaD.G. (2023). Machine translation in the writing process: Pedagogy, plagiarism, policy, and procedures. In EatonS.E. (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 1–23). Springer.
23.
EcksteinG.FerrisD. (2018). Comparing L1 and L2 texts and writers in first-year composition. TESOL Quarterly, 52(1), 137–162.
El MajidiA.De GraaffR.JanssenD. (2020). Debate as L2 pedagogy: The effects of debating on writing development in secondary education. Modern Language Journal, 104(4), 804–821.
26.
Enríquez RaídoV.AustermühlF.Sánchez TorrónM. (2020). Computer-assisted L2 learning and translation (CAL2T). In LaviosaS.González-DaviesM. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation and education (pp. 278–299). Routledge.
27.
EvansN. W.HartshornK. J.CoxT. L.MartindeJelT. (2014). Measuring written linguistic accuracy with weighted clause ratios: A question of validity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 24, 33–50.
28.
FerrisD.R. (2009). Teaching college writing to diverse student populations. The University of Michigan Press.
29.
FosterP.WigglesworthG. (2016). Capturing accuracy in second language performance: The case for a weighted clause ratio. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 98–116.
30.
FredholmK. (2015). Online translation use in Spanish as a foreign language essay writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada, 18, 7–24.
31.
GarciaI.PenaM.I. (2011). Machine translation-assisted language learning: Writing for beginners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(5), 471–487.
32.
Godwin-JonesR. (2015). Contributing, creating, curating: Digital literacies for language learners. Language Learning & Technology, 19(3), 8–20.
33.
GordonK. (2016). High proficiency across two languages is related to better mental state reasoning for bilingual children. Journal of Child Language, 43(2), 407–424.
34.
GrabeW. (2003). Reading and writing relations: Second language perspectives on research and practice. In KrollB. (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 242–262). Cambridge University Press.
35.
GrovesM.MundtK. (2021). A ghostwriter in the machine? Attitudes of academic staff towards machine translation use in Internationalised Higher Education. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 50, 100957.
36.
HayashiY. (2019). Investigating effects of working memory training on foreign language development. Modern Language Journal, 103(3), 665–685.
37.
HinkelE. (2015). Effective curriculum for teaching L2 writing: Principles and techniques. Routledge.
38.
HuangL.-S. (2011). Corpus-aided language learning. ELT Journal, 65(4), 481–484.
39.
HylandK.HylandF. (2019). Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing. In HylandK.HylandF. (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (2nd ed., pp. 1–22). Cambridge University Press.
40.
JiangH.ZhangC.XinZ.HuangX.LiC.TaiY. (2022). Transfer learning based on lexical constraint mechanism in low-resource machine translation. Computers and Electrical Engineering, 100, 107856.
41.
JohnsonM.D. (2022). Task complexity studies. In ManchónR.M.PolioC. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp. 52–64). Routledge.
42.
JohnsonM.D.TabariM.A. (2023). Planning in L2 writing: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. System, 118, 103152.
43.
JolleyJ.R.MaimoneL. (2015). Free online machine translation: Use and perceptions by Spanish students and instructors. In MoellerA.K. (Ed.), Learn languages, explore cultures, transform lives (pp. 181–200). Central States Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
44.
JuffsA.HarringtonM. (2011). Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language Teaching, 44(2), 137–166.
45.
KangE.HanZ. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18.
46.
KhairallahM.AdraO. (2025). The multifaceted function of rubrics as formative assessment tools: A classroom-based action research in an L2 writing context. Language Teaching Research, 29(5), 2263–2280.
47.
KirchhoffP. (2024). Machine translation in English language teaching. ELT Journal, 78(4), 393–400.
48.
KlimovaB. (2025). Use of machine translation in foreign language education. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 12(1), 2491183.
49.
KormosJ. (2023). The role of cognitive factors in second language writing and writing to learn a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 45(3), 622–646.
50.
KüblerN.MestivierA.PecmanM. (2022). Using comparable corpora for translating and post-editing complex noun phrases in specialized texts: Insights for English-to-French specialized translation. In GrangerS.LeferM.-A. (Eds.), Extending the scope of corpus-based translation studies (pp. 237–266). Bloomsbury.
51.
KyleK.CrossleyS.VerspoorM. (2021). Measuring longitudinal writing development using indices of syntactic complexity and sophistication. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 43(4), 781–812.
52.
LarssonT.KaatariH. (2020). Syntactic complexity across registers: Investigating (in)formality in second-language writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 45, 100850.
53.
LaviosaS. (2012). Corpora and translation studies. In HylandK.HuatC. M.HandfordM. (Eds.), Corpus applications in applied linguistics (pp. 67–83). Continuum.
54.
LeeC.GeH.ChungE. (2021). What linguistic features distinguish and predict L2 writing quality?: A study of examination scripts written by adolescent Chinese learners of English in Hong Kong. System, 97, 102461.
55.
LeeI. (2019). Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more. Language Teaching, 52(4), 524–536.
56.
LeeS.-M. (2020). The impact of using machine translation on EFL students’ writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(3), 157–175.
57.
LeeS.-M. (2022a). An investigation of machine translation output quality and the influencing factors of source texts. ReCALL, 34(1), 81–94.
58.
LeeS.-M. (2022b). Different effects of machine translation on L2 revisions across students’ L2 writing proficiency levels. Language Learning & Technology, 26(1), 1–21.
59.
LeeS.-M.BriggsN. (2021). Effects of using machine translation to mediate the revision process of Korean University students’ academic writing. ReCALL, 33(1), 18–33.
60.
LeeY.-J. (2021). Still taboo? Using machine translation for low-level EFL writers. ELT Journal, 75(4), 432–441.
61.
LempertH. (2016). Late L2ers can acquire grammatical features that do not occur in their L1: Evidence from the effect of animacy on verb agreement in L1 Chinese. Memory & Cognition, 44(4), 538–553.
62.
LiD.ZhangL. (2022). Contextualizing feedback in L2 writing: The role of teacher scaffolding. Language Awareness, 31(3), 328–350.
63.
LinckJ.A.WeissD.J. (2015). Can working memory and inhibitory control predict second language learning in the classroom?Sage Open, 5(4), 1–11.
64.
LlosaL.MaloneM.E. (2019). Comparability of students’ writing performance on TOEFL iBT and in required university writing courses. Language Testing, 36(2), 235–263.
65.
LuX. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474–496.
66.
LuX. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 36–62.
67.
LuX. (2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 190–208.
68.
LuY. (2015). Working memory, cognitive resources and L2 writing performance. In WenZ.Borges MotaM.McNeillA. (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 175–188). Multilingual Matters.
69.
LuquinM.García MayoM.P. (2021). Exploring the use of models as a written corrective feedback technique among EFL children, System, 98, 102465.
70.
ManchónR.M.WilliamsJ. (2016). L2 writing and SLA studies. In ManchónR.M.MatsudaP.K. (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 567–586). De Gruyter Mouton.
71.
MayesP. (2015). Becoming an ‘autonomous writer’: Epistemic stance displays and membership categorization in the writing conference. Discourse Studies, 17(6), 752–769.
72.
MichelM.RévészA.LuX.KourtaliN.-E.LeeM.BorgesL. (2020). Investigating L2 writing processes across independent and integrated tasks: A mixed-methods study. Second Language Research, 36(3), 307–334.
73.
MujtabaS.M.ParkashR.ReynoldsB.L. (2022). The effects of language proficiency and online translator training on second language writing complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexical complexity. Computer Assisted Language Learning Electronic Journal (CALL-EJ), 23(1), 150–167.
74.
MujtabaS.M.ZhangT.MaoS.AhmedN. (2025). Model text as corrective feedback in L2 writing: The role of working memory and vocabulary size. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 63(4), 2409–2440.
75.
MunkovaD.MunkM.WelnitzovaK.JakabovicovaJ. (2021). Product and process analysis of machine translation into the inflectional language. Sage Open, 11(4), 1–13.
76.
MurtisariE.T.KristiantoA.K.BonarG. (2024). Self-directed use of machine translation among language learners: Does it lead to disruptive L2 avoidance?Foreign Language Annals, 57(4), 1094–1114.
77.
NiñoA. (2020). Exploring the use of online machine translation for independent language learning. Research in Learning Technology, 28, 1–32.
78.
NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578.
79.
ParkH.I.SolonM.Dehghan-ChakeshtoriM.GhanbarH. (2022). Proficiency reporting practices in research on second language acquisition: Have we made any progress?Language Learning, 72(1), 198–236.
80.
PattonM.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Sage.
81.
PlonskyL. (2013). Study quality in SLA: An assessment of designs, analyses, and reporting practices in quantitative L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(4), 655–687.
82.
PolioC.SheaM.C. (2014). An investigation into current measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 10–27.
83.
PrenticeF.M.KindenC.E. (2018). Paraphrasing tools, language translation tools and plagiarism: An exploratory study. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 14, 11.
84.
PrichardC.AtkinsA. (2024). Examining readers' use of machine translation through eye tracking, System, 125, 103415.
85.
ReulandE. (2011). What’s nominal in nominalizations?Lingua, 121(7), 1283–1296.
86.
SasakiM. (2004). A multiple-data analysis of the 3.5-year development of EFL student writers. Language Learning, 54(3), 525–582.
87.
SasakiM.MizumotoA.MatsudaP. (2024). Machine translation as a form of feedback on L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 63(4), 2301–2326.
88.
Siyanova-ChanturiaA. (2015). Collocation in beginner learner writing: A longitudinal study. System, 53, 148–160.
89.
SkehanP.FosterP. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185–211.
90.
StaplesS.PicoralA.NovikovA.Sommer-FariasB. (2022). Directions of future use of using existing corpora in the study of L2 writing. In ManchónR. M.PolioC. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp. 356–369). Routledge.
91.
StapletonP.LeungB.K.K. (2019). Assessing the accuracy and teachers’ impressions of Google Translate: A study of primary L2 writers in Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes, 56, 18–34.
92.
SunQ.ZhangL.J. (2023). Examining the effects of English as a foreign language student-writers’ metacognitive experiences on their writing performance. Current Psychology, 42, 23743–23758.
93.
TabariM.A. (2021). Task preparedness and L2 written production: Investigating effects of planning modes on L2 learners’ focus of attention and output. Journal of Second Language Writing, 52, 100814.
94.
TabariM.A.KhezrlouS.GhanbarH. (2024). Task repetition versus task rehearsal: Understanding effects of task-readiness factors and elemental genres on L2 writing task performance. Language Teaching Research.
95.
ThewissenJ. (2013). Capturing L2 accuracy developmental patterns: Insights from an error-tagged EFL learner corpus. Modern Language Journal, 97(S1), 77–101.
96.
ThorneS.FischerI.LuX. (2012). The semiotic ecology and linguistic complexity of an online game world. ReCALL, 24(3), 279–301.
97.
TsaiS.-C. (2019). Using Google Translate in EFL drafts: A preliminary investigation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(5–6), 510–526.
98.
TurnerE. (2021). Dialogic feedback and literary disciplinary knowledge in L2 writing instruction: How attitude to feedback influences academic achievement. Research Papers in Education, 38(1), 21–44.
99.
ÜstünbaşÜ. (2025). Free online machine translation in second language learning: Bridging the divide between reality and thoughts. RELC Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882251333178
100.
ValijärviR.-L.TarsolyE. (2019). ‘Language students as critical users of Google Translate’: Pitfalls and possibilities. Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 12(1), 61–74.
101.
VallejosC.SanzC. (2022). L2 writing in study-abroad contexts. In ManchónR.M.PolioC. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp. 254–267). Routledge.
102.
Van PraagB.SanchezH.S. (2015). Mobile technology in second language classrooms: Insights into its uses, pedagogical implications, and teacher beliefs. ReCALL, 27(3), 288–303.
103.
VieiraL.N.O’SullivanC.ZhangX.O’HaganM. (2022). Machine translation in society: Insights from UK users. Language Resources & Evaluation, 57, 893–914.
104.
WangJ.KeX. (2022). Integrating machine translation into EFL writing instruction: Process, product and perception. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 13(1), 125–137.
105.
WangY.TaoS. (2020). The dynamic co-development of linguistic and discourse-semantic complexity in advanced L2 writing. In FogalG.G.VerspoorM.H. (Eds.), Complex dynamic systems theory and L2 writing development (pp. 49–78). John Benjamins.
106.
WhiteK.D.HeidrichE. (2013). Our policies, their text: German language students’ strategies with and beliefs about web-based machine translation. Die Unterrichtspraxis, 46(2), 230–250.
107.
WhiteM.J. (2021). Phonological working memory and non-verbal complex working memory as predictors of future English outcomes in young ELLs. International Journal of Bilingualism, 25(1), 318–337.
108.
Wolfe-QuinteroK.InagakiS.KimH.Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. University of Hawaii Press.
109.
WongT.LeeJ. (2016). Corpus-based learning of Cantonese for Mandarin speakers. ReCALL, 28(2), 187–206.
110.
XuJ. (2021). Google Translate for writing in a Japanese class: What students do and think. Journal of the National Council of Less Commonly Taught Languages, 30, 136–182.
111.
YamadaM. (2019). Language learners and non-professional translators as users. In O’HaganM. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of translation and technology (pp. 183–199). Routledge.
112.
YangY.WeiX.LiP.ZhaiX. (2023). Assessing the effectiveness of machine translation in the Chinese EFL writing context: A replication of Lee (202). ReCALL, 35(2), 211–224.
113.
YoonH.-J.PolioC. (2017). The linguistic development of students of English as a second language in two written genres. TESOL Quarterly, 51(2), 275–301.
114.
YuS. (2021). Feedback-giving practice for L2 writing teachers: Friend or foe?Journal of Second Language Writing, 52, 100798.
115.
YuasaM.TakeuchiO. (2025). EFL students’ engagement in machine translation-assisted writing: Scale development and validation. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 4(3), 100260.
116.
ZhangC. (2013). Effect of instruction on ESL students’ synthesis writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(1), 51–67.
117.
ZhangE.D.YuS. (2024). Understanding L2 student writers’ self-assessment in digital multimodal composing: A process-oriented approach. System, 121, 103219.
118.
ZhangH.JiangY.YangJ. (2020). Investigating the influence of different L2 proficiency measures on research results. Sage Open, 10(2), 1–20.
119.
ZhengY. (2016). The complex, dynamic development of L2 lexical use: A longitudinal study on Chinese learners of English. System, 56, 40–53.
120.
ZhouS.A.HiverP. (2022). The effect of self-regulated writing strategies on students’ L2 writing engagement and disengagement behaviors. System, 106, 102768.
121.
ZhouS.A.ZhaoS.GrovesM. (2022). Towards a digital bilingualism? Students’ use of machine translation in international higher education. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 60, 101193.
