In my courses, I look at the terminal objectives and decide on a final writing assignment that would allow me to both measure learning and achievement of the writing objectives of the course. Once I have a clear picture of the final writing assignment and the standard I want to set, I work out the target structures students will need to master in order to succeed at that final writing task. Then, I build my course backward, creating writing assignments and activities that will up to that final assignment. 

If the final writing task is a collaborative, complex, workplace-related narrative task, I work out a series of sections of the story (description of the company, the main character, the character’s routine, a dream that reveals what the character desires or fears, a bad day, a performance review interview with the boss, and a meeting in which someone gets punched and someone gets kissed) and I have students submit one section at a time, each focused on a particular set of target structures (prepositions, adverbs, negatives, when/while, present perfect progressive questions, and alternatives to the word “said,” like shouted, screamed, moaned, blubbered, etc). 

This how I teach beginners. Early in their story, they have to describe their usual routine using adverbs of frequency: always, almost always, often, occasionally, seldom, hardly ever, never. I tell them to write 100 or more words describing their routine, to check for the target structures from the course, and to eliminate all avoidable errors before submitting it to me on my Moodle course. They use the target structure checker to check for adverbs by clicking on “Check Vocabulary,” and they check that they have eliminated all avoidable errors by clicking on “sentence corrector” and “grammar checker.” I give them a simple rubric with three elements: the presence and correct use of target structures, the elimination of avoidable errors, and 100 words or more. Grading is greatly simplified for me because all I have to do is check each text by repeating the process that they are asked to repeat. Since they share their writing with their classmates in groups of 4 or 5, they get a repeated exchange of meaningful messages with a focus on a common target structure.  At the end of the semester, For more advanced levels, I have students create a blog with an introduction, a glossary, a paraphrase of a day-in-the-life article, a listicle, and a hypertext narrative that incorporates all of the skills and vocabulary they have learned. In each case, the VWT checks for field-related vocabulary, checks that the paraphrase is substantially different from the original, and checks that avoidable errors have been eliminated. 

So, how should other teachers use the VWT? Their writing tasks will likely be different, but the planning process should be the same. Begin with your final evaluation in mind, and then assign a series of tasks that require a certain number of words, certain target structures, careful paraphrasing, or a certain type of vocabulary profile. Demonstrate how to use the VWT to provide feedback on the features you want to focus on. Create a rubric that includes these features to simplify scoring, and find ways for learners to engage in a meaningful exchange through peer review or workshopping.

There is one more thing teachers should do, and that is to teach learners to become judicious users of technology. Because of the complexity of the technology and the chaotic nature of second language writing, the VWT will miss errors, and give bad feedback and false alarms from time to time--certainly more often than I would like. Teachers therefore must emphasize that the VWT is just a tool. It is imperfect. They should tell students that the writer must be the primary judge of the quality of their writing and the teacher will not penalize the student if the VWT returns false alarms. In other words, neither the teacher nor the students should blindly depend on the feedback generated by an imperfect machine.  

For More Info :- grammar checker API