In this study, we evaluated the performance of the state-of-the-art sequence tagging grammar error detection and correction model (SeqTagger) using Japanese university students’ writing samples. With an automatic annotation toolkit, ERRANT, we first evaluated SeqTagger’s performance on error correction with human expert correction as the benchmark. Then a human-annotated approach was adopted to evaluate Seqtagger’s performance in error detection using a subset of the writing dataset. Results indicated a precision of 63.66% and a recall of 20.19% for error correction in the full dataset. For the subset, after manual exclusion of irrelevant errors such as semantic and mechanical ones, the model shows an adjusted precision of 97.98% and an adjusted recall of 42.98% for error detection, indicating the model’s high accuracy but also its conservativeness. Thematic analysis on errors undetected by the model revealed that determiners and articles, especially the latter, were predominant. Specifically, in terms of context-independent errors, the model occasionally overlooked basic ones and faced challenges with overly erroneous or complex structures. Meanwhile, context-dependent errors, notably those related to tense and noun number, as well as those possibly influenced by the students’ first language (L1), remained particularly challenging.

A common way of assessing language learners’ mastery of vocabulary is via multiple-choice cloze (i.e., fill-in-the-blank) questions. But the creation of test items can be laborious for individual teachers or in large-scale language programs. In this paper, we evaluate a new method for automatically generating these types of questions using large language models (LLM). The VocaTT (vocabulary teaching and training) engine is written in Python and comprises three basic steps: pre-processing target word lists, generating sentences and candidate word options using GPT, and finally selecting suitable word options. To test the efficiency of this system, 60 questions were generated targeting academic words. The generated items were reviewed by expert reviewers who judged the well-formedness of the sentences and word options, adding comments to items judged not well-formed. Results showed a 75% rate of well-formedness for sentences and 66.85% rate for suitable word options. This is a marked improvement over the generator used earlier in our research which did not take advantage of GPT’s capabilities. Post-hoc qualitative analysis reveals several points for improvement in future work including cross-referencing part-of-speech tagging, better sentence validation, and improving GPT prompts.