The Effects of Informal Use of Computer-Mediated Communication on EFL Learner Interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study adopted an experimental approach to investigate the impact of informal use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) on English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learner’s interaction. CMC is an umbrella term which refers to human communication via computer either synchronously or asynchronously. It can be implemented in two ways either formally or informally. Informal use of CMC in this study means unevaluated and unplanned activities which can occur outside the classroom, and can be initiated by the students. This study sought to examine: (a) if the learners participate actively in informal CMC; (b) the factors that help informal CMC to be a successful experience; and (c) the impact of CMC on comprehensible written output. The participants were fifty adult EFL Saudi learners at Najran University, Saudi Arabia. The study utilized a homepage on Facebook as a research tool. Data collection was done through a questionnaire and an interview. The participants’ exchanges in the Facebook group and their replies to the questionnaire were analyzed. The results of the study revealed that informal use of CMC can be affected by many factors. The voluntary nature of learner participation, busy schedules, and the teacher interference were some of these factors. The results showed that the participants had positive attitudes towards using CMC to improve their language. Key words: English as a Foreign Language (EFL); Informal; (CMC) Computer mediated communication; Interaction; Facebook; Output
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".