A Qualitative Case Study of EFL Students’ Affective Reactions to and Perceptions of Their Teachers’ Written Feedback
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present paper reports a qualitative case study of investigating EFL students’ affective reactions to and perceptions of their teachers’ written feedback. In addition, the study reported here also focuses on contextual factors that may influence students’ reactions to and perceptions of their teachers’ written feedback. Data were collected using multiple methods that included semi-structured interviews, think-aloud protocols, teachers’ written feedback, and students’ written essays. Results of data analysis revealed that EFL students showed some variations in their affective reactions to their teachers’ written feedback. The students perceived their teachers’ written feedback as useful and very important for the development of their writing skills. The students wanted their teachers to focus on all aspects of written texts when they provide written feedback. Contextual factors such as students’ past experience, teachers’ wording of written feedback, students’ acceptance of teachers’ authority, and teachers’ handwriting have their impact on EFL students’ affective reactions to and perceptions of their teachers’ written feedback
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it