Exploring Writing Individually and Collaboratively Using Google Docs in EFL Contexts
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
Online teaching and learning became popular with the evolution of the World Wide Web now days. Implementing online learning tools within EFL contexts will help better address the multitude of teaching and learning styles. Difficulty in academic writing can be considered one of the common problems that students face in and outside their classrooms. Moreover, because the young learners today are digital native, integrating online learning tool with their learning is needed. This research was conducted to analyze students’ achievements by submitted tasks using both face-to-face setting for the pre individual and collaborative tasks, and online learning environment for the post individual and collaborative tasks. The participants in this study were a class of Arabic major from a college in Saudi Arabia. The research was searching for the differences between the students’ individual and collaborative work using Google Docs, and discerning the students’ perspectives toward collaborative work with Google Docs on English writing tasks. To explore the integration effectiveness; pre and post-questionnaires, pre and post written tasks, students’ portfolio, a customized rubric for test scores, and post interviews were conducted to test and analyze the outcomes. Results show significant increase in the students’ scores using Google Docs. Further, the results were consistent as that students perceived Google Docs as a useful tool for both individual and group work.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it