MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2751563822 · doi:10.5539/elt.v10n10p43

The Impact of Teacher Corrective Feedback on EFL Student Writers’ Grammatical Improvement

2017· article· en· W2751563822 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kanyakorn Sermsook, Jiraporn Liamnimitr, Rattaneekorn Pochakorn

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRajamangala University of Technology Srivijaya
KeywordsCorrective feedbackPsychologyClass (philosophy)Mathematics educationPedagogyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims to provide information about teacher corrective feedback that would be helpful for EFL students’ writing improvement. It focuses on feedback provided to correct grammatical errors made by student writers as the author finds that this type of errors can obstruct the effectiveness of students’ pieces of writing and may result in written miscommunication. Both direct and indirect teacher feedback types are discussed. Some pedagogical suggestions have been made based on the findings. It is hoped that this review article can help teachers and students in a writing class achieve the goal of producing grammatically correct English writing assignments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207