EFL Students’ Perceptions of Google Docs as an Interactive Tool for Learning Writing
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 study aimed to explore the perceptions of Saudi tertiary-level students toward using Google Docs as a learning tool in English as a foreign language (EFL) writing classes. Adopting a quantitative approach, 164 Saudi EFL students studying writing at three different academic levels completed a questionnaire about their perceptions of utilizing Google Docs as an alternative learning platform to learn writing and interact with teachers and peers. The findings showed that the participants perceived Google Docs useful and interesting. They also indicated that Google Docs could establish a collaborative learning environment. Their use enhanced student-teacher and student-student interactions, improved students’ overall writing skills, and encouraged constructive peer-to-peer discussions. The study suggests that Google Docs plays a significant role in promoting learners’ motivation and involvement in learning second language writing. It concludes with some limitations and provides recommendations for future research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.094 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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