The Pilot Study of Students’ English Writing Improvement through Online Peer Feedback during the Covid-19 Pandemic in the Southern Border Province of Thailand, Yala Rajabhat University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pilot study aimed to investigate students’ English writing ability via online peer feedback during covid-19 pandemic. In this pilot study, eight open-ended questions, which were conducted to 12 undergraduate students majoring in English with mixed grades coming from 43 students in English writing class in one university in the three Southern border provinces of Thailand. The data analysis stage made use of qualitative data to conduct thematic analysis of the content. The results indicated that students took a positive view of using online peer feedback to support the development of their writing, since this feedback also upgraded their affective strategies and critical thinking skills as well as their ability to interact socially in an effective manner. The results indicate student perceptions concerning writing strategies and found that they believed that online peer feedback could be carried out effectively, leading to improvements in their writing through enhanced grammatical usage. Furthermore, peer feedback and discussions supported better critical thinking skills as well as improving social skills through the need to work cooperatively. Importantly, the pilot study is very beneficial to both instructor and students, especially the instructor can bring to adapt the main study more effectively. Therefore, the findings of online peer feedback ought to be taken into consideration in the main study group to adapt in learning and teaching process.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 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".