Students’ perception towards using electronic feedback after the pandemic: Post-acceptance study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies on e-feedback have answered many questions concerning the effectiveness of e-feedback in educational and non-educational sectors. They stated clearly that e-feedback is efficient and practical. From both teachers’ and students’ perspectives, e-feedback has influenced their learning and teaching environment effectively. It is a good technique to personalize the learning strategies. Based on the previous assumption, this study aims at exploring the effectiveness of e-feedback in an educational environment taking into consideration the TAM model and the external factors of trustworthiness and enjoyment. The data is collected by an online questionnaire that was distributed among a group of students. Facilitating communication among teachers and students. It helps in replacing the traditional feedback and assess the learning environment during the pandemic periods. The two constructs of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness affect positively the intention to use the e-feedback and initiates this type of feedback as a prominent procedure to be used frequently in the learning environment. In addition, the perceived enjoyment and perceived trustworthiness increase the chance of using e-feedback. Recently, e-feedback is highly dominant among online platform users.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".