Teacher and Student Perceptions of CALL Feedback: Synchronous and Asynchronous Teacher Electronic Feedback in EFL-Writing at King Saud University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the realm of education, feedback from peers and teachers is of critical importance. The rapid growth of electronic feedback (EF) has led to various innovations in feedback, particularly for teachers’ EF (TEF) in the context of English as a foreign language (EFL). This study contributes to the literature on feedback by examining how teachers and students in EFL writing classes were influenced by TEF offered synchronously via online class discussion, and TEF offered asynchronously via Blackboard. This study focuses on both teachers’ perceptions (elicited from interviews) and students’ perceptions (elicited from surveys) regarding their respective experiences of TEF. The study uncovered three main findings; most of the TEF addressed the content, organization, and language structure of the students’ EFL writing, and the teachers adjusted their TEF according to students’ needs and course objectives; teachers and students considered TEF to be effective and accessible.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".