Email Literacy in Higher Education Institutions: A Case Study on Student-Instructor Email Communication at Dhofar University in Oman
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Email is one of the means via which students in higher education institutions (HEIs) liaise with instructors to enquire about course materials, assignments, upcoming assessments and seek advice on personal or academic matters. The current study is an attempt to investigate student-instructor email communication focusing on the problematic aspects in students’ emails that affect the process of communication. The study is based on the analysis of one-hundred email messages composed and sent by undergraduate students to their instructors at Dhofar University in Oman. It is concluded that student email messages are often characterized by lack email etiquette rules, linguistic inaccuracies and traits of texting and instant messaging mediums. Several student messages, for instance, lack proper email layout and contain grammar, spelling and punctuation mistakes, indicating that reviewing emails before sending them to teachers does not take place. In addition, informal features such as use of informal vocabulary, excessive use of punctuation marks, non-standard spelling, emojis and emoticons, which reflect unawareness of formality, professionalism and university setting etiquette, are noticeable in students’ email messages. Therefore, pedagogical intervention with respect to acquisition of skills required for writing and perceiving emails is recommended. Education and guidance on the conventions governing email communication can help students communicate more effectively and professionally via email in HEIs, which will promote not only decent practices but also future employability opportunities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".