Online Collaboration and Writing Proficiency: A Study of Omani EFL Students at UTAS-Salalah
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This mixed-methods study examined the impact of online collaboration on developing academic writing skills among English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students in Oman, with an emphasis on student perspectives. Participants were 8 Level 3 students from the Preparatory Studies Center at the University of Technology and Applied Sciences in Salalah. Furthermore, this study adds to the continuing scholarly discourse around the influence of emerging technologies on the writing performance of students. It focuses on the students' viewpoint, which is sometimes overlooked in most English as a Foreign Language (EFL) educational contexts. Data collection involved classroom observations, text analysis, and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data was analyzed using descriptive statistics, while qualitative data underwent thematic analysis. The results of the analysis of the students' writing revealed that the impact of online collaboration resulted in an enhancement in the students' overall writing performance compared to the scoring of their first drafts. Nevertheless, the implementation of the method resulted in enhanced performance among students in the sub-skills of grammar and vocabulary while content and organization skills remained unchanged. Interviews highlighted perceived benefits of online cooperation for enhancing writing practices and skills. Students affirmed the value of collaboration as a practical tool to build communication and writing proficiency. This study contributes insights on leveraging technology to empower EFL writers from the learner’s viewpoint. Further research should explore optimal strategies for implementing online collaborative writing instruction.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".