Comparative Analysis of Feedback Practices and Perspectives in Online Academic Writing Assessments at Two Regional Tertiary Institutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study addresses the gap in comparative analyses of feedback strategies in online writing assessments at higher education institutions in the Gulf region. Although previous research has examined different facets of online feedback, direct institutional comparisons have been overlooked. This research provides new insights into effective feedback techniques through a comparative study of feedback approaches at the Modern College of Business and Science (MCBS) in Oman and Qassim University (QU) in Saudi Arabia. The primary aim is to investigate faculty practices and perceptions regarding online feedback, evaluating its effectiveness and impact on student success. By examining how faculty members provide online feedback and its effects on students' achievements, the study seeks to enhance students' academic writing skills and mastery of disciplinary knowledge. The findings contribute to the conversation on effective feedback strategies in contemporary education, offering valuable insights for improving feedback practices, informing faculty development, guiding institutional policies, and enriching the broader literature on online teaching and assessment. The study's conclusions were based on data gathered from 41 respondents and analyzed through quantitative and qualitative methods, providing a comprehensive understanding of online feedback practices and their impact on enhancing EFL students’ writing skills.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".