Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language--TESL-EJ· 2026Q1
Using Large Language Models as Context Organizers: A Corpus-Assisted Framework for Analyzing EFL Student Feedback
- 0citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
A new T-CADS-LLMs framework uses large language models (LLMs) as context organizers, outperforming standalone LLMs in analyzing EFL student feedback by 25% in coverage (0.672 vs. 0.502) and 17% in weighted coverage (0.721 vs. 0.600) when guided by corpus evidence and human verification.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- The T-CADS-LLMs framework positions LLMs as context organizers, constrained by corpus evidence and human verification, for qualitative text topic analysis.
- The Codex+Skill LLM workflow outperformed a bare LLM in topic coverage (0.672 vs. 0.502) and weighted coverage (0.721 vs. 0.600) in analyzing EFL student feedback.
- LLM-based analysis showed limitations in capturing relational and identity-related meanings, performing substantially below human analysis in these aspects.
- The framework's feasibility and traceability were evaluated using interview data from 27 university EFL students across two majors.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Student feedback is central to English as a Foreign Language (EFL) instruction; however, scaling qualitative interpretation while preserving contextual meaning remains a methodological challenge. This study proposes the T-CADS-LLMs framework, a qualitative text topic analysis framework integrated into an Agent Skill. Rather than treating large language models as autonomous coders, the framework positions them as context organizers constrained by corpus evidence and human verification. Its feasibility was evaluated using interview data from 27 students across two majors in university EFL courses. Across ten course grouped analytical units, 46 manually generated topics were compared with 63 Skill-based topics and 42 GPT-based topics using Topic Coverage, Weighted Coverage, MATS, WMATS, and qualitative analyses of matched topics. Codex+Skill consistently outperformed the Bare-model in descriptive mean scores for coverage (0.672 vs. 0.502), weighted coverage (0.721 vs. 0.600), MATS (0.778 vs. 0.700), and WMATS (0.816 vs. 0.772). Nevertheless, both workflows showed limited ability to capture relational and identity related meanings, performing substantially below human analysis. These findings provide initial evidence for the feasibility and traceability of the framework within a specific EFL context, while further validation with larger and more diverse datasets remains necessary.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language--TESL-EJ, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: General Social Sciences
General Social SciencesSocial Sciences