## 4 Methodology  
### The Setting  
This study, conducted at Deree, the American College of Greece over 12 months, focused on the feedback process integrated into the asynchronous online component of a blended undergraduate English for Academic Purposes (EAP) II course. The course, designed by an expert EAP instructor and instructional design, and three EAP subject matter experts, included 6 h of face-to-face classes and 3 h of asynchronous online instruction delivered in the Blackboard learning management system (LMS) with learning modules. It was developed using backward design [55] and aligned and evaluated with Quality Matters (QM) Standards for Higher Education [19; 20]. The flowchart (see Figure 2) illustrates the structured progression of instructional content and activities within each weekly learning cycle (of the asynchronous online component of the course), which aligns with and integrates [PERSON] et al.'s Matrix of Feedback for Learning [15] and [PERSON]'s [56] methodological principles for language teaching. Each learning module is designed to guide students through a structured and iterative process. Learners start with a weekly folder where they review a description of the week's focus [19; 20], a weekly overview with a detailed outline of the week's learning objectives [19; 20], and a recommended timeline for task completion. The weekly overview further breaks these learning objectives into actionable analytic objectives and provides suggested time pacing, helping students plan their workload effectively. Within the weekly folder, learners engage with a learning module, which delivers the core instructional material for the week: content, exemplars, standards, criteria, and built-in tasks with interactive/collaborative/individual tools (discussions, VoiceThread, journal, and automated quizzes) [19; 20]. In the English for Academic Purposes (EAP) course, standards set overarching goals for academic language proficiency, such as effective writing in the case of the asynchronous online component of the course, while criteria break these standards into specific, measurable aspects like grammar accuracy, argument clarity, and proper citation, etc. Built-in tasks provide specific instructions, prompts, and rubrics, guiding students' experiential learning [19; 20; 56]. Using this preparation, students complete assigned tasks guided by detailed instructions, prompts, and rubrics to ensure alignment with the learning objectives and EAP criteria [19; 20]. Peer review allows students to give and receive feedback, promoting reflection and collaborative learning.  
The learning cycle concludes with the opportunity for task resubmissions accompanied by further instructor feedback [2; 57], and reflections on progress and challenges. This feedback guides further revisions and fosters improvements needed for the next level of  
Figure 2: A structured flow of instructional content and activities within each weekly learning cycle in the EAP asynchronous online component.  
staged tasks and assessments. Different feedback encounters, within the weekly learning cycle, allow students to revise and improve their work based on peer, instructor, or quiz-automated feedback. In fact, the integration of nested, scaffolded, and continuous formative assessments, alongside multi-staged summative assessments, creates opportunities for learners to engage proactively with feedback, apply it effectively, and resubmit improved versions of their work [51].  
In the online course, students receive 13 instructor feedback, 4 peer-reviews, and 6 quiz-automated feedback. They have 5 opportunities for resubmission, reflecting a constructive learning approach.