Student engagement with teacher oral feedback in EFL university classrooms

Abstract

While previous research has investigated teacher oral feedback practices and their influences on student learning, little research has examined how students interpret and engage with teacher feedback, which is critical to the feedback effectiveness and the success of learning and performance. According to Ellis, student engagement is clearly defined as the ways that students respond to the feedback, which can be cognitive, behavioral, and affective. Drawing upon students’ oral presentations together with teacher oral feedback, semi-structured interviews, stimulated recalls, reflective accounts, and PowerPoint (PPT) slides for the oral presentations, this case study investigates three undergraduates’ cognitive, behavioral, and affective engagement with teachers’ oral feedback provided on in-class oral presentations in an English as a foreign language context. The findings indicated that cognitively, the students occasionally ignored teacher feedback, but they were able to notice and understand most of the teacher feedback by using cognitive operations. Behaviorally, the students attempted to respond to teacher feedback by repairing linguistic errors, revising and editing their PPT slides, or improving their presentation delivery. Affectively, students displayed mostly positive attitudes toward teacher feedback and a wide range of discrete emotions were induced by the feedback, which were subject to students’ self-regulation. Further insights can be drawn from the findings into understanding how teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL) can help students harvest benefits when engaging with teacher oral feedback.

Keywords

EFL students English teaching student engagement teacher oral feedback

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Appleton

J.J.

Christenson

S.L.

Kim

Reschly

A.L.

(2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 427–445.

Cheng

Warren

(2005). Peer assessment of language proficiency. Language Testing, 22, 93–119.

Davis

H.A.

Chang

M.-L.

Andrzejewski

C.E.

Poirier

R.R.

(2010). Examining behavioral, relational, and cognitive engagement in smaller learning communities: A case study of reform in one suburban district. Journal of Educational Change, 11, 345–401.

Donato

(2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the second and foreign language classroom. In Lantolf

(Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 26–50). Oxford University Press.

Ellis

(2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1, 3–18.

Ellis

(2010). Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335–349.

Finn

J.D.

(1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117–142.

Fredricks

J.A.

Blumenfeld

P.C.

Paris

A.H.

(2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.

T.F.

Nassaji

(2016). Corrective feedback, learner uptake, and feedback perception in a Chinese as a foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6, 159–181.

10.

Han

Hyland

(2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31–44.

11.

Hattie

Timperley

(2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.

12.

Henry

Thorsen

(2020). Disaffection and agentic engagement: ‘Redesigning’ activities to enable authentic self-expression. Language Teaching Research, 24, 456–475.

13.

Hunter

(2012). ‘Small talk’: Developing fluency, accuracy, and complexity in speaking. ELT Journal, 66, 30–41.

14.

Laurillard

(1993). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. Routledge.

15.

Lincoln

Y.S.

Guba

E.G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

16.

Lochtman

(2002). Oral corrective feedback in the foreign language classroom: how it affects interaction in analytic foreign language teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 271–283.

17.

Long

(1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie

Bhatia

(Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press.

18.

Lyster

Ranta

(1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.

19.

Lyster

Saito

(2010). Interactional feedback as instructional input: A synthesis of classroom SLA research. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 1, 276–297.

20.

Lyster

Saito

Sato

(2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.

21.

Miles

M.B.

Huberman

A.M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. 2nd edition. Sage.

22.

Pawlak

(2014). Investigating learner engagement with oral corrective feedback: Aim, methodology, outcomes. In Łyda

Szcześniak

(Eds.) Awareness in action: The role of consciousness in language acquisition (pp. 69–84). Springer.

23.

Price

Handley

Millar

(2011). Feedback: focusing attention on engagement. Studies in Higher Education, 36, 879–896.

24.

Quinn

Nakata

(2017). The timing of oral corrective feedback. In Nassaji

Kartchava

(Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 35–47). Routledge.

25.

Rolin-Ianziti

(2010). The organization of delayed second language correction. Language Teaching Research, 14, 183–206.

26.

Schmidt

(1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning, 9, 1–63.

27.

Swain

(2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In Hinkel

(Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

28.

Tsui

(2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition, 21, 217–235.

29.

Van Ginkel

Gulikers

Biemans

Mulder

. (2017). Fostering oral presentation performance: does the quality of feedback differ when provided by the teacher, peers or peers guided by tutor? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 42, 953–966.

30.

Walker

C.O.

Greene

B.A.

Mansell

R.A.

(2006). Identification with academics, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engagement. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 1–12.

31.

Wang

Teo

(2017). Teacher feedback to student oral presentations in EFL classrooms: a case study. Journal of Education for Teaching, 43, 262–264.

32.

Zhang

Zheng

Yuan

Zhang

(2019). Understanding student engagement with peer feedback on master’s theses: A Macau study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44, 50–65.

33.

Zare

Shooshtari

Z.G.

Jalilifar

(2020). The interplay of oral corrective feedback and L2 willingness to communicate across proficiency levels. Language Teaching Research. Epub ahead of print 9 June 2020. DOI: 10.1177/1362168820928967

34.

Zhang

Z.V.

Hyland

(2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 90–102.

35.

Zheng

(2018). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing Writing, 37, 13–24.

36.

Zheng

Wang

Zhang

(2020). Exploring student engagement with supervisor feedback on master’s thesis: Insights from a case study. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 57, 186–197.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB