This multiple case study explores how and to what extent Chinese English-major students engage affectively, behaviorally, and cognitively with supervisory feedback on their English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) undergraduate theses, as well as how motivation and second language (L2) proficiency may mediate their engagement. Data were collected from three students through stimulated recalls, interviews, thesis drafts with supervisors’ feedback comments, and audio recordings of supervisor–student conferences. Qualitative data analyses revealed that the three participants differed markedly in their engagement with supervisory feedback on their undergraduate theses. Driven by different motivations and mediated by their levels of English proficiency, the students took different stances and employed different cognitive strategies in their responses to the supervisory feedback. Based on these findings, pedagogical suggestions are proposed for enhancing student engagement with supervisory feedback in the Chinese context of higher education.
AshwinP.AbbasA.McLeanM. (2017). How does completing a dissertation transform undergraduate students’ understandings of disciplinary knowledge?Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 42, 517–530.
2.
BasturkmenH.EastM.BitchenerJ. (2014). Supervisors’ on-script feedback comments on drafts of dissertations: Socialising students into the academic discourse community. Teaching in Higher Education, 19, 432–445.
3.
BelcherD. (1994). The apprenticeship approach to advanced academic literacy: Graduate students and their mentors. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 23–34.
4.
Ben-EliyahuA.MooreD.DorphR.SchunnC.D. (2018). Investigating the multidimensionality of engagement: Affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement across science activities and contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 53, 87–105.
5.
BitchenerJ.BasturkmenH.EastM. (2010). The focus of supervisor written feedback to thesis/dissertation students. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 79–97.
6.
CarlessD. (2020). Longitudinal perspectives on students’ experiences of feedback: A need for teacher–student partnerships. Higher Education Research and Development, 39, 425–438.
7.
CreswellJ.W.CreswellJ.D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.
8.
de KleijnR.A.M.MeijerP.C.PilotA.BrekelmansM. (2014). The relation between feedback perceptions and the supervisor–student relationship in Master’s thesis projects. Teaching in Higher Education, 19, 336–349.
9.
DerounianJ. (2011). Shall we dance? The importance of staff–student relationships to undergraduate dissertation preparation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12, 91–100.
10.
DörnyeiZ. (2001). New themes and approaches in second language motivation research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 43–65.
11.
DystheO.SamaraA.WestrheimK. (2006). Multivoiced supervision of master’s students: A case study of alternative supervision practices in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 299–318.
12.
EllisR. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335–349.
13.
EzzyD. (2002). Qualitative analysis: Practice and innovation. Routledge.
14.
FordM.E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and personal agency beliefs. Sage.
15.
FredricksJ.A.BlumenfeldP.C.ParisA.H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.
16.
HanY.HylandF. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL Classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31–44.
17.
HealeyM.JordanF.PellB.ShortC. (2010). The research–teaching nexus: A case study of students’ awareness, experiences and perceptions of research. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47, 235–246.
18.
HylandF. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 255–286.
19.
HylandF. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31, 217–230.
20.
HylandF. (2010). Future directions in feedback on second language writing: Overview and research agenda. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 171–182.
21.
HylandF. (2011). The language learning potential of form–focused feedback on writing. In ManchónS.M. (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 159–170). John Benjamins.
22.
KormosJ. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 390–403.
23.
LamS.F.WongB.P.YangH.LiuY. (2012). Understanding student engagement with a contextual model. In ChristensonS.ReschlyA.WylieC. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 403–419). Springer.
24.
LantolfJ.P.PavlenkoA. (2001). Second language activity theory: Understanding second language learners as people. In BreenM. (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 141–158). Longman.
25.
LeenknechtM.HompusP.van der SchaafM. (2019). Feedback seeking behaviour in higher education: The association with students’ goal orientation and deep learning approach. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 44, 1069–1078.
26.
MalcolmM. (2012). Examining the implications of learner and supervisor perceptions of undergraduate dissertation research in Business and Management. Teaching in Higher Education, 17, 565–576.
27.
National Advisory Committee on Tertiary Foreign Language Specializations. (2000). Gaodeng xuexiao yingyu zhuanye yingyu jiaoxue dagang [English syllabus for tertiary English-language majors]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
28.
NeuendorfK.A. (2017). The content analysis guidebook. Sage.
29.
NeumanW.L. (2013). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Pearson.
30.
Neupane BastolaM. (2020). Formulation of feedback comments: Insights from supervisory feedback on master’s theses. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 58, 565–574.
31.
Neupane BastolaM.HuG. (2021a). Supervisory feedback across disciplines: Does it meet students’ expectations?Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 46, 407–423.
32.
Neupane BastolaMHuG. (2021b). ‘Chasing my supervisor all day long like a hungry child seeking her mother!’: Students’ perceptions of supervisory feedback. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70, 1–11.
33.
PintrichP.R.SchunkD. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Prentice-Hall.
34.
PriceM.HandleyK.MillarJ. (2011). Feedback: Focusing attention on engagement. Studies in Higher Education, 36, 879–896.
ReeveJ.TsengC-M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002
37.
RowleyJ.SlackF. (2004). What is the future for undergraduate dissertations?Education + Training, 46, 176–181.
38.
RyanR.DeciE. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. The Guilford Press.
39.
SeymourE.HunterA.B.LaursenS.L.DeAntoniT. (2004). Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three-year study. Science Education, 88, 493–534.
40.
SkinnerE.A.KindermannT.A.FurrerC.J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 493–525.
41.
ToddM.BannisterP.CleggS. (2004). Independent inquiry and the undergraduate dissertation: perceptions and experiences of final-year social science students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29, 335–355.
42.
UrdanT.KaplanA. (2020). The origins, evolution, and future directions of achievement goal theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101862.
43.
VärlanderS. (2008). The role of students’ emotions in formal feedback situations. Teaching in Higher Education, 13, 145–156.
44.
WangT.LiL.Y. (2011). ‘Tell me what to do’ vs. ‘guide me through it’: Feedback experiences of international doctoral students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12, 101–112.
45.
WeberR.P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Sage.
46.
WeiJ.CarterS.LaursD. (2019). Handling the loss of innocence: First-time exchange of writing and feedback in doctoral supervision. Higher Education Research and Development, 38, 157–169.
47.
WiskerG.RobinsonG.TraffordV.WarnesM.CreightonE. (2003). From supervisory dialogues to successful PhDs: Strategies supporting and enabling the learning conversations of staff and students at postgraduate level. Teaching in Higher Education, 8, 383–397.
48.
XuL. (2017). Written feedback in intercultural doctoral supervision: A case study. Teaching in Higher Education, 22, 239–255.
49.
YinR. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.
50.
YuS.ZhangY.ZhengY.YuanK.ZhangL. (2019). Understanding student engagement with peer feedback on master’s theses: A Macau study. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 44, 50–65.
51.
ZhangZ.V.HylandK. (2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 90–102.
52.
ZhangZ.V.HylandK. (2022). Fostering student engagement with feedback: An integrated approach. Assessing Writing, 51, 100586.
53.
ZhaoH. (2010). Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: A comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assessing Writing, 15, 3–17.
54.
ZhengY.YuS. (2018). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing Writing, 37, 13–24.
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.
