While research on student engagement with oral and written corrective feedback (CF) in second language acquisition (SLA) is well established, the study of such engagement within the context of interpreting, which requires bilingual conversion, is not as developed. Building on Ellis’ tripartite conceptualization of student engagement – comprising affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses – this study explored the engagement of 30 students with teacher feedback in three Chinese-to-English consecutive interpreting courses. Data were collected through classroom recordings, semi-structured interviews, stimulated recall sessions, and students’ in-class notes. The findings indicated that, affectively, all students highly valued and presented overall affirmative emotions towards teacher feedback. Cognitively, students employed various cognitive strategies, including active attribution, mental rehearsal, and information categorization in processing feedback information; however, they encountered challenges in fully understanding the content and process-focused feedback. Behaviorally, two predominant note-taking patterns emerged: ‘language-oriented’ and ‘skill-oriented’. The findings emphasize the critical role of interpreting practice in language acquisition and underscore the need to refine pedagogical approaches in interpreting courses to support both language learning and interpreter training.
AshwellT. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method?Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227–257.
2.
BiasettiG. (2016). Benefits of an interpretation course for foreign language learning and development. Hispania, 99, 615–634.
3.
BoudD.DawsonP.BearmanM., et al. (2016). Reframing assessment research: Through a practice perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 43, 1107–1118.
4.
CarlessD.BoudD. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43, 1315–1325.
5.
ChengX.LiuY. (2022). Student engagement with teacher written feedback: Insights from low-proficiency and high-proficiency L2 learners. System, 109, Article 102880.
6.
ColinaS.LaffordB.A. (2017). Translation in Spanish language teaching: The integration of a ‘fifth skill’ in the second language curriculum. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching, 4, 110–123.
7.
ConijnR.Martinez-MaldonadoR.KnightS., et al. (2020). How to provide automated feedback on the writing process? A participatory approach to design writing analytics tools. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35, 1838–1868.
8.
CraikF.I.LockhartR.S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.
9.
Domínguez AraújoL. (2019). Feedback in conference interpreter education. Interpreting International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting, 21, 135–150.
10.
DoughtyC.VarelaE. (1998). Communicative focus on form. Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, 1, 114–138.
11.
EllisR. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63, 97–107.
12.
EllisR. (2010). Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335–349.
13.
EnginarlarH. (1993). Student response to teacher feedback in EFL writing. System, 21, 193–204.
14.
FanY.XuJ. (2020). Exploring student engagement with peer feedback on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 50, Article 100775.
15.
FerrisD.R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1–11.
16.
FerrisD.R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181–201.
17.
GileD. (1995). Fidelity assessment in consecutive interpretation. Target International Journal of Translation Studies, 7, 151–164.
18.
GileD. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Revised edition. John Benjamins.
19.
HanC. (2018). A longitudinal quantitative investigation into the concurrent validity of self and peer assessment applied to English–Chinese bi-directional interpretation in an undergraduate interpreting course. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 58, 187–196.
20.
HanC.RiaziM. (2018). The accuracy of student self-assessments of English–Chinese bidirectional interpretation: A longitudinal quantitative study. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43, 386–398.
21.
HanC.ZhaoX. (2020). Accuracy of peer ratings on the quality of spoken-language interpreting. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 46, 1299–1313.
22.
HanY. (2017). Mediating and being mediated: Learner beliefs and learner engagement with written corrective feedback. System, 69, 133–142.
23.
HanY.HylandF. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31–44.
24.
HattieJ.TimperleyH. (2016). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.
25.
HylandF. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 255–286.
26.
LauferB.HulstijnJ. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 1–26.
27.
LaviosaS.González-DaviesM. (2019). Introduction: A transdisciplinary perspective on translation and education. In LaviosaS.González-DaviesM. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation and education (pp. 1–8). Routledge.
28.
LeeI. (2017). Working hard or working smart. In BitchenerJ.StorchN.WetteR. (Eds.), Teaching writing for academic purposes to multilingual students (pp. 168–180). Routledge.
29.
LeeJ. (2018). Feedback on feedback: Guiding student interpreter performance. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 10, 152–170.
30.
LeeS.B. (2017). University students’ experience of ‘scale-referenced’ peer assessment for a consecutive interpreting examination. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 42, 1015–1029.
31.
LiS.VuonoA. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in system. System, 84, 93–109.
32.
LiX. (2015). Putting interpreting strategies in their place. Babel: Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation, 61, 170–192.
33.
LimH.-O. (2000). In defense of theory in interpretation and translation training. Conference Interpretation and Translation (Korean Society of Conference Interpretation), 2, 111–131.
34.
LiuK.StorchN. (2023). Second language learners’ engagement with written feedback. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 46, 4–28.
35.
LongM. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In RitchieW.C.BhatiaT.K. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press.
36.
LysterR. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.
37.
LysterR.RantaL. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
38.
MahfoodhO.H.A. (2017). ‘I feel disappointed’: EFL university students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback. Assessing Writing, 31, 53–72.
39.
MaoZ.LeeI. (2023). Student engagement with written feedback: Critical issues and way forward. RELC Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882221150811
40.
MellingerC.D. (2018). Translation, interpreting, and language studies: Confluence and divergence. Hispania, 100, 241–246.
41.
MellingerC.D. (2023). Incorporating translation and interpreting into the business language classroom. Global Business Languages, 23, 58–73.
42.
NicolD. (2014). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. In HatzipanagosS.RochonR. (Eds.), Approaches to assessment that enhance learning in higher education (pp. 11–27). Routledge.
43.
PawlakM. (2014). Investigating learner engagement with oral corrective feedback: Aims, methodology, outcomes. In ŁydaA.SzcześniakK. (Eds.), Awareness in action: The role of consciousness in language acquisition (pp. 69–84). Springer International.
44.
PriceM.HandleyK.MillarJ.O’DonovanB. (2010). Feedback: All that effort, but what is the effect?Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 277–289.
45.
PymA. (2018). Where translation studies lost the plot: Relations with language teaching. Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts, 4, 203–222.
46.
RanalliJ.FengH.-H.Chukharev-HudilainenE. (2018). Exploring the potential of process-tracing technologies to support assessment for learning of L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 77–89.
47.
RottS.WilliamsJ.CameronR. (2002). The effect of multiple-choice L1 glosses and input–output cycles on lexical acquisition and retention. Language Teaching Research, 6, 183–222.
48.
SachsR.PolioC. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 67–100.
49.
SchmidtR.W. (1995). Attention and awareness in foreign language learning: Volume 9. University of Hawai'i Press.
50.
SchmidtR.W. (2001). Attention. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press.
51.
SettonR.DawrantA. (2016). Conference interpreting: A complete course: Volume 120. John Benjamins.
52.
SheenY. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 203–234.
53.
SheenY.EllisR. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In HinkelE. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 593–610). Routledge.
54.
StorchN.WigglesworthG. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303–334.
55.
TruscottJ. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369.
56.
WangB.YuS.ZhengY.TeoT. (2022). Student engagement with teacher oral feedback in EFL university classrooms. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221105772
57.
WinstoneN.CarlessD. (2019). Designing effective feedback processes in higher education: A learning-focused approach. Routledge.
58.
YuS.ZhangY.ZhengY.YuanK.ZhangL. (2018). Understanding student engagement with peer feedback on master’s theses: A Macau study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44, 50–65.
59.
ZareM.ShooshtariZ.G.JalilifarA. (2020). The interplay of oral corrective feedback and L2 willingness to communicate across proficiency levels. Language Teaching Research, 26, 1158–1178.
60.
ZhangZ. (2021). Promoting student engagement with feedback: Insights from collaborative pedagogy and teacher feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47, 540–555.
61.
ZhangZ.HylandK. (2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 90–102.
62.
ZhangZ.HylandK. (2022). Fostering student engagement with feedback: An integrated approach. Assessing Writing, 51, Article 100586.
63.
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.
64.
ZhengY.YuS.WangB.ZhangY. (2019). Exploring student engagement with supervisor feedback on master’s thesis: Insights from a case study. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 57, 186–197.
