With the existing research gap regarding the validation of the effects of teacher feedback, the relatively limited exploration of the correlation between teacher feedback and speaking performance, and the inadequate examination of emotions, this study endeavored to investigate the efficacy of teacher feedback in digital storytelling among learners of English as a foreign language (EFL). Emphasis is placed on speaking performance, emotions, perceptions among high and low achievers, and teacher reflections. Employing a mixed-methods approach, the research design incorporated data from pre-/post-tests of digital storytelling, student responses to an emotion questionnaire, student perceptions of teacher feedback, and teacher reflections on feedback practices. The findings demonstrated that teacher feedback not only significantly impacted students’ speaking performances throughout the digital storytelling process but also played a key role in regulating their emotions. Both high and low achievers exhibited predominantly positive emotions during digital storytelling and creation. However, high achievers demonstrated greater sensitivity to competitive pressures, contributing to slight differences in emotional experiences between the two groups. Furthermore, low achievers displayed a greater desire for feedback and derived more substantial benefits, particularly in the areas of image selection and arrangement. Based on teacher reflections, feedback types were focused on adjusting chosen storybooks (including storyline development and image/illustration design), establishing fulfillment criteria, ensuring equitable distribution of work and presentation within each group, and addressing pronunciation concerns.
Abdul-GhafourK.M.AlrefaeeY. (2019). The relationship between language learning strategies and achievement among EFL university students in Yemen. Applied Linguistics Research Journal, 3, 64–83.
2.
AhmadiA.SadeghiE. (2016). Assessing English language learner’s oral performance: A comparison of monologue, interview and group oral test. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13, 341–358.
3.
AjjawiR.KentF.BroadbentJ., et al. (2022). Feedback that works: A realist review of feedback interventions for written tasks. Studies in Higher Education, 47, 1343–1356.
4.
AlhaysonyM. (2016). Saudi EFL preparatory year students’ perception about corrective feedback in oral communication. English Language Teaching, 9, 47–61.
5.
Al-QallafC.L.Al-MutairiA.S.R. (2016). Digital literacy and digital content supports learning: The impact of blogs on teaching English as a foreign language. The Electronic Library, 34, 522–547.
6.
BlochJ. (2018). Digital storytelling in the multilingual academic writing classroom: Expanding the possibilities. Dialogues: An Interdisciplinary Journal of English Language Teaching and Research, 2, 96–110.
7.
CarlessD. (2022). From teacher transmission of information to student feedback literacy: Activating the learner role in feedback processes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 23, 143–153.
8.
CarlessD.BoudD. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43, 1315–1325.
9.
ChanC.K.Y.LuoJ. (2022). Exploring teacher perceptions of different types of ‘feedback practices’ in higher education: Implications for teacher feedback literacy. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 47, 61–76.
10.
Chen HsiehJ. (2021). Digital storytelling outcomes and emotional experience among middle school EFL learners: Robot-assisted versus PowerPoint-assisted mode. TESOL Quarterly, 55, 994–1010.
11.
Chen HsiehJ.LeeJ.S. (2023). Digital storytelling outcomes, emotions, grit, and perceptions among EFL middle school learners: robot-assisted versus PowerPoint-assisted presentations. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36, 1088–1115.
12.
ChengG. (2022). Exploring the effects of automated tracking of student responses to teacher feedback in draft revision: Evidence from an undergraduate EFL writing course. Interactive Learning Environments, 30, 353–375.
13.
CollinJ.QuigleyA. (2021). Teacher feedback to improve pupil learning. Guidance Report. Education Endowment Foundation. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED615988.pdf (accessed December 2024).
14.
DörnyeiZ.SkehanP. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In DoughtyC.J.LongM.H. (Eds.), The hand-book of second language acquisition (pp. 589–630). Blackwell.
15.
DoughtyC.J. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge University Press.
16.
EbesutaniC.ReganJ.SmithA., et al. (2012). The 10-item positive and negative affect schedule for children, child and parent shortened versions: Application of item response theory for more efficient assessment. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 34, 191–203.
17.
EllisN.C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352.
18.
EllisR. (2010). Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335–349.
19.
EsterhazyR. (2018). What matters for productive feedback? Disciplinary practices and their relational dynamics. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43, 1302–1314.
20.
EsterhazyR.DamşaC. (2019). Unpacking the feedback process: An analysis of undergraduate students’ interactional meaning-making of feedback comments. Studies in Higher Education, 44, 260–274.
21.
FebriliaI.WarokkaA.AbdullahH.H.IndonesiaC. (2011). University students’ emotional state and academic performance: New insights of managing complex cognitive. Journal of e-Learning and Higher Education, 2011, 1–15.
22.
FergusonP. (2011). Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 51–62.
23.
FerrisD.R. (2014). Responding to student writing: Teachers’ philosophies and practices. Assessing Writing, 19, 6–23.
24.
FukutaJ.TamuraY.KawaguchiY. (2019). Written languaging with indirect feedback in writing revision: Is feedback always effective?Language Awareness, 28, 1–14.
25.
GaniS.A.FajrinaD.HanifaR. (2015). Students’ learning strategies for developing speaking ability. Studies in English Language and Education, 2(1), 16–28.
26.
GentrupS.LorenzG.KristenC.KoganI. (2020). Self-fulfilling prophecies in the classroom: Teacher expectations, teacher feedback and student achievement. Learning and Instruction, 66, Article 101296.
27.
GkonouC.DaubneyM.DewaeleJ.-M. (Eds.). (2017). New insights into language anxiety: Theory, research and educational implications. Multilingual Matters.
28.
GoetzT.LipnevichA.A.KrannichM.GogolK. (2018). Performance feedback and emotions. In LipnevichA.A.SmithJ.K. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of instructional feedback (pp. 554–575). Cambridge University Press.
29.
GregersenT.MacIntyreP.D.MezaM.D. (2014). The motion of emotion: Idiodynamic case studies of learners’ foreign language anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 98, 574–588.
30.
HanY.HylandF. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31–44.
31.
HarksB.RakoczyK.HattieJ.BesserM.KliemeE. (2014). The effects of feedback on achievement, interest and self-evaluation: The role of feedback’s perceived usefulness. Educational Psychology, 34, 269–290.
32.
HattieJ.TimperleyH. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
33.
KerrP. (2020). Giving feedback to language learners. Part of the Cambridge papers in ELT series. Cambridge University Press
34.
KrashenS. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon.
35.
KrashenS. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman ELT.
36.
LeeE.J. (2016). Advanced ESL students’ prior EFL education and their perceptions of oral corrective feedback. Journal of International Students, 6, 798–816.
37.
LinM.H.LeeJ.Y. (2019). Pedagogical suitability of data-driven learning in EFL grammar classes: A case study of Taiwanese students. Language Teaching Research, 23, 541–561.
38.
LinkS.MehrzadM.RahimiM. (2022). Impact of automated writing evaluation on teacher feedback, student revision, and writing improvement. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35, 605–634.
39.
LipnevichA.A.MuranoD.KrannichM.GoetzT. (2021). Should I grade or should I comment: Links among feedback, emotions, and performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 89, Article 102020.
40.
LysterR.SaitoK.SatoM. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.
41.
MaJ. (2018). Usability of teacher written feedback: Exploring feedback practices and perceptions of teachers and students. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 15, 23–38.
42.
MahvelatiE.H. (2021). Learners’ perceptions and performance under peer versus teacher corrective feedback conditions. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70, Article 100995.
43.
MartinS.ValdiviaI.M.A. (2017). Students’ feedback beliefs and anxiety in online foreign language oral tasks. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14, 1–15.
44.
May-MelendezR.Balderas-GarzaM.Alcocer-VazquezE.Quijano-ZavalaG. (2018). Reflective journal: The learners’ perspective in formal instruction. In Thirteenth International Scientific Forum (ISF 2018) (p. 458–465). European Scientific Institute.
45.
NarcissS. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In SpectorJ.M.MerrillM.D.VanJ.Merrienboer DriscollM.P. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 125–143). Erlbaum.
46.
NassajiH.KartchavaE. (2020). Assessment and good language teacher. In GriffithsC.TajeddinZ. (Eds.), Lessons from good language teachers (pp. 151–163). Cambridge University Press.
47.
NishiokaH. (2016). Analysing language development in a collaborative digital storytelling project: Sociocultural perspectives. System, 62, 39–52.
48.
Nokes-MalachT.J.ZepedaC.D.RicheyJ.E.GadgilS. (2019). Collaborative learning: The benefits and costs. In DunloskyJ.RawsonK.A. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of cognition and education (pp. 500–527). Cambridge University Press.
49.
NyströmL.GultekinM. (2019). Written corrective feedback in the writing classroom for young English Second Language Learners. Unpublished paper. Degree Project in English Studies and Education, Malmö University, Sweden. Available at: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1491269/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed December 2024).
50.
PanaderoE.LipnevichA.A. (2022). A review of feedback models and typologies: Towards an integrative model of feedback elements. Educational Research Review, 35, Article 100416.
51.
PekrunR.FrenzelA.C.GoetzT.PerryR.P. (2007). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: An integrative approach to emotions in education. In SchutzP.A.PekrunR. (Eds.), Emotion in education (pp. 13–36). Academic Press.
52.
PorterB. (2004). DigiTales: The art of telling digital stories. Benjamin Porter Consulting.
53.
RobinB. (2016). The power of digital storytelling to support teaching and learning. Digital Education Review, 30, 17–29.
54.
RobinsonP. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.
55.
RoothooftH. (2014). The relationship between adult EFL teachers’ oral feedback practices and their beliefs. System, 46, 65–79.
56.
SeulingB. (2004). How to write a children’s book and get it published (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
57.
ShadievR.YangM. (2020). Review of studies on technology-enhanced language learning and teaching. Sustainability, 12, 524–545.
58.
SlatteryM.WillisJ. (2001). English for primary teachers: A handbook of activities and classroom language (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.
59.
StorkM.G. (2020). Supporting twenty-first century competencies using robots and digital storytelling. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 4, 43–48.
60.
TianL.ZhouY. (2020). Learner engagement with automated feedback, peer feedback and teacher feedback in an online EFL writing context. System, 91, Article 102247.
61.
TruscottJ. (1999). What’s wrong with oral grammar correction. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 437–456.
62.
TsuiA.B.NgM. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments?Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 147–170.
63.
van der KleijF.M. (2019). Comparison of teacher and student perceptions of formative assessment feedback practices and association with individual student characteristics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 85, 175–189.
64.
WangB.YuS.ZhengY.TeoT. (2022). Student engagement with teacher oral feedback in EFL university classrooms. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221105
65.
WangS.ZhanH. (2010). Enhancing teaching and learning with digital storytelling. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 6, 76–87.
66.
WuJ.ChenD.T.V. (2020). A systematic review of educational digital storytelling. Computers and Education, 147, Article 103786.
67.
XuJ.ZhangS. (2023). The effect of the cognitive–emotional dialectic on L2 development: Enhancing our understanding ofperezhivanie. The Modern Language Journal, 107, 161–178.
68.
YangM.BadgerR.YuZ. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179–200.
69.
YangM.CarlessD. (2013). The feedback triangle and the enhancement of dialogic feedback processes. Teaching in Higher Education, 18, 285–297.
70.
YuS.ZhengY.JiangL.LiuC.XuY. (2021). ‘I even feel annoyed and angry’: Teacher emotional experiences in giving feedback on student writing. Assessing Writing, 48, Article 100528.
