Feedback engagement is believed to play a critical role in facilitating learning outcomes. Nevertheless, in contexts other than second language writing, little is known about how learners engage with teacher oral feedback over time or how it influences learning outcomes. This is associated with a lack of proper instruments to probe into the implicit process of engagement. In an attempt to address these questions, this study adopted a longitudinal perspective enabled by screen-casts to explore feedback engagement of three interpreting learners concerning their oral interpreting performance (i.e. simultaneous interpreting), and the relationships between engagement and learning outcomes. Based on multiple data sources of screen-casts, cued retrospective interviews, and tests, it was found that participants’ feedback engagement was imbalanced across three feedback foci: language, content, and voice, as well as across the three cycles of data collection. Specifically, their behavioral engagement with feedback on language peaked at the beginning and the end of data collection, while their cognitive engagement remained stable over time. Furthermore, participants’ self-regulation and a lack of interpreting proficiency mediated their cognitive and behavioral engagement, particularly at the beginning and the end of data collection. In addition, feedback engagement generally resulted in improved learning outcomes, with affective and cognitive engagement playing a more pronounced role. Consequently, more attention should be diverted to boosting learners’ behavioral engagement in the middle of a learning period, while also attending to enhancing their interpreting proficiency and self-regulation. The dynamic nature of engagement also requires special consideration in future studies.
AfifiS.RahimiM.WilsonJ. (2023). Student engagement with teacher and automated written corrective feedback on L2 writing: A multiple case study. Japan Association for Language Teaching Computer Assisted Language Learning Journal (JALT CALL Journal), 19, 216–242.
2.
AhrensB.Beaton-ThomeM.RüttenA. (2021). The pivot to remote online teaching on the MA in Conference Interpreting in Cologne: Lessons learned from an unexpected experience. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 36, 251–284.
3.
BannertM.ReimannP.SonnenbergC. (2014). Process mining techniques for analysing patterns and strategies in students’ self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 9, 161–185.
4.
BartłomiejczykM. (2007). Interpreting quality as perceived by trainee interpreters: Self-evaluation. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 1, 247–267.
5.
BastolaM.N.HuG. (2024). Engagement with supervisory feedback on master’s theses: Do supervisors and students see eye to eye?Assessing Writing, 60, Article 100841.
6.
Blasco MayorM.J. (2015). L2 proficiency as predictor of aptitude for interpreting: An empirical study. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 10, 108–132.
7.
BouwerR.DirkxK. (2023). The eye-mind of processing written feedback: Unraveling how students read and use feedback for revision. Learning and Instruction, 85, Article 101745.
8.
CatrysseL.GijbelsD.DoncheV., et al (2016). Mapping processing strategies in learning from expository text: An exploratory eye tracking study followed by a cued recall. Frontline Learning Research, 4, 1–16.
9.
CenY.ZhengY. (2024). The motivational aspect of feedback: A meta-analysis on the effect of different feedback practices on L2 learners’ writing motivation. Assessing Writing, 59, Article 100802.
10.
ChenY. (2021). Understanding student engagement with teacher and peer feedback in a translation course for Chinese English majors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.
11.
ChengX.LiuY. (2022). Student engagement with teacher written feedback: Insights from low-proficiency and high-proficiency L2 learners. System, 109, Article 102880.
12.
ChengX.LiuY.WangC. (2023). Understanding student engagement with teacher and peer feedback in L2 writing. System, 119, Article 103176.
13.
ChengX.ZhangL.J. (2024). Examining second language (l2) learners’ engagement with AWE-teacher integrated feedback in a technology-empowered context. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 33, 1023–1035.
14.
DinsmoreD.L.AlexanderP.A. (2012). A critical discussion of deep and surface processing: What it means, how it is measured, the role of context, and model specification. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 499–567.
15.
DinsmoreD.L.AlexanderP.A. (2016). A multidimensional investigation of deep-level and surface-level processing. The Journal of Experimental Education, 84, 213–244.
16.
Domínguez AraújoL. (2019). Feedback in conference interpreter education: Perspectives of trainers and trainees. Interpreting, 21, 135–150.
17.
DresslerR.ChuM.-W.CrossmanK.HilmanB. (2019). Quantity and quality of uptake: Examining surface and meaning-level feedback provided by peers and an instructor in a graduate research course. Assessing Writing, 39, 14–24.
18.
EllisR. (2010). Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335–349.
19.
EneE.YaoJ. (2021). How does that make you feel: Students’ affective engagement with feedback. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 25, 66–83.
20.
FanY. (2019). An investigation of the effects on task types on learner engagement in peer interaction. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, 42, 29–37.
21.
FanY.XuJ. (2020). Exploring student engagement with peer feedback on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 50, Article 100775.
22.
FredricksJ.A.BlumenfeldP.C.ParisA.H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.
23.
FredricksJ.A.WangM.-T.LinnJ.S., et al (2016). Using qualitative methods to develop a survey measure of math and science engagement. Learning and Instruction, 43, 5–15.
24.
FuM.LiS. (2019). The associations between individual differences in working memory and the effectiveness of immediate and delayed corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Studies, 2, 233–257.
25.
FuX.YangC.ZhangT. (2024). Visibilizing invisible engagement behind students’ no-revision operation to written feedback. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688241227666
26.
GaoB.FanJ. (2024). Understanding student engagement with teacher feedback in Chinese-to-English consecutive interpreting courses. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688241304168
27.
GassS.M.MackeyA. (2017). Stimulated recall methodology in applied linguistics and L2 research (2nd ed.). Routledge.
28.
GijsenM.CatrysseL.De MaeyerS.GijbelsD. (2024). Mapping cognitive processes in video-based learning by combining trace and think-aloud data. Learning and Instruction, 90, Article 101851.
29.
GuoY. (2022). A study on Chinese non-English major college students’ engagement in the EFL classroom. Wuhan University Press.
30.
HanC. (2015). Investigating rater severity/leniency in interpreter performance testing: A multifaceted Rasch measurement approach. Interpreting, 17, 255–283.
31.
HanC. (2017). Using analytic rating scales to assess English/Chinese bi-directional interpretation: A longitudinal Rasch analysis of scale utility and rater behavior. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series – Themes in Translation Studies, 16, 196–215.
32.
HanY. (2016). Learner engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in Chinese tertiary-level EFL classrooms: A sociocognitive perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
33.
HanY. (2019). Written corrective feedback from an ecological perspective: The interaction between the context and individual learners. System, 80, 288–303.
34.
HanY.HylandF. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31–44.
35.
HanY.HylandF. (2019). Academic emotions in written corrective feedback situations. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 1–13.
36.
HandleyK.PriceM.MillarJ. (2011). Beyond ‘doing time’: Investigating the concept of student engagement with feedback. Oxford Review of Education, 37, 543–560.
37.
HiromoriT. (2021). Are two heads better than one? Comparing engagement between pairs and individuals in an L2 writing task. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 21, 66–83.
38.
HowellD.C. (2014). Fundamental statistics fort the behavioral sciences (8th ed.). Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
39.
JinX.JiangQ.XiongW.FengY.ZhaoW. (2024). Effects of student engagement in peer feedback on writing performance in higher education. Interactive Learning Environments, 32, 128–143.
40.
JonssonA.PanaderoE. (2018). Facilitating students’ active engagement with feedback. In LipnevichA.A.SmithJ.K. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of instructional feedback (pp. 531–553). Cambridge University Press.
41.
KaoC.-W. (2023). A preliminary investigation into student writers’ perception of corrective feedback focus. Feedback Research in Second Language, 1, 236–246.
42.
KimJ.GuoP.J.CaiC.J., et al (2014). Data-driven interaction techniques for improving navigation of educational videos. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology(UIST ’14) (pp. 563–572). Association for Computing Machinery.
43.
KoltovskaiaS. (2020). Student engagement with automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) provided by Grammarly: A multiple case study. Assessing Writing, 44, Article 100450.
44.
KoltovskaiaS.RahmatiP.SaeliH. (2024). Graduate students’ use of ChatGPT for academic text revision: Behavioral, cognitive, and affective engagement. Journal of Second Language Writing, 65, Article 101130.
45.
KuK.Y.HoI.T. (2010). Metacognitive strategies that enhance critical thinking. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 251–267.
46.
KurzerK. (2023). Dynamic written corrective feedback: A scoping review. Feedback Research in Second Language, 1, 93–108.
47.
LauW.M.E.AubreyS.EllisR. (2024). Error logs in the second language classroom: Exploring the relationship between learner engagement with written corrective feedback and improvements in writing accuracy. System, 123, Article 103329.
48.
LeeH.Y.ListA. (2019). Processing of texts and videos: A strategy-focused analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35, 268–282.
49.
LeeJ. (2008). Rating scales for interpreting performance assessment. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 2, 165–184.
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.
52.
LiJ.ChenM.ZhengQ. (2024). The dynamics and mediating factors of students’ emotional and social engagement in a project-based writing course. System, 121, Article 103237.
53.
LiJ.JiangY.YuanF. (2024). Effects of L2 grit on learner engagement with peer feedback: The mediating role of writing emotions. Modern Foreign Languages, 47, 478–489.
54.
LiJ.YuanF. (2024). Does engagement with feedback matter? Unveiling the impact of learner engagement and grit on EFL learners’ English writing achievements. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688241257865
55.
LiS.VuonoA. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System. System, 84, 93–109.
56.
LiX. (2025). Mapping the research landscape of interpreter and translator education: Current themes and future directions (1st ed.). Routledge.
57.
ListA.BallengerE.E. (2019). Comprehension across mediums: The case of text and video. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 31, 514–535.
58.
LoC.K.HewK.F.JongM.S.-Y. (2024). The influence of ChatGPT on student engagement: A systematic review and future research agenda. Computers and Education, 219, Article 105100.
59.
LongZ.QiuY. (2024). EFL writing learners’ feedback engagement and its influencing factors in a multiple-interaction environment from an ecological perspective. Modern Foreign Languages, 47, 540–551.
60.
LópezA.A. (2023). ESL teachers’ perceptions of effective classroom assessment feedback. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 37, 91–107.
61.
LysterR.RantaL. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
62.
MahfoodhO.H.A. (2017). ‘I feel disappointed’: EFL university students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback. Assessing Writing, 31, 53–72.
63.
MalvaL.LeijenÄ.ArcidiaconoF. (2023). Identifying teachers’ general pedagogical knowledge: A video stimulated recall study. Educational Studies, 49, 588–613.
64.
MaoZ. (2021). Exploring learner engagement with teacher written feedback on second language writing: Sociocultural perspectives. Publication number 29186361. Doctoral dissertation, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. ProQuest LLC.
65.
MaoZ.LeeI. (2022). Researching L2 student engagement with written feedback: Insights from sociocultural theory. TESOL Quarterly, 56, 788–798.
66.
MaoZ.LeeI. (2023). Student engagement with written feedback: Critical issues and way forward. RELC Journal, 55, 810–818.
67.
MasonL.TarchiC.RonconiA., et al (2022). Do medium and context matter when learning from multiple complementary digital texts and videos?Instructional Science, 50, 653–679.
68.
McNamaraD.S.GraesserA.C.McCarthyP.M.CaiZ. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge University Press.
69.
OlsonC.B.LandR. (2007). A cognitive strategies approach to reading and writing instruction for English language learners in secondary school. Research in the Teaching of English, 41, 269–303.
70.
O’MalleyJ.M.ChamotA.U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
71.
OxfordR.L. (2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self-regulation in context (2nd ed.). Routledge.
72.
PanJ.ChenH.YuanS. (2023). A comparative study of the engagement with written corrective feedback of Chinese private college students. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 8, 1–18.
73.
ParkJ. (2024). Students’ perceptions toward providing video-enhanced multimodal feedback on oral presentations. Computer Assisted Language Learning. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2024.2344546
74.
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.
75.
PearsonW.S. (2024). Affective, behavioural, and cognitive engagement with written feedback on second language writing: A systematic methodological review. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1285954.
76.
QiD.S.LapkinS. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277–303.
77.
RanalliJ. (2021). L2 student engagement with automated feedback on writing: Potential for learning and issues of trust. Journal of Second Language Writing, 52, Article 100816.
78.
ReeveJ. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 579–595.
79.
ReynoldsB.L. (2023). Exploring learner attention and processing in second language writing: The role of eye-tracking and written corrective feedback. Feedback Research in Second Language, 1, 226–235.
80.
SaeliH.ChengA. (2019). Student writers’ affective engagement with grammar-centred written corrective feedback: The impact of (mis)aligned practices and perceptions. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22, 109–132.
81.
SaeliH.ChengA. (2021). Peer feedback, learners’ engagement, and L2 writing development: The case of a test-preparation class. Teaching English as a Second Language Electronic Journal (TESL-EJ), 25, 1–18.
82.
SaeliH.RahmatiP. (2023). Developments in learners’ affective engagement with written peer feedback: The affordances of in situ translanguaging. Assessing Writing, 58, Article 100788.
83.
SettonR.DawrantA. (2016). Conference interpreting: A trainer’s guide. John Benjamins.
84.
ShiY. (2021). Exploring learner engagement with multiple sources of feedback on L2 writing across genres. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 758867.
85.
StorchN.WigglesworthG. (2010). Learner’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303–334.
86.
SunP.P. (2022). Strategic self-regulation for speaking English as a foreign language: Scale development and validation. TESOL Quarterly, 56, 1369–1383.
87.
TakahashiJ. (2022). Exploring written corrective feedback engagement from a sociocognitive perspective: A case study of learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Publication number 29168863. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University. ProQuest LLC.
88.
TheysL.WermuthC.HsiehE., et al (2022). Doctors, patients, and interpreters’ views on the co-construction of empathic communication in interpreter-mediated consultations: A qualitative content analysis of video stimulated recall interviews. Qualitative Health Research, 32, 1843–1857.
89.
ThiN.K.NikolovM.SimonK. (2023). Higher-proficiency students’ engagement with and uptake of teacher and Grammarly feedback in an EFL writing course. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 17, 690–705.
90.
TianL.ZhouY. (2020). Learner engagement with automated feedback, peer feedback and teacher feedback in an online EFL writing context. System, 91, Article 102247.
91.
ToJ. (2022). Using learner-centred feedback design to promote students’ engagement with feedback. Higher Education Research and Development, 41, 1309–1324.
92.
TurnerE. (2023). Dialogic feedback and literary disciplinary knowledge in L2 writing instruction: How attitude to feedback influences academic achievement. Research Papers in Education, 38, 21–44.
93.
Van MeenenF.MassonN.CatrysseL.CoertjensL. (2023). Taking a closer look at how higher education students process and use (discrepant) peer feedback. Learning and Instruction, 84, Article 101711.
94.
WaluyoB.PanmeiB. (2024). Students’ peer feedback engagements in online English courses facilitated by a social network in Thailand. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 14, 306–323.
95.
WangB.YuS.TeoT. (2018). An exploratory case study into Chinese EFL teachers’ commentary practices in oral presentations. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 15, 65–94.
96.
WangB.YuS.ZhengY.TeoT. (2022). Student engagement with teacher oral feedback in EFL university classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 29, 1994–2018.
97.
WangH.ZhuS.LiuM. (2020). The application of interpreting technologies in the era of artificial intelligence. Intellectual Property Publishing House.
98.
WangL.ShenB. (2024). Influencing factors of L2 writers’ engagement in an assessment as learning-focused context. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2023-0159
99.
WoodJ. (2021). A dialogic technology-mediated model of feedback uptake and literacy. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 46, 1173–1190.
100.
XuJ.LongZ. (2022). Examining student engagement with written feedback in a multiple interaction environment. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 2022(5), 21–31 and 144–145.
101.
XuS.SuY.LiuK. (2025). Investigating student engagement with AI-driven feedback in translation revision: A mixed-methods study. Education and Information Technologies, 30, 16969–16995.
102.
XuY.HanS. (2020). An investigation of L2 students’ engagement with automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback. Foreign Language Education in China, 3, 72–80 and 93.
103.
XueR.LiuQ. (2024). Exploring student interpreters’ engagement with different sources of feedback on note-taking. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 62, 1135–1148.
104.
YanJ.X.LuoK. (2023). Audio description and interpreting training: A comparison of assessment criteria from the perspective of learners. Perspectives, 31, 1049–1064.
105.
YangL.F.ZhangL.J. (2023). Self-regulation and student engagement with feedback: The case of Chinese EFL student writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 63, Article 101226.
106.
YousefiM.NassajiH. (2024). The impact of corrective feedback on L2 pragmatics production in face-to-face and technology-mediated settings. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 39, 305–328.
107.
YuS.JiangL. (2022). Doctoral students’ engagement with journal reviewers’ feedback on academic writing. Studies in Continuing Education, 44, 87–104.
108.
YuS.ZhouN.JiangL. (2025). Secondary students’ L2 writing motivation and engagement: The impact of teachers’ instructional approaches and feedback practices. Applied Linguistics Review, 16, 537–563.
109.
ZhanY.YanZ. (2025). Students’ engagement with ChatGPT feedback: Implications for student feedback literacy in the context of generative artificial intelligence. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2471821
110.
ZhangY.GaoY. (2024). Exploring the dynamics of student engagement with receiving peer feedback in L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 60, Article 100842.
111.
ZhangY.JiangZ. (2022). Effects of the integrated teacher: AWE feedback environment on learner engagement and second language writing performance. Foreign Language World, w, 40–48.
112.
ZhangZ. (2018). Student engagement with feedback on second language writing: Case studies on four English majors in two Chinese universities. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Hong Kong. HKU Theses Online (HKUTO).
113.
ZhangZ. (2020). Engaging with automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback on L2 writing: Student perceptions and revisions. Assessing Writing, 43, Article 100439.
114.
ZhangZ. (2022). Promoting student engagement with feedback: Insights from collaborative pedagogy and teacher feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 47, 540–555.
115.
ZhangZ.HylandK. (2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 90–102.
116.
ZhangZ.HylandK. (2022). Fostering student engagement with feedback: An integrated approach. Assessing Writing, 51, Article 100586.
117.
ZhangZ.XuL. (2022). Student engagement with automated feedback on academic writing: A study on Uyghur ethnic minority students in China. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 45, 3466–3479.
118.
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.
119.
ZhengY.YuS.LiuZ. (2023). Understanding individual differences in lower-proficiency students’ engagement with teacher written corrective feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 28, 301–321.
120.
ZhengY.ZhongQ.YuS.LiX. (2020). Examining students’ responses to teacher translation feedback: Insights from the perspective of student engagement. Sage Open, 10, 1–10.
121.
ZhuQ. (2018). Chinese undergraduates’ engagement with peer feedback: Perceptions and practices. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Hong Kong. HKU Theses Online (HKUTO).
122.
ZhuX.YaoY.LuQ. (2024). The relationships between the growth mindset, writing feedback literacy, and feedback engagement of undergraduate students in L1 Chinese writing learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 80, Article 101320.
123.
ZimmermanB.J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 166–183.
