(PDF) Examining the Perceptions and Pref

(PDF) Examining the Perceptions and Preferences of Saudi EFL Student Teachers Concerning Teachers' Feedback Practices
About
Press
Papers
We're Hiring!
Outline
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Types and Delivery Methods of Feedback
Research Methodology
Subjects
Procedures
Data Collection
Data Analysis
Results
Results of the Open-Ended Question
Results of Efl Student Teachers' Satisfaction
Discussion of the Findings
Conclusion and Recommendations
Limitations of the Study
References
Examining the Perceptions and Preferences of Saudi EFL Student Teachers Concerning Teachers' Feedback Practices
Hayat Alamri
January 31, 2025
visibility
description
30 pages
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
check
Get notified about relevant papers
check
Save papers to use in your research
check
Join the discussion with peers
check
Track your impact
Abstract
This study examines the perceptions of thirty-one Saudi female EFL student teachers of the importance of teacher feedback practices, along with their preferences for different types and delivery methods. The students were following the Analysis of EFL Curriculum course run by the College of Education at Taibah University, which has adapted the Project-Based-Learning (PBL) approach. Data was gathered by means of three 5-point Likert scale questionnaires. The results of the descriptive statistics revealed that the majority of the participants had moderate to high positive perceptions and preferences towards the different types and delivery methods of teacher feedback. In addition, they expressed a high level of satisfaction with the course in general. The results of the quantitative data revealed that the students also recognized the value of teacher feedback for their subsequent assignments and courses. Moreover, they highlighted the need for additional meetings between students and teachers to discuss feedback relating to assignments, tests, activities and/or projects. Likewise, the EFL student teachers expressed their desire for more written feedback on their work, along with further opportunities to ask questions, share information, and discuss issues with their teachers and peers. It was also notable that the majority of respondents valued the importance of teacher feedback as an effective and preferable complementary source of knowledge in EFL classrooms.
Related papers
Teachers’ Feedback in Group Works of EFL Learning: Does It Influence Students’ Success?
Absharini Kardena
JETAL: Journal of English Teaching & Applied Linguistic, 2020
As one of suggested teaching techniques in EFL context, one of important stages in implementing group work is allocating time for testing students’ comprehension. This stage is claimed to be an important stage since it is aimed to evaluate teaching and learning processes. Moreover, this evaluation demands any feedback in order to improve the quality of teaching and learning processes and even group work activity. In other words, group work also requires such evaluation in terms of feedbacks in order to get the maximum effect of this teaching technique for the students. However, the feedback offered cannot always affect the processes in a positive way. Thus, the teachers need to consider any guidelines in offering the feedback. This article, which is derived and further developed based on research conducted in 2013, explores the role of teachers’ feedback in relation to the success of EFL learning at MAN Solok city, a state Islamic senior high school at Solok city, West Sumatera. The...
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Oral Corrective Feedback Techniques: An Investigation of the EFL Teachers' Beliefs and Practices at Taif University
Reem Alkhammash
Arab World English Journal, 2019
Recent research has shown that little attention has been paid to teachers' views regarding giving oral corrective feedback (Sepehrinia & Mehdizadeh, 2016). To fill this gap, this empirical study investigates the beliefs of Taif University's teachers of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) about their feedback practices and their perception of the impact that these practices have on students' performance. An opinionnaire of 18 items was designed with closed-ended questions. A five-point Likert's scale was employed to measure three subscales: teachers' beliefs and practices about their corrective feedback; types of oral corrective feedback used by EFL teachers; and their perception of students' uptake. The survey was administered to fifty-seven English as foreign language (EFL) teachers at the English Language Centre (ELC), Taif University who were asked to fill in an online survey regarding their oral corrective feedback practices in the classroom. Their responses were analysed quantitatively. The findings of the study were that the participants allocated highest preferences to the techniques of elicitation, repetition and recast, and that they frequently use them in their classrooms.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Feedback challenges and strategies in EFL classroom: Insights from non-formal education institution
MUHAMMAD DAFFA RIZKY HIDAYAT
English Learning Innovation, 2024
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Undergraduate Learners' Feedback Preference in the EFL Classroom of Bangladesh
Jounal of ELT and Education (JEE)
Center for Academic Research and Development, 2025
Feedback plays a vital role in developing students' adeptness in English language learning. Though there are diverse forms of feedback, this study emphasized the major feedback approaches. The objective of this article was to find out the most preferred form of feedback by the EFL students and to detect whether they prefer a combination of various feedback in the classroom. Moreover, the perception and preference for feedback also come to light through this study. The data for the study have been gathered from 45 undergraduate students of a private university located in Dhaka, Bangladesh, through a questionnaire survey and one-to-one interviews with 10 students. To ensure the authenticity of the results, both quantitative and qualitative data have been used for profound insights. The results of the study are meant to bring a deep insight into EFL students' preferences for teachers' feedback in the classroom of the selected university. However, the investigation's outcomes lack generalizability across Bangladesh's EFL context, as they do not reflect the actual classroom realities of the entire milieu.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Exploring the Moroccan EFL High School Teachers' Feedback Practices as a Form of Formative Assessment: Opportunities and Challenges
NABIL EL OUARDI
British Journal of Teacher Education and Pedagogy · , 2023
This paper aims to explore the extent to which Moroccan EFL secondary school teachers use feedback as a form of formative assessment. It also aims at identifying the main challenges that render such practice difficult. Feedback is crucially important in the learning-teaching process. It is considered a key strategy of formative assessment. Despite the existence of several studies that recommend the use of formative assessment, it has not been properly addressed by research in the Moroccan educational system. Thus, exploring the Moroccan EFL teachers' feedback practice can provide a clear picture of the opportunities and challenges of its implementation in the Moroccan context. The study follows a quantitative research design in which data were collected from 100 EFL secondary school teachers through questionnaires. Results revealed that the majority of teachers implement feedback as a formative tool to assess their students. However, they reported that workload, lack of time, and school regulations are the main obstacles which render formative feedback practices challenging. The findings will benefit policy makers, practitioners, researchers, and teacher trainers as well.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
An Investigation of the Practice of EFL Teachers' Written Feedback Provision Vis-À-Vis Their Students' Preferences
Melsew Shibabaw
By using descriptive survey design that employed mixed methods approach of data collection and analysis, this study investigated the practice of EFL teachers written feedback provisions vis-à-vis students' preferences. Data for the study were collected from 50 (male=20, female=30) students through questionnaire and from three teachers through interview. What is more, forty five students' papers containing teachers' written feedback were analyzed. The results revealed discrepancies between teachers' feedback provision practices with students' preferences. Most students were interested to receive teacher written feedbacks that address all aspects of writing rather than primarily focusing on language accuracy. Moreover, the results of the study also indicated that large class size, poor language proficiency of students, students' inability to understand correction codes, examination culture, lack of teachers' training concerning written feedback practice were the major challenges EFL teachers face in giving written feedback. The study concludes that it is important for teachers to be aware of students' preferences when they give written feedback.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
University EFL Students’ Preferences for Feedback
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Aurelija Daukšaitė-Kolpakovienė
Res Humanitariae, 2024
This case study involved Lithuanian university students and aimed to learn about their preferences for feedback in their EFL classes, as feedback is important for the improvement of their linguistic skills. The students filled in an anonymous online questionnaire containing open and closedended questions that focused on the form, focus, types, source, frequency, timing of feedback, the types of errors it should cover, and other relevant aspects of feedback, such as feelings related to feedback in the English classroom. The findings reveal that the students prefer teacher feedback focusing on language, content, organisation, and work in progress. Such feedback should be both positive and negative, provided either in English or Lithuanian or both. The form and type of feedback are not important, but individual feedback is preferred over collective feedback. All or the most frequent errors should be corrected either after the activity or straight away after they occur.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Th eorizing EFL Teachers’ Perspectives and Rationales on Providing Corrective Feedback
Seyyed Ali Ostovar-Namaghi
Researchers condemn teachers by saying that tradition, rather than research fi nd ings, derive their practice while teachers condemn researchers by saying that their research fi nd ings are universal generalizations that fail in practice. To turn mutual distrust to mutual trust, this data-driven study aims at theorizing practice, rather than enlighten practice through theory-driven research. Th e the oretical sampling of twenty EFL teachers’ perspectives concerning corrective feedback, together with the rigorous coding schemes of grounded theory yielded some context-sensitive corrective feedback techniques: direct feedback; indirect feedback such as recast, providing an alternative, asking other students, pausing before the error, providing the rule, using the correct structure and showing surprise; feedback through other language skills including writing and listening; and no correction on cognitive, affe ctive and information processing grounds. Moreover analysis uncovered a set of specifi ca tions on when, where, and why to use these techniques. Not only do the fi nd ings help practitioners get in-sights and improve their providing feedback, but also they help researchers modify their hypotheses before testing them through the quantitative research that aims at generalization.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
EFL Turkish University Students’ Preferences about Teacher Feedback and its Importance
AYHAN KAHRAMAN
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2015
Writing is accepted as challenging work, and L2 learners do not feel qualified to write in L2. Teacher feedback may be a solution; nonetheless, it may also deepen the students' feeling of inefficacy in L2 writing. This study examined EFL Turkish university students' attitudes toward and preferences for teacher feedback and the gender effect on the attitudes of these students. The analysis revealed that most of the participants had positive attitudes toward teacher feedback. Gender did not have an important influence on the students' attitudes. Students' preferences regarding the type of feedback can change as per the time of feedback.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Beliefs about Feedback Provision in EFL Writing and the Actual Practices by an Experienced Indonesian Teacher
Muthia Farida
English education, 2022
This article reports the research on an experienced Indonesian teacher's beliefs about feedback provision and her actual practices in an EFL writing classroom. Previous work has conducted analyses of teacher beliefs about feedback, but there is a scarce of research focusing on teacher beliefs and practices on feedback provision to experienced EFL teacher, especially in the Indonesian context. Therefore, this case study investigates an experiencdEFL teacher who taught advanced writing courses in one of the leading universities in Indonesia. The data used were qualitative. In order to gain the data, a preliminary interview, observation, and a retrospective interview were carried out, respectively. Samples of the students' work were reviewed as a supplementary. The data analysis was done through data transcription, data reading, data data reduction and categorization, data comparison, data description and interpretation, and finally drawing conclusion. The findings show that the teacher believed that feedback was essential and, thus, she put herself as a major source of feedback for her students. Her beliefs influenced her practices to optimize her feedback provision, including her preferences in terms of modes, types, and sources of feedback. Her professional coursework and experiences played important roles in leading consistency between her beliefs and practices. For future teaching practices, it is suggested for teachers to equip themselves with adequate knowledge and skills, and to incorporate various methods to maximize their feedback provision. For future research, it is strongly recommended to use this reflective interview to help capture teacher beliefs behind their actual practices.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2018

Examining the Perceptions and Preferences of Saudi EFL Student
Teachers Concerning Teachers’ Feedback Practices
Hayat Rasheed Hamzah Alamri
Curricula & Teaching Methods Dep., College of Education, Taibah University
PO box 4532, Madinah 41412, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Abstract
This study examines the perceptions of thirty-one Saudi female EFL student teachers of the importance of
teacher feedback practices, along with their preferences for different types and delivery methods. The students
were following the Analysis of EFL Curriculum course run by the College of Education at Taibah University,
which has adapted the Project-Based-Learning (PBL) approach. Data was gathered by means of three 5-point
Likert scale questionnaires. The results of the descriptive statistics revealed that the majority of the participants
had moderate to high positive perceptions and preferences towards the different types and delivery methods of
teacher feedback. In addition, they expressed a high level of satisfaction with the course in general. The results
of the quantitative data revealed that the students also recognized the value of teacher feedback for their
subsequent assignments and courses. Moreover, they highlighted the need for additional meetings between
students and teachers to discuss feedback relating to assignments, tests, activities and/or projects. Likewise, the
EFL student teachers expressed their desire for more written feedback on their work, along with further
opportunities to ask questions, share information, and discuss issues with their teachers and peers. It was also
notable that the majority of respondents valued the importance of teacher feedback as an effective and preferable
complementary source of knowledge in EFL classrooms.
Keywords: EFL student teachers, perceptions, preferences, satisfaction, teacher feedback

1. Introduction
Feedback forms a crucial aspect of language learning and teaching (Seker & Dincer, 2014). It was defined by
Narciss (2008) as being “all post-response information that is provided to a learner to inform [about] his or her
actual state of learning or performance” (p.127). Feedback is implemented during the teaching and learning
process to improve students’ performance, encourage motivation, and stimulate thinking skills (Kavaliauskienė
& Anusienė, 2012; Orts & Salazar, 2016). Recently, Dargusch and Davis (2015) added that feedback makes a
broad contribution to the improvement of learning, as a result of the exchangeable roles of teachers and students,
as well as the sharing of responsibilities. Moreover, Petchprasert (2012) concluded that feedback supports both
teachers and their students in meeting the goals set for courses, resulting in high levels of success.
Previous research has examined the use of feedback in higher education as a successful tactic and source of
knowledge provided by the teacher to the students. A significant study by Carless (2006) reported that feedback
“acts by providing advice for improvement of the current assignment; advice for improvement of future
assignments; explaining or justifying a grade; and an act by which the tutor demonstrates characteristics, such as
expertise, diligence or authority” (p. 220). According to Rowe and Wood (2008), universities need to recognize
feedback as an important component of: firstly, improving the ranking of learning and teaching and secondly, as
an indicator of reaching the high standards set by the quality assurance system.
The research results have reported students as being willing to utilize feedback as a tool for student-teacher
interaction (Şeker & Sezgin, 2013). Moreover, students indicated their need for different types of teacher
feedback, as appropriate (Kahraman & Yalvaç, 2015), as well as a strong need for such feedback, even if
provided on an infrequent basis and/or with insufficient comments (Sharif & Zainuddin, 2017).
A number of studies over the previous two decades have investigated learners’ preferences and perceptions
in relation to teacher feedback. The results of a seminal study conducted by Grami (2005) indicated that Saudi
EFL students expected feedback from their teachers, believing this resulted in considerable benefit. Furthermore,
Park (2010) noted the need for university teachers to become aware of student teachers’ preference for feedback
for many characteristics of learning, i.e. learning styles, proficiency levels and motivation. Additionally,
Norouzian and Farahani (2012) indicated that the results of perception and preference studies can raise the
awareness of language instructors of the reaction of students towards the feedback practices of EFL teachers.
This awareness can, in turn, provide EFL teachers with appropriate learning environments, aimed at improving
both the motivation and performance of learners. Similarly, Seker and Dincer (2014) suggested a need for
teachers to make cautious decisions (i.e. by integrating students’ perceptions and preferences) when attempting
to shape the feedback process. Kaivanpanah, Alavi, and Sepehrinia (2015) concluded that “teachers will be able
to create a more eﬀective and involving learning environment by attending to their students’ reactions and
feelings, and considering students’ preferences along with their own teaching experience” (p.90).
A growing body of research has recently been undertaken within the context of higher education, focusing

Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2018

on students’ preferences towards, and perceptions of, feedback (e.g. Chen, Nassaji & Liu, 2016; Kaur & Singh,
2016; Mungungu-Shipale & Kangira, 2017; Orts & Salazar, 2016; Sharif & Zainuddin, 2017; Vasu, Ling &
Nimehchisalem, 2016; Zhan, 2016). This has partially arisen from the discussion taking place in the existing
literature of the vital role played by feedback.
Despite the positive attitudes, perceptions and beliefs of university students towards the wide-ranging
impact of teacher feedback on their academic development (e.g. Fakeye, 2016; Kahraman & Yalvaç, 2015;
Papangkorn, 2015; Parkes & Fletcher, 2016), it has also been documented that feedback interventions can fail to
result in an increase in learning performance (e.g. Mungungu-Shipale & Kangira, 2017; Rahimi, 2010; Rowe,
Wood & Petocz, 2008). These studies have reported a number of factors relating to the limited effectiveness of
feedback practices. Firstly, a lack of engagement from teaching staff has a negative impact on the improvement
of feedback practices (Rowe, Wood, & Petocz, 2008). Secondly, there is a limited amount of teacher feedback,
which is considered unhelpful, particularly due to the lack of detailed comments (Rahimi, 2010). Thirdly, a large
scale study by Ferguson (2011) considered that the majority of university students indicated receiving only brief
and concise feedback, which was also of low quality. Finally, a recent study by Mungungu-Shipale and Kangira
(2017) reported that feedback may not always be particularly effective, and that the final decision concerning the
most appropriate approach tends to be left to the individual teacher.
However, academic staff creating teacher preparation programs need to be aware of the requirement to
create an effective learning environment, including setting up sessions to discuss the appearance of errors and
elicit suggestions for further improvement. Postgraduate student teachers require assistance in developing
constructive academic features (i.e. trust, belief, and action), as their absence can have a negative influence on
the quality, processes and procedures of higher education, and thus the progress of their future careers (Dargusch
& Davis, 2015). EFL student teachers are expected, as part of their professional preparation, to carry out
different types of feedback (including methods of delivery) in their own classrooms. This enables them to
simultaneously play the dual role of student and professional. Moreover, as a new generation of teachers, they
are required to be capable of basing their decisions concerning the delivery of feedback to their students on
practices they have been taught, along with personal experience.
This study therefore responds to the importance of investigating the perceptions and preferences of higher
education students towards teacher feedback noted above, along with the inadequate and unsatisfactory quality
of existing feedback. It therefore focuses on the perceptions of Saudi EFL student teachers concerning the
importance of teacher feedback and their preference for different types and delivery methods.

2. Statement of the Problem
One of the obligatory courses in the postgraduate Educational Diploma Program (EDP) in the College of
Education at Taibah University is an analysis of the EFL Curriculum. The researcher is a teacher of this course,
and has adopted Project-Based Learning (PBL) as an effective method of fulfilling the learning outcomes of the
course. In order to become more effective, the PBL method requires the inclusion of both lectures and feedback
sessions, in which learners can be provided with information concerning different types (and delivery methods)
of feedback, while working on their course projects.
Feedback remains a relatively underexplored subject, despite students’ recognition of its vital impact on
learning. It thus faces a number of challenges, including: (1) quality; (2) quantity; (3) time; and (4) a lack of
clear requirements and expectations. In addition, little attention has been paid to providing learners with regular
feedback that is both planned and encouraging. During a free discussion regarding the importance of feedback,
Saudi female EFL student teachers in EDP reported a considerable absence of feedback during other courses in
relation to their projects or tasks. In addition, they also stated that some teachers requested final drafts for
grading without giving any pre- or post-feedback. They noted that this approach creates an insecure atmosphere
and causes both dissatisfaction and confusion. Previous research (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Kaivanpanah et al.,
2015; Rowe & Wood, 2008) suggested that feedback is most effective when it clearly identifies strengths and
weaknesses and is delivered immediately following the performance of a task. This motivates students to
develop their learning skills, while also providing them with practical considerations for further improvement.
The main purpose of this current study is therefore to explore the perceptions of Saudi female EFL student
teachers towards: firstly, the importance of teacher feedback practices and secondly, their preferences for
different types and delivery methods during their course projects. Finally, the study aims to identify the general
level of satisfaction of EFL student teachers concerning the course delivery.

3. The Research Questions
1. What are the perceptions of Saudi EFL female student teachers concerning the importance of teacher
feedback practices provided during their course project?
2. What are the Saudi EFL female student teachers’ preferences concerning the types of teacher feedback
provided during their course project?

Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2018

3. What are the Saudi EFL female student teachers’ preferences concerning the delivery methods of teacher
feedback provided during their course project?
4. What are the levels of satisfaction of the Saudi EFL female student teachers towards the course in
general?

4. Significance of the Study
This study will facilitate the awareness of teachers of the need to tailor their types and delivery methods of
feedback, taking into account the perceptions and preferences of their students. It will also give teachers insights
on how, what, and when to deliver effective feedback to their students, in order to improve their academic
performance. Moreover, the results of the study identifies the most powerful and efficient types and delivery
methods of teacher feedback, particularly during project-based courses, in order to successfully enhance
students’ performance and develop their skills.

5. Literature Review
Two areas of research underpin the research questions and inform this paper: (1) teacher feedback and (2) the
perception and preferences of learners. There is a brief overview of the importance, characteristics of effective
teacher feedback, as well as the role of feedback in PBL. In addition, there is a review of the different feedback
types and delivery methods. Finally, the researcher summarizes the views of previous studies of learners’
perceptions and preferences in relation to teacher feedback.

5.1. Importance of teacher feedback for learning
According to Hattie and Timperley (2007), “feedback is conceptualized as information provided by an agent
(e.g. teacher, peer, book, parent, self, experience) regarding aspects of one's performance or understanding (p.
81).” Nation (2009) and Susanti (2013) identified the existence of various different sources of feedback in
education, i.e. teacher, peers, and self-feedback. Moreover, Nation (2009) noted that the source, delivery mode
and form of feedback would determine whether it is delivered as spoken, written, or both.
Higher education students frequently request a detailed analysis of their work, in order to determine its
strengths and weaknesses. They also ask to be provided with regular in-depth feedback contributing to further
development (Hewitt, 2008). Thus, effective learning requires feedback that is comprehensible, beneficial and
relevant (Hill & Flynn, 2006).
The review of a considerable number of studies revealed little agreement on the importance and value of
feedback practices implemented during the teaching-learning process.
Truscott (1996) rejected the existence of any positive impact of written feedback given by teachers to
improve their students’ writing. Moreover, Truscott argued that teachers should adopt a ‘correction-free
approach’ in their classrooms, so as to improve the attitudes of students. The result of his quasi-experimental
study revealed that the control group achieved significantly higher scores in marking sentence boundaries,
despite the experimental group having been given an extensive ten-week correction period. Truscott therefore
concluded that correction can prove ineffective and harmful to students’ learning. In response to Truscott’s
results, Ferris (1999) provided evidence of the positive influence of error feedback in L2 writing. She based her
arguments on the positive results from surveying students’ opinions concerning teacher feedback, which
indicated that L2 students value the importance of correction from their teacher. Furthermore, Ferris (1999)
concluded that the absence of any type of feedback has a serious negative impact on students’ need to improve
their editing skills.
The findings of a study conducted by Grami (2005) demonstrated that Saudi EFL students agreed on the
importance of feedback from their teachers, and paid it a great deal of attention. The results of Morss and Murray
(2005) revealed that teacher written feedback makes the marking process more transparent for students, as well
as assisting them to accept the marks awarded.
The results of an interview conducted by Carless (2006), revealed that students valued feedback comments
that resulted in a rapid improvement of both current and future tasks requiring similar skills. Additionally,
Zacharias (2007) stated that students view teacher feedback as a valuable method for achieving improved grades
and comments.
Rowe and Wood (2008) found that many students reported that their anxiety was reduced by timely and
individual teacher feedback. Furthermore, they valued teacher feedback that considered their needs, feelings and
point of view. Responses obtained from a study conducted by Rowe et al. (2008) revealed that teacher feedback
had a positive impact on the quality of students’ experience, as well as helping them to reflect on their own
learning. Furthermore, Westwood (2008) reported that teacher feedback motivates students and informs them of
their progress, including identifying the most important aspects to ensure further improvement. After examining
the importance of teacher feedback in relation to different types of error, Rahimi (2010) revealed that the
majority of EFL students expected and valued their teachers’ written feedback concerning various different types

Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2018

of errors.
Susanti (2013) viewed teacher feedback as developing students’ learning autonomy, while controlling their
initiation into being subject to correction. The results of a study by Dargusch and Davis (2015) found that
feedback plays an essential role in learning and (more particularly) in the field of teacher training. This is due to
feedback being a professional practice that students themselves will enact as part of their future professional role.
Nuramirah (2017) reported that feedback plays a facilitative role in learning, arising from the provision of
opportunities for comprehensible input, comprehensible output, and feedback.
In conclusion, these studies confirm that both students and teachers agree that teacher feedback shows some
evidence of having a positive influence. Moreover, teachers need to be aware of the importance of feedback to
promote learning and facilitate improvement. They therefore need to demonstrate a professional approach when
modelling their feedback practices.

5.2. Characteristics of effective teacher feedback
Teacher feedback needs to indicate certain characteristics as being effective. Morss and Murray (2005)
concluded that a teacher’s comments should be sufficiently clear and be careful to avoid additional confusion for
his/her students. In addition, it is essential for teachers to engage with students in a healthy and interactive
discussion of their mistakes and comments. Hill and Flynn (2006, p.6) suggested four features of providing
teacher feedback to students. Firstly, feedback should be corrective in nature and provide students with
comprehensive information on their work. Secondly, in order to be effective, it is essential that feedback is
undertaken in a timely manner, with delayed feedback resulting in a lower levels of academic improvement.
Thirdly, feedback should compare students’ performance to a specific academic goal (i.e. criterion-referenced
feedback), rather than to their peers (i.e. norm-referenced feedback). Fourthly, teachers should encourage
students to develop their own feedback through ongoing self-assessment of their performance. Brown and
Glover (2006) assumed the existence of some conditions under which feedback may influence students’
learning. They believed that sufficient levels of feedback can clarify what constitutes good performance for the
learner, i.e. goals, criteria and expected standards. Moreover, if provided with sufficient rapidity, feedback can
facilitate the development of self-assessment (i.e. reflection) in learning, while relating feedback to the purpose
of the assignment and its criteria encourages teacher and peer dialogue. They added that feedback aimed at
improving students’ work or learning should provide information to teachers capable of shaping their teaching.
Westwood (2008) added that feedback should be delivered in positive emotional tone, in order to ensure that
students feel safe and secure when asking for assistance. Likewise, Ferguson (2011) indicated the importance of
careful consideration of the amount of feedback given on a draft, as it may overwhelm students if too detailed,
but, if too concise, it may result in only limited benefit.
In summary: it is vital that teacher feedback is delivered in a manner that is clear, timely, positive and
encouraging, as well as sufficient, reflective, and seeking to ensure the satisfaction of students.

5.3. Role of feedback in PBL
One of the major changes to higher education during the second half of the twentieth century is the move to
become more learner-centred (Boud, 2006, p. 19). PBL is a prime example of this change, being a constructivist-
based method aimed at enhancing engagement in the learning process (Hixson, Ravitz & Whisman, 2012). PBL
is based on John Dewey’s call to implement learning through experience, and to incentivize students through the
employment of ‘hands-on’ experiences, to extend learners’ knowledge of the curriculum, while at the same time
increasing the number of related skills, i.e. collaboration, problem-solving, critical thinking, and reflection (Baş
& Beyhan, 2010; Holm, 2011; Pieratt, 2010; Solomon, 2003). PBL was described by Grant (2011) as an
“instructional method that affords authentic learning tasks grounded in the personal interests of learners” (p. 38).
Ravitz (2010) defined PBL as “an approach to instruction featuring (a) in-depth inquiry, (b) over an extended
period, (c) that is a student self-directed to some extent, and (d) that requires a formal presentation of results” (p.
293).
The literature considers PBL to possess a number of features benefitting learning. Bas (2011) found PBL to
be more effective than traditional instruction for improving the level of learners’ academic achievements,
attitude and motivation. Wrigley (1998) and Ravitz (2010) added that this method: (1) encourages learners to
support each other in the acquisition of knowledge; (2) enables them to gain insights capable of being employed
in other situations; and (3) instils the skills required to successfully undertake public presentations.
Simpson (2011) highlighted various further features of PBL, including its emphasis on: (1) exploring new
knowledge; (2) creating a student-centred learning setting; (3) increasing the use of questions and problems-
solving processes; (4) the provision of frequent project assessment in the form of feedback; (5) ensuring learners
share ideas and expertise; and (6) promoting an atmosphere of cooperative learning.
However, Hixson et al. (2012), Şat (2013), and Thomas (2000) emphasized the key benefits of PBL as
being the learning in depth, along with intrinsic motivation and a complete focus on a student-centred approach.

Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2018

Hasani, Hendrayana and Senjaya (2017) considered the crucial benefits of PBL as being the introduction of
learners to methods of gathering data and developing creative products, as well as building related skills. A
number of further studies (Grant, 2011; Hüttel & Gnaur, 2017; Pieratt, 2010; Tamba, Motlan & Turnip, 2017)
have pointed out that PBL enhances both the creative thinking and problem-solving skills of learners, as well, as
awarding opportunities for learners to guide, manage, and monitor their learning. Moreover, PBL promotes
complex and transformative learning, with the ability to encourage the productive capacity of learners, alongside
respecting their freedom to select tasks based on their own interests and creative skills.
Larmer and Mergendoller (2010) identified seven essential elements needed to ensure PBL is practical for
learners, including: (1) familiarity with the project area; (2) enhancing learner’s decision-making; and (3)
mastering twenty-first century skills, i.e. collaboration, communication, motivation, feedback and product
presentation. Moreover, these elements require that certain roles are played by both teachers and learners. Moss
and Van Duzer (1998) highlighted that PBL requires teachers to exercise careful planning and flexibility, and in
particular an awareness of the dynamic nature of PBL to solve problems, find solutions, and convey learning in a
setting that is both stimulating and challenging. A number of further researchers (Thomas, 2000; Wrigley, 1998;
Zancul, Sousa-Zomer & Cauchick-Miguel, 2017) have attempted to present the role of the teacher in a PBL
environment as a facilitator of learning, a guide of project process, and a provider of resources. In addition, the
teacher is required to be a good listener, to enable him/her to discuss and answer learners’ questions. Moreover,
Pieratt (2010) summarized the role of the teacher as focusing his/her attention on learners’ interests and abilities,
in order to improve their engagement in the learning process. Holm (2011) argued that in PBL, the teacher must
provide learners with scaffolding and strategic instructions.
Thus, learners may experience a number of difficulties and challenges in creating high-quality products
within the context of PBL. This led Postholm (2005) to claim that “students’ voices should be heard in the
classroom, and that they should be treated as responsible learners who need to find out what they want from their
learning and develop their competences” (p. 533). Thus, the teacher needs to provide learners with appropriate
and authentic feedback. Teacher feedback has, in the context of PBL the potential to facilitate the learning
processes in a number of different ways. Reviewing students’ project drafts assists learners to reflect on their
own work and improve their project performance. In addition, teachers are required to monitor learners’
development, including providing frequent feedback, and continually assessing product-based learning
outcomes. Moreover, Clark (2006) emphasized the need for teachers to help learners examine their own ideas
and construct their own products. Simpson (2011) demonstrated that teachers can motivate their students by
giving them the opportunity to question, imagine, and challenge each other, thus encouraging them to fully
engage in deep learning.
Moss and Van Duzer (1998) emphasized the role played by learners’ ability to plan, organize, and negotiate
in the PBL environment, as well as making decisions about their final product. Likewise, Thomas (2000)
described their role as working hard to identify problems, find solutions, and create an end-product, i.e.
presentations, reports and inventions. Similarly, Solomon (2003) recommended that learners in PBL take full
responsibility for tasks-at-hand and collect the recommended information to facilitate the analysis, synthesis and
finalization of products. According to Grant (2011), learners need to be successfully motivated in a PBL setting,
including reflecting on their own knowledge, collaborating with team members, and self-regulating their learning
skills.

5.4. Types and delivery methods of feedback
There are a number of different forms of feedback, including: (1) effective; (2) interpretive; (3) diagnostic; (4)
corrective; (5) descriptive; (7) evaluative; (8) motivational; and (9) exploratory. To meet the purpose of the
current study, this literature review focusses specifically on types 4 to 9.
The most common type of teacher feedback is corrective feedback (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). In general,
learners expect more knowledge and information from their teachers when it comes to their proficiency for the
task-in-hand. Several studies investigating the attitudes towards, and views on, corrective feedback (Fakeye,
2016; Kaivanpanah et al., 2015; Park, 2010) reported that both EFL teachers and learners highlighted the need
for oral and written corrective feedback. Furthermore, a substantial body of research has revealed the positive
perceptions and preferences of both EFL teachers and learners of corrective feedback (Mungungu-Shipale &
Kangira, 2017), as well as the positive value of different delivery methods of teacher corrective feedback to EFL
learners (Chen et al., 2016; Jodaie, 2014; Kahraman & Yalvaç, 2015; Sopin, 2015). The results of the above-
cited studies reveal that corrective feedback supports learners’ self-correction, following the initial feedback on
their first drafts. Moreover, it contributes to a general improvement in learners’ competencies in writing,
speaking, grammar skills, as well as academic performance. In addition, corrective feedback engages the learner
in a number problem-solving situations, focusing on configuring mistakes and errors. This may therefore
improve the complete learning process, resulting in learners gaining the optimum degree of knowledge.
A further detailed form of feedback is known as descriptive feedback. This generally includes the delivery

Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2018

of oral or written specific information and knowledge regarding the ways a learner is able to progress in the
learning process, based on assessments of tasks-at-hand. A report published by the New South Wales
Government (2015) identified the purpose of descriptive feedback as providing: (1) ongoing information to
students; (2) identifying strengths, weaknesses, and challenges related to learner outcomes; and (3) providing
opportunities to improve learning. Lipnevich and Smith (2009) examined the influence of different types of
feedback on the performance of university students working on an essay examination, concluding that learners
preferred feedback that was both detailed and descriptive.
Watts (2007) considered evaluative feedback as an essential element of the learning process, noting that
“without evaluative feedback, individuals and organizations cannot evolve in ways that meet the standards of
others” (p. 384). Hattie and Timperley (2007) assumed that a lack of clarity in evaluative feedback leads to poor
performance and causes a low self-image, but that evaluative feedback provides positive or negative comments
learners are then able to employ in order to improve their work (New South Wales Government, 2015).
Motivational feedback aims to encourage and satisfy learners, however few up-to-date studies have focused
on establishing its importance. Only a small number of studies have explored the factors influencing the impact
of motivational feedback. Lee et al. (2013) reported that both intrinsic (i.e. self-achievement and playfulness)
and extrinsic (i.e. peer-competition and financial reward) motivational factors demonstrate a degree of positive
influence on the quality and quantity of the accomplished tasks. In addition, Abad, Ghosh, Riccardi and Trento
(2013) assumed that audio, textual and visual motivational feedback factors positively enhance performance.
Defalco, Baker, Paquette, and Georgoulas (2014) designed a preliminary study to explore the impact of the
intervention of motivational feedback messages on decreasing students’ frustration and improving trainees’
engagement and learning outcomes. The findings established methods of creating online sensitive tutoring
systems and providing immediate motivational feedback to regulate situations trainees experienced as frustrating
and foster learning.
In contrast to research focusing on corrective, descriptive, evaluative and motivational feedback, this
current study has been unable to identify any direct literature regarding exploratory feedback. For the purposes
of the current research, this type of feedback tends to provide opportunities for posing questions aimed at
inspiring learners to think differently and increase their comprehension to a deeper level. Additionally, it opens a
space for interaction between learner-learner, learner-teacher, and learner-project content.
When it comes to the medium of delivering feedback, Hattie and Timperley (2007, p.102) claimed that
educators should first ask “three major questions: Where am I going? How am I going? And Where to next?”
because the answers may “enhance learning when there is a discrepancy between what is understood and what is
aimed to be understood”. Nuramirah (2017) supported this claim of Hattie and Timperley (2007), confirming the
significance of the method used by a teacher to deliver feedback, due to its influence on students’ responses.
Ertmer et al. (2007, p. 413) summarized the benefits of effective feedback for: (1) facilitating learners’ self-
assessment and reflection; (2) providing valuable and relevant comments to learners about their work; and (3)
encouraging positive motivational beliefs and self-esteem. This results in teachers generally selecting different
effective and appropriate methods to deliver feedback to the learners.
Hence, several studies have investigated the use of written feedback (Carless, 2006; González, 2010;
Grami, 2005; Jodaie, 2014; Kaur & Singh, 2016; Rahimi, 2010) to convey relevant comments. A number of
studies (Hooper, 2010; Merry & Orsmond, 2008; Parkes & Fletcher, 2016) have found audio feedback to be an
innovative and more effective method of delivering feedback. On the other hand, Ferguson (2011), Kaivanpanah
et al. (2015) and Rowe & Wood (2008) reported the importance of immediate teacher feedback. Only a limited
number of studies have investigated the use of: (1) oral teacher feedback as a method of delivery (Ferguson,
2011; Kaivanpanah et al., 2015; Susanti, 2013) and (2) individualized feedback (Douglas et al., 2016; Ferguson,
2011; Şeker & Sezgin, 2013).
For the purposes of the current study, during the various phases of PBL, the researcher provided the learners
with immediate, individual, group and oral feedback, along with written, formal and informal feedback. Each of
these methods was implemented in order to achieve a specific goal.

5.5. Research on learners’ perception and preferences towards feedback
Several recent studies investigating the perceptions of teacher feedback have provided a number of further
insights and directions. Grami (2005) undertook a seminal study employing structured questionnaires to examine
the perceptions of thirty-five Saudi university EFL students concerning the written feedback from their teachers.
The findings indicated that these students clearly preferred this form of feedback and felt they gained a
considerable amount of benefit. A study conducted by Dargusch and Davis (2015) focused on teacher training
and the perceptions of pre-service teachers concerning assessment feedback. Data was collected by means of: (1)
online questionnaires; (2) open-ended questions; and (3) focus group interviews with 108 participants. The
findings highlighted that the teachers needed to trust their students, because a lack of academic trust can have a
negative influence on feedback. A large-scale questionnaire study, conducted by Vasu et al. (2016), investigated

Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2018

107 university ESL students’ perceptions of teacher feedback, peer feedback, and self-assessment in students’
writing. The results indicated that the students perceived teacher feedback, self-assessment and peer feedback as
being highly useful. A recent study by Zhan (2016) employed essays, questionnaires and interviews with a
teacher and sixty-two Chinese students to examine the perceptions of both EFL students and teachers towards
written teacher feedback. The findings revealed the presence of differences of perception between teacher and
students, with students indicating that they wished for lengthier teacher feedback practices. A further recent
study by Sharif and Zainuddin (2017) used a questionnaire to explore the perceptions of nineteen university ESL
students concerning teacher feedback and its contribution to reflective writing. The findings indicated that the
students found teacher feedback to be positive, beneficial, and encouraging.
Over the previous two decades, a number of studies have examined the value of feedback in learning, but
only a limited number of these have focused specifically on exploring students’ preferences towards different
feedback types and strategies. A study conducted by Park (2010) investigated teachers’ choice and students’
preferences of corrective feedback. A questionnaire and a Test of English for International Communication
(TOEIC) were used to collect data from twenty-four native English teachers and fifty-one EFL Korean university
students. The results of the quantitative data indicated that teachers and students (of both high and low
proficiency) preferred corrective feedback. A study conducted by Kaivanpanah et al. (2015) focused on: (1)
examining EFL learners’ preferences concerning different types of oral corrective feedback; (2) exploring the
relationship between the feedback provided and learners’ language proﬁciency; and (3) comparing the views of
learners and teachers. Data was gathered by means of a thirty-six-item questionnaire applied to 154 EFL Iranian
learners and twenty-five EFL teachers. Semi-structured interviews were also used to examine the opinions of the
teachers in greater depth. The results reported that the more proﬁcient learners preferred feedback requiring self-
correction, while learners at all levels expressed more positive attitudes than their teachers towards peer and
immediate feedback in relation to errors.
A growing body of up-to-date research has investigated both the perceptions and preferences of learners
towards feedback. A study conducted by Sopin (2015) investigated the perceptions and preferences of ESL
learners in Libyan secondary schools concerning the perceptions of corrective feedback of ESL learners. The
results of a questionnaire administered to 120 students confirmed the positive value of corrective feedback.
Moreover, evidence arising from the discussion reported that learners frequently felt offended or embarrassed
(particularly in teacher-fronted classes) when corrective feedback was delivered in the presence of their peers.
Furthermore, an exploratory study of Chen et al. (2016) investigated the perceptions and preferences of EFL
learners towards written corrective feedback. Data was collected from sixty-four EFL Chinese learners, by
means of a questionnaire containing both closed and open-ended questions. The results of the quantitative data
revealed that EF learners demonstrated a favourable attitude towards error correction, with a strong preference
for the provision of detailed comments on their written work. The results of the qualitative data indicated that
EFL learners preferred to practice self-correction and revision of their writing, with less interference from their
teachers. A recent study by Mungungu-Shipale and Kangira (2017) investigated the perceptions and preferences
of tertiary lecturers and students in relation to the provision of corrective feedback on ESL speaking and writing
skills in Namibian classrooms. The findings revealed that both university lecturers and students perceived
teacher corrective feedback as an essential aspect of developing ESL speaking and writing skills.
Despite the importance of the above-reviewed studies, there remains a paucity of evidence concerning the
perceptions of Saudi female EFL student teachers of the importance of teacher feedback practices, as well as
their preferences for different types and delivery methods during their course project.

6. Research Methodology
This current study employed a mixed methods approach, including quantitative (closed questions) and
qualitative (open-ended questions), to examine the perceptions and preferences of Saudi female EFL student
teachers concerning teacher feedback in a PBL learning environment.

6.1. Subjects
The study initially recruited thirty-one postgraduate Saudi EFL student teachers, who were enrolled on the
course ‘Analysis of EFL Curriculum’ during the second semester of the 2017 academic year. This course was
selected due to one of its main learning outcomes and requirements being to conduct a project, which enabled the
researcher to: (1) adapt the use of PBL; (2) implement different types and delivery methods of teacher feedback
for the course project; and (3) track the participants’ achievements and progress during the course of the project.

6.2. Instruments
Three questionnaires were used to collect data. The first questionnaire was devised by the researcher in response
to the research objectives regarding EFL student teachers’ perceptions of the importance of teacher feedback
practices. The questionnaire was divided into two parts: In the first part, participants were asked a preliminary

Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2018

question regarding whether they believed feedback was important for their progress. The second part consisted
of twenty 5-point Likert scale items aimed at identifying the participants’ perceptions of teacher feedback. The
items ranged from ‘Totally disagree’ to ‘Totally agree’ and were utilized based on a number of previously
reviewed studies (Dargusch & Davis, 2015; Grami, 2005; Vasu et al., 2016; Zhan, 2016).
The second questionnaire was also devised by the researcher to determine the participants’ preferences for
specific forms and delivery methods of teacher feedback. This was developed in response to the related literature
(Chen et al., 2016; Park, 2010; Sopin, 2015), and was divided into two parts.
1. The first part was made up of two sections. The first section consisted of ten 5-point Likert scale items,
which were specifically designed to cover the types of feedback provided during the course, i.e.
descriptive; evaluative; motivational; corrective; and exploratory. The second section consisted of
fourteen 5-point Likert scale items focusing on feedback delivery methods employed during the course,
i.e. oral; written; immediate; formal; informal; group; and individual.
2. The second part consisted of an open-ended question focusing on the qualitative data. This provided
space for Saudi female EFL student teachers to contribute their individual points of view, revealing a
wide range of freely given responses concerning any further suggestions for future improvement of
teacher feedback.
These new research instruments were sent to a panel of experts, in order to ensure their construct and
content validity. The researcher undertook several rounds of drafting and revising, following which the experts’
comments were considered and changes made in accordance with their suggestions. The experts suggested
rewording some of the items to improve their clarity and readability. Some of changes recommended by the
experts relating to specific types of feedback were also modified.
Finally, the instrument was administered to ten students, following which no further modifications were
made, as the students confirmed the clarity of all the items. Moreover, Cronbach's alpha was run to measure the
internal consistency of the items contained in both questionnaires. The results indicated high levels of internal
consistency and reliability between the twenty items covering perceptions (α=0.923), and the twenty-four items
covering preferences (α=0.705). These were higher values than the minimum accepted value of 0.70.
The third questionnaire measured the levels of satisfaction of Saudi female EFL student teachers towards
the course ‘Analysis of EFL Curriculum’. The data was collected from the Course Evaluation University
Questionnaire (CEUQ), i.e. an online unified questionnaire to indicate the quality of teaching for every
university course, as a requirement by the Saudi National Commission for Academic Accreditation and
Assessment (NCAAA). CEUQ covers four dimensions containing twenty-four 5-point Likert scale items.
Additionally, it is generally administered online to all university students at the end of each semester in relation
to all courses. Results of CEUQ are shown to instructors as an indicator of their quality of teaching.

6.3. Procedures
The researcher of the current study adapted PBL as a teaching method. As a student-centred pedagogy, PBL
allows students to actively explore comprehensive knowledge and create authentic materials. Moreover, this
approach develops skills for lifelong and cooperative learning. Furthermore, Eguchi and Eguchi (2006) noted
that the use of PBL can: (1) empower students to set their learning goals: (2) enable them to work with others, by
means of hands-on experiences in a meaningful environment; (3) increase self-confidence; (4) enhance
motivation; and (5) reassign the teacher’s role as a facilitator within a self-directed setting.
As a part of the course requirements (and based on the overall course objectives) the EFL student teachers
were requested to carry out a course project. This required them to analyse and evaluate the EFL textbook for
both semesters, as delivered to third year secondary school Saudi students, entitled ‘Traveller 5 & 6’. The
student textbook known as ‘Traveller’ follows a modular approach and is organized into eight topic-based
modules, each of which consists of two units.
Research on PBL primarily required identifying the stages of the project. Ravitz (2010) highlighted that,
during the implementation of projects, it is vital to have: (1) extensive planning; (2) professional development;
(3) a supportive environment; and (4) effective instructional strategies. Moss and Van Duzer (1998) concluded
that the necessary stages of any project consist of: (1) the selection of topics; (2) making plans; (3) undertaking
research; and (4) the sharing of results. More recently, Hüttel and Gnaur (2017) considered the following as
constituting the phases of conducted projects: (1) the introduction to the topic; (2) methods; (3) group formation;
(4) choice of topic; (5) project area formulation; and (5) evaluation of the project. Zancul et al. (2017) stated that
project stages are set out as follows: (1) planning; (2) organization; (3) development; and (4) assessment. Based
on the literature reviewed above, the researcher merged the stages of PBL with the phases of the provided types
and delivery methods of teacher feedback. This formed the ten phases of the course delivery, as discussed below.
6.3.1. Phase 1: Planning the task
During the planning phase, the teacher considered giving students some control over the formation of teams
and the choice of modules from the EFL textbook to analyse and evaluate. Also during this phase, the criteria

Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2018

to be used for assessment and regular meaningful feedback were clarified. Likewise, the course teacher drew
up a detailed instruction sheet, which included the project requirement and assessment procedures, i.e. timing,
types of assessment and criteria for assessment.
6.3.2. Phase 2: Providing resources
The participants downloaded the main materials for the course project: firstly, the EFL textbooks for Saudi
Secondary School students ‘Traveler (5 & 6)’; secondly, the workbooks, and thirdly, the teacher’s guide from
iEn, the National Education Portal (https://ien.edu.sa). In addition, the teacher provided the students with a
previously designed checklist for assessing EFL textbooks, covering the following ten dimensions: (1) textbook
objectives; (2) organization and layout; (3) topics and sub-topics; (4) language skills; (5) aspects of language s;
(6) exercises and activities; (7) teaching methods; (8) social & cultural contexts; (9) supportive materials; and
(10) practical considerations.
6.3.3. Phase 3: Clear instructions
The course teacher prepared, distributed, and discussed the detailed instruction sheet with the project teams,
focusing on: (1) the required project report; (2) presentation slides; (3) final seminar demands; and (4) the
criteria included in the project assessment sheet. All points were clearly explained orally during a one-hour
meeting, in order to give the students an opportunity to discuss, ask, give comments, and suggest any
modifications when it came to timing and grading. In addition, motivational feedback was provided to reduce
students’ anxiety relating to the course project. Moreover, oral exploratory feedback was provided to respond
efficiently to participants’ questions. Students were encouraged to use the same assessment criteria for both peer
and self-assessment processes, and so become critical of their own work. During this phase, the course teacher
approved the final makeup of the project teams. The eight modules that consisted of sixteen units in both
textbooks (i.e. ‘Traveler (5 & 6)’) were distributed equally between the eight teams.
6.3.4. Phase 4: Initial work feedback
Following their introduction to the course project requirements (along with its instructions, materials and
resources), the EFL student teachers commenced their analysis and evaluation processes, which resulted in
questions and inquiries requiring teacher feedback. The teacher therefore assigned five days to address any
questions, by means of the WhatsApp Messenger application. During these five days, they were given the
opportunity to send parts of their initial work for immediate individual (and group) descriptive and written
feedback.
6.3.5. Phase 5: Initial follow up session
During the fifth week of the project management, the EFL student teachers were assigned a two-hour on-site
follow up session, during which they were given the opportunity to pose any hypothetical questions based on
their current experience. The teacher answered their questions by means of immediate exploratory and evaluative
feedback, as well as discussing any complex issues and reflected on their comments. In addition, she gave the
students time to reflect on their own (or others’) comments. The student teachers were asked to make notes of
the main points and write down everyone’s ideas. Towards the end of the discussion, the teacher summarized
everything that had been covered, and concluded the session by giving oral, formal, and descriptive feedback for
groups, by means of a short list of ideas for further improvement. As an alternative method, informal
feedback was offered after each weekly class to individuals and/or groups.
6.3.6. Phase 6: First draft feedback
After the initial follow up session, the eight teams were ready to submit the first draft of their project report in
order to obtain feedback. They were guided to submit their work and be prepared for any further comments. The
teacher referred the formal notes to the leaders of the teams during the seventh week and provided them with
written corrective feedback. Moreover, the teacher highlighted the areas in need of revision and improvement by
providing written descriptive feedback.
6.3.7. Phase 7: Remedial follow up session
A remedial on-site follow up session was assigned during the tenth week. The teacher divided the class into eight
separate sections, each focusing on for one team. Every team had prepared questions, comments and any related
issues demanding a private discussion with the teacher. The teacher moved between teams, providing
exploratory and corrective feedback by answering questions, discussing any comments, and writing down the
general questions in her notes. Moreover, the teacher was shown the initial soft copy of the project report,
allowing some of the comments to be immediately corrected. The teacher gave her final remarks orally towards
the end of the remedial session, and which were based on her observation and written notes. Furthermore, the
teams were provided with formal, group and immediate feedback at the close of this phase. The final report was
then ready to be submitted to the course teacher for assessment. An opportunity for informal feedback was
awarded to individuals and/or groups, following the remedial follow up session.
6.3.8. Phase 8: Project presentation
During the seminar, the EFL student teachers gave eight presentations, following the pre-arranged schedule
consisting of the four modules of ‘Traveler (5)’, followed by the four modules of ‘Traveler (6)’. The project

Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2018

teams used their analysis and evaluation to present the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities for improvement and
the challenges facing the successful implementation of each module. Finally, the closing remarks were
introduced, based on the team members’ views and thoughts. In addition, the students were provided with
frequent oral and motivational teacher feedback, in order to reduce their anxiety during this formal phase.
6.3.9. Phase 9: Reflection
As learning takes place by means of reflection, the teacher acted as a facilitator and helper to the EFL student
teachers, enabling them to identify their own progress during the presentation. The teacher conducted formal rich
discussions concerning the teams’ experiences and personal views of the project. During the discussion, each
team was given the chance to reflect on information included in the report regarding the analysis and evaluation
of the modules. The teacher gave immediate, oral, evaluative and motivational feedback regarding their
presentation in general, while the closing remarks overtly drew essential relationships and synthesized any new
knowledge concerning teaching EFL in the Saudi context.
6.3.10. Phase 10: Project assessment
The assessment sheet was divided into two sections, with the first covering paperwork (i.e. the project report)
and the second covering presentation skills. The teacher evaluated the efforts made to finalize the project report
by following the instructions, correcting any mistakes, and taking note of comments, while also assessing the
presentation section during the seminar held for all eight teams. The teacher discussed the scores with each team
as they were given their results, including where they demonstrated satisfaction and comfort.
The project phases revealed that EFL student teachers were exposed to various different amounts and types of
delivery methods of teacher feedback, in accordance with the needs of the course.

7. Data Collection
Following the completion of the project assessment, the questionnaires were submitted to the Saudi female EFL
student teachers. The participants were informed that their responses would have no influence on their marks for
the course itself, being only for research purposes, and treated as confidential.

8. Data Analysis
In order to answer the research questions, the collected data were analysed by means of SPSS Version 23, using
the descriptive statistical method, including frequency, percentage, means, and standard deviations.

9. Results
In the closed response questions, the EFL student teachers were asked the following questions: (1) Did you
receive feedback for you current ‘Analysis of EFL Textbook’ Project? and (2) Do you believe in the importance
of feedback to your progress?. These two questions focused on obtaining overall positive or negative responses
to the concept of the importance of receiving teacher feedback. The results revealed that all participants (i.e.
100%) a reported positive response (i.e. ‘yes’) to both questions.

9.1. Results of perceptions towards the importance of teacher feedback
Frequencies, means and standard deviations were calculated in order to answer the first research question. The
EFL student teachers were asked to rate their responses to the importance of teacher feedback on a 1–5 scale (see
Table 1).
Table 1. EFL student teachers’ perceptions of the importance of teacher feedback
The Scale
Perceptions of teacher
Totally Totally Mean S.D. Level
feedback Disagree Neutral Agree
disagree agree
1. Improving the quality of 1 1 5 24
- 4.61 0.92 High
my work. (3.2) (3.2) (16.1) (77.4)
2. Sharing experiences 1 1 1 14 14
4.26 0.93 High
among classmates. (3.2) (3.2) (3.2) (45.2) (45.2)
3. Expanding my learning 2 5 14 10
- 4.03 0.87 Moderate
beyond the project content. (6.5) (16.1) (45.2) (32.3)
4. Focusing on how to tie 2 2 13 14
- 4.26 0.86 High
project components together. (6.5) (6.5) (41.9) (45.2)
5. Offering additional
2 3 14 12
valuable information to the - 4.16 0.86 Moderate
(6.5) (9.7) (45.2) (38.7)
existing tasks.
6. Posing questions to 2 2 17 10
- 4.13 0.81 Moderate
obtain more information. (6.5) (6.5) (54.8) (32.3)

Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2018

7. Meeting my individual 1 2 1 16 11
4.10 0.98 Moderate
needs for specific guidance. (3.2) (6.5) (3.2) (51.6) (35.5)
8. Increasing my self- 1 1 1 12 16
4.32 0.94 High
confidence. (3.2) (3.2) (3.2) (38.7) (51.6)
9. Providing me with
1 2 14 14
opportunities for future self- - 4.32 0.75 High
(3.2) (6.5) (45.2) (45.2)
learning.
10. Keeping me on target for 2 16 13
- - 4.23 0.99 High
finishing the task. (6.5) (51.6) (41.9)
11. Training me to give 3 3 13 12
- 4.10 0.94 Moderate
feedback to other classmates. (9.7) (9.7) (41.9) (38.7)
12. Organizing my thoughts
1 1 9 20
while working on the - 4.52 0.85 High
(3.2) (3.2) (29.0) (64.5)
project.
13. Discussing my personal 4 3 12 12
- 4.03 1.02 Moderate
opinions and views. (12.9) (9.7) (38.7) (38.7)
14. Dealing with low 4 1 15 11
- 4.06 0.96 Moderate
performance constructively. (12.9) (3.2) (48.4) (35.5)
15. Inspiring me to develop
1 3 11 16
my performance to a higher - 4.35 0.80 High
(3.2) (9.7) (35.5) (51.6)
level.
16. Enabling me to
1 1 3 11 15
understand my strengths and 4.23 0.99 High
(3.2) (3.2) (9.7) (35.5) (48.4)
weaknesses.
17. Creating opportunities for
1 3 3 10 14
in-class and in-groups 4.06 1.12 Moderate
(3.2) (9.7) (9.7) (32.3) (45.2)
discussion.
18. Providing opportunities
1 1 3 13 13
to reflect on my own 4.16 0.97 Moderate
(3.2) (3.2) (9.7) (41.9) (41.9)
learning.
19. Enhancing my motivation 3 2 13 13
- 4.16 0.93 Moderate
to learn. (9.7) (6.5) (41.9) (41.9)
20. Decreasing anxiety about 1 4 4 9 13
3.94 1.18 Moderate
losing grades in the project. (3.2) (12.9) (12.9) (29.0) (41.9)
The results shown in Table 1 reveal that the responses of the Saudi female EFL student teachers’ to nine
items indicate complete agreement in their perceptions towards the importance of teacher feedback. Almost
twenty-four (77.4%) of the EFL student teachers (item 1, M=4.61) totally agreed that teacher feedback improved
the quality of their work. Similarly, twenty (64.5%) (item 12, M=4.52) completely agreed that teacher feedback
enabled them to organize their thoughts while working on course project. The results also revealed that sixteen
(51.6%) of the participants with average mean value (item 15, M=4.35) completely agreed that the feedback
from their teacher inspired them to develop their performance to a higher level. Moreover, the results reveal two
equal mean scores (items 8 & 9, M=4.32) with two different numbers of responses (i.e. sixteen (51.6%) and
fourteen (45.2%), respectively), both of which indicate the high value placed on teacher feedback for increasing
self-confidence and providing opportunities for future self-learning.
Likewise, the results show that EFL student teachers responded equally when it comes to mean scores
(items 2 & 4, M=4.26) and numbers (fourteen (45.2%)), while also indicating their complete agreement with the
statement that teacher feedback enabled them to share experiences with their classmates and directed their focus
towards how to tie the project components together. In addition, the results reveal that two equal mean scores
(items 16 & 10, M=4.23), with two different number of responses of fifteen (48.4%) and thirteen (41.9%),
respectively, resulted in a high-level response. In both responses, EFL student teachers pointed out their
complete agreement with the statement that teacher feedback enabled them to understand their strengths and
weaknesses, while at the same time keeping them on target to finish the task.
Furthermore, the results demonstrated in Table 1 indicate that over half of those surveyed reported a fairly
strong agreement in having moderate level of positive perceptions towards the importance of teacher feedback.
Further results showed that fourteen (45.2%) of the respondents (items 5 M=4.16) fairly strongly agreed that
teacher feedback offers additional valuable information concerning the existing tasks. In addition, items eighteen
and nineteen indicate a similar number of responses (i.e. thirteen (41.9%)) with identical mean scores (M=4.16),
identifying that the EFL student teachers were in complete agreement that teacher feedback provides an

Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2018

opportunity to reflect on learning, while at the same time enhancing students’ motivation to learn.
The results reveal that over half of those surveyed (i.e. seventeen (54.8%)) with a mean score (i.e. item 6
M=4.13) valued teacher feedback as a source of information when posing questions. TWO statements indicated
the same mean score (items 7 and 11 M=4.10), with two different frequencies, sixteen (51.6%) and thirteen
(41.9%), respectively. In both responses, the participants agreed moderately that teacher feedback met their
individual need for guidance, while also training them to give feedback to their classmates. Furthermore, the
results reveal that fifteen (48.4%) of the EFL student teachers responded moderately (items 14 M=4.06) that
teacher feedback enabled them to deal with their low performance in a constructive manner. In addition, fourteen
(45.2%) of the respondents with a mean score (items 17 M=4.06) agreed moderately that teacher feedback
created opportunities for in-class and in-groups discussion.
The mean score (M=4.03) of item 3 represents a moderate agreement among fourteen (45.2%) of the
participants that teacher feedback expands learning beyond the project content. Furthermore, the results show
that twelve (38.7%) of the EFL student teachers with mean scores (items 13, M=4.03) agreed moderately that
teacher feedback focuses attention on the discussion of personal opinions and views. Finally, thirteen (41.9%) of
the participants agreed completely and moderately (item 20, M= 3.94) that teacher feedback decreases anxiety
about the project resulting in a loss of grades.

9.2. Results of EFL student teachers’ preferences of types of teacher feedback
In the questionnaire employed to gather the data, the participants were provided with the types and delivery
methods of teacher feedback, along with an explanation of how this could be used in a classroom situation. In
order to answer the second research question, the average mean of the EFL student teachers’ preferences of types
of teacher feedback was employed to identify the appropriate mean range. The results are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. EFL student teachers’ preferences of types of teacher feedback
Scores for each Scores of both
Teacher
item items
feedback Preferences questionnaire items Level
types Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
1. I learn more when feedback describes the areas
4.68 0.54
Descriptive which need to be improved.
4.68 0.54 High
Feedback 2. I move forward in my learning process based
4.68 0.54
on the descriptive feedback.
3. I can manage necessary feedback for giving a
4.06 0.96
score or a grade.
Evaluative
4. I prefer evaluative feedback that summarizes 2.51 1.89 Low
Feedback
my achievement without providing future 2.52 1.26
guidance.
5. It would be supportive for my learning to
4.77 0.43
Motivational receive motivational feedback.
4.48 0.83 High
feedback 6. Receiving feedback that reduces my anxiety is
4.19 1.22
preferable.
7. I can easily manage my learning when
4.58 0.62
Corrective receiving corrective feedback.
4.58 0.59 High
feedback 8. Corrective feedback decreases the amount of
4.58 0.56
time spent in tracking mistakes and errors.
9. Feedback based on exploratory questions
4.26 0.73
Exploratory inspires me to think differently of my work.
4.33 0.70 High
Feedback 10. Providing feedback by posing questions
4.39 0.67
takes my comprehension to a deeper level.
Table 2 demonstrates the EFL student teachers’ preferences for specific types of teacher feedback, and that
these tend to be positive. Of the five types of teacher feedback provided for the course project, the highest means
were registered for the following types: (1) descriptive; (2) corrective; (3) motivational; and (4) exploratory
teacher feedback with average mean scores (M= 4.68, 4.58, 4.48, 4.33), respectively. The low level of agreement
and preference (M= 2.51) indicated by the participants falls concerns evaluative teacher feedback.

9.3. Results of EFL student teachers’ preferences of delivery methods of teacher feedback
In order to answer the third research question, the responses of the Saudi female EFL student teachers
concerning preferences towards the delivery methods of teacher feedback are summarized in Table 3. The
columns show the average means and the levels of preferences towards the methods of teacher feedback. The

Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2018

participants rated each statement in accordance with the five-point Likert scale.
Table 3. EFL student teachers’ preferences of methods of teacher feedback delivery
Scores for each Scores of both
Teacher item items
feedback Preferences questionnaire items Level
methods Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
1. Feedback seems beneficial when provided
3.84 1.37
orally.
Oral feedback 3.99 1.23 Moderate
2. Oral feedback allows for deep in-class
4.13 1.09
interaction.
3. I could develop my skills in the best
possible way when receiving written 3.90 1.19
Written
feedback. 4.02 1.16 Moderate
feedback
4. Written feedback makes it easy to track
4.13 1.12
my mistakes.
5. Immediate feedback gives a progressively
4.26 0.77
Immediate decreasing score for multiple attempts.
4.4 0.9 High
feedback 6. I usually find immediate feedback
4.35 0.98
productive to my learning experience.
7. I completely engage in task improvement
4.26 0.89
Informal when only occasionally receiving feedback.
4.3 1.0 High
Feedback 8. I prefer to be provided with feedback from
4.29 1.07
my teacher whenever it is needed.
9. Feedback is beneficial when provided
3.13 1.26
Formal through planned meetings.
3.5 1.3 Moderate
feedback 10. Receiving feedback that focuses on
3.81 1.28
individualized goals is developmental.
11. Group feedback involves me in a
supportive and communicative learning 4.23 0.88
Group feedback atmosphere. 4.3 0.8 High
12. Through group feedback, different
4.39 0.76
learning skills are covered.
13. Receiving individual feedback
promotes me to think more deeply about my 4.32 0.83
Individual work.
4.3 0.8 High
feedback 14. Providing individual feedback
inspires me to put a focused effort into my 4.26 0.82
work.
Table 3 demonstrates that the EFL student teachers’ preferences concerning the delivery methods of teacher
feedback was highly rated. Among the seven delivery methods of teacher feedback, the participants revealed a
high level of preference for immediate teacher feedback, with an average mean score of M= 4.4. Likewise, they
highly rated informal, group, and individual teacher feedback, with equal average mean scores (M= 4.3).
Written, oral, and formal teacher feedback were rated at a moderate level of preference, with average mean
scores (M= 4.02, 3.99, 3.5).

9.4. Results of the open-ended question
In response to the open-ended question ‘Do you have any concerns or suggestions regarding the use of teacher
feedback?’, approximately 74.19% of the EFL student teachers indicated that they recognized the value and
importance of teacher feedback. They also understood that the feedback they were given during their course
projects was intended to also be of benefit to their subsequent assignments and courses (twenty-three responses).
Almost six responses (i.e. 19.35%) stated a need to specify at least two fixed meetings for each course, for the
exclusive purpose of receiving teacher feedback on assignments, tests, activities or projects.
At the same time, four of the participants (12.90%) considered it beneficial to use frequent teacher feedback
in each lecture to provide the most effective assistance to learners. Furthermore, one participant (3.23%) stated
that “feedback should be given to the final draft of the project not only the initial drafts”. Almost five
participants (16.13%) reported the importance of using different and varied types of teacher feedback. Likewise,
three responses (i.e. 9.68%) recommended the use of different and various delivery methods of feedback. Two
(i.e. 6.45%) EFL student teachers complained of receiving frequent oral feedback, i.e. the non-preferred method

Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2018

of teacher feedback, while four (12.90%) requested additional written teacher feedback on their work. Finally,
two EFL student teachers (6.45%) tied the effectiveness of feedback practices to more opportunities to ask
questions, share information, and discuss issues with their teacher and peers.

9.5. Results of EFL student teachers’ satisfaction
Table 4 summarizes the responses of EFL student teachers in relation to CEUQ regarding their satisfaction with
different areas of the course (see Appendix A). The results indicate a highly positive overall response to the
questionnaire items, with high levels of satisfaction.
Table 4. EFL student teachers’ satisfaction with their course
Average
Dimensions Level
% Mean S.D.
1. Beginning of the Course 93.54 4.93 0.30 High
2. Implementation of the Course 84.48 4.77 0.56 High
3. Course Content Evaluation 73.39 4.57 0.79 High
4. Students’ General Satisfaction 80.65 4.81 0.40 High
In general, almost 93.54% of the Saudi female EFL student teachers reported that they were satisfied with
the beginning of the course (items 1 to 3), with an average mean score (M=4.93, SD=0.30). They noted that the
basic lines, and requirements for success were clarified, along with the course resources and references.
Similarly, 84.48% of the participants strongly agreed and stated being highly satisfied with the
implementation of the course (items 4 to 19), with an average mean score (M=4.77, SD=0.56). They indicated
their satisfaction with the following: (1) the knowledge provided; (2) the consistency of requirements concerning
the course content; (3) the fairness of assignments and correction of tests; (4) teacher enthusiasm and
encouragement; (5) reasonable time given for submitting the grades; and (6) the effective use of technology in
the classroom. Moreover, the participants strongly agreed, and stated being highly satisfied, with: (1) the
teacher’s commitment; (2) the provision of useful and up-to-date materials; (3) availability of course resources;
and (4) the effectiveness of course requirements in relation to course knowledge and skills. In addition, they
reported their high level of satisfaction with the appropriateness of amount of work required for the course credit
hours, and the clarity of the relationship between this course and other courses in the EDP.
When it came to the participants’ satisfaction with the evaluation of the course content (items 20 to 23), the
results shown in Table 4 indicate a strong agreement of 73.39% of the respondents with high level of satisfaction
and average mean score (M=4.57, SD=0.79). EFL student teachers reported that they felt satisfied with their
personal improvement when it came to communication, teamwork, and problem-solving skills, as well as the
benefits of learned information for their future career. It can be generally observed from the data in Table 4 that
80.65% of EFL student teachers with an average mean score (M=4.81, SD=0.40) reported their overall high level
of satisfaction with the quality of the course.

10. Discussion of the findings
Overall, the findings revealed moderate to high positive perceptions and preferences towards teacher feedback.
The findings relating to the students’ perceptions demonstrated that they had a strong desire to receive feedback
from their teacher, and found this beneficial to the improvement of their work. They also demonstrated positive
perceptions towards the importance of teacher feedback practices. These findings accord with the results of
studies carried out by Carless (2006), Dargusch and Davis (2015), Grami (2005), Hewitt (2008), Westwood
(2008), and Zhan (2016), who reported that students preferred teacher feedback that supported the quality of
their work in a positive manner, including informing them of the most important actions they needed to take in
order to ensure further improvement.
These findings are also in line with Sharif and Zainuddin (2017), who identified teacher feedback as being
encouraging, as well as Susanti (2013), who considered that teacher feedback increases the learning autonomy of
students. Furthermore, the results are also in accord with the studies conducted by Nuramirah (2017), Rowe and
Wood (2008), Vasu et al. (2016), and Zacharias (2007). These viewed teacher feedback as a valuable resource,
which acts to reduce students’ anxiety, while at the same time providing them with comprehensible input and
output, vital comments, and further opportunities for self-assessment.
The teacher’s feedback, along with the project observation, revealed that positive perceptions can arise in
response to effective planning on the part of the teacher, in particular that designed to give students greater
control over their learning by allowing them to become actively involved in the different phases of the project.
These tactics left sufficient space for EFL student teachers to act independently, including to: (1) explore new
knowledge; (2) construct questions; (3) request frequent feedback from the teacher; and (4) share ideas and
expertise with peers. As noted by Bas (2011), Hasani et al. (2017), Hixson et al. (2012), Şat (2013), Simpson
(2011), Ravitz (2010), and Wrigley (1998), PBL (being as a cooperative-centred learning method) contains a
number of features capable of benefitting learning, including: (1) emphasizing the depth of learning and intrinsic

Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2018

motivation; (2) developing innovative ideas; and (3) building vital skills.
The findings revealed that the EFL student teachers demonstrated a positive preference for all types and
delivery methods of teacher feedback implemented in the current study. This may be due to the planned phases
of the course, during which there was frequent provision of different types of teacher feedback by means of a
variety of delivery methods. These results align with those of Kahraman and Yalvaç (2015) and Sharif and
Zainuddin (2017), who claimed that learners generally tend to indicate a strong need for different types of
teacher feedback, even if provided on an infrequent basis, or accompanied by insufficient comments.
When it came to the different types of teacher feedback, the findings revealed that EFL student teachers
preferred the provision of descriptive, corrective, motivational, and exploratory feedback during the different
phases of their course. These results accord with a substantial body of research undertaken by the following:
Abad et al. (2013); Chen et al. (2016); Defalco et al. (2014); Jodaie (2014); Kahraman and Yalvaç (2015);
Lipnevich and Smith (2009); Mungungu-Shipale and Kangira (2017); and Sopin (2015). These studies identified
that detailed teacher feedback was effective, preferable, and had a positive impact on the enhancement of
performance and engagement with learning. The findings revealed that the students showed least preference
towards evaluative feedback. This outcome agrees with Hattie and Timperley (2007), who concluded that
unclear evaluative feedback leads to poor performance and results in a substandard self-image.
Furthermore, the findings revealed a high level of preference for immediate, informal, group, and individual
teacher feedback. This could arise from the frequent, immediate, individual, and group feedback provided during
the different phases of the course project. These findings correspond with a number of previous studies,
including: Douglas et al. (2016); Ferguson (2011); Kaivanpanah et al. (2015); Rowe and Wood (2008); and
Şeker and Sezgin (2013). These researchers concluded that many students viewed the different methods of
teacher feedback as reducing their levels of anxiety, as well as providing effective, relevant, and appropriate
comments. Furthermore, the results revealed that the least positive preferences related to oral, written, and
formal teacher feedback. These findings disagree with those obtained by the following: Carless (2006); Fakeye
(2016); González (2010); Grami (2005); Jodaie (2014); Kaur and Singh (2016); Park (2010); Rahimi (2010); and
Susanti (2013). These studies reported that both teachers and learners: (1) highlighted the need for additional oral
and written teacher feedback, as this provides individualized, text-based and contextualized instruction and (2)
noted that students take seriously, and pay more attention to, feedback that is formal, oral and written.
The current researcher concluded that the participants of this present study indicated lower levels of
preference (i.e. in comparison to other deliver methods) for oral, written, and formal feedback, due to due to its
negative impact. These methods can reduce the motivation of students, particularly if the comments are general,
unclear, and/or unsatisfying. It is also clear that the students preferred regular one-to-one meetings with their
teacher, during which they were exposed to formal, oral and/or written feedback, along with sufficient
opportunities for discussion and questioning. This interpretation is confirmed by the participants’ responses to
the qualitative data, i.e. 12.90% requested additional written feedback on their work. Furthermore, this result is
supported by Zhan (2016), who reported that students indicated their wish for additional teacher feedback.
The data obtained from CEUQ confirmed a high level of student satisfaction concerning the course in
general, including its content, implementation and evaluation. An additional reason may be due to the course
being delivered using PBL as a constructivist-based method, i.e. one that provides opportunities for learners to
guide, manage and monitor their learning. Furthermore, it respects learners’ ability to select desired tasks and
encourages their productive abilities. This interpretation is supported by the reviewed literature of Grant (2011);
Hixson et al. (2012); Hüttel and Gnaur (2017); Pieratt (2010); and Tamba et al. (2017). EFL student teachers
appeared to value the PBL method in response to its encouragement of deep learning. This finding aligns with
that of Simpson (2011), who claimed that teachers can motivate and assist learners to fully engage in deep
learning when they give them the opportunity to question, imagine, and challenge each other.
A further reason for the level of satisfaction with the course could result from the careful planning and
flexibility on the part of the teacher during the ten phases, during which her role as a facilitator of the learning
process, as well as a guide and a resource provider proved effective. This interpretation is supported by the
findings of Moss and Van Duzer (1998). Furthermore, the students were given opportunities to fulfil their roles
within the PBL environment, including being guided to: (1) draw up their plans; (2) negotiate ideas; (3)
collaborate with team members; (4) reflect on their knowledge; and (5) self-regulate their learning skills. This
interpretation is supported by the reviewed literature of Grant (2011), Moss and Van Duzer (1998), Solomon
(2003), and Thomas (2000), who recommended that learners in a PBL setting should be directed to: (1) detect
problems; (2) find solutions; (3) show full responsibility; (4) gather information; and (5) finalize products.
Moreover, the highly positive responses to the open-ended question confirm the satisfaction results when
the EFL student teachers valued teacher feedback on their course projects. In addition, they expressed confidence
in the frequent use of teacher feedback in each lecture providing the highest level of assistance and thus
completely satisfying the needs of learners.

Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2018

11. Conclusion and recommendations
The current study focused on serving as a first step in identifying the perceptions of Saudi female EFL student
teachers towards firstly, the importance of teacher feedback practices and secondly, their preferences for
different types and delivery methods during their course project. This was also seen as the initial stage of
improving the feedback process of higher education institutions. The data for the study were gathered from
thirty-one Saudi EFL student teachers studying at EDP and employed three 5-point Likert scale questionnaires.
The results focused on establishing valuable insights into students’ perceptions and preferences regarding the
nature of types and delivery methods of teacher feedback, along with an ability to express their satisfaction with
the course delivery in general.
The results revealed that the EFL student teachers who were taught the course ‘Analysis of the EFL
Curriculum’ through PBL, while being given different delivery methods of teacher feedback, demonstrated
moderate to high positive perceptions and preferences. Moreover, they recognized the value and importance of
these feedback practices to benefit their subsequent assignments and courses. The students therefore expressed
their wish for additional planned meetings to receive their teachers’ feedback on assignments, tests, activities or
projects. Likewise, the EFL student teachers expressed their interest in having additional written feedback on
their work, as well as further opportunities to ask questions, share information, and discuss issues with the
teacher and their peers. Thus, the different types and delivery methods of teacher feedback were generally found
to be effective and to be of considerable value to learners.
The research results stress that the use of different types and delivery methods of teacher feedback as a
consistent aspect of the classroom has a number of advantages for EFL student teachers. Firstly, the
implementation of teacher feedback practices encourages the creation of cooperative and communitive language
learning settings, in which learners gain opportunities to negotiate, interact, discuss and improve their work.
Secondly, the use of a mixture of PBL and different teacher feedback practices emphasizes the depth of
learning and increases intrinsic motivation as key benefits of PBL. An adaption of this mixture during the phases
of a project can thus encourage learners to: (1) support each other; (2) increase their engagement with the
learning process; (3) create a strong bond with team members; and (4) recognize their own strengths and
weaknesses.
Thirdly, the provision of sufficient high quality teacher feedback by means of an effective medium: (1)
encourages both self- and peer-correction; (2) matches learners’ various needs, expectations, and attitudes; (3)
builds up learners’ sense of awareness and responsibility; (4) fosters the academic experience contributed by the
teacher; and (5) inspires learners by means of positive reinforcement from their teacher and reactions to errors
and mistakes.
Fourthly, in-depth teacher monitoring during the project phases reveals that both the PBL method and the
various teacher feedback practices are considered practical tactics, capable of providing a fuller understanding of
students’ perceptions and preferences towards teacher feedback within the learning context. In addition, it has
the potential to lead the teachers to discover the best practices encouraging students to accept the giving of
feedback.
Finally, the paradigm shift from a teacher-centred to a learner-centred approach can result in teacher
feedback becoming a vital element of best classroom practice. Additionally, teachers are recommended to
enhance the value of their feedback during the learning and teaching process, along with promoting its
constructive alignment to learning.
This study therefore recommends the undertaking of further research into this subject, i.e. a similar study
could consider the perceptions and preferences of students towards teacher feedback, particularly in relation to
learning styles, proficiency levels, and motivation. In addition, it may prove more effective for a future study to
explore the types of revisions and correctness produced by participants, along with how these are influenced by
teacher feedback. There is also a need for further exploration into students’ perspectives concerning peer
feedback, as well as factors that influencing such perspectives.

12. Limitations of the study
Although this current study has resulted in a number of significant findings, caution should be taken towards the
possibility of their generalization, due to the study focusing on a limited number of EFL student teachers
attending EDP in Saudi Arabia. In addition, the Saudi female EFL student teachers taking part in this study were
postgraduate students, which may also result in the results not being generalizable to students at undergraduate
level. Moreover, the participants consisted exclusively of female students and the potential impact of gender is
beyond the scope of this current study.

Acknowledgements
The researcher wishes to thank the students involved in this study for their willingness to participate, along with
the experts who helped in validating the research instruments. Thanks are also extended to the EDP

Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2018

administration for the provision of the required information.

References
Abad, A., Ghosh, A., Riccardi, G., & Trento, P. (2013). Motivational feedback in crowdsourcing: The case study
of speech transcriptions. In In: Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the International Speech
Communication Association (INTERSPEECH), pp. 1111–1115.
Bas, G. (2011). Investigating the effects of project-based learning on students’ academic achievement and
attitudes towards English lesson. The Online Journal of New Horizon in Education, 1(4), 1–15.
Baş, G., & Beyhan, Ö. (2010). Effects of multiple intelligences supported project-based learning on students’
achievement levels and attitudes towards English lesson. International Electronic Journal of Elementary
Education, 2(3), 365–385.
Boud, D. (2006). ‘Aren’t we all learner-centred now?’: The bittersweet flavour of success. In changing higher
education: The development of learning and teaching. (P. Ashwin, Ed.). New York: Routledge, Taylor &
Francis.
Brown, E., & Glover, C. (2006). Evaluating written feedback. In C. Bryan & K. Clegg (Eds.), Innovative
Assessment in Higher Education (pp. 80–91). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219–233.
Chen, S., Nassaji, H., & Liu, Q. (2016). EFL learners’ perceptions and preferences of written corrective
feedback: A case study of university students from Mainland China. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and
Foreign Language Education, 1(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-016-0010-y
Clark, A.-M. (2006). Changing classroom practice to include the project approach. Early Childhood Research &
Practice, 8(2). Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v8n2/clark.html
Dargusch, J., & Davis, S. (2015). Feedback, iterative processing and academic trust - teacher education students’
perceptions of assessment feedback. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(1), 177–191.
Defalco, J. A., Baker, R. S., Paquette, L., & Georgoulas, V. (2014). Motivational feedback designs for frustration
in a simulation-based combat medic training environment. In In Generalized Intelligent Framework for
Tutoring (GIFT) Users Symposium (GIFTSym3) (p. 81).
Douglas, T., Salter, S., Iglesias, M., Dowlman, M., & Eri, R. (2016). The feedback process: Perspectives of first
and second year undergraduate students in the disciplines of education, health science and nursing. Journal
of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 13(1), 1–19. Retrieved from
Eguchi, M., & Eguchi, K. (2006). The limited effect of PBL on EFL learners: A case study of English magazine
projects. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), 207–225.
Ertmer, P. A., Richardson, J. C., Belland, B., Camin, D., Connolly, P., Coulthard, G., Lei, K. (2007). Using peer
feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings : An exploratory study. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, (12), 412–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00331.x
Fakeye, D. O. (2016). Secondary school teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards formative assessment and
corrective feedback in English language in Ibadan Metropolis. Journal of Educational and Social Research,
6(2), 141–148. https://doi.org/10.5901/jesr.2016.v6n2p141
Ferguson, P. (2011). Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education. Assessment and Evaluation in
Higher Education, 36(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903197883
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes : A response to Truscott (1996). Journal
of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11.
González, E. F. (2010). Impact of teacher & student conferencing and teacher written feedback on EFL revision.
MEXTESOL Journal, 34(1), 59–74.
Grami, G. M. A. (2005). The effect of teachers’ written feedback on ESL students’ perception: A study in a
Saudi ESL university-level context. Annual Review of Education, Communication and Language Sciences,
2(1), 10–13.
Grant, M. M. (2011). Learning, beliefs, and products: Students’ perspectives with project-based learning.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 5(2), 37–69. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1254
Hasani, A., Hendrayana, A., & Senjaya, A. (2017). Using project-based learning in writing an educational
article: An experience report. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(6), 960–964.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
Hewitt, D. (2008). Understanding effective learning: Strategies for the classroom. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill
House. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=6x5ua4WMQswC&pgis=1

Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2018

Hill, J. D., & Flynn, K. M. (2006). Classroom instruction that works with English language learners.
Alexandria, USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Hixson, N. K., Ravitz, J., & Whisman, A. (2012). Extended Professional Development in Project-Based
Learning. Charleston, WV. Retrieved from http://wvde.state.wv.us/
Holm, M. (2011). Project-based instruction: A review of the literature on effectiveness in prekindergarten
through 12th grade classrooms. InSight: Rivier Academic Journal, 7(2), 1–13.
Hooper, D. (2010). Towards an understanding of students’ use of audio feedback : An exploratory study. In
presented at iCERi2010, 15-17 November, Madrid, Spain (pp. 15–17).
Hüttel, H., & Gnaur, D. (2017). If PBL is the solution, then what is the problem? Journal of Problem Based
Learning in Higher Education, 5(2), 1–21. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12107-4_2
Jodaie, M. (2014). Iranian EFL high school students’ perceptions regarding written grammar feedback. The
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(11), 64–84.
Kahraman, A., & Yalvaç, F. (2015). EFL Turkish university students’ preferences about teacher feedback and its
importance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 73–80.
Kaivanpanah, S., Alavi, S. M., & Sepehrinia, S. (2015). Preferences for interactional feedback: differences
between learners and teachers. Language Learning Journal, 43(1), 74–93.
Kaur, M., & Singh, M. (2016). Graduate students’ needs and preferences for written feedback on academic
writing. English Language Teaching, 9(12), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n12p79
Kavaliauskienė, G., & Anusienė, L. (2012). Case study: Learner attitudes towards the correction of mistakes.
Social Technologies, 2(1), 88–101.
Larmer, J., & Mergendoller, J. R. (2010). Seven essentials for project-based learning. Educational Leadership,
68(1), 34–37. Retrieved from
t-Based_Learning.aspx
Lee, T. Y., Dugan, C., Geyer, W., Ratchford, T., Rasmussen, J., Shami, N. S., & Lupushor, S. (2013).
Experiments on motivational feedback for crowdsourced workers. Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, ICWSM 2013, 341–350. Retrieved from
Lipnevich, A. A., & Smith, J. K. (2009). Effects of differential feedback on students’ examination performance.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15(4), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017841
Merry, S., & Orsmond, P. (2008). Students’ attitudes to and usage of academic feedback provided via audio
files. Bioscience Education, 11(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3108/beej.11.3
Morss, K., & Murray, R. (2005). Teaching at university: A guide for postgraduates and researchers. London:
SAGE Publications.
Moss, D., & Van Duzer, C. (1998). Project-based learning for adult English language learners. ERIC Digest
ED427556, 1–7. Retrieved from www.eric.ed.gov
Mungungu-Shipale, S. S., & Kangira, J. (2017). Lecturers’ and students’ perceptions and preferences about ESL
corrective feedback in Namibia: Towards an intervention model. World Journal of English Language, 7(1),
11. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v7n1p11
Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. Handbook of Research on Educational
Communications and Technology, 125–144. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203880869.ch11
Nation, I. S. P. (2009). Teaching ESL / EFL reading and writing. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
New South Wales Government. (2015). Types of feedback: Strong start, great teachers — Phase 3. State of New
South Wales. Retrieved from www.ssgt.nsw.edu.au/documents/1types_feedback.pdf
Norouzian, R., & Farahani, A. A. K. (2012). Written error feedback from perception to practice: A feedback on
feedback. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.3.1.11-22
Nuramirah, P. (2017). An analysis of teacher’s corrective feedback and learners’ uptake in dialogue journal.
Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), 82(Conaplin 9), 308–310.
Orts, S., & Salazar, P. (2016). EFL students’ preferences towards written corrective feedback: An exploratory
study on age and level of proficiency. The Grove - Working Papers on English Studies, 23, 109–129.
Papangkorn, P. (2015). SSRUIC students’ attitude and preference toward error corrections. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 197(February), 1841–1846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.244
Park, G. (2010). Preference of corrective feedback approaches perceived by Native English teachers and
students. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 7(4), 29–52.
Parkes, M., & Fletcher, P. (2016). A longitudinal, quantitative study of student attitudes towards audio feedback
for assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(7), 1046–1053.

Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2018

Petchprasert, A. (2012). Feedback in second language teaching and learning. US-China Foreign Language,
10(4), 1112–1120. Retrieved from
Pieratt, J. R. (2010). Advancing the ideas of John Dewey: A look at the high tech schools. Education and
Culture, 26(2), 52–64.
Postholm, M. B. (2005). The teacher shaping and creating dialogues in project work. Teachers and Teaching:
Theory and Practice, 11(6), 519–539. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13450600500293217
Rahimi, M. (2010). Iranian EFL Students’ Perceptions and Preferences for Teachers’ Written Feedback: Do
Students’ ideas Reflect Teachers’ Practice? The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 2(2), 75–98.
Ravitz, J. (2010). Beyond changing culture in small high schools: Reform models and changing instruction with
project-based learning. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(3), 290–312.
Rowe, A. D., & Wood, L. N. (2008). Student perceptions and preferences for feedback. Asian Social Science,
4(3), 78–88. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v4n3p78
Rowe, A. D., Wood, L. N., & Petocz, P. (2008). Engaging students: Student preferences for feedback, in
engaging communities. In Proceedings of the 31st HERDSA Annual Conference (pp. 297–306). Retrieved
from
DPQ/1?accountid=14499
Şat, M. (2013). CEIT undergraduate students’ perceptions and preferences of formative feedback, and the
relationship of these perceptions and preferences with their learning approaches. Middle East Technical
University.
Seker, M., & Dincer, A. (2014). An insight to students’ perceptions on teacher feedback in second language
writing classes. English Language Teaching, 7(2), 73–83. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n2p73
Şeker, M., & Sezgin, M. E. (2013). Investigating students’ perceptions on feedback in distance education
program: A case study in Turkey. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 22(1), 513–528.
Sharif, A. M., & Zainuddin, S. Z. (2017). Students’ perceptions of their reflective essay writing experience and
teacher feedback comments. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 204–212.
Simpson, J. (2011). Integrating project-based learning in an English language tourism classroom in a Thai
University. Australian Catholic University.
Solomon, G. (2003). Project-based learning: A primer. Retrieved from
Sopin, G. (2015). Perceptions and preferences of ESL students regarding the effectiveness of corrective feedback
in Libyan secondary schools. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education Ver. II, 5(4), 2320–7388.
Susanti, R. (2013). Students’ perceptions towards the effective feedback practices in the large EFL writing class
based on participation, gender, and English proficiency level. Thesis. Indiana University of Pennsylvania,
School of Graduate Studies and Research.
Tamba, P., Motlan, & Turnip, B. (2017). The effect of project based learning model for students’ creative
thinking skills and problem solving. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME), 7(5),
67–70. https://doi.org/10.9790/7388-0705026770
Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. San Rafael, California.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case of grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369.
Vasu, K., Ling, C. H., & Nimehchisalem, V. (2016). Malaysian tertiary level ESL students’ perceptions toward
teacher feedback, peer feedback and self-assessment in their writing. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics and English Literature, 5(5), 158–170. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.5p.158
Watts, S. A. (2007). Evaluative feedback: Perspectives on media effects. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 12(2), 50–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00330.x
Westwood, P. (2008). What teachers need to know about learning difficulties. Victoria, Australia: ACER Press.
Wrigley, H. S. (1998). Knowledge in action: The promise of project-based learning. National Center for the
Study of Adult Learning and Literacy (NCSALL), 2(D). Retrieved from
Zacharias, N. T. (2007). Teacher and student attitudes toward teacher feedback. RELC Journal, 38(1), 38–52.

Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2018

Zancul, E. de S., Sousa-Zomer, T. T., & Cauchick-Miguel, P. A. (2017). Project-based learning approach:
improvements of an undergraduate course in new product development. Production, 27((spe)), 1–14.
Zhan, L. (2016). Written teacher feedback: Student perceptions, teacher perceptions, and actual teacher
performance. English Language Teaching, 9(8), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n8p73

Appendix (A)
Results of the Course Evaluation University Questionnaire (CEUQ)
Average
Strongly Strongly
Statements Agree Neutral Disagree Mean S.D. Mean &
agree disagree
S.D.
Beginning of the Course
1. The basic lines
including the information
30 - 1 -
and skills in the course - 4.94 0.36
(96.77) (3.23)
were clear to my future
career.
2. The requirements for - - - M=4.93
29 2
success in the course were 4.94 0.25 SD=0.30
(93.54) (6.46)
clear to me.
3. The course resources - - -
including office hours, 28 3
4.90 0.30
references were clear to (90.32) (9.68)
me.
Implementation of the Course
4. The requirements were
29 1 - 1 -
consistent with the outline 4.87 0.56
(93.54) (3.23) (3.23)
of the course.
5. The teacher was - -
committed to give the
26 4 1
course fully (e.g., 4.81 0.48
(83.87) (12.90) (3.23)
lecturing on time, good
preparation, etc.).
6. The course has full - - -
30 1
knowledge of the course 4.90 0.54
(96.77) (3.23)
content.
7. The teacher was -
28 2 1 0
available to assist during 4.87 0.43
(90.32) (6.46) (3.23) (0.0)
office hours.
8. The teacher was - -
27 4 -
enthusiastic about what to 4.87 0.34 M=4.77
(87.10) (12.90)
teach. SD=0.56
9. The teacher was - -
26 3 2
interested in my progress 4.77 0.56
(83.87) (9.68) (6.46)
in the course.
10. Everything presented -
25 3 2 1
in the course was recent 4.65 0.88
(80.65) (9.68) (6.46) (3.23)
and useful.
11. The resources of this - -
24 3 4
course were available 4.65 0.71
(77.42) (9.68) (12.90)
whenever I needed.
12. There was an effective - -
27 1 3
use of technology to 4.77 0.62
(87.10) (3.23) (9.68)
support the course.
13. I was encouraged to - -
27 2 2
ask questions in this 4.81 0.54
(87.10) (6.46) (6.46)
course.

Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2018

Average
Strongly Strongly
Statements Agree Neutral Disagree Mean S.D. Mean &
agree disagree
S.D.
14. In this course, I was - -
28 1 2
encouraged to show my 4.84 0.52
(90.32) (3.23) (6.46)
best performance.
15. The requirements in - -
this course helped me 24 6 1
4.74 0.51
develop my knowledge (77.42) (19.35) (3.23)
and skills.
16. The amount of work - -
22 5 4
was appropriate to the 4.58 0.72
(70.97) (16.13) (12.90)
course credit hours.
17. The grades of - - -
assignments and tests in
27 4
this course were submitted 4.87 0.34
(87.10) (12.90)
to me within a reasonable
time.
18. The correction of my
28 3
assignments and tests was - - - 4.90 0.30
(90.32) (9.68)
fair and appropriate.
19. The relationship
between this course and 21 5 3 2
- 4.45 0.93
other courses in the (67.74) (16.13) (9.68) (6.46)
program was clear to me.
Course Content Evaluation
20. What I learned in this
20 4 5 1 1
course is important and 4.32 1.08
(64.52) (12.90) (16.13) (3.23) (3.23)
beneficial to me.
21. This course helped me -
20 5 4 2
improve my ability to 4.39 0.95
(64.52) (16.13) (12.90) (6.46)
think and solve problems. M=4.57
22. This course helped me - SD=0.79
25 5 - 1
improve my teamwork 4.74 0.63
(80.65) (16.13) (3.23)
skills.
23. This course helped me -
26 4 1 0
improve my ability to 4.81 0.48
(83.87) (12.90) (3.23) (0.0)
communicate effectively.
Students’ General Satisfaction
24. Overall, I am satisfied
25 6 M=4.81
with the quality of this - - - 4.81 0.40
(80.65) (19.35) SD=0.40
course.

Examining the Perceptions and
Preferences of Saudi EFL
Student Teachers Concerning
Teachers’ Feedback Practices
by Hayat Alamri

Submission date: 05-Feb-2019 12:39AM (UT C+0300)
Submission ID: 1073011395
File name: Feedback_Research_Final__4_August_2018.docx (206.33K)
Word count: 14820
Character count: 86476

Feedback
ORIGINALITY REPORT

7%
SIMILARIT Y INDEX

PRIMARY SOURCES

1 files.eric.ed.gov
Int ernet 54 words — < 1%
2 www.academypublisher.com
Int ernet 36 words — < 1%
3 Owaidah , Abrar Abdulhadi. "Teachers'
Preferences of Different Types of Written
36 words — < 1%
Corrective Feedback = ‫ﺗﻔﺿﯾﻼت اﻟﻣﻌﻠﻣﺎت ﻟﻸﻧواع اﻟﻣﺧﺗﻠﻔﺔ ﻣن اﻟﻣراﺟﻌﺔ اﻟﺗﺻﺣﯾﺣﯾﺔ‬
‫"ﻟﻸﻏﻼط اﻟﻛﺗﺎﺑﯾﺔ‬, Taibah University, 2015
Al Manhal

4 Hafez , Fatimah Siraj Aldeen. "Peer Review and
Teacher Feedback : Strategies to Enhance the
29 words — < 1%
Writing Skills of Saudi EFL Female Secondary School Students =
‫ إﺳﺗراﺗﯾﺟﯾﺎت ﻟﺗﻌزﯾز اﻟﻣﮭﺎرات اﻟﻛﺗﺎﺑﯾﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬: ‫ﻣراﺟﻌﺔ اﻷﻗران و اﻟﺗﻐذﯾﺔ اﻟراﺟﻌﺔ ﻟﻠﻣﻌﻠم‬
‫"اﻹﻧﺟﻠﯾزﯾﺔ ﻟدى اﻟطﺎﻟﺑﺎت اﻟﺳﻌودﯾﺎت ﻓﻲ اﻟﻣرﺣﻠﺔ اﻟﺛﺎﻧوﯾﺔ‬, Taibah University, 2014
Al Manhal

5 litu.tu.ac.th
Int ernet 25 words — < 1%
6 Saara S. Mungungu-Shipale, Jairos Kangira.
"Lecturers’ and Students’ Perceptions and
23 words — < 1%
Preferences about ESL Corrective Feedback in Namibia:
Towards an Intervention Model", World Journal of English
Language, 2017
Crossref

7 jyx.jyu.fi
Int ernet 20 words — < 1%
8 researchbank.rmit.edu.au
Int ernet
20 words — <1

Int ernet
20 words — <1
9 etd.lib.metu.edu.tr
Int ernet 20 words — < 1%
10 www.scribd.com
Int ernet 19 words — < 1%
11 d-nb.info
Int ernet 18 words — < 1%
12 media.proquest.com
Int ernet 18 words — < 1%
13 5thaasic.permithakhonkaen.org
Int ernet 17 words — < 1%
14 citeseerx.ist.psu.edu
Int ernet 17 words — < 1%
15 Jui-Jung Tsao, Wen-Ta Tseng, Chaochang Wang.
"The Effects of Writing Anxiety and Motivation on
16 words — < 1%
EFL College Students’ Self-Evaluative Judgments of Corrective
Feedback", Psychological Reports, 2017
Crossref

16 etd.ohiolink.edu
Int ernet 16 words — < 1%
17 Alharthi , Suad A.. "Saudi Female Teachers' and
Students' Understanding of the Role and the
16 words — < 1%
Importance of Feedback on Writing", Journal of Research in
Curriculum , Instruction and Educational Technology
Al Manhal

18 "Handbook of Research on Educational
Communications and Technology", Springer
16 words — < 1%
Nature America, Inc, 2014
Crossref

19 Chen, Sibo, Hossein Nassaji, and Qian Liu. "EFL learners’
perceptions and preferences of written corrective
13 words — < 1%
feedback: a case study of university students from
Mainland China", Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign
Language Education, 2016.
Crossref

20 doaj.org
Int ernet 13 words — < 1%
21 publications.theseus.fi
Int ernet 12 words — < 1%
22 www.aelweb.vcu.edu
Int ernet 11 words — < 1%
23 digital.auraria.edu
Int ernet 11 words — < 1%
24 minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au
Int ernet 11 words — < 1%
25 onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Int ernet 11 words — < 1%
26 clt.curtin.edu.au
Int ernet 10 words — < 1%
27 ir.canterbury.ac.nz
Int ernet 10 words — < 1%
28 ideaenglish.org
Int ernet 10 words — < 1%
29 docplayer.net
Int ernet 10 words — < 1%
30 dar.aucegypt.edu
Int ernet 10 words — < 1%
31 Hassan Banaruee, Omid Khatin-Zadeh, Rachael Ruegg. "Recasts

10 words — <1

vs. direct corrective feedback on writing
performance of high school EFL learners", Cogent
10 words — <1
Education, 2018
Crossref
32 Mohammad Aliakbari, Saeedeh Mohammadi. "EFL
Learners' Perceptions of Blog Assignments and
10 words — < 1%
Instructors' E-Feedbacks", International Journal of Web-Based
Learning and Teaching Technologies, 2016
Crossref

33 Xin Wang. "The Effects of Corrective Feedback on
Chinese Learners’ Writing Accuracy: A 10 words — < 1%
Quantitative Analysis in an EFL Context", World Journal of
Education, 2017
Crossref

34 Hung, Shao-Ting Alan. "Enhancing feedback
provision through multimodal video technology",
9 words — < 1%
Computers & Education, 2016.
Crossref

35 www.ncsall.net
Int ernet 9 words — < 1%
36 scholarworks.gsu.edu
Int ernet 9 words — < 1%
37 Wanchid, Raveewan, and Karnchanoke Wattanasin.
"The Investigation of Students’ Attitudes toward
9 words — < 1%
Project Work in Enhancing Independent Learning in English I at
King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok",
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 2015.
Crossref

38 cora.ucc.ie
Int ernet 9 words — < 1%
39 gradworks.umi.com
Int ernet 9 words — < 1%
40 sfu.academia.edu
Int ernet

9 words — < 1%

9 words — < 1%
41 "Educational Media and Technology Yearbook",
Springer Nature America, Inc, 2012 9 words — < 1%
Crossref

42 hrmars.com
Int ernet 9 words — < 1%
43 Kaivanpanah, Shiva, Sayyed Mohammad Alavi, and
Sajjad Sepehrinia. "Preferences for interactional
9 words — < 1%
feedback: differences between learners and teachers", Language
Learning Journal, 2012.
Crossref

44 researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz
Int ernet 9 words — < 1%
45 www1.rmit.edu.au
Int ernet 9 words — < 1%
46 hsaparchive.org.uk
Int ernet 9 words — < 1%
47 research.ncl.ac.uk
Int ernet 9 words — < 1%
48 asian-efl-journal.com
Int ernet 9 words — < 1%
49 www.tojet.net
Int ernet 9 words — < 1%
50 www.therushessays.com
Int ernet 9 words — < 1%
51 www.camtesol.org
Int ernet 9 words — < 1%
52 digitalcommons.fiu.edu
Int ernet 9 words — < 1%

53 Ernesto Panadero, Heidi Andrade, Susan Brookhart.
"Fusing self-regulated learning and formative
9 words — < 1%
assessment: a roadmap of where we are, how we got here, and
where we are going", The Australian Educational Researcher,
2018
Crossref

54 dspace5.zcu.cz
Int ernet 9 words — < 1%
55 www.tandfonline.com
Int ernet 8 words — < 1%
56 "Assessing Young Learners of English: Global and
Local Perspectives", Springer Nature America, Inc,
8 words — < 1%
2016
Crossref

57 "Researching Second Language Learning and
Teaching from a Psycholinguistic Perspective",
8 words — < 1%
Springer Nature America, Inc, 2016
Crossref

58 academicjournals.org
Int ernet 8 words — < 1%
59 "Hybrid Learning", Springer Nature America, Inc,
2010 8 words — < 1%
Crossref

60 www.academypublication.com
Int ernet 8 words — < 1%
61 Mathews Nkhoma, Narumon Sriratanaviriyakul,
Hiep Pham Cong, Tri Khai Lam. "Examining the
8 words — < 1%
mediating role of learning engagement, learning process and
learning experience on the learning outcomes through localized
real case studies", Education + Training, 2014
Crossref

62 waikato.researchgateway.ac.nz
Int ernet 8 words — < 1%

63 aut.researchgateway.ac.nz
Int ernet 8 words — < 1%
64 Lesinski, Nicole M.. ""Needs Improvement": Student
Perceptions of Formative Feedback on Writing in a
8 words — < 1%
High School English Program.", State University of New York at
Buffalo, 2017
ProQuest

65 www.larandebedomning.se
Int ernet 8 words — < 1%
66 122.129.75.35
Int ernet 8 words — < 1%
67 eprints.nottingham.ac.uk
Int ernet 8 words — < 1%
68 www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk
Int ernet 8 words — < 1%
69 npu.edu.ua
Int ernet 8 words — < 1%
70 www.trinity.edu
Int ernet 8 words — < 1%
71 www.ifets.info
Int ernet 8 words — < 1%
72 secondlanguagewriting.com
Int ernet 8 words — < 1%
73 www.trespass-project.eu
Int ernet 8 words — < 1%
74 repository.uinjkt.ac.id
Int ernet 8 words — < 1%
75 etheses.dur.ac.uk
Int ernet 8 words — < 1%

76 vinaymod3.files.wordpress.com
Int ernet 8 words — < 1%
77 eprints.uny.ac.id
Int ernet 8 words — < 1%
78 Teresa O'Brien. "Writing in a foreign language:
teaching and learning", Language Teaching, 2004
8 words — < 1%
Crossref

79 "Technology Enhanced Assessment", Springer
Nature America, Inc, 2018
6 words — < 1%
Crossref

80 Stephanie A. Watts. "Evaluative Feedback:
Perspectives on Media Effects", Journal of
6 words — < 1%
Computer-Mediated Communication, 1/2007
Crossref

81 Kay Sambell, Sally Brown, Linda Graham.
"Professionalism in Practice", Springer Nature, 2017
6 words — < 1%
Crossref

EXCLUDE QUOTES ON EXCLUDE MATCHES OFF
EXCLUDE BIBLIOGRAPHY ON
References (77)
Abad, A., Ghosh, A., Riccardi, G., & Trento, P. (2013). Motivational feedback in crowdsourcing: The case study of speech transcriptions. In In: Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (INTERSPEECH), pp. 1111-1115.
Bas, G. (2011). Investigating the effects of project-based learning on students' academic achievement and attitudes towards English lesson. The Online Journal of New Horizon in Education, 1(4), 1-15.
Baş, G., & Beyhan, Ö. (2010). Effects of multiple intelligences supported project-based learning on students' achievement levels and attitudes towards English lesson. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2(3), 365-385.
Boud, D. (2006). 'Aren't we all learner-centred now?': The bittersweet flavour of success. In changing higher education: The development of learning and teaching. (P. Ashwin, Ed.). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
Brown, E., & Glover, C. (2006). Evaluating written feedback. In C. Bryan & K. Clegg (Eds.), Innovative Assessment in Higher Education (pp. 80-91). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219-233. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572132
Chen, S., Nassaji, H., & Liu, Q. (2016). EFL learners' perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback: A case study of university students from Mainland China. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-016-0010-y
Clark, A.-M. (2006). Changing classroom practice to include the project approach. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 8(2). Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v8n2/clark.html
Dargusch, J., & Davis, S. (2015). Feedback, iterative processing and academic trust -teacher education students' perceptions of assessment feedback. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(1), 177-191. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n1.10
Defalco, J. A., Baker, R. S., Paquette, L., & Georgoulas, V. (2014). Motivational feedback designs for frustration in a simulation-based combat medic training environment. In In Generalized Intelligent Framework for Tutoring (GIFT) Users Symposium (GIFTSym3) (p. 81).
Douglas, T., Salter, S., Iglesias, M., Dowlman, M., & Eri, R. (2016). The feedback process: Perspectives of first and second year undergraduate students in the disciplines of education, health science and nursing. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 13(1), 1-19. Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol13/iss1/3
Eguchi, M., & Eguchi, K. (2006). The limited effect of PBL on EFL learners: A case study of English magazine projects. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), 207-225.
Ertmer, P. A., Richardson, J. C., Belland, B., Camin, D., Connolly, P., Coulthard, G., Lei, K. (2007). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings : An exploratory study. Journal of Computer- Mediated Communication, (12), 412-433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00331.x
Fakeye, D. O. (2016). Secondary school teachers' and students' attitudes towards formative assessment and corrective feedback in English language in Ibadan Metropolis. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 6(2), 141-148. https://doi.org/10.5901/jesr.2016.v6n2p141
Ferguson, P. (2011). Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(1), 51-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903197883
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes : A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11.
González, E. F. (2010). Impact of teacher & student conferencing and teacher written feedback on EFL revision. MEXTESOL Journal, 34(1), 59-74.
Grami, G. M. A. (2005). The effect of teachers' written feedback on ESL students' perception: A study in a Saudi ESL university-level context. Annual Review of Education, Communication and Language Sciences, 2(1), 10-13.
Grant, M. M. (2011). Learning, beliefs, and products: Students' perspectives with project-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 5(2), 37-69. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1254
Hasani, A., Hendrayana, A., & Senjaya, A. (2017). Using project-based learning in writing an educational article: An experience report. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(6), 960-964. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2017.050608
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Hewitt, D. (2008). Understanding effective learning: Strategies for the classroom. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill House. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=6x5ua4WMQswC&pgis=1
Hill, J. D., & Flynn, K. M. (2006). Classroom instruction that works with English language learners. Alexandria, USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Hixson, N. K., Ravitz, J., & Whisman, A. (2012). Extended Professional Development in Project-Based Learning. Charleston, WV. Retrieved from http://wvde.state.wv.us/
Holm, M. (2011). Project-based instruction: A review of the literature on effectiveness in prekindergarten through 12th grade classrooms. InSight: Rivier Academic Journal, 7(2), 1-13.
Hooper, D. (2010). Towards an understanding of students' use of audio feedback : An exploratory study. In presented at iCERi2010, 15-17 November, Madrid, Spain (pp. 15-17).
Hüttel, H., & Gnaur, D. (2017). If PBL is the solution, then what is the problem? Journal of Problem Based Learning in Higher Education, 5(2), 1-21. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12107-4_2
Jodaie, M. (2014). Iranian EFL high school students' perceptions regarding written grammar feedback. The Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(11), 64-84.
Kahraman, A., & Yalvaç, F. (2015). EFL Turkish university students' preferences about teacher feedback and its importance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 73-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.489
Kaivanpanah, S., Alavi, S. M., & Sepehrinia, S. (2015). Preferences for interactional feedback: differences between learners and teachers. Language Learning Journal, 43(1), 74-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2012.705571
Kaur, M., & Singh, M. (2016). Graduate students' needs and preferences for written feedback on academic writing. English Language Teaching, 9(12), 79-88. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n12p79
Kavaliauskienė, G., & Anusienė, L. (2012). Case study: Learner attitudes towards the correction of mistakes. Social Technologies, 2(1), 88-101.
Larmer, J., & Mergendoller, J. R. (2010). Seven essentials for project-based learning. Educational Leadership, 68(1), 34-37. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/sept10/vol68/num01/Seven_Essentials_for_Projec t-Based_Learning.aspx
Lee, T. Y., Dugan, C., Geyer, W., Ratchford, T., Rasmussen, J., Shami, N. S., & Lupushor, S. (2013). Experiments on motivational feedback for crowdsourced workers. Proceedings of the 7 th International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, ICWSM 2013, 341-350. Retrieved from http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84900388998&partnerID=tZOtx3y1
Lipnevich, A. A., & Smith, J. K. (2009). Effects of differential feedback on students' examination performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15(4), 319-333. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017841
Merry, S., & Orsmond, P. (2008). Students' attitudes to and usage of academic feedback provided via audio files. Bioscience Education, 11(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3108/beej.11.3
Morss, K., & Murray, R. (2005). Teaching at university: A guide for postgraduates and researchers. London: SAGE Publications.
Moss, D., & Van Duzer, C. (1998). Project-based learning for adult English language learners. ERIC Digest ED427556, 1-7. Retrieved from www.eric.ed.gov
Mungungu-Shipale, S. S., & Kangira, J. (2017). Lecturers' and students' perceptions and preferences about ESL corrective feedback in Namibia: Towards an intervention model. World Journal of English Language, 7(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v7n1p11
Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 125-144. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203880869.ch11
Nation, I. S. P. (2009). Teaching ESL / EFL reading and writing. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis. New South Wales Government. (2015). Types of feedback: Strong start, great teachers -Phase 3. State of New South Wales. Retrieved from www.ssgt.nsw.edu.au/documents/1types_feedback.pdf
Norouzian, R., & Farahani, A. A. K. (2012). Written error feedback from perception to practice: A feedback on feedback. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(1), 11-22. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.3.1.11-22
Nuramirah, P. (2017). An analysis of teacher's corrective feedback and learners' uptake in dialogue journal. Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), 82(Conaplin 9), 308-310.
Orts, S., & Salazar, P. (2016). EFL students' preferences towards written corrective feedback: An exploratory study on age and level of proficiency. The Grove -Working Papers on English Studies, 23, 109-129. https://doi.org/10.17561/grove.v23.a8
Papangkorn, P. (2015). SSRUIC students' attitude and preference toward error corrections. Procedia -Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197(February), 1841-1846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.244
Park, G. (2010). Preference of corrective feedback approaches perceived by Native English teachers and students. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 7(4), 29-52.
Parkes, M., & Fletcher, P. (2016). A longitudinal, quantitative study of student attitudes towards audio feedback for assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(7), 1046-1053. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1224810
Petchprasert, A. (2012). Feedback in second language teaching and learning. US-China Foreign Language, 10(4), 1112-1120. Retrieved from http://www.davidpublishing.com/davidpublishing/Upfile/6/8/2012/2012060806317598.pdf
Pieratt, J. R. (2010). Advancing the ideas of John Dewey: A look at the high tech schools. Education and Culture, 26(2), 52-64.
Postholm, M. B. (2005). The teacher shaping and creating dialogues in project work. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(6), 519-539. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13450600500293217
Rahimi, M. (2010). Iranian EFL Students' Perceptions and Preferences for Teachers' Written Feedback: Do Students' ideas Reflect Teachers' Practice? The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 2(2), 75-98.
Ravitz, J. (2010). Beyond changing culture in small high schools: Reform models and changing instruction with project-based learning. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(3), 290-312. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2010.491432
Rowe, A. D., & Wood, L. N. (2008). Student perceptions and preferences for feedback. Asian Social Science, 4(3), 78-88. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v4n3p78
Rowe, A. D., Wood, L. N., & Petocz, P. (2008). Engaging students: Student preferences for feedback, in engaging communities. In Proceedings of the 31st HERDSA Annual Conference (pp. 297-306). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.canterbury.ac.nz/docview/1023240692/fulltextPDF/6B8908F592ED438 DPQ/1?accountid=14499
Şat, M. (2013). CEIT undergraduate students' perceptions and preferences of formative feedback, and the relationship of these perceptions and preferences with their learning approaches. Middle East Technical University.
Seker, M., & Dincer, A. (2014). An insight to students' perceptions on teacher feedback in second language writing classes. English Language Teaching, 7(2), 73-83. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n2p73
Şeker, M., & Sezgin, M. E. (2013). Investigating students' perceptions on feedback in distance education program: A case study in Turkey. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 22(1), 513-528.
Sharif, A. M., & Zainuddin, S. Z. (2017). Students' perceptions of their reflective essay writing experience and teacher feedback comments. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 204-212. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v6i2.4845
Simpson, J. (2011). Integrating project-based learning in an English language tourism classroom in a Thai University. Australian Catholic University.
Solomon, G. (2003). Project-based learning: A primer. Retrieved from http://www.techlearning.com/db_area/archives/TL/2003/01/project.php
Sopin, G. (2015). Perceptions and preferences of ESL students regarding the effectiveness of corrective feedback in Libyan secondary schools. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education Ver. II, 5(4), 2320-7388. https://doi.org/10.9790/7388-05427177
Susanti, R. (2013). Students' perceptions towards the effective feedback practices in the large EFL writing class based on participation, gender, and English proficiency level. Thesis. Indiana University of Pennsylvania, School of Graduate Studies and Research.
Tamba, P., Motlan, & Turnip, B. (2017). The effect of project based learning model for students' creative thinking skills and problem solving. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME), 7(5), 67-70. https://doi.org/10.9790/7388-0705026770
Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. San Rafael, California. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-009-0302-x
Truscott, J. (1996). The case of grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80124-6
Vasu, K., Ling, C. H., & Nimehchisalem, V. (2016). Malaysian tertiary level ESL students' perceptions toward teacher feedback, peer feedback and self-assessment in their writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 5(5), 158-170. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.5p.158
Watts, S. A. (2007). Evaluative feedback: Perspectives on media effects. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), 50-77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00330.x
Westwood, P. (2008). What teachers need to know about learning difficulties. Victoria, Australia: ACER Press. https://doi.org/9780864319364
Wrigley, H. S. (1998). Knowledge in action: The promise of project-based learning. National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy (NCSALL), 2(D). Retrieved from http://ncsall.net/index.php@id=384.html
Zacharias, N. T. (2007). Teacher and student attitudes toward teacher feedback. RELC Journal, 38(1), 38-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688206076157
vs. direct corrective feedback on writing performance of high school EFL learners", Cogent Education, 2018
Crossref Mohammad Aliakbari, Saeedeh Mohammadi. "EFL Learners' Perceptions of Blog Assignments and Instructors' E-Feedbacks", International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 2016
Crossref Xin Wang. "The Effects of Corrective Feedback on Chinese Learners' Writing Accuracy: A Quantitative Analysis in an EFL Context", World Journal of Education, 2017
Crossref Hung, Shao-Ting Alan. "Enhancing feedback provision through multimodal video technology", Computers & Education, 2016.
Wanchid, Raveewan, and Karnchanoke Wattanasin. "The Investigation of Students' Attitudes toward Project Work in Enhancing Independent Learning in English I at King Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok", Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 2015.
52 "Educational Media and Technology Yearbook", Springer Nature America, Inc, 2012
Crossref hrmars.com Int ernet Kaivanpanah, Shiva, Sayyed Mohammad Alavi, and Sajjad Sepehrinia. "Preferences for interactional feedback: differences between learners and teachers", Language Learning Journal, 2012.
Hayat Alamri
Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia, Faculty Member
Hayat Alamri is an EFL Associated Professor in the Department of Curricula and Teaching Methods at Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia. She has achieved the status of Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy in 2016. She has a rich and long teaching experience at the University level for undergraduate, high diploma, and Master students. She has contributed some research articles in refereed world journals and actively participated in several language conferences, workshops, and symposia.
Papers
Followers
View all papers from
Hayat Alamri
arrow_forward
Related papers
Providing Effective Feedback to EFL Student Teachers
Hamed Al-Adawi
HOLI I B R A H I M H O L I A L I ALI PhD, SFHEA
Higher Education Studies, 2013
Feedback on school practicum is of utmost importance for student teachers to help them to develop their pedagogical and teaching skills. This paper attempts to collect data from both student teachers and their mentors in an ELT teacher training programme in Oman to answer the questions which are raised by this study: 1) What kind of feedback do student teachers receive in their practicum? 2) What are the student teachers' and mentors' views of feedback on the practicum? 3) What type of practicum feedback is more effective, oral or written? This study also aims to offer practical ideas that would empower both student teachers and supervisors in improving the practice of giving and receiving feedback in practicum. The data was analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. The statistical approach that is adopted in the questionnaire depends on frequency and percentage. The item of high frequency and percentage reflects the most significant, required answers for the three study questions. The findings indicated that student teachers and their mentors perceived their feedback practices on practicum positively; however the student teachers believed that both types of feedback are important to them but they are in favour of written feedback more than oral one. The study offered some pedagogical implications and recommendations with regard to feedback on practicum.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Written corrective feedback: A comparative study of the preferences and beliefs of EFL teachers and learners in Saudi Arabia
Hani Albelihi
F1000Research, 2022
Background: Corrective feedback plays the role of enabling both teachers and learners to gauge their performance and reflect on their development. It can vary in nature, amount, and focus; nevertheless, its centrality to the classroom cannot be ignored. At the same time, what makes it effective is the way it is communicated. The role of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) is vital as both a corrective measure and durability for future reference. Foreign language classrooms are an active foreground for feedback practices, given that the bulk of correction is multifaceted and multimodal. However, teachers are left to their devices to formulate best practices in the absence of defined classroom feedback mechanisms. The purposes of this study are (i) to evaluate Saudi English as a foreign language (EFL) instructors' real practices in supporting their students with corrective feedback; and (ii) to check the students' beliefs about the feedback they receive from their instructors. Methods: Using the writing output of 92 EFL learners from Qassim University, Saudi Arabia, and the nature of WCF provided to them by three university instructors who were free to choose their feedback strategies in two phases of writing and correction, followed by learners' cumulative response to the two, the study concludes that a number of difficulties surrounding the scope of feedback need to be researched. Results: The study found that the most used type of WCF is direct in regard to grammatical errors, vocabulary, syntax, and content evaluation. However, the Saudi EFL learners prefer direct corrective feedback for grammatical errors but indirect coded feedback for content correcting their writing assignments. Conclusions: The study encourages EFL teachers to focus on the different types of WCF when reverting to their learners. Furthermore, students' preference for feedback should be the cornerstone teachers begin with while giving the WCF.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
The Role of Feedback in EFL Classes
Blanka Klimova
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2015
Enthusiastic ELT teachers are always looking for new and effective approaches and methods which would contribute to the overall improvement of their students' learning and their performance. One of the most effective ways of discovering this is collecting students' responses in the form of feedback. Such responses can provide critical and constructive information about the current course, teacher performance, difficulties or challenges students experience/have experienced during the course and indicate steps which should be taken for the improvement of one's performance in future. Therefore the aim of this article is to emphasize the importance of feedback and focus on its different forms, such as formal and informal; or continuous and endsemester feedback. In addition, the author of this article explores specific benefits and constraints of four types of feedback at the example of teaching a Course of Academic Writing at the Faculty of Informatics and Management in Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Factors Influencing Efl Students’ Utilisation of Teacher Written Feedback
Omer Mahfoodh
TEFLIN Journal: A publication on the teaching and learning of English
This qualitative case study investigated factors affecting EFL university students’ use of teacher written feedback. Ten Yemeni EFL university students participated in this study. Data included students’ written essays, teacher written feedback, and semi-structured interviews. Students’ use of teacher written feedback was analysed using an adapted rating scheme. Thematic analysis was used for analysing the interviews. The results revealed that the major factors affecting students’ use of teacher written feedback are feedback-related factors (teachers’ use of correction symbols, legibility of written feedback, explicitness of written feedback, and wording of written feedback) and student-related factors (students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback and students’ previous literacy experience). Understanding the impact of these factors on students’ utilisation of teacher written feedback may help teachers to provide constructive and effective written feedback to their...
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Postgraduate EFL Students’ Response t o Feedback: What Feedback Do Students Prefer?
siti zulaiha
2020
The present study aimed at investigating postgraduate EFL students’ preferences for feedback and reasons behind their preferences. This study employed a qualitative research design with a case study approach. Students at an English study program participated in an in-depth interview. Data were analyzed using a qualitative content analysis. Findings revealed that the majority of postgraduate EFL students in this study preferred written, specific, detailed, regular, constructive, and timely feedback. Students showed interest in the feedback they received and desired to discuss with their lecturers about the feedback. The findings emphasize the need for dialogic feedback where students and lecturers can share an understanding of what feedback is and improve the way the feedback process is done. Suggestions, implications, and limitations are also discussed.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Teacher and student attitudes toward teacher feedback
Henny Zacharias-Lim
RELC journal, 2007
m This study aims to explore students' attitudes toward teacher feedback. The study used a triangulation of participants and methods in which the practice of feedback was seen from the perspectives of students and teachers collected from the quantitative data (questionnaires) and qualitative data (open-ended items in questionnaires and interviews). A total of 100 students participated in filling in the questionnaires and 21 of them were interviewed using a semi-structured format. In addition, there were 20 teachers who completed the questionnaires and 10 of them were interviewed using the same semi-structured format. The findings show that generally teachers and students have a marked preference for teacher feedback. The high preference for teacher feedback was mainly the result ofthe respondents' positive attitudes towards teacher feedback. Interestingly, student preferences for teacher feedback also stemmed from their awareness that teachers control grades. The data collected from the questionnaires and interviews indicated that students preferred teacher feedback that was specific since this kind of feedback would facilitate students in the revision process. Students also show a high preference for feedback which focused on language. Compared to feedback on content, feedback on form was considered to be more helpful. Students often complained that teacher feedback on content tended to be general and sometimes, contradictory to student ideas. Moreover, the interview data illustrated that teacher feedback contributed greatly to students' emotional states particularly their motivation and attitudes towards writing.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Teacher's Attitude into Different Approach to Providing Feedback to Students in Higher Education
Zina Chaqmaqchee
Journal of Education and Practice, 2015
Feedback within higher education has an effective role in teaching staffs mode. The treatise on teachers' methods of feedback is represented to demonstrate how the novel feedback can help the academic staffs to provide an effective feedback for students in their assignments and written draft. The study investigates the academic staff's methods of feedback and their use the traditional pedagogy (Teacher written feedback) or the novel mode (online and peer feedback) at Salahaddin university in Erbil. The data of the study were collected quantitatively and qualitatively in order to reveal teachers pedagogy in the university and how they use methods of feedback in their teaching. The findings showed that some instructors use peer and online feedback (novel approach) which help students to be reflective and critical thinkers while most of them resort to teacher written feedback (old approach). Ultimately, the results shown that the academic staff may provide the novel feedback (o...
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
The value of students’ feedback
Alina Mag
MATEC Web of Conferences
Quality teaching is directly related with effective and high-quality feedback, and such arguments are well supported by the findings of recent studies. Feedback constitutes a central aspect of learning, yet has been largely neglected in research to date, particularly from the student’s point of view. This gap in practice has been picked up by the Department for Teacher Training of “Lucian Blaga” University of Sibiu. This paper explores students’ perception of feedback. First year students enrolled at the Primary and Preschool Pedagogy program were invited to attend focus groups and individual interviews. A questionnaire was developed from themes identified in the focus groups and was administrated to a large group of undergraduate students in the second part of the study. This paper reports on the focus groups and the themes that emerged from the data. Findings revealed that receiving late and minimal feedback during the semester was a common cause of students’ dissatisfaction. Resp...
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Explore
Papers
Topics
Features
Mentions
Analytics
PDF Packages
Advanced Search
Search Alerts
Journals
Academia.edu Journals
My submissions
Reviewer Hub
Why publish with us
Testimonials
Company
About
Careers
Press
Content Policy
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104