This website stores cookies on your computer. These cookies are used to collect information about how you interact with our website and allow us to remember your browser. We use this information to improve and customize your browsing experience, for analytics and metrics about our visitors both on this website and other media, and for marketing purposes. By using this website, you accept and agree to be bound by UVic’s Terms of Use and Protection of Privacy Policy. If you do not agree to the above, you must not use this website.

Skip to main content
People Departments Maps Buildings Rooms A-Z
University
of Victoria
Apply Library
Sign in Online tools Sign out
Faculty of Graduate Studies

Yangyang Xu

  • BA (Beijing International Studies University, 2010)

Notice of the Final Oral Examination for the Degree of Master of Arts

Topic

Examining a Teacher’s Feedback on Chinese Students’ TOEFL Speaking Responses: Pedagogical Reflections on English Speaking Feedback Practices

Department of Curriculum and Instruction

Date & location

  • Monday, September 8, 2025

  • 2:00 P.M.

  • Virtual Defence

Reviewers

Supervisory Committee

  • Dr. Ruthanne Tobin, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Victoria (Co-Supervisor)

  • Dr. Tim Anderson, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, UVic (Co-Supervisor) 

External Examiner

  • Dr. Guofang Li, Department of Language and Literacy Education, University of British Columbia 

Chair of Oral Examination

  • Dr. Peter Cook, Department of History, UVic

     

Abstract

This qualitative study explores the types and patterns of oral and written feedback provided by the researcher to seven Chinese high school students preparing for the speaking section of the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). Informed by the theoretical framework of Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory (SCT) (1978) and Pajares’ research on teacher beliefs (1992), the study aims to examine the nature of feedback given, its alignment with existing literature on corrective feedback (Ellis, 2021) and formative feedback (Shute, 2008), and the insights gained through autoethnographic analysis. Analyzed using Qualitative Content Analysis (QCA), the data in this study consisted of 27 feedback records (108 entries of written comments and audio-recorded oral feedback responses) that I provided to seven of my former students on their TOEFL speaking practice in a language training institute in China in 2022. Findings showed a near balance between the use of corrective feedback (CF) and formative feedback (FF). Though not mutually exclusive, CF and FF have different focuses. CF is “a response to a learner utterance containing a linguistic error (Ellis, 2009, p. 3)”, while FF, as defined by Shute (2008), is information provided to the learner aimed at improving learning. In this study, a feedback instance is considered CF if it focuses on correcting specific linguistic errors (e.g., pronunciation, intonation, grammar), whereas a feedback instance is regarded as FF if it contains more elaboration and focuses on the learning process (e.g., providing ideas of a relevant example to support the statement a student made in their speaking practice). The findings showed both corrective feedback and formative feedback strategies were employed in the author’s feedback practices, but there was a slight preference for corrective feedback approaches. A comparison with existing literature revealed three key divergences: (1) recasts were used explicitly for pronunciation demonstration rather than implicitly as in in-class speaking practice, (2) feedback in this study was delayed and asynchronous, allowing students more time to process the information, yet lacking paralinguistic cues, and (3) high-achieving learners in high-stakes test-preparation contexts may also prefer and potentially benefit from explicit and elaborated feedback. Autoethnographic analysis found that the researcher’s beliefs—centred on helping students improve delivery (pronunciation, intonation, and fluency), language use (grammar and vocabulary), and content (topic development) (Educational Testing Service, n.d.)—shaped the comprehensive nature of the feedback. The study concludes with implications for practice, acknowledges limitations such as small sample size and the absence of student perspectives, and proposes a future research direction for feedback on second language (L2) learners’ speaking practice.

Back to oral exams