Advertisement

Thy word is a lamp unto my feet: A study via metaphoric perceptions on how online feedback benefited Chinese learners

  • Seong Lin DingEmail author
  • Esyin Chew
Cultural and Regional Perspectives
  • 5 Downloads

Abstract

Theoretical claims about the benefits of online feedback suggest it can facilitate language learning. However, despite the calls for new digital literacies on language education, attitudes of educators have not been encouraging. To delve further into this issue, the present study addresses the following research concerns: (1) learners’ metaphoric perceptions of online feedback, (2) how metaphoric perceptions show the impact of online feedback on language learning, and (3) the messages educators can glean through these metaphoric perceptions. A subsequent question would be what new insights we can gain by asking students to reflect on online feedback via metaphors not unearthed by previous research using more traditional means. We argue that different methods should be used based on student differences and the contextual realities of the learning setting. Participants are introverted Chinese novice learners who are not accustomed to technology-enhanced teaching/learning and are restrained in the open expression of their feelings and thoughts. Given participants’ backgrounds, the use of metaphors enables them to express their reflective thinking in a more profound manner. Therefore, the findings of the present study, i.e., learners’ metaphoric thoughts, are considered timely and can be used in academic training to address the necessity of applying different approaches to different types of students. They can also showcase the impact of online feedback on introverted learners. Together, these findings can encourage educators to consider changing their attitudes regarding educational technology.

Keywords

Online feedback Perception Metaphor Chinese learners Introverted learners 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by University of Malaya Research Grant (grant number RG365-12HNE). The authors would like to thank Patricia Young and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on earlier versions of this article. The first author is also indebted to Mohana Nambiar for her generous advice.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest.

References

  1. AbuSeileek, A., & Abualsha, A. (2014). Using peer computer-mediated corrective feedback to support EFL learners’ writing. Language Learning & Technology, 18(1), 76–95.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes, J., & Kennewell, S. (2017). Investigating teacher perceptions of teaching ICT in Wales. Education and Information Technologies, 22(5), 2485–2497.Google Scholar
  3. Bridge, J. C. (2015). Review of computer-assisted language learning: Diversity in research and practice. Language Learning & Technology, 19(2), 40–43.Google Scholar
  4. Burrows, S., & Shortis, M. (2011). An evaluation of semi-automated, collaborative marking and feedback systems: Academic staff perspectives. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(7), 1135–1154.Google Scholar
  5. Charlesworth, Z. M. (2008). Learning styles across cultures: Suggestions for educators. Education and Training, 50(2), 115–127.Google Scholar
  6. Cheng, X. (2000). Asian students’ reticence revisited. System, 28(3), 435–446.Google Scholar
  7. Chew, E., & Ding, S. L. (2014). The zone of proximal and distal development of the Chinese language studies with the use of Wikis. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(2), 184–201.Google Scholar
  8. Chew, E., Ding, S. L., Rowell, G., et al. (2015). Changing attitudes in learning and assessment: Cast-off ‘plagiarism detection’ and cast-on self-service assessment for learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(5), 454–463.Google Scholar
  9. Chiappe, D. L., & Chiappe, P. (2007). The role of working memory in production and comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(2), 172–188.Google Scholar
  10. Choi, B. K., & Rhee, B. S. (2013). The influences of student engagement, institutional mission, and cooperative learning climate on the generic competency development of Korean undergraduate students. Higher Education, 67(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
  11. Clariana, R., Wagner, D., & Murphy, L. (2000). Applying a connectionist description of feedback timing. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 5–21.Google Scholar
  12. Conole, G., De Laat, M., Dillon, T., Darby, J., et al. (2008). ‘Disruptive technologies’, ‘pedagogical innovation’: What’s new? Findings from an in-depth study of students’ use and perception of technology. Computers & Education, 50(2), 511–524.Google Scholar
  13. Davidson, B., Gillies, R. A., Pelletier, A. L., et al. (2015). Introversion and medical student education: Challenges for both students and educators. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 27(1), 99–104.Google Scholar
  14. Davis, M., & Carroll, J. (2009). Formative feedback within plagiarism education: Is there a role for text-matching software? International Journal for Educational Integrity, 5(2), 58–70.Google Scholar
  15. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., et al. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281–318.Google Scholar
  16. Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 575–600.Google Scholar
  17. Falck, M. J., & Gibbs, R. W. (2012). Embodied motivations for metaphorical meanings. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(2), 251–272.Google Scholar
  18. Gentner, D., & Asmuth, J. (2017). Metaphoric extension, relational categories, and abstraction. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2017.1410560.Google Scholar
  19. Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. (2001). Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3–4), 223–247.Google Scholar
  20. Gentner, D., Bowdle, B., Wolff, P., Boronat, C., et al. (2001). Metaphor is like analogy. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 199–253). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gentner, D., Falkenhainer, B., Skorstand, J., et al. (1988). Viewing metaphor as analogy. In D. H. Helman (Ed.), Analogical reasoning: Perspectives of artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and philosophy (pp. 171–177). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  22. Gentner, D., & Maravilla, F. (2018). Analogical reasoning. In L. J. Ball & V. A. Thompson (Eds.), International handbook of thinking & reasoning (pp. 186–203). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1995). Similarity is like analogy: Structural alignment in comparison. In C. Cacciari (Ed.), Similarity in language, thought and perception (pp. 111–147). Brussels: BREPOLS.Google Scholar
  24. Gernsbacher, M. N., Keysar, B., Robertson, R. R. W., Durgin, N. K. W., et al. (2001). The role of suppression and enhancement in understanding metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(3), 433–450.Google Scholar
  25. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2017). Metaphor wars: Conceptual metaphors in human life. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 127–165.Google Scholar
  27. Gwella. (2011). Enhancing learning and teaching through technology in Wales. Gwella Programme Final Report. https://www.hefcw.ac.uk/documents/policy_areas/learning_and_teaching/GwellaFinalReportPublic.pdf. Accessed Sep 12, 2017.
  28. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.Google Scholar
  29. Hope, S. A. (2011). Making movies: The next big thing in feedback? Bioscience Education, 18(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  30. Jamrozik, A., McQuire, M., Cardillo, E. R., Chatterjee, A., et al. (2016). Metaphor: Bridging embodiment to abstraction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 1080–1089.Google Scholar
  31. Jones, J. F. (1999). From silence to talk: Cross-cultural ideas on students’ participation in academic group discussion. English for Specific Purposes, 18(3), 243–259.Google Scholar
  32. Kim, S. J. (2012). Critical literacy in East Asian literacy classrooms. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 11(1), 131–144.Google Scholar
  33. Lai, C. (2013). A framework for developing self-directed technology use for language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 17(2), 100–122.Google Scholar
  34. Lai, C. (2015). Modeling teachers’ influence on learners’ self-directed use of technology for language learning outside the classroom. Computers & Education, 82, 74–83.Google Scholar
  35. Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39–74.Google Scholar
  36. Lavolette, E., Polio, C., Kahng, J., et al. (2015). The accuracy of computer assisted feedback and students’ responses to it. Language Learning & Technology, 19(2), 50–68.Google Scholar
  37. Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in adults English L2 classrooms: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 536–556.Google Scholar
  38. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66.Google Scholar
  39. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 167–184.Google Scholar
  40. Lyster, R., Saito, K., Sato, M., et al. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.Google Scholar
  41. Mackey, A., Gass, S., McDonough, K., et al. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471–497.Google Scholar
  42. Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338–356.Google Scholar
  43. McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56(4), 693–720.Google Scholar
  44. Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2014). e-Learning guidelines for Malaysian HEIs. W.P. Putrajaya: Higher Education Department. https://www.moe.gov.my/images/Terbitan/Buku-Panduan/e-Learning-Guidelines-for-Malaysian-HEIs/e-Learning%20Guidelines%20for%20Malaysian%20HEIs.pdf Accessed 13 January 2019.
  45. Mohamed, A. E. (2011). e-Learning in Malaysian higher education institutions: Status, trends and challenges. Putrajaya: Ministry of Higher Education. http://www.moe.gov.my/images/Terbitan/Rujukan-Akademik/e-Learning%20in%20Malaysia%20Higher%20Education%20Instituttions%20Status%20Trends%20&%20Challenges.pdf Accessed 12 September 2017.
  46. Nassaji, H. (2011a). Correcting students’ written grammatical errors: The effects of negotiated versus nonnegotiated feedback. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(3), 315–334.Google Scholar
  47. Nassaji, H. (2011b). Immediate learner repair and its relationship with learning targeted forms in dyadic interaction. System, 39(1), 17–29.Google Scholar
  48. Nassaji, H. (2016). Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 535–562.Google Scholar
  49. Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 375–389.Google Scholar
  50. Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., & O’Donovan, B. (2010). Feedback: all that effort, but what is the effect? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277–289.Google Scholar
  51. Ramos, I. D. (2014). Communicative activities: Issues on pre, during, and post challenges in South Korea’s English education. International Journal of Education Learning and Development, 2(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  52. Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(1), 27–67.Google Scholar
  53. Rolfe, V. (2011). Can Turnitin be used to provide instant formative feedback? British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 701–710.Google Scholar
  54. Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.Google Scholar
  55. Schmidt, R. W. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–226.Google Scholar
  56. Schmidt, R. W. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. In J.H. Hulstijn, & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Consciousness and second language learning: Conceptual, methodological and practical issues in language learning and teaching. Thematic issue of AILA ReviewRevue de l’AILA, 11, 11–26.Google Scholar
  57. Schmidt, R. W. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1–63). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
  58. Schmidt, R. W., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237–326). Rowley: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  59. Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Roberts, G., & Francis, R., et al. (2006). The undergraduate experience of blended e-learning: A review of UK literature and practice (pp. 1–103). UK: The Higher Education Academy. https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/sharpe_benfield_roberts_francis_0.pdf. Accessed September 12, 2017.
  60. Shin, H., & Crookes, G. (2005). Exploring the possibilities for EFL critical pedagogy in Korea—A two-part case study. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies: An International Journal, 2(2), 113–138.Google Scholar
  61. Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 286–306.Google Scholar
  62. Stockwell, G. (2012). Computer-assisted language learning: Diversity in research and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Tour, E. (2015). Digital mindsets: Teachers’ technology use in personal life and teaching. Language Learning & Technology, 19(3), 124–139.Google Scholar
  64. Tourangeau, R., & Sternberg, R. J. (1982). Understanding and appreciating metaphors. Cognition, 11(3), 203–244.Google Scholar
  65. Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255–272.Google Scholar
  66. Vásquez, C., & Harvey, J. (2010). Raising teachers’ awareness about corrective feedback through research replication. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 421–443.Google Scholar
  67. Yang, Y. F., & Meng, W. T. (2013). The effects of online feedback training on students’ text revision. Language Learning & Technology, 17(2), 220–238.Google Scholar
  68. Yilmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62(4), 1134–1169.Google Scholar
  69. Yoon, H., & Jo, J. W. (2014). Direct and indirect access to corpora: An exploratory case study comparing students’ error correction and learning strategy use in L2 writing. Language Learning & Technology, 18(1), 96–117.Google Scholar
  70. Zhou, Y. R., Knoke, D., Sakamoto, I., et al. (2005). Rethinking silence in the classroom: Chinese students’ experiences of sharing indigenous knowledge. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 9(3), 287–311.Google Scholar
  71. Zlatović, M., Balaban, I., Kermek, D., et al. (2015). Using online assessments to stimulate learning strategies and achievement of learning goals. Computers & Education, 91, 32–45.Google Scholar
  72. Zou, B., Xing, M., Wang, Y. P., Sun, M., Xiang, C. H., et al. (Eds.). (2013). Computer-assisted foreign language teaching and learning: Technological advances. Hershey: IGI Global Information Science Reference.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Languages and LinguisticsUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of Computing and Information SystemsCardiff Metropolitan UniversityCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations