Formative feedback is essential to progress ‘deep’ learning (Biggs, 1999; Hyland, 2000; Higgins, Hartley and Skelton, 2002). The interaction that takes place between tutors and students can enhance learning by contributing to ‘deeper’ conceptual understanding and learning at higher cognitive levels. However, experience of teaching academic English in higher education in the UK shows that students do not always accord this feedback the attention it deserves. Observation, in this education environment, has shown that students measure their progress through their grades as these are viewed as concrete evidence of their progression (Wojtas, 1998 cited in Weaver, 2006, p.380; Brown, 2007 cited in HEA, 2013, p.13; Gedye, 2010).
This paper responded to this situation in the form of ‘audio formative feedback’ in an effort to engage students to interact with their formative feedback, in a concerted manner, as a primary tool to enhance their learning and achievement. This article outlines a case study with respect to audio formative feedback and evidences how audio feedback enhanced and added extra value to students’ learning.
Researchers have confirmed that formative feedback should be supportive, multi-dimensional, non-evaluative, timely, specific and credible (Brophy, 1981; Schwartz and White, 2000) and that it can have many different forms (Hyland, 2000). Formative feedback in this article is identified as being specific, detailed and constructive to refocus students on the learning process and re-engage them with the intrinsic value of learning rather than focus solely on grades. It is very much within Vygotsky’s (1978) socio-constructivist paradigm whereby students are provided with comments and suggestions and through dialogue are facilitated to take charge of their own revisions thus gaining new understandings without those understandings being dictated (Archer, 2010 and Evans, 2013).
This study asserts digital audio feedback is a necessary tool to engage students with their formative feedback. Audio feedback, in this study, is considered as formative verbal feedback delivered in a digital sound file by a tutor (Hennessy and Forrester, 2014) that can be easily disseminated to the student (Middleton, 2016).
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The frameworks used to situate this case study concern the utility of formative assessment (Archer, 2010; Bennett, 2011; Barram, 2017) and studies concerning audio feedback (Orsmond, Merry and Reiling, 2005; Merry and Orsmond, 2008; Hooper, 2010; Lunt and Curran, 2010; Hennessy and Forrester, 2014; Middleton, 2016) which have found that it can have a positive impact on student learning with respect to their engagement with feedback. Further discussion of literature on audio feedback is considered in the Results and Analysis section.
In the feedback landscape, literature on audio feedback has increased in recent years. However, there appears to be a deficit of international students’ experiences with regards to audio formative feedback. In the present neo-liberal climate of internationalisation, marketisation, financialisation and commodification in higher education (Hadley, 2015; Cruickshank, 2016; Ding and Bruce, 2017), it seems pertinent for this case study to investigate audio formative feedback’s impact on international students’ learning.
3.1 Audio Feedback
Audio formative feedback was delineated in two ways to the participants. One by using mp3 and the second by screencast ‘technology’. This article has discussed audio feedback experience ‘generically’. It has not outlined the differences in experiences of delivering and receiving audio feedback via mp3 or screencast. The scope of this study was not to compare but rather to experiment and become conversant with providing audio feedback. For detailed information on audio-visual feedback by screencasting see Martinez-Arboleda’s (2018a and 2018b) research. The purpose of this study was to investigate to what extent participants engaged with audio formative feedback and its impact on their learning.
Ten participants were presented audio formative feedback via an mp3 recording combined with brief annotation by tracking changes asynchronously. This initially entailed reading the text and noting brief comments via ‘track changes’ on the pc. Then, detailed spoken comments with reference to examples in the text were recorded on the mp3 player. Six participants were provided audio formative feedback via screencast desktop capture synchronously. This necessitated reading and providing comments (oral and brief annotations via ‘track changes’) simultaneously. All participants received their audio formative feedback as a sound file seven days after submission via email.
3.2 Ethical Considerations
The participants, who were all anonymised, were recruited from the researcher’s teaching environment which raises questions pertaining to both the participants and the researcher with respect to power differentials, motivation, coercion and exploitation (Mauthner et al, 2002). This study has been mindful of these issues and it has ensured that all the ethical procedures were adhered to rigorously (such as informed consent and the opportunity to withdraw participation up to the point of data analysis).
The sample were international students from the researcher’s academic writing class who were invited to take part in this study, 16 out of a total of 18 students volunteered. They were a mixture of nationalities: Arabic (five males and two females), Chinese (four females and three males) and Khazak (one female and one male). Their ages ranged from 22-26. They came from a diverse educational background. It was their first experience of studying at a British university in preparation to commence their postgraduate studies in Arts, Humanities and Physical Sciences. Ten participants received audio formative feedback on their draft essay (written for summative assessment). Six received audio formative feedback on a piece of reflective writing (a reflection is included in the writing summative assessment). All participants completed the questionnaire survey. Six participants volunteered (two Arabic and two Chinese males and two Chinese females) to take part in the focus group. The group contained three participants who received audio formative feedback on their draft essay (via mp3 recording) and three on their reflection (via screencast).
3.4 Structure of Audio Formative Feedback
The audio formative feedback needed to be logical and easy for participants to access. The format was adapted from previous studies (Cann, 2014; Ryder and Davis, 2016; Barram, 2017) and it was structured in this way for ease and consistency:
- Greeted student by name and introduced self
- Explained feedback divided into four sections
- Brief overall summary of key points
- Used specific examples with reference to page and paragraph numbers to enable participants to follow clearly
- Tone was conversational (to ensure access and engagement)
- Length was between four-eight minutes (dependent on the amount of feedback that was required for the individual participant)
3.5 Data Collection
The research instruments used were mixed methods approaches to draw on the strengths and to minimise the limitations that each method brings (Johnson and Onwuegbuzi, 2004). In line with Searle’s (2003) argument that triangulation of data sources aims to enrich understanding and multiple perspectives should be the focus by which qualitative research is measured, this study included two (albeit not multiple) forms of data collection – qualitative (focus group interview) and a brief ‘quantitative’ type survey (questionnaire with some qualitative data) – and they were analysed by using strategies designed to achieve triangulation by categorization, searching for recurring themes, developing a code for the themes and coding the transcripts.
Previous studies on audio feedback have also utilised this approach such as Ice et al (2007), Macgregor et al (2011) and Hennessy and Forrester (2014) to realise the strengths of both these approaches of data collection. However, primarily, the questionnaire in this study was employed to gain an overall sense of participants’ views about their experience of audio feedback and it was divided into three sections:
- Participants’ understanding/ perception of formative feedback and audio feedback
- Participants’ usual experience of formative feedback
- Participants’ perception of receiving audio formative feedback
These questions were structured with options from which the participants chose their response(s) with two questions which gave the option of adding further detail – see Appendix A. The data was collected via the Bristol Online Survey platform.
The data collection was extended to a small focus group interview (consisting of participants who completed the questionnaire), to enable further qualitative data. Its mainly inductive approach appeared to be the most appropriate for questions about behaviour, motives, views and barriers as well as to enable a collection of rich data (Johnson and Onwuegbuzi, 2004). Direct contact with the participants is necessary to understand their social world through their lenses and voices (Buchanan, 2000).
The focus group entailed a semi-structured interview with open-ended questions – see Appendix B – to collect participant-driven data to provide detail, depth and the participants’ perspectives. Further expansion of their responses was arrived at by prompts and follow-up questions. The data was analysed by using open coding to identify themes (Charmaz, 2014).
The sample size of this study is very small which needs to be taken into account with respect to validity. Nevertheless, it could be argued, for a qualitative study the sample is a reasonable size. However, the participants’ responses in one small focus group are not necessarily representative of a larger international student population. The mixed methods approach, questionnaire and focus group interview, enabled triangulation of the data which was correlated by previous studies as discussed in the Results and Analysis section.
4.RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Five key themes emerged on audio formative feedback in the qualitative data: participants’ thoughts, delivery of the feedback, learner agency, impact on listening skills and a developmental tool for academic skills. It showed that participants view audio formative feedback not only as a mechanism for detailed feedback but also a means that encourages them to further develop their study skills and reflect on their learning.
4.1 Participants’ Thoughts Regarding Audio Formative Feedback
The participants in the focus group confirmed their initial thoughts regarding audio feedback were positive:
“Interesting a new form of feedback.” (Arabic participant 1).
“I think it is a new useful idea.” (Chinese participant 3).
“I was impressed as the audio feedback was a new experience.” (Arabic participant 2).
This aligns with the questionnaire data collected for the study which found that it was the first time for all participants to receive audio formative feedback and this experience compared favourably with their previously received formative feedback in the ‘traditional’ way which was generally via annotation and written comments – see Figure 1. It confirms there is a general lack of interaction with new technologies that are ubiquitous and can engage millennials and post-millennials as a way to disseminate feedback.
Figure 1: Audio formative feedback compared with usual form of formative feedback
This was encouraging as it demonstrated that participants were receptive to receiving a ‘new’ form of formative feedback. It is important as students need to engage with formative feedback to progress and achieve in their studies. As indeed Bellon, Bellon and Blank (1991) note, academic feedback is vital to achievement regardless of any other type of teaching behaviour and this is consistent irrespective of the learner’s educational background. However, it could be argued that learners’ positive engagement with audio formative feedback is the ‘newness’ of the medium used to deliver feedback. This leads to the notion that tutors need to constantly deliver formative feedback in innovative ways but this is not practical, mainly due to time constraints. It is interesting to note that Ice et al (2007) in their study put into place elements to guard against any novelty effect that audio feedback may offer and their findings showed there was no significant relation regarding this factor.
Overall, this study indicates the participants’ perception of receiving audio feedback was positive – see Figure 2. This is not surprising as this concurs with the literature in this field (such as Merry and Orsmond, 2008; Lunt and Curran, 2010).
Figure 2: Perception of audio formative feedback
4.2 Delivery of the feedback
The delivery of the audio formative feedback was ‘conversational’ in tone. The general consensus of the focus group appeared to be that an informal tone was preferred.
“It is clear natural voice just like a face to face talk.” (Chinese participant 3).
It was even suggested that a tutor’s personality in the delivery is necessary.
“It is important to hear the tutor’s personality…makes [for] good relations between students and tutors…otherwise robotic.” (Arabic participant 1).
The conversational tone could be deemed as a strength as it enables the feedback to be more approachable and accessible for the students. Moreover, as articulated by the participants, it could foster student-tutor dialogue and decrease the ‘social distance’. As a result, the tone of the voice led students’ to engage with their formative feedback. Various studies have confirmed this. For example, Ice et al’s (2007) study found that audio feedback enabled students the ability to detect nuance – it gave them a greater insight in what the tutor was trying to convey. Hennessy and Forrester’s (2014) research concurs that audio feedback is often more nuanced, that is meaning arises from both the spoken comment and tone of voice, which assists to convey an overall impression of the text. Sipple’s (2007) study found audio enabled students to evaluate the significance of a comment because they could “hear [Sipple’s italics] that some comments were of more consequence than others simply by the inflection in the instructor’s voice” (p.26). Audio feedback increases a social presence and assists with a deeper level of understanding. Furthermore, students found that audio feedback was associated with the perception that the tutor cared (Ice et al, 2007) indicating the tutor has an investment in their learning.
With respect to the structure of the audio feedback (see 3.4), the participants found it easy to follow.
“I found it most helpful that my feedback was separated into three main parts.” (Arabic participant 2).
“Connecting your comments to examples in the essay helped me to understand better.” (Chinese participant 3).
The audio feedback is not a facsimile of the written feedback. The tutor’s response is more personal, detailed and authentic (King et al 2008; Lunt and Curran, 2010). King et al’s (2008) study discusses the more spontaneous and unguarded reactions from the tutor in the audio feedback which would generally be edited in the more formal and concise written comments. This spontaneity and authenticity, it could be argued, are a catalyst to activate students to interact with their formative feedback. Ice et al’s (2007) study revealed students were more conducive to applying higher order thinking and problem solving skills to content for which they had received audio feedback.
The length of audio feedback (varied between four and eight minutes) received positive comments from the focus group such as:
“Timing is okay…not too long and not too short.” (Chinese participant 1).
“For me it is more efficient than the feedback on paper…it has more details…because when written on paper it is a short comment which can be difficult to read and understand with audio I receive more details…length is good” (Chinese participant 4).
With respect to these questions regarding delivery and length of the audio feedback, the questionnaire data showed 14 participants (88%) confirmed it was ‘easy to listen’ and 15 participants (94%) indicated the length was ‘just fine’ albeit one participant (6%) noted it was ‘too long’. In this study, the length of feedback was dictated by the level of the individual’s essay or their piece of reflective writing. According to Cann (2014), audio feedback is an ideal vehicle to provide formative feedback for essay and reflective assignments.
However, the focus group agreed that six minutes of audio feedback was the optimum length. King et al (2008) point out five minutes of audio will produce approximately 500 words of quality feedback which is much more than written comments produced in a similar time. Similarly, Lunt and Curran (2010) assert that one minute of audio feedback equals to six minutes of writing and word count is twelve times higher in audio feedback than written feedback (Voelkel and Mello, 2014). This suggests that detailed audio feedback, as opposed to brief concise written/typed comments, could further encourage learners to connect with their formative feedback. Furthermore, it can be claimed that audio feedback is more efficient (Macgregor et al 2011) and produces detailed feedback of a higher quality per unit of time, as argued by Voelkel and Mello (2014). It is also posited that audio feedback via mp3 recorder saves tutor time as it is more time efficient than written/typed comments (Rotheram, 2007); this chimes with the researcher’s experience. However, studies (King et al, 2008; Macgregor et al 2011) show conflicting results. It should be noted that the efficacy on tutor workload delivering audio formative feedback in a timely manner compared to written/typed comments is not the scope of this article.
One response indicated hesitancy with regards to audio feedback.
“Afraid I would not be able to understand everything” (Chinese participant 2).
The participant thought that it would be difficult to comprehend the feedback because of her “poor listening skills”. This appears to express ‘listening comprehension anxiety’ (Vogely, 1998). However, even though the participant thought the audio feedback might be beyond her listening capability, she felt empowered as she was able to control the variables (such as personal and inter-personal attributes – emotional state e.g. nerves, fear of failing, high expectations and response from tutor – and environment) to reduce her anxiety .
“It is good because I can stop it when I want…doesn’t matter how long it is or where I listen” (Chinese participant 2).
This empowerment impacted positively on her receptiveness of audio feedback because she was able to work with it; it inspired her confidence.
4.3 Learner Agency
Learner agency was one of the key attractions for the participants to engage with audio formative feedback. This concurs with the argument that enabling opportunities for choice, control and collaboration are influential techniques for improving academic achievement and can lead to increased motivation and engagement with the activity when learners have a voice on how it is conducted (Toshalis and Nakkula, 2012). Studies assert audio formative feedback enables flexibility and convenience on how students are able to access their feedback (Carruthers et al, 2014; Issa et al, 2014) and enable student autonomy (Cann, 2014).
“Yes, more in control when receive it as audio feedback. Gives more freedom to listen whenever we want…It was very useful compared to face-to-face – more detailed and listen to it over again…when we forget we can listen to it again.” (Chinese participant 3).
“It enhances my experience…for example when I receive my feedback about my writing I can follow my tutor section by section because I can play and pause the feedback.” (Arabic participant 1).
The participants’ response indicate that receiving formative feedback by audio is an enhancement as they have convenience of dictating how, when and where to engage with the feedback. The detailed comments are welcomed too. A lack of detail in written comments or vague phrases or illegible writing is problematic for students and can lead them to view formative feedback negatively. This finding is supported in Higgins et al.’s (2002) and Weaver’s (2006) studies. However, audio formative feedback can assist to alleviate this as participants found it not only empowering but also a tool which provides more salient (detailed and relevant) information than just written comments and it is easier to listen to than face-to-face meetings because they are able to ‘control’ where, when, how much and how many times they access this feedback. Interaction with formative feedback is necessary for learners to develop in their studies. Research discusses the verisimilitude in the recorded voice and studies on audio feedback (Rotheram, 2007; Gould and Day, 2012) show that students value the ‘closeness’ and ‘presence’ of their tutors and how the spoken comments reduce misinterpretation of feedback (Sipple, 2007). This ‘proximity’ between the student and tutor provides an alternative sense of social presence and interpersonal connection (Sipple, 2007; King et al, 2008; Lunt and Curran, 2010) which can assist students’ engagement with formative feedback.
4.4 Impact on Listening Skills
The participants acknowledged that audio formative feedback is beneficial for their listening and learner development:
“I listened to it three times…I can listen to the words…good for my oral English and pronunciation.” (Chinese participant 2).
“The more I listen and exposed to the language and comments on my learning the more I learn and become aware of my points of weakness, strength and opportunity.” (Arabic participant 1).
The questionnaire data overwhelmingly stated this too – see Figure 3. This is encouraging as audio is viewed as another avenue to develop listening skills particularly as the participants are international students. Furthermore, studies (such as Carruthers et al, 2014; Hennessy and Forrester, 2014) have shown that repeated listening also assists students whose first language is English as it enables them to become fully conversant with the formative feedback and understand it in a more meaningful way.
Figure 3: Audio formative feedback develops listening skills
The focus group data evidences that repetition plays an important role in student learning and is in line with studies that have shown repetition is effective in language learning and in facilitating comprehension in listening (Cervantes and Gainer, 1992; Bygate et al 2013; Ghazi-Saidi and Ansaldo, 2017). Audio formative feedback permits students the option of repeated listening which enables familiarity with content such as lexis, pace and pronunciation and this can result in learner confidence with not only their listening but also speaking skills, for example, with pronunciation of subject specific vocabulary.
Moreover, repeated listening can also assist with ‘noticing’. Schmidt’s (1990) Noticing Hypothesis, albeit controversial in some arenas, has since the 1990s claimed consciously noticing input promulgates language development. He asserts evidence is continually accumulating that noticing impacts strongly on second and foreign language learning (Schmidt, 2012). This is particularly pertinent for the learners in this case study.
4.5 Audio Feedback as a Developmental Tool for Academic Skills
The questionnaire data stated the majority (62%) of the participants found the audio approach added something “extra” to their formative feedback. This is interesting as they indicate that ‘added value’ can be determined from audio formative feedback and it is viewed as having other learning development purposes too. Additionally, participants in the focus group reported that the audio formative feedback experience was advantageous for their academic study skills and it encouraged reflection.
“I am listening and I need to make notes…helping my academic skills while I listen I can’t remember it, memorise it; I need to make notes so practising my note-taking not just my listening.” (Arabic participant 1).
“I found it organised, cohesive and professional. It had deep analysis and condensed comments which deepened understanding and increased my realisation of my areas of weakness and strength.” (Arabic participant 2).
“It’s not just about the essay but it is also about my future study so I will definitely listen to it many times as feedback can be applied to other areas of study…[with] audio feedback I receive more than the focus on the essay…it is a reminder…once we realise our weakness we can’t change it very quickly so we sometimes need something to remind about the weakness and reflect on it to see if I made progress on this…I will reflect on it many times…with handwritten feedback I just put it away…when we finish the essay we hardly ever look at it again or read it again…with audio you can.” (Chinese participant 4).
The purpose of formative feedback is development (Weaver, 2006). Participants in this study acknowledge that audio formative feedback assists to develop wider academic skills such as note-taking, deeper listening, monitoring their progression and gaining transferable skills. This indicates that participants have noticed that engagement with their formative feedback is necessary to further develop in their overall learning. It is also worth noting that audio feedback is also encouraging reflection. A skill which is integral to a deeper approach to learning and it is paramount both in the enhancement of learner development as a student and also beyond the academic sphere in professional practice (Gibbs 1988; Moon, 1999). The participants’ emphasis that audio assists to ‘deepen’ their understanding is in line with studies (Ice et al, 2007; Middleton, 2016) which argue that higher level cognition takes place on content where audio feedback is received. Studies such as Issa et al (2014) also confirm audio feedback enhances students’ learning skills, particularly their writing skills. However, it should be noted that this ‘measurement’ is not the scope of this study.
Furthermore, if the participants had to choose one preferred form of formative feedback, they responded as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Preferred approaches to formative feedback
This response reinforced the positive regard towards audio feedback as a viable way to deliver formative feedback and it was interesting to note that two participants (12%) preferred audio feedback only. Previous studies have also had similar results whereby the majority of students have veered towards audio feedback for future assignments (Lunt and Curran, 2010; Gould and Day, 2012; Voelkel and Mello, 2014) and some would like both audio and written comments (Brearley and Cullen, 2012). However, in McCarthy’s (2015) study which evaluated written, audio and video feedback, video was the favoured option to receive future feedback, written comments was second and audio third and Fawcett and Oldfield’s (2016) research evidenced no significant differences in the experiences of receiving audio or written feedback. Nevertheless, Fawcett and Oldfield (2016) concluded audio feedback is a useful mechanism for providing feedback which indicates audio feedback has value.
The data, in this study, overall indicates learners enjoyed the experience and are receptive to engaging with formative feedback if presented via audio. The participants also recognised that audio formative feedback is not only providing feedback but it is also adding extra value specifically with respect to developing their listening and academic skills. This highlights that audio formative feedback provides opportunity for skills development too which is not the case with the traditional – written – method of delivering formative feedback.
This case study conducted with a small group of international students evidences all participants responded positively to audio formative feedback. In brief, they found they engaged with the feedback in a “deeper way”. This finding has the potential for audio feedback to play a key part in developing students’ learning as the purpose of formative feedback is to ‘deepen’ students’ learning and understanding and it corroborates with previous studies linking audio feedback to higher order thinking. Additionally, audio formative feedback promoted learner agency, assisted to further develop listening and academic study skills and encouraged learners to revisit their feedback to check and reflect on their understanding and progression. In short, personalised and timely audio feedback enhanced international students’ interaction with formative feedback. It can be concluded that audio formative feedback is an important pedagogical intervention which engages the learner, particularly with the ubiquity of smart portable electronic devices.
Even though it is indicated in McCarthy’s (2015) study that audio may not be first choice for students to receive feedback, the vast majority of the research in this area demonstrates that audio formative feedback is student-centred, and a positive learner development space which needs to be valued as a flexible pedagogical medium. Moreover, research evidences that audio feedback assist learners to better understand new concepts and encourages high level cognition. Hence, the key message is for tutors to explore ‘audio’ as a means of presenting formative feedback and to engage with it as a tool to further enhance students’ experience with formative feedback and further develop in their studies with greater understanding. In addition to the above, audio formative feedback can also be viewed as a way to further develop international students’ English language skills. Plus, the researcher’s experience indicates audio feedback has the potential to reduce the tutor’s workload in providing formative feedback; however, further research is required in this area. Overall, new technologies have enabled audio to be an alternative viable and an effective medium to deliver and receive formative feedback that enhances student learning.
Address for correspondence: email@example.com
Archer, J. C. 2010. State of the science in health professional education: Effective feedback. Medical Education. 44, pp.101–108.
Barram, K. 2017. How to use formative feedback to help students achieve better marks in summative assessment. [Online]. [Accessed 29 May 2019]. Available from: http://www.elearning.fse.manchester.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Evidenced-Tips-for-formative-feedback-v1.pdf
Bennett, R. E. 2011. Formative assessment: a critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles Policy and Practice. 18(1), pp.5-25.
Bellon, J.J., Bellon, E.C. and Blank, M.A. 1991.Teaching from a Research Knowledge Base: a Development and Renewal Process. Facsimile edition. New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall.
Biggs, J. 1999. Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Brearley, F.Q. and Cullen, W.R. 2012. Providing Students with Formative Audio Feedback. Bioscience Education. 20(1), pp.22-36.
Brophy, J. E. 1981. Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Educational Research. 51(1), pp.5–32.
Buchanan, E.A. 2000. Ethics, qualitative research, and ethnography in virtual space. Journal of Information Ethics. 9(2), pp.82-87.
Bygate, M., Swain, M. and Skehan, P. 2013. Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Cann, A. 2014. Engaging Students with Audio Feedback. Bioscience Education. 22(1), pp.31-41.
Carruthers, C., McCarron, B., Bolan, P., Devine, A. and McMahon-Beattie, U. 2014. Listening and learning: reflections on the use of audio feedback. An excellence in teaching and learning note.
Business and Management Education in HE. 1(1), pp.4-11.
Cervantes, R. and Gainer, G. 1992. The Effects of Syntactic Simplification and Repetition on
Listening Comprehension. TESOL Quarterly. 26(4), pp.767-770.
Charmaz, K. 2014. Constructing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Cruickshank, J. 2016. Putting Business at the Heart of Higher Education: On Neoliberal Interventionism and Audit Culture in UK Universities. Open Library of Humanities. 2(1), pp.1–33.
Ding, A. and I. Bruce 2017. The English for Academic Purposes Practitioner: Operating on the Edge of Academia. Palgrave Macmillan: Cham Switzerland.
Evans, C. 2013. Making Sense of Assessment Feedback in Higher Education. Review of Educational Research. 83(1), pp.70–120.
Fawcett, H. and Oldfield, J. 2016. Investigating expectations and experiences of audio and written assignment feedback in first-year undergraduate students. Teaching in Higher Education. 21(1), pp.79-93.
Gedye, S. 2010. Formative assessment and feedback: a review. Planet. 23(1), pp.40-45.
Ghazi-Saidi, L. and Ansaldo, A.I. 2017. Second Language Word Learning through Repetition and Imitation: Functional Networks as a Function of Learning Phase and Language Distance. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 11(463), pp.1-13.
Gibbs, G. 1988. Learning by Doing: A Guide to Teaching and Learning Methods. Oxford: Oxford Further Education Unit.
Gould, J. and Day, P. 2012. Hearing you loud and clear: Student perceptive of audio feedback in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 35(5), pp.1–13.
Hadley, G. 2015. English for Academic Purposes in Neoliberal Universities: A Critical Grounded Theory. New York, Amsterdam, and Dordrecht: Springer. [Accessed: 30 November 2017]. Available from: http://www2.human.niigata-u.ac.jp/~ghadley/EAP-CGT/mobile/index.html#p=1
HEA. 2013. HEA Feedback Toolkit. York: The Higher Education Academy.
Hennessy, C. and Forrester, G. 2014. Developing a framework for effective audio feedback: a case study, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 39(7), pp.777-789.
Higgins, R., Hartley, P. and Skelton, A. 2002. The Conscientious Consumer: reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in Higher Education. 27(1), pp.53-64.
Hooper, D. 2010. Towards an Understanding of Students’ Use of Audio Feedback: An Exploratory Study, presented at iCERi2010 Conference, 15-17 November, Madrid, Spain. [Online]. School of Management at ARROW@DIT, pp. 1-6. [Accessed 29 October 2017]. Available from: http://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1049andcontext=buschmancon
Hyland, P. 2000. Learning from feedback on assessment. In: Hyland, P. and Booth, A. eds. The Practice of University History Teaching. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Ice, P., Curtis, R., Philips, P. and Wells, J. 2007. Using Asynchronous Audio Feedback to Enhance Teaching Presence and Students’ Sense of Community. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 11(2), pp.3-25.
Issa, T., Isaias, P. and Issa, T. 2014. Does ‘MP3’ Audio Feedback Enhance Students’ Learning Skills? An International Case Study. The International Journal of Learning. 19, pp.15-28.
Johnson, R.B. and Onwuebuzie, A.J. 2004. Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher. 33(7), pp.14-26.
King, D., McGugan, S. and Bunyan, N. 2008. Does it make a difference? Replacing text with audio feedback. Practice and Evidence of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. 3(2), pp.145–163.
Lunt, T. and Curran, J. 2010. Are you listening please? The advantages of electronic audio feedback compared to written feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 35(7), pp.759–769.
Macgregor, G., Spiers, A. and Taylor, C. 2011. Exploratory evaluation of audio email technology in formative assessment feedback. Research in Learning Technology. 19(1), pp.39–59.
McCarthy, J. 2015. Evaluating written, audio and video feedback in higher education summative assessment tasks. Issues in Educational Research. 25(2), pp.153-169.
Martinez-Arboleda, A. 2018a. Student Feedback through Desktop Capture: Creative Screen-casting. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on E-Learning and E-Technologies in Education (ICEEE2018), 17-19 September 2018, Lodz University of Technology, Poland. The Society of Digital Information and Wireless Communications, pp.32-43.
Martínez-Arboleda, A. 2018b. Audiovisual Student Feedback (ASF) in Higher Education: Teaching and Power. Forthcoming in International Journal of E-Learning and Educational Technologies in the Digital Media (IJEETDM). Available from: https://www.academia.edu/38702114/Audiovisual_Student_Feedback_ASF_in_Higher_Education_Teaching
Mauthner, M., Birch, M., Jessop, J. and Miller, T. eds. 2002. Ethics in Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
Merry, S. and Orsmond P. 2008. Students’ Attitudes to and Usage of Academic Feedback Provided Via Audio Files, Bioscience Education. 11(1), pp.1-11.
Middleton, A. 2016. Reconsidering the role of recorded audio as a rich, flexible and engaging learning space. Research in Learning Technology. 24, pp.1-13.
Moon, J. 1999. Reflection in learning and professional development theory and practice. London: Kogan Page Limited.
Orsmond, P., Merry, S. and Reiling, K. 2005. Biology students’ utilization of tutors’ formative feedback: a qualitative interview study, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 4(30), pp.369-386.
Rotheram, B. 2007. Using an MP3 recorder to give feedback on student assignments. Educational Developments. 8(2), pp.7-10.
Ryder, A. and Davis, C. 2016. Using audio feedback with distance learning students to enhance their learning on a Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education programme. Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal. 1(1), pp.1-10.
Schmidt, R. 2012. Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In: Chan, W.M., Chin, K.N., Bhatt, S.K. and Walker, I. eds. Perspectives on Individual Characteristics and Foreign Language Education. Boston: Walter de Gruyter Inc., pp.27-50.
Schmidt, R.W. 1990. The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics. 11(2), pp.129-158.
Schwartz, F., and White, K. 2000. Making sense of it all: Giving and getting online course feedback. In White, K.W. and Weight, B.H. eds. The online teaching guide: A handbook of attitudes, strategies, and techniques for the virtual classroom. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, pp.57–72.
Searle, C. 2003. Quality in qualitative research. In: Lincoln, Y.S. and Denzin, N.K. eds. Turning Points in Qualitative Research: Tying Knots in a Handkerchief. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, pp.168-184.
Sipple, S. 2007. Ideas in practice: developmental writers’ attitudes toward audio and written feedback. Journal of Developmental Education. 30(3), pp.22-31.
Toshalis, E. and Nakkula, M.J. 201). Motivation, Engagement and Student Voice. Motivation, Engagement, and Student Voice: The Students at the Center Series. Boston: Jobs for the Future Project.
Voelkel, S. and Mello, L.V. 2014. Audio Feedback – Better Feedback? Bioscience Education. 22(1), pp.16-30.
Vogely, J.A. 1998. Listening Comprehension Anxiety: Students’ Reported Sources and Solutions, Foreign Language Annals. 31(1), pp.68-80.
Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weaver, M.R. 2006. Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ written responses. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 31(3), pp.379-394.
Appendix A – Questionnaire
1.What is your perception of formative feedback?
2.How do you usually receive formative feedback for your written work? Choose all that is applicable.
- Annotated Text Only
- Annotation and written comments
- Only written comments
- Other If other, please specify ________________________________
3.What is your understanding of audio feedback?
4.What was your perception of the audio feedback you received for your draft essay/reflection?
- Very useful
- Fairly Useful
- Not Useful
5.How was the delivery of the feedback?
- Easy to listen
- Difficult to listen
- Other If other, please specify _________________________________
6.How was the length of the feedback?
- Just fine
- Too long
- Not enough
- Other If other, please specify _________________________________
7.Did the audio approach add anything ‘extra’ to your formative feedback?
If yes, what did it add?
8.How did the audio feedback compare to your usual form of receiving formative feedback?
- Clear and easy to follow and understand
- Difficult to follow and understand
- Too much detail
- Not enough detail
- Other If other, please specify _________________________________
9.What did you find engaging (positive) about the audio feedback?
10.What did you find not engaging (negative) about the audio feedback?
11.If you had a choice which approach of feedback would you prefer the most? Choose one.
- Annotated text only
- Annotated text with comments
- Audio feedback only
- Audio feedback with some annotation/ comments
- Other If other, please specify _________________________________
12.Explain why you chose your preference.
13.Did the audio feedback assist with developing your listening skills?
If yes, how?
14. Are there any other comments you would like to make regarding audio formative feedback?
Thank you for taking part in this survey.
Appendix B – Semi-structured interview questions
1. Tell me about your initial thoughts when you listened to the audio feedback?
2. How did you find the whole experience of receiving audio formative feedback?
3. What aspect(s) of the audio feedback did you find most useful/helpful/engaging? Why?
4. What aspect(s) of the audio feedback did you not find useful/helpful/engaging? Why?
5. Tell me your thoughts about the tone of voice/speed of delivery (e.g. did it sound natural/ conversational/robotic/hesitant/mumbled/clear)
6. Is it important for the tutor’s personality to be heard in the audio feedback? Why/Why not?
7. Was the length of feedback sufficient/too long/not enough? Why?
8. Did you experience any difficulties with technology in accessing the audio feedback? Tell me about it…
9. Can the audio formative feedback be improved in any way? If so, how?
10. Did the experience of receiving audio formative feedback enhance your experience of receiving this type of feedback? If so, how? If not, could you please explain why?
11. Do you have any further comments to add about audio formative feedback?
Thank you very much for taking the time to participate in this focus group.
 The term Arabic is used to denote Saudi Arabian, Iraqi and Kuwaiti participants.