Rethinking Feedback and Student Support with Judith Borràs

Dr Judith Borràs, an assistant professor at the University of Lleida, presented her research seminar “Rethinking Feedback: Strategies for Assessment and Student Support in the Language Classroom” on the 15^th of May 2025.

Borràs shared the results of a classroom study she had conducted. The study focussed on students’ engagement with and implementation of different types of feedback and is therefore relevant to (language) educators across various contexts. The participants of the study were second-language speakers of English enrolled in a tourism degree. The students were given written feedback on their assignments. At the end of the term they were tasked with submitting corrected versions of the assignments; only the corrected versions were to be graded. By comparing the first and second versions of students’ assignments, Borràs showed that students found it easier to correct grammar mistakes if given direct feedback (feedback that provides the correct phrase) and brief metalinguistic explanations. Students can, however, correct vocabulary mistakes if given indirect feedback (feedback that points out the mistake but does not provide the solution) and metalinguistic explanations. Indirect feedback means the students have an opportunity for autonomous learning. Information learnt in this way is more likely to be retained for longer. Across both types of feedback, students were very successful in correcting their mistakes which is at odds with previous studies’ findings. Previous studies also suggest that lack of motivation and understanding are the main reasons students do not attend to feedback. Accordingly, Borràs named the following two factors that may have improved feedback implementation in her study. First, she posited that students’ understanding of the feedback was increased because she did not use codes (c for concord error, for example) but short explanations. Second, the students’ motivation to look at the feedback in the first place was increased by having the corrections determine the final grade. In a questionnaire the students confirmed that mandatory corrections of previous assignments increased their motivation to implement feedback and that metalinguistic explanations helped them understand the feedback.

Her fascinating insights came at the right time as most of the English Department’s employees were in the process of marking and the Honours students who attended could reflect on their own engagement with feedback over the course of their degree. The presentation prompted a lively discussion on the English Department’s own marking practices.