“First Among Equals”: Unpacking Patterns of EFL Teachers’ Sustainable Feedback Strategies in Learner-Centered Language Learning Classrooms in the Chinese Context

Abstract

This narrative case study investigated English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’ sustainable strategies in giving feedback and the factors influencing feedback decision-making in learner-centered language learning classroom in the Chinese context. Data from transcripts of videotaped classroom interaction, audio-taped stimulated recalls, and semi-structured interviews were collected and analyzed to report the findings. Results indicated that there were six types of naturally occurring teacher feedback in the learner-centered language learning classroom, including negotiated feedback, content feedback, task feedback, informational feedback, affective feedback, and learning strategy feedback. Among them, informational feedback was most preferred, but learning strategy feedback was least used across the course. Furthermore, there were different patterns of distribution between different feedback types as well as between oral and written teacher feedback. More importantly, results revealed that the teacher’s feedback decision-making was influenced by four factors: teacher-related factors, learner-related factors, task-related factors, and learning context-related factors. The paper provides possible explanations for interpretations of EFL teacher feedback strategies from qualitative data and offers some implications for sustaining teacher feedback to promote students’ learning and development.

1. Introduction

Feedback, that is, actions taken by an external agent to provide information regarding some aspect(s) of one’s task performance [1], has drawn considerable attention in teacher education [2]. Teacher feedback is conceptualized as message provided by a teacher regarding students’ performance or understanding [3]. As the power of teacher feedback is frequently mentioned in articles about language teaching and learning [4,5,6,7,8,9], we were inspired to investigate the meaning of teacher feedback in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms.

The past few years have witnessed a great many theoretical hypotheses and empirical studies concerning the role of teacher feedback in language learning [10,11,12,13], testifying its overall benefits and effectiveness for language learning [14,15]. However, most of the existing studies are exclusively concerned with feedback’s corrective function, either in oral or written form [16,17,18,19,20],;the psychological, educational and other essential aspects of teacher feedback have been unfairly neglected. Moreover, most previous studies [21,22,23] are conducted in the laboratory setting or in the experimental (or quasi-experimental) context, whereas few of them are concerned about naturally occurring teacher feedback. Although the laboratory and experimental studies that categorize teacher feedback types or compare effectiveness of different types of teacher feedback are necessary for understanding teacher feedback, classroom-based research seems to be a better answer to obtain a holistic and contextualized understanding of teacher feedback. In view of teacher feedback research in China’s EFL context, most prior studies [24,25,26,27], just like teacher feedback research around the world, are conducted in the laboratory or experimental setting, and are also exclusively concerned with the effectiveness of feedback to correct learners’ language errors; scant studies can be found to investigate the focus, frequency, and functions of teacher feedback in natural classrooms.

The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) #4 advocates quality education in terms of equal access to quality tertiary education and the provision of conditions for all learners to acquire the knowledge and skills needed for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles. The concept of ESD (education for sustainable development) also emphasizes that modern education should value the goal and philosophy of SDGs #4, but without damaging eco-sustainability [28]. In the meantime, the equality theory in education emphasizes that the same educational opportunities should be present for all learners to ensure inclusivity and equitability throughout their scholastic career. The current study can be viewed as being in line with SDGs #4 as it proposes a learner-centered approach to language learning in Chinese EFL context. Moreover, language teachers, as active agents in the sociocultural and educational contexts, are experiencing changes in their role as it is shaped by the ecological environment in which they live. To effectively facilitate learning, the balance of power in the classroom is redistributed in amounts proportional to students’ ability to handle it. Power is shared between the teachers and students with regard to the activities of the course, course content, and the evaluation of learning. Confronting the learner-centered approach to language teaching and learning, much remains to be known about how English teachers provide feedback in Chinese communicative and learner-centered EFL settings. For effective teacher feedback, an in-depth understanding of the extent to which feedback promotes language learning, task performance, and personal development is another area that needs to be explored. Answers to the questions raised above constitute a valuable source of information for English teachers in the Chinese community, since they may use the information to facilitate their provision of feedback. An in-depth exploration of this area will be conducive for language teachers or teacher educators to improve teachers’ engagement in providing feedback, and will elevate its effectiveness at a pedagogical level. It will also be helpful to look for models or patterns of teacher feedback in learner-centered language learning classrooms at the theoretical level. To answer this call, the current study provides a narrative case study to explore the types, purposes, and frequency of EFL teacher feedback and the factors influencing teacher’s feedback decision-making.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Defining EFL Teacher Feedback

Teacher feedback is considered to be one of the most powerful influences on students’ learning and achievement in various instructional contexts, including the EFL context [3,29,30,31]. In instructional contexts, teacher feedback has been conceptualized as post-response information provided in response to aspects of students’ performance and understandings, informing them about their actual state of learning and prompting them to use feedback information to solve their problems and regulate their further learning in the direction of standards [3,31,32,33]. In EFL classrooms, teacher feedback has been simply viewed as teachers’ responses to learner utterances containing an error [34]. Sheen and Ellis [35] further clarify that teacher feedback “refers to the feedback that the learners receive on the linguistic error they make in their oral or written production in a second language” (p.593). Under such circumstances, teacher feedback is usually called corrective feedback. However, in a broader sense, corrective feedback—information provided by language teacher on learners’ errors—makes up only part of teacher feedback in language learning classrooms. Teacher feedback comprises more aspects and serves more purposes than just correcting learners’ errors [3,34,35]. In EFL learner-centered language classrooms, we define teacher feedback as any message or information, in oral or written form, provided by language teacher concerning learners’ language learning, task performance, interest development, and personal development.

2.2. Studies on Language Teacher Feedback

Teacher feedback is one of the major themes for studying language teachers’ professional development. It has long been regarded as an important issue in the field of language teaching and learning due to its potential role as a mechanism of teaching [33]. In order to correspond to the research questions in this study, relevant research will be reviewed from the following two aspects: strategies of teacher feedback and influential factors affecting teacher feedback decision-making.

Most of the studies on teacher feedback strategies in language acquisition are theoretically founded on two perspectives, the cognitive perspective and the social-cultural perspective [35,36,37]. These two perspectives view teacher feedback as making a major contribution to language learning. From the cognitive theoretical perspective, teacher feedback is assumed to be able to facilitate language acquisition, especially when language learners are primarily focused on the linguistic form and its meaning, and more importantly can recognize the feedback on their errors as corrective [6]. Regarding research on teacher feedback in educational theories, it has long been viewed as an important component in teaching process. Teacher feedback can provide “just-in-time, just-for-me information delivered when and where it can do the most good” [38]. Therefore, giving good feedback is one of teaching techniques and skills that teachers need to master [33]. Based on behaviorism’s input-output model, Thorndike [39] initiated the law of effect, which predicts that positive feedback is equated with reinforcement and negative feedback with punishment. Feedback, whether positive or negative, can and should improve learning and performance because one encourages the correct behavior while the other prohibits the incorrect behavior by providing punishment. Although a sizable research has been conducted and most of the results are consistent with the law of effect, there are still inconsistent findings for which the theory could not provide a detailed and reasonable explanation [1,6,33]. Feedback does not necessarily serve as a reinforcer, because a learner can choose to either accept, modify or reject feedback.

Feedback by itself may not be able to initiate further action, and it is the perceptions and the choice of the learners that will play a decisive role in determining whether teacher feedback can produce this effect. In addition, in language learning classrooms, feedback is not only given by teachers directly, but it can also be sought by language learners and caught by them without it being given or intentionally sought [3]. Under the condition that there has never been simple consistency between feedback and performance, there is still a necessity to understand the effects of feedback on performance; Kluger and DeNisi [1] proposed a feedback intervention theory to explain the inconsistency, as they believed that a lack of feedback theory and too much dependence upon the behavioristic law of effect make it hard to understand the effects of feedback. Feedback intervention theory provides a good theoretical framework for understanding the effect of feedback on performance [38]. Kluger and DeNisi [1] highlighted the idea that feedback can be a double-edged sword. Feedback should be used only in combination with goal-setting, which can augment feedback’s effects on performance. Hattie and Timperley [3] distinguished four major levels that feedback needs to focus on, including the level of task performance, the level of process of completing tasks, and the self-regulation level/

In China, teacher feedback has been the focus of EFL studies with the emergence of the process writing approach in the 1970s, and relevant research started in the 1990s. The past two decades have seen a noticeable surge in teacher feedback research [24,25,26]. Studies have provided empirical findings that document the provision of teacher feedback and the evidence of various benefits, ranging from developing students’ cognitive capability and improving their emotional state to enhancing students’ academic writing abilities and promoting language development [24,26,27]. For instance, Qin and Niu [27] found that written language on learners’ writing revision, based on direct/indirect written corrective feedback, was effective in improving their quality of writing. Li and Liu [24] explored the role of teacher feedback in fostering students’ critical thinking ability in writing. The results revealed that the critical thinking ability of the students gradually increased in terms of analysis, inference and evaluation skills during thesis writing, in which teacher feedback played a positive facilitating role. Of particular relevance to the present study is Niu and Zhang’ [25] investigation of teacher’s focus, strategy, and efficacy in written feedback. Utilizing an experienced L2 writing teacher’s written feedback and interviews of the teacher and students, the study found that the teacher’s feedback mainly focused on problems, especially language problems, in learners’ writing, and learners considered the teacher’s feedback to be helpful in general. Though there are no conclusive results concerning the type and amount of teacher feedback in Chinese EFL context, there is no doubt that the amount and effectiveness of teacher feedback is affected by various factors. In fact, some researchers have explored the factors affecting teacher feedback, including attitude from teachers, the mediating role of language learners, working memory capacity, and cultural and contextual factors [26,40]. For instance, Wang and Qin [26] found that the type and effectiveness of teacher feedback is closely conducive to learners’ proficiency, task factors, and students’ emotional factors.

Based on the above literature, it is clear that there is a growing research trend of studying language teacher feedback. Much attention has been paid to the corrective function of teacher feedback, and teachers are used to hunting down students’ mistakes and correcting their speech and writing. Teacher feedback, however, serves more functions than only the correction of language errors. In language learning classrooms, the teacher’s feedback is not only to correct learners’ linguistic errors; it can serve a variety of purposes. The most important role of teacher feedback is to serve as a method of education, to educate the learners on how to learn, how to make their performance better and language learning more efficient. In addition, it is worth noting that although feedback is among the powerful influences on learning and achievement, the type of feedback and the way it is delivered can be differentially effective. Further investigations need to be conducted in different contexts given the limitations of the existing research.

In view of teacher feedback research in China’s EFL context, most of the studies, just like teacher feedback research around the world, are exclusively concerned about the effectiveness of feedback to correct learners’ language errors, and are also conducted in the laboratory or experimental setting; scant studies can be found in the literature to investigate the psychological, social-cultural and educational aspects of teacher feedback in natural classrooms. Considering the importance of teacher feedback and understanding teachers’ decision-making process in Chinese EFL context, this study utilizes a qualitative case study as the main method to unpack the focus of EFL teachers’ decision-making and the criteria used when giving feedback in learner-centered language learning classrooms. It address the following three questions:

• What is the focus of EFL teachers’ feedback strategies in learner-centered language learning classrooms in the Chinese context?.
• What are the frequency differences between the different focuses of EFL teacher feedback?
• What factors contribute to EFL teacher feedback decision-making?

3. Methods

3.1. Context and Participants

This study was conducted in a prestigious university in China. The language program selected for the present study is the Individualized English Learning (IEL) course. IEL aims to promote the students’ English learning and language use in the direction of their interests, combine their English learning and interest development, and cultivate their autonomous learning and critical thinking. The case instructor, T, was the only teacher participant in this study. He is a full-time professor. He has a doctoral degree in Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, and over twenty years of English language teaching experience. With research interests in second language acquisition and foreign language teaching methodology; he has published many research articles, with many of them appearing in top academic journals. At the time of data collection, he has instructed the learner-centered IEL course for seven years. The student participants in this study were 15 first-year English majors. Like their teacher, all these students participated in the study voluntarily. Of these students, three were males, 12 females; one was a native speakers of Korean who was full-time undergraduate at the university, and the rest of the students were native speakers of Chinese. They were all learning English as a foreign language, with an average number of years of previous English learning ranging from 6 to 13 years (see

Table 1. Profiles of student participants.

Name	Gender	Country	Major	Grade	Interest
S1	Female	China	English	1	BBC documentary
S2	Male	China	English	1	Sports and traveling
S3	Female	China	English	1	Extreme sports
S4	Female	China	English	1	Flower growing
S5	Male	China	English	1	Basketball
S6	Female	Korea	English	1	Travelling
S7	Female	China	English	1	Animal protection
S8	Female	China	English	1	Fashion
S9	Male	China	English	1	Chemistry
S10	Female	China	English	1	Unique festivals
S11	Female	China	English	1	Sherlock Holmes
S12	Female	China	English	1	Fashion
S13	Female	China	English	1	Reading
S14	Female	China	English	1	Reading
S15	Female	China	English	1	Reading

for detailed information).

3.2. Procedures

The whole procedure involves a variety of techniques, including classroom observations, stimulated recalls (SR), and semi-structured interviews. Observational data were collected through a combination of videotaping and field notes. Regarding videotaping, one teaching assistant was responsible for operating the video. In total, 14 classes were videotaped using a camcorder placed on a tripod in the front of the classroom. All recordings were transcribed and coded by the researcher with the help of other teaching assistants. In addition to the camera eye, the researcher eyes—participant observation—were also used to observe teacher feedback in the classroom.

Three SRs were administrated to the case instructor to investigate the instructor’s focus of decision-making when providing feedback both in and out of the class. After the class was videotaped, the videos were watched and the typical feedback episodes clipped; these could then be used as cues for SRs. The SR met the instructor, either in the office or in the classroom. During the SR sessions, the case instructor and and SR would watch the clipped video together, and the case instructor was allowed to stop the tape at any time if he wanted to describe his thoughts at any particular point in the conversation. The SR was also free to stop the tape at the point at which the feedback was given and ask the case instructor to recall his thoughts or decision-making. Meanwhile, this study chose to use semi-structured interviews, and three of them were conducted with the case instructor to find out his decision-making and criteria use in giving feedback. The study also aimed to probe into the factors that had influenced his feedback provision. There would be a guideline, so that the interviews would be guided by a list of questions and issues to be explored. However, the guideline was not strictly followed, so that the SR could respond to the situation flexibly. Whenever necessary, the SR would change the order of questions to obtain more information or to discuss the issues as they arose in the interaction. Specifically, the interviews with the instructor mainly focused on the following issues: the reasons for providing IEL course and for designing the interest-driven tasks and activities; the stated opinions and beliefs about teacher feedback; and the description of feedback provision, including the factors that had affected him to give oral or written feedback.

3.3. Data Coding and Analysis

After the interviews, SR sessions, and classroom recordings were transcribed, all the raw data, including transcription, field notes and so forth, were repeatedly examined and segmented in accordance with research questions. Three types of analytic techniques were adopted for the analysis of the data: content analysis, diachronical analysis, and synchronical analysis.

To develop coding categories for the teacher’s feedback behaviors, the study begun by parsing the oral and written teacher feedback into meaningful T-units, that is, a minimal terminable unit into which the theme should be segmented, be it a word, a phrase, a clause or a sentence. The following sentence serves as an illustration: “Your hosting is very well done and your first assignment is one of the best”. In this sentence, there are two clauses which are independent from each other, so it is segmented into two feedback T-units. Similarly, a phrase such as “So, strange may be not a good word to use to describe those things. Because syntactically, the festival was popular in the west.” can also be sliced up into two feedback T-units, since there are two clauses.

It is worth mentioning that the study has also adopted diachronical analysis and synchronical analysis. Diachronical analysis means each case will be viewed individually and independently, from the start of the course to the finish of language learning in the IEL classroom. It is mainly used to describe and analyze the distribution of different focus in teacher feedback across the course, and the effect of teacher feedback on students’ learning and development. Synchronical analysis means that all cases will be studied interchangeably, as feedback may be not only for one case student but may be suitable and appropriate for all case students. For the interviews and SR comments, an inductive and discovery-oriented approach was used to address the factors affecting the teacher’s decision-making and criteria use in giving feedback and the students’ response to teacher feedback. We have read and reread the transcripts to identify the common theme for teacher feedback decision-making. Four categories of factors emerged from the qualitative analysis of the SRs and interview comments; they were labeled as teacher-related factors, learner-related factors, task-related factors, and learning context-related factors. It is worth noting that these four factors are often interconnected to influence teachers’ decision-making in providing feedback, but are examined individually.

4. Results

This section answers the three research questions and specifically reports the analysis of types and frequency of EFL teacher feedback and the factors influencing feedback decision-making that emerged from the data in this study.

4.1. Types of EFL Teacher Feedback

In response to the first research question, the results show that there are in total six different types of teacher feedback that indicate the distinctive features of feedback delivered by the case instructor, namely, negotiated feedback, content feedback, task feedback, informational feedback, affective feedback, and learning strategy feedback (see

Table 2. Coding scheme for taxonomy of teacher feedback.

Types	Items	Description
Negotiated feedback	Didactic teacher negotiation	Provision of feedback to encourage self-repair involving accuracy and precision
	Conversational teacher negotiation	Negotiation of meaning to resolve communication breakdowns and to work toward mutual comprehension
Content feedback	Display content feedback	Use of questioning to elicit answers and to ensure that the participating students have captured the content showed by their peer presenters
	Referential content feedback	Provision of feedback concerning the subject matter or information not contained or revealed in students’ presentation, intending to elicit information from the presenters or other participating students
Task feedback	Commentary feedback	Teacher’s comments and evaluations of how well a task or a group of tasks are performed
	Directional feedback	Teacher’s advice and suggestions provided for the students to understand and perform their tasks
	Extra task feedback	Additional task assigned by the teacher
Informational feedback	Comprehensible information	Provision of feedback with comprehensible materials with which the learners can restructure their prior-stored knowledge in memory
	Examplification	Provision of near-peer models who have succeeded in attaining the goals of their interests
Affective feedback	Evaluation feedback	Teacher’s praise and compliments for students’ efforts and engagement to undertake their tasks
	Motivation feedback	Teacher’s words to stimulate and encourage students to be more committed to completing their tasks or pursuing their interests
	Expectation feedback	Teacher’s wishes and suggestions for students’ interest development and personal development
	Appreciation feedback	Teacher’s respect and acknowledgement for students and their contributions to the course
Learning strategy feedback	Language learning principles	Provision of feedback about principles of language learning, such as experiential learning, group learning, content-based learning
	Skill acquisition strategy	Teacher’s suggestions for students to make their writing or speech more fluent and native-like
	Self-management strategy	Teacher’s suggestions and recommendations for students to self-regulate and self-monitor their own language learning and task performance

for detailed taxonomy).

4.1.1. Negotiated Feedback

Negotiated feedback refers to teacher’s negotiation with students in which attention focuses on resolving a communication problem as compared to negotiation that simply aims to correct learners’ errors.

Example 1
(After Ellen’s mispronunciation of unit in her presentation)
T:	By the way, when you pronounce unit, sometimes you pronounce it as [ˈju:nɪt], but sometimes you pronounce as [ju:ˈnɪt]. [ˈju:nɪt], it’s different from unique [ju:ˈnɪk]. [ˈju:nɪt].
S1:	[ˈju:nɪt].
T:	Yeah.

Drawing on van Lier’s [41] terminological dichotomy of conversational and didactic repair, one may distinguish between two functions of teacher negotiated feedback, both of which have a role to play in foreign language classrooms: a conversational function and a didactic function. The didactic function of teacher negotiation involves what we consider to be ‘negotiation of form’, namely, the provision of feedback that encourages self-repair involving accuracy and precision and not merely comprehensibility, which is in line with the notion of comprehensible output [29]. With respect to the conversational function of negotiated feedback, it involves negotiation of meaning, characterized as an exchange between learners and their interlocutors as they attempt to resolve communication breakdowns and to work toward mutual comprehension [42].

4.1.2. Content Feedback

Content feedback is mainly concerned with the content introduced by language learners in their presentations or written assignments. Most often, content feedback is presented in the form of a question, either seeking confirmation from the presenting students, seeking understanding from the listening students, or eliciting answers from them.

Example 2
T:	FromS2, when was Scott Fitzgerald born? Very specific date.
Ss:	1890, 1896…ninety…(ninety?) six…(discussing)
T:	S2, do you remember?
S2:	1896.

Content feedback can be divided into display content feedback and referential content feedback. Specifically, display content feedback refers to teacher’s questioning feedback to elicit answers that directly come from the materials presented in class, aiming to ensure that the participating students have captured the content showed by their peer presenters. Referential content feedback means to discuss the subject matter or information that is not contained or revealed in students’ presentation, intending to elicit information from the presenters or other participating students. Answering this feedback involves learners seeking further information relative to their interests and often in relation to their task-related activities.

4.1.3. Task Feedback

Task feedback indicates to the students either the main process that they need for understanding and conducting tasks, or how well they have perceived or performed tasks [3]. As revealed by the data, task feedback can be further divided into three subcategories, that is, commentary feedback, directional feedback, and extra task feedback.

Example 3
T:	First, I would like to say a few words about my impression of your first assignment …it is a fairly good writing. Fairly good, I say, fairly good is not extremely good, because there a few mistakes, many mistakes, mistakes abound. There are many and, ah, some very big problems. However, generally speaking, I think you already have a very good start.

This is a feedback type that is related to both the process (e.g., “You can choose to read a wide range of topics or to read extensively on one particular theme.”) and the product (e.g., “You have all done a wonderful job,” or “Very good hosting, and timekeeping, and presentation, questioning and answering and so on.”) of students’ task performance.

4.1.4. Informational Feedback

Informational feedback delivers message that is seemingly irrelevant to language learning and task performance, but necessarily important for the learners to develop their interests and change their behavior.

Example 4
T:	World culture is an important part of our learning. Festivals, together with their historical accounts and contemporary celebrations, are part of our world knowledge to be sought and acquired.

It has already been noted that the information presented in teacher feedback can be of great value to enhance student’s learning, especially when the message is relevant to their previous knowledge and compatible with their expectancy. In this study, informational feedback mainly expresses the teacher’s ideas and thoughts, and contains information that is mainly related to learners’ interest development and personal development.

4.1.5. Affective Feedback

Affective feedback refers to teacher’s personal affect and evaluations about learners, which is usually positively directed to the learner’s self.

Affective feedback not only shows teacher’s recognition of individual learners for their kind help and hard work, but also expresses his thanks to the whole class for their work and participation. More importantly, it shows teacher’s respect for the students as equal participating members of the course. According to Hattie and Timerpley [3], affective feedback can assist learning if it can lead to “changes in students’ effort, engagement, or feelings of efficacy in relation to the learning or to the strategies they use when attempting to understand tasks”. Based on the focus of teacher’s affective feedback on students, four different functions of affective feedback are distinguished, including evaluation, motivation, expectation, and appreciation. These four functions often interact with each other, and sometimes it is not easy to make a clear distinction between them.

Example 5
T:	I can tell your love for the detective and for those movies and TV shows has benefited your English learning. I believe, after watching and reading and thinking and researching, you’ll be a real Holmes expert, with an ever-increasing IQ, and imagination and grace.

4.1.6. Learning Strategy Feedback

Learning strategy feedback addresses the ways and methods that students can use to monitor, direct, and manage their actions when learning languages and performing tasks. It intends to produce students who love learning and know how to make their learning efficient and effective. It mainly covers three aspects of strategy: principles of language learning, skill acquisition strategy, and self-management strategy.

Example 6
T:	I understand you want to write correct sentences, but you need to know that over-reliance on simple structures in your writing will not elevate your expression. So, try to combine some sentences into one and try to express some complex/multiple ideas in one sentence; at least do it as a language exercise.

4.2. Frequency of EFL Teacher Feedback

Altogether, 1559 T-units of teacher feedback were identified in the whole data. It may be questioned whether there is a preference for certain feedback strategies. The question can be addressed by the specific analysis of each feedback strategy in overall teacher feedback T-units, which is presented in

Table 3. Frequency and types of teacher feedback.

Feedback Types	Frequency			Ratio (%)
	Oral	Written	Total	Oral	Written	Total
Negotiated feedback	232	13	245	20	4	16
Task feedback	172	92	264	15	24	17
Content feedback	224	57	281	19	18	18
Informational feedback	283	22	305	23	6	20
Affective feedback	161	126	287	14	33	18
Learning strategy feedback	110	67	177	9	15	11
Total	1182	377	1559

. The table shows that informational feedback is the single largest category, which accounts for just one fifth of the total number of teacher feedback T-units. Learning strategy feedback is the least provided category, which takes only 11% of the total teacher feedback T-units. There is an almost equal percentage of feedback with regard to the other feedback types, which are distributed as follows: content feedback (18%), affective feedback (18%), task feedback (17%), and negotiated feedback (16%).

Additionally, the case instructor employed oral and written feedback strategies to respond to learners’ performance. As these strategies differ somewhat depending on whether they produce oral or written teacher feedback, the frequency or preference for different focus is considered separately. Table 3 also presents a comparison of each feedback type between oral and written teacher feedback. As can be seen from Table 3, the orientation of the teacher’s decision-making in oral and written feedback is different. It shows that the instructor tends to attach greater importance to students’ affective factors (33%) and task performance (24%) when providing written feedback, as evidenced by the percentage they have taken in the overall feedback behaviors. For the oral feedback behaviors delivered in response to students’ classroom activities, the two most consistently emphasized types of feedback across the lessons are informational feedback (24%) and negotiated feedback (20%), while the opposite is true for the written feedback with regard to the two feedback types, taking up 6% and 4% of the overall written teacher feedback.

4.3. Factors Influencing EFL Teacher Feedback Decision-Making

Four categories of factors were identified to affect teachers’ decision-making and criteria use when giving feedback in a learner-centered EFL context. They are teacher-related factors, learner-related factors, task-related factors, and learning context-related factors.

4.3.1. Feedback-Provider Factors

In terms of feedback-provider factors, the case instructor cited different factors to explain his moment-to-moment decisions, including belief of teacher feedback, learning experience, time and energy constraint, and teacher belief of language teaching and learning. Some instances of feedback-provider factors can be seen in the following extracts:

The feedback can act as a director to guide the learning process, and its usefulness is closely related to its content. Just like the washback effect of language testing, the feedback is likely to function as a guideline.

(Extract 1)

By providing feedback, I want to get the students to know, ah, he may realize that there has never been a teacher writing so much feedback for me…I want to leave an impression in the following ways. First, the teacher has done what he has promised. Second, the teacher has done it carefully rather than casually. The students will think, ‘the teacher has been so careful, so I have no reason not to study hard’. I hope it can be a stimulus to them. This is why I think it is worthy of the time taken to do it. Because, if the teacher can call the students into action, then he will no longer need to do much work. And the students will find pleasure in their learning.

(Extract 2)

As these two excerpts reveal, the case instructor expressed his belief of the importance of feedback to show teacher’s respect and concern for the participating students and their hard work. It seems that the instructor considers caring about students’ work as one of the most basic components of teacher feedback. Closely related to the belief about this caring role of feedback is his belief that feedback will be able to motivate students to work harder and put more effort into their own learning, especially when feedback is provided in a timely and appropriate way in response to students’ specific tasks and individualized personalities. Meanwhile, the teacher also expressed that on the one hand, providing feedback is a commitment made in the learning contract. So, he thought he should take the responsibility to give the feedback and set an example for the learners to keep their promises. On the other hand, he hoped that the feedback would motivate students to shoulder more responsibility for their own work. In the T’s opinion, once the students were triggered to take action in their learning and development, they would find pleasure in their work, and the teacher would no longer need to do as much work.

4.3.2. Learner-Related Factors

Learner-related factors have played an important role in the instructor’s consideration of giving feedback. As will be seen below, the instructor reported that the following factors affected his decision-making in the delivery of feedback in interactive IEL course: learner expectation, the threat of avoiding policy, individualization, learner performance, and encouraging policy.

The importance attached to feedback is partially attributable to expectations from the participating students, who, the case instructor thinks, desire to receive some message and information with respect to their learning and performance. Unlike the traditional EFL language classrooms in which the teacher plays a dominant role in governing the pace of learning and monitoring learners’ performance, IEL stresses the central role of language learners who are expected to take control of every step of their own learning and development. However, at the same time, the instructor pointed out that the students still expected to receive some comments as long as the teacher appeared in class; therefore, there should be some feedback in class, as acknowledged by him in the following excerpt:

I think there should be some feedback in class. When the teacher stays in the class, the students desire to receive some message and information from him. For Chinese EFL learners, they think teacher instruction should be highlighted in language learning classrooms. In IEL, though the teacher intends not to play a leading role, the students still expect to get comments and feedback as long as the teacher stays in the class. (laughs) So, there should be some feedback.

(Extract 3)

Additionally, individualization is another factor he would consider when making a decision in response to students’ learning and performance. Viewed in this light, the individual learner factors such as gender, learning anxiety, and aptitude seem to have affected teacher’s decision-making in delivering feedback. Given the limited time available for the instructor to become familiar with the students, it is that found most of the feedback related to the individual differences factor are concerned with learners’ interest development. From the case instructor’s point of view, individualization is one of the fundamental factors he would take into consideration when giving feedback, as illustrated by the following excerpts:

Because I am not so familiar with the students. But concerning the individual factors, I will take them into consideration. That is, to be specific, to be individualized is one of the fundamental considerations. Uh, regarding his interest and its content, and his learning plan, job expectations, there will be some feedback. For the individual learner, uh, there will be some feedback based on his learning and performance. This is also in line with their individualization.

(Extract 4)

Firstly, I think individualized feedback would be better, although the suggestions are not made under the condition that I know their interests well. What I consider at first is I should not give the same suggestions. If I do that, it seems I am repeating something. I don’t want to make the students feel like that. Secondly, actually, I have got a lot of things to say with regard to reading. You see that, for example, I hope they can communicate with each other and share many things related to their common interests.

(Extract 5)

The above excerpts indicate that individualization is one important factor that the case instructor would take into account when giving feedback to the individual language learners in IEL. Closely related to the case instructor’s belief of individualization is his expectations that students could interact with each other with regard to the feedback they have received from the teacher. From the case instructor’s point of view, there might be many ways to develop an interest. Individualized feedback, in his words, makes it possible for students to learn from each other. For example, if learner A thinks the teacher’s suggestion is not suitable for her, she may have a look at the teacher’s advice to learner B, and follow it. Similarly, learner B can also follow learner A’s way of learning if she think it is more suitable for her. In this sense, it may be safe to infer that heterogeneous individualized feedback, on one hand, reflects T’s opinions concerning students’ different interests and their individualized personalities, and on the other hand, it also indicates T’s opinions with respect to students’ individualized learning, performance, and development.

4.3.3. Task-Related Factors

The types of tasks have also influenced the teacher’s decision-making and criterion use when giving feedback. There was more feedback at the beginning stage, but less feedback at the later stage, which might possibly account for the inconsistency of amount of feedback across lessons. When asked about the reasons for pointing out the problems related to the method of presentation, T mentioned:

Uh, for example, in the lesson plan, there are some requirements for presentations, some requirements for the content related to their language learning, alright? And it’s also required that they should talk about difficult problems that come from their interest development, but, ah, few of them have mentioned it. I know it well when I give the feedback. Uh, as for the way they present, it’s clear there aren’t enough materials related to their language learning, though they have presented some examples, such as making some annotations. And it’s still not sufficient. However, for their difficult problems, no one has talked about it. I think I should point it out.

(Extract 6)

The above excerpt indicates that the instructor seems to have taken task requirements into consideration when deciding to give feedback. For example, at the beginning stage, the students had just embarked on their journey to develop their interests, so more attention was paid to their interest development and task performance rather than on the forms of language. Closely associated with the types of tasks was T’s concern that too much feedback, in particular, too much feedback on language errors, might reduce opportunities for students to make links between forms and functions. Furthermore, T was worried that too much negotiated feedback might risk breaking the flow of communication in classroom. Therefore, T rejected obsessive concern with error correction for fear of that it might break the flow of the course, as shown in the following excerpts:

I realized that there is not too much correction on language errors. As far as I am concerned, it might interrupt the flow of the course. When giving feedback, I will take classroom activities into consideration…That is to say, should I give feedback after all the presentations? Or should I just give it one by one? If I give feedback one by one, it might interrupt the flow of the course and split it into pieces of activities. I hope the course could flow smoothly. So it is related to the arrangement of the activities. It will make a difference to the decision-making. Sometimes, it is also a dilemma.

(Extract 7)

I feel I have attached much weight on the affective aspect. Make the students feel the teacher has great expectations on them to develop their interests. I hope they can agree with me with regard to their interest development. For this teacher, or for the sake of his patience, his advice and encouragement, they will try to elevate their interests to the largest extent. So in my opinion, the feedback is mainly concerned with their emotions and feelings.

(Extract 8)

The above excerpts show that T has realized the shortage of negotiated feedback. At the same time, he also acknowledged a certain dilemma in this regard: on one hand, if he does not correct errors, opportunities for students to make links between form and function are reduced; if he does correct errors, he is worried about risking interrupting the flow of communication. It is worth noting that giving feedback, according to the instructor, means more than hunting for mistakes and correcting the speech and writing of language learners. It also means informing students about their progress and instructing and guiding them to make improvement on areas relative to the tasks and activities they are engaging in.

4.3.4. Learning Context Factors

The learning context factors have proved to have a high impact on the teacher’s decision-making in giving feedback in theinteractive IEL classroom. This section addresses learning context factors by describing the impact of the teacher–student relationship, classroom activities, and learning task types on the teacher’s decision-making in delivering feedback in response to students’ learning and performance in the present study.

Given the belief in an equal teacher–student relationship in interactive IEL classes, T mentioned that he was a participant like the other non-presenting students who are learning from the presenters. Therefore, teacher feedback, according to him, is just a loop in the chain of teacher–student interaction, which, in turn, belongs to the flow of communication between all participating members of the class, including the teacher, the students, and the teaching assistants, as illustrated in the following excerpt:

I hope you can further explain the teacher–student relationship in IEL. Why do you put the student as a central agent, and the teacher, to put it in the same way, as another central agent......First among equals. This is what I have considered. everyone is equal in the class. As for their interests, the learners may know more and better than me. But among all the members, everyone is equal in the class. I see myself as one of the members. I am a learner as well. When the presenters show their interests in front of the class, I’m learning and trying to understand the presentation.

(Extract 9)

The above excerpt indicates that T appeared to take himself as one of the equal participating members in the classroom, and was therefore more disposed to see himself as a learner who was trying to learn from the presenting students with regard to their interests. In view of the above quote, it may be possible to say the equal relationship, to some extent, can account for the large number of teacher content feedback, in particular, the one related to learners’ interests, such as ‘How long does an alpaca live?’, ‘What is the national flower of Japan?’. Most often, content feedback is presented in the question form, either seeking explanation from the presenters, seeking understanding or eliciting answers from the non-presenter.

In the meanwhile, it is worth mentioning that classroom activities have played a part in influencing teachers’ focus in decision-making and the extent of their criteria use as well. For example, the instructor once stated that the increasing questioning and answering activity between students reduces the amount of time available for providing feedback, as illustrated by the following excerpts from the interview:

Last class, the technical problem had taken too much time. And after Leo’s and Michael’s presentations, there had been many questions. Oh, for Melody’s presentation, the students had asked many questions as well. They had run out of the time ……

(Extract 10)

Actually, Melody has made a very innovative presentation. But I don’t have time to show my appreciation. I am prepared to write down some words in the next feedback, or I will give my feedback next lesson.

(Extract 11)

There is only limited time in class, and any delay in class activities will reduce the time available for the teacher to give feedback. Under such circumstance, the teacher will have to find a balance between maintaining learner agency and maximizing teacher feedback. That is to say, on the one hand, a central role is endowed on the students, and it is their jobs to be host, presenter, time-keeper, and also to be question-raiser and responder. On the other hand, it is expected the teacher can help the students to take charge of their own learning to a large extent. Usually, teacher feedback is delivered after all the presenters have finished their presentations. So, any delay caused by students’ activities might reduce the time available for the instructor to provide feedback. Therefore, it is worth noting that under the circumstance that the host invited the teacher to give comment after each presentation, it may be possible there would be more feedback provided for that lesson.

5. Discussion

This section discusses the research findings and provides further explanation on the types and frequency of of EFL teacher feedback strategies and the factors influencing EFL teacher feedback decision-making.

5.1. Types of EFL Teacher Feedback Strategies

As revealed by the data, there are a variety of focuses in teachers’ general orientations in decision-making, as well as different distributions of these various types of feedback across the course. Concerning teachers’ focus in decision-making while giving feedback in learner-centered EFL classroom, there are mainly six types of teacher–student interactional feedback, namely, negotiated feedback, task feedback, content feedback, informational feedback, affective feedback, and learning strategy feedback. When it comes to the specific areas each feedback covers, there seems to be a variety of focuses within every feedback. Take negotiated feedback, for example. In a manner similar to Chaudron’s [43] observation of teachers of adolescents in immersion programs, the instructor attended to both the grammatical errors (i.e., focus on form) and content errors (i.e., focus on meaning) at the same time. This supports the findings made in the literature about teachers’ tendency to provide feedback information regarding many aspects of students’ performance or understanding [1,3,44].

As pointed out by Mory [44] in a review of feedback research, “feedback may have various functions according to the particular learning environment in which it is examined and the particular learning paradigm under which it is viewed” (p.745). Given that the focus of feedback is critically important to improve learning and achievement [3], it is hardly surprising that language teachers are predisposed to focus on different elements of students’ performance and development. In the IEL course, for instance, teacher feedback, rather than simply offering knowledge of result and/or knowledge of the correct response (e.g., by merely stating or indicating if the response is correct or incorrect), assumes a role with multiple functions, including correctional, motivational, informational, and psychological functions which are intended to target students in an appropriate way and enhance the effectiveness of feedback at different levels (e.g., task level, cognitive level, affective level, and self-regulation level).

Meanwhile, teacher feedback is both process-oriented and product-oriented in the interactive IEL setting, in reference to students’ learning, performance, and development. This is not difficult to understand, because IEL is an interest-driven course where emphasis is put on content and language-integrated learning, which is manifested in the combination of interest development and English learning. Moreover, the findings gleaned from the study supports the view that information presented through feedback in instruction might include answer correctness and other information such as precision, timeliness, learning guidance, motivational messages, lesson sequence advisement, critical comparisons, and learning focus [44]. The findings also add to those of the literature that teacher feedback in language education is not limited to commenting on errors in learners’ speech and writing, but is prone to address many facets related to performance of a task, engagement, regulation of learning and personal development, to name just a few.

5.2. Frequency of Different Types of Teacher Feedback

With respect to the distribution of teacher feedback T-units, informational feedback is found to be the most popular feedback in the course. This is not difficult to understand because in some lessons, the teacher usually spent a lot of time presenting; for example, near-peer models and other information for learners to develop their interests and change their relevant behaviors, which usually took up a great many feedback units. Despite the great attention paid to informational feedback, the instructor also attended to other aspects of students’ learning, as evidenced by an almost equal amount of distribution of task feedback, content feedback, affective feedback and negotiated feedback. This supports the observation made in the literature about teacher’s tendency to provide different levels of information when giving feedback [3]. However, learning strategy feedback seemed to be the least provided type in the instructor’s decision-making across the course. Close observation of data indicated that learning strategy feedback was mainly delivered at the beginning of the course, both in written and oral form. As the case instructor stated, it was provided mainly to facilitate students to start their own learning, and once they got started, it would take less work from the teacher.

Regarding the comparison between oral and written feedback, it is found that there is a fairly equal amount of written teacher feedback across stages. This is possibly because the instructor can find fixed time to write comments on students’ work (though the time scheduled for writing feedback is tight). With regard to oral teacher feedback, there seems to be a decreasing tendency across the course, with more feedback delivered in the first half period of the course than the second period. The reasons for such an irregular pattern of distribution are related to classroom activities, learning tasks and other factors affecting the provision of teacher feedback. Moreover, in written teacher feedback, affective feedback is the most popular technique, whereas negotiated and informational feedback are the least preferred ones. This seems to echo the view that teacher feedback activity tends to provide more affective and motivational support to facilitate learning and performance [1,45,46]. On the contrary, in oral teacher feedback, the greatest attention has been paid to informational feedback, while learning strategy feedback is the type that has received least devoted attention. It is worth noting, however, that despite great attention being directed to informational feedback, the teacher is also disposed to attend to other types of feedback, such as content feedback and task feedback, although to varying degrees. This is in line with the findings that foreign teachers are used to engaging in achieving instructional objectives that include consolidation of students foreign knowledge [29], and reducing the discrepancy between students’ current understandings and performance and what is desired [3]. The reason for the above-mentioned focus and distributional similarities or differences could be attributed to teacher’s beliefs, course arrangement, and learning context factors which will be further explored in the following section.

5.3. Factors Influencing Teacher Feedback Decision-Making

Four broad categories of factors were illustrated to have interacted with each other to influence teachers’ decision-making and the extent of their criteria use when providing feedback, namely, teacher-related factors, learner-related factors, task-related factors, and learning context-related factors, respectively. This seems to be consistent with Narciss’s [31] observation that the conditions of the learner, the external feedback source and the instructional context are important factors that affect feedback provision and its effects. To discuss these influences on teacher feedback decision-making, the rest of the section will present them, respectively. It is worth mentioning, however, that the interplay among these various specific factors is described whenever necessary to show the mutual influences on teachers’ decisions with respect to feedback provision.

In the first place, the study found that teacher-related factors, especially teacher feedback beliefs, had an important influence on the case instructor’s decision-making in giving feedback. The interview data showed that the instructor had a comprehensive theory of the nature of feedback and referred to this when offering feedback. For instance, he would use knowledge of feedback strategies and feedback expectancy to select the focus of feedback. This seems to corroborate the view that any meaningful feedback is going to involve some kind of judgment [46]. When it comes to the sources of the instructor’s feedback beliefs, they are found to be partially associated with his previous experience of receiving feedback from his language teachers. The impact of such experiences seems to contribute to shaping his feedback beliefs of giving more positive than negative feedback. It also lends support to the view that learning experience has a particularly important influence on teachers’ instructional and feedback behaviors [47]. Moreover, it further adds to the literature about the crucial impact of previous learning experiences on teachers’ focus in decision-making and criteria use in response to students’ learning and performance. Furthermore, the instructor’s beliefs around language teaching and learning also seems to contribute to molding his feedback beliefs. The influences of such language teaching and learning beliefs lend weight to the view that teachers’ beliefs play an important role in his or her instructional activities and feedback provision [44]. Given the impact of language teaching and learning belief on the purpose of giving teacher feedback, what deserves our attention is the necessity of taking into consideration teachers’ beliefs in future feedback training programs.

Secondly, feedback decisions were affected by the learner-related factors, including learner expectation, individualization, learning performance and encouraging policy. For instance, as indicated by interview and introspective data, the instructor reported that learner expectation was an important reason for giving feedback, because the students wanted to receive some message and comments from the teacher with reference to their learning and performance. This is possibly because teacher feedback could measure student development [48] and could reduce discrepancies between students’ current understanding performance and a desired goal, thus scaffolding their learning and development [3]. At the same time, diversity in teachers’ decision-making concerning the specific feedback delivered to the learners is attributable to their differential personal character and individual differences with reference to their prior knowledge, aptitude for the particular task, interest, motivation, learning styles, study habits, and so on [49,50,51]. Moreover, it was observed that the instructor in this study tended to give positive feedback very often, which possibly explains his support for an encouraging policy and his avoidance of using negative feedback for fear of embarrassing the students.

In addition to the above-mentioned influences of the teacher-related factors and the learner-related factors, the learning context factors were also observed to play a moderating role in affecting teacher feedback decisions. Based on the interview and stimulated recall data, this study found that the instructor’s belief in a ‘first among equals’ teacher–student relationship affected his decisions in providing feedback, highlighting the key role of the teacher as a ‘significant other’ in this learner-centered EFL course. To be more specific, the power relation moves from emphasis on teacher’s authority to the teacher as a ‘learner among learners’; at the same time, it is worth noting that there is “some privilege for the teacher among the equal members” (Extract 15). Guided by this belief, the instructor serves to facilitate students’ learning and performance rather than mainly providing frontal instruction; that is, he decides to utilize this privilege to provide feedback that is believed to be able to contribute to students’ learning and achievement. This seems to in line with Ur’s [46] point of view that highlights “the teacher’s role as server and supporter of the learners”, with the two roles “not only compatible…but complementary and essential for healthy classroom relationships”.

Moreover, course arrangement, especially learning task types and classroom activities, was also found to have had an important influence on teachers’ decision-making in giving feedback. This seems to corroborate Gurzynski-Weiss and Révész’s [52] findings that task factors affect the amount and type of teacher feedback. That is, a particular learning task or classroom activity may affect the teacher’s focus of decision-making and draw his or her attention to specific qualities and requirements necessary for the success of that task or activity. Therefore, classroom feedback research needs to take classroom activities and task-related variables into account with regard to teacher feedback decisions. Additionally, it is also valuable for the teachers to consider those factors when supplying feedback in response to learners’ performance in task-based interactive EFL contexts.

6. Conclusions and Implications

This section concludes this study; then, it explores pedagogical implications for raising language teachers’ awareness of feedback provision, teacher feedback training, and sustainable feedback strategies to ensure ESD and SDGs in higher education. Finally, it explains the limitations of the study and proposes suggestions for future research.

6.1. Conclusions

The current research explored teacher feedback in a Chinese tertiary institution’s interactive EFL class. Specifically, it has explored a case instructor’s focus of decision-making and criteria use while giving feedback, and the factors affecting the provision of feedback. The data reveal that there are six categories of naturally occurring teacher feedback in the interactive IEL course: negotiated feedback, content feedback, task feedback, informational feedback, affective feedback, and learning strategy feedback. With regard to the focus and distribution of these different types of interactional teacher feedback, it is found that informational feedback is most preferred, while learning strategy feedback is least used by the case instructor across the course. In addition, there are different focuses and patterns of distribution between different feedback types and between oral and written teacher feedback. Referring to the affecting factors, there are four categories of factors having influenced teacher’s decision-making and extent of criteria use, that is, teacher-related factors, learner-related factors, task-related factors, and learning context-related factors. These findings enrich our knowledge about teacher feedback in language education by bringing together the cognitive, psychological, and social cultural aspects of teacher feedback. The findings also provide an emic approach to understand the naturally occurring teacher feedback from those being studied—the teacher and the learners in the present study.

6.2. Implications

The study has the following pedagogical implications. First, there is a need to raise language teachers’ awareness of feedback provision. According to this research on teacher feedback provision and decision-making, it is concluded that teacher feedback, if limited to focus on form, be it oral corrective feedback or written corrective feedback, seems to be insufficient for students’ learning and development in communicative and learner-centered EFL settings. Language teachers need to realize that feedback has great potential to facilitate students’ learning and development. It can be delivered in response to language errors, interest, content, task-related activities, and individual difference factors. Specifically, teacher feedback needs to cover not only the linguistic aspect of language learning but also the cognitive, psychological, and social-cultural aspects of learner development. For example, the case instructor’s efforts to initiate change in his own feedback practice by incorporating the various aspects appear to be commendable, given that a linguistic-dominant feedback practice seems to be prevalent in the Chinese EFL context. In contrast to the teachers in other contexts, he is not hesitant to bring about changes in this interactive EFL teaching context. Viewed in this light, it is hoped that this study could provide a useful resource for classroom teachers who are interested in applying new ideas in their own teaching to improve their feedback practice and to help their students become better users of language and make personal achievements on a higher level.

The second implication derived from this study is concerned with teacher feedback training. On one hand, as the data suggests, teacher feedback has played an important role in facilitating learner development. In the meanwhile, feedback has been viewed as an essential element of theories of learning and instruction in the past, and it stills pervades the literature and instructional models as an important aspect of teacher activities. In order to enable teachers’ informed decision-making and criteria use to maximize the benefits of feedback and facilitate learner development in the long run, what seems to be needed is guidance regarding the provision of teacher feedback, incorporated into relevant teacher training programs. The key points reside in familiarizing language teachers with the principles and procedures of feedback, developing their beliefs, conceptions and knowledge of feedback through reading related literature, reflecting upon their current practice of feedback provision, and being ready to shift from form-focused feedback to the use of feedback that addresses language learning, task performance, and individual development and the like.

Third, the exploration of teachers’ feedback strategies provides reference for EFL teachers to maintain their feedback qualities and promote SDGs # 4 and ESD (education of sustainable development) in their feedback practices. It is worth noting that sustainability in education emphasizes that study programs and activities should be delivered to provide conditions for all learners to acquire knowledge and skills [53,54]. Research on efficacy of teacher feedback in learner-centered and communicative language learning classrooms reveals that teacher feedback is one of the powerful influences on EFL learners’ language learning and achievement [3,5], and can bring about substantial changes in their sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles over the long and short term. Therefore, effective feedback should be provided to enhance quality education advocated by SDGs #4. On the other hand, sustainable education proposes that action should be taken to upgrade substantial study programs and institutional developmental schema to execute the ESD concept. To ensure the positive impact of teacher feedback on promoting EFL learners’ sustainable development, attention should be paid to the timing of feedback, the type of feedback, and the ways in which feedback can be used to enhance its effectiveness in learner-centered language learning classrooms in the Chinese EFL context.

6.3. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

This study has some limitations that provide suggestions for future research. Although it has generated a narrative of teacher feedback from the emic perspectives of those being studied through a qualitative case study, it is necessary to further explore the distinctive features of teacher feedback in future studies conducted in different interactive courses and with different populations of teachers. In addition, it is also desirable that further similar research should be done in non-interactive contexts to investigate the use of teacher feedback during naturally occurring classroom interactions, thus informing our understanding in this regard. Future researchers can conduct cross-sectional or longitudinal studies to explore how language teachers make constrained choices when providing feedback in particular contexts. That is to say, further or similar studies with language teachers in different contexts, interactive or non-interactive, need to be done to provide more insights for our understanding of the factors affecting feedback provision, to enable us to crosscheck the results obtained in this study, and more importantly, to empower teacher feedback in promoting students’ learning and development. Overall, patterns of EFL teachers’ sustainable feedback strategies and the factors influencing feedback provision in learner-centered EFL learning classrooms must be expanded in future research.