Technology, Pedagogy and Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtpe20

Beyond technology: factors influencing the effects

of teachers’ audio feedback on students’ project-
based learning

Ying Zhan

To cite this article: Ying Zhan (2023) Beyond technology: factors influencing the effects of
teachers’ audio feedback on students’ project-based learning, Technology, Pedagogy and
Education, 32:1, 91-103, DOI: 10.1080/1475939X.2022.2093965

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2022.2093965

Published online: 06 Jul 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 255

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtpe20
TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION
2023, VOL. 32, NO. 1, 91–103
https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2022.2093965

Beyond technology: factors influencing the effects of teachers’

audio feedback on students’ project-based learning
Ying Zhan
Assessment Research Centre and Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The Education University of
Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The effects of teachers’ audio feedback on students’ project-based learn­ Received 6 August 2020
ing and its influencing factors have seldom been empirically explored in Accepted 2 December 2021
the higher education context. To address this research gap, a group of KEYWORDS
Hong Kong freshmen (18–23 years old) and their teachers were involved Audio feedback; learning
in this study. Data were collected from students’ retrospective journals, engagement; learning
post-journal interviews and teacher interviews after the participants outcomes; influencing
experienced audio feedback during their group projects in a General factors; project-based
Education course. The findings demonstrated that teachers’ audio feed­ learning
back enhanced students’ learning engagement, critical thinking and pro­
ject output. The students also reported that audio feedback provided
convenience, timeliness, rich information, asynchronous discussion and
social presence. Other factors including the features of audio feedback,
communication between student and teacher on the received feedback
and their learning motivation were also crucial in determining the effects
of audio feedback on student project-based learning.

1. Introduction
Project-based learning has been increasingly used in higher education courses (Guo et al., 2020). It is
defined as ‘an active student-centred form of instruction which is characterised by students’
autonomy, constructive investigations, goal-setting, collaboration, communication and reflection
within real-world practices’ (Kokotsaki et al., 2016, p. 267). Although project-based learning is
believed to bring about deep learning (Sumarni, 2015), this may not always occur in practice.
Students may fail to maintain their learning momentum throughout the development of the project
(Gülbahar & Tinmaz, 2006). Ertmer and Simons (2006) found that students exhibited great anxiety if
their teachers left them alone during project development and did not provide deliberate scaffold­
ing for their learning. Therefore, teacher feedback is crucial for students to achieve optimal project-
based learning (Gülbahar & Tinmaz, 2006).
Teachers’ audio feedback in this study refers to teachers’ comments and suggestions that are
audio-recorded using available technological tools, which students can listen to and replay.
Researchers have increasingly referred to the importance and benefits of audio feedback for learning
(Nortcliffe & Middleton, 2008; Rodway-Dyer et al., 2011), and research interest in this area is growing
(Deeley, 2018; Hennessy & Forrester, 2014).
The majority of such studies have explored the effects of audio feedback on written assignments
for summative purposes in the higher education context. However, more research is needed on the
effects of audio feedback on other types of task, such as student project work for formative purposes

CONTACT Ying Zhan zhanying@eduhk.hk Assessment Research Centre and Department of Curriculum and Instruction,
The Education University of Hong Kong, New Territories, Hong Kong, China
© 2022 Association for Information Technology in Teacher Education
92 Y. ZHAN

(Espasa et al., 2022). More recently, studies have found that audio feedback for learners does not
always provide advantages over written feedback (Elola & Oskoz, 2016; Espasa et al., 2022; Morris &
Chikwa, 2016). It is therefore meaningful to explore the factors that influence the effects of audio
feedback on project-based learning. To address these research concerns, this study explored two
specific research questions in the context of a General Education (GE) course in a Hong Kong
university.

● RQ1: Does audio feedback enhance students’ learning engagement and outcomes in their
group projects? If yes, in what aspects?
● RQ2: What factors influence the effects of audio feedback on students’ project-based learning?

2. Literature review
Recently, higher education institutions have emphasised the cultivation of undergraduates’ soft skills
such as problem-solving and teamwork, which cannot be easily developed by traditional lecturing
(Alorda et al., 2011). Project-based learning is a potential pedagogy to achieve this goal (Guo et al.,
2020). In project-based learning, the teachers’ role needs to change from transmitting knowledge to
facilitating and supporting by providing feedback. Teacher feedback is used to direct or scaffold
student learning so that the students can adapt their way of thinking or behaving to fit the
established objectives (Shute, 2008). Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006, p. 205) proposed seven
principles of good teacher feedback:

1. Helps clarify what good performance is (goals, criteria, expected standards);

2. Facilitates the development of self-assessment (reflection) in learning;
3. Delivers high-quality information to students about their learning;
4. Encourages teacher and peer dialogue around learning;
5. Encourages positive motivational beliefs and self-esteem;
6. Provides opportunities to close the gap between current and desired performance;
7. Provides information to teachers that can be used to help shape teaching.

Despite these guiding principles, providing effective feedback remains a complicated issue (Nicol &
Macfarlane-Dick, 2006; Sadler, 2010). Boud and Molloy (2013, p. 698) pointed out that universities and
colleges are often criticised for ‘inadequacies in the feedback they provide to students’. These
inadequacies include ‘impoverished dialogue’ during the feedback process as a result of ‘mass higher
education’ (Nicol, 2010, p. 501); redundant practice because of delays in providing feedback (Jonsson,
2013); lack of intimacy owing to a limited symbolic representation system (Thomas et al., 2017);
collection of feedback from a designated location at a specified time (Cann, 2014); unspecific feedback
as a result of assessing large numbers of students in a short period (Portolese Dias & Trumpy, 2014);
and decoding difficulty caused by academic jargon and illegible handwriting (Winstone et al., 2017).
In response to these inadequacies in feedback practice, a growing number of studies have
investigated the potential value of audio feedback. Audio feedback can be timely, convenient,
detailed and rich for students thanks to its technological affordance. Deeley (2018) found that her
participants acknowledged the usefulness of audio feedback because it made them feel that they
were on the right track and help them resolve tricky situations quickly. Carruthers et al. (2015)
reported that 68% of the participants enjoyed the convenience of audio feedback. Moreover, the
large amount of detail provided by audio feedback enables students to better understand their
teachers’ comments (e.g., Gould & Day, 2013; Ice et al., 2007; Morris & Chikwa, 2016). In addition to
content, audio feedback includes intonation, nuance and emphasis, which convey more information
to students (Merry & Orsmond, 2008). Therefore, audio feedback has the potential to provide high-
quality feedback to students (Carruthers et al., 2015). More importantly, audio feedback enables
teachers to show care and support via their voice (Oyarzun et al., 2016; Ryan et al., 2020). The
 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 93

resulting ethos of care may lead students to actively engage with the feedback, turning students and
teachers into partners in the feedback process, thus leading to a constructive learning-related
dialogue between them (Carless, 2015; Deeley, 2018).
Many studies have investigated whether audio feedback is better than written feedback at
improving learning and which medium students prefer (e.g., Lunt & Curran, 2010; Nortcliffe &
Middleton, 2008; Parkes & Fletcher, 2017; Pearson, 2018; Rodway-Dyer et al., 2011). For example,
Nortcliffe and Middleton (2008) proposed that audio feedback promoted student learning and
increased ongoing learning engagement. Rodway-Dyer et al. (2011) found that audio feedback
facilitated 76% of participants’ essay writing and improved their performance. Parkes and
Fletcher (2017) found that students generally preferred audio feedback to written feedback.
Recently, some researchers have found that audio feedback does not always have a better
influence on learning than written feedback (Elola & Oskoz, 2016; Espasa et al., 2022; Morris &
Chikwa, 2016). For example, in a quasi-experiment, Espasa et al. (2022) found no significant
difference in student learning achievement between written and audio feedback. Morris and
Chikwa (2016) reported similar findings and found that their participants also preferred written
to audio feedback. Elola and Oskoz (2016) reported differential effects of audio and written
feedback on students’ Spanish writing: audio feedback helped them refine their content and
organisation while written feedback helped them revise their vocabulary and grammar mistakes.
The inconsistency of these findings implies that audio feedback has its technological drawbacks.
Students have reported difficulty in downloading large audio files (McCarthy, 2015), technological
incompatibility in playing files (Deeley, 2018) and difficulty in relocating specific sections of long audio
files (Borup et al., 2015; Morris & Chikwa, 2016). In addition, technology alone cannot guarantee the
effectiveness of audio feedback on learning. There may be general influencing factors regardless of
the feedback medium used. Espasa et al. (2022) emphasised that the feed-forward nature of audio
feedback with its focus on making improvements enhanced its power to improve learning. In addition,
the continuous dialogue between teachers and students about the feedback received could maximise
the effectiveness of audio feedback on learning. In the absence of such opportunities, students may
complain and be less engaged with the audio feedback (Carruthers et al., 2015).
The above literature review shows that audio feedback has the potential to address the current
inadequacies in feedback practices in higher education institutions owing to its technological
affordance. Trials of audio feedback have centred on written assignments for summative purposes
(e.g., Carruthers et al., 2015; Espasa et al., 2022; Gould & Day, 2013; Morris & Chikwa, 2016). However,
it has seldom been used in project-based learning that requires continuous feedback throughout the
learning process. Furthermore, the literature has shown inconsistent findings regarding the effects of
audio feedback on learning. Audio feedback is a complex issue that needs systematic investigation of
the factors that influence its effects.

3. The study
3.1. Use of audio feedback in students’ group projects in a GE foundation course
This study was investigated in a GE(General Education) foundation course, a compulsory three-credit
-point course for all first-year students in a normal Hong Kong university. The course aimed to
improve students’ critical thinking about a wide range of issues. The students were required to do
group projects to explore one of the topics covered in the course and present their findings at the
end of the course. The group project accounted for 20% of the final course grade.
Audio feedback was used to enhance student learning engagement and outcomes in relation to its
potential advantages as described in the literature review. It was implemented during three stages of
the students’ project development, namely when deciding on the inquiry questions, writing the inquiry
proposals and making the PowerPoint presentation (PPT) slides for the presentation (see Figure 1). The
students were required to submit their group work at each step on Google Drive.
94 Y. ZHAN

Figure 1. Flowchart of the audio feedback process.

After the teachers received the students’ work, they used ‘Talk and Comments’ function in Google
Chrome to insert audio comments into the students’ Google documents and slides. The students
then responded to their teachers’ feedback and revised their work accordingly. To do this, the
teachers and students first needed to instal the Talk and Comment widget from the Chrome browser
on their own devices, record their comments in a weblink format and paste them by clicking the
Comment button. Figure 2 captures the interface of teacher’s audio comments on the group inquiry
questions in Google Docs.
As this was the first time that the students had used audio feedback in Google Docs and Google
Slides, training was provided. The training content included sharing the objectives of audio feed­
back, guidance on submitting their work using Google Docs and Slides on Google Drive, and how to
receive and respond to teachers’ audio feedback. The training session ensured that the students
could use the technology to receive and respond to audio feedback without difficulty. Video clips on
training were uploaded on Moodle for reference when needed.

3.2. Participants
Two teachers in the GE foundation course were approached based on their willingness to use audio
feedback in their students’ group projects. Accordingly, their students were invited to participate in
the study. Seventy-one undergraduates from four tutorial groups (two groups per teacher) con­
sented to use audio feedback in their group projects. The participants were aged 18 to 23 years and
were majoring in various social science fields. At the end of course, 24 participants (10 male students
and 14 female students) wrote retrospective journal entries. These 24 participants were invited to
attend individual interviews afterwards, and 17 accepted. Both teachers participated in this study
voluntarily. Both were male and had more than 20 years of teaching experience.
 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 95

Figure 2. The interface of audio feedback and students’ responses on the group inquiry questions.

3.3. Data collection

Multiple qualitative methods were used to collect the data. First, the students were invited to write
retrospective journals to reflect on their experience with the audio feedback received during their
group projects. Guidance was provided to focus their retrospective journals on the perceived effects
of audio feedback on their project-based learning with particular attention to learning engagement
and outcomes, and to factors that influenced their use of the audio feedback. They expressed their
ideas in their preferred language. In the end, 24 valid retrospective journal entries were collected.
The purposes of post-journal interviews with students were two-fold. One was to gain an in-depth
understanding of the factors influencing the effects of audio feedback on project-based learning. The
other was to clarify anything not clearly expressed in the journal entries. The interviews were semi-
structured, conducted individually and audiotaped. The interview length averaged about half an hour.
The two teachers also attended individual semi-structured interviews at the end of the course to
share their observation on how much audio feedback affected their students’ project-based learning
and the potential influencing factors. These interviews were conducted in their mother tongue,
audiotaped and lasted about an hour.

3.4. Data analysis

The retrospective journal entries and interview data were transcribed and analysed using the
approach of thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). First, the data were read, interpreted and
coded. These initial codes were then further condensed and categorised according to research
questions, to form subthemes and then themes. They were then checked against the entire dataset
both iteratively and by peer examination (Hitchcock & Hughes, 1995).
96 Y. ZHAN

Table 1. Impacts of audio feedback on students’ project-based

learning.
Impacts of audio feedback Yes (%) No (%)
Learning engagement 74% 26%
Critical thinking dispositions 65% 35%
Quality of projects 82% 18%

4. Findings
4.1. Effects of audio feedback on student project-based learning
The effects of audio feedback on students’ project-based learning were explored mainly by examin­
ing the students’ retrospective journal entries, using the interview data from students and teachers
for triangulation. Table 1 lists the effects of audio feedback and the frequency with which each was
reported by the students.

4.1.1. Student learning engagement

Seventy-four per cent of the students reported feeling more engaged in their group projects than in
the past and spending more time and energy on it owing to their teacher’s continuous feedback and
support. For example, Student 4 wrote:
Unlike the projects I have done for other courses, I did not wait for the last minute to finish it. Because of the
continuous feedback from the teachers at different stages of the project, we knew better what the project
requirements were and worked together to refine them from time to time. I think my engagement in this project
work was greater than in the projects I have done for other courses.

The majority of the students mentioned that the audio feedback they received reduced the social
distance between them and the teacher, which enhanced their emotional engagement with their
project. Student 5 wrote:
I really felt my teacher’s care and support for our project through his warm voice. We were not alone; our teacher
was also on our team. I enjoyed the project process and felt more connected with my classmates and teacher.

The two teachers also reported that, compared with the students they had taught before, the
participants in this study were more active and had a closer relationship with them. They believed
that the audio feedback had enhanced the students’ sense of being supported.

4.1.2. Student learning outcomes

Sixty-five per cent of the students reported that the audio feedback enhanced their critical thinking.
Some claimed that it provided more angles to investigate the chosen issues and made them think
more critically. The following extract reflects this.
My teacher’s comments made us realise that we could not take things for granted and should consider the issue
from multiple perspectives. For example, because of my teachers’ rhetorical questions, we rethought our views
on gender equity and took a new perspective on the issue. (Retrospective Journal 11)

Some of the students believed that their critical thinking increased because their teachers did not
specifically tell them what to do but provided options for them to choose from. Student 19 wrote:
In his feedback my teacher did not tell us specifically what we should and should not do. Instead he gave us
possibilities, which forced us to ask ourselves what-if questions and make our own decisions. This actually
helped me to develop the habit of asking what-if questions before making decisions.

Eighty-two per cent of the students agreed that the quality of their final group presentation had
improved through heeding the audio feedback to make revisions throughout their projects. They
referred to the improvements in their arguments and PPT slide designs, as shown by the following
extract.
 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 97

The teacher’s comments made us dig deeper into the inquiry questions. He suggested us to enrich our
arguments by considering multiple perspectives and providing more valid evidence. He also provided practical
comments on the design of the PPT slides, which made them more eye-catching. (Retrospective Journal 16)

The teachers echoed the students’ claims about the improved quality of the group projects. For
example, Teacher A said:

Although not all of the students improved, I would say that the quality of the group presentations was higher
than those in the previous year. Their inquiry questions became more focused and interesting and their
argumentation was more logical and better supported.

4.2 Influencing factors

Table 2 lists the four types of influencing factors in the audio feedback process. These are techno­
logical factors, the features of audio feedback, communication between student and teacher on the
received feedback, and students’ learning motivation. These factors either enhanced or weakened
the effectiveness of the audio feedback on the students’ project-based learning.

4.2.1. Technological factors

Most of the students acknowledged the technological advantages of the audio feedback provided
on the Google platform. Many of the students mentioned that audio feedback was convenient to
access and follow up. Below is an example.

The biggest advantage of audio feedback is its convenience. You can get feedback when you are available. You
don’t need to negotiate with your teacher about consultation time. You know, this is group work and our group
members come from different majors. It is very hard to find the time when we are all available. Meanwhile, you
can repeatedly listen to your teachers’ feedback if you like. (Student Interview 10)

Some of the students acknowledged the timeliness of audio feedback. They found that they could
gain immediate feedback after submitting their work. One student said:

It was quick to get feedback after we finished a subtask. The immediate response helped us to refine our work
step by step. It was good and quite different from our normal practice. (Student Interview 3)

In addition to its convenience and timeliness, some of the students found that the information in the
audio feedback was richer than in written feedback they had received in other courses. Furthermore,
when they listened to the teachers’ feedback, they felt that it was authentic and conveyed feeling. The

Table 2. Factors influencing students’ use of audio feedback.

Positive Negative
Factors influence influence
Technological factors Convenience √
Timeliness √
Asynchronous discussion √ √
Rich information √
Social presence √
Recording quality √
Relocating certain part of √
feedback
The features of audio feedback Feed-forward content √
Ongoing feedback √
Communication between student and teacher on the External dialogue √
received feedback Internal dialogue √
Students’ learning motivation Intrinsic motivation √
Extrinsic motivation √
98 Y. ZHAN

social presence of the teachers and the rich information in the audio feedback appeared to make the
students feel more confident and supported in their project inquiry. The following extract reveals this
view.

You seemed to have your teacher by your side encouraging you to do the work better and resolve your issues. It
felt good. Compared with a text message, I get more information beyond the words. This made me feel more
confident and braver enough to explore a more difficult topic. (Student Interview 8)

In this study, the audio feedback was conducted in an asynchronous way. Some of the students
believed that this gave them time to reflect on the teacher’s comments and formulate further
questions they wanted to ask in response, which led to high-quality communication. However, others
did not share this view. They found that the asynchronous audio feedback created a time gap so that
misunderstandings could not be resolved as quickly as with face-to-face communication, which in
turn affected the power of audio feedback over learning. For example, Student 11 commented:

Because there were time gaps between listening to the teacher’s comments, replying to his comments and
hearing his new comments, this could lead to misunderstanding some of the comments. Communicating with
each other simultaneously online would benefit us more.

Several students also reported technical problems that prevented them from retrieving the audio
feedback. Recording quality was the major problem. Sometimes the recording volume was too low,
and they had to play the recording several times to understand it. Another problem was that it was
not always straightforward to find a particular section of the teacher’s feedback they wanted to focus
on during their revision. Some of the students said they had to drag the soundtrack multiple times to
find what they wanted to follow up.

4.2.2. The features of audio feedback

The students reported two prominent aspects of audio feedback that influenced their project-based
learning. One was its feed-forward feature. Many students mentioned that their teachers provided
possible directions for them to continue their projects. This gave them a sense of safety and encouraged
them to take risks in their project inquiry. As Student 20 mentioned in the interview, the teacher acted
as a ‘tour guide’ to lead their inquiry journey, which helped them to avoid getting lost or frustrated
during their exploration. The teachers’ interview data also supported this finding, as shown below.

For example, I analysed the significance, feasibility and creativity of their inquiry questions and provided some
suggestions for them to negotiate with each other to make a final decision on the inquiry questions. I think these
suggestions shifted their project to the next stage. (Teacher A)

The majority of the students thought that the teachers’ suggestions were general rather than
specific. The students had different views on this. Some appreciated that their teacher left them
space for self-exploration. In addition, they felt that if they wanted further comments on a specific
section, they could use the reply comment function to ask questions online. Other students,
however, complained that suggesting a general direction for their project did not help enough
and wished their teacher had provided concrete solutions.
The other feature of audio feedback was its ongoing nature throughout the project. Most of the
students mentioned that receiving audio feedback at different stages of the project was very helpful.
They could ‘identify problems in their project as soon as possible and still had a chance to fix them’
(Retrospective Journal 6) before progressing to the next stage of the project.

4.2.3. Communication between student and teacher on the received feedback

Some of the students replied to the audio feedback on the Google platform to discuss the comments
they disagreed with or found difficult to follow. The following extract reflects this:
 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 99

My teacher gave us some comments to refine our PPT slides. . . . He asked us to find more literature supporting
STEM [science, technology, engineering and mathematics] education in Hong Kong secondary schools.
However, it is very difficult to find local studies on this as STEM is very new here. I reported this problem to
him and we discussed it. Finally, I used practical examples of STEM from school websites in place of the literature.
It worked! (Student Interview 10)

Student interactions with the teachers in response to the audio feedback received seemed crucial to
its effectiveness. The teachers observed that the students who replied to their comments immedi­
ately and discussed the revision with them online tended to perform better in the final group project
presentation than those who seldom replied or consulted them further.
In addition to the external dialogue with their teacher, some students reported their inner
communication with the audio feedback before discussing it with the teacher. This kind of internal
dialogue appears to have made the subsequent dialogue with their teacher more effective for their
project learning. For example, Student 9 wrote:
After I listened to his comments online, I usually asked myself which comments I was uncertain about, which
ones I might not agree with and why. This inner talk enabled me to be selective of the teacher’s comments. Then
I communicated with my teacher about my key uncertainties. Communicating like this was time-saving for both
of us and helpful for revision.

4.2.4. Students’ learning motivation

The students’ learning motivation was believed to be an important factor in the audio feedback
process. Some of the students who reported their interest in the group project tended to engage
actively in the audio feedback process. For example, one student said:
I was interested in the inquiry questions for the group project. I engaged fully in the process by listening carefully
to the teacher’s comments and asking questions when I was not sure about something. I benefited a lot from the
audio feedback. (Student Interview 1)

Both teachers also mentioned that the influence of the audio feedback on the students’ project-
based learning varied according to students’ learning motivation. The students who were intrinsi­
cally motivated to learn actively communicated with them about the progress of their project,
whereas those with extrinsic learning motivation were less likely to follow up after receiving
comments. For example, Teacher B said:
Student learning motivation matters in the feedback process. I have students who have strong learning
motivation. Even if you don’t give them feedback, they will come to your office to get it. I also have students
who just want to finish the course work to earn marks. They seldom replied to my comments and might not gain
much from my feedback.

5. Discussion
This study examined the effects of audio feedback on student learning engagement and outcomes
in group projects in a Hong Kong university. Audio feedback was found to promote student learning
engagement, especially emotional engagement. This finding resonates with Espasa et al. (2022), who
reported that audio feedback can enhance the affective relationship between students and teachers
in online university courses. Ryan et al. (2020) also found that undergraduates preferred audio
feedback thanks to its relational and affective benefits. In addition, the data analysis revealed that
audio feedback enhanced the students’ tendency to think critically and improved the quality of their
group projects. Positive effects of audio feedback on learning outcomes have also been reported in
previous studies (e.g., Ice et al., 2007; Nortcliffe & Middleton, 2008; Rodway-Dyer et al., 2011).
More importantly, this study explored the factors influencing the effects of audio feedback on the
students’ project-based learning. Four types of factors were identified in this study, namely techno­
logical factors, the features of audio feedback, communication between student and teacher after
100 Y. ZHAN

receiving feedback, and students’ learning motivation. These factors are discussed by separating
technological factors from the other factors to determine what technology can do and what it
cannot do alone.
The students in this study felt that technology provided the convenience of getting access to
teacher comments anytime and anywhere. This was also acknowledged by students in other studies
(e.g., Carruthers et al., 2015; Jonsson, 2013). The technology-enabled convenience allowed the
students to digest the teachers’ comments and reflect on their work. In addition, the students
mentioned that it provided timely feedback to help them revise their work at each stage. This
finding echoes the findings of other researchers (e.g., Broadbent et al., 2018; Deeley, 2018; McCarthy,
2015). Timely feedback can help to resolve tricky situations faster and guide them on the right track
(Deeley, 2018). Meanwhile, the students in this study stressed the rich information and social
presence afforded by technology. The ‘richness’ of the audio feedback has been reported by other
researchers (e.g., Merry & Orsmond, 2008). The human voice strongly affects the perception of social
presence (Garrison et al., 1999). Creating a social presence in online environments may help to
relieve any anxiety students experience in the process of doing their project alone (Ertmer & Simons,
2006). Interestingly, the asynchronous discussion afforded by the audio technology in this study
caused different reactions among the students. Some found that the asynchronous audio feedback
gave them time to consider their teachers’ comments and ensure a better quality of communication
with the teacher afterwards, whilst others found that the time delay hindered direct real-time
dialogue with the teachers.
The technology also had shortcomings. This study identified low-quality recordings and difficulty
in relocating certain parts of a long audio file as obstacles to students’ use of the audio feedback to
revise their projects. These technological drawbacks have been reported by other researchers (e.g.,
Borup et al., 2015; Morris & Chikwa, 2016). Overall, however, the opportunities demonstrated by this
feedback medium outweighed the challenges in this study.
The literature to date has mainly discussed the effects of audio feedback on learning in terms
of its technological advantages and drawbacks (e.g., Cann, 2014; Pearson, 2018; Ryan et al., 2020).
Regardless of the feedback medium, however, this study importantly reveals at least three types
of factors that influence the effectiveness of teachers’ feedback on student project-based learning.
First, most of the students in this study appreciated the feed-forward comments provided by the
teachers. Feed-forward is a fundamental feature of good feedback (Boud & Molloy, 2013; Reimann
et al., 2019). Feed-forward comments target students’ future learning and give them confidence
and possible solutions, thus improving their learning (Deeley, 2018; Espasa et al., 2022). In
addition, ongoing feedback provided at three progressive stages of the project was acknowl­
edged by the students as a facilitating factor. Boud and Molloy (2013) argued that assessment
feedback is a cyclical and ongoing process that provides students with a second chance to refine
their work and in turn improve their learning. Therefore, audio feedback should at least provide
feed-forward comments and be ongoing to ensure its effectiveness for student project-based
learning.
Second, this study reported that the communication between student and teacher on the
received feedback was also important. Active dialogue with teachers is one of the principles of
good feedback (Carless, 2015; Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). Such dialogue can help students to
better understand the teachers’ comments (Zhan, 2019). In addition to dialogue with the teacher,
inner dialogue is important in the feedback process. Nicol (2010, p. 504) believed that ‘such inner
dialogue would involve students in actively decoding feedback information, internalising it,
comparing it against their own work, using it to make judgements about its quality and
ultimately to make improvements in future work’. In this study, some of the students reported
engaging in inner dialogue before communicating with their teachers about their feedback.
Therefore, dialogic feedback could be regarded as an essential condition for the success of
students’ project-based learning in whatever feedback medium teachers use (Morris & Chikwa,
2016).
 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 101

Third, the students’ learning motivation appeared to influence their engagement with the audio
feedback in this study, which in turn influenced its effects on their project-based learning. The
students who were interested and curious when doing their project participated actively in the audio
feedback process, whereas those who merely sought to gain course marks seemed to take the
teachers’ comments less seriously. This finding implies that students who are intrinsically motivated
to do a project will benefit more from teacher feedback than those with only extrinsic motivation.
This assumption requires verification with further evidence.

6. Conclusions
This study was conducted in authentic classrooms without an attempt to compare audio feedback
with written feedback in terms of its effectiveness on learning. The research focus was the effects of
audio feedback on a particular form of learning (i.e., project-based learning) and the factors influen­
cing this process, which have not yet been substantially explored. The effects of audio feedback were
generally reported to be positive, echoing the majority of the studies in this area. More importantly,
influencing factors were identified beyond the technology itself. The general standards of good
feedback practice should therefore be considered if audio feedback is to achieve its full potential.
The findings of this study provide at least three tentative suggestions for practitioners.
First, to overcome the drawbacks of technology mentioned in this study, teachers may need to
find a quiet place and use high-quality recording devices when providing audio feedback.
Furthermore, teachers can annotate specific sections of the students’ work with audio feedback or
add notes to identify the time nodes for the strengths, weaknesses and suggestions in the audio files.
Second, whatever feedback medium teachers use, dialogical feedback is ‘crucial in promoting
regulation of learning and its monitoring’ (Espasa et al., 2022, p. 2), which can facilitate project-
based learning. Educators need to think about how to enhance and continue the student–teacher
dialogue after the audio feedback is received. Third, students’ learning motivation affects whether
they actively engage with the teachers’ comments, no matter which feedback medium is used. We
need to help students develop a mindset of ‘proactive recipience’ (Winstone et al., 2017) and
encourage them to take direct responsibility for their projects and act on the audio feedback.
Despite the value of this study, it has at least three limitations that call for further research in this
area. First, the effects of audio feedback on project-based learning were examined by relying on
student self-reports. Future studies should use quantitative measurement to accurately assess to
what extent audio feedback affects students’ project-based learning. Second, although influencing
factors were identified in this study, how these factors interact with each other and jointly influence
the effects of audio feedback on project-based learning is still unknown owing to a lack of support­
ing data. To better understand the mechanism of audio feedback, further studies are needed. Third,
because audio feedback is given online, students can leave a digital footprint, which is also
a valuable data source to examine students’ project engagement and reveal their revisions from
time to time. The collection of log data could be considered to demonstrate the effects of audio
feedback on learning in future studies.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This work was supported by the Research cluster fund The Education University of Hong Kong [RG 76/2020-2021R
102 Y. ZHAN

Notes on contributor
Ying Zhan is an assistant professor at Assessment Research Centre and the Department of Curriculum and Instruction,
The Education University of Hong Kong. She has published more than 30 papers in international academic journals. Her
research focuses on assessment for learning, feedback and e-assessment.

ORCID
Ying Zhan http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2362-2887

References
Alorda, B., Suenaga, K., & Pons, P. (2011). Design and evaluation of a microprocessor course combining three
cooperative methods: SDLA, PBL and CnBL. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1876–1884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compedu.2011.04.004
Borup, J., West, R. E., & Thomas, R. (2015). The impact of text versus video communication on instructor feedback in blended
courses. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(2), 161–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9367-8
Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Broadbent, J., Panadero, E., & Boud, D. (2018). Implementing summative assessment with a formative flavour: A case
study in a large class. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(2), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.
2017.1343455
Cann, A. (2014). Engaging students with audio feedback. Bioscience Education, 22(1), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.11120/
beej.2014.00027
Carless, D. (2015). Excellence in university assessment: Learning from award-winning practice. Routledge.
Carruthers, C., McCarron, B., Bolan, P., Devine, A., McMahon-Beattie, U., & Burns, A. (2015). ‘I like the sound of that’ – An
evaluation of providing audio feedback via the virtual learning environment for summative assessment. Assessment
& Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(3), 352–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.917145
Deeley, S. J. (2018). Using technology to facilitate effective assessment for learning and feedback in higher education.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(3), 439–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1356906
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2016). Supporting second language writing using multimodal feedback. Foreign Language Annals,
49(1), 58–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12183
Ertmer, P. A., & Simons, K. D. (2006). Jumping the PBL implementation hurdle: Supporting the efforts of K–12 teachers.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem–based Learning, 1(1), 40–54. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1005
Espasa, A., Mayordomo, R. M., Guasch, T., & Martinez–Melo, M. (2022). Does the type of feedback channel used in online
learning environments matter? Students’ perceptions and impact on learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 23
(1), 49–63 doi:10.1177/1469787419891307.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in
higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Gould, J., & Day, P. (2013). Hearing you loud and clear: Student perspectives of audio feedback in higher education.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(5), 554–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.660131
Gülbahar, Y., & Tinmaz, H. (2006). Implementing project-based learning and e-portfolio assessment in an undergraduate
course. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 309–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2006.10782462
Guo, P., Saab, N., Post, L. S., & Admiraal, W. (2020). A review of project-based learning in higher education: Student outcomes
and measures. International Journal of Educational Research, 102, 101586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101586
Hennessy, C., & Forrester, G. (2014). Developing a framework for effective audio feedback: A case study. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(7), 777–789. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.870530
Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (1995). Research and the teacher. Routledge.
Ice, P., Curtis, R., Phillips, P., & Wells, J. (2007). Using asynchronous audio feedback to enhance teaching presence and
students’ sense of community. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 3–25. doi:10.24059/olj.v11i2.1724
Jonsson, A. (2013). Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(1),
63–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787412467125
Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving Schools, 19
(3), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480216659733
Lunt, T., & Curran, J. (2010). ‘Are you listening please?’ The advantages of electronic audio feedback compared to written
feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(7), 759–769. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930902977772
 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 103

McCarthy, J. (2015). Evaluating written, audio and video feedback in higher education summative assessment tasks.
Issues in Educational Research, 25(2), 153–169. http://www.iier.org.au/iier25/mccarthy.html
Merry, S., & Orsmond, P. (2008). Students’ attitudes to and usage of academic feedback provided via audio files.
Bioscience Education, 11(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3108/beej.11.3
Morris, C., & Chikwa, G. (2016). Audio versus written feedback: Exploring learners’ preference and the impact of feedback
format on students’ academic performance. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(2), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1469787416637482
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven
principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03075070600572090
Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher education.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003786559
Nortcliffe, A., & Middleton, A. (2008). A three-year case study of using audio to blend the engineer’s learning environ­
ment. Engineering Education, 3(2), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.11120/ened.2008.03020045
Oyarzun, B. A., Conklin, S. A., & Barreto, D. (2016). Instructor presence. In P. Vu, S. Fredrickson, & C. Moore (Eds.),
Handbook of research on innovative pedagogies and technologies for online learning in higher education (pp. 106–126).
IGI Global.
Parkes, M., & Fletcher, P. (2017). A longitudinal, quantitative study of student attitudes towards audio feedback for assessment.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(7), 1046–1053. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1224810
Pearson, J. (2018). Engaging practical students through audio feedback. Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 11(1),
87–94. https://insight.cumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/3845
Portolese Dias, L., & Trumpy, R. (2014). Online instructor’s use of audio feedback to increase social presence and student
satisfaction. Journal of Educators Online, 11(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2014.2.5
Reimann, N., Sadler, I., & Sambell, K. (2019). What’s in a word? Practices associated with ‘feedforward’ in higher education.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(8), 1279–1290. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1600655
Rodway-Dyer, S., Knight, J., & Dunne, E. (2011). A case study on audio feedback with geography undergraduates. Journal
of Geography in Higher Education, 35(2), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2010.524197
Ryan, T., Henderson, M., & Phillips, M. (2020). Digitally recorded assessment feedback in a secondary school context:
Student engagement, perception and impact. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 29(3), 311–325. doi:10.1080/
1475939X.2020.1744479
Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 35(5), 535–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903541015
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0034654307313795
Sumarni, W. (2015). The strengths and weaknesses of the implementation of project based learning: A review.
International Journal of Science and Research, 4(3), 478–484. https://www.ijsr.net/get_abstract.php?paper_id=
SUB152023
Thomas, R. A., West, R. E., & Borup, J. (2017). An analysis of instructor social presence in online text and asynchronous video
feedback comments. The Internet and Higher Education, 33, 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.01.003
Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Rowntree, J., & Parker, M. (2017). ‘It’d be useful, but I wouldn’t use it’: Barriers to university
students’ feedback seeking and recipience. Studies in Higher Education, 42(11), 2026–2041. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03075079.2015.1130032
Zhan, Y. (2019). Conventional or sustainable? Chinese university students’ thinking about feedback used in their English
lessons. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(7), 973–986. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1557105