Exploring the dynamic interplay between students' motivation, perceptions and behaviour in feedback seeking processes

Abstract

Feedback seeking is a proactive process where students solicit performance-relevant information to enhance their learning. Students’ motivation for feedback seeking interacts with their related perceptions and behaviours. However, the motivation driving feedback seeking in higher education is under-explored. Guided by self-determination theory (SDT), this research employs a mixed methods approach to investigate the reciprocal relationships between students’ diverse motivations, perceptions and behaviours in feedback seeking processes. The quantitative study collected survey data from 930 Chinese university students, examining five types of motivation according to SDT (intrinsic motivation, identification, introjection, external regulation, and amotivation), cost–value perceptions, and behaviour frequencies (monitoring and inquiry) in feedback seeking processes. Structural equation modelling analysis assessed how students’ motivations influence their perceptions and behaviour frequencies. The findings indicated that identification, introjection, and amotivation predicted the perceived cost or value. Intrinsic motivation, identification, and introjection were related to monitoring or inquiry frequency. Cost–value analysis directly affected the monitoring or inquiry frequency. The qualitative study involved semi-structured interviews with 29 Chinese university students from three universities in Shanghai, supplemented by two rounds of member checking to enhance result validity. It aimed to understand how students’ feedback seeking experiences shape the diversity of their motivation. Qualitative content analysis showed monitoring as the most commonly reported feedback seeking strategy, which enhances intrinsic motivation, identification, and introjection. Inquiries to teachers, peers, or GenAI also fostered intrinsic motivation, identification, and amotivation, with feedback seeking from teachers additionally promoting introjection. The judicious combination of monitoring and inquiry facilitated identification. The research makes a theoretical contribution by identifying four types of feedback seeking motivation: intrinsic motivation, identification, introjection, and amotivation. It also presents reciprocal relationships: motivations influence perceptions and behaviours, while feedback seeking experiences shape these motivations. The study further delineates four feedback seeking loops, illustrating the cyclical interplay between students’ motivations, perceptions, and behaviours from the perspective of these four motivations, respectively. The research also conceptually distinguishes external monitoring through looking outward for cues and internal monitoring through looking inward by self-reflection. The research provides practical implications for fostering students’ autonomous motivation and effective feedback seeking skills. Teachers can foster students’ intrinsic motivation and identification by providing endorsement and feasible feedback. They can also integrate feedback seeking into curriculum design, encouraging its regular use to enhance learning. Students are suggested to approach “qualified partners” with “good questions” in a collaborative way to enhance intrinsic motivation and identification. When seeking GenAI feedback, students are recommended to engage in ongoing dialogue, strategically integrate GenAI and human feedback, and prioritise self-growth over mere problem-solving. Future research could examine students’ monitoring skills which are closely tied to independent and self-directed learning. Given the popularity of GenAI, it is also necessary to explore the GenAI-human collaboration in feedback seeking and the impact of GenAI on students’ critical thinking and cognitive development.