Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:43:35.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Peer Feedback in Second Language Oral Interaction

from Part IV - Feedback Provider, Feedback Intensity, and Feedback Timing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2021

By
Noriko Iwashita  and
Phung Dao
Edited by
Hossein Nassaji  and
Eva Kartchava
Hossein Nassaji
Affiliation:
University of Victoria, British Columbia
Eva Kartchava
Affiliation:
Carleton University, Ottawa
Get access

Summary

This chapter presents an overview of the research on peer feedback in L2 oral interaction. The chapter starts with types and characteristics of peer feedback, followed by the discussion of the theoretical underpinnings of peer feedback to explain the benefits of peer interaction in L2 development. The next section presents a review of the studies on peer feedback focusing on the effect of peer feedback on L2 development and factors affecting this type of feedback. The chapter concludes with some pedagogical implications and suggestions for future research on peer feedback in L2 oral interaction.

Keywords

peer feedbackcorrective feedbackoral interactionpeer interactionL2 task-based interaction
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 275 - 299
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 29–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation: Second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465–483.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (2005). Cognitive psychology and its implications (6th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
Brandl, K. (1995). Strong and weak students’ preferences for error feedback options and responses. Modern Language Journal, 79(2), 194–211.Google Scholar
Brooks, L. & Swain, M. (2009). Languaging in collaborative writing: Creation of and response to expertise. In Mackey, A. & Polio, C. (eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction in SLA (pp. 58–89). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Brown, A. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 46–60.Google Scholar
Cathcart, R. & Olsen, J. (1976). Teachers’ and students’ preferences for correction of classroom conversation errors. In Fanselow, J. & Crymes, R. (eds.), On TESOL ’76 (pp. 41–53). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Choi, H. & Iwashita, N. (2016). Interactional behaviours of low-proficiency learners in small group work. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 113–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chu, R. (2013). Effects of peer feedback on Taiwanese adolescents’ English speaking practices and development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Edinburgh. www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/8045.Google Scholar
Coughlan, P. & Duff, P. A. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of an SLA task from an activity theory perspective. In Lantolf, J. & Appel, G. (eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 173–193). Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
Dao, P. (2017). Learner engagement in peer task-based interaction: Identifying the effect of interlocutor proficiency and task outcome. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Concordia University. https://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/982862/.Google Scholar
Dao, P. (2019). Effects of task goal orientation on learner engagement in task performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 1–20. www.degruyter.com/view/j/iral?rskey=JOFBFp.Google Scholar
Dao, P. & McDonough, , K. (2017). The effect of task role on Vietnamese EFL learners’ collaboration in mixed proficiency dyads. System, 65(1), 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dao, P. & McDonough, (2018). Effect of proficiency on Vietnamese EFL learners’ engagement in peer interaction. International Journal of Educational Research, 88(1), 60–72.Google Scholar
Dao, P., Nguyen, M. X. N. & Chi, D. N. (2020). Reflective learning practice for promoting adolescent EFL learners’ attention to form. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2020.1766467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, R. (1997). Modeling the strategies we advocate. TESOL Journal, 6(4), 5–6.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Exploring automatization processes. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 349–357.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97–113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dochy, F., Segers, M. & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donato, R. (2004). Aspects of collaboration in pedagogical discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 284–302.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(1), 305–352.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2010). Cognitive, social and psychological dimensions of corrective feedback. In Batstone, R. (ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 151–165). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ertmer, P., Richardson, J., Belland, B., Camin, D., Connolly, P., Coulthard, G., Lei, K. & Mong, C. (2007). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings: An exploratory study. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 12(2), 412–433.Google Scholar
Fujii, A., Ziegler, N. & Mackey, A. (2016). Peer interaction and metacognitive instruction in the EFL classroom. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 63–89). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 180–206). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gass, S. & Varonis, E. (1989). Incorporated repairs in nonnative discourse. In Eisenstein, M. R. (ed.), The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation (pp. 71–86). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Gass, S. & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(3), 283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwashita, N. (1999). Tasks and learners’ output in nonnative–nonnative interaction. In Kanno, Kazue (ed.), The acquisition of Japanese as a second language (pp. 31–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics 24(2), 168–196. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.2.145.Google Scholar
Katayama, A. (2007). Japanese EFL students’ preferences toward correction of classroom oral errors. Asian EFL Journal, 9(4), 289–305.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 211–234.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. & McDonough, K. (2011). Using pre-task modeling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 183–199.Google Scholar
Kowal, M. & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3(2), 73–93.Google Scholar
Kowal, M. & Swain, M. (1997). From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we promote metalinguistic awareness in the French immersion classroom? In Johnson, R. & Swain, M. (eds.), Immersion education: International perspective (pp. 284–309). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language learning and acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55–81.Google Scholar
Liu, E., Lin, S., Chiu, C. & Yuan, S. (2001). Web-based peer review: The learner as both adapter and reviewer. IEEE Transactions on Education, 44(3), 246–251.Google Scholar
Liu, N. F. & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 536–556.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1981). Input, interaction, and second-language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379(1), 259–278.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(2), 177–193.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lynch, T. (2007). Learning from the transcripts of an oral communication task. ELT Journal, 61(4), 311–320.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(4), 37–66.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R. & Gass, S. M. (2012). Interactionist approaches. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 7–23). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. & Gass, S. (2015). Interaction approaches. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., McDonough, K., Fujii, A. & Tatsumi, T. (2001). Investigating learners’ reports about the L2 classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 39(4), 285–308.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Oliver, R. L. & Leeman, J. (2003). Interaction input and the incorporation of feedback: an exploration of NS–NNS and NNS–NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53(1), 35–66.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. (2004). Learner–learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32(2), 207–224.Google Scholar
Miao, Y., Badger, R. & Zhen, Y. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 179–200.Google Scholar
Morris, F. (2005). Child-to-child interaction and corrective feedback in a computer mediated L2 class. Language Learning & Technology, 9(1), 29–45.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2009). The effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59(2), 411–452.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2015). Interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34–51.Google Scholar
Naughton, D. (2006). Cooperative strategy training and oral interaction: Enhancing small group communication in the language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 90(2), 169–184.Google Scholar
Nicol, D. (2009). Assessment for learner self-regulation: Enhancing achievement in the first year using learning technologies. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(3), 335–352.Google Scholar
Nicol, D. (2014). Guiding principles of peer review: Unlocking learners’ evaluative skills. In Kreber, C., Anderson, C., Entwistle, N. & McArthur, J. (eds.), Advances and innovations in university assessment and feedback (pp. 195–258). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Ohta, A. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In Lantolf, J. P. (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51–78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ohta, A. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Philp, J. (2016). New pathways in researching interaction. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 377–395). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Philp, J., Adams, R. & Iwashita, N. (2014). Peer interaction and second language learning. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Philp, J. & Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 50–72.Google Scholar
Philp, J. & Mackey, A. (2010). Interaction research: What can socially informed approaches offer to cognitivists (and vice versa)? In Batstone, R. (ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 210–228). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Philp, J., Walter, S. & Basturkmen, H. (2010). Peer interaction in the foreign language classroom: What factors foster a focus on form? Language Awareness, 19(4), 261–279.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493–527.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D. & Linnell, J. (1996). Language learners’ interaction: How does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), 59–84.Google Scholar
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Both sides of the conversation: The interplay between mediation and learner reciprocity in dynamic assessment. In Lantolf, J. P. & Poehner, M. E. (eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 33–56). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Ranta, L. & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The Awareness–Practice–Feedback sequence. In DeKeyser, R. (ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141–160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 611–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, M. (2017). Oral corrective feedback: Multiple theoretical perspectives. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 19–35). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (2012). Raising language awareness in peer interaction: A cross-context, cross-method examination. Language Awareness, 21(1), 157–179.Google Scholar
Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (2016). Understanding peer interaction: Research synthesis and directions. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 1–30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sato, M. & Loewen, S. (2018). Metacognitive instruction enhances the effectiveness of corrective feedback: Variable effects of feedback types and linguistic targets. Language Learning, 68(2), 507–545.Google Scholar
Sato, M. & Lyster, R. (2007). Modified output of Japanese EFL learners: Variable effects of interlocutor vs. feedback types. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 123–142). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sato, M. & Lyster, R. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(4), 591–626.Google Scholar
Sato, M. & McDonough, K. (2019). Practice is important but how about its quality? Contextualized practice in the classroom, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(1), 999–1026.Google Scholar
Sato, M. & Viveros, P. (2016). Interaction or collaboration? Group dynamics in the foreign language classroom. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 91–112). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schulz, R. A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 343–364.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (2003). Automaticity and second languages. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. H. (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 382–408). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 593–610). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sipple, L. (2017). The effects of peer interaction, form-focused instruction, and peer corrective feedback on the acquisition of grammar and vocabulary in L2 German. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University. https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/14444.Google Scholar
Sipple, L. & Jackson, C. N. (2015). Teacher vs. peer oral corrective feedback in the German language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 48(4), 688–705.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2008). Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17(2), 95–114.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2017). Sociocultural theory in the L2 classroom. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 69–84). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. and Seidlhofer, B. (eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In Doughty, C. and Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 61–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf, J. P. (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tognini, R. (2008). Interaction in languages other than English classes in Western Australian primary and secondary schools: Theory, practice and perceptions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia.Google Scholar
Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I. & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 149–169.Google Scholar
Toth, P. (2008). Teacher‐ and learner‐led discourse in task‐based grammar instruction: Providing procedural assistance for L2 morphosyntactic development. Language Learning, 58(2), 237–283.Google Scholar
van Compernolle, R. A. (2015). Interaction and second language development: A Vygotskian perspective. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. & Benati, A. (2010). Key terms in second language acquisition. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
van Popta, E., Kral, M., Camp, G., Martens, R. & Simons, R. (2017). Exploring the value of peer feedback in online learning for the provider. Educational Research Review, 20(1), 24–34.Google Scholar
Varonis, E. & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 71–90.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Y. & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121–142.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Y. & Swain, M. (2008). Perception of learner proficiency: Its impact on the interaction between an ESL learner and her higher and lower proficiency partners. Language Awareness, 17(2), 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2001). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 51(1), 303–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2011). Task effects on focus on form in synchronous computer‐mediated communication. Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 115–132.Google Scholar
Yoshida, R. (2008). Learners’ perception of corrective feedback in pair work. Foreign Language Annals, 41(3), 525–541.Google Scholar
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective-feedback types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 78–93.Google Scholar
Yoshida, R. (2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom? Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 293–314.Google Scholar
Young, A. & Tedick, D. (2016). Collaborative dialogue in a two-way Spanish/ English immersion classroom. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 135–160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zhao, H. (2010). Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: a comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assessing Writing, 15(1), 3−17.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×