Beliefs About Peer Interaction and

Peer Corrective Feedback: Efficacy

of Classroom Intervention
MASATOSHI SATO
Universidad Andres Bello
Department of English
Fernandez Concha 700, Las Condes
Santiago, Chile
Email: masatoshi.sato@unab.cl

This study investigates the beliefs of second language learners regarding peer interaction and peer
corrective feedback (CF) as well as the feasibility of a second language intervention, aimed at changing
those beliefs. The classroom intervention was designed to promote collaborative learning and to train
learners to provide CF to each other. Participants were university-level learners in 4 required English
classes in Japan (N ¼ 167), each assigned to 1 of 4 treatment conditions. While all experimental classes
were given peer interaction instruction, 2 classes were given CF training (prompts or recasts). Another
class served as the control group. Questionnaires were administered before and after the intervention
and selected learners (n ¼ 36) were interviewed. The quantitative (factor-analysis and matched-samples
t-tests) and qualitative (grounded theory methodology) analyses revealed that, while learners held
positive beliefs about peer interaction and peer CF from the onset, the intervention facilitated trust in
their classmates as learning resources, and those who were given CF training displayed an increased
willingness to and confidence in providing CF. Also, 2 classroom-specific variables emerged for the
intervention to be effective on language development: a collaborative classroom environment and
positive social relationships between learners.
Keywords: peer interaction; peer corrective feedback; classroom intervention; learner beliefs; factor
analysis; mixed methods

INVESTIGATING LEARNER BELIEFS REGARD- Finally, perception data provide information

ing second language (L2) instruction is of
value theoretically and pedagogically for several
reasons. First, learner beliefs are directly related
to their learning behaviours (Borg, 2003;
Grotjahn, 1991), which subsequently influence
learning outcomes (Mori, 1999). Therefore,
researching learner beliefs ultimately leads to
more effective teaching methods. Second, mis-
matches between teachers’ intentions and learn-
ers’ interpretation of those intentions may result
in negative effects on learning (Kim & Han, 2007;
Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005; Nunan, 1989).
The Modern Language Journal, 97, 3, (2013)
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12035.x
0026-7902/13/611–633 $1.50/0
© 2013 The Modern Language Journal
on language processing that is affected by L2
instruction such as corrective feedback (CF),
which is the focus of the present study.
Given the importance of examining learner
beliefs, the present study investigated the feasibil-
ity of a classroom-based second language acquisi-
tion (SLA) intervention and determined whether
this pedagogical intervention truly had ecological
validity. This is because, even when instruction
examined in SLA studies has proven to positively
affect L2 development, whether or not it can be
sustained in classroom practice entails another set
of questions. In other words, although the
effectiveness and feasibility of classroom instruc-
tion are often interdependently connected to
learners’ motivation (Bernaus & Gardner, 2008;
Dörnyei, 1994), there is no causality link between
them. On the one hand, research has revealed an
612
association between learner beliefs and proficiency,
leading to a prediction that if a learner believes
in the effectiveness of certain instruction, the
instruction may have positive impacts on his or her
L2 development (Mori, 1999; Peacock, 1999; Sawir,
2002; Schulz, 1996). On the other hand, there is an
argument that pedagogy that is not appreciated by
learners can still be effective (Berlin, 2002;
Wenden, 1986). Thus, both the effectiveness and
learner beliefs should be examined when imple-
menting an SLA intervention.
The classroom intervention examined in the
present study was designed to maximize peer
interaction activities by manipulating ways in
which L2 learners interact with each other. This
interaction has been proven to impact positively
on peer interaction patterns (Sato & Ballinger,
2012) and L2 development (Sato & Lyster, 2012).
The present study examines the feasibility of this
intervention relative to classroom dynamics,
focusing on learner beliefs about peer interaction
and corrective feedback between learners (hence-
forth, peer CF).
BELIEFS ABOUT TEACHER CORRECTIVE
FEEDBACK
In employing methods such as questionnaires,
interviews, and classroom observations, generally
with college-level foreign language learners,
research on teacher CF has revealed that learners
tend to prefer to be given CF when they make
errors (for reviews and meta-analyses of CF
effectiveness on L2 development, see Ellis,
2009; Ellis & Sheen, 2006; Li, 2010; Lyster &
Saito, 2010; Mackey & Goo, 2007; Nicholas,
Lightbown, & Spada, 2001; Sato, 2011). In
particular, Schulz (1996) reported that 90% of
learners in eight different foreign language
courses in the United States thought that CF
was imperative to L2 learning. In Cathcart and
Olsen’s (1976) study, the learners responded
almost unanimously that they wished to be
corrected, and the rate was much higher than
the teachers’ preference for providing CF. A.
Brown’s (2009) study supported this observation
namely that, whereas teachers want to maintain
communicativeness in their classes, students wish
to be given more CF. Specifically, Brown found
that the students think that a quality of effective
teachers is to be able to correct oral errors
immediately. The majority of high school stu-
dents in Jean and Simard’s (2011) study also
stated that they would like to “get their oral errors
corrected all the time” (p. 474). In the same vein,
Chenoweth et al. (1983) reported that learners
The Modern Language Journal 97 (2013)
indeed do not appreciate the absence of CF: 50%
of the respondents exhibited their concern that
they did not receive enough CF. In addition,
Oladejo (1993) reported that 80% of learners
disagreed with a questionnaire item that asked
about possible negative effects of CF: Constant error
correction could frustrate the learner and inhibit his
willingness to perform in the language (see also
Plonsky & Mills, 2006).
Although learner beliefs regarding CF are
unanimously positive across contexts, some stud-
ies have shown that the extent to which they have a
positive view of CF (defined under the framework
of grammar instruction) varies depending on
learners’ cultural backgrounds. For instance,
Schulz (2001) administered questionnaires to
teachers and students in the United States and in
Colombia and found that grammar instruction
was considered more important by teachers and
students in Colombia than by teachers and
students in the United States. She attributed
this result to (a) the learning background of
foreign language learners who were taught with
grammar–translation methods, (b) a mythical
belief passed on from the past, and (c) their own
learning experience in which they benefited from
explicit grammar instruction, including CF (see
also Hu & Lam, 2010; Loewen et al., 2009).
McCargar’s (1993) study, which compared beliefs
of English learners from various cultural back-
grounds (Indonesian, Chinese, Korean, Japanese,
Persian, Arabic, Hispanic, Thai, and American), is
noteworthy especially in relation to the learners in
the present study (i.e., university-level foreign
language learners in Japan). Among items in the
questionnaire was: Language teachers should correct
every student error. The statistical analyses revealed
that only the Japanese learners agreed mildly,
while other groups exhibited strong agreement.
In this regard, while Gass and Lewis (2007)
discussed linguistic environment as a variable
affecting CF beliefs, other possible reasons such as
socioeducational values, including a hierarchical
teacher–student relationship, have rarely been
discussed.
There are a few studies that reported learner
beliefs about the use of different types of CF and
the findings are mixed (for types of CF provided
by teachers, see Lyster, Saito, & Sato, 2013).
Brandl (1995) found that college-level learners of
German generally preferred the prompting types
of CF to the reformulating type of CF and this was
especially so with higher proficiency learners. A.
Brown (2009) compared first- and second-year
university students and found that more advanced
second-year students preferred indirect CF over
Masatoshi Sato
explicit error correction while first-year students
showed a preference for explicit CF. While there
seems to be a tendency that the higher a learner’s
proficiency is, the more he or she desires to be
given the chance to work independently on the
error, the beginner learners of Japanese in
Yoshida’s (2008a) study also stated that they
preferred to “work out correct answers them-
selves” (p. 89). Yet, Katayama (2007), with
beginner English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL)
learners at a Japanese college, found that
reformulating CF (i.e., recasts) was preferred to
prompting types of CF. It may be the case,
therefore, that learners’ preferences regarding
CF types vary depending on several factors such as
proficiency levels and learning contexts.
In sum, research on learner beliefs regarding
teacher CF indicates that L2 learners desire to be
corrected, although there is no consensus as to
how often they want to be corrected (Bang, 1999;
Oladejo, 1993). This supports van Lier’s (1988)
argument that language learners in classrooms
are not ordinary people in real-life situations who
might find it insulting to be corrected; that is,
their attitudes are attuned to learning (see also
Seedhouse, 1997). Research also seems to indi-
cate that attitudes toward CF may be affected by
learners’ cultural backgrounds and proficiency
levels. Thus, it may be the case that, unlike
patterns in grammatical development, research
on learner beliefs should not expect results that
are consistent across contexts or learners. Focus-
ing on Japanese learners of English, the present
study advances research on learner beliefs about
CF from the teacher and examines whether the
generally positive beliefs are observed in the
context of peer interaction.
BELIEFS ABOUT PEER INTERACTION AND
PEER CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK
Research has compared learner and teacher
beliefs about communicative language teaching,
grammar instruction, and CF. Other studies have
explored learners’ dispositions toward CF during
peer interaction from a sociocultural perspective,
focusing on the coconstruction of knowledge
and scaffolding that occurs during peer interac-
tion (e.g., Foster & Ohta, 2005; Ohta, 2001;
Storch, 2002; Swain & Lapkin, 1998). However,
how learners perceive peer interaction and/or CF
from their classmates has been underinvestigated.
When a classroom is seen as a social environment,
teacher CF could cause a learner to lose face
(Allwright, 1996), regardless of whether that
learner may wish to be corrected. As a result,
613
learners may try to avoid being corrected when
interacting with the teacher (Karp & Yoels, 1976).
Nonetheless, the finding that learners tend to
avoid situations where they may be given CF does
not necessarily mean (a) that they do not wish to
be given CF from the teacher, as reviewed above,
or (b) that they have the same tendency when they
interact with their classmates.
One of the few studies investigating beliefs
regarding peer interaction is Tulung (2008). Her
study of university-level EFL learners in Indonesia
found that during peer interaction activities these
learners (a) were more motivated than during
teacher-fronted lessons, (b) felt that they benefit-
ted from practicing with their peers, and (c) were
not afraid of making errors. Sato (2007), focusing
on university-level EFL learners in Japan, re-
ported that learners felt more comfortable during
peer interaction than when interacting with
native speakers and that they had more time to
formulate sentences. Therefore, regardless of
learning contexts, peer interaction may be
positively perceived by L2 learners. Yet, this claim
is far from conclusive due to the lack of research
on the topic.
Research on beliefs regarding peer CF is even
scarcer. This is simply because peer CF, especially
CF that entails corrective intention, rarely occurs,
although learners do give interactional feedback
to each other (Adams, 2007; Pica et al., 1996; Sato
& Lyster, 2007). In her data on stimulated recall
interviews with university-level learners of Japa-
nese, Yoshida (2008b) found that peer CF
effectiveness depends on the learners’ level of
satisfaction with their interaction. Specifically,
when learners were dissatisfied, feedback from
their classmates was misunderstood or discarded.
Also, one learner reported that she believed in
her partners’ metalinguistic feedback because he
sounded confident, which indicates learners’
uncertainty in their classmates’ feedback and
inconsistency in the effectiveness of peer CF.
Specific to peer CF is that learners are not only
receivers but also providers of CF. In this regard,
Philp, Walter, and Basturkmen’s (2010) study
revealed that the learners hesitated to give CF to
their partners because of (a) their proficiency
(e.g., readiness to correct as a learner), (b) task-
related discourses (e.g., interruption during a
role-play), and (c) social relationship (e.g., face-
saving). In general, it was shown that, although
the learners felt less anxious during peer interac-
tion compared to when interacting with the
instructor, they were reluctant to provide CF to
each other. Sato (2007) reported on the nature of
peer CF. In stimulated-recall interviews, he found
614
that most peer CF was unintentional; that is, peer
CF that occurred during communicative activities
was incidental without corrective intention. Of 17
peer CF instances, however, there was one case
where a learner reported that he gave feedback
with corrective intention. Ballinger (2013) com-
pared collaboration patterns and peer CF among
Grade 3/4 French immersion students and
revealed that more collaborative interaction
does not necessarily mean that learners give
more CF to each other. Ballinger suspected that
provision of CF may indicate either a collaborative
mindset or excessive corrective behaviours de-
pending on pair dynamics. In sum, research
indicates that the nature and effectiveness of peer
CF is both unstable and inconsistent due to the
fact that, in peer interaction, both the providers
and the receivers of CF are themselves learners.
Hence, research on peer interaction and peer
CF seems to point to the potential of explicit
instruction designed to teach learners both how
to collaborate and how to give CF to each other
(for teacher CF training, see Baleghizadeh &
Rezaei, 2010; Busch, 2010; Vásquez & Harvey,
2010). In so doing, learners may become aware of
the effectiveness of peer interaction and peer CF
by overcoming social obstacles including mistrust
in each other’s linguistic ability and hesitation in
providing CF due to their own L2 knowledge.
THE PRESENT STUDY
The present study draws on data from a larger
instructed-SLA study in which both the effective-
ness and feasibility of a classroom intervention
were examined. In the study, learners were given
instruction (a) to raise their awareness of the
effectiveness of peer interaction, and (b) on how
to provide CF to each other during meaning-
based, communicative peer interaction activities.
A series of examinations of the effectiveness of the
intervention has proven that it helps learners
improve accuracy and fluency (Sato & Lyster,
2012). In addition, it was shown that peer CF was a
teachable interaction strategy as demonstrated by
the increase in its frequency over time (Sato &
Ballinger, 2012). Nonetheless, given the potential
of the intervention for future classroom practice,
examining its feasibility is equally important.
Thus, in addition to investigating learner beliefs
regarding peer interaction and peer CF, the
change in their beliefs over the intervention
period was examined with a pre/post design. No
studies, to my knowledge, have explored the
impact of teaching L2 learners how to provide CF
to each other on those learners’ beliefs about peer
The Modern Language Journal 97 (2013)
interaction or peer CF. Taking into consideration
the design of this study, the following research
questions were formulated:
1. Prior to receiving CF training, how do
learners perceive L2 communication with
their classmates?
2. Prior to receiving CF training, how do
learners perceive CF from their classmates?
3. Does teaching learners how to provide CF to
each other affect their beliefs regarding peer
interaction and peer CF? If so, what are the
factors mediating the change?
METHODOLOGY
Context and Participants
This study was conducted in required English
classes at a university in Japan. The Japanese
learners of English in the present study lived in a
typical foreign language environment (teachers
and learners often share their first language and it
consequently becomes the language of instruc-
tion [Lluida, 2005]), were educated in traditional
foreign language classrooms (form-oriented,
primarily focusing on exam preparation materials
substantiated by grammar–translation methods
[Bardovi–Harlig & Dörnyei, 1998; Berns, 1990;
O’Donnell, 2005]), and followed learning pat-
terns that can be observed among many Asian L2
English learners (previous research has demon-
strated that Japanese EFL learners do not have
sufficient opportunities to be exposed to the
target language, neither in class nor outside of
class [Robinson, Sawyer, & Ross, 2001] and
Japan’s socioeducational environment consists
of a test-driven culture, which makes it difficult to
implement communicative lessons [Miyagi, Sato,
& Crump, 2009]). In addition, it is not rare to see
classes with more than 40 students (see Nolasco &
Arthur, 1990), which was the case in the present
study. This linguistic and educational environ-
ment notoriously produces learners who are
functional writers and readers, yet poor speakers
(Block, 2003). In the current study, a background
questionnaire, a modified version of the Lan-
guage Contact Profile developed by Freed et al.
(2004), was administered at the beginning of the
semester, which confirmed that no students had
had extensive exposure to English (e.g., living in a
bilingual household or abroad for a long time) or
had been taught English through the medium of
English. This was partly because high-proficiency
learners had been exempt from taking English
classes based on their TOEFL scores.
Masatoshi Sato
Participants were majoring in Economics/
Business, Human Development, or Biology and
were enrolled in one of four sections of a required
second-year English course (N ¼ 167; mean
age ¼ 19.5). Two of the classes were taught how
to provide CF to each other: Learners in the peer
interaction plus prompt class (PI–Prompt:
n ¼ 41) were taught how to provide prompts
and the peer interaction plus recast class (PI–
Recast: n ¼ 46) was taught how to give recasts.
Another class was given peer interaction instruc-
tion only (PI–Only: n ¼ 42). A fourth class served
as the control group (n ¼ 38). Therefore, the
design teased apart the change in beliefs regard-
ing (a) peer interaction, (b) peer CF, and (c)
types of peer CF caused by the intervention.
Classroom Intervention
The classes were taught by two male teachers.
One of them was an American who had over
20 years of teaching experience. The other (the
author) was Japanese with five years of teaching
experience and native-like English proficiency.
Conducted entirely in English, each class was held
for 1.5 hours per week over a 10-week period.
During each class, an average of 60 minutes was
devoted to the intervention described in the
following sections (totaling 10 hours).
Peer Interaction Instruction. At the beginning
of the semester, learners in the experimental
groups (PI–Prompt, PI–Recast, and PI–Only)
were given an activity designed to raise their
awareness of peer interaction and to help them
understand its potential for L2 development.
First, students were given a Learning Styles
Checklist (adapted from D. Brown, 2001) in
which they described their own learning styles.
Each question presented a learning behaviour:
The behaviours were linked to psychological and
psycholinguistic theories that explain active
participation in communication that helps develop
spontaneous production skills (see Dörnyei,
1997). While the list included general behaviours,
such as taking a risk when speaking and becoming
more confident in L2 skills, the primary aim of
this activity was to have learners realize that
interacting with their classmates is helpful in
fostering their language skills. After they had
individually completed the checklist, they formed
small groups and discussed the feelings underly-
ing their responses. During the discussion time,
they were encouraged to speak in Japanese to
ensure that they could express their feelings
accurately. After sharing their feelings in groups,
615
their responses were elicited and discussed in
class. Finally, the instructors explained why
certain behaviours were beneficial for developing
speaking skills.
Beginning in the second week, fluency-focused
peer interaction activities were administered for
approximately 40 minutes every week. In these
meaning-based activities (see Williams, 1999),
learners worked in pairs and changed their
partners multiple times. Each time they had
new partners, they needed to tell the new partners
what their previous partners had said, all in the
same amount of time. This meant that although
the delivery time did not change, the amount of
information they needed to communicate kept
increasing, pushing them to speak faster as the
activity developed (for similar activities, see de
Jong & Perfetti, 2011; Nation, 1989; Wood, 2001).
In this type of activity, (a) learners’ attention is
drawn to meaning instead of form because they
have different partners every time and they have
to convey the message first, (b) learners develop
confidence as they repeat the same sentences
several times, and (c) learners engage in repeated
practice which facilitates the automatization
process (DeKeyser, 2001).
Corrective Feedback Instruction. The present
study followed a well-established instructional
framework whereby a learning strategy is taught
through a sequence of preparation, practice, and
expansion (see the CALLA Instructional Frame-
work [Chamot et al., 1999]). These three stages
were correspondingly designed as Modeling,
Practice, and Use-in-Context in this study. Two
types of CF were taught; namely, prompts and
recasts, based on (a) the differential effects of
those CF types on L2 processing (Ammar &
Spada, 2006; Ellis, Loewen, & Erlam, 2006;
Lyster, 2004; Yang & Lyster, 2010) and (b) the
mixed findings of learner perceptions depending
on CF types (A. Brown, 2009; Katayama, 2007;
Yoshida, 2008a). These two can be best distin-
guished by their characteristics: (a) withholding
correct forms while offering learners an opportu-
nity to self-correct (i.e., prompts); or (b) provid-
ing the correct form by reformulating the error
(i.e., recasts). Thus, in the recast class, students
were told that CF is a reaction to grammatical
errors and gives the correct version. In contrast,
students in the prompt group were told that the
role of CF is to let the partner know that he or she
made an error and to give her/him a chance to
correct.
In the Modeling phase, which lasted for the first
three weeks, the two teachers demonstrated a
616
mini role play in which they provided CF to each
other (either prompts or recasts, depending on
the group). The second stage was called Practice
where learners were given a role play scenario
designed exclusively to have them practice CF. In
addition to a scenario, they were given a list of
error sentences that they had to include during
the role play, on which they practiced giving CF.
Although learners in the PI–Only group did not
receive either the Modeling or the Practice
lessons, they were given a similar role play activity
in which their attention was drawn to the same
grammatical features as the ones in the scenarios.
In the final stage, called Use-in-Context, students
in the CF groups used the technique in a more
authentic communicative context, that is, the
fluency-focused activity given to the PI–Prompt,
PI–Recast, and PI–Only groups (see the previous
section). In sum, students in the CF groups
engaged in the sequence of Modeling, Practice,
and Use-in-Context, whereas the PI–Only group
was given only the Use-in-Context activity without
any CF instruction embedded (see Figure 1).
Data Collection and Analysis
Overall Design. The present study employed a
mixed methods design for data collection and
analysis for several reasons (see Creswell & Plano
FIGURE 1
Outline of the Intervention and Data Collection
PI–Prompt PI–Recast
(n = 41) (n = 46)
Pre-Questionnaire
• Modeling—10 min (Weeks 1–3)
• Practice—20 min (Weeks 2–10)
• Use-in-Context—40 min (Weeks 1–10)
Post-Questionnaire
Interview (n = 36)
The Modern Language Journal 97 (2013)
Clark, 2007; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010). First,
the intervention was novel both for the learners in
the present study and researchers. Thus, the
nature of the study was exploratory calling for a
design that provides “the most informative,
complete, balanced, and useful research results”
(Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007, p. 129).
Second, research concerning learner beliefs has
employed different approaches (i.e., quantitative
and qualitative) and reported conflicting find-
ings. This substantiated the use of a mixed
methods design to better understand complex
phenomena of learner psychology by triangulat-
ing findings from multiple data sources. In the
present study, two data sources were used:
questionnaires to obtain quantitative information
(Dörnyei, 2003) and semi-structured interviews to
triangulate the results (De Groot, 2002).
Procedure. First, the questionnaire was admin-
istered to the students in all classes at the
beginning of the semester before the intervention
(N ¼ 167). They were told that (a) it was not a
test, (b) their answers were not related to their
grades, (c) they were not required to identify
themselves, and (d) their obtained responses
would be treated with absolute confidentiality. At
the end of the semester, the same questionnaire
was administered again in order to examine how
the intervention influenced beliefs regarding
PI–Only Control
(n = 42) (n = 38)
• Role-play activity with the
grammar points drawn
attention—20 min (Weeks
no
2–10) intervention
• Fluency activity—40 min
(i.e., Use-in-Context
without CF training: Weeks
1–10)
Masatoshi Sato
peer interaction and peer CF. In addition, 36
learners were interviewed after completing the
post-questionnaire.
Questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of
three sections totalling 27 questions with 6-point
Likert-scales (1 ¼ completely disagree; 2 ¼ most-
ly disagree; 3 ¼ slightly disagree; 4 ¼ slightly
agree; 5 ¼ mostly agree; 6 ¼ completely agree).
The questionnaire was written in Japanese. While
the first two sections elicited beliefs regarding
classroom formats and activities especially in
relation to their communicative orientations
(e.g., I like speaking classes in which I communicate
with the teacher in English; I think communicating in
English will improve my speaking skills), the third
section of the questionnaire focused on commu-
nication between learners and feedback from
their classmates (e.g., I think communication
activities with my classmates give me more chance to
practice speaking; I think students should help each other
by pointing out each other’s grammar errors), which is
the focus of the present study.
Interviews. While questionnaires provide a
large amount of information about the matter
of interest, they pose reliability issues: (a)
Learners may not answer the questions seriously;
(b) they may misinterpret or misread the ques-
tions; (c) it is unknown how much they deviate
from the truth; and (d) the questionnaires
themselves may influence their beliefs
(Alderson, 1992; Winne, Jamieson–Noel, &
Muis, 2002). In order to compensate for these
weaknesses, semi-structured interviews were con-
ducted in which learners were encouraged to
elaborate on a set of prepared guiding questions
and prompts. This methodology, because of its
open-ended and exploratory nature, allowed for
the emergence of new dimensions that otherwise
may have been buried in the questionnaire data
(see Maxwell, 2005; Seidman, 2006).
Twelve learners from each of the three
experimental classes were randomly chosen for
the interviews with the researcher. Each interview
lasted about one hour and was conducted in
Japanese. The interviews contained some general
questions pertaining to peer interaction and peer
CF (items from the questionnaire), and more
specific follow-up questions were formed depend-
ing on how learners reacted (see Merriam, 1998).
Quantitative Analysis. The questionnaire data
were statistically analyzed, using version 17.0 of
SPSS. First, in order to answer the first and second
research questions, which asked about beliefs
regarding peer interaction and peer CF, an
617
exploratory factor analysis (principal component
analysis) was performed. This analysis was under-
taken in order to find patterns in the answers,
which were shown as factor loadings that have
high agreement rates among the learners (Snook
& Gorsuch, 1989; but see critisims for treating
Likert scale data as interval data in Norman,
2010). During the initial data screening using a
correlation matrix with all question items, ques-
tions that were not correlated with other items
were excluded (see Field, 2005, for rationales for
data screening). Neither multicollinearity nor
singularity issues (correlation coefficients higher
than .90) were observed in the data set. During
the factor extraction process, the number of
factors was confirmed by (a) selecting factors with
an eigenvalue larger than 1 (i.e., Kaiser’s criteri-
on) and (b) visually examining the Scree plot
(see Ledesma & Valero–Mora, 2007). Both of
these methods indicated four factors that will be
explained in the result section. The loaded
factors were then compared before and after
the intervention by using matched-samples t-tests
(two-tailed) to answer the last research question
pertaining to the effects of the intervention. Cases
where learners did not complete the question-
naire or did not take the post-questionnaire were
excluded from the analyses.
Qualitative Analysis. The interview data were
first transcribed (36 hours in total). Grounded
theory methodology (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) was
employed so as to reveal “what is happening” in
the data (Glaser, 1978, p. 57). From the in-depth
interview data, several coding themes were
identified, including English education in Japan,
communication with teachers, usefulness of English in
the future. Among these coding categories were
peer interaction and peer CF. The data from these
two themes will be used to interpret the results
from the statistical analyses.
RESULTS
Beliefs About Peer Interaction and Peer Corrective
Feedback
The principal component analysis yielded a
KMO static value of .69, meaning that the patterns
of correlations are relatively compact and, thus,
the analysis yields distinct and reliable factors
(Hutcheson & Sofroniou, 1999). Also, Bartlett’s
Test of Sphericity was significant (p < .001),
indicating that there are relationships between
the items and a factor analysis is appropriate for
the data set.
618 The Modern Language Journal 97 (2013)

Four factors were extracted from the analysis
and the total variance explained by these factors
was 70.3%. The variances for each factor and
variable as well as the modes of each question item
are shown in Table 1. The four factors seemed to
indicate two main topics that the questionnaire
was designed to elicit, that is, Peer Interaction and
Peer CF. Each factor was titled: Factor 1 ¼ Peer
Interaction #1; Factor 2 ¼ Peer Interaction #2;
Factor 3 ¼ Peer CF #1; Factor 4 ¼ Peer CF #2).
The factor loadings will be analyzed more closely
in the discussion section.
Prompt significantly changed over time, t
(37) ¼  2.40, p ¼ .021, d ¼ .79.
In summary, the matched-samples t-tests re-
vealed that the intervention caused some changes
in the learners’ beliefs over time including
significant increases in the following factors: (a)
Factors 1 and 2 in the PI groups, (b) Factors 1 and
4 in the CF groups, and (c) Factor 1 in the PI–
Prompt group. Table 2 shows the means and the
standard deviations of the four factors of each
class separately, and Table 3 displays those of the
PI classes and CF classes.

Effects of the Intervention
Matched-samples t-tests were performed in
several layers. First, in order to reveal the impact
of the intervention on learner beliefs about peer
interaction, the questionnaire data from the three
experimental classes together (PI–Prompt, PI–
Recast, and PI–Only) were compared before and
after the intervention. This analysis yielded
significant differences with respect to pre- and
posttest results for Factor 1, t(109) ¼  2.36,
p ¼ .020, d ¼ .45, and for Factor 2, t
(108) ¼  2.15, p ¼ .033, d ¼ .41. Next, to reveal
the impact of the CF instruction, the data of the
two CF groups (PI–Prompt and PI–Recast) were
combined. It was revealed that the pre- and
posttest scores were significantly different in
Factor 1, t(75) ¼  2.35, p ¼ .022, d ¼ .54, and
in Factor 4, t(74) ¼  2.21, p ¼ .030, d ¼ .51.
Finally, to check for differences within the two CF
groups over time, their scores were analyzed
separately, which showed that only Factor 1 in PI–
DISCUSSION
Beliefs About Peer Interaction: Pre-Intervention
Closer examination of the peer interaction
factors revealed that the questions in Factor 1
tapped into the learners’ feelings about peer
interaction, while Factor 2 is more related to their
beliefs in its effectiveness on L2 development.
The mean of Factor 1 was 3.71 (3 ¼ slightly
disagree; 4 ¼ slightly agree) and thus indicates a
slight tendency toward positive feelings; that is,
the learners enjoy peer interaction activities to
some extent. As previous research investigated
beliefs regarding peer interaction either by (a)
comparing them with learner–teacher (or native
speakers) interaction or (b) interviewing learners
but without questionnaires, this result is difficult
to interpret. Nonetheless, the interview data help
understand the quantitative results in a more
nuanced way.
When the learners were asked during the
interview how much they liked communicating

TABLE 1
Factors Extracted From Component Principal Analysis

Factors and questions Modes Variances

Factor 1 (peer interaction #1) .28
Q13: I like pair activities with my classmates. 4 .79
Q14: I like small group (3-5 students) activities. 5 .90
Q15: I enjoy communication activities with my classmates. 4 .85
Factor 2 (peer interaction #2) .18
Q16: I think communication activities with my classmates give me more chance to practice speaking. 5 .83
Q18: I think communicating with my classmates will help me develop my speaking skills. 4 .88
Factor 3 (peer corrective feedback #1) .14
Q19: If my classmate points out my grammar errors, I would believe the correction. 4 .50
Q20: I do not feel uncomfortable when my classmate points out my grammar errors. 4 .83
Q24: I think students should help each other by pointing out each other’s grammar errors. 5 .65
Factor 4 (peer corrective feedback #2) .11
Q25: I feel like helping my classmate when he/she makes a grammar error. 4 .67
Q26: When my classmate makes an error, I can point it out. 3 .87
Q27: When my classmate makes an error, I can provide a correction. 3 .87
Masatoshi Sato 619
TABLE 2
Means and Standard Deviations of the Factors of All Classes

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

pre post pre post pre post pre post
Groups M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
PI–Prompt (n ¼ 38) 3.7 1.0 4.0 1.1 4.3 .9 4.6 .9 4.2 .6 4.2 .6 3.3 .8 3.6 .9
PI–Recast (n ¼ 38) 4.1 .8 4.2 .8 4.4 .8 4.5 .7 4.3 .5 4.2 .6 3.4 .6 3.7 .7
PI–Only (n ¼ 34) 3.5 1.1 3.5 1.0 3.7 1.0 4.0 1.0 4.1 .6 4.2 .6 3.1 .9 3.0 .9
Control (n ¼ 34) 3.6 1.0 3.8 .9 4.1 .9 4.0 1.0 4.1 .5 4.1 .6 3.4 .7 3.2 .9

TABLE 3
Means and Standard Deviations of the Factors of Peer Interaction (PI–Prompt, PI–Recast, and PI–Only) and
Corrective Feedback (PI–Prompt and PI–Recast) Classes Combined

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

pre post pre post pre post pre post
Groups M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Peer Interaction (n ¼ 110) 3.7 1.0 4.0 1.0 4.2 .9 4.4 .9 4.2 .6 4.2 .6 3.3 .8 3.5 .9
Corrective Feedback (n ¼ 76) 3.9 .9 4.1 .9 4.3 .8 4.5 .8 4.2 .5 4.2 .6 3.4 .7 3.6 .8

with their classmates at the beginning of the
semester, none of them expressed any psycholog-
ical barrier to doing peer interaction activities.
Rather, they reported that they did not feel
awkward about this from the very onset. Their
accepting feelings of peer interaction seem to be
related to the belief about their own English level
as well as their fear of making errors in front of the
other students during teacher-centered lessons.
The following excerpts show that they are afraid
of making errors with teachers but that this filter is
lowered when they interact with their peers (all
names appearing in this article are pseudonyms
and the original excerpts in Japanese are included
in the Appendix):
EXCERPT 1
When I speak with the teacher one-on-one, my
capacity of resistance to mistakes is totally different.
I feel it is ok to make mistakes when I communicate
with my classmates. (Yuta, PI–Recast)
EXCERPT 2
If everyone else in the class was listening to me, I won’t
be able to speak because I feel so nervous about
making mistakes. But, during communication with
my classmates, I think it is unavoidable to make
mistakes and we both know this. So, I feel more
comfortable. (Akemi, PI–Only)
interaction (Gass & Varonis, 1989; Sato &
Lyster, 2007). What the present study adds is
the underlying reason for feeling comfortable;
that is, they feel that they do not need to worry
about making errors when interacting with their
classmates.
Nonetheless, there are several conditions for
learners to support peer interaction activities,
which seem to explain the inconclusive quanti-
tative result. The first condition is related to the
classroom environment. Although about half of
the learners expressed strong positive opinions
about communicating with their classmates,
they also expressed that the class needs to be
set up as a place where they are required to
communicate with their peers. Only when this
condition is met, do they feel comfortable doing
so. The second condition is almost uncontrolla-
ble: 20 out of 36 learners (PI–Prompt: 7; PI–
Recast: 5; PI–Only: 8) reacted to the question
concerning their feeling toward peer interac-
tion by stating that it depends on whom they
interact with. On the one hand, there were
learners who said they did not enjoy speaking
with quiet classmates:
EXCERPT 3
I enjoy speaking with my classmates very much but not
with quiet ones. (Chie, PI–Prompt)

These data confirm previous research that has On the other hand, there are students, like Itsuka,
addressed learners’ comfort level during peer who would rather avoid talkative classmates:
620
EXCERPT 4
Sometimes, there are students who can speak English,
right? When this happens, I feel guilty to work with
her. (Itsuka, PI–Prompt)
These two conditions well represent the reality
of classroom dynamics. The learners give us an
important message about how vital it is for the
teacher to construct an environment where
they feel like engaging in communicative tasks;
otherwise, peer interaction intervention may not
work. Also, the data reveal a weakness of peer
interaction in that it is sensitive to social relation-
ships between learners.
The mean of Factor 2 (4.16) was clearer than
Factor 1, indicating that the learners, even before
they were instructed to interact with each other,
thought that interacting with their classmates is
indeed important and helpful for improving
their speaking skills. This result confirms preced-
ing research (Katayama, 2007; Schulz, 2001;
Tulung, 2008), this time by focusing on Japanese
learners of English. It is interesting that some
learners explained that their inability to commu-
nicate fluently is actually the reason for peer
interaction effectiveness, as is shown here by the
comments by communicative partners Kippei and
Yuuna.
EXCERPT 5
I think that I think harder when speaking with my
classmates. I think about what I want to say and also
what my partner wants to say. This is the same for him.
When I communicate with the teacher, he makes his
sentences comprehensible and that’s it. (Kippei,
PI–Only)
EXCERPT 6
If neither of us speaks, our conversation goes
nowhere. (Yuuna, PI-Only)
That is, the learners identified the effectiveness
of peer interaction in the amount of language
production it generates. Almost unanimously
(34 out of 36), the interviewees observed that
they speak more during peer interaction com-
pared to teacher-centered classes:
EXCERPT 7
I think that talking about nothing like what
happened today is important. It is more practical
and American people talk about nothing too,
don’t they? I think that children develop language
The Modern Language Journal 97 (2013)
skills in this way too so. .. I think that communicating
without worrying about grammar in a smiley and
friendly environment is important. (Kazuhiko, PI–
Prompt)
EXCERPT 8
I am Japanese so I feel shy to speak in front of
people. If my classmates are listening while I am
speaking with my teacher, I will think too much
about vocabulary and what I say will be filtered a
lot. Then, I will speak much less compared to when
I communicate with my classmates. (Kentaro, PI–
Recast)
EXCERPT 9
I think that when I communicate with the teacher,
Japanese comes up first. Then, I make sure that it is
translated right into English. Then, I will check
grammars. At last, I speak. It is so systematically
restricted. But, when I speak with my classmates, I just
speak a lot. (Yuta, PI–Recast)
EXCERPT 10
I definitely think that communication between
students is better because there is language flying
around [the classroom] 20 times more than when one
student is communicating with the teacher. (Masa-
hito, PI–Only)
From these comments, it seems that the
learners are highly aware of the fact that if
one wants to improve speaking skills, he or she
needs to practice speaking—a fact that is unfor-
tunately often ignored by approaches to L2
instruction commonly employed in many foreign
language classes. This conforms to expectations
based on notions of transfer-appropriate process-
ing, whereby knowledge acquired during the
course of learning transfers most to similar
situations; thus, learning conditions should re-
semble real-world situations (Lightbown, 2008;
Lyster & Sato, 2013; Morris, Bransford, &
Franks, 1977; Segalowitz, 2000). These results
also support the practice effect on L2 develop-
ment. Psychologists and some SLA researchers
have argued that repeated practice is necessary
for developing procedural knowledge (Anderson,
1983; DeKeyser, 2007; Lyster & Sato, 2013).
The learners in the present study confirmed
that peer interaction provides much more oppor-
tunity for production practice. Akie’s comment
explicitly addresses this point:
Masatoshi Sato
EXCERPT 11
I don’t have any chance to speak English so I think
speaking with someone itself is the most important
thing. Speaking alone doesn’t make sense either. This
is communication, isn’t it? (Akie, PI–Prompt)
In summary, the interview data corroborated the
questionnaire data collected at the beginning of
the semester. First, in regard to Factor 1, although
learners exhibited positive feelings toward peer
interaction, these feelings were conditional. That
is, classroom-specific variables (i.e., how the
class is set up and social relationships between
learners) can negatively affect their beliefs. These
attitudes were reflected in the mean score of
3.71 on feelings of peer interaction. In terms of
Factor 2, which is related to learners’ beliefs in the
effectiveness of peer interaction, the qualitative
data revealed that they believed that peer
interaction is indeed helpful for L2 development,
which was substantiated by their belief (and
certainly a fact) that they speak more and
thus practice more when they interact with each
other.
Beliefs About Peer Corrective Feedback:
Pre-Intervention
The means of the two CF factor loadings were:
Factor 3 ¼ 4.16; Factor 4 ¼ 3.33. In general,
Factor 3 seems to be related to attitudes toward
the reception of CF from classmates, whereas the
questions in Factor 4 are related to attitudes
toward the provision of CF. The first question in
Factor 3 was Question 19 (If my classmate points out
my grammar errors, I would believe the correction)
whose mean was 3.92. This result indicates that
the learners in the present study had a certain
trust in their classmates’ grammatical knowledge.
It is interesting to compare this result with
Yoshida’s (2008b) data in which learners ex-
pressed confusion and frustration toward peer CF
because (a) they did not believe in the accuracy of
their classmates’ CF, and (b) they did not
understand the nature of the errors on which
they were given CF. Katayama (2007) also
reported that learners think that their classmates
are an unreliable learning source to some extent.
Whereas the learners in both Yoshida (2008b)
and Katayama (2007) were beginner learners, the
participants in the present study all had had
compulsory English education with grammar-
translation methods for a minimum of seven
years. This may explain why they trusted their
classmates’ corrections. Tomohiro’s comment
621
seems to represent their general understanding
of their language abilities.
EXCERPT 12
Before we studied this feedback thing, I couldn’t even
imagine that I would make such stupid mistakes. If we
were writing, we would definitely get it right, like past
tense and third-personal singular –s. But, when I am
listening, I sometimes notice [errors] so I think
it is good that we help each other. (Tomohiro,
PI–Prompt)
The other two questions in Factor 3 tapped into
attitudes toward peer CF directly: Question 20
(I do not feel uncomfortable when my classmate points
out my grammar errors) and Question 24 (I think
students should help each other by pointing out each
other’s grammar errors). The means of those
questions were 4.20 and 4.37, respectively, indi-
cating a clear tendency that learners wanted to be
corrected even before they were taught how to
provide CF to each other. Based on the literature
on teacher CF (e.g., McCargar, 1993), studies that
compared learner beliefs about teacher and peer
CF (e.g., Yoshida, 2010), and the cultural
background of the learners in the present study
that conflicts with the philosophy of communica-
tive language teaching (see Harumi, 2011;
Yashima, 2002), it was postulated that they would
feel uncomfortable or unfavourable to being
corrected by their classmates. However, the
results clearly indicate the opposite and they are
comparable to findings from teacher CF; that is,
learners indeed want to be corrected, even when
CF is given by their classmates.
This positive attitude toward peer CF is further
substantiated by the interview data. Although
some learners expressed a lack of ease in being
given CF depending on their partners and the
necessity of the class set-up to be conducive, both
of which were the case for peer interaction as well,
they all agreed that peer CF is psychologically
acceptable and effective for their language
improvement, as revealed by these comments:
EXCERPT 13
Even if you know the grammar, if you don’t notice
[mistakes], it is useless. In this sense, I think feedback
is important. (Takuya, PI–Prompt)
EXCERPT 14
There is no problem to be corrected. When I am given
feedback, I am like ‘oh, I made a mistake.’ So, I think
622
that correcting my mistakes in this way is important.
Otherwise, I would never notice. (Yuki, PI–Prompt)
EXCERPT 15
I think feedback from teachers and from my class-
mates are the same. The thing is that I don’t notice
[mistakes] on my own. It is like sports. The way I
improve is that I try not to repeat the same mistake
and I practice more. (Norio, PI–Recast)
As can be seen, the learners (35 out of 36) thought
that they would not notice errors in their
production on their own. This is particularly
interesting given the fact that the learners in the
present study had a high level of grammatical
knowledge. That is, they did know that they had
grammatical knowledge but poor speaking skills,
yet they did not know that they would make simple
grammatical mistakes until they were given CF. In
addition, as their beliefs about peer interaction
activities showed, many learners attributed their
belief in peer CF to its frequency. That is, by
comparing peer interaction with teacher-centered
lessons, they said that they would have more
chances to notice their errors by working together.
Factor 4 included three questions: Question 25
(I feel like helping my classmate when he/she makes a
grammar error), 26 (When my classmate makes an
error, I can point it out), and 27 (When my classmate
makes an error, I can provide a correction), all of which
concerned their beliefs as to whether or not they
think they can actually do what they believe is
effective, that is, willingness and confidence to
give CF to their classmates. Interestingly, the
means indicated a negative tendency (Q
25 ¼ 3.85; Q 26 ¼ 3.11; Q 27 ¼ 3.01). The
qualitative data revealed that regardless of the
group they were assigned to (i.e., prompts or
recasts), they generally expressed their concern
about breaking the flow of communication and
hurting their partners’ feelings. The following
excerpts show such beliefs:
EXCERPT 16
When I talk to another student who speaks a lot, I
don’t feel like interrupting. I feel bad doing that. I
think communication would stop. I don’t notice
[errors] quickly so the conversation is ahead already.
Timing is difficult. Don’t you think you would feel
offended if you were told that you made a mistake
much later? I do. (Chie, PI–Prompt)
EXCERPT 17
Some feedback can be given during the sentence and
some need to wait until the sentence finishes. The
The Modern Language Journal 97 (2013)
latter version is difficult in terms of timing. I wait to
see what comes next. (Toshifumi, PI–Prompt)
EXCERPT 18
Japanese people wouldn’t do that. That’s not our
culture. I think it is rude. Well, if it is required to do so
in the class, it is a totally different story, though. (Ikki,
PI–Recast)
Their concerns about interfering with the flow of
communication is reminiscent of the findings
pertaining to teachers’ beliefs about CF. For
example, the teachers in Yoshida’s (2008a) study
chose a certain type of CF “to avoid socially
embarrassing the learners” (p. 90). In addition,
this view of CF resembles the claim that CF should
not be given due to the possible psychologically
detrimental effect (Truscott, 1999).
Nonetheless, further analyses revealed that
there is a significant mismatch between this
distrust in the provision of CF and actual practice.
The interviewees were subsequently asked whether
or not giving and/or receiving CF actually stopped
communication. All the learners who were asked
this question said it did not. More precisely, they
reported that they could come back to the topic of
conversation promptly, and these responses were
made by learners in both the PI–Prompt and
PI–Recast groups.
EXCERPT 19
Well, actually, we always recovered pretty quickly.
Mmm? Wait. So, doesn’t that mean that feedback
actually doesn’t disrupt communication?! (Sumiko,
PI–Prompt)
EXCERPT 20
First, I thought CF would stop conversation. But,
actually, it didn’t. I was surprised in this sense.
(Daichi, PI–Recast)
These results are supportive of some classroom
observation studies that investigated teacher CF,
revealing that teacher CF does not break the flow
of communication (Ellis, Basturkmen, &
Loewen, 2001; Lyster & Ranta, 1997). Although
the present study does not report actual interac-
tion data, learners’ verbal reports indicate
that peer CF does not disrupt communication
either.
In sum, analyses combining the quantitative
and qualitative results revealed that (a) learners
are not afraid of making errors during peer
Masatoshi Sato
interaction, which leads to substantially more
production than when they interact with the
teacher; (b) they believe that communicating with
their classmates is effective for improving their
speaking skills; (c) they were not resistant to
receiving CF from their classmates; (d) they
believed that CF is helpful regardless of the
interlocutor (i.e., teachers or classmates); and
(e) providing CF is not an easy task due to possible
negative psychological effects on their partners
and disruption of the communicative flow.
Importantly, all of these findings seem to be
susceptible to classroom-specific factors, that is,
the classroom environment and social relation-
ships between learners. Hence, it seems crucial
that peer interaction and peer CF instruction are
delivered in a way that convinces learners that
collaboratively helping each other is important
for improving their L2; otherwise, peer interac-
tion and peer CF may even be detrimental at least
in terms of learner beliefs, which will be further
discussed in the following section.
Effects of the Intervention
The first reaction when the interviewees were
asked about their general opinions of the classes
was related to the fact that they had not had any
real speaking classes prior to the intervention.
More than half of the learners stated that they
were surprised by the fact that they and their
classmates could actually produce English and
communicate with each other in English. This
impression seems to be reflected in the statistical
results showing significant increase in Factors 1
(d ¼ .45) and 2 (d ¼ .41) over time that was
observed in the classes that received peer
interaction instruction. Though the effect sizes
were medium (Volker, 2006), the change is
important especially because, as discussed in the
previous section, from the onset, the learners did
not have negative feelings toward peer interaction
(Factor 1), and they thought peer interaction was
helpful for their language development (Fac-
tor 2). The following excerpts reflect such
changes:
EXCERPT 21
Things are totally different. At the beginning, we
weren’t so sure what to do so we just did the tasks and
stopped talking. But, as weeks passed, I had a lot of
moments like ‘oh, you were thinking like that!’ and
we often went over the three minutes and kept
talking. We started to speak a lot more. (Kazuhiko,
PI–Prompt)
623
EXCERPT 22
As the time passed, my classmates became cooperative
and I liked it a lot. I felt that we were studying
together. (Akie, PI–Prompt)
EXCERPT 23
At the beginning, I was wishing to get the credit
without speaking at all. But, now, I actually want to
talk. I was so surprised to know that I actually could
speak [English] and that my classmates also can speak
English. I feel more confident and less awkward to
speak English now. (Yuta, PI–Recast)
EXCERPT 24
I think things have changed. I think the speed of
producing words got faster. The process of thinking
and translating from Japanese to English got faster.
(Kippei, PI–Only)
As indicated above, the intervention that included
the peer interaction–awareness activity and fluency-
focused activity where learners constantly
changed their conversation partners brought
positive changes to their beliefs. This is an
encouraging result considering that learner
beliefs are ultimately related to developmental
outcomes (see Sato & Lyster, 2012). What is more
interesting is their belief about their L2 process-
ing. Many said that the speed of putting their
thoughts into spontaneous production had in-
creased. This belief may have helped them to gain
confidence in their spoken language and thus to
engage in more practice. Thus, combining the
quantitative (i.e., significant increase for Factors 1
and 2 from pre- to posttest) and qualitative data, it
can be argued that the intervention succeeded in
facilitating the learners’ positive beliefs regarding
peer interaction by confirming that what they
believed was in fact true. Furthermore, the results
support the strength of peer interaction. That is,
peer interaction activities provide learners with
plenty of opportunities to engage in contextual-
ized, controlled practice.
In order to examine changes in beliefs about
peer CF, the two CF classes were combined and
the mean scores before and after the intervention
were compared. The comparisons detected a
significant difference for Factor 1 (feelings of
peer interaction). It may be the case, therefore,
that the CF training had a positive impact on their
beliefs about peer interaction. As the interview
data indicated, the learners became gradually
more engaged in the paired activity and the fact
624
that they had been instructed to give CF to each
other may have added extra motivation to their
interaction. Nonetheless, Factor 2, which was
about their beliefs in the effectiveness of peer
interaction, did not yield significance. Combining
these two results, it can be claimed that peer
interaction became somewhat more enjoyable
due to the intervention, building on a learner
belief at the beginning of the study that peer
interaction was important for language learning.
The statistical analysis did not yield a significant
difference for Factor 3 either. Not only was the
comparison nonsignificant but there was actually
no change at all over time: from 4.22 to 4.22. This
result may not be surprising given that they
thought peer CF was important at the beginning,
which is indeed comparable to the result of Factor
2. In other words, the instruction implemented in
the present study was not necessary to change
their beliefs. Nevertheless, it is important to point
out that understanding and feeling one’s own
language development is a tall order. Although
their accuracy and fluency in fact improved (Sato
& Lyster, 2012), it should not be expected that the
learners notice that improvement after only three
months. With a longer instructional period, this
result might have changed.
Nonetheless, the statistical comparison yielded
significant difference for Factor 4. This factor was
related to learners’ beliefs regarding the provi-
sion of CF. More precisely, this factor included
two main themes: willingness to provide CF and
confidence in doing so. The results, therefore,
indicate that the learners who received CF
training became keener on correcting their
classmates’ errors. At the same time, they gained
confidence in providing their classmates with CF.
In fact, their CF provision increased over time
during the semester (see Sato & Ballinger, 2012).
The present data, therefore, add a psychological
aspect to their behaviours. When asked to reflect
on peer CF, Shinichi reported:
EXCERPT 25
At some point, I stopped hesitating [when I wanted to
give CF]. Also, I stopped hesitating to speak because I
started to believe that my classmate would help me
when I make mistakes. (Shinichi, PI–Prompt)
This excerpt documents that the learners started
to believe in their classmates and rely on them as a
learning source. In other words, their interaction
became more collaborative and thus more
conducive to L2 learning (see Ballinger, 2013;
Foster & Ohta, 2005; Philp, Walter, Basturkmen,
The Modern Language Journal 97 (2013)
2010; Storch, 2002; Swain & Lapkin, 2002).
Furthermore, the CF training resulted in an
increase in learners’ awareness of grammatical
features. Yumi reported that her attention
changed over time:
EXCERPT 26
I started noticing mistakes when my classmates were
speaking. This had never happened to me before. I
started noticing mistakes in my own speaking as well.
(Yumi, PI–Recast)
Given also the positive psycholinguistic effects of
CF on L2 development, the increased willingness
and confidence is promising for peer CF instruc-
tion delivered in classrooms and for further L2
development.
Prompts vs. Recasts
Another set of themes emerged in the interview
data that did not show any clear tendency in the
questionnaire results–beliefs regarding types of
CF. Although Questions 26 (When my classmate
makes an error, I can point it out) and 27 (When my
classmate makes an error, I can provide a correction)
were designed to tease apart the two types of CF,
the difference seemed to be too subtle for learners
to differentiate. In order to compensate for this,
the learners in the CF classes were informed that
there was another class that was given the same
instruction but with a different type of CF (either
prompts or recasts). This information was given
toward the end of the interview sessions to avoid
influencing their responses on their own CF type.
Then, they were asked (a) which type of CF they
prefer receiving or giving, and (b) which type of
CF they think would be more effective for
language development.
It needs to be acknowledged here that the
design of the study unavoidably impedes the
interpretation of the data. This is because the
learners were interviewed after the intervention
and, thus, their beliefs were heavily affected by the
type of instruction they were given. This was
clearly shown in the data insofar as 12 out of 12
learners in the PI–Prompt group preferred giving
and receiving prompts, and 10 out of 12 learners
in the PI–Recast class preferred recasts. They gave
interesting reasons for their preferences:
EXCERPT 27
I want to know that I made a mistake by being
stopped. I wouldn’t notice, otherwise. Also, if I were
Masatoshi Sato
given the correct answer, I would feel offended. It
feels like my partner is trying to be nasty by finding
mistakes. (Akie, PI–Prompt)
EXCERPT 28
I think that giving the correct version is more
straightforward and simple. It is easy to give and
receive. It doesn’t stop communication either. If I
were given CF like ‘Pardon me?’ I would wonder
where I made a mistake. (Yumi, PI–Recast)
Generally, it seems that the learners believed that
the CF they practiced was more polite than the
other type. Also, they believed that their own CF
type was more explicit than the other type in that
it lets their partner know that they made an error.
Importantly, however, all of them said that having
their partners notice that they made an error is
the most important function of CF. Furthermore,
they seemed to believe that prompts would stop
communication more than recasts do. However,
this belief did not affect their preference.
Regardless of the types, they preferred the CF
type that they were taught.
Although their preference of CF types seems to
have been affected by the intervention, a clear
pattern in their beliefs about the more effective
CF type emerged. When they were asked to
compare prompts and recasts in terms of the
effectiveness for language development, 21 learn-
ers out of 24 (including all 12 learners in PI–
Prompt) chose prompts over recasts. Itsuka
emphasized that finding the error and thinking
about it on her own is the reason for prompt
effectiveness:
EXCERPT 29
I think that ‘Pardon me?’ is more effective because it
makes me think where and why I made a mistake.
Then, I won’t have to make the same mistake next
time. (Itsuka, PI–Prompt)
After supporting prompt effectiveness despite the
CF type he was taught and practiced, Norio
proposed prompting CF as the best CF type to
compensate a weakness he mentioned earlier:
EXCERPT 30
But when it comes to the effectiveness, I think that just
being let know that I made a mistake sounds better
because I think by myself. But. .. I wouldn’t know
where. .. Oh, I think the best way is that someone
repeats my mistake so that I will know the place and I
can think! (Norio, PI–Recast)
625
Previous research has reported that proficiency
levels and learning contexts play a role in learner
preferences of CF types (Brandl, 1995; A.
Brown, 2009; Yoshida, 2008a); however, this
research investigated teacher CF and, thus, the
findings of the present study may not be
comparable. Nonetheless, there seems to be a
common sense of preferring prompting types of
CF over recasts, that is, when they think they can
come up with the correct versions themselves. The
learners in the present study had a high level of
grammatical knowledge and thus most of their
errors were presumably due to processing rather
than a lack of knowledge. Thus, their belief in
prompt effectiveness is indeed right; that is, by
engaging in repeated practice (i.e., peer interac-
tion) with propitious feedback to avoid entrench-
ing the wrong knowledge structures (i.e., peer
CF), they will be able to process their explicit
knowledge more rapidly or to proceduralize their
declarative knowledge (see Lyster & Sato, 2013).
It must be noted, however, the examination of
their actual language development did not find
any difference in the two CF classes (Sato &
Lyster, 2012). This inconsistency may suggest a
rather insignificant link between learner beliefs
and effective pedagogy. To put it differently, the
type of pedagogy that learners perceive as
ineffective can still be effective.
LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
The presents study has several design features
that merit additional consideration. First, deeper
investigation of peer CF was possible only because
of the unique design in which the learners were
taught and practiced how to give CF to each other
over the course of one semester; otherwise, beliefs
regarding peer CF would have been hard to
investigate due to its scarcity in peer interaction.
Nonetheless, one weakness of this design may be
that the interviews were conducted after the
intervention, leading to a claim that the results
did not provide accurate information of learner
beliefs under normal learning conditions. This
was inevitable, however, so as to avoid forming
predetermined attitudes during the intervention.
Also, according to mixed methods theories, such
an approach can be legitimized as a sequential
design in which one type of data (i.e., the
interview) is collected after another (i.e., the
questionnaire data) (for a similar design,
see Ivankova, Creswell, & Stick, 2006). The
present study, therefore, calls for future studies
that investigate learner beliefs specifically regard-
ing peer interaction or peer CF without
626
interventions. Another weakness related to the
interview data concerns comparative statements
that the learners made between peer interaction
and interaction with the teacher. The study’s
learners had rarely had communicative classes
prior to participating in the study. Most of the
interviewees (35 out of 36) reported that they had
not had many opportunities to speak even in
speaking classes and more than half reported that
in fact they spoke English for communication
purposes for the first time in their lives during the
intervention. Therefore, it can be said that they
did not have good grounds for making a
comparison. In the same vein, the data obtained
at the beginning of the semester (i.e., pre-
questionnaire) should be viewed with caution.
Even so, the study contributes to knowledge in
different ways. First, it revealed how L2 learners
see their classmates as learning resources and how
they perceive the effectiveness of peer CF. It was
shown that the learners believed that both peer
interaction and peer CF were effective for
language development from the onset. There-
fore, the question now seems to be how we can
utilize and consolidate these beliefs in a way that
helps learners interact with each other comfort-
ably while providing and receiving CF. In this
respect, the study showed the potential of peer CF
instruction. Naughton (2006) taught various peer
interaction strategies to L2 learners including a
strategy called repairs. This CF strategy, however,
did not yield significant difference between the
control and experimental groups in terms of its
frequency at the time of the posttest. She
discussed the face-threatening aspect of peer
CF, calling for the need to minimize the negative
social aspects of peer CF and to enhance the
collaborative aspects of peer interaction. In the
present study, this was done, first, by having
learners understand the importance of collabora-
tive peer interaction. As the interview data
revealed, it is crucial to set up the collaborative
environment in the class first; otherwise, peer
interaction and peer CF instruction could turn
collaboration into a boring, uncomfortable or
even hostile assignment. Finally, the investigation
into learner beliefs added an important element
to an instructed SLA study designed to promote
L2 development, by operationalizing the feasibil-
ity of the intervention relative to classroom
dynamics as learner beliefs.
As stated, the study focused on university-level
Japanese learners of English who were taking
required English classes, potentially leading to
results that are specific to this population. As
some have argued, language learning should be
The Modern Language Journal 97 (2013)
considered a context-specific behaviour. Bax
(2003) emphasized that language instruction in
the world tends to follow what North American
countries have chosen and this is neither
appropriate nor effective. Holliday (1994) also
called for pedagogy that meets the needs of
learners in a given context. In other words, there
is no single instruction that works for all contexts
(Prabhu, 1990). There are not only claims from
socioeducational perspectives but also evidence
from psycholinguistic research that, together,
suggest that instruction should be adjusted in
accordance with learners’ existing knowledge
base (see Lyster, 2007; Sato, 2011). The current
study concurs in that assessment and suggests that
it might be possible to maximize learning
opportunities during peer interaction activities
by teaching learners how to correct each other’s
errors. This instruction is effective and feasible at
least in foreign language classrooms where
learners struggle to use their grammatical knowl-
edge during spontaneous production and where
learners do not have ample opportunities to
practice the target language.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was partially supported by a National Fund
for Scientific and Technological Development (FON-
DECYT: 11121136) from the Ministry of Education of
Chile.
REFERENCES
Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit
from interacting with each other?. In A. Mackey
(Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language
acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 29–
51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Alderson, J. (1992). Guidelines for evaluation of
language education. In J. Alderson & A. Beretta
(Eds.), Evaluating second language education (pp.
275–299). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Allwright, D. (1996). Social and pedagogical pressures
in the language classroom: The role of socializa-
tion. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language
classroom (pp. 209–228). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts,
prompts and L2 learning. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.
Anderson, J. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Baleghizadeh, S., & Rezaei, S. (2010). Pre-service
teacher cognition on corrective feedback: A case
Masatoshi Sato
study. Journal of Technology & Education, 4, 321–
327.
Ballinger, S. (2013). Towards a cross-linguistic pedago-
gy: Biliteracy and reciprocal learning strategies in
French immersion. Journal of Immersion and
Content-Based Language Education, 1, 131–148.
Bang, Y. (1999). Reactions of EFL students to oral error
correction. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of
Applied Linguistics, 3, 39–51.
Bardovi–Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language
learners recognize pragmatics violations? Prag-
matic versus grammatical awareness in instructed
L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 233–262.
Bax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: A context approach to
language teaching. ELT Journal, 57, 278–287.
Berlin, L. (2002). Effective ESL instruction: Common
themes from the voices of the students. Journal of
Intensive English Studies, 14, 1–21.
Bernaus, M., & Gardner, R. (2008). Teacher motivation
strategies, student perceptions, student motiva-
tion, and English achievement. Modern Language
Journal, 92, 387–401.
Berns, M. (1990). “Second” and “foreign” in second
language acquisition/foreign language learning:
A sociolinguistic perspective. In B. VanPatten & J.
Lee (Eds.), Second language acquisition/Foreign
language learning (pp. 3–11). Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language
acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown Univer-
sity Press.
Borg, M. (2003). Teacher cognition language teaching:
A review of research on what teachers think, know,
believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81–109.
Brandl, K. (1995). Strong and weak students’ prefer-
ences for error feedback options and responses.
Modern Language Journal, 79, 194–211.
Brown, A. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions
of effective foreign language teaching: A compari-
son of ideals. Modern Language Journal, 93, 46–60.
Brown, D. (2001). Principles of language learning and
teaching (4th ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson
Education.
Busch, D. (2010). Pre-service teacher beliefs about
language learning: The second language acquisi-
tion course as an agent for change. Language
Teaching Research, 14, 318–337.
Cathcart, R., & Olsen, J. (1976). Teachers’ and students’
preferences for correction of classroom conversa-
tion errors. In J. Fanselow & R. Crymes (Eds.), On
TESOL ’76 (pp. 41–53). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Chamot, A., Barnhardt, S., El–Dinary, P., & Robbins, J.
(1999). The learning strategies handbook. New York:
Longman.
Chenoweth, N. A., Day, R., Chun, A. E., & Luppescu, S.
(1983). Attitudes and preferences of ESL students
to error correction. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 6, 79–87.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative
research: Techniques and procedures for developing
627
grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2007). Designing and
conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
De Groot, E. (2002). Learning through interviewing:
Students and teachers talk about learning and
schooling. Educational Psychologist, 37, 41–52.
de Jong, N., & Perfetti, C. (2011). Fluency training in the
ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency
development and proceduralization. Language
Learning, 61, 533–568.
DeKeyser, R. (2001). Automaticity and automatization.
In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language
instruction (pp. 125–151). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
DeKeyser, R (Ed.). (2007). Practice in a second language:
Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive
psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Understanding L2 motivation: On
with the challenge. Modern Language Journal, 78,
515–523.
Dörnyei, Z. (1997). Psychological processes in coopera-
tive language learning: Group dynamics and
motivation. Modern Language Journal, 81, 482–493.
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language
research: Construction, administration and processing.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher
development. L2 Journal, 1, 3–18.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner
uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language
Learning, 51, 281–318.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and
explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of
L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
28, 339–368.
Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of
recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575–600.
Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Foster, P., & Ohta, A. (2005). Negotiation for meaning
and peer assistance in second language class-
rooms. Applied Linguistics, 26, 402–430.
Freed, B., Dewey, D., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004).
The language contact profile. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 26, 349–356.
Gass, S., & Lewis, K. (2007). Perceptions of interactional
feedback: Differences between heritage language
learners and non-heritage language learners. In A.
Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second
language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies
(pp. 79–99). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1989). Incorporated repairs in
nonnative discourse. In M. Eisenstein (Ed.), The
dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second
language variation (pp. 71–86). New York: Plenum
Press.
628
Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA:
Sociology Press.
Grotjahn, R. (1991). The research programme: Subjec-
tive theories. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
13, 187–214.
Harumi, S. (2011). Classroom silence: Voices from
Japanese EFL learners. ELT Journal, 65, 260–269.
Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social
context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hu, G., & Lam, S. T. E. (2010). Issues of cultural
appropriateness and pedagogical efficacy: Explor-
ing peer review in a second language writing class.
Instructional Science, 38, 371–394.
Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate
social scientist: Introductory statistics using generalized
linear models. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Ivankova, N., Creswell, J., & Stick, S. (2006). Using
mixed-methods sequential explanatory design:
From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18, 3–20.
Jean, G., & Simard, D. (2011). Grammar teaching and
learning in L2: Necessary, but boring? Foreign
Language Annals, 44, 467–494.
Johnson, R., Onwuegbuzie, A., & Turner, L. (2007).
Toward a definition of mixed methods research.
Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 112–133.
Karp, D., & Yoels, W. (1976). The college classroom:
Some observations on the meaning of student
participation. Sociology and Social Research, 60, 421–
439.
Katayama, A. (2007). Japanese EFL students’ prefer-
ences toward correction of classroom oral errors.
Asian EFL Journal, 9, 289–305.
Kim, J., & Han, Z. (2007). Recasts in communicative EFL
classes: Do teachers intent and learner interpreta-
tion overlap?. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational
interaction in second language acquisition: A collection
of empirical studies (pp. 269–297). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2005). Error correc-
tion: Students’ versus teachers’ perceptions.
Language Awareness, 14, 112–127.
Ledesma, R. D., & Valero–Mora, P. (2007). Determining
the number of factors to retain in EFA: An easy-to-
use computer program for carrying out Parallel
Analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evalua-
tion, 12, Retrieved March 18, 2012, from http://
pareonline.net/pdf/v12n2.pdf
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in
SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–
365.
Lightbown, P. (2008). Transfer appropriate processing
as a model for class second language acquisition.
In Z. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language
process (pp. 27–44). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Lluida, E. (2005). Looking at the perceptions, chal-
lenges, and contributions . . . or the importance
of being a non-native teacher. In E. Lluida (Ed.),
Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges
and contribution to the profession (pp. 1–9). New
York: Springer Science þ Business Media.
The Modern Language Journal 97 (2013)
Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa,
K., Ahn, S., et al. (2009). L2 learners’ beliefs about
grammar instruction and error correction. Modern
Language Journal, 93, 91–104.
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and
recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through
content: A counterbalanced approach. Philadelphia/
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and
learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communi-
cative classrooms. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom
SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 32, 265–302.
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). State-of-the-Art
Article: Oral corrective feedback in second
language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.
Lyster, R., & Sato, M. (2013). Skill acquisition theory and
the role of practice in L2 development. In M.
Garcı́a Mayo, J. Gutierrez–Mangado, & M. Martı́-
nez Adrián (Eds.) Contemporary approaches to second
language acquisition (pp. 71–92). Philadelphia/
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in
SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A.
Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second
language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies
(pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Maxwell, J. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interac-
tive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
McCargar, D. (1993). Teacher and student role expect-
ations: Cross-cultural differences and implica-
tions. Modern Language Journal, 77, 192–207.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study
applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.
Miyagi, K., Sato, M., & Crump, A. (2009). To challenge
the unchallenged: Potential of non-“standard”
Englishes for Japanese EFL learners. JALT Journal,
31, 261–273.
Mori, Y. (1999). Epistemological beliefs and language
learning beliefs: What do language learners
believe about their learning? Language Learning,
49, 377–415.
Morris, C., Bransford, J., & Franks, J. (1977). Levels of
processing versus transfer appropriate processing.
Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Bahavior, 16,
519–533.
Nation, P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. System,
17, 377–384.
Naughton, D. (2006). Cooperative strategy training and
oral interaction: Enhancing small group commu-
nication in the language classroom. Modern
Language Journal, 90, 169–184.
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts
as feedback to language learners. Language
Learning, 51, 719–758.
Nolasco, R., & Arthur, L. (1990). You try doing it with a
class of forty. In R. Rossner & R. Bolitho (Eds.)
Masatoshi Sato
Currents of change in English language teaching (pp.
188–195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement
and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health
Science Education, 15, 625–632.
Nunan, D. (1989). Hidden agendas: The role of the
learner in programme implementation. In R.
Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp.
176–186). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
O’Donnell, K. (2005). Japanese secondary English
teachers: Negotiation of educational roles in the
face of curricular reform. Language, Culture and
Curriculum, 18, 300–315.
Ohta, A. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the
classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum.
Oladejo, J. (1993). Error correction in ESL: Learners’
preferences. TESL Canada Journal, 10(2), 71–89.
Peacock, M. (1999). The links between learner beliefs,
teacher beliefs, and EFL proficiency. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9, 247–263.
Philp, J., Walter, S., & Basturkmen, H. (2010). Peer
interaction in the foreign language classroom:
What factors foster a focus on form? Language
Awareness, 19, 261–279.
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, 59–84.
Plonsky, L., & Mills, S. (2006). An exploratory study of
differing perceptions of error correction between
teacher and students: Bridging the gap. Applied
Language Learning, 16, 55–74.
Prabhu, N. (1990). There is no best method—Why?
TESOL Quarterly, 24, 161–176.
Robinson, P., Sawyer, M., & Ross, S. (2001). Second
language acquisition research in Japan: Theoreti-
cal issues. JALT Applied Materials, 3–21.
Sato, M. (2007). Social relationships in conversational
interaction: A comparison between learner–learn-
er and learner–NS dyads. JALT Journal, 29, 183–
208.
Sato, M. (2011). Constitution of form-orientation:
Contributions of context and explicit knowledge
to learning from recasts. Canadian Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 14, 1–28.
Sato, M., & Ballinger, S. (2012). Raising language
awareness in peer interaction: A cross-context,
cross-method examination. Language Awareness,
21, 157–179.
Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2007). Modified output of
Japanese EFL learners: Variable effects of inter-
locutor vs. feedback types. In A. Mackey (Ed.),
Conversational interaction in second language acquisi-
tion: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 123–142).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2012). Peer interaction and
corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency
development: Monitoring, practice, and proce-
629
duralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
34, 591–626.
Sawir, E. (2002). Beliefs about language learning:
Indonesian learners’ perspectives and some im-
plications for classroom practices. Australian
Journal of Education, 46, 323–337.
Schulz, R. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign
language classroom: Student and teachers’ views
on error correction and the role of grammar.
Foreign Language Annals, 29, 343–364.
Schulz, R. (2001). Cultural differences in student and
teacher perceptions concerning the role of
grammar instruction and corrective feedback:
USA–Colombia. Modern Language Journal, 85,
244–258.
Seedhouse, P. (1997). The case of the missing “no”: The
relationship between pedagogy and interaction.
Language Learning, 47, 547–583.
Segalowitz, N. (2000). Automaticity and attentional skill
in fluent performance. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.),
Perspectives on fluency (pp. 200–219). Ann Arbor,
MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A
guide for researchers in education and the social sciences,
(3rd ed.) New York: Teachers College Press.
Snook, S. C., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1989). Component
analysis versus common factor analysis: A Monte
Carlo study. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 148–154.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair
work. Language Learning, 52, 119–158.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second
language learning: Two adolescent French im-
mersion students working together. Modern Lan-
guage Journal, 82, 320–337.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two
French immersion learners’ response to reformu-
lation. International Journal of Educational Research,
37, 285–304.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). SAGE handbook of
mixed methods in social & behavioral research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Truscott, J. (1999). What’s wrong with oral grammar
correction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55,
437–456.
Tulung, G. (2008). Communicative task-generation oral
discourse in a second language: A case study of peer
interaction and non-native teacher talk in an EFL
classroom. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Ottwa, Ottawa, Canada.
Vásquez, C., & Harvey, J. (2010). Raising teachers’
awareness about corrective feedback through
research replication. Language Teaching Research,
14, 421–443.
van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner.
London: Longman.
Volker, M. (2006). Reporting effect size estimates in
school psychology research. Psychology in the
Schools, 43, 653–672.
Wenden, A. (1986). Helping language learners think
about learning. ELT Journal, 40, 3–12.
630
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to
form. Language Learning, 49, 583–625.
Winne, P., Jamieson–Noel, D., & Muis, K. (2002).
Methodological issues and advances in
researching tactics, strategies, and self-
regulated learning. In P. Pintrich & M.
Moehr (Eds.), New directions in measures and
methods (pp. 121–155). Oxford, UK: Elsevier
Science.
Wood, D. (2001). In search of fluency: What is it and
how can we teach it? Canadian Modern Language
Review, 57, 573–589.
Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused
practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’
acquisition of regular and irregular past tense
APPENDIX
Interview Excerpts in Japanese
EXCERPT 1 (Yuta):
EXCERPT 2 (Akemi):
EXCERPT 3 (Chie):
EXCERPT 4 (Itsuka):
EXCERPT 5 (Kippei):
EXCERPT 6 (Yuuna):
The Modern Language Journal 97 (2013)
forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32,
235–263.
Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a
second language: The Japanese EFL context.
Modern Language Journal, 86, 54–66.
Yoshida, R. (2008a). Teachers’ choice and learners’
preference of corrective-feedback types. Language
Awareness, 17, 78–93.
Yoshida, R. (2008b). Learners’ perception of corrective
feedback in pair work. Foreign Language Annals, 41,
525–541.
Yoshida, R. (2010). How do teachers and learners
perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese
language classroom? Modern Language Journal,
94, 293–314.
Masatoshi Sato 631

EXCERPT 7 (Kazuhiko):

EXCERPT 8 (Kentaro):

EXCERPT 9 (Yuta):

EXCERPT 10 (Masahito):

EXCERPT 11 (Akie):

EXCERPT 12 (Tomohiro):

EXCERPT 13 (Takuya):
632 The Modern Language Journal 97 (2013)

EXCERPT 14 (Yuki):

EXCERPT 15 (Norio):

EXCERPT 16 (Chie):

EXCERPT 17 (Toshifumi):

EXCERPT 18 (Ikki):

EXCERPT 19 (Sumiko):

EXCERPT 20 (Daichi):

EXCERPT 21 (Kazuhiko):
Masatoshi Sato 633

EXCERPT 22 (Akie):

EXCERPT 23 (Yuta):

EXCERPT 24 (Kippei):

EXCERPT 25 (Shinichi):

EXCERPT 26 (Yumi):

EXCERPT 27 (Akie):

EXCERPT 28 (Yumi): Pardon me?

EXCERPT 29 (Itsuka): Pardon me?

EXCERPT 30 (Norio):