IwashitaN - DaoPForthcoming Pre-Printversion

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/359279771
Peer feedback in L2 oral interaction. In book: The Cambridge Handbook of

Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and TeachingPublisher:
Cambridge University Press
Chapter · June 2021
CITATION READS
1 241
2 authors:
Phung Dao Noriko Iwashita

University of Cambridge The University of Queensland
33 PUBLICATIONS 352 CITATIONS 41 PUBLICATIONS 999 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Phung Dao on 17 March 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Iwashita, N. & Dao, P. (forthcoming). Peer feedback in L2 oral interaction. In Nassaji, H. &
Kartchava, E. (Eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Language
Learning and Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Peer feedback in L2 oral interaction
Noriko Iwashita
The University of Queensland, Australia
Phung Dao
Manchester Metroplitan University, UK
1. Introduction
Peer feedback has recently gained significant attention in second language (L2) acquisition
research. Studies have found that despite being lower in quality and frequency than teacher or
native speaker feedback, peer feedback given in oral interaction promotes L2 production
accuracy and development by triggering learners’ attention to language form, increasing
language modifications, and proceduralizing learners’ declarative linguistic knowledge
through meaningful practice (see Philp, Adams & Iwashita, 2014; Sato & Balinger, 2016 for
reviews). The impact of these cognitive processes on language learning is, however, mediated
by different social and contextual factors, such as the role of conversational partners (e.g.,
presumably equal in terms of language expertise; provider and receiver of peer feedback),
learner perceptions of the interlocutors’ relationship during interaction, approach to task, and
previous experiences of working with partners (Coughlan, & Duff, 1994; Philp & Mackey,
2010; Watanabe & Swain, 2008). Peer feedback is also perceived as dialogic scaffolding or
language mediation, which creates learning opportunities whereby learners assist each other
in performing intended communication and/or co-constructing language knowledge (van
Compernolle, 2015).
1
This chapter presents an overview of the research on peer feedback in L2 oral
interaction. The first section of the chapter describes the 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 third section presents a review
of the studies on peer feedback that have focused 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.
2. Peer Oral Feedback Types and Characteristics
Feedback involves a learner receiving corrective information on his/her speech from a
teacher, native speaker, or peer(s) during an interaction. Like teacher or native speaker
feedback, peer feedback refers to all response information that informs the learner about their
actual stage of language use and/or communication issues. However, peer feedback is unique
because it is given by peers who hold an equal status of being a learner, and learners are both
active feedback providers and receivers (see van Popta Kral, Camp, Marters & Simons,
2017). This (more) equal relationship both positively and negatively affects the frequency and
quality of the feedback observed in peer interaction and L2 development when compared to
learner-teacher or learner-native speaker interaction (Philp et al., 2014).
2.1. Feedback Types
Following recent categorizations of teacher corrective feedback (Lyster, Saito & Sato, 2013;
Sheen & Ellis, 2011; Sato & Loewen, 2018; also see Lyster & Ranta, 1997), peer feedback
can be classified into two broad types — input-providing and output-prompting — in terms of
2
evidence it provides (i.e., negative and positive). Input-providing peer feedback supplies
learners with positive evidence that contains linguistic information about what is acceptable in
the target language. Two representative types of input-providing peer feedback are the recast,
which is a reformulation (either partial or full) of learners’ errors, and the explicit correction,
which provides the correct form and explicit indication of an error (Lyster, Saito & Sato,
2013; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Sheen & Ellis, 2011). In contrast to input-providing peer
feedback, output-prompting peer feedback does not supply learners with a targetlike form or
positive evidence. Instead, it creates opportunities for learners to self-correct or modify their
output by indicating that there are comprehension and/or language issues. Different forms of
output-prompting peer feedback have been documented in empirical studies, including
repetition, clarification request, elicitation, and metalinguistic comment (Lyster, Saito, &
Sato, 2013).
Apart from the input-providing and output-prompting dimensions, the degree of
feedback explicitness is another aspect of feedback categorization (Lyster & Satio, 2010;
Nassaji, 2009; Sheen & Ellis, 2011; Sato & Loewen, 2018). The degree of feedback
explicitness refers to the extent to which the feedback is salient to learners in discourse. The
salience of feedback has been shown to depend on various factors, such as the nature of peer
feedback, metalinguistic information (linguistic salience), intonation (auditory salience), and
gesture and body language (visual salience) (see Loewen & Philp, 2006; Yilmaz, 2011).
Although it may be possible to manipulate the explicitness externally to a certain extent,
whether it is salient enough for learners depends on individual perceptions.
Examples of the different feedback types introduced here will be given in the next
section, which describes the characteristics of peer feedback. While the feedback types
3
observed in peer interaction are similar to teacher and native speaker feedback, peer feedback
has several characteristics that set it apart from the teacher’s and native speakers’ feedback.
2.2. Feedback Orientation
The first distinctive characteristic of peer feedback is its orientation. Often, teacher feedback
informs learners of their erroneous utterances, expecting that learners will notice and correct
the errors, which may possibly result in language modification and accurate output. However,
peer feedback with the same explicit corrective intention as teacher feedback is rare in peer
interaction (Philp et al., 2014; Sato, 2013). During the course of communication, the learners’
main focus is often on meaning (e.g., Philip et al., 2014) and task completion (Philp et al.,
2010). Information given by learners in peer feedback usually serves as a tool for others to
understand them and to achieve intended communication.
However, it is notable that there are cases in which learners explicitly provide
feedback to correct their partner’s erroneous utterances. Excerpts 1 and 2 demonstrate two
instances of talk segments where learners explicitly correct each other during an interaction.
Excerpt 1. Explicit peer feedback in the form of reformulation and metalinguistic information
S1:
(Abu-ji-ga sun-saeng-nim-i-da?)
[Father is a teacher?]
S2:
(a-bu-ji-nun sun-saeng-nim-i-et-da. hyun-jae a-ni-go, gwa-guh)
[Father was a teacher, not present, past] explicit correction
(Kim & McDonough, 2008, pp. 217–218, commentary added)
4
In Excerpt 1, S2 learner explicitly corrected their partner’s utterance (e.g., father is a
teacher) by reformulation (e.g., father was a teacher) and provided metalinguistic
information (e.g., not present, past). Similarly, Excerpt 2 shows that learner C explicitly
questioned his partner’s language use (e.g., why is “ly”?), which led learner M to reconsider
his choice of language (line 73).
Excerpt 2. Explicit peer feedback in the form of a question
69 M: the immigrants particular
70 C: south
71 M: is particularly
72 C: why is “ly” clarification request
73 M: or in particular ... because is, is adjective and this context this not adjective
here
75 C: mm (some agreement)
76 M: yeah ... particularly ... in south ... maybe in ... in
77 C: the immigrants particularly
(Storch, 2008, p. 101, commentary added)
However, the corrective intention is not always clear, as demonstrated in Excerpt 3.
Excerpt 3. Peer feedback in the form of recast
S1: Non, boutelle [mispronunciation of the word] euh (.) deux bouteilles, s’il vous
plaît
No, bootle ah (.) two bottles, please
S2: Deux bouteilles recast
Two bottles
5
(Philp, Walter & Basturkmen, 2010, p. 267)
While S2 reformulated S1’s phonological error, it is not certain whether the reformulation
was recognized. Thus, the pedagogical intention of feedback is not as clear as the corrective
feedback from a teacher, which suggests a need for possible intervention to improve the
effectiveness of peer feedback (Sato & Lyster, 2012).
When the goal of interaction is to complete a task or perform certain types of
communication, learners tend to provide feedback on the linguistic areas that cause
difficulties in completing a task or address communication breakdowns caused by language
problems. Consequently, learners provide one another with feedback that targets multiple
aspects of language rather than consistent and intensive feedback on one aspect of language,
as shown below.
Excerpt 4, which is taken from an interaction in which learners collaborated to
sequence and describe pictures, shows peer feedback that targets multiple features of
language during task completion.
Excerpt 4. Feedback targeting multiple aspects of language
1. P1: This is a phone … then she call to the hospital because her cat is uh …
2. P2: is broke broken is broke head
3. P1: cái gì [what?] ... broken leg recast (multiple errors: grammar and lexis)
4. P2: Uh broke leg … and then they are …
5. P1: in the hopital [wrong pronunciation]
6. P2: in the hospital [right pronunciation] recast (phonological error)
and the doctor khám bệnh là gì? [what is ‘examine’]
(Dao & Nguyen, 2019)
6
In this example, when learner P2 said ‘a broke head’ (line 2) to describe a cat with a
broken leg, learner P1 did not understand the intended meaning and expressed his confusion
with ‘what?’ (line 3). Later, learner P1 reformulated his partner’s errors with ‘broken leg’
(line 3). This recast targeted multiple errors (lexical and grammatical) in the partner’s
erroneous utterance. However, learner P2 only noticed one aspect of the correction (lexical),
as reflected in his uptake ‘broke leg’ (line 4). In a subsequent turn, learner P1 made a
phonological error (line 5), which was immediately corrected by learner P2. Overall, Excerpt
4 demonstrates two important characteristics of peer feedback. First, peer feedback is
spontaneous and targets various emerging language issues in interaction, with its main
function being to allow each person to be understood so that they can complete the task (i.e.,
describe and sequence pictures to create a story). It is unclear whether having the focus of
feedback on multiple aspects or a single aspect of language is more beneficial to L2 learning;
however, research suggests that peer feedback tends to show “inconsistency in attention to
target form” (Toth, 2018, p. 296). Second, peer feedback is easily accepted by peer partners
when learners are collaborative and share the same goal of completing a task, as reflected by
both learners in Excerpt 4 providing and receiving feedback on each other’s language issues.
2.3. Feedback Quality
It is well acknowledged that peer feedback is perceived as less reliable than the feedback
learners receive from teachers or native speaker interlocutors (Pica et al., 1996). Peer
feedback may contain incorrect information, as seen in Excerpt 5.
Excerpt 5. Peer feedback (explicit feedback) with inaccurate input
S2: Muchos ... emigré? Pretérito?
[Many ... emigrated (first-person sing.) preterit?]
7
S1: Creo que emigré a Estados Unidos y España. feedback with inaccurate
input
[I think that emigrated (first-person sing.) to the United States and Spain.]
S2: Sí. emigré.
[Yes, emigrated (first-person sing.)]
S1: Emigré gente. Emigré.
[emigrated (first-person sing.) people. Emigrated.]
(Leeser, 2004, p. 66)
In Excerpt 5, when asked for feedback, S1 provides S2 with inaccurate information about the
correct form of the verb emigrar; that is, using the first-person singular form. However, the
correct form of emigrar is the third-person plural preterit to agree with muchos and the third-
person singular preterite form to agree with gente. Incorrect information in peer feedback is
one reason why the benefits of peer feedback for L2 learning tend to be discounted.
Although learners may provide peer feedback that contains incorrect information, it
can create opportunities for learners to attend to language features. Excerpt 6 demonstrates
how peer feedback with incorrect information increases learners’ attention to form.
Excerpt 6. Peer feedback (recast) with inaccurate input
P1: not some many many projector break down--
P2: ya out of date recast with incorrect information
P1: out of work recast with incorrect information
P2: ya ok [laugh] out of work
P1: … ủa lộn xin lỗi [mistake sorry] out of order sorry [laugh] recast with
correct information
P2: [laugh]...
(Dao, in review)
8
In Excerpt 6, learner P1 made a grammatical error (e.g., plural form of projector).
Learner P2 provided recast with incorrect information on word choice (e.g., out of date)
instead of addressing the grammatical issue. Although it contained incorrect information, this
peer feedback led learner P1 to reformulate learner P2’s non-targetlike utterance (e.g., out of
work), which was also non-targetlike. Learner P1 recognized the inaccurate information (e.g.,
mistake sorry) and reformulated it again (e.g., out of order). Excerpt 6 shows that although
the learners provided inaccurate information, the peer feedback increased the attention of the
feedback provider, possibly resulting in learning. The learners were then able to correct
inaccurate information, which is considered to result in restructuring of their L2 knowledge
(see also Philp, et al., 2004; Sato & Loewen, 2018; Sato & Lyster, 2012).
However, compared to teacher or native speaker feedback — which manifests in
different forms such as recast, prompt, clarification request, and explicit elicitation (e.g.,
Lyster & Ranta, 1997) — feedback provided by a fellow learner may include segmentation,
repetition of previous utterances, and/or non-specification of errors (McDonough, 2004; Pica
et al., 1996). Peer feedback in the form of segmentation and repetition of the interlocutor’s
previous utterance is often less noticed by learners if it is implicit. This, therefore, may not
promote language modification (Pica et al., 1996).The non-specification of errors in peer
feedback also signifies fewer modifications. Excerpt 7 provides an example of peer feedback
that does not specify what information needs to be elicited.
Excerpt 7. A non-specified clarification request
L9: if the city build more bicycle lane
L11: again please clarification request
(McDonough, 2004, p. 217)
9
In Excerpt 7, L11 requested clarification; however, it is not clear whether the requester is
asking for clarification of the information provided in the previous statement or signaling that
there is a grammatical error (i.e., subject/verb agreement). This excerpt shows that peer
feedback is not effective if learners do not recognize the corrective intention.
As explained above, in terms of orientation and correctness, the quality of peer
feedback is not the same as that of teacher or native speaker feedback, and the frequency of
peer feedback is often not as high either. However, the overall quality of feedback is
important in studies drawing on the cognitive perspective of SLA because feedback provided
by learners is seen as positive/negative evidence; that is, it is information that helps them to
revise their interlanguage system. Furthermore, for studies based on skill acquisition theory,
repeated practice in meaning-focused contexts would help learners restructure their current
knowledge and further proceduralize it. Thus, through meaningful practice, learners may be
better able to recognize the incorrectness of linguistic information in peer feedback and more
likely to correct and improve its quality as they progress to higher levels of proficiency.
Theoretical accounts that explain the benefits of oral peer feedback and a review of empirical
studies are presented in the following sections.
3. Benefits of Oral Peer Feedback for L2 Development — Theoretical Accounts
Theoretical accounts of oral peer feedback that explain its benefits for L2 development can be
viewed from multiple perspectives: educational (e.g., van Popta, Kral, Camp, Martens &
Simons, 2017), cognitive (including both cognitive-interactionist e.g., Long, 1981, 1983,
1996, 2007; Mackey, 2007 and skill acquisition theory e.g., Anderson, 2005; DeKeyser,
1998), and sociocognitive (e.g., Philp & Mackey, 2010).
10
3.1. Educational Perspective
Providing peer feedback to each other can help learners to improve their overall output, which
may then lead to transformation in their L2 knowledge. For instance, in education literature,
peer feedback has been shown to promote a higher level of learning skills and critical insight
in learners, as well as engender active reflection on the learners’ own performance and that of
their peers (Ertmer et al., 2007; Liu et al., 2001; Van Popta et al., 2017). The process of
providing peer feedback entails meaning making and knowledge building (Nicol, 2009) and
triggers different metacognitive processes such as evaluating, suggesting modifications,
reflecting, planning, and regulating learners’ own thinking. These metacognitive processes
enable learners to build their reflective knowledge, which in turn results in the restructuring of
their own knowledge (Liu et al., 2001; Nicol, 2009; 2014). Although learners may find it
difficult to provide peer feedback (Dochy, Segers, & Sluijsmans,1999; Topping, Smith,
Swanson, & Elliot, 2000), with careful use and training, peer feedback can generate positive
impact on a learner’s performance (van Popta et al., 2017; also, see Chapter 28, this volume).
In L2 acquisition studies, peer corrective feedback is believed to heighten learners’
awareness of language form, especially when learners are trained and encouraged to attend to
their peers’ speech to detect errors and provide feedback (Fuji et al., 2016; Sato & Lyster,
2012). Thus, the hope is that peer feedback will encourage learners to actively engage in
learning, which may then enhance their language skills and develop higher cognitive skills
(Liu & Carless, 2006). Moreover, when learners are engaged in providing and receiving
feedback, they are likely to have more speaking practice opportunities than in teacher-learner
interactions. Detecting errors during the course of communication as a result of feedback is
believed to positively affect interlanguage restructuring (DeKeyser, 2007). As a result of
receiving feedback, learners have opportunities to self-correct or modify their output. The
11
process of detecting errors and providing feedback enhances learners’ monitoring of their own
production, and in some cases peer feedback is believed to promote greater attention to
language forms, which is positively correlated with language development (Sato & Lyster,
2012), than teacher feedback does (Sipple & Jackson, 2015). Therefore, increased attention to
language form created by peer feedback is seen as showing the benefit of peer feedback, and
thus is expected to result in greater L2 development (Sipple & Jackson, 2015).
3.2. Cognitive Perspective
Oral interaction provides an opportunity to receive and process information. The two types of
peer feedback explained above (i.e., input-providing and output-prompting feedback) draw
from two theoretical orientations (i.e., cognitive-interactionist and skill-acquisition theory) to
explain the cognitive processes that can result in learning.
3.2.1 Cognitive-Interactionist
The theoretical basis to guide researchers in examining a connection between input-
providing/output-prompting feedback and L2 development largely draws upon Long’s
Interaction Hypothesis (1981, 1983, 1996, 2007) and Swain’s Output Hypothesis (1995,
1998). Long proposed that converstional modifications offered in response to communication
difficulties promote L2 learning. In his updated theory, Long (1996) stressed the facilitative
role of input-providing feedback, such as recasts, as these interactional moves draw greater
attention to the formal aspects of language while maintaining focus on meaning during
interaction. Through peer interaction, learners provide feedback to one another and receive
opportunities for modified output (Pica, 1994). In language production, learners are required
to attend to the language, which Swain (1995) described as stretching interlanguage to meet
12
communicative goals in her output hypothesis. In other words, learners engage in active
deployment of their cognitive resources during production (Izumi, 2004).
As noted at the beginning of this section, the model of how interaction facilitates L2
learning was initially proposed based on interaction between native speakers and learners and
was primarily examined under experimental conditions, not in classrooms. Thus, questions
arise regarding the extent to which this model can be applied to explaining peer interaction in
classrooms. Some may argue that the quality of peer feedback, in comparison to teacher and
native speaker feedback, decreases the effectiveness of corrective feedback in facilitating
error noticeability and output modification. Additionally, peer feedback in some learning
contexts may not promote as much attention to form as teacher feedback due to its unclear
corrective intention and timeliness (e.g., Toth, 2008). Learners have been found more likely to
provide implicit than explicit feedback (Morris, 2005). However, recent research has shown
that peer feedback could promote L2 learning despite it being of lower quality and frequency
than that provided by teachers and native speaker interlocutors (Adams, 2007; Chu, 2013;
McDonough, 2004; Sato & Lyster, 2012; Sipple & Jackson, 2015). In some contexts, learners
reported that they appreciated peer feedback (Sato, 2013) and enjoyed interactions with peers
more than with teachers (Sipple & Jackson, 2015). The findings lend support to the updated
version of the Interaction Hypothesis in peer interaction contexts.
3.2.2 Skill Acquisition Theory
The usefulness of peer feedback (e.g., output-prompting feedback) for L2 development can be
explained through skill acquisition theory. Skill acquisition theory postulates that guided
practice in conjunction with feedback transforms learners’ declarative knowledge (e.g.,
explicit mental representation of language items such as language meanings and rules) into
13
procedural knowledge (e.g., knowledge of how to carry out cognitive operations such as
automatic language production) (Anderson, 2005). When applied to L2 learning, skill
acquisition theory posits that L2 learning refers to a gradual transition from the effortful to
automatic use of a second language (van Patten & Benati, 2010). This transition is brought
about by feedback in meaningful communications (DeKeyser, 1998, 2007; also see Sato &
McDonough, 2019). In other words, feedback given in contextualized practice facilitates
learners’ proceduralization and automatization of language forms, which enables them to
achieve faster and more accurate processing of L2 in both comprehension and production.
Furthermore, with the opportunity for extended and repeated production practice that
peer interaction provides (Tognini, 2008), peer feedback allows learners to move from the
effortful, slow production to effortless, smooth production (e.g., Ellis, 2005; Segalowitz,
2003), which can result in L2 automatic use or language growth (Ranta & Lyster, 2007).
Thus, skill acquisition theory emphasizes the pivotal role of peer feedback through
contextualized practice in driving the restructuring and proceduralization of learners’
developing knowledge of the target language. From both a cognitive-interactionist perspective
and a skill acquisition theory, learning is largely considered individual and cognitive, and this
approach has been criticized for not taking social factors into account.
3.3. Sociocognitive Perspectives
The sociocognitive approach to L2 learning considers both cognitive and social factors to
understand L2 acquisition. One line of cognitive-interactionist research further informed by
the social approach suggests that the quality and quantity of information in corrective
feedback given during interaction depends on the context (e.g., classroom, laboratory) and
other factors, such as learner perceptions of the interlocutors’ relationship in interactions and
14
tasks (Ellis, 2010; Philp & Mackey, 2010). This body of research aims to extend
understanding of the role of social and contextual factors in mediating the impact of cognitive
factors on L2 acquisition during interaction. That is, the effectiveness of peer feedback
depends largely on cognitive processes (e.g., attention and information processing), which are
mediated by social and contextual factors of interaction in which peer feedback is given and
received.
Also associated with the sociocognitive perspective, sociocultural theory could
provide an alternative explanation of the contribution of peer feedback to L2 development
than those offered by cognitive-interactionist and skill acquisition theories. According to the
sociocultural theory, language learning is a socially situated and collaboratively co-
constructed activity (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Within interaction, learners co-construct their
L2 knowledge by providing each other with various forms of assistance or scaffolding
(Ballinger & Sato, 2012; Donato, 2004, Ohta, 2001; Poehner, 2008). Scafoldings in the form
of peer feedback are believed to help learners acquire appropriate language forms, which
enable learners to perform intended activities such as producing language or achieving
communication (e.g., Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994; Lantolf & Thorn, 2006; Nassaji & Swain,
2000; Ohta, 2000; Sato & Ballinger, 2012; Wertsch, 1998).
4. Studies of Peer Feedback
4.1. Effect of Peer Feedback on L2 Development
A considerable number of studies have investigated the effects of peer feedback on L2
development, focusing mainly on input-providing feedback. Broadly speaking, research has
shown that peer feedback contributes to improving production accuracy and L2 development.
For instance, using tailor-made production tests, Adams (2007) found that learners scored
15
higher on the linguistic items they had received feedback on compared to those that were left
untreated. Peer feedback, including recasts, has been shown to positively affect production
accuracy of verb forms (Sato & Viveros, 2016).
Some studies have reported that peer feedback is superior to teacher feedback. For
example, when comparing peer feedback with teacher feedback, Lynch (2007) found that peer
feedback was more effective in developing learners’ oral performance. Lynch attributed the
effectiveness of peer feedback to its promotion of talk and triggering of deeper cognitive
processes, which deems peer feedback superior to other types of corrective feedback. When
comparing the effects of oral teacher feedback and oral peer feedback on learning German
present perfect tense and past participle formation, Sipple and Jackson (2015) found that
although both teacher feedback and peer feedback contributed to the improvement of
accuracy of the target structures, learners who received peer feedback outperformed those
receiving teacher feedback based on the pre-test/post-test scores. They attributed the superior
impact of peer feedback to its characteristics of heightening learners’ awareness of language
form and promoting learner engagement in providing and receiving feedback from peers.
Although this body of research has reported positive impact of peer feedback on L2
production accuracy and learning, the effectiveness of peer feedback is understood to be
vulnerable to social factors such as perceptions of equality of peers, comfort level, and
previous partnership experience (see Section 4.2 below).
To enhance the occurrence and effectiveness of peer feedback, recent research has
included pedagogical interventions in peer interaction. Providing learners with a brief
pedagogical training on how to give peer feedback has shown positive impact on language
development, especially in terms of accuracy and fluency. For instance, in Chu’s (2013)
study, learners were taught a variety of peer feedback techniques and encouraged to use them
16
in their interactions. The results showed that learners demonstrated improvement from pre-
test to post-test on oral tasks (e.g., information gap and picture-based tasks). Also teaching
learners how to provide peer feedback, Sato and Lyster (2012) found a positive correlation
between the frequency of peer feedback provision and L2 developmental scores (e.g.,
accuracy scores), suggesting that peer feedback positively impacts L2 learning. Similarly, in
another study by Fujii, Ziegler and Mackey (2016), learners received metacognitive
instruction on the provision and use of interaction opportunities (e.g., providing peer
feedback), which were shown to facilitate L2 development. The results revealed that
compared to those who were not involved in the training session, learners who participated in
the training prior to interaction provided more peer feedback and made use of the feedback
that was provided, thereby benefitting more from these interactional opportunities.
Unlike input-providing feedback, very few studies have investigated the role of
output-prompting feedback. In a study that compared the degree to which learners
participated in peer feedback and modified output instances, McDonough (2004) reported that
learners who provided more peer feedback and produced more modified output improved
significantly on immediate and delayed production tests of structural targets (real and unreal
conditions) than those who produced fewer instances of peer feedback and modified output.
Although some positive impact of peer feedback is reported, it is not clear how the
characteristics of peer feedback mentioned earlier (i.e., less clear and infrequent in
comparison with teacher feedback) affects its effectiveness. Furthermore, its effectiveness
largely depends on social and contextual factors, which are discussed in the next section.
4.2. Factors Affecting Peer Feedback
4.2.1. Social and Contextual Factors
17
Earlier studies comparing the occurrence of peer feedback and expert feedback (e.g., from
native speakers and teachers) showed that learners provided one another with more feedback
than when they interacted with other interlocutors (e.g., native speakers). Furthermore,
learners were shown to address more communication breakdowns when interacting with peers
than native speakers; this resulted in more peer feedback (e.g., elicitation). Pica et al. (1996)
reasoned that learners may have experienced higher levels of comfort when interacting with
peers than with teachers, and as such, were more likely to experiment further with language
production.
As noted earlier, despite its occurrence and potential to promote L2 development, the
frequency of peer feedback in peer interaction appears to be low. The low incidence of peer
feedback is largely attributed to the social factors inherent in peer interaction (e.g.,
perceptions of equality of peers, comfort level, and previous partnership experience) that
makes it distinct from teacher and native speaker feedback. As the act of providing and
receiving peer feedback entails reciprocity between peer interlocutors, the nature of peer
interaction and effectiveness of peer feedback depend on how learners establish social
relationships during interaction (Philp & Mackey, 2010; Storch, 2002; Swain & Watanabe,
2007, 2008) and their mindset at the time of interaction (Sato, 2017). Regardless of the level
of language repertoire, learners may perceive themselves and their peers as sharing the same
and equal role of interlocutors in interaction (Philp & Mackey, 2010). Thus, when receiving
peer feedback, they may feel embarrassed (Chu, 2013), or even frustrated if they are not
satisfied with the quality of their interlocutors’ correction (Kowal & Swain, 1994, 1997). In
other words, the provision of peer feedback may be problematic for learners who have a
strong sense of equality between peers (Philp & Mackey, 2010).
18
The low occurrence of peer feedback is also due to learners’ hesitation in correcting
each other’s errors. Research on teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about corrective feedback
provided by teachers and peers has suggested that learners might feel uncomfortable when
providing feedback and/or being corrected by peers (Yoshida, 2010). As a result, they are
hesitant about correcting partners’ language errors (Philp, Walter & Basturkmen, 2010; Sato,
2013). Furthermore, learners’ hesitation to provide peer feedback may be due to their inability
to identify and provide comments on language errors; peer feedback may also interrupt
interaction (Philp et al., 2010).
4.2.2. Perceptions of Peer Feedback
The relatively low incidence of peer feedback may also be attributed to learners’ different
attitudes toward it as opposed to native speaker and teacher feedback. For example, in Chu’s
(2013) study that compared the effects of teacher and peer feedback, learners reported that
they considered corrective feedback necessary and helpful; however, they expressed
preference for teacher feedback over peer feedback. They believed teacher feedback to be
more beneficial for L2 learning. Some learners even stated that correcting errors or providing
feedback is the teachers’, not the learners’, role. However, learners also stated that they were
willing to provide feedback to peers, but only when they themselves had confidence in their
language ability. Similarly, learners in other learning contexts said that corrective feedback
was imperative to L2 development (Schulz, 1996), but the majority preferred their errors to be
corrected by teachers rather than peers (Brown, 2009; Cathcart & Olsen, 1976; Schulz, 1996;
Yoshida, 2008), which echoes the findings of written corrective feedback studies (Miao,
Badger & Zhen, 2006; Zhao, 2010).
19
Learners have expressed different reasons for preferring not to receive feedback from
peers. First, they believe peer feedback may not be accurate and peers who provide feedback
may not understand the errors they correct (Yoshida, 2008). They are skeptical of their
partner’s language input, given his/her role of a learner; thus, they tend to seek teachers’ help
for language issues (Davis, 1997; Mackey & McDonough, Fuji & Tatsumi, 2001; Williams,
2001). Second, because learners mistrust their peers’ language ability, they do not consider
them a reliable learning source (Katayama, 2007; Philp, Walter & Batsturkmen, 2010;
Yoshida, 2008). Learners only believe or trust their peers when the peers show confidence
when providing feedback (Katayama, 2007). This indicates that learners tend to be uncertain
of the effectiveness of peer feedback.
However, it is notable that learners’ views on peer feedback vary according to context.
For instance, in a context in which learners have good linguistic knowledge due to their
intensive experience with instruction that explicitly focuses on language forms, learners
express appreciation for peer feedback. This is documented in Sato and Lyster’s (2012) study
on the effect of peer feedback training on improvement in L2 accuracy and fluency. They
found that the learners had positive attitudes toward peer feedback. In another study, Sato
(2013) asked learners, before and after receiving peer feedback training, about their
perceptions of the effectiveness of peer feedback. Learners reported having positive attitudes
toward peer feedback, and the peer feedback training appeared to enhance learners’ trust in
the feedback provided by peers. However, learners shared concerns that peer feedback
impeded the conversation flow and, at times, caused peers to feel hurt or embarrassment.
Overall, these studies indicate that learners’ general and strong preference for teacher
feedback could be rectified by training how to provide feedback to peers, but learners’
20
perceptions or preferences toward peer feedback may still affect its effectiveness as reported
in teacher feedback studies (Brandl, 1995; Brown, 2009; Yoshida, 2008).
Although learners generally preferred to receive feedback from teachers than peers,
they reported that interactions with peers were more enjoyable. Furthermore, if past
experiences of learning with a partner revealed that the partner was of high proficiency, these
learners tended to appreciate and accept more feedback from the partner (Philp & Mackey,
2010). This suggests that peer feedback can be psychologically and socially acceptable to
learners (Sato, 2013; Sipple & Jackson, 2015). With evidence from recent research about the
positive impact of peer feedback (Chu, 2013; Sato & Lyster, 2012; Sipple & Jackson, 2015;
Sipple, 2017), learners’ negative beliefs could be alleviated by raising learners’ awareness and
training them to provide feedback to maximize the effectiveness of peer feedback on L2
development (Sato, 2013; Sato & Lyster, 2012).
4.2.3. Approach to Task Type, Task Role and Proficiency
Apart from the influence of learners’ perceptions of peer feedback, the learners’ approach to
tasks and task roles have also been documented as affecting the frequency and perceptions of
the use of peer feedback. Based on interviews with individual learners, Philp and Mackey
(2010) found that while most learners perceived a role-play task as an opportunity to practice
forms learned in the textbook in a simulated, real-life context, other learners considered it as
an act-out play to depict different personae. Different approaches to the task were suggested
to determine whether learners felt it was necessary to provide feedback, and how they
perceived the use of peer feedback. Furthermore, the assignment of a task role to learners in
pair work has been shown to affect the amount of learner engagement with language forms,
including the provision and use of peer feedback (Dao & McDonough, 2017). That is, giving
the information holder role to a lower proficiency learner in a mixed dyad would likely result
21
in greater engagement with language forms, (e.g., more provision of peer feedback). In sum,
these studies have shown that the amount and effectiveness of peer feedback are subject to the
social and contextual factors at play during interaction.
Proficiency and learners’ perceptions of their partner’s proficiency have also been
observed to affect the frequency and impact of peer feedback on L2 development. When
comparing low proficiency and high proficiency groups, Sato and Viveros (2016) found more
instances of peer feedback and modified output following peer feedback in the low than high
proficiency groups. Learners in the low proficiency groups also demonstrated higher post-task
scores, based on tense usage and vocabulary size tests. These results provide evidence that
peer feedback positively affected L2 learning gains, although its impact may be mediated by
the learners’ mindsets (Sato, 2017). Previous research also showed that the perceived
proficiency level, rather than peer’s actual proficiency level, affected the amount of time
learners engaged discussing language form (e.g., including providing feedback) (Swain &
Wantanabe, 2007; 2008; also see Choi & Iwashita, 2016; Dao & McDonough, 2018; Young
& Tedick, 2016). Overall, given that peer interaction is “a dynamic interaction phenomenon”
coupled with “inherently affective and social nature” (Sato, 2017, p.19; Philp et al., 2014;
Philp & Duchesne, 2016; Tognini, 2008), various social and contextual factors need to be
considered when examining the effectiveness of peer feedback.
4.3. Summary
Peer feedback, especially input-providing feedback, has been found to enhance production
accuracy and development by triggering learners’ attention to language form compared to
when no feedback is supplied. Some studies have also reported a positive relationship
between frequency and accuracy rates. While the frequency of peer feedback is relatively low,
22
some studies found more feedback provided by peers than teachers. Feedback training could
compensate for the drawbacks of peer feedback in terms of the frequency and quality (Sato &
Lyster, 2012; also, see Chapter 28, this volume). The effectiveness of feedback depends on
contextual factors and is also mitigated by social factors. Notably, in the studies discussed in
this section, the language studied was predominantly English being learned mainly by adults.
Considering the impact of social and contextual factors on effectiveness of feedback, studies
of different languages and diverse learners would provide further insight into the effectiveness
of peer feedback for L2 development.
5. Pedagogical Implications
Peer feedback can serve as a pedagogical tool that has potential benefits for learners in the
course of learning an L2 (Sato, 2017; Sato & Lyster, 2012). As peer feedback has been shown
to be helpful, even for less proficient learners (Sato & Viveros, 2016) and for different
structures (Sipple & Jackson, 2015), it is suggested that teachers should encourage learners to
provide peer feedback during interactions for the sake of language development. However,
the use of peer feedback should be handled with care. Peers may not perceive it positively and
can discard it on the grounds that it may be of lower quality than that provided by a teacher;
providing feedback to peers also entails ‘face-threatening’ elements (Naughton, 2006).
To enhance the effectiveness of peer feedback, manipulation of peer interaction (Dao
& McDonough, 2017; Kim & McDonough, 2011) or training learners to provide peer
corrective feedback by shifting their attention to form may be necessary. Research has
documented evidence of the positive impact that these pedagogical interventions have had on
the occurrence of peer corrections (Chu, 2013; Sato, 2013; Sato & Ballinger, 2012; Sipple,
2017) and L2 development (Chu, 2013; Fujii et al., 2016; Sato & Lyster, 2012; Sipple &
23
Jackson, 2015). Furthermore, even a brief training has been shown to promote learners’
positive perceptions and appreciation of peer feedback (Sato, 2013). As the occurrence of
peer feedback may be low due to learners’ greater focus on meaning in conversation,
instructional interventions such as modelling collaborative interaction and guided practice for
producing peer feedback, might induce more peer feedback and maximize its effectiveness.
This may, in turn, promote greater language development and construct a positive social
relationship among learners during interaction (Gass & Varonis, 1989; Sato & Lyster, 2007).
To magnify peer feedback’s effectiveness, its weaknesses need to be addressed. For
example, as mentioned above, when providing peer feedback, learners may not always have
explicitly corrective intentions or maintain consistent focus on the aspects of language to
improve (Toth, 2008). Explicit instruction on how to carefully provide feedback so it can
make the corrective intention more salient and socially acceptable to peers is important
(Loewen & Philp, 2006). Additionally, as the effectiveness of peer feedback has been shown
to depend on multiple social, contextual and individual factors such as interaction dynamics,
age, proficiency, types of target forms, and perceptions (Philp & Mackey, 2010), teachers
need to create a socially supportive and comfortable environment for learners to encourage
the provision and appreciation of peer feedback (Philp, 2016). Overall, it is important that
teachers are aware of both the weaknesses and potential strengths of peer feedback and
address them for the benefit of their learners.
6. Conclusion
This chapter primarily describes the types and characteristics of peer feedback in oral
interaction and discusses its role in L2 acquisition. Peer feedback has some distinctive
features that make it more facilitative of L2 learning as compared to teachers’ or native
24
speakers’ corrective feedback. Peer feedback has also been shown to benefit learners in terms
of increasing their attention to language features, which may possibly result in greater
production accuracy and learning of language features. However, peer feedback also has some
weaknesses that decrease its effectiveness. To address its weaknesses and harness its
facilitative role in L2 learning, research suggests different pedagogical interventions that not
only promote the provision of peer feedback, but also show its positive impact on L2 learning.
Peer feedback is shown to be subject to different social and contextual factors, which need to
be taken into consideration when investing the role of peer feedback in L2 learning and using
it as a pedagogical tool in the classroom.
Given the increasing attention to peer feedback, there are numerous avenues for future
research in this area. For instance, although research has begun to investigate peer feedback,
many studies have remained descriptive (except Adams, 2007; Chu, 2013; Sato & Lyster,
2012; Sipple & Jackson, 2015). This suggests the need for more empirical studies that
examine the causal relationship between peer feedback and language production and
development. Furthermore, the majority of studies have investigated the effect of input-
providing feedback, and it is not known whether output-prompting feedback is as effective as
input-providing feedback. It is also not known exactly what (frequency or quality of
feedback) would enhance production accuracy. Whether peer feedback is more effective for
certain types of linguistic forms and/or tasks than other forms/tasks targeting diverse learners
and L2 in varied contexts, is also worthy of further investigation.
Additionally, unlike teacher feedback, peer feedback has multiple drawbacks that need
to be addressed. Although training has been found to promote the frequency of peer feedback,
it is not clear how training enhances the quality of feedback and the extent to which the
known drawbacks could be rectified. Finally, instructional interventions have been shown to
25
improve the quality and quantity of feedback in peer interactions; however, whether the
positive effects vary according to the learners and instructional contexts remains unclear.
Thus, increasing understanding of peer feedback in L2 pedagogy warrants further research.
26
References
Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other. In
Mackey, A. (Ed), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition, (p. 29–
51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation: Second language
learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483.
Anderson, J. (2005). Cognitive psychology and its implications (6th Ed). New York NY:
Worth Publishers.
Brandl, K. (1995). Strong and weak students’ preferences for error feedback options and
responses. Modern Language Journal, 79, 194–211.
Brooks, L., & Swain, M. (2009). Languaging in collaborative writing: Creation of and
response to expertise. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on
interaction in SLA (pp. 58–89). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, A. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching:
A comparison of ideals. Modern Language Journal, 93, 46–60.
Cathcart, R., & Olsen, J. (1976). Teachers’ and students’ preferences for correction of
classroom conversation errors. In J. Fanselow & R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL ’76 (pp.
41–53). Washington, DC: TESOL.
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.
27
Coughlan, P., & Duff, P. A. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of a SLA task
from an Activity Theory perspective. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds), Vygotskian
approaches to second language research, (pp. 173–193). Westport, CT: Ablex.
Dao, P. (2017). Learner engagement in peer task-based interaction: Identifying the effect of
interlocutor proficiency and task outcome. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Concordia
University. Retrieved on June 10, 2018 https://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/982862/
Dao, P., & McDonough (2017). The effect of task role on Vietnamese EFL learners’
collaboration in mixed proficiency dyads. System, 65, 15–24.
Dao, P., & McDonough, K. (2018). Effect of proficiency on Vietnamese EFL learners’
engagement in peer interaction. International Journal of Educational Research, 88, 60–
72.
Dao, P., Nguyen, M. & Dona, C. (Manuscript in preparation). Effects of reflective learning
practice on learner attention to form.
Davis, R. (1997). Modeling the strategies we advocate. TESOL Journal, 6, 5–6.
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Exploring automatization processes. TESOL Quarterly 30, 349–357.
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In B. van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories
in second language acquisition: An introduction, (97–113). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
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, 331e350.
Chu, R. (2013). Effects of peer feedback on Taiwanese adolescents’ English speaking
practices and development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of
Edinburgh. Retrieved on June 10, 2018 https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/8045
28
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language
knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352.
Ellis, R. (2010). Cognitive, social and psychological dimensions of corrective feedback. In R.
Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp.
151–165). New York: Oxford University Press.
Ertmer, P., Richardson, J., Belland, B., Camin, D., Connolly, P., Coulthard, G., et al. (2007).
Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings: An exploratory
study. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 12, 412–433.
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.
Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty, & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of
second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Oxford: Blackwell.
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction and second language production. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283–302.
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1989). Incorporated repairs in nonnative discourse. In M. R.
Eisenstein (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language
variation (pp. 71–86). New York: Plenum Press.
Iwashita, N. (1999). Tasks and Learners' Output in Nonnative-Nonnative Interaction.
In Kazue Kanno (Ed.), The acquisition of Japanese as a second language (pp. 31–
52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Katayama, A. (2007). Japanese EFL students’ preferences toward correction of classroom oral
errors. Asian EFL Journal, 9, 289–305.
29
Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the
collaborative dialogue between Korean as second language learners. Language
Teaching Research, 12, 211–234.
Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2011). Using pre-task modeling to encourage collaborative
learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research, 15, 183–199.
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote
students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3, 73–93.
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1997). From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we
promote metalinguistic awareness in the French immersion classroom? In R. Johnson,
& M. Swain (Eds.). Immersion education: International perspective (pp. 284–309).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language learning and acquisition.
Oxford: Pergamon.
Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language
development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative
dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81.
Liu, N. F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment.
Teaching in Higher Education, 11, 279–290.
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, 246–251.
Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics,
explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–556.
30
Long, M. (1981). Input, interaction, and second-language acquisition. Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences, 379, 259–278.
Long, M. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177–193.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.
C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–
468). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Long, M. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lynch, T. (2007). Learning from the transcripts of an oral communication task. ELT Journal,
61, 311–320.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form
in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
Lyster, R. & K. Saito (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: Ameta-analysis. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 32, 265–302.
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language
classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.
Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R., & Gass, S. M. (2012). Interactionist approaches. In S. Gass & A.
Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 7–23).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Mackey, A., McDonough, K., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T. (2001). Investigating learners' reports
about the L2 classroom. IRAL, 39, 285–308.
Mackey, A. & Gass, S. (2015). Interaction Approaches. In B. van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.)
Theories in second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge.
31
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, 35–66.
McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a
Thai EFL context. System, 32, 207–224.
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, 179–200.
Morris, F. (2005). Child-to-child interaction and corrective feedback in a computer mediated
L2 class. Language Learning & Technology, 9, 29–45.
Nassaji, H. (2015). Interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning.
London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Nassaji, H. (2009). The effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic Interaction and the role of
feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59, 411-452.
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, 34–51.
Naughton, D. (2006). Cooperative strategy training and oral interaction: Enhancing small
group communication in the language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 90, 169–
184.
Nicol, D. (2009). Assessment for learner self-regulation: Enhancing achievement in the first
year using learning technologies. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34,
335–352.
Nicol, D. (2014). Guiding principles of peer review: Unlocking learners' evaluative skills. In
C. Kreber, C. Anderson, N. Entwistle, & J. McArthur (Eds.), Advances and
32
innovations in university assessment and feedback (pp. 195–258). Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Ohta, A. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning
Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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.
Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N. (2014). Peer interaction and second language learning.
New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Philp, J., & Mackey, A. (2010). Interaction research: What can socially informed approaches
offer to cognitivists (and vice versa)? In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives
on language use and language learning (pp. 210–228). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Philp, J., & Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50–72.
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. (1994b). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language
learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493–527.
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.
33
Poehner, M., E. (2008). Both sides of the conversation: The interplay between mediation and
learner reciprocity in dynamic assessment. In J. P. Lantolf & M. E. Poehner (Eds),
Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages, (pp. 33–56). UK: Equinox.
Ranta, L. & R. Lyster (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral
language abilities: The Awareness–Practice–Feedback sequence. In R. DeKeyser
(ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and
cognitive psychology, (pp. 141–160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of
classroom intervention. Modern Language Journal, 97, 611–633.
Sato, M. (2017). Oral corrective feedback: Multiple theoretical perspective. In Nassaji, H., &
Kartchava, E. (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning:
Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 19–35). New York, NY: Routledge.
Sato, M., & Ballinger, S. (2012). Raising language awareness in peer interaction: A cross-
context, cross-method examination. Language Awareness, 21, 157–179.
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.
Sato, M., & Loewen, S. (2018). Metacognitive instruction enhances the effectiveness of
corrective feedback: Variable effects of feedback types and linguistic targets.
Language Learning, 68, 507–545.
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, 591–626.
34
Sato, M. & McDonough, K. (2019). Practice is important but how about its quality?
Contextualized practice in the classroom, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
Published online Feb, 2019.
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
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, 343–364.
Sheen, Y. & R. Ellis (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In E. Hinkel (ed.),
Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, (pp. 593–610). New
York, NY: Routledge.
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. The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved on
June 10, 2018 https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/14444
Sipple, L., & Jackson, C. N. (2015). Teacher vs. peer oral corrective feedback in the German
language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 48, 688–705.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning 52, 119–158.
Storch, N. (2008). Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for
language development. Language Awareness, 17, 95–114.
35
Storch, N. (2017). Sociocultural theory in the L2 classroom. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.),
The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition, (pp. 69–84). NY:
Routledge.
Swain, Merrill (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook and
B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics, (pp. 125–144).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty and J.
Williams (Eds). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through
collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second
language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
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, 149–169.
Toth, P. (2008). Teacher-and learner-led discourse in task-based grammar instruction:
Providing procedural assistance for L2 morphosyntactic development. Language
Learning, 58, 237–283.
van Compernolle R., A. (2015). Interaction and second language development: A vygotskian
perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
36
van Patten, B., & Benati, A. (2010). Key terms in second language acquisition. New York,
NY: Continuum International Publishing Group.
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,
24–34.
Varonis, E., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for the
negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6, 71–90.
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, 115–130.
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, 121–142.
Williams, J. (2001). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 51, 303–346.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Yilmaz, Y. (2011). Task effects on focus on form in synchronous computer-mediated
communication. Modern Language Journal, 95, 115–132.
Yoshida, R. (2008). Learners’ perception of corrective feedback in pair work. Foreign
Language Annals, 41, 525–541.
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective-feedback types.
Language Awareness, 17, 78–93.
Yoshida, R. (2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the
Japanese language classroom? Modern Language Journal, 94, 293–314.
37
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
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, 3−17.
38
View publication stats

IwashitaN - DaoPForthcoming Pre-Printversion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IwashitaN - DaoPForthcoming Pre-Printversion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Peer feedback in L2 oral interaction. In book: The Cambridge Handbook of

Chapter · June 2021

Phung Dao Noriko Iwashita

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Peer feedback in L2 oral interaction

The University of Queensland, Australia

Manchester Metroplitan University, UK

accuracy and development by triggering learners’ attention to language form, increasing

language modifications, and proceduralizing learners’ declarative linguistic knowledge

in performing intended communication and/or co-constructing language knowledge (van

This chapter presents an overview of the research on peer feedback in L2 oral

feedback, followed by the discussion of the theoretical underpinnings of peer feedback to

2. Peer Oral Feedback Types and Characteristics

Feedback involves a learner receiving corrective information on his/her speech from a

learner-teacher or learner-native speaker interaction (Philp et al., 2014).

2.1. Feedback Types

output-prompting peer feedback have been documented in empirical studies, including

Apart from the input-providing and output-prompting dimensions, the degree of

feedback, metalinguistic information (linguistic salience), intonation (auditory salience), and

Although it may be possible to manipulate the explicitness externally to a certain extent,

whether it is salient enough for learners depends on individual perceptions.

2.2. Feedback Orientation

understand them and to achieve intended communication.

(a-bu-ji-nun sun-saeng-nim-i-et-da. hyun-jae a-ni-go, gwa-guh)

[Father was a teacher, not present, past] explicit correction

(Kim & McDonough, 2008, pp. 217–218, commentary added)

In Excerpt 1, S2 learner explicitly corrected their partner’s utterance (e.g., father is a

teacher) by reformulation (e.g., father was a teacher) and provided metalinguistic

his choice of language (line 73).

Excerpt 2. Explicit peer feedback in the form of a question

69 M: the immigrants particular

72 C: why is “ly” clarification request

76 M: yeah ... particularly ... in south ... maybe in ... in

77 C: the immigrants particularly

(Storch, 2008, p. 101, commentary added)

However, the corrective intention is not always clear, as demonstrated in Excerpt 3.

Excerpt 3. Peer feedback in the form of recast

No, bootle ah (.) two bottles, please

S2: Deux bouteilles recast

(Philp, Walter & Basturkmen, 2010, p. 267)

effectiveness of peer feedback (Sato & Lyster, 2012).

When the goal of interaction is to complete a task or perform certain types of

difficulties in completing a task or address communication breakdowns caused by language

Excerpt 4, which is taken from an interaction in which learners collaborated to

language during task completion.

Excerpt 4. Feedback targeting multiple aspects of language

2. P2: is broke broken is broke head

4. P2: Uh broke leg … and then they are …

5. P1: in the hopital [wrong pronunciation]

6. P2: in the hospital [right pronunciation] recast (phonological error)

and the doctor khám bệnh là gì? [what is ‘examine’]

(Dao & Nguyen, 2019)

4 demonstrates two important characteristics of peer feedback. First, peer feedback is

feedback on multiple aspects or a single aspect of language is more beneficial to L2 learning;

2.3. Feedback Quality

feedback may contain incorrect information, as seen in Excerpt 5.

Excerpt 5. Peer feedback (explicit feedback) with inaccurate input

S2: Muchos ... emigré? Pretérito?

[Many ... emigrated (first-person sing.) preterit?]

S2: Sí. emigré.