Teacher vs. Peer Oral Corrective Feedback in the German Language Classroom
Abstract
This classroom study investigated the effects of oral teacher and peer corrective feedback on the acquisition of the German present perfect tense, including auxiliary verb selection (a rule‐based structure) and past participle formation (an item‐based structure). Intermediate learners of German were assigned to a teacher feedback condition, a peer feedback condition, or a control group. Learners in the teacher feedback group were corrected by their course instructor, while learners in the peer feedback group were trained to provide guidance to each other at the beginning of a two‐day instructional treatment. Results from both an immediate and delayed posttest showed that while both experimental groups significantly improved in grammatical accuracy with both auxiliary selection and the past participle, the largest improvement was seen among the learners in the peer feedback group. These findings suggest that peer corrective feedback heightens learners' awareness of linguistic forms and that learners who provide such feedback may benefit not only from receiving but also from providing it. The results further demonstrate that peer feedback can be effective with less‐proficient learners and with different types of grammatical structures.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
These studies have typically compared the formative effect of peer assessment with either teacher assessment or no assessment conditions.
“These studies have typically compared the formative effect of peer assessment with either teacher assessment (e.g., Chaney and Ingraham 2009; Sippel and Jackson 2015; van Ginkel et al. 2017) or no assessment conditions (e.g., Kamp et al. 2014; L. Li and Steckelberg 2004; Schonrock-Adema et al. 2007).”
From The Impact of Peer Assessment on Academic Performance: A Meta-analysis of Control Group Studies (2020) · cites this paper as Sippel and Jackson 2015
Cites
The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning1
SCHMIDT, R. W. (1990) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/11.2.129 · Cited by 4,910 · see citing works
Long, M. (1991) · Studies in Bilingualism · doi:10.1075/sibil.2.07lon · Cited by 1,775 · see citing works
Schmidt, R. (2001) · Cognition and Second Language Instruction · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139524780.003 · Cited by 1,322 · see citing works
The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis
Li, S. (2010) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x · Cited by 941 · see citing works
To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing
Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002 · Cited by 843 · see citing works
ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA: A Meta-Analysis
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263109990520 · Cited by 838 · see citing works
Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class
Zhang, S. (1995) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/1060-3743(95)90010-1 · Cited by 405 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Impact of Peer Assessment on Academic Performance: A Meta-analysis of Control Group Studies
Double, K. S., McGrane, J. A., & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2020) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-019-09510-3 · Cited by 446 · see citing works
- Authors
- Sippel, L., & Jackson, C. N.
- Affiliations
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- Venue
- Foreign Language Annals
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-11-24
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 688-705
- ISSN
- 0015-718X (ISSN-L)
- 1944-9720
- OpenAlex
- W2273023063
- Cited by
- 68
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 4.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Foreign Language Annals (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Keywords
- corrective feedback, peer feedback, teacher feedback, German as a foreign language, present perfect, grammatical accuracy, second language acquisition, intermediate learners, learner awareness
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review