Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention
Abstract
ABSTRACT 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 = 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 = 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.
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?
In Sato's (2013) study, learners explained that they did not have to worry about making errors while talking to each other, especially in comparison to a teacher-centered conversation.
“In Sato's (2013) study of learners' perceptions of peer interaction, learners explained that they did not have to worry about making errors while talking to each other, especially in comparison to a teacher-centered conversation.”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Sato 2013
Cites
Basics of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.): Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008) · SAGE · doi:10.4135/9781452230153 · Cited by 12,136 · see citing works
SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010) · doi:10.4135/9781506335193 · Cited by 6,215 · see citing works
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND LEARNER UPTAKE: Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classrooms
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263197001034 · Cited by 2,259 · see citing works
Patterns of Interaction in ESL Pair Work
Storch, N. (2002) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00179 · Cited by 1,080 · 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
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
Corrective Feedback and Teacher Development
Ellis, R. (2009) · L2 Journal · doi:10.5070/l2.v1i1.9054 · Cited by 659 · see citing works
Teacher Motivation Strategies, Student Perceptions, Student Motivation, and English Achievement
BERNAUS, M., & GARDNER, R. C. (2008) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00753.x · Cited by 366 · see citing works
de Jong, N., & Perfetti, C. A. (2011) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00620.x · Cited by 250 · see citing works
Busch, D. (2010) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168810365239 · Cited by 218
Error Correction: Students’ Versus Teachers’ Perceptions
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2005) · Language Awareness · doi:10.1080/09658410508668828 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Interaction and instructed second language acquisition
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444818000125 · Cited by 377 · see citing works
Self-citationSato, M. (2014) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2014.05.004 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Sato, M.
- Affiliations
- Universidad Andrés Bello (CL)
- Corresponding author
- Sato, Masatoshi
- ORCID
- Sato, Masatoshi
- Venue
- The Modern Language Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-08-22
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 611-633
- ISSN
- 0026-7902 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-4781
- OpenAlex
- W2124549171
- Cited by
- 142
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3
- FWCI
- 58.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Modern Language Journal (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Fund for Scientific and Technological Development (FONDECYT: 11121136)
- Ministry of Education of Chile
- 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 › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
- Keywords
- peer interaction, learner beliefs, second language learners, English as a second language, cooperative learning, classroom intervention, learner confidence, university students
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