Cited by 142EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Acquisition and LearningLinguistics and Language Analysis

Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention

Sato, Masatoshi·2013·The Modern Language Journal

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

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12035.x

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Authors
Sato, M.
Affiliations
Universidad Andrés Bello (CL)
Corresponding author
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