13

Peer Feedback in Second

Language Oral Interaction
Noriko Iwashita and Phung Dao

Introduction

Peer feedback has recently gained significant attention in second lan-

guage (L2) acquisition research. Studies have found that despite being
lower in quality and frequency than teacher or native-speaker (NS) feed-
back, 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 conversa-
tional partners (e.g., presumably equal in terms of language expertise;
provider and receiver of peer feedback), learner perceptions of the inter-
locutors’ 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).
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 a 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.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 26 May 2021 at 00:01:45, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.014
 276 N O R I K O I WA S H I TA A N D P H U N G DA O

Peer Oral Feedback Types and Characteristics

Feedback involves a learner receiving corrective information on his or 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 et al., 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–tea-
cher or learner–NS interaction (Philp et al., 2014).

Feedback Types
Following recent categorizations of teacher corrective feedback (Lyster,
Saito & Sato, 2013; Sato & Loewen, 2018; Sheen & Ellis, 2011; also see
Lyster & Ranta, 1997), peer feedback can be classified into two broad
types – input-providing and output-prompting – in terms of evidence it
provides (i.e., negative and positive). Input-providing peer feedback sup-
plies 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 & Ranta, 1997; Lyster, Saito & Sato, 2013; Sheen & Ellis,
2011). In contrast to input-providing peer feedback, output-prompting
peer feedback does not supply learners with a target-like 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, clari-
fication 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 categoriza-
tion (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), intona-
tion (auditory salience), and gesture and body language (visual salience)
(see Loewen & Philp, 2006; Yilmaz, 2011). Although it may be possible to

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 26 May 2021 at 00:01:45, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.014
 Peer Feedback in Second Language Oral Interaction 277

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 observed in peer interaction are similar to
teacher and NS feedback, peer feedback has several characteristics that
set it apart from the teacher’s and native speakers’ feedback.

Feedback Orientation
The first distinctive characteristic of peer feedback is its orientation. Often,
teacher feedback informs learners of their erroneous utterances, expect-
ing that learners will notice and correct the errors, which may possibly
result in language modification and accurate output. However, peer feed-
back 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.
Examples 1 and 2 demonstrate two instances of talk segments where
learners explicitly correct each other during an interaction.

Example 1: Explicit peer feedback in the form of reformulation

and metalinguistic information
S 1 : 아버지가 선생님이다?
(Abu-ji-ga sun-saeng-nim-i-da?)
[Father is a teacher?]

S2: 아버지는 선생님이었다 현재 아니고과거

(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 Example 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, Example 2 shows that learner C explicitly questioned his part-
ner’s language use (e.g., “why is ‘ly’?”), which led learner M to reconsider
his choice of language (line 4).

Example 2: Explicit peer feedback in the form of a question

1 M : the immigrants particular
2 C : south

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 26 May 2021 at 00:01:45, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.014
 278 N O R I K O I WA S H I TA A N D P H U N G DA O

3 M: is particularly
4 C: why is “ly”? clarification request
5 M: or in particular . . . because is, is adjective and this context this
not adjective here
6 C: mm (some agreement)
7 M: yeah . . . particularly . . . in south . . . maybe in . . . in
8 C: the immigrants particularly
(Storch, 2008, p. 101, commentary added)
However, the corrective intention is not always clear, as demonstrated in
Example 3.

Example 3: Peer feedback in the form of recast

S 1 : Non, boutelle [mispronunciation of the word] euh (.) deux bouteilles,
s’il vous plait
“No, bootle ah (.) two bottles, please.”
S 2 : Deux bouteilles recast
“Two bottles.”
(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 interactions 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 break-
downs 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.
Example 4, which is taken from an interaction in which learners collab-
orated to sequence and describe pictures, shows peer feedback that targets
multiple features of language during task completion.

Example 4: Feedback targeting multiple aspects of language

1 P 1 : This is a phone . . . then she call to the hospital because her cat
is uh . . .
2 P 2 : is broke broken is broke head
3 P 1 : cái gı̀ [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 beˆ nh là gı̀? [what is “examine”]
˙
(Dao, Nguyen & Chi, 2020, unpublished data)

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 26 May 2021 at 00:01:45, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.014
 Peer Feedback in Second Language Oral Interaction 279

In this example, when learner P2 said “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, Example 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, 2008, 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
Example 4 providing and receiving feedback on each other’s language
issues.

Feedback Quality
It is well acknowledged that peer feedback is perceived as less reliable than
the feedback learners receive from teachers or native-speaker interlocu-
tors (Pica et al., 1996). Peer feedback may contain incorrect information, as
seen in Example 5.

Example 5: Peer feedback (explicit feedback) with inaccurate

input
S 2 : Muchos . . . emigré? Pretérito?
[Many . . . emigrated (first-person sing.) preterit?]
S 1 : 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: Sı́. emigré.
[Yes, emigrated (first-person sing.)]
S1: Emigré gente. Emigré.
[emigrated (first-person sing.) people. Emigrated.]
(Leeser, 2004, p. 66)

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 26 May 2021 at 00:01:45, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.014
 280 N O R I K O I WA S H I TA A N D P H U N G DA O

In Example 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. Example 6 demonstrates how peer feedback with incorrect infor-
mation increases learners’ attention to form.

Example 6: Peer feedback (recast) with inaccurate input

P 1 : not some many many projector break down–
P 2 : ya out of date recast with incorrect information
P 1 : out of work recast with incorrect information
P 2 : ya ok [laugh] out of work
ˆ n xin lô˜i [mistake sorry] out of order sorry [laugh]
P 1 : . . . a lo
˙
recast with correct information
P2: [laugh] . . .
(Dao, 2017)

In Example 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 nontarget-like utterance (e.g.,
“out of work”), which was also nontarget-like. Learner P1 recognized
the inaccurate information (e.g., “mistake sorry”) and reformulated it
again (e.g., “out of order”). Example 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 the restructuring of their L2 knowledge (see also
Philp et al., 2014; Sato & Loewen, 2018; Sato & Lyster, 2012).
However, compared to teacher or native-speaker feedback – which man-
ifests 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 utter-
ances, 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. Example 7 provides an example of peer feedback that
does not specify what information needs to be elicited.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 26 May 2021 at 00:01:45, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.014
 Peer Feedback in Second Language Oral Interaction 281

Example 7: A non-specified clarification request

L9: if the city build more bicycle lane
L 1 1 : again please clarification request
(McDonough, 2004, p. 217)

In Example 7, L11 requested clarification; however, it is not clear

whether the requester is asking for clarification of the information pro-
vided 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 feed-
back, 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 pro-
ceduralize it. Thus, through meaningful practice, learners may be better
able to recognize the incorrectness of linguistic information in peer feed-
back 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.

Benets 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 et al., 2017), cognitive (including both cognitive-interactionist,
e.g., Gass & Mackey, 2007; Long, 1981, 1983, 1996, 2007, and skill acquisi-
tion theory, e.g., Anderson, 2005; DeKeyser, 1998), and sociocognitive (e.g.,
Philp & Mackey, 2010).

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 know-
ledge. 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;

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 26 May 2021 at 00:01:45, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.014
 282 N O R I K O I WA S H I TA A N D P H U N G DA O

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 modifi-
cations, 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 et al., 2000), with careful use and training, it
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 feed-
back 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 process of detecting errors and provid-
ing 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).

Cognitive Perspective
Oral interaction provides an opportunity to receive and process informa-
tion. 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.

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)

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 26 May 2021 at 00:01:45, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.014
 Peer Feedback in Second Language Oral Interaction 283

and Swain’s Output Hypothesis (1995, 1998). Long proposed that conversa-
tional modifications offered in response to communication difficulties
promote L2 learning. In his updated theory, Long (1996) stressed the facili-
tative role of input-providing feedback, such as recasts, as these interac-
tional 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 oppor-
tunities 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 communicative goals in her Output
Hypothesis. In other words, learners engage in active deployment of
their cognitive resources during production (Izumi, 2003).
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 experi-
mental 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 compar-
ison to teacher and native-speaker feedback, decreases the effectiveness of
corrective feedback in facilitating error noticeability and output modifica-
tion. Additionally, peer feedback in some learning contexts may not pro-
mote as much attention to form as teacher feedback because of 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.

Skill Acquisition Theory

The usefulness of peer feedback (e.g., output-prompting feedback) for L2
development can be explained through Skill Acquisition Theory (SAT).
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 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 (VanPatten & Benati, 2010). This transition is brought
about by feedback in meaningful communications (DeKeyser, 1998, 2007;

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 26 May 2021 at 00:01:45, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.014
 284 N O R I K O I WA S H I TA A N D P H U N G DA O

also see Sato & McDonough, 2019). In other words, feedback given in
contextualized practice facilitates learners’ proceduralization and auto-
matization 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 produc-
tion 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 per-
spective, learning is largely considered individual and cognitive, and this
approach has been criticized for not taking social factors into account.

Sociocognitive Perspectives
The sociocognitive approach to L2 learning considers the effect of both
cognitive and social factors in understanding L2 acquisition. One line of
cognitive-interactionist research further informed by the social approach
suggests that the quality and quantity of information in corrective feed-
back given during interaction depends on the context (e.g., classroom,
laboratory) and other factors, such as learner perceptions of the interlocu-
tors’ relationship in interactions and 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 infor-
mation 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 feed-
back to L2 development to 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 (Donato, 2004; Ohta, 2001; Poehner, 2008; Sato & Ballinger,
2012). Scaffoldings in the form of peer feedback are believed to help
learners acquire appropriate language forms, which enable them to per-
form intended activities such as producing language or achieving commu-
nication (e.g., Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994; Lantolf & Thorn, 2006; Nassaji &
Swain, 2000; Ohta, 2000; Sato & Ballinger, 2012; Wertsch, 1998).

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 26 May 2021 at 00:01:45, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.014
 Peer Feedback in Second Language Oral Interaction 285

Studies of Peer Feedback

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 feed-
back. Broadly speaking, research has shown that peer feedback contri-
butes to improving production accuracy and L2 development. For
instance, using tailor-made production tests, Adams (2007) found that
learners scored 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 feed-
back, Lynch (2007) found that peer feedback was more effective in devel-
oping 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 partici-
ple formation, Sipple and Jackson (2015) found that although both teacher
feedback and peer feedback contributed to the improvement in accuracy
of the target structures, learners who received peer feedback outper-
formed those receiving teacher feedback based on the pre-test/post-test
scores. They attributed the superior impact of peer feedback to its char-
acteristics of heightening learners’ awareness of language form and pro-
moting learner engagement in providing and receiving feedback from
peers. Although this body of research has reported the 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 the next section).
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 in their interactions. The results showed that learners demon-
strated improvement from pre-test to post-test on oral tasks (e.g., informa-
tion-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

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 26 May 2021 at 00:01:45, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.014
 286 N O R I K O I WA S H I TA A N D P H U N G DA O

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 feed-
back and made use of the feedback that was provided, thereby benefiting
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 feed-
back and modified output. Although some positive impact of peer feed-
back 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.

Factors Affecting Peer Feedback

Social and Contextual Factors
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 experi-
enced higher levels of comfort when interacting with peers than with
teachers and, as such, were more likely to experiment further with lan-
guage 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 &

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 26 May 2021 at 00:01:45, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.014
 Peer Feedback in Second Language Oral Interaction 287

Mackey, 2010; Storch, 2002; Watanabe & Swain, 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 embar-
rassed (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).
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 feed-
back may be due to their inability to identify and provide comments on
language errors; peer feedback may also interrupt interaction (Philp et al.,
2010).

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 consid-
ered 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).
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
or her role as a learner; thus, they tend to seek teachers’ help for language
issues (Davis, 1997; Mackey et al., 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,

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 26 May 2021 at 00:01:45, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.014
 288 N O R I K O I WA S H I TA A N D P H U N G DA O

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 in how
to provide feedback to peers, but learners’ perceptions or preferences toward
peer feedback may still affect its effectiveness, as reported in teacher feed-
back 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 enjoy-
able. Furthermore, if past experiences of learning with a partner revealed
that the partner was of high proficiency, these learners tended to appreci-
ate and accept more feedback from the partner (Philp & Mackey, 2010).
This suggests that peer feedback can be psychologically and socially accep-
table 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, 2017; Sipple & Jackson, 2015), learners’ nega-
tive beliefs could be alleviated by raising their awareness and training
them to provide feedback to maximize the effectiveness of peer feedback
on L2 development (Sato, 2013; Sato & Lyster, 2012).

Approach to Task Type, Task Role, and Prociency

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 prac-
tice forms learned in the textbook in a simulated, real-life context, other
learners considered it as an act-out play to depict different personae.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 26 May 2021 at 00:01:45, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.014
 Peer Feedback in Second Language Oral Interaction 289

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 pairwork 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 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- rather than high-
proficiency groups. Learners in the low-proficiency groups also demon-
strated 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 in discussing language form (e.g., includ-
ing providing feedback) (Watanabe & Swain, 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 effec-
tiveness of peer feedback.

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,
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; see also 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

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 26 May 2021 at 00:01:45, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.014
 290 N O R I K O I WA S H I TA A N D P H U N G DA O

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.

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 devel-
opment. 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 train-
ing 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 & Jackson, 2015). Furthermore, even brief training
has been shown to promote learners’ positive perceptions and appreci-
ation of peer feedback (Sato, 2013). As the occurrence of peer feedback may
be low due to learners’ greater focus on meaning in conversation, instruc-
tional 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 accep-
table 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,

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 26 May 2021 at 00:01:45, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.014
 Peer Feedback in Second Language Oral Interaction 291

age, proficiency, types of target forms, and perceptions (Philp &

Mackey, 2010), teachers need to create a socially supportive and com-
fortable 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 the potential
strengths of peer feedback and address them for the benefit of their
learners.

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 speakers’ corrective feedback.
Peer feedback has also been shown to benefit learners in terms of increas-
ing 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 pro-
mote 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 considered 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 feed-
back) 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 the L2 in varied contexts, is also
worthy of further investigation.
Additionally, unlike teacher feedback, peer feedback has multiple draw-
backs 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

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 26 May 2021 at 00:01:45, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.014
 292 N O R I K O I WA S H I TA A N D P H U N G DA O

been shown to 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.

References

Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting

with each other. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second
language acquisition (pp. 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(4), 465–483.
Anderson, J. (2005). Cognitive psychology and its implications (6th ed.).
New York: Worth Publishers.
Brandl, K. (1995). Strong and weak students’ preferences for error feedback
options and responses. Modern Language Journal, 79(2), 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
(1), 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.
Chu, R. (2013). Effects of peer feedback on Taiwanese adolescents’ English
speaking practices and development. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, The University of Edinburgh. www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/
8045.
Coughlan, P. & Duff, P. A. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of
an 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. https://spec
trum.library.concordia.ca/982862/.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 26 May 2021 at 00:01:45, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.014
 Peer Feedback in Second Language Oral Interaction 293

(2019). Effects of task goal orientation on learner engagement in task

performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 1–20. www.degruyter.com/view/j/iral?rskey=JOFBFp.
Dao, P. & McDonough, K. (2017). The effect of task role on Vietnamese EFL
learners’ collaboration in mixed proficiency dyads. System, 65(1),
15–24.
(2018). Effect of proficiency on Vietnamese EFL learners’ engagement in
peer interaction. International Journal of Educational Research, 88(1),
60–72.
Dao, P., Nguyen, M. X. N. & Chi, D. N. (2020). Reflective learning practice for
promoting adolescent EFL learners’ attention to form. Innovation in
Language Learning and Teaching, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229
.2020.1766467.
Davis, R. (1997). Modeling the strategies we advocate. TESOL Journal, 6
(4), 5–6.
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Exploring automatization processes. TESOL Quarterly,
30(2), 349–357.
(2007). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (eds.),
Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97–113).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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(3), 331–350.
Donato, R. (2004). Aspects of collaboration in pedagogical discourse. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 284–302.
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and
implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
27(1), 305–352.
Ellis, R. (2010). Cognitive, social and psychological dimensions of correct-
ive 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.,
Lei, K. & Mong, C. (2007). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of
student online postings: An exploratory study. Journal of Computer
Mediated Communication, 12(2), 412–433.
Fujii, A., Ziegler, N. & Mackey, A. (2016). Peer interaction and metacogni-
tive instruction in the EFL classroom. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (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. & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second
language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (eds.), Theories

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 26 May 2021 at 00:01:45, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.014
 294 N O R I K O I WA S H I TA A N D P H U N G DA O

in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 180–206). New York:

Routledge.
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.
(1994). Input, interaction and second language production. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 16(3), 283–302.
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.
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second lan-
guage learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the out-
put hypothesis. Applied Linguistics 24(2), 168–196. https://doi.org/10
.1093/applin/24.2.145.
Katayama, A. (2007). Japanese EFL students’ preferences toward correction
of classroom oral errors. Asian EFL Journal, 9(4), 289–305.
Kim, Y. & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on
the collaborative dialogue between Korean as second language
learners. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 211–234.
(2011). Using pre-task modeling to encourage collaborative learning
opportunities. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 183–199.
Kowal, M. & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production
tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3
(2), 73–93.
(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 perspec-
tive (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 colla-
borative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55–81.
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(3), 246–251.
Liu, N. F. & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer
assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290.
Loewen, S. & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom:
Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language
Journal, 90(4), 536–556.
Long, M. (1981). Input, interaction, and second-language acquisition.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379(1), 259–278.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 26 May 2021 at 00:01:45, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.014
 Peer Feedback in Second Language Oral Interaction 295

(1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native

speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(2), 177–193.
(1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acqui-
sition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of second language
acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press.
(2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lynch, T. (2007). Learning from the transcripts of an oral communication
task. ELT Journal, 61(4), 311–320.
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake:
Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 19(4), 37–66.
Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A
meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302.
Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second
language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 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: Routledge.
Mackey, A. & Gass, S. (2015). Interaction approaches. In B. VanPatten &
J. Williams (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition. New York:
Routledge.
Mackey, A., McDonough, K., Fujii, A. & Tatsumi, T. (2001). Investigating
learners’ reports about the L2 classroom. International Review of Applied
Linguistics, 39(4), 285–308.
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(1), 35–66.
McDonough, K. (2004). Learner–learner interaction during pair and small
group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32(2), 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(3), 179–200.
Morris, F. (2005). Child-to-child interaction and corrective feedback in
a computer mediated L2 class. Language Learning & Technology, 9(1),
29–45.
Nassaji, H. (2009). The effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interac-
tion and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59(2),
411–452.
(2015). Interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning.
London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
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(1), 34–51.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 26 May 2021 at 00:01:45, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.014
 296 N O R I K O I WA S H I TA A N D P H U N G DA O

Naughton, D. (2006). Cooperative strategy training and oral interaction:

Enhancing small group communication in the language classroom.
Modern Language Journal, 90(2), 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(3), 335–352.
(2014). Guiding principles of peer review: Unlocking learners’ evaluative
skills. In C. Kreber, C. Anderson, N. Entwistle & J. McArthur (eds.),
Advances and innovations in university assessment and feedback (pp.
195–258). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Ohta, A. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropri-
ate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisi-
tion of L2 grammar. In J. P. Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second
language learning (pp. 51–78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning
Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Philp, J. (2016). New pathways in researching interaction. In M. Sato &
S. Ballinger (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: Taylor & Francis.
Philp, J. & Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the
language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 50–72.
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: Oxford University Press.
Philp, J., Walter, S. & Basturkmen, H. (2010). Peer interaction in the foreign
language classroom: What factors foster a focus on form? Language
Awareness, 19(4), 261–279.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second
language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language
Learning, 44(3), 493–527.
Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D. & Linnell, J. (1996). Language learn-
ers’ interaction: How does it address the input, output, and feedback
needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), 59–84.
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). London: Equinox.
Ranta, L. & Lyster, R. (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

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 26 May 2021 at 00:01:45, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.014
 Peer Feedback in Second Language Oral Interaction 297

from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141–160). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.
Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feed-
back: Efficacy of classroom intervention. Modern Language Journal, 97
(3), 611–633.
(2017). Oral corrective feedback: Multiple theoretical perspectives. In
H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language
teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 19–35).
New York: Routledge.
Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (2012). Raising language awareness in peer inter-
action: A cross-context, cross-method examination. Language
Awareness, 21(1), 157–179.
(2016). Understanding peer interaction: Research synthesis and direc-
tions. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (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(2), 507–545.
Sato, M. & Lyster, R. (2007). Modified output of Japanese EFL learners:
Variable effects of interlocutor vs. feedback types. In A. Mackey (ed.),
Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of
empirical studies (pp. 123–142). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency
development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 34(4), 591–626.
Sato, M. & McDonough, K. (2019). Practice is important but how about its
quality? Contextualized practice in the classroom, Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 41(1), 999–1026.
Sato, M. & Viveros, P. (2016). Interaction or collaboration? Group dynamics
in the foreign language classroom. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (eds.), Peer
interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research
agenda (pp. 91–112). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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(3), 343–364.
Segalowitz, N. (2003). Automaticity and second languages. In C. Doughty &
M. H. Long (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp.
382–408). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Sheen, Y. & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In
E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learn-
ing (pp. 593–610). New York: 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,

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 26 May 2021 at 00:01:45, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.014
 298 N O R I K O I WA S H I TA A N D P H U N G DA O

Pennsylvania State University. 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(4),
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(1), 119–158.
(2008). Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and
implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17(2),
95–114.
(2017). Sociocultural theory in the L2 classroom. In S. Loewen & M. Sato
(eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp.
69–84). New York: Routledge.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In
G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer (eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguis-
tics (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty and
J. Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.
61–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(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(2), 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(2), 237–283.
van Compernolle R. A. (2015). Interaction and second language development:
A Vygotskian perspective. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
VanPatten, B. & Benati, A. (2010). Key terms in second language acquisition.
New York: 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(1), 24–34.
Varonis, E. & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model
for the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 71–90.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 26 May 2021 at 00:01:45, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.014
 Peer Feedback in Second Language Oral Interaction 299

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(2), 121–142.
(2008). Perception of learner proficiency: Its impact on the interaction
between an ESL learner and her higher and lower proficiency
partners. Language Awareness, 17(2), 115–130.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Williams, J. (2001). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning,
51(1), 303–346.
Yilmaz, Y. (2011). Task effects on focus on form in synchronous computer-
mediated communication. Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 115–132.
Yoshida, R. (2008). Learners’ perception of corrective feedback in pair
work. Foreign Language Annals, 41(3), 525–541.
(2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective-feedback
types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 78–93.
(2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the
Japanese language classroom? Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 293–314.
Young, A. & Tedick, D. (2016). Collaborative dialogue in a two-way Spanish/
English immersion classroom. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (eds.), Peer
interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research
agenda (pp. 135–160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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(1), 3−17.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 26 May 2021 at 00:01:45, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.014