This classroom study investigated the effectiveness of form-focused instruction and peer feedback training to improve grammatical accuracy and thereby maximize learning opportunities during peer interaction. Eighty-seven third-semester learners of German were assigned to a PI group (peer interaction only), an FFI group (peer interaction and form-focused instruction), or a PFT group (peer interaction, form-focused instruction, and peer feedback training). During an instructional intervention over 3 class periods, participants in all 3 groups engaged in the same peer interaction activities, but only the FFI group and the PFT group received form-focused instruction on the grammatical target structure, the German present perfect tense. Critically, only the PFT group was trained to provide corrective feedback to peers. Results from a pretest and two posttests, all of which included an oral production task and an error correction task, showed that peer interaction was effective when combined with form-focused instruction, but more effective when peer feedback training was also provided to learners. These results underscore the importance of instruction on peer feedback for more successful peer interaction activities.
AdamsR. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 29–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
AdamsR.NuevoA.M.EgiT. (2011). Explicit and implicit feedback, modified output and SLA. Does explicit and implicit feedback promote learning and learner–learner interactions?The Modern Language Journal, 95, 42–63.
3.
AmmarA.SpadaN. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.
4.
CarrellP.L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 121–134.
5.
CerezoL.CarasA.LeowR.P. (2016). The effectiveness of guided induction versus deductive instruction on the development of complex Spanishgustarstructures: An analysis of learning outcomes and processes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 265–291.
6.
ChuR.-X. (2013). Effects of peer feedback on Taiwanese adolescents’ English speaking practices and development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
7.
DayE.M.ShapsonS.M. (1991). Integrating formal and functional approaches to language teaching in French immersion: An experimental study. Language Learning, 41, 25–58.
8.
DoughtyC. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL revitalization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431–469.
9.
EgiT. (2007). Recasts, learners’ interpretations, and L2 development. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 249–267). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.
EllisR.LoewenS.ErlamR. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368.
11.
FosterP.OhtaA.S. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26, 402–430.
12.
FujiiA.MackeyA. (2009). Interactional feedback in learner–learner interactions in a task-based EFL classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47, 267–301.
13.
FujiiA.ZieglerN.MackeyA. (2016). Peer interaction and metacognitive instruction in the EFL classroom. In SatoM.BallingerS. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 63–89). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
14.
GohC. (2008). Metacognitive instruction for second language listening development: Theory, practice and research implications. RELC Journal, 39, 188–213.
15.
GooJ. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474.
16.
IwashitaN. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 1–36.
17.
KartchavaE.AmmarA. (2014). The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in relation to target type. Language Teaching Research, 18, 428–452.
18.
Larson-HallJ. (2016). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS and R. 2nd edition.New York / London: Routledge.
19.
LeeS.-K. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students’ reading comprehension and learning of passive form. Language Learning, 57, 87–118.
20.
LeveltW.J.M. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14, 41–104.
21.
LiS. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.
22.
LightbownP.M.SpadaN. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429–448.
23.
LindsethM. (2016). The effects of form-focused instruction on the acquisition of subject–verb inversion in German. Foreign Language Annals, 49, 10–22.
24.
LoewenS. (2015). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.
25.
LoewenS.NabeiT. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 361–377). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26.
LoewenS.PhilipJ. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–556.
27.
LoewenS.SatoM. (2018). Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51, 285–329.
28.
LongM.H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In RitchieW.BathiaT. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
29.
LundstromK.BakerW. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30–43.
30.
LyddonP.A. (2011). The efficacy of corrective feedback and textual enhancement in promoting the acquisition of grammatical redundancies. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 104–129.
31.
LysterR. (1994). The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 15, 263–287.
32.
LysterR. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.
33.
LysterR.IzquierdoJ. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59, 453–498.
34.
LysterR.SaitoK. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.
35.
LysterR.SaitoK.SatoM. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.
36.
MackeyA.PhilipJ. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings?The Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.
37.
MartinezM.E. (2006). What is metacognition?Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 696–699.
38.
MartinI.A.SippelL. (2021). Is giving better than receiving? The effects of peer and teacher feedback on L2 pronunciation skills. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 7, 62–88.
39.
McDonoughK. (2004). Learner–learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32, 207–224.
40.
McDonoughK. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103.
41.
NassajiH. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59, 411–452.
42.
NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.
43.
OxfordR.L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Heinle & Heinle.
44.
PhilipJ.AdamsR.IwashitaN. (2014). Peer interaction and second language learning. New York: Routledge.
45.
PhilipJ.WalterS.BasturkmenH. (2010). Peer interaction in the foreign language classroom: What factors foster a focus on form?Language Awareness, 19, 261–279.
46.
PlonskyL. (2011). The effectiveness of second language strategy instruction: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 61, 993–1038.
47.
SatoM. (2007). Social relationships in conversational interaction: A comparison of learner–learner and learner–NS dyads. JALT Journal, 29, 183–208.
48.
SatoM. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 611–633.
49.
SatoM. (2017). Oral peer corrective feedback. Multiple theoretical perspectives. In NassajiH.KartchavaE. (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 19–34). New York: Routledge.
50.
SatoM. (2019). Metacognitive instruction for collaborative interaction: The process and product of self-regulated learning in the Chilean EFL context. In LambertC.OliverR. (Eds.), Using tasks in diverse contexts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
51.
SatoM.LoewenS. (2018). Metacognitive instruction enhances the effectiveness of corrective feedback. Variable effects of feedback types and linguistic targets. Language Learning, 68, 507–545.
52.
SatoM.LysterR. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 591–626.
53.
SheenY. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 203–234.
54.
SippelL. (2019). The impact of peer corrective feedback on vocabulary development. Foreign Language Annals, 52, 595–611.
55.
SippelL.JacksonC.N. (2015). Teacher vs. peer oral corrective feedback in the German language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 48, 688–705.
56.
TothP.D. (2008). Teacher- and learner-led discourse in task-based grammar instruction: Providing procedural assistance for L2 morphosyntactic development. Language Learning, 58, 237–283.
57.
Van de GuchteM.BraaksmaM.RijlaarsdamG.BimmelP. (2015). Learning new grammatical structures in task-based language learning: The effects of recasts and prompts. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 246–262.
58.
WhiteL. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7, 133–161.
59.
WilliamsJ.N. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49, 583–625.
60.
YangY.LysterR. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235–263.
61.
YilmazY. (2013). Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34, 344–368.
62.
YilmazY. (2016). The role of exposure condition in the effectiveness of explicit correction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 65–96.
