This study investigated the relationship between learner beliefs about peer feedback and development of second language (L2) pronunciation skills after peer feedback on pronunciation had been used in the classroom. Seventy-four first-year learners of German were assigned to a peer feedback provider group, a peer feedback receiver group, and a control group. After completing a questionnaire designed to elicit learner beliefs about peer feedback, the provider group and the receiver group received general pronunciation training. Following the training, the provider group gave feedback to peers on their pronunciation and the receiver group listened to this feedback. Participants’ learning gains were measured by means of native speaker comprehensibility ratings of their productions both before and after the intervention. Statistical analyses revealed significant, positive relationships between learner beliefs about peer feedback and their learning gains. These results suggest that learners who held more positive beliefs about peer feedback tended to improve more after peer feedback had been implemented into their classroom. Pedagogical implications of these findings are discussed.
BarcelosA.M. (2008). Researching beliefs about SLA: A critical review. In KalajaP.BarcelosA.M. (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA. New research approaches (pp. 7–33). Springer.
2.
ChuR.-X. (2013). Effects of peer feedback on Taiwanese adolescents’ English speaking practices and development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
CotterallS. (1999). Key variables in language learning: what do learners believe about them?System, 27, 493–513.
5.
DörnyeiZ.TaguchiT. (2009). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. 2nd edition.Routledge.
6.
DörnyeiZ.UshiodaE. (2011). Teaching and researching: Motivation. 2nd edition.Pearson.
7.
EhrmanM.E.OxfordR.L. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning success. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 67–89.
8.
FieldA.P. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. 5th edition.Sage.
9.
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). John Benjamins.
10.
GhahariS.SedaghatM. (2018). Optimal feedback structure and interactional pattern in formative peer practices: students’ beliefs. System, 74, 9–20.
11.
GrotjahnR. (1991). The research programme subjective theories: A new approach in second language research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 187–214.
12.
JeanG.SimardD. (2011). Grammar teaching and learning in L2: Necessary, but boring?Foreign Language Annals, 44, 467–494.
13.
KaivanpanahS.AlaviS.M.SepehriniaS. (2015). Preferences for interactional feedback: differences between learners and teachers. The Language Learning Journal, 43, 74–93.
14.
KalajaP.BarcelosA.M.F.AroM. (2018). Revisiting research on L2 learner beliefs: Looking back and looking forward. In GarrettP.CotsJ.M. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language awareness (pp. 222–237). Routledge.
15.
KartchavaE. (2016). Learners’ beliefs about corrective feedback in the language classroom: perspectives from two international contexts. TESL Canada Journal, 33, 19–45.
16.
Larson-HallJ. (2016). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS and R. 2nd edition.Routledge.
17.
LoewenS.GonulalT. (2015). Exploratory factor analysis and principal component analysis. In PlonskyL. (Ed.), Advancing quantitative methods in second language research (pp. 182–212). Routledge.
18.
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.
19.
MartinI.A. (2017). Teaching pronunciation through homework assignments: The method of iCPRs. In O’BrienM.LevisJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference (pp. 216–223). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.
20.
MartinI.A. (2020a). Pronunciation can be acquired outside the classroom: Design and assessment of homework-based training. The Modern Language Journal, 104, 457–479.
21.
MartinI.A. (2020b). Pronunciation development and instruction in distance language learning. Language Learning and Technology, 24, 86–106.
22.
MartinI.A.SippelL. (2021a). Is giving better than receiving? The effects of peer and teacher feedback on L2 pronunciation skills. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 7, 62–88.
23.
MartinI.A.SippelL. (2021b). Providing vs. Receiving peer feedback: Learners’ beliefs and experiences. Language Teaching Research. Epub ahead of print 23June2021. DOI: 10.1177/13621688211024365.
24.
MoranskiK.ZieglerN. (2019). Multi-site studies in SLA research: Challenges, risks, and rewards. Unpublished paper presented at the conference of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Atlanta, GA, USA.
25.
MoriY. (1999). Epistemological beliefs and language learning beliefs: What do language learners believe about their learning?Language Learning, 49, 377–415.
26.
MunroM.J.DerwingT.M. (1995). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 45, 73–97.
27.
NorrisJ.M. (2015). Statistical significance testing in second language research: Basic problems and suggestions for reform. Language Learning, 65, 97–126.
28.
PeacockM. (1999). Beliefs about language learning and their relationship to proficiency. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9, 247–263.
29.
PeirceJ.W. (2019). PsychoPy: Psychology software in Python: Version 3.1.2 [computer program]. Available at: https://www.psychopy.org (accessed April 2022).
30.
PlonskyL. (2015). Statistical power, p values, descriptive statistics, and effect sizes: A ‘back-to-basics’ approach to advancing quantitative methods in L2 research. In PlonskyL. (Ed.), Advancing quantitative methods in second language research (pp. 23–45). Routledge.
31.
PlonskyL.GonulalT. (2015). Methodological synthesis in quantitative L2 research: A review of reviews and a case study of exploratory factor analysis. Language Learning, 65, 9–36.
32.
PlonskyL.OswaldF.L. (2014). How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.
33.
PlonskyL.EgbertJ.LarssonT. (2020). Research design and sampling. Unpublished presentation given at the Workshop on Quantitative Linguistics Methods. Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA.
34.
RileyP. (1997). ‘BATS’ and ‘BALLS’: Beliefs about talk and beliefs about language learning. Mélanges CRAPEL, 23, 125–153.
35.
SaitoK.PlonskyL. (2019). Effects of second language pronunciation teaching revisited: A proposed measurement framework and meta-analysis. Language Learning, 69, 652–708.
36.
SatoM. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 611–633.
37.
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). Routledge.
38.
SatoM.LysterR. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 591–626.
39.
SchulzR.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, 343–364.
40.
SchulzR.A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA–Colombia. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 244–258.
41.
SippelL. (2019). The impact of peer corrective feedback on vocabulary development. Foreign Language Annals, 52, 595–611.
42.
SippelL. (2020): German learners’ beliefs about peer interaction and peer feedback. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 53, 175–190.
43.
SippelL. (2021): Maximizing the benefits of peer interaction: Form-focused instruction and peer feedback training. Language Teaching Research. Epub ahead of print 16April2021. DOI: 10.1177/13621688211004638.
44.
SippelL.JacksonC.N. (2015). Teacher vs. peer oral corrective feedback in the German language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 48, 688–705.
45.
SippelL.MartinI.A. (2022). Immediate and long-term improvement in lexical stress perception: the role of teacher and peer feedback. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. Epub ahead of print 13January2022. DOI: 10.1515/iral-2021-0175.
46.
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.
47.
VivekP.SinghS.N.MishraS.DonavanD.T. (2017). Parallel analysis engine to aid in determining number of factors to retain using R [computer software]. Available at: https://analytics.gonzaga.edu/parallelengine (accessed April 2022).
48.
YangN.D. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs and learning strategy use. System, 27, 515–535.
49.
YoshidaR. (2008). Learners’ perception of corrective feedback in pair work. Foreign Language Annals, 41, 525–541.
50.
YuS.LeeI. (2016). Peer feedback in second language writing (2005–2014). Language Teaching, 49, 461–493.
