This study examined learners’ perceptions of telecollaboration, specifically an email exchange between learners in the US and Germany, and of peer and teacher corrective feedback (CF) during the exchange. Participants were 38 learners from a second-semester German course at a US university. Their virtual exchange partners were learners of English at a German high school. Learners were assigned to a telecollaboration + peer feedback (PeerF) condition (N = 15), a telecollaboration + teacher feedback (TeacherF) condition (N = 10), or a telecollaboration-only (Control) condition (N = 13). Each week, they sent one email in German and one email in English to their partners. While the PeerF Group received CF on their emails from their partners, the TeacherF Group received feedback from their instructor, and the Control Group did not receive feedback. Quantitative and qualitative data from a survey and semi-structured interviews indicated that all learners strongly believed in both the effectiveness of telecollaboration and CF during telecollaboration. However, learners in the TeacherF Group found telecollaboration significantly less enjoyable than learners in the PeerF Group. Moreover, learners in both feedback groups favored receiving CF from an email partner over CF from a teacher. Pedagogical implications of these findings are discussed.
AkiyamaY. (2017). Learner beliefs and corrective feedback in telecollaboration: A longitudinal investigation. System, 64, 58–73.
2.
AkiyamaY.SaitoK. (2016). Development of comprehensibility and its linguistic correlates: A longitudinal study of video-mediated telecollaboration. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 585–609.
3.
Al KhateebA.HassanM. (2022). Peer feedback among learners of English and Arabic as a foreign language in a telecollaborative language learning program. JALT CALL Journal, 18, 164–184.
4.
AngelovaM.ZhaoY. (2016). Using an online collaborative project between American and Chinese students to develop ESL teaching skills, cross-cultural awareness and language skills. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29, 167–185.
5.
BeuningenC.V.JongN.D.KuikenF. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–296.
6.
BitchenerJ. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102–118.
7.
BrownD.LiuQ.NorouzianR. (2023). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback in developing L2 accuracy: A Bayesian meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221147374
8.
Cambridge University Press & Assessment & Centre for Evaluation & Monitoring. (n.d.). Effect size calculator [excel spreadsheet]. Available at: https://www.cem.org/effect-size-calculator (accessed November 2024).
9.
CantoS.JauregiK.van den BerghH. (2013). Integrating cross-cultural interaction through video-communication and virtual worlds in foreign language teaching programs: Is there an added value?ReCALL, 25, 105–121.
10.
ChenJ.J.YangS.C. (2016). Promoting cross-cultural understanding and language use in research-oriented internet-mediated intercultural exchange. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29, 262–288.
11.
ÇiftçiE.Y.SavaşP. (2018). The role of telecollaboration in language and intercultural learning: A synthesis of studies published between 2010 and 2015. ReCALL, 30, 278–298.
12.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage.
CotterallS. (1999). Key variables in language learning: What do learners believe about them?System, 27, 493–513.
15.
DörnyeiZ.TaguchiT. (2009). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing (2nd ed.). Routledge.
16.
FrearD.ChiuY.H. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24–34.
17.
FreiermuthM.R.HuangH.C. (2021). Zooming across cultures: Can a telecollaborative video exchange between language learning partners further the development of intercultural competences?Foreign Language Annals, 54, 185–206.
18.
HelmF. (2015). The practices and challenges of telecollaboration in higher education in Europe. Language Learning and Technology, 19, 197–217.
19.
JeanG.SimardD. (2011). Grammar teaching and learning in L2: Necessary, but boring?Foreign Language Annals, 44, 467–494.
20.
JinY.ZhangL.J. (2021). The dimensions of foreign language classroom enjoyment and their effect on foreign language achievement. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24, 948–962.
21.
KaivanpanahS.AlaviS.M.SepehriniaS. (2015). Preferences for interactional feedback: Differences between learners and teachers. The Language Learning Journal, 43, 74–93.
22.
KangE.HanZ. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 1–18.
23.
KarimK.NassajiH. (2020). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24, 519–539.
24.
KartchavaE. (2016). Learners’ beliefs about corrective feedback in the language classroom: Perspectives from two international contexts. TESL Canada Journal, 33, 19–45.
25.
KartchavaE.AmmarA. (2014). Learners’ beliefs as mediators of what is noticed and learned in the language classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 86–109.
26.
LaFlairG.T.EgbertJ.PlonskyL. (2015). A practical guide to bootstrapping descriptive statistics, correlations, t tests, and ANOVAs. In PlonskyL. (Ed.), Advancing quantitative methods in second language research (pp. 23–45). Routledge.
27.
Larson-HallJ.PlonskyL. (2015). Reporting and interpreting quantitative research findings: What gets reported and recommendations for the field. Language Learning, 65, 127–159.
28.
LeeL. (2009). Promoting intercultural exchanges with blogs and podcasting: A study of Spanish–American telecollaboration. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22, 425–443.
29.
LeeL. (2011). Focus-on-form through peer feedback in a Spanish–American telecollaborative exchange. Language Awareness, 20, 343–357.
30.
LeeL.MarkeyA. (2014). A study of learners’ perceptions of online intercultural exchange through Web 2.0 technologies. ReCALL, 26, 281–297.
31.
LiC.WeiL. (2023). Anxiety, enjoyment, and boredom in language learning amongst junior secondary students in rural China: How do they contribute to L2 achievement?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 45, 93–108.
32.
LiS. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.
33.
Lira-GonzalesM.L.NassajiH. (2023). The differential effects of focused and comprehensive corrective feedback on accuracy of revision and new writing. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 79, 38–58.
34.
LiuG.Z.FathiJ.RahimiM. (2023). Enhancing EFL learners’ intercultural communicative effectiveness through telecollaboration with native and non-native speakers of English. Computer Assisted Language Learning. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2164778
35.
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.
36.
LuoH.GuiM. (2021). Developing an effective Chinese–American telecollaborative learning program: An action research study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34, 609–636.
37.
LysterR.SaitoK. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.
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.
MartinI.A.SippelL. (2022). Do beliefs matter? The relationship between beliefs about peer feedback and peer feedback outcomes on pronunciation. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221097307
40.
MartinI.A.SippelL. (2023). Long-term effects of peer and teacher feedback on L2 pronunciation. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 9, 20–46.
41.
MartinI.A.SippelL. (2024). Providing vs. receiving peer feedback: Learners’ beliefs and experiences. Language Teaching Research, 28, 1033–1054.
42.
MoriY. (1999). Epistemological beliefs and language learning beliefs: What do language learners believe about their learning?Language Learning, 49, 377–415.
43.
Pérez CañadoM.L. (2010). Using virtual learning environments and computer-mediated communication to enhance the lexical competence of pre-service English teachers: A quantitative and qualitative study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23, 129–150.
44.
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.
45.
PlonskyL.OswaldF.L. (2014). How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.
46.
RahimiM. (2021). A comparative study of the impact of focused vs. comprehensive corrective feedback and revision on ESL learners’ writing accuracy and quality. Language Teaching Research, 25, 687–710.
47.
RussellJ.SpadaN. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. In NorrisJ.OrtegaL. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). John Benjamins.
48.
SatarH.M.ÖzdenerN. (2008). The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency and anxiety: Text vs. voice chat. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 595–613.
49.
SatoM. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 611–633.
50.
SatoM.LysterR. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(4), 591–626. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000356
51.
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.
52.
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.
53.
SrichanyachonN. (2012). An investigation of university EFL students’ attitudes toward peer and teacher feedback. Educational Research and Reviews, 7, 558–562.
54.
SippelL. (2019). The impact of peer corrective feedback on vocabulary development. Foreign Language Annals, 52, 595–611.
55.
SippelL. (2020). German learners’ beliefs about peer interaction and peer feedback. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 53, 175–190.
56.
SippelL. (2024). Maximizing the benefits of peer interaction: Form-focused instruction and peer feedback training. Language Teaching Research, 28, 413–439.
57.
SippelL.JacksonC.N. (2015). Teacher vs. peer oral corrective feedback in the German language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 48, 688–705.
58.
SippelL.MartinI.A. (2023). Immediate and long-term improvement in lexical stress perception: The role of teacher and peer feedback. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 61, 1173–1195.
59.
SippelL.MartinI.A. (2024). Is corrective feedback during telecollaboration beneficial? The effects of peer and teacher corrections on L2 writing proficiency. Journal of Second Language Writing, 64, Article 101098.
60.
TaiH.C.LinW.C.YangS.C. (2015). Exploring the effects of peer review and teachers’ corrective feedback on EFL students’ online writing performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53, 284–309.
61.
TangJ.QianK.WangN.HuX. (2021). Exploring language learning and corrective feedback in an eTandem project. Journal of China Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 1, 110–144.
62.
TiszaG. (2021). The role of fun in learning. Extended Abstracts of the 2021 Annual Symposium on Computer–Human Interaction in Play, Virtual Event, Austria (pp. 391–393). Association for Computing Machinery.
63.
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.
64.
VinagreM.MuñozB. (2011). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and language accuracy in telecollaborative exchanges. Language Learning and Technology, 15, 72–104.
65.
WareP.O’DowdR. (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning and Technology, 12, 43–63.
66.
WendenA.L. (1987). How to be a successful language learner: Insights and prescriptions from L2 learners. In RubinJ.WendenA. (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 103–114). Prentice Hall.
67.
YangM.BadgerR.YuZ. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179–200.
68.
YoshidaR. (2008). Learners’ perception of corrective feedback in pair work. Foreign Language Annals, 41, 525–541.
