Long-term effects of peer and teacher feedback on L2 pronunciation
This study investigated the long-term effects of peer and teacher feedback on pronunciation development.
Participants included 94 learners of German. They were assigned to a teacher feedback group (TeacherF Group), a peer feedback
provider group (PeerF Providers), a peer feedback receiver group (PeerF Receivers), or a control group. After completing general
pronunciation training on a segmental and a suprasegmental feature in German, the TeacherF Group received feedback on their
pronunciation from a teacher, the PeerF Providers gave feedback to peers, and the PeerF Receivers received feedback from peers.
The control group did not complete pronunciation training or receive feedback. Results from native speaker comprehensibility
ratings of learners’ productions indicated that while the TeacherF Group and the PeerF Receivers improved in the short term, only
the PeerF Providers maintained their gains in pronunciation development over time. Methodological and pedagogical implications of
these findings are discussed.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Background literature
- 2.1Peer feedback
- 2.2L2 pronunciation instruction
- 3.The present study
- 4.Methods
- 4.1Participants
- 4.2Instructional materials and procedure
- 4.3Assessment tool
- 4.4Scoring
- 4.5Data analysis
- 5.Results
- 5.1Segmental condition: <z>
- 5.1.1Gains over time
- 5.1.2Gains between groups
- 5.2Suprasegmental condition: Cognates
- 5.2.1Gains over time
- 5.2.2Gains between groups
- 6.Discussion
- 7.Conclusion
-
References
References (52)
References
Adams, R., Nuevo, A. M., & Egi, T. (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
1, 42–63.
Albert, R., & Marx, N. (2014). Empirisches Arbeiten in Linguistik und Sprachlehrforschung. Anleitung zu quantitativen Studien von der
Planungsphase bis zum Fortschritt [Empirical methods in linguistics and second
language acquisition: Recommendations for quantatitive research from beginning to
end]. Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH.
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2019). Praat:
doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version
6.1.05. Accessed 22 July
2018 from [URL]
Darcy, I. (2018). Powerful
and effective pronunciation instruction: How can we achieve it? The CATESOL
Journal,
30
1, 13–45.
Derwing, T. M. (2013). Pronunciation
instruction. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The
Encyclopedia of Applied
Linguistics (pp. 1–9). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Dooley, L. M., & Bamford, N. J. (2018). Peer
feedback on collaborative learning activities in veterinary education. Veterinary
Sciences,
5
1, 90.
Hall, C. (2003). Modern
German pronunciation: An introduction for speakers of English. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Henry, N., Jackson, C. N., & DiMidio, J. (2017). The
role of prosody and explicit instruction in processing instruction. The Modern Language
Journal,
101
1, 294–314.
Huisman, B., Saab, N., van den Broek, P., & van Driel, J. (2019). The
impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: a
meta-analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education,
44
1, 863–880.
Larson-Hall, J. (2016). A
guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS and R. (2nd
ed.). New York/London: Routledge.
Larson-Hall, J. (2017). Moving
beyond the bar plot and the line graph to create informative and attractive graphics. The
Modern Language
Journal,
101
1, 244–270.
Lee, J., Jang, J., & Plonsky, L. (2015). The
effectiveness of second language pronunciation instruction: A meta-analysis. Applied
Linguistics,
36
1, 345–366.
Lenhard, W. & Lenhard, A. (2016). Calculation
of Effect Sizes. Retrieved from: [URL]
Lerchenfeldt, S., Mi, M., & Eng, M. (2019). The
utilization of peer feedback during collaborative learning in undergraduate medical education: a systematic
review. BMC medical
education,
19
1, 1–10.
Levis, J. M. (2005). Changing
contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL
Quarterly,
39
1, 369–377.
Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (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
1, 30–43.
Mantesso, J., Petrucka, P., & Bassendowski, S. (2008). Continuing
professional competence: peer feedback success from determination of nurse locus of
control. The Journal of Continuing Education in
Nursing,
39
1, 200–205.
Martin, I. A. (2020a). Pronunciation
can be acquired outside the classroom: Design and assessment of homework-based training. The
Modern Language
Journal,
104
1, 457–479.
Martin, I. A. (2020b). Pronunciation
development and instruction in distance language learning. Language Learning &
Technology,
24
1, 86–106.
Martin, I. A. (2022). “Giving
is better than receiving: Teaching pronunciation with peer
feedback.” In J. Levis & A. Guskaroska (Eds.). Proceedings
of the 12th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference.
Martin, I. A., & Sippel, L. (2021b). Providing
vs. receiving peer feedback: Learners’ beliefs and experiences. Language Teaching
Research. Advance online publication.
Martin, I. A., & Sippel, L. (2022). “Do
beliefs matter? The relationship between beliefs about peer feedback and peer feedback outcomes on
pronunciation.” Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication.
Moranski, K., & Ziegler, N. (2019, March). Multi-site
studies in SLA research: Challenges, risks, and rewards. Paper presented at
the conference of the American Association for Applied
Linguistics, Atlanta, GA.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness
of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language
Learning,
50
1, 417–528.
Ortega, L., & Iberri-Shea, G. (2005). Longitudinal
research in second language acquisition: Recent trends and future directions. Annual Review of
Applied
Linguistics,
25
1, 26–45.
Peirce, J. W. (2019). PsychoPy.
Psychology software in Python [Computer program]. Version
3.1.2. Accessed 12 May
2019 at [URL]
Philip, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N. (2014). Peer
interaction and second language learning. New York: Routledge.
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How
big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language
Learning,
64
1, 878–912.
Plonsky, L., Egbert, J., & Larsson, T. (2020). Research
design and sampling. Presentation given at the Workshop on Quantitative
Linguistics Methods. Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff,
AZ.
Rouhi, A. & Azizian, E. (2013). Peer
review: Is giving corrective feedback better than receiving it in L2 writing? Procedia – Social
and Behavioral
Sciences,
93
1, 1349–1354.
Saito, K., & Plonsky, L. (2019). Effects
of second language pronunciation teaching revisited: A proposed measurement framework and
meta-analysis. Language
Learning,
69
1, 652–708.
Sakai, M., & Moorman, C. (2018). Can
perception training improve the production of second language phonemes? A meta-analytic review of 25 years of perception
training research. Applied
Psycholinguistics,
39
1, 187–224.
Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs
about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. The
Modern Language
Journal,
97
1, 611–633.
Sato, M. (2017). Oral
peer corrective feedback. Multiple theoretical perspectives. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective
feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications,
implications (pp. 19–34). New York: Routledge.
Sato, M., & Loewen, S. (2018). Metacognitive
instruction enhances the effectiveness of corrective feedback: Variable effects of feedback types and linguistic
targets. Language
Learning,
68
1, 507–545.
Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2012). Peer
interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and
proceduralization. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition,
34
1, 591–626.
Sippel, L. (2019). The
impact of peer corrective feedback on vocabulary development. Foreign Language
Annals,
52
1, 595–611.
Sippel, L. (2020). German
learners’ beliefs about peer interaction and peer feedback. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching
German,
53
1, 175–190.
Sippel, L. (2021). Maximizing
the benefits of peer interaction: Form-focused instruction and peer feedback training. Language
Teaching Research. Advance online publication.
Sippel, L., & Jackson, C. N. (2015). Teacher
vs. peer oral corrective feedback in the German language classroom. Foreign Language
Annals, 481, 688–705.
Sippel, L., & Martin, I. 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. Advance online publication.
Trofimovich, P., Nagle, C. L., O’Brien, M. G., Kennedy, S., Reid, K. T., & Strachan, L. (2020). Second
language comprehensibility as a dynamic construct. Journal of Second Language
Pronunciation,
6
1, 430–457.
Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A
comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of
Second Language
Writing,
15
1, 179–200.
Yoshida, R. (2008). Learners’
perception of corrective feedback in pair work. Foreign Language
Annals,
41
1, 525–541.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Sippel, Lieselotte & Ines A. Martin
2024.
Is corrective feedback during telecollaboration beneficial? The effects of peer and teacher corrections on L2 writing proficiency.
Journal of Second Language Writing 64
► pp. 101098 ff.
Martin, Ines & Carolin Jolitz
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.