1887
Volume 9, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2215-1931
  • E-ISSN: 2215-194X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jslp.22041.mar
2023-02-09
2024-04-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. 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, 951, 42–63. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2011.01242.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01242.x [Google Scholar]
  2. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D.
    (2019) Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.1.05. Accessed22 July 2018 from www.praat.org
  4. Darcy, I.
    (2018) Powerful and effective pronunciation instruction: How can we achieve it?The CATESOL Journal, 301, 13–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Derwing, T. M.
    (2013) Pronunciation instruction. InC. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp.1–9). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J.
    (2015) Pronunciation fundamentals: evidence-based perspectives for L2 teaching and research. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.42
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.42 [Google Scholar]
  7. Dooley, L. M., & Bamford, N. J.
    (2018) Peer feedback on collaborative learning activities in veterinary education. Veterinary Sciences, 51, 90. 10.3390/vetsci5040090
    https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci5040090 [Google Scholar]
  8. Fujii, A., Ziegler, N., & Mackey, A.
    (2016) Peer interaction and metacognitive instruction in the EFL classroom. InM. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp.63–89). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.45.03fuj
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45.03fuj [Google Scholar]
  9. Hall, C.
    (2003) Modern German pronunciation: An introduction for speakers of English. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Henry, N., Jackson, C. N., & DiMidio, J.
    (2017) The role of prosody and explicit instruction in processing instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 1011, 294–314. 10.1111/modl.12397
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12397 [Google Scholar]
  11. 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, 441, 863–880. 10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896 [Google Scholar]
  12. Larson-Hall, J.
    (2016) A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS and R. (2nd ed.). New York/London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (2017) Moving beyond the bar plot and the line graph to create informative and attractive graphics. The Modern Language Journal, 1011, 244–270. 10.1111/modl.12386
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12386 [Google Scholar]
  14. Lee, J., Jang, J., & Plonsky, L.
    (2015) The effectiveness of second language pronunciation instruction: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 361, 345–366. 10.1093/applin/amu040
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu040 [Google Scholar]
  15. Lenhard, W. & Lenhard, A.
    (2016) Calculation of Effect Sizes. Retrieved from: https://www.psychometrica.de/effect_size.html
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 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, 191, 1–10. 10.1186/s12909‑019‑1755‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1755-z [Google Scholar]
  17. Levis, J.
    (2020) Revisiting the Intelligibility and Nativeness Principles. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 61, 310–328. 10.1075/jslp.20050.lev
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.20050.lev [Google Scholar]
  18. Levis, J. M.
    (2005) Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 391, 369–377. 10.2307/3588485
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3588485 [Google Scholar]
  19. Lira-Gonzales, M. L., & Nassaji, H.
    (2019) The provision and efficacy of peer feedback in blogs versus paper-based writing. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1701, 228–250. 10.1075/itl.19011.lir
    https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.19011.lir [Google Scholar]
  20. 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, 181, 30–43. 10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  21. 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, 391, 200–205. 10.3928/00220124‑20080501‑02
    https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20080501-02 [Google Scholar]
  22. Martin, I. A.
    (2020a) Pronunciation can be acquired outside the classroom: Design and assessment of homework-based training. The Modern Language Journal, 1041, 457–479. 10.1111/modl.12638
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12638 [Google Scholar]
  23. (2020b) Pronunciation development and instruction in distance language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 241, 86–106.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (2022) “Giving is better than receiving: Teaching pronunciation with peer feedback.” InJ. Levis & A. Guskaroska (Eds.). Proceedings of the 12th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference. 10.31274/psllt.13339
    https://doi.org/10.31274/psllt.13339 [Google Scholar]
  25. Martin, I. A., & Sippel, L.
    (2021a) Is giving better than receiving? The effects of peer and teacher feedback on L2 pronunciation skills. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 71, 62–88. 10.1075/jslp.20001.mar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.20001.mar [Google Scholar]
  26. (2021b) Providing vs. receiving peer feedback: Learners’ beliefs and experiences. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. 10.1177/13621688211024365
    https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211024365 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2022) “Do beliefs matter? The relationship between beliefs about peer feedback and peer feedback outcomes on pronunciation.” Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. 10.1177/13621688221097307
    https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221097307 [Google Scholar]
  28. Moranski, K., & Ziegler, N.
    (2019, March). Multi-site studies in SLA research: Challenges, risks, and rewards. Paper presented at theconference of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Atlanta, GA.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M.
    (2020) Foreign accent, comprehensibility and intelligibility, redux. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 61, 283–309. 10.1075/jslp.20038.mun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.20038.mun [Google Scholar]
  30. Nagle, C. L.
    (2021) Assessing the state of the art in longitudinal L2 pronunciation research: Trends and future directions. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 71, 154–182. 10.1075/jslp.20059.nag
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.20059.nag [Google Scholar]
  31. Nagle, C. L., & Huensch, A.
    (2020) Expanding the scope of L2 intelligibility research: Intelligibility, comprehensibility, and accentedness in L2 Spanish. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 71, 329–351. 10.1075/jslp.20009.nag
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.20009.nag [Google Scholar]
  32. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L.
    (2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 501, 417–528. 10.1111/0023‑8333.00136
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136 [Google Scholar]
  33. Ortega, L., & Iberri-Shea, G.
    (2005) Longitudinal research in second language acquisition: Recent trends and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 251, 26–45. 10.1017/S0267190505000024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000024 [Google Scholar]
  34. Peirce, J. W.
    (2019) PsychoPy. Psychology software in Python [Computer program]. Version 3.1.2. Accessed12 May 2019 at www.psychopy.org
  35. Philip, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N.
    (2014) Peer interaction and second language learning. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L.
    (2014) How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 641, 878–912. 10.1111/lang.12079
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079 [Google Scholar]
  37. Plonsky, L., Egbert, J., & Larsson, T.
    (2020) Research design and sampling. Presentation given at theWorkshop on Quantitative Linguistics Methods. Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Rouhi, A. & Azizian, E.
    (2013) Peer review: Is giving corrective feedback better than receiving it in L2 writing?Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 931, 1349–1354. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.042
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.042 [Google Scholar]
  39. Saito, K., & Plonsky, L.
    (2019) Effects of second language pronunciation teaching revisited: A proposed measurement framework and meta-analysis. Language Learning, 691, 652–708. 10.1111/lang.12345
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12345 [Google Scholar]
  40. 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, 391, 187–224. 10.1017/S0142716417000418
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716417000418 [Google Scholar]
  41. Sato, M.
    (2013) Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 971, 611–633. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2013.12035.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12035.x [Google Scholar]
  42. (2017) Oral peer corrective feedback. Multiple theoretical perspectives. InH. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp.19–34). New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315621432‑3
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315621432-3 [Google Scholar]
  43. Sato, M., & Loewen, S.
    (2018) Metacognitive instruction enhances the effectiveness of corrective feedback: Variable effects of feedback types and linguistic targets. Language Learning, 681, 507–545. 10.1111/lang.12283
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12283 [Google Scholar]
  44. Sato, M., & Lyster, R.
    (2012) Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 341, 591–626. 10.1017/S0272263112000356
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000356 [Google Scholar]
  45. Sippel, L.
    (2019) The impact of peer corrective feedback on vocabulary development. Foreign Language Annals, 521, 595–611. 10.1111/flan.12416
    https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12416 [Google Scholar]
  46. (2020) German learners’ beliefs about peer interaction and peer feedback. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 531, 175–190. 10.1111/tger.12135
    https://doi.org/10.1111/tger.12135 [Google Scholar]
  47. (2021) Maximizing the benefits of peer interaction: Form-focused instruction and peer feedback training. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. 10.1177/13621688211004638
    https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211004638 [Google Scholar]
  48. Sippel, L., & Jackson, C. N.
    (2015) Teacher vs. peer oral corrective feedback in the German language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 481, 688–705. 10.1111/flan.12164
    https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12164 [Google Scholar]
  49. 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. 10.1515/iral‑2021‑0175
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2021-0175 [Google Scholar]
  50. 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, 61, 430–457. 10.1075/jslp.20003.tro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.20003.tro [Google Scholar]
  51. 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, 151, 179–200. 10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  52. Yoshida, R.
    (2008) Learners’ perception of corrective feedback in pair work. Foreign Language Annals, 411, 525–541. 10.1111/j.1944‑9720.2008.tb03310.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2008.tb03310.x [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jslp.22041.mar
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jslp.22041.mar
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): German; peer feedback; peer review; pronunciation instruction; teacher feedback
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error