Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Second Language Pronunciation
Vol. 9:1 (2023) ► pp.20–46

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Long-term effects of peer and teacher feedback on L2 pronunciation

ORCiD logo with link | U.S. Naval Academy
 | Yale University
Published online: 9 February 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.22041.mar
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.
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, 951, 42–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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, 301, 13–45.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Derwing, T. M. (2013). Pronunciation instruction. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 1–9). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dooley, L. M., & Bamford, N. J. (2018). Peer feedback on collaborative learning activities in veterinary education. Veterinary Sciences, 51, 90. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fujii, A., Ziegler, N., & Mackey, A. (2016). Peer interaction and metacognitive instruction in the EFL classroom. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 63–89). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hall, C. (2003). Modern German pronunciation: An introduction for speakers of English. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Moving beyond the bar plot and the line graph to create informative and attractive graphics. The Modern Language Journal, 1011, 244–270. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, J., Jang, J., & Plonsky, L. (2015). The effectiveness of second language pronunciation instruction: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 361, 345–366. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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, 191, 1–10. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levis, J. (2020). Revisiting the Intelligibility and Nativeness Principles. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 61, 310–328. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levis, J. M. (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 391, 369–377. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020b). Pronunciation development and instruction in distance language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 241, 86–106.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021b). Providing vs. receiving peer feedback: Learners’ beliefs and experiences. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022). “Do beliefs matter? The relationship between beliefs about peer feedback and peer feedback outcomes on pronunciation.” Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (2020). Foreign accent, comprehensibility and intelligibility, redux. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 61, 283–309. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 501, 417–528. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 641, 878–912. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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, 931, 1349–1354. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saito, K., & Plonsky, L. (2019). Effects of second language pronunciation teaching revisited: A proposed measurement framework and meta-analysis. Language Learning, 691, 652–708. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 971, 611–633. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sippel, L. (2019). The impact of peer corrective feedback on vocabulary development. Foreign Language Annals, 521, 595–611. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). German learners’ beliefs about peer interaction and peer feedback. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 531, 175–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Maximizing the benefits of peer interaction: Form-focused instruction and peer feedback training. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sippel, L., & Jackson, C. N. (2015). Teacher vs. peer oral corrective feedback in the German language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 481, 688–705. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yoshida, R. (2008). Learners’ perception of corrective feedback in pair work. Foreign Language Annals, 411, 525–541. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Crowther, Dustin & Shawn Loewen
2025. Instructed Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Pronunciation. Language Learning 75:S1 ► pp. 30 ff. DOI logo
Levis, John M.
2024. Key issues in L2 pronunciation research. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation 10:3 ► pp. 293 ff. DOI logo
Sippel, Lieselotte & Ines A. Martin
2024. Learners’ perceptions of corrective feedback during written telecollaboration. Language Teaching Research DOI logo
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. DOI logo
Martin, Ines & Carolin Jolitz
2023. Teaching perspectives. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation 9:3 ► pp. 390 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue