Cover not available
Part of
Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda
Edited by Masatoshi Sato and Susan Ballinger
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 45] 2016
► pp. 63–89

2. Peer interaction and metacognitive instruction in the EFL classroom

 | University of the Sacred Heart
 | University of Hawaii
 | Georgetown University
This chapter examines the effects of metacognitive instruction on the provision and use of interactional opportunities in learner-learner interactions in the task-based EFL classroom. Learners (N = 39) drawn from three intact speaking classes in an intensive academic EFL program were divided into a treatment group and a control group. Learners in both groups completed a pretest and posttest. The treatment group participated in a metacognitive instruction session, which demonstrated to learners the benefits of interactional feedback and presented tips and practice on how to provide feedback to their peers. Overall, findings indicate that metacognitive instruction led to greater provision and use of interactional feedback in subsequent interactions, and that learners recognized the benefits for their second language learning.
Published online: 10 March 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45.03fuj
References (73)
Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 29–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Adams, R., Nuevo, A., & 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, 42–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ballinger, S. (2013). Towards a cross-linguistic pedagogy: Biliteracy and reciprocal learning strategies in French immersion. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 131–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Batstone, R., & Philp, J. (2013). Classroom interaction and learning opportunities across time and space. In K. McDonough & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts (pp.109–125). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruton, A., & Samuda, V. (1980). Learner and teacher roles in the treatment of oral error in group work. RELC Journal, 11, 49–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burrows, C. (2008). An evaluation of task-based learning (TBL) in the Japanese classroom. English Today, 24, 11–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Kormos, J. (2002). Motivational determinants of the quality and quantity of student performance in communicative language tasks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Salt Lake City, UT.
Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986). “Information gap” tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20, 305–325.Google Scholar
Duff, P. (1986). Another look at interlanguage talk: Taking task to task. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 147–81). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Egi, T. (2007). Recasts, learners’ interpretations, and L2 development. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 249–268). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focused instruction on L2 acquisition. AILA Review, 19, 18–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 339–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 14, 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., & Ohta, A.S. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26, 402–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fujii, A., & Mackey, A. (2009). Interactional feedback in learner-learner interactions in a task-based EFL classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47, 267–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M., & Pica, T. (2000). Interaction among proficient learners: Are input, feedback and output needs addressed in a foreign language context? Studia Linguistica, 54, 272–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S.M, & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction, and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19, 3–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55, 575–611. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keck, C.M, Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis. In Norris, J.M. & Ortega, L. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91–131). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y.J, & McDonough, K. (2011). Using pretask modelling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research, 15, 183–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M.H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M.H, & Porter, P.A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 405–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2007). Introduction: The role of conversational interaction in second language acquisition. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. (2012). Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R., & Gass, S. (2012). Interactionist approach. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 7–24). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. & Fujii, A. (2009). Training learners to be more effective interactors . Paper presented at the 3rd Biennial Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching. Lancaster, UK.
Mackey, A., Fujii, A., Biesenbach-Lucas, S., Weger-Guntharp, H., Jacobsen, N.D., Fogle, L., Lake, J., Sondermann, K., Tagarelli, K., Tsujita, M., Watanabe, A., Abbuhl R., & Kim, K. (2013). Tasks and tradition practice activities in a foreign language context. In K. McDonough & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts (pp. 71–87). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2006). Pushing the methodological boundaries in interaction research: An introduction to the special issue. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 169–178.Google Scholar
. (2012). Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide. Chichester, UK: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Oliver, R. (2002). Interactional feedback and children’s L2 development. System, 30, 459–477. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53, 35–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32, 207–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2007). Interactional feedback and the emergence of simple past activity verbs in L2 English. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 323–338). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mystery Net: The Online Mystery Network (2009). MysteryNet’s Kids Mysteries. Retrieved from: <[URL]>Google Scholar
Nakahama, Y., Tyler, A., & Van Lier, L. (2001). Negotiation of meaning in conversational and interaction gap activities: A comparative discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 377–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N. (2014). Peer interaction and second language learning. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Philp, J., & Mackey, A. (2011). Interaction research: What can socially informed approaches offer to cognitivists (and vice versa)? In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive aspects of second language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Philp, J., & Tognini, R. (2009). Language acquisition in foreign language contexts and the differential benefits of interaction. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47, 245–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Philp, J., Walter, S., & Basturkmen, H. (2010). Peer interaction in the foreign language classroom: What factors foster a focus on form? Language Awareness, 19, 261–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J. (1996). Language learners‘ interaction: How does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30, 59–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Porter, P. (1986). How learners talk to each other: Input and interaction in task-centered discussions. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 200–222). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Russell, J. & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks (pp. 119–134). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Sato, C.J. (1986). Conversation and interlanguage development: Rethinking the connection. In R. Day (ed.)Talking to learn. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 237–326.Google Scholar
Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 611–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sato, M., & Ballinger, S. (2012). Raising language awareness in peer interaction: A cross-context, cross-method examination. Language Awareness, 20, 157–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2016). Understanding peer interaction: An overview of the research. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 1–30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2007). Modified output of Japanese EFL learners: Variable effects of interlocutor vs. feedback types. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 123–142). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 591–626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Toth, P.D. (2008). Teacher- and learner-led discourse in task-based grammar instruction: Providing procedural assistance for L2 morphosyntactic development. Language Learning, 58, 237–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ur, P. (1981). Discussions that work: Task centered fluency practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Varonis, E.M., & Gass, S. (1985). Miscommunication in native/nonnative conversation. Language in Society, 14, 327–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11, 121–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49, 583–625. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2008). Doing Task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yoshida, R. (2008). Learners’ perception of corrective feedback in pair work. Foreign Language Annals, 41, 525–541. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhao, S.Y, & Bitchener, J. (2007). Incidental focus on form in teacher–learner and learner–learner interactions. System, 35, 431–447. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2015). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 0, 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (33)

Cited by 33 other publications

Khine, Myint Swe
2024. Using AI for Adaptive Learning and Adaptive Assessment. In Artificial Intelligence in Education, ► pp. 341 ff. DOI logo
Moranski, Kara, Nicole Ziegler & Abbie Finnegan
2024. Examining beginner Spanish learners' interactions during text chat: Self‐monitoring and the impact of metacognitive instruction. Foreign Language Annals 57:4 ► pp. 1026 ff. DOI logo
Pladevall-Ballester, Elisabet, Eloi Puig-Mayenco & Montserrat Capdevila
2024. The effect of task-based peer interaction and pre-task instruction on young EFL learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of past tense: An intervention study. Language Teaching Research DOI logo
Gorham, Tom, Rwitajit Majumdar & Hiroaki Ogata
2023. Analyzing learner profiles in a microlearning app for training language learning peer feedback skills. Journal of Computers in Education 10:3 ► pp. 549 ff. DOI logo
Hsu, Hsiu-Chen
2023. Peer interaction in collaborative L2 writing across synchronous and asynchronous CMC modes. In L2 Collaborative Writing in Diverse Learning Contexts [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 59], ► pp. 155 ff. DOI logo
Huang, Yuhui, Andrew H. Lee & Susan Ballinger
2023. The characteristics and effects of peer feedback on second language pronunciation. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation 9:1 ► pp. 47 ff. DOI logo
Sippel, Lieselotte & Ines A. Martin
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 61:3 ► pp. 1173 ff. DOI logo
Tosun, Sibel & Nuray Alagözlü
2023. THE EFFECT OF INTERACTIONAL STRATEGY TRAINING ON PEER COLLABORATION AND INTERACTION PATTERNS. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 33:2 ► pp. 701 ff. DOI logo
Jackson, Daniel O.
2022. Task-Based Language Teaching, DOI logo
Sato, Masatoshi
2022. Learner attitudes and attention to form in peer interaction: A proposal to replicate Adams et al. (2011) and Philp et al. (2010). Language Teaching 55:3 ► pp. 407 ff. DOI logo
Toth, Paul D. & Yohana Gil‐Berrio
2022. Exploring “Intersubjectivity Negotiation Episodes” and “Language Related Episodes” in Second‐Language Peer Interaction. Language Learning 72:S1 ► pp. 275 ff. DOI logo
Cerezo, Luis
2021. Corrective Feedback in Computer-Mediated versus Face-to-Face Environments. In The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching, ► pp. 494 ff. DOI logo
Crookes, Graham V. & Nicole Ziegler
2021. Critical Language Pedagogy and Task-Based Language Teaching: Reciprocal Relationship and Mutual Benefit. Education Sciences 11:6 ► pp. 254 ff. DOI logo
Dao, Phung, Mai Xuan Nhat Chi Nguyen & Do-Na Chi
2021. Reflective learning practice for promoting adolescent EFL learners’ attention to form. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 15:3 ► pp. 247 ff. DOI logo
Dao, Phung, Mai Xuan Nhat Chi Nguyen & Noriko Iwashita
2021. Teachers’ perceptions of learner engagement in L2 classroom task-based interaction. The Language Learning Journal 49:6 ► pp. 711 ff. DOI logo
Dao, Phung, Mai Xuan Nhat Chi Nguyen & Ngoc Bao Chau Nguyen
2021. Effect of pronunciation instruction on L2 learners’ listening comprehension. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation 7:1 ► pp. 10 ff. DOI logo
Iwashita, Noriko & Phung Dao
2021. Peer Feedback in Second Language Oral Interaction. In The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching, ► pp. 275 ff. DOI logo
Kartchava, Eva
2021. The Role of Training in Feedback Provision and Effectiveness. In The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching, ► pp. 598 ff. DOI logo
Martin, Ines A. & Lieselotte Sippel
2021. Is giving better than receiving?. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation 7:1 ► pp. 62 ff. DOI logo
Martin, Ines A. & Lieselotte Sippel
2022. Do beliefs matter? The relationship between beliefs about peer feedback and peer feedback outcomes on pronunciation. Language Teaching Research DOI logo
Martin, Ines A. & Lieselotte Sippel
2023. Long-term effects of peer and teacher feedback on L2 pronunciation. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation 9:1 ► pp. 20 ff. DOI logo
Martin, Ines A. & Lieselotte Sippel
2024. Providing vs. receiving peer feedback: Learners’ beliefs and experiences. Language Teaching Research 28:3 ► pp. 1033 ff. DOI logo
Mayo, Maria del Pilar García & Ruth Milla
2021. Corrective Feedback in Second versus Foreign Language Contexts. In The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching, ► pp. 473 ff. DOI logo
Moranski, Kara & Nicole Ziegler
2021. A Case for Multisite Second Language Acquisition Research: Challenges, Risks, and Rewards. Language Learning 71:1 ► pp. 204 ff. DOI logo
Sippel, Lieselotte
2019. The impact of peer corrective feedback on vocabulary development. Foreign Language Annals 52:3 ► pp. 595 ff. DOI logo
Sippel, Lieselotte
2024. Maximizing the benefits of peer interaction: Form-focused instruction and peer feedback training. Language Teaching Research 28:2 ► pp. 413 ff. DOI logo
Xu, Jinfen, Yumei Fan & Qingting Xu
2019. EFL learners’ corrective feedback decision-making in task-based peer interaction. Language Awareness 28:4 ► pp. 329 ff. DOI logo
Bryfonski, Lara & Cristina Sanz
2018. Opportunities for Corrective Feedback During Study Abroad: A Mixed Methods Approach. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 38 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Loewen, Shawn & Masatoshi Sato
2018. Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching 51:3 ► pp. 285 ff. DOI logo
Sato, Masatoshi & Shawn Loewen
2018. Metacognitive Instruction Enhances the Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback: Variable Effects of Feedback Types and Linguistic Targets. Language Learning 68:2 ► pp. 507 ff. DOI logo
García Mayo, María del Pilar & María Basterrechea
2017. CLIL and SLA. In Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 47], ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
Kim, Youjin, Yeonjoo Jung & Nicole Tracy‐Ventura
2017. Implementation of a Localized Task‐Based Course in an EFL Context: A Study of Students’ Evolving Perceptions. TESOL Quarterly 51:3 ► pp. 632 ff. DOI logo
Philp, Jenefer
2016. New pathways in researching interaction. In Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 45], ► pp. 377 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 december 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.