Volume 9, Issue 9, September– 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology

ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24SEP1094

Exploring Students’ Perceptions of Peer Interaction in

Developing English Speaking Skills
Lam Ky Nhan
Nam Can Tho University
Faculty of Foreign Languages
Can Tho, Vietnam

Abstract:- This study investigates the perceptions of EFL input more effectively, leading to greater gains in spoken
students regarding the role of peer interaction in language production. Their study showed that collaborative
developing English-speaking skills. A total of 125 English tasks allow learners to modify their output based on feedback,
majors from Nam Can Tho University participated in the facilitating improved speech accuracy and fluency. This aligns
study, providing insights through a questionnaire on how with Sato and Lyster’s (2020) findings that peer interaction
peer-based activities influence their language learning. through form-focused activities encourages metalinguistic
The results indicate that peer interaction offers increased awareness and self-correction, both of which are essential for
opportunities for language practice, reduces anxiety, and developing speaking proficiency.
boosts confidence in using English. Students reported that
structured tasks, such as role-plays and problem-solving In addition to improving fluency and accuracy, peer
activities, significantly enhance their engagement, interaction has been shown to reduce learner anxiety and
language fluency, and accuracy. Additionally, tasks increase confidence in using the target language. Horwitz et
relevant to real-life situations were found to motivate al. (1986) developed the Foreign Language Classroom
students to participate more actively in peer-based Anxiety Scale (FLCAS), which revealed that anxiety is a
learning. These findings align with previous research, significant barrier to effective language learning. Subsequent
emphasizing the positive impact of peer interaction on studies, such as those by Tsui (1996) and Dobao and Blum
fluency, vocabulary use, and self-monitoring. The study (2019), found that peer interaction creates a more relaxed and
concludes that integrating peer interaction into EFL supportive environment, reducing anxiety and encouraging
curricula fosters a supportive and communicative learners to take risks in their language use. Dobao and Blum’s
learning environment, encouraging collaborative (2019) research, in particular, demonstrated that role-plays
language use and contributing to the overall development and group discussions provide learners with a low-pressure
of English-speaking proficiency. setting to practice language, resulting in greater willingness to
experiment with new vocabulary and complex grammatical
Keywords:- Peer Interaction, English-Speaking Skills, EFL structures.
Learners, Collaborative Learning, Language Fluency.
Peer interaction also plays a pivotal role in vocabulary
I. INTRODUCTION acquisition. Newton (2013) noted that peer discussions foster
vocabulary learning by promoting the use of contextually
Peer interaction has emerged as a critical component of relevant language. Learners are exposed to a wider range of
language learning, particularly in the development of speaking vocabulary in authentic, communicative situations, which
skills in second language (L2) acquisition. Research over the accelerates the acquisition of lexical items. In line with this,
past few decades has consistently highlighted the importance Philp, Adams, and Iwashita (2021) highlighted that group
of collaborative learning environments in promoting work and pair activities not only provide opportunities for
communicative competence. According to Swain (2000), peer language practice but also expose learners to diverse linguistic
interaction provides learners with opportunities to engage in input, enhancing their overall lexical knowledge. This
meaningful communication, encouraging language output exposure to varied language forms in meaningful contexts
through negotiation of meaning and interactional feedback. helps learners internalize new vocabulary more effectively
This output hypothesis, supported by Swain’s (2005) later than in teacher-led activities.
work, posits that learners must produce language as part of the
learning process, and peer interaction offers a practical and Another essential element of peer interaction is its role in
low-stress platform for this to occur. promoting learner autonomy and engagement. Task-based
learning (TBL), as discussed by Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun
Numerous studies have emphasized the role of peer (2020), underscores the value of tasks that simulate real-life
interaction in enhancing speaking fluency and accuracy. For communication. They argue that peer interaction in tasks such
instance, Long (2015) argued that interaction in L2 settings as information exchanges and problem-solving activities leads
provides rich input and output opportunities, essential for to higher levels of learner engagement and active
language acquisition. Similarly, Gass and Mackey (2021) participation, as these tasks reflect authentic communicative
found that peer interaction helps learners process linguistic needs. Sato (2017) similarly found that peer feedback not only

IJISRT24SEP1094 www.ijisrt.com 2333

Volume 9, Issue 9, September– 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24SEP1094

reinforces language accuracy but also fosters learner as a Foreign Language) settings, a major obstacle is the
autonomy by encouraging students to take ownership of their limited exposure to genuine language use (Zhang, 2022).
learning through collaborative efforts. Many learners struggle to participate in substantial
discussions beyond the confines of the classroom, therefore
Despite the growing body of literature on the benefits of restricting their chances for active and immediate application
peer interaction, there remains a need for more research on its of knowledge (Thornbury, 2019). In addition, learners have
specific impact in different educational contexts, particularly considerable challenges in pronunciation, intonation, and
in EFL settings in non-Western countries. In Vietnam, for fluency due to the potential influence from their first language
example, English is often learned in classroom settings that (L1) phonology and syntax (Derwing & Munro, 2020).
are predominantly teacher-centered, with limited opportunities
for peer interaction (Nguyen & Pham, 2020). However, recent The emotive domain presents an additional obstacle, as
shifts in pedagogical approaches have encouraged more learners’ inclination to engage in speaking activities is
communicative language teaching (CLT) methods, which typically hindered by worry and dread of making errors
emphasize the importance of interaction in language learning. (Horwitz, 2021). Individuals who have significant levels of
This study aims to explore the perceptions of Vietnamese EFL speaking anxiety may exhibit reluctance to participate in
learners regarding the role of peer interaction in developing spoken discussions or deliver presentations, therefore
their English-speaking skills, focusing on the effectiveness of impeding their overall development (MacIntyre, 2022).
peer-based activities such as role-plays, simulations, and Furthermore, the conventional emphasis on grammar and
problem-solving tasks in fostering fluency, accuracy, and vocabulary in several educational settings might diminish
vocabulary acquisition. students’ ability to communicate effectively, as they may
value precision above fluidity (Richards, 2020). A persistent
By examining these perceptions, this study seeks to challenge in language instruction is the inherent conflict
contribute to the growing body of research on peer interaction between precision and fluency, since learners must effectively
in language learning, offering insights into how peer-based manage these two aspects in order to acquire comprehensive
activities can be effectively integrated into EFL curricula. The speaking abilities (Skehan, 2021). Furthermore, the presence
findings provide valuable implications for educators seeking of technical obstacles, such as restricted availability of
to implement collaborative learning strategies to enhance language-learning resources or genuine speaking partners,
students’ speaking proficiency in English. adds complexity to the endeavors aimed at enhancing
speaking skills (Sundqvist & Sylvén, 2022).
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
B. Theoretical Framework of Peer Interaction
A. English Speaking Skills in Language Learning
 Sociocultural Theory
 Importance in Global Communication Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory (SCT) emphasizes the
English has become the dominant worldwide language, role of social interaction in cognitive development, positing
enabling effective communication among many cultures, that learning occurs through mediated interaction with more
sectors, and geographical locations (Crystal, 2019). Given its knowledgeable others, such as peers or teachers (Vygotsky,
status as the main language used in worldwide diplomacy, 1978). According to Vygotsky, language learning is a social
trade, research, and technology, English is an essential process shaped by collaborative dialogue, where learners co-
instrument for anybody seeking to engage in global dialogues construct knowledge within their Zone of Proximal
(Graddol, 2021). According to the British Council (2020), Development (ZPD)—the distance between what learners can
more than 1.5 billion individuals globally use English as a do independently and what they can achieve with guidance
second or foreign language, highlighting its crucial (Lantolf & Thorne, 2021). Peer interaction, within this
significance in international exchanges. Hence, mastery of framework, plays a crucial role in language learning, as it
English speaking abilities is crucial for both students and allows learners to engage in meaningful exchanges, practice
professionals, particularly in nations where English is not the language use, and receive feedback from peers, thereby
primary language (Kirkpatrick, 2022). This significance is scaffolding each other’s development (Gánem-Gutiérrez &
amplified by the emergence of digital platforms, where Harun, 2020).
English is the predominant language in social media, online
education, and corporate networks (Seidlhofer, 2021). Given Peer collaboration is particularly effective in promoting
the growing dependence of global communication on English, higher-order thinking and linguistic competence because
those who possess advanced speaking skills in the language learners assist each other in completing tasks beyond their
are more effectively equipped to handle professional and current ability (Ohta, 2021). As learners negotiate meaning,
personal interactions in many environments (Canagarajah, resolve linguistic issues, and engage in dialogue, they
2020). internalize language structures and develop cognitive skills,
making peer interaction a central component of second
 Challenges in Developing Speaking Proficiency language acquisition (Lantolf, 2020). Vygotsky’s SCT
Although the significance of English speaking abilities is highlights the importance of socially mediated learning
unquestionable, several obstacles impede the progress of environments, where peer interaction serves as a tool for
speaking competence, especially for learners in places where cognitive and linguistic development, leading to more
English is not the prevailing language. In many EFL (English autonomous and proficient language use (Gutiérrez, 2022).

IJISRT24SEP1094 www.ijisrt.com 2334

Volume 9, Issue 9, September– 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24SEP1094

 Interaction Hypothesis boosts language production chances. Collaboration among

The Interaction Hypothesis (IH) proposed by Long learners stimulates the generation of additional language,
(1983, 1996) suggests that language learning is most whether through dialogues, simulated scenarios, or activities
effectively achieved through the process of interaction and aimed at solving problems, therefore promoting the
negotiation of meaning. In accordance with this theory, enhancement of both fluency and precision (Gass & Mackey,
learners adapt their language usage and change their output 2021). Swain (2021) argues that peer interaction fosters a
when they encounter comprehension challenges in conducive setting for language production, therefore
communicative activities (Gass & Mackey, 2021). promoting language development by compelling learners to
Interpretation modifications, referred to as negotiation of actively use language, systematically test ideas, and accept
meaning, take place through clarification questions, constructive criticism from their peers.
comprehension checks, and confirmation checks. These
processes encourage learners to improve their language Furthermore, by engaging in peer cooperation, learners
production and deepen their grasp of the target language are exposed to a wide range of linguistic inputs and outputs,
(Long, 2021). which enables them to identify deficiencies in their own
language skills and acquire knowledge from the linguistic
Interactions among peers create an optimal setting for resources of their peer group (Mackey, 2020). This interactive
these negotiation sequences, as learners collaborate to address environment offers learners more chances to engage in target
communication failures, allowing them to identify language form practice and explore novel vocabulary and
deficiencies in their understanding and generate adjusted structures (Philp, Adams, & Iwashita, 2021). Through
output (Mackey, 2020). Engaging in these exchanges enables engagement in peer activities, learners are obligated to
learners to enhance their understanding and also obtain useful generate language that is understandable to others, therefore
input from their peers, therefore facilitating language promoting the cultivation of more cohesive and efficient
development (Pica, 2021). Long’s IH theory emphasizes the communication techniques (Sato & Ballinger, 2020).
significance of interaction as a learning mechanism, indicating
that peer cooperation is an effective method of promoting  Scaffolding and Collaborative Learning
language acquisition through meaningful communication Peer interaction fosters scaffolding, a process rooted in
(Loewen, 2022). Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory, where learners support one
another in achieving tasks that are beyond their individual
 Output Hypothesis capacities (Lantolf & Thorne, 2021). In language learning
Swain’s Output Hypothesis (1985) posits that deliberate contexts, scaffolding occurs when more knowledgeable peers
language production is crucial for the acquisition of a second provide guidance or feedback, enabling their partners to
language, since it compels learners to engage in more gradually develop their skills and knowledge (Gánem-
profound language processing (Swain, 1995, 2005). Swain Gutiérrez, 2020). This collaborative learning approach
argues that language production enables learners to promotes cognitive and linguistic development, as learners
systematically evaluate their assumptions about the target can work together to solve problems, co-construct meaning,
language, identify areas where their understanding is lacking, and share strategies for language use (Ohta, 2021).
and improve their linguistic output by incorporating input
from their peers (Swain & Lapkin, 2020). Output, as contrast Collaborative learning through peer interaction not only
to passive intake, compels learners to transcend mere helps learners build language skills but also enhances their
understanding and actively participate in the language, ability to negotiate meaning, resolve misunderstandings, and
therefore promoting the acquisition of more precise and develop metacognitive awareness (Ellis, 2020). For example,
intricate linguistic structures (Swain, 2021). when learners struggle with a particular grammatical structure
or vocabulary item, their peers can offer assistance, which
Within peer contact, learners often need to generate helps them move from their Zone of Proximal Development
language in relevant situations, therefore affording them (ZPD) to greater linguistic autonomy (Gutiérrez, 2022). This
chances to engage in practice and enhance their output (Ellis, dynamic process of scaffolding fosters deeper engagement
2020). Upon facing difficulties in articulating their thoughts, with the language and accelerates the internalization of
learners are encouraged to contemplate their language usage linguistic knowledge (Gass & Mackey, 2021).
and make necessary modifications, resulting in enhanced
linguistic precision and fluency (Swain & Watanabe, 2021).  Lowered Affective Filter
The Output Hypothesis aligns with the Interaction Hypothesis Furthermore, peer interaction is crucial in reducing
by highlighting the significance of output in solidifying learners’ emotional filter, a notion coined by Krashen (1985)
linguistic information and facilitating second language to describe the psychological obstacles that hinder language
acquisition, alongside input and negotiation (Swain, 2021). acquisition, such as anxiety, fear of making errors, and lack of
confidence. In peer-based activities, learners frequently have a
C. Benefits of Peer Interaction in Language Learning greater sense of ease and willingness to take chances and
engage in experimentation with the target language. This is
 Increased Language Production Opportunities because the learning environment is typically more relaxed
Through the encouragement of learners to participate in and less scary compared to the conventional teacher-led
meaningful communication and practice their language teaching (Swain & Lapkin, 2020).
abilities in genuine circumstances, peer interaction greatly

IJISRT24SEP1094 www.ijisrt.com 2335

Volume 9, Issue 9, September– 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24SEP1094

During peer interactions, learners generally experience 2020). Simulations frequently encompass several phases of
less apprehension about being evaluated, therefore engagement, necessitating learners to maintain effective
diminishing anxiety and promoting increased engagement communication over an extended period, employ strategic
(Horwitz, 2021). The conducive environment facilitates language, and successfully negotiate unforeseen obstacles
learners in prioritizing communication above perfection, (Gass & Mackey, 2021). According to Horwitz (2021), both
therefore fostering the development of confidence in language role-plays and simulations offer advantages to language
usage (MacIntyre, 2022). Reduced emotional filter increases learners by facilitating spontaneous language usage,
learners’ propensity to participate in genuine conversations, enhancing learners’ fluency, and alleviating anxiety through
request clarification, and seek assistance when necessary, the provision of a secure environment for experimenting.
therefore promoting a more efficient and pleasurable language
learning experience (Sato & Viveros, 2021). By facilitating  Peer Feedback and Error Correction
low-stakes practice, lowering stress, and boosting learner Peer feedback and error correction are essential
motivation, peer contact creates a favorable environment for components of peer interaction activities, enabling learners to
language learning (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2020). reflect on their language use and receive constructive
feedback from their peers. Through structured peer feedback
D. Types of Peer Interaction Activities sessions, learners can identify errors, suggest improvements,
and provide alternative language forms, which facilitates
 Pair and Group Discussions language development and metalinguistic awareness (Hyland
Pair and group discussions are a widely used form of & Hyland, 2022). According to Swain (2021), peer feedback
peer interaction in language learning, providing learners with plays a crucial role in the output process, as learners are
opportunities to engage in meaningful communication while encouraged to rethink their language choices and make
practicing language skills in a low-stakes environment. These necessary modifications based on the input they receive from
discussions often center on topics that are relevant to the their peers.
learners’ experiences, allowing them to draw from their
background knowledge and personal opinions (Zhang, 2021). Research suggests that peer feedback is particularly
Pair discussions can focus on problem-solving tasks, debate effective because learners often feel more comfortable
formats, or sharing ideas, all of which require learners to receiving feedback from peers rather than from instructors,
actively produce and negotiate language, resulting in greater which creates a supportive and less intimidating environment
fluency and increased vocabulary usage (Mackey & Gass, for error correction (Sato & Viveros, 2021). Moreover, peer
2021). feedback fosters learner autonomy by encouraging students to
take an active role in their learning process and helps them
Group discussions, on the other hand, allow for a more develop critical thinking and analytical skills (Philp, Adams,
diverse exchange of ideas, where learners are exposed to & Iwashita, 2021). Collaborative error correction also aligns
different perspectives and linguistic structures, which helps with the concept of scaffolding, where peers support each
them develop more comprehensive communicative skills other’s linguistic development by offering guidance and
(Philp, Adams, & Iwashita, 2021). Furthermore, research corrections in a cooperative manner (Gutiérrez, 2022).
shows that group discussions promote negotiation of meaning,
as learners work together to clarify misunderstandings, E. Factors Influencing Peer Interaction Effectiveness
paraphrase ideas, and collaboratively solve communication
problems (Ellis, 2020). By engaging in such collaborative  Task Design and Implementation
dialogue, learners develop stronger interactional competence The design and implementation of activities are crucial
and improve their ability to use the target language in various factors in determining the efficacy of peer interaction.
contexts (Sato & Ballinger, 2020). Effectively organized assignments that are both
communicative and tailored to the specific requirements of
 Role-Plays and Simulations learners facilitate more significant connection and
Role-plays and simulations are interactive exercises with involvement (Ellis, 2020). Authentic communication should
peers that enable learners to engage in language practice be fostered via tasks that necessitate learners to use the target
within a setting that replicates real-life situations. Within role- language in order to negotiate meaning, solve issues, or
plays, learners choose certain roles and participate in accomplish specific objectives. For instance, activities that
conversations that mirror genuine scenarios, such as need the exchange of information or the making of decisions
employment interviews, client contacts, or social events promote more profound cognitive involvement and lead to a
(Bygate, 2020). These exercises promote the use of language greater output of linguistic content (Bygate, 2020).
in a creative manner and motivate learners to adjust their
language selection to various situations and conversation Interaction effectiveness is also influenced by task
partners, therefore improving their ability to communicate complexity. Evidence indicates that activities of moderate
effectively (Philp & Tognini, 2021). difficulty facilitate the most effective peer interaction by
demanding learners to participate in critical thinking and
Simulations expand upon this notion by effectively collaboration. Conversely, assignments that are too simple or
engaging learners in intricate and expanded communication too tough might impede participation (Robinson, 2021).
situations, where they are required to use their language Furthermore, it is crucial to offer explicit instructions,
abilities to resolve issues or accomplish objectives (Mackey, scaffolding, and suitable assistance throughout the task

IJISRT24SEP1094 www.ijisrt.com 2336

Volume 9, Issue 9, September– 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24SEP1094

execution phase to guarantee that learners may actively F. Previous Studies

participate in the activity and interact efficiently (Mackey, Peer interaction has been extensively researched in the
2020). context of second language (L2) learning, with a particular
focus on its role in developing speaking skills. Numerous
 Learner Characteristics studies have provided insights into how peer interaction
Individual learner characteristics, such as proficiency fosters communicative environments, promoting speaking
level, motivation, personality, and learning styles, can proficiency through negotiation of meaning, feedback, and
significantly influence the effectiveness of peer interaction language production.
(Dörnyei & Ryan, 2020). Proficiency disparities between
learners can either facilitate or hinder peer interaction, Dobao and Blum (2019) examined the impact of peer
depending on how well tasks are structured to accommodate interaction on lexical and grammatical development through
varying levels. When learners of different proficiency levels collaborative speaking tasks. Their study found that role-plays
collaborate, lower-level learners benefit from the linguistic and group discussions lead to increased use of target
resources of their higher-level peers, while more advanced vocabulary and more complex grammatical structures. Peer
learners consolidate their knowledge through explanation and interaction was shown to reduce anxiety and encourage risk-
correction (Mackey & Gass, 2021). taking, which is crucial for language development.

Motivation is another key factor; highly motivated Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun (2020) explored the
learners are more likely to engage actively in peer interaction, influence of task-based peer interaction on speaking skills.
seek out opportunities to communicate, and invest effort in They found that tasks involving information exchange and
collaborative tasks (Ushioda, 2020). In contrast, learners who decision-making promote negotiation of meaning and
are less motivated may exhibit reluctance to participate or encourage learners to produce more output. The study
contribute minimally to discussions. Personality traits such as demonstrated that peer interaction through such tasks leads to
extroversion and willingness to communicate also affect how gains in speaking fluency and accuracy, facilitating the
actively learners engage in peer interaction (MacIntyre, 2022). automaticity of language use through repeated practice.
Extroverted learners may initiate more interactions and feel
more comfortable engaging in conversation, while introverted Sato and Lyster (2020) investigated the effects of peer
learners might need more encouragement or structured tasks interaction on oral production in ESL classrooms. They found
to participate effectively (Horwitz, 2021). that peer interaction, particularly through form-focused
activities, significantly improved accuracy in learners’ spoken
 Classroom Environment language. Peer feedback sessions contributed to greater
The classroom environment, encompassing the teacher’s metalinguistic awareness, leading to enhanced self-monitoring
position, peer connections, and classroom dynamics, and self-correction during speaking activities.
significantly influences the efficacy of peer interaction (Sato
& Ballinger, 2020). An environment in the classroom that Gass and Mackey (2021) examined the relationship
fosters support and collaboration motivates learners to engage between peer interaction and L2 speaking development by
in risk-taking, pursue linguistic experimentation, and actively focusing on input, interaction, and output. Their study found
seek input from their peers without apprehension of being that peer interaction provides a rich source of comprehensible
judged (MacIntyre, 2022). By establishing explicit input and opportunities for output modification, leading to
expectations for peer cooperation, enabling group dynamics, increased language production and improved speech in
and offering constructive criticism that motivates learners to response to feedback. The study emphasized the role of peer
connect meaningfully, teachers play a vital role in developing interaction in creating a communicative environment
this environment (Hyland & Hyland, 2022). conducive to risk-taking and meaningful interaction.

The spatial layout of the classroom can also impact peer Philp, Adams, and Iwashita (2021) conducted a
interaction, as areas intentionally created to foster comprehensive study on peer interaction in L2 learning,
cooperation, such as seating configurations that enable direct focusing on its impact on speaking skills. The study found
contact, stimulate more frequent and significant exchanges that small group settings and pair work significantly enhance
(Swain & Lapkin, 2020). Furthermore, it is crucial for the learners’ oral fluency. Group discussions provided ample
instructor to effectively observe and promptly intervene opportunities for extended conversations, fostering the
during peer interactions to sustain fruitful discussions and development of discourse-level speaking skills and exposure
guarantee that learners stay concentrated on the job (Lantolf to varied linguistic input and speaking styles.
& Thorne, 2021). Facilitating constructive peer interactions
by ice-breaking exercises, collaborative tasks, and cultivating III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
a feeling of community also enhances the efficiency and
collaboration within the learning setting (Dörnyei & Ryan,  Participants
2020). The participants of this study were 125 students from
Nam Can The University, all of whom were enrolled in
various English language courses. A convenience sampling
method was employed to ensure a diverse representation of
English proficiency levels. Of the participants, 62% were

IJISRT24SEP1094 www.ijisrt.com 2337

Volume 9, Issue 9, September– 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24SEP1094

female and 38% were male, with the majority (70%) aged of peer interaction in language development. The instrument
between 18 and 22, and the remaining 30% aged 23 and will provide insights into students’ views on how peer
above. The students came from different academic years, with collaboration contributes to their speaking proficiency in the
28% being freshmen, 33% sophomores, 22% juniors, and classroom setting.
17% seniors. In terms of English proficiency, 38% of the
participants identified as beginners, 47% as intermediate Data was collected using the 20-item questionnaire
learners, and 15% as advanced speakers. This demographic distributed to 125 students at Nam Can Tho University.
variety allowed for a comprehensive examination of how peer Participants were informed about the purpose of the study and
interaction influences English speaking skills across different assured of their confidentiality and anonymity. The
student groups. questionnaire was administered in a classroom setting,
allowing students to complete it during a designated time to
 Instrument and Data Collection ensure focus and clarity. To facilitate participation, the
The 20-item questionnaire was developed to assess questionnaire was available in both printed and digital
students’ perceptions of peer interaction in enhancing English formats, enabling students to choose their preferred method of
speaking skills, using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 completion.
(Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). The items reflect
key themes such as language production, scaffolding, Once the data collection period concludes, the completed
affective factors, task design, and classroom dynamics. These questionnaires were gathered and compiled for analysis.
themes were informed by prominent research on peer Quantitative data was analyzed using statistical software to
interaction and sociocultural theory, particularly studies by identify trends and patterns in students’ perceptions of peer
Gass & Mackey (2021), Swain (2021), Lantolf & Thorne interaction and its impact on their speaking skills.
(2021), and Dörnyei & Ryan (2020), which explore
collaborative learning, scaffolding, and motivation in IV. FINDINGS
language acquisition.
A. Students’ Perceptions towards the Language Production
The questionnaire was adapted from existing research in Opportunities
language learning, with each item reflecting an aspect of peer The results of this study align closely with findings from
interaction that influences students’ speaking skills. Clusters previous research on the role of peer interaction in second
in the questionnaire focus on language production language (L2) learning, particularly in the development of
opportunities, collaborative scaffolding, confidence building, speaking skills.
and task engagement, ensuring a holistic evaluation of the role

Table 1 Students’ Perceptions of the Language Production Opportunities

Items N Mean SD
1. Peer interaction provides me with more opportunities to practice speaking English. 125 4.09 .77
2. Working with peers encourages me to use new vocabulary in conversations. 125 3.96 .76
3. I feel that peer discussions help me improve my language fluency. 125 4.17 .68
4. Through peer interaction, I am able to improve both my fluency and accuracy in English. 125 4.06 .75
5. I feel that I get more opportunities to speak and test my ideas during peer activities than in
125 4.00 .79
teacher-led lessons.

For instance, the high mean score of 4.09 (SD = .77) for language forms during conversation, enhancing lexical
the statement that peer interaction provides more development.
opportunities to practice speaking English mirrors the findings
of Gass and Mackey (2021). Their study emphasized that peer The finding that peer discussions help improve language
interaction creates a communicative environment where fluency, with a mean score of 4.17 (SD = .68), is in line with
learners can practice language production and receive the research by Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun (2020), who found
feedback, which is crucial for language development. The that tasks involving peer interaction, such as information
opportunities for input, interaction, and output highlighted by exchange and decision-making, promote fluency by
Gass and Mackey are evident in the students’ perception of encouraging learners to produce more output. In their study,
peer interaction as a space for frequent practice. peer interaction through task-based activities led to
improvements in fluency as learners practiced language use
Similarly, the mean score of 3.96 (SD = .76) for the repeatedly, which aligns with the present study’s participants’
statement that working with peers encourages the use of new perceptions of fluency improvement through peer discussions.
vocabulary is consistent with findings by Dobao and Blum
(2019). In their research, they noted that collaborative The perception that peer interaction improves both
speaking tasks, such as role-plays and group discussions, led fluency and accuracy, reflected by a mean score of 4.06 (SD =
to an increased use of target vocabulary. The present study’s .75), resonates with the findings of Sato and Lyster (2020).
result supports their conclusion that peer interaction fosters an Their study demonstrated that form-focused peer interaction
environment where learners are motivated to use new contributed significantly to oral production accuracy, and peer

IJISRT24SEP1094 www.ijisrt.com 2338

Volume 9, Issue 9, September– 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24SEP1094

feedback sessions led to better self-monitoring and self- language skills, leading to improvements in discourse-level
correction. The current study confirms that peer interaction speaking. This supports the idea that peer-based learning
enhances accuracy, likely due to opportunities for immediate environments offer more frequent, meaningful interaction
feedback and correction during peer activities. than traditional teacher-led instruction, which encourages
learners to actively participate and refine their speaking
Lastly, the result showing that students felt they had abilities.
more opportunities to speak and test their ideas during peer
activities than in teacher-led lessons, with a mean score of B. Students’ Perceptions towards the Scaffolding and
4.00 (SD = .79), aligns with Philp, Adams, and Iwashita’s Collaborative Learning
(2021) findings. Their research emphasized that small group The results reinforce the role of peer interaction in
settings and pair work during peer interaction provide supporting students’ understanding and application of
extended opportunities for speaking and practicing different language concepts.

Table 2 Students’ Perceptions of the Scaffolding and Collaborative Learning

Items N Mean SD
6. My peers help me understand difficult language concepts during group work. 125 3.87 .78
7. I find that working with more knowledgeable peers helps me improve my language skills. 125 3.99 .53
8. I feel that peer feedback helps me identify and correct my mistakes. 125 3.95 .56
9. I learn new strategies for language use through collaborative learning activities with my peers. 125 3.82 .81
10. Peer interaction helps me co-construct meaning when I don’t understand something in English. 125 3.74 .84

The mean score of 3.87 (SD = .78) for the statement that Additionally, the mean score of 3.82 (SD = .81) for
peers help students understand difficult language concepts learning new strategies for language use through collaborative
during group work suggests that peer interaction plays a learning activities indicates that peer interaction fosters the
valuable role in facilitating comprehension. This finding exchange of effective language strategies. This reflects the
aligns with Gass and Mackey’s (2021) assertion that peer conclusions of Dobao and Blum (2019), who found that
interaction provides comprehensible input and opportunities collaborative tasks encourage learners to experiment with new
for output modification, allowing learners to clarify and language forms and strategies in a supportive environment,
negotiate meaning when faced with linguistic challenges. facilitating deeper language learning.

Furthermore, the students reported that working with Finally, the perception that peer interaction helps co-
more knowledgeable peers aids in language skill construct meaning when students do not understand
improvement, with a mean score of 3.99 (SD = .53). This something in English, with a mean score of 3.74 (SD = .84),
supports the notion of the "zone of proximal development" as aligns with research by Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun (2020).
proposed by Vygotsky, where learners benefit from Their study demonstrated that task-based peer interaction
interaction with peers who have a higher proficiency level. promotes negotiation of meaning, allowing learners to
Philp, Adams, and Iwashita (2021) also noted that peer collaboratively work through language difficulties and co-
interaction in small group settings promotes exposure to construct understanding. This co-construction process is
varied linguistic input, which can enhance language skills, as essential for achieving communicative competence, as it
students learn from more capable peers. encourages learners to engage deeply with the language and
resolve misunderstandings through dialogue.
Peer feedback was also perceived as helpful, with a
mean score of 3.95 (SD = .56) for identifying and correcting C. Students’ Perceptions towards the Lowered Affective
mistakes. This result echoes the findings of Sato and Lyster Filter and Confidence Building
(2020), who highlighted the effectiveness of peer feedback in The results highlight the significant role that peer
raising metalinguistic awareness and fostering self-correction interaction plays in creating a supportive and less stressful
during speaking tasks. The ability to receive immediate environment for language learning.
feedback from peers allows learners to monitor their language
use and make necessary adjustments, improving both fluency
and accuracy.

Table 3 Students’ Perceptions Towards the Lowered Affective Filter and Confidence Building
Items N Mean SD
11. I feel more comfortable speaking English when interacting with peers compared to speaking in
125 3.82 .75
front of the whole class.
12. I experience less anxiety during peer interaction activities. 125 3.88 .64
13. I feel more confident in using English after practicing with my peers. 125 3.83 .63
14. Peer interaction creates a relaxed environment where I feel less pressure to be perfect in using
125 3.79 .79
English.
15. I feel more motivated to participate in peer-based activities compared to teacher-led activities. 125 3.81 .76

IJISRT24SEP1094 www.ijisrt.com 2339

Volume 9, Issue 9, September– 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24SEP1094

Students reported feeling more comfortable speaking The perception that peer interaction creates a relaxed
English when interacting with peers rather than speaking in environment with less pressure to be perfect in using English
front of the whole class, with a mean score of 3.82 (SD = .75). was also highlighted, with a mean score of 3.79 (SD = .79).
This finding aligns with Dobao and Blum’s (2019) research, This finding is consistent with the results of Philp, Adams,
which showed that peer interaction helps reduce anxiety and and Iwashita (2021), who found that small group interactions
encourages risk-taking, both of which are essential for allow for more natural language use without the fear of
language development. Speaking in smaller peer-based groups constant correction or judgment from a teacher. The relaxed
allows learners to experiment with the language in a less atmosphere fosters a more comfortable space for students to
intimidating setting. take risks and learn from their mistakes, ultimately improving
their language abilities.
Similarly, the students indicated that they experience
less anxiety during peer interaction activities, reflected in a Lastly, the result indicating that students feel more
mean score of 3.88 (SD = .64). This result supports the motivated to participate in peer-based activities compared to
conclusion of Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun (2020), who found teacher-led activities, with a mean score of 3.81 (SD = .76),
that peer interaction in task-based activities reduces further supports the role of peer interaction in promoting
performance pressure, allowing learners to focus more on active engagement. This is in line with Gass and Mackey’s
language production. The lower anxiety levels associated with (2021) study, which suggested that peer interaction provides
peer interaction enable students to engage more freely and learners with more meaningful and interactive opportunities to
improve their speaking skills without the fear of making practice language skills. The motivating nature of peer
mistakes in front of the entire class. interaction stems from the collaborative and communicative
environment, which encourages students to actively
In terms of confidence, students reported feeling more participate and develop their speaking proficiency.
confident in using English after practicing with peers, with a
mean score of 3.83 (SD = .63). This resonates with Sato and D. Students’ Perceptions towards the Task Design and
Lyster’s (2020) findings, which emphasize that peer feedback Engagement
sessions contribute to increased self-monitoring and The results further underscore the positive impact of
confidence in spoken language. The opportunity to practice structured and meaningful peer interaction activities on
English in a collaborative environment helps students build student engagement and language development.
their confidence gradually as they receive constructive
feedback from their peers.

Table 4 Students’ Perceptions Towards the Lowered Affective Filter and Confidence Building
Items N Mean SD
16. Peer interaction activities are more engaging when they involve role-plays and simulations. 125 3.94 .81
17. I feel more involved in language learning when peer interaction tasks are clearly explained
125 3.94 .61
and well-structured.
18. I am more likely to participate in peer interaction activities when the tasks are relevant to
125 3.91 .68
real-life situations.
19. I find that tasks involving problem-solving or decision-making with peers help me improve
125 3.71 .69
my language skills.
20. I enjoy peer interaction activities that allow me to use English in meaningful ways. 125 3.78 .70

The statement that peer interaction activities are more ensure that learners understand the objectives and are better
engaging when they involve role-plays and simulations able to focus on language production, making peer interaction
received a mean score of 3.94 (SD = .81), reflecting findings more effective.
from Dobao and Blum’s (2019) study. Their research
emphasized that role-plays and group discussions encourage The relevance of tasks to real-life situations also played
the use of target language forms in authentic contexts, a significant role in motivating participation, with students
fostering both lexical and grammatical development. Role- reporting a mean score of 3.91 (SD = .68) for the statement
plays and simulations provide opportunities for learners to that they are more likely to participate in peer interaction
practice English in dynamic, interactive settings, making the activities when tasks are applicable to real-life contexts. This
language learning experience more engaging and practical. finding aligns with Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun’s (2020)
research on task-based learning, where real-life tasks like
Students also indicated that they feel more involved in information exchange and decision-making promote greater
language learning when peer interaction tasks are clearly engagement and facilitate the application of language in
explained and well-structured, as seen in the mean score of meaningful ways. The relevance of peer tasks to real-world
3.94 (SD = .61). This result is supported by the work of Philp, situations helps learners see the practical use of the language,
Adams, and Iwashita (2021), who found that well-organized making learning more motivating and enjoyable.
peer interaction activities in small groups or pairs lead to
greater involvement and participation. Clearly structured tasks

IJISRT24SEP1094 www.ijisrt.com 2340

Volume 9, Issue 9, September– 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24SEP1094

Tasks involving problem-solving or decision-making REFERENCES

with peers were also perceived as beneficial for language
improvement, with a mean score of 3.71 (SD = .69). Gass and [1]. British Council. (2020). English in a changing world.
Mackey (2021) similarly noted that peer interaction tasks that British Council.
involve negotiation of meaning, such as problem-solving or [2]. Bygate, M. (2020). Speaking (2nd ed.). Oxford
decision-making, provide rich opportunities for language University Press.
output modification and improvement. These types of tasks [3]. Canagarajah, A. S. (2020). Translingual practice:
promote active learner engagement, as they require learners to Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations.
collaborate and use language effectively to reach a common Routledge.
goal, enhancing both fluency and accuracy. [4]. Crystal, D. (2019). English as a global language (3rd
ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Finally, students indicated that they enjoy peer [5]. Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2020).
interaction activities that allow them to use English in Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based
meaningful ways, with a mean score of 3.78 (SD = .70). This perspectives for L2 teaching and research. Journal of
echoes the conclusions of Sato and Lyster (2020), who Second Language Pronunciation, 6(2), 243-261.
emphasized the importance of meaningful peer interaction in [6]. Dobao, A. F., & Blum, A. (2019). Lexical and
language learning. When peer activities have clear grammatical development in peer interaction.
communicative purposes, students are more likely to engage Language Learning, 69(1), 83-105.
deeply, practicing language in a way that mirrors real-life [7]. Dobao, A. F., & Blum, A. (2019). Peer interaction and
communication, thus fostering greater language development language learning. Language Learning Journal, 47(2),
and learner satisfaction. 163-181.
[8]. Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2020). The psychology of
V. CONCLUSION the language learner revisited. Routledge.
[9]. Ellis, R. (2020). Understanding second language
This study’s findings underscore the crucial impact of acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
peer contact on improving English-speaking proficiency [10]. Gánem-Gutiérrez, G. A. (2020). Sociocultural theory
among EFL students. The findings indicate that peer-based and peer scaffolding in the language classroom.
activities offer learners significant opportunity to practice Language Teaching Research, 24(5), 601-616.
language, alleviate anxiety, and enhance confidence, so [11]. Gánem-Gutiérrez, G. A., & Harun, H. (2020).
fostering a conducive atmosphere for language acquisition. Scaffolding peer interaction: Sociocultural
Peer engagement enhances fluency and accuracy, stimulates perspectives on collaborative learning. Language
the utilization of new vocabulary, and cultivates the Teaching Research, 24(4), 486-504.
development of efficient language skills through collaborative [12]. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2021). Input, interaction,
learning. and output in second language acquisition. Routledge.
[13]. Graddol, D. (2021). The future of English? British
Additionally, organized assignments, including role- Council.
plays, simulations, and problem-solving activities, proved to [14]. Gutiérrez, K. D. (2022). Vygotskian approaches to
be very beneficial in engaging students and promoting teaching and learning: Scaffolding and the zone of
meaningful language utilization. The significance of peer proximal development. International Journal of
interaction activities in relation to real-life scenarios was Educational Psychology, 11(2), 120-135.
recognized as a crucial element in enhancing student [15]. Gutiérrez, K. D. (2022). Vygotskian perspectives on
engagement and facilitating language acquisition. The results collaborative learning in language education. Journal
align with earlier studies, notably those by Dobao and Blum of Educational Psychology, 114(1), 103-117.
(2019), Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun (2020), and Gass and [16]. Horwitz, E. K. (2021). Language anxiety: From theory
Mackey (2021), which underscore the significance of peer and research to classroom implications (2nd ed.).
contact in second language learning. Pearson.
[17]. Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. A. (1986).
This study underscores the significance of incorporating Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern
peer interaction into EFL programs to foster a more engaging, Language Journal, 70(2), 125-132.
learner-centered environment that enhances communicative [18]. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2022). Feedback in second
ability. Peer contact serves as an essential instrument in language writing: Contexts and issues (2nd ed.).
enhancing students’ English-speaking skill by promoting Cambridge University Press.
cooperation, alleviating performance pressure, and offering [19]. Kirkpatrick, A. (2022). World Englishes: Implications
avenues for feedback and self-assessment. Educators are for international communication and English language
urged to provide well-organized, pertinent, and engaging teaching. Cambridge University Press.
peer-based activities that emulate real-world conversation to [20]. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and
optimize language learning results. implications. Longman.
[21]. Lantolf, J. P. (2020). Sociocultural theory and second
language learning. Oxford University Press.

IJISRT24SEP1094 www.ijisrt.com 2341

Volume 9, Issue 9, September– 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24SEP1094

[22]. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2021). Sociocultural [42]. Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (2020). Task-
theory and the genesis of second language based interaction and second language learning.
development. Oxford University Press. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 40, 211-227.
[23]. Loewen, S. (2022). Introduction to instructed second [43]. Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (2020). Task-
language acquisition. Routledge. based peer interaction and speaking fluency.
[24]. Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native Language Teaching Research, 24(2), 233-256.
speaker conversation and the negotiation of [44]. Richards, J. C. (2020). Teaching listening and
comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126- speaking: From theory to practice. Cambridge
141. University Press.
[25]. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic [45]. Robinson, P. (2021). Task complexity and interaction
environment in second language acquisition. In W. in second language learning. Studies in Second
Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second Language Acquisition, 43(2), 215-239.
language acquisition (pp. 413-468). Academic Press. [46]. Sato, M. (2017). Interaction and peer feedback in
[26]. Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 51(3), 553-584.
task-based language teaching. Wiley. [47]. Sato, M., & Ballinger, S. (2020). Peer interaction and
[27]. Long, M. H. (2021). Interaction and second language second language learning: Pedagogical potential and
acquisition: A discussion of the interaction hypothesis. research agenda. John Benjamins.
Second Language Research, 37(4), 1-23. [48]. Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2020). Peer interaction and
[28]. MacIntyre, P. D. (2022). Affective factors and feedback in ESL contexts. Applied Linguistics, 41(4),
willingness to communicate in second language 568-590.
learning. Language Teaching, 55(3), 381-396. [49]. Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2020). Peer interaction and
[29]. MacIntyre, P. D. (2022). Willingness to communicate oral production in ESL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly,
in the second language: Understanding the decision to 54(4), 860-881.
speak as a volitional process. The Modern Language [50]. Sato, M., & Viveros, P. (2021). Peer interaction in the
Journal, 106(3), 544-557. language classroom: Benefits for language proficiency
[30]. Mackey, A. (2020). Conversational interaction in and learner affect. System, 97, 102433.
second language acquisition: A collection of empirical [51]. Seidlhofer, B. (2021). Understanding English as a
studies. Oxford University Press. lingua franca. Oxford University Press.
[31]. Mackey, A. (2020). Peer interaction and language [52]. Skehan, P. (2021). Task-based language teaching:
learning: Evidence from second language acquisition. Theory and practice. Language Teaching, 54(3), 261-
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 40, 43-58. 281.
[32]. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2021). Input, interaction, [53]. Sundqvist, P., & Sylvén, L. K. (2022). Extramural
and output in second language acquisition. Routledge. English matters: Out-of-school English and its impact
[33]. Newton, J. (2013). Incidental vocabulary learning in on oral proficiency. System, 105, 102749.
classroom communication tasks. Language Teaching [54]. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some
Research, 17(2), 164-186. roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible
[34]. Nguyen, T. T., & Pham, M. H. (2020). Implementing output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden
communicative language teaching in Vietnam. EFL (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-
Journal, 7(4), 221-234. 253). Newbury House.
[35]. Ohta, A. S. (2021). Sociocultural theory and the role [55]. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second
of peer interaction in language learning. Language language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.),
Teaching Research, 25(3), 267-285. Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125-
[36]. Ohta, A. S. (2021). Sociocultural theory and the zone 144). Oxford University Press.
of proximal development. Cambridge University [56]. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond:
Press. Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue.
[37]. Philp, J., & Tognini, R. (2021). Language learning In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second
through role-play and simulation: Research findings language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford University
and practical applications. Journal of Language Press.
Teaching, 52(3), 214-231. [57]. Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and
[38]. Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N. (2021). Peer research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in
interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical second language teaching and learning (pp. 471-484).
potential and research agenda. Routledge. Routledge.
[39]. Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N. (2021). Peer [58]. Swain, M. (2021). The output hypothesis and second
interaction and oral fluency in L2 learning. Journal of language learning. Oxford University Press.
Second Language Studies, 8(2), 223-246. [59]. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2020). Collaborative
[40]. Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N. (2021). Peer dialogue and second language learning: Scaffolding in
interaction in L2 learning: Opportunities for speaking peer interaction. Language Teaching Research, 24(2),
development. Second Language Studies, 31(3), 235- 233-253.
252. [60]. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2020). Task-based learning
[41]. Pica, T. (2021). Classroom interaction: Negotiation of and peer collaboration: Enhancing language output.
meaning and feedback. Routledge. Language Teaching Research, 24(5), 635-655.

IJISRT24SEP1094 www.ijisrt.com 2342

Volume 9, Issue 9, September– 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24SEP1094

[61]. Swain, M., & Watanabe, Y. (2021). Collaborative

dialogue, output, and language learning. Language
Awareness, 30(2), 123-136.
[62]. Thornbury, S. (2019). How to teach speaking. Pearson
Education.
[63]. Tsui, A. B. M. (1996). Reticence and anxiety in
second language learning. Cambridge University
Press.
[64]. Ushioda, E. (2020). Motivation and foreign language
learning: Bridging the gap between theory and
practice. Language Teaching, 53(4), 425-437.
[65]. Zhang, Y. (2021). Enhancing language production
through peer interaction. Language Teaching
Research, 25(5), 567-590.
[66]. Zhang, Y. (2022). Challenges in speaking proficiency
development: A case study of EFL learners. Journal
of English for Academic Purposes, 50, 100964.

IJISRT24SEP1094 www.ijisrt.com 2343