Muyashoha 2019
Muyashoha 2019
Muyashoha 2019
THESIS
i
THE STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION TOWARD ORAL
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN SPEAKING CLASS AT
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT OF IAIN PALANGKA RAYA
Thesis
Presented to
State Islamic Institute of Palangka Raya
in partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the degree of Sarjana in English Language Education
ii
ADVISOR APPROVAL
iii
THESIS APPROVAL
iv
MOTTO AND DEDICATION
v
DECLARATION OF AUTHORSHIP
vi
ABSTRACT
vii
ABSTRAK
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The researcher would like to express her sincere gratitude to Allah SWT.,
for the blessing bestowed in her whole life particularly during the thesis writing
without which this thesis would not have come to its final form. Sholawat and
salam always be bestowed to the last prophet Muhammad SAW., having shown
Institute of Palangka Raya, Dr. Hj. Rodhatul Jennah, M.Pd., for her
2. Vice Dean in Academic Affairs, Dr. Nurul Wahdah, M.Pd, for her invaluable
5. Sabarun, M.Pd the first advisor, and Aris Sugianto, M.Pd the second advisor,
6. Both the members of the board of examiners, for their corrections, comments
7. All English lecturers and staff of IAIN Palangka Raya for their help and
support.
ix
8. All of English students generation 2014 who has given the writer support and
contribution.
10. Her beloved parents, Shodiqun, S.Ag and Hanim Mudmainah. Her beloved
siblings Roisa Sukma Muyashoha and Arja Amin Munashoha, for always
11. Her best friends, Razudin, S.Pd,, Ayu Aristi S.E., Nikmah Sistia Eka Putri,
S.Pd., Nurrica Harlinda, S.Pd., Satitis Astuti Minal Fitri, S.Pd., Naimatun
Najilah, S.E., Eka Safitri, S.Pd., Nispa Nurjanah, S.Pd., Wendy Meika
Kristiyanti, S.Pd., Mirnawati, S.Pd., Agustina Dwi Permata, S.Pd. who always
support and help the researcher in completing the requirement of the thesis.
12. All of family member Ex Wisma Ungu squad and Manazil Group squad for
13. Last, all of her friends who have helped the accomplishment of the thesis.
The researcher hopes that may Allah always keeps us on the straight
path, reward, and blesses us for what we do and this writing can be useful for
all of us.
x
TABLE OF CONTENT
Page
COVER ................................................................................................................................ i
COVER (Second Page) ....................................................................................................... ii
ADVISOR APPROVAL .................................................................................................... iii
THESIS APPROVAL ........................................................................................................ iv
MOTTO AND DEDICATION ..........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
DECLARATION OF AUTHORSHIP ...............................Error! Bookmark not defined.
ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................... vii
ABSTRAK ....................................................................................................................... viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... ix
TABLE OF CONTENT ..................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF TABLE ............................................................................................................. xiii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiv
LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................................. xiv
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
A. Background of the Study......................................................................................... 1
B. Research Problem ................................................................................................... 5
C. Objective of the Study............................................................................................. 5
D. Assumption ............................................................................................................. 5
E. Scope and Limitation of the Study .......................................................................... 6
F. Significance of the Study ........................................................................................ 6
G. Definition of Key Terms ......................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ................................................... 8
A. Related Studies........................................................................................................ 8
B. Students‟ Perception ............................................................................................. 18
C. Error ...................................................................................................................... 21
D. Feedback ............................................................................................................... 32
E. Oral Corrective Feedback ..................................................................................... 39
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD ........................................................................... 45
A. Research Design.................................................................................................... 45
B. Population and Sample.......................................................................................... 46
xi
C. Research Instrument.............................................................................................. 48
D. Data Collection Procedure .................................................................................... 53
E. Data Analysis Procedure ....................................................................................... 54
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ........................................ 61
A. Data Presentation .................................................................................................. 61
B. Research Findings ................................................................................................. 62
C. Discussion ............................................................................................................. 74
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ...................................................... 79
A. Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 79
B. Suggestion ............................................................................................................. 80
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
xii
LIST OF TABLE
Table Page
3.1 The Number of 5th Semester Students at English Education Study Program in
IAIN Palangka Raya Academic Year 2017/2018 ............................................. 46
3.4 Statistics of Mean, Median, Mode, SD, Minimun and Maximun Score ........... 55
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
xiv
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Page
xiv
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
as a daily language. In the process of learning, many students make some errors
while they use English orally. They do not have much time to think about the
appropriate expression which they should produce. In this case, some errors may
Speaking is one of the most difficult skills language learners have to face.
In spite of this, it has traditionally been forced into the background while we,
teachers of English, have spent all our classroom time trying to teach our students
how to write, to read and sometimes even to listen in a L2 because grammar has a
producing and receiving and processing information (Brown, 1994; Burns &
Joyce, 1997). Its form and meaning are dependent on the context in which it
Language functions (or patterns) that tend to recur in certain discourse situations
(e.g., declining an invitation or requesting time off from work), can be identified
1
2
throughout the living and non-living nature, and in man-made systems such as
entity (individual or a group) about its prior behavior so that the entity may adjust
its current and future behavior to achieve the desired result. Feedback is
learners on how well they are doing, either to help the learner improve specific
activity, or delayed, at the end of an activity or part of a learning program and can
feedback have been under scrutiny for decades, most notably since Hendrickson‟s
groundbreaking study in 1978 in which he questioned the if, which, when, and
corrective feedback and the use and effectiveness of those types in various
feedback.
oral utterance which contains the linguistic error. In its classroom application, the
3
students. Ellis stated that oral corrective feedback is a part of the teaching process
individually. In other words, the interaction that occurs between teachers and
opinions regarding error correction have been shown to influence their classroom
practices, but within constraints such as time, activity focus, and communicative
students is very important. When language students always make errors without
any correction the errors will be fossilized and it will disturb the meaning of
English they use. The students may think that they have used English
appropriately because their lecturer never gives a correction when they use
English. It also can cause misunderstandings between the speaker and the hearer.
(1988) says that lecturers need to know students' beliefs about language teaching
and learning because the mismatch between students' expectation and the realities
acquisition. Nunan (1995, p. 140) proposes, "Lecturers should find out what theirn
students think and feel about what and how they want to learn". Since, students'
beliefs will give impacts on students' attitude while teaching and learning process,
it is important for a lecturer to know how they want to be taught and what they
want to learn. When lecturers know what their students want in the teaching and
learning process, the lecturers can prepare the appropriate method in teaching and
it will help students in understanding the subject which they learned in the
classroom.
There are some effects if a lecturer does not give students feedback or
delay the giving of corrective feedback when they make the error. It will decrease
their motivation in learning and they may not know their errors. To avoid those
negative attitudes, the way a lecturer in giving corrective feedback of oral errors
perceptions toward oral error correction from their lecturer are very important.
Most of the students expect their lecturer to give oral error corrective feedbacks
because it will help them in acquiring English. When the lecturer does not give
any oral error corrective feedbacks, the students may give a negative attitude in
learning English; it will give a bad impact on the students in acquiring English.
B. Research Problem
1. How are the students' perceptions towards oral corrective feedback given
activity?
1. To find out the students‟ perceptions towards the corrective feedback given in
D. Assumption
that error correction is essential in the language classroom because some studies
have shown that if the corrective feedback is given in the right way, it can
improve the students' language skills. In general education contexts, it has been
incorrect responses. By correcting the students, the students can learn which
language item they need to work on and which feature they have made progress.
6
So, the corrective feedback that has a positive effect will improve students' oral
English accuracy.
The study is expected to give ease to the teacher to help students to make
the errors work for them and improve the students' language skills using oral
corrective feedback.
1. Perception
interpret and understand the world around them. Elliot (1996) moreover adds
with meaning and expectation. These definitions deal with the definition
people organize and interpret the pattern of stimuli in the environment. These
7
human being. It does not accidentally happen, but it takes a long time to
situation in his/her life, it means that he/she recalls what has been happening
experiences.
2. Oral Error
item, a speech act, etc.) in a way which a fluent or native speaker of the
J. Platt, &, H. Platt, 1998). For this study, an oral error is broadly defined as a
(Mosbah, 2007).
3. Corrective Feedback
correction. The output can be manifested in the form of learner uptake which
4. Speaking
process between speaker and listener that involves productive and receptive
skills. Welty (1976) states that speaking is the main skill of communication.
there must be at least two people, one is the speaker and the other is the
listener. In the speaking process, the speaker must be able to share the ideas
clearly so that the listener can receive what the speaker communicates, he or
she must comprehend the incoming message and then organize appropriate
emotions to other people which involves not only producing but also using
language communicatively.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
A. Related Studies
to errors in their interlanguage so that they take note of the errors and learn the
students‟ oral utterance which contains the linguistic error. In its classroom
feedback to students. Ellis stated that oral corrective feedback is a part of the
help students in performing language functions that they are unable to perform
individually. In other words, the interaction that occurs between teachers and
8
9
It must be noted that the value attributed to CF varies depending upon the
method or approach employed in providing the corrective feedback and the beliefs
about the correction in the language pedagogy. While in the audiolingual method
the employed for correction was explicit, in the post method era the language
teaching methodologists do not prescribe overt CF, according to Ellis (2009). But
while some acknowledge the cognitive contribution it can make other scholars
Lyster and Ranta (1997), who studied the corrective feedback in French
Since (and even before) this taxonomy was described, studies have sought to
describe not only the effectiveness of these types, but also what factors, such as
the type of error in question and the L2 proficiency of the learner, can influence
instruction. The former assumes that the L2 acquisition occurs unconsciously and
implicitly like the first language acquisition L1. They believe that comprehensible
inpu t and a low affective filter in the learner are essential for language learning.
They claim that overt attention to linguistic form is not needed and believe that
10
corrective feedback is ineffective (Ellis 2009; Storch 2010; Ayedh & Khaled
2011)
Emotions and feelings towards the feedback process are mainly dependent
upon how feedback is actually managed (Ayedh & Khaled, 2011). Can oral
course, it can. The question is how and how much. The fact is that corrective
feedback can only be used to a limited extent, after which it can become
discouraging and destructive (Ayedh & Khaled, 2011), even though too little can
for the teachers". In this sense, teachers should know when and how to correct
errors and, above all, should consider learners' sensitiveness and personality.
Despite the fact that most learners find corrective feedback highly helpful and,
thus, need and wish to be corrected regularly in class (Havranek, 2002; Lyster et
al. 2013), the fact is that many of them also find corrections embarrassing to
varying degrees. What language teachers should actually avoid is to make learners
situations. Most importantly, the teacher should be positive and kind. Rather,
way and, above all, nicely, so that students do not feel embarrassed. In this sense,
11
corrective feedback should be used cautiously and tactfully -and not in a direct or
obtrusive way-, bearing in mind students' attitudes and personalities when being
personal, and never directed at the person's personality". Although implicit as well
as explicit types of feedback have been shown to be beneficial, and both lead to
learning, the fact is that implicit corrective feedback seems more desirable as
learners do not feel any 'direct criticism or attack' from the correction provided
and, accordingly, their emotions are not so seriously affected. Learners sometimes
find the criticism associated with corrective feedback difficult to handle, which
makes them resist or reject the feedback process (Ayedh & Khaled, 2011).
The fact is that corrective feedback cannot be provided in such a way that
corrective feedback must be highly flexible, adapted to the individual learner and
to the social/situational context (Ellis, 2009). Given that anxiety can have a
negative effect on the way learners benefit from the feedback process, L2 teachers
should be much more concerned with learners' feelings and emotions when being
orally corrected in class-fronted situations. The fact is that teachers are mainly
concerned about not overcorrecting their students for fear of inducing language
anxiety. That is, they frequently worry about hurting the learners' feelings and
feedback is perceived and accepted by most learners, even though Lyster et al.
"a tendency for learners to prefer receiving CF more than teachers feel they
should provide it". Rather, Lyster, et al., (2013, p. 8) pointed out that "the extent
learners. In fact, teachers believe that corrective feedback can induce language
feedback must take account of learners' affective needs in the sense that teachers
should be prepared to vary the way they correct in accordance with the cognitive
and affective needs of the individual learner in the classroom context (Ellis 2009).
Even Ellis (2010) suggests that teachers should abandon corrective feedback if it
Brown and Rodgers (2002) argue that errors made by students in using the
showed that from four teachers being studied, all of them agreed that errors by
students, especially oral errors in using the target language should be corrected.
Rydahl (2005) also added that the majority of teachers found that error correction,
usually called feedback, can help students to improve their language proficiency,
is still debatable. Agudo (2013) has stated that "corrective feedback in classroom
13
settings…[is] becoming a highly controversial issue, with arguments both for and
against providing feedback." For instance, Tomczyk (2013) and Samad, Rahma
and Fitriani (2016) argue that corrective feedback should be provided in language
classrooms because it can prevent students from making the same mistakes in the
future. Conversely, Alqahtani and Al-enzi (2011) and Elsaghayer (2014) conclude
that learners might find teachers' oral corrective feedback embarrassing and
The debate whether oral corrective feedback should be given or not has
also been examined by Calsiyao (2015) and Mendez and Cruz (2012). They
believe, over-correction of errors could be the factor that could destroy a students‟
self-confidence and their performance in the future, while too little or no error
correction at all might lead the students to think that they did not produce errors in
using the target language. When students think that they have acquired sufficient
target language their errors can last for a long time. Without teachers' feedback,
the fossilization of errors could occur (Alqahtani & Al-enzi, 2011; Calsiyao,
2015;).
teachers and peers to students‟ errors in producing the second language (L2).
According to Li, corrective feedback is also about timing. The timing means when
teachers or peers give feedback. There are online CF and offline CF. Online CF
means that errors are responded immediately when the student makes error
meanwhile offline feedback is the corrective feedback that is given after the task.
Another study about corrective feedback regarding its effectiveness comes from
14
Russell and Spada (2006). They did a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of CF for
the acquisition of L2 grammar and the result stated that corrective feedback is
beneficial for L2 grammar both for oral and written production. Quinn‟s (2014)
study, majority of the students prefer if the lecturer gives oral error corrective
realize their error than no corrective feedback. It can be concluded from those
error and it can be given by teachers or peers. Oral corrective feedback which is
the main focus of this study is a response when students make errors utterance to
that corrective feedback in speaking classes was given to reduce the possibility of
121) has stated that teachers' corrective feedback is important to promote "young
learners' interlanguage development". However, she also points out that, teachers
the correct target language use. Solikhah (2016) recently concluded that corrective
though the teacher should not correct the students' errors when the students are
speaking. In other words, the corrective feedback should not break the flow of
speech. From all these studies, it can clearly be inferred that corrective feedback is
the teacher to avoid making the students feel uneasy towards the corrective
15
feedback. Ananda (2017) stated that most of students show they are fine when
Feedback, either in oral or written form or both together, is the medium to help
students improve their performance in the future. Hussein and Ali (2014), Kirgoz
and Agcam (2015), and Voerman et al. (2012), all say that feedback can be used
to enhance language learning and make the students realize the way they express
the target language has mistakes in it. In other words, feedback is given as a
response to the students‟ errors when they use the target language. This response,
whether implicit or explicit, shows that the students‟ utterances of the target
even a structural error e.g. not having a summary at the end of their speech.
improve their target language, some researchers claim that feedback (especially
Rahimi (2010) and Agudo (2012), corrective feedback should be avoided because
students will be embarrassed when the teachers give feedback in front of others
(Elsaghayer, 2014).
16
Not all of the errors made by students in using the target language should
be corrected by their teachers. Errors that can interfere with the message or the
Pronunciation is one type of error that can interfere with communication. Gitsaki
and Althobaiti (2010) found that a beginner's use of the L2 can frequently produce
communication. The time for giving error correction also needs to be considered.
The lecturers should avoid interrupting the students' performance since it could
speaking could “break the flow of their speech”, thus demoralizing the student
teachers than by the students. These different reactions could occur if English is
not the instructional language used in teaching. A study done by Lyster et al.
(2013) revealed that students wanted their errors to be corrected more than what
their teachers had done rather than their teachers ignore their errors. However,
teachers felt that too much feedback could affect the students' self-confidence and
researched the soft skills in English like writing, reading, listening and oral. Pan
(2015) has studied the teacher feedback on the accuracy of EFL student writing.
He concludes his research if teacher feedback has advanced the students in better
17
linguistic knowledge and it will improve the accuracy of students in writing with a
higher degree after receiving the teacher's corrective feedback. On the other hand,
language writing for a year but has found no significant difference in student's
Ayedh and Khaled (2011) have recommended to the researchers so they can
investigate the questions posed in this study with larger samples and different
the limitations of the study to investigate factors that are most likely to be
associated with teachers' use of feedback in ESL writing classes. These factors
essay revision, teacher feedback will always be a major topic for both teachers
strategies to help students and teachers. The present study is a short-termed and
experimental study that has limitations, but it highlights the possibility that some
18
feedback strategies work better than others. However, it suggests that more
B. Students’ Perception
research. Studies were carried out relating to the intelligence, interests, aptitudes,
2003; Way, Reddy & Rhodes, 2007). Students' perceptions about school climate
were examined from several perspectives, for example: the nature of relationships
between teachers and students; the nature of relatio nships between students; the
the extent to which the school provides clear, consistent and fair rules and
risk (Connell and Wellborn, 1991; Eccles et al., 1993). However, despite growing
interest in students' perceptions over the years and evidence of the influence of
studies have been conducted on this subject (Way, Reddy & Rhodes, 2007). In
examining all the necessary components that involve students in the education
system, we lack a specific framework that gathers all of the components “under
one roof”. The model of activity theory discussed above may meet this need.
Jonassen and Rohrer Murphy (1999, p. 68) explain that activity theory provides a
lens for analyzing learning processes and outcomes that can help in designing
19
activity theory "focuses on the activities in which people are engaged, the nature
of the tools they use in those activities, the social and contextual relationships
among the collaborators in those activities, the goals and intentions of those
someone's ability to see, to hear, to feel and to present or to understand what they
fell about their environment their social life physically, and mentally. The
external, connected with a particular person, object or event while Leathers (1992)
proposes that perception is the cognitive process that individuals use to interpret
and understand the world around them. Elliot (1996) moreover adds that
meaning and expectation. These definitions deal with the definition proposed by
Atkinson (1983) stating that perception is the process by which people organize
and interpret the pattern of stimuli in the environment. These definitions indicate
that perception is from a cognitive process in our mind of a human being. It does
not accidentally happen, but it takes a long time to perceive certain events and
20
he/she recalls what has been happening in a certain period in the past in the form
Vernon (1987). He points out the three dimensions of perceptions namely the
understanding of the object, the view, and action toward the object. The three
dimensions are added by Kalish (1973) namely set or expectation. The word
the future. The word expectation‟s stem is expected, meaning think and demand,
which also have another meaning hope. Another idea worth considering is what
we often anticipate that certain things will occur before they actually happen.
That is, we have a set of expectation, that they will occur." (Kalish, 1973, p. 83).
Based on these definitions mean that perception is not only to have an opinion
about something, or have a belief about something or think that something is true,
correct or real but also hope and demand expect a good thing to happen in the
future.
expert. Lindsay and Norman (1977) stated that perception is the process by which
the world. Elliot (1996) moreover adds that perception is the ability to recognize
perceives something, it means that he/she can recall past experiences with objects
or events; the experiences meaning and have a certain expectation about learning
C. Error
There has been much discussion on errors and their correction in the
foreign language classroom because the attitudes towards errors of both teachers
defined? A typical definition includes the reference to the linguistic form which
deviates from the correct one. However, what does it mean „correct‟? The term is
very often identified with the native speaker norm (Allwright & Bailey, 1991)
which is, however, controversial because native speakers‟ utterances vary too
much and most of the language teaching takes place in a non-native context by
crucial to distinguish between errors and mistakes. An error is a deviant form that
is an attempt to try something out, even though a learner does not have sufficient
takes place when a student is familiar with the rule but an incorrect form appears
which still remains problematic, generally one can state that an error in the form
competence and which does not belong to the target language system.
been regarded as something negative, as a result, both teachers and students have
because it caused the formation of bad habits. A different point of view was
mechanical process but rather a mental one where learners test some previously
the second language and it represents the continuum of stages that characterizes a
learner‟s progress (Ellis, 1994). From this perspective, errors are evidence of the
inevitable and necessary part of language learning (Dulay & Bart, 1974;
Hendrickson, 1987), as it is a sign that the learner develops and assimilates the
23
language cause students learning problems and tell how far towards the goal
1981). A number of errors and the types of them serve not only as indicators of
the proficiency level, but they also help teachers in applying appropriate steps to
treat learners difficulties, as they are provided with feedback on the effectiveness
they can move on to the next item which is included in the syllabus. Corder (1967;
1981) highlights that teachers should not only notice errors but try to understand
Apart from the distinction between an error and a mistake, deviant forms
the target language “based on the linguistic item which is affected by the error”
(Dulay et al., 1982; James, 1998, p. 104). Taking into account this criterion one
errors, the division between covert and overt errors has been made where the
the latter is grammatically correct but cannot be interpreted within the context of
sentence but if it is given as an answer to the question of "How old are you?" it is
24
been proposed by Burt and Kiparsky (1974) who defined a global error as the one
which affects the interpretation of the whole sentence (examples are: word order,
considerable impact on further decisions that a teacher has to make, namely, the
utterance by someone who has assessed that the utterance itself or at least the part
improved version of what the first speaker aimed to say. It must be noted that
feedback, however, for this article, the author has decided to use both terms
interchangeably. The notions of feedback and correction are very often presented
in terms of evidence, which is the information that learners receive about the
target language and their attempts at reproducing it. One can distinguish two main
information about what is possible in the language, for example, listening to BBC,
CNN or lectures gives the positive exposure of language (and this is authentic). In
the case of a teacher talking in the classroom, the language is modified because of
25
provided by the teacher owing to his or her superior knowledge and the
communicative asymmetry that puts the teacher in the position of power (Pawlak,
2004).
The question arises whether error correction is needed and useful in the
proponents and opponents. One of the critical opinions is that very often error
is presented by Truscott (1999) who added that there is no proof that corrective
rather than a useful tool. Some linguists, including Krashen (1982) have believed
the defensive and, as a result, they tend to avoid using difficult structures and
focus on form rather than meaning" (Pawlak, 2004, p. 47). Nonetheless, there are
Spada (1999) who disagree with Truscott‟s paper claiming that correcting
students‟ deviant forms rarely hurt their self-esteem and most of the learners
that learners‟ output is at the same time input for themselves and other students in
the classroom, therefore lack of corrective feedback may cause that some
feedback may also foster learners‟ language awareness and the ability to notice
and noticing gaps result in learners‟ modifying their output in constructive and
complicated is the fact that it requires a range of quick decisions that a teacher
needs to make after having noticed an error in a student‟s utterance. The first
decision concerns the question of whether an error should be treated in any way.
Certainly, such a choice is dependent on some factors, including the aim of a task,
students. Having already decided that an error should be the subject of treatment,
a teacher is supposed to choose from three possible options when to deal with an
that, meaning explicitly or implicitly. The last choice to be made concerns who is
correction). As it has been stated earlier, the concepts of an error and its corrective
with. There is no doubt that teachers have to face the ubiquity of errors among
learners of the foreign language and the methods that are employed by them
depend on their general views concerning errors and the corrective feedback. For
this reason, the author of the researchers decided to conduct the research to find
out how errors and their corrections are perceived by teachers and how students,
who are always direct recipients of all the decisions in the classroom, feel about
1. Definition of Error
should be made. There are many definitions of the error made so far and there
and Bailey (1996) have rightly become aware of the importance of speaking
context, the intention of the teacher and student and the prior learning of the
designer. The reason why the error is unwanted is that in the teaching-learning
process the lecturer or course designer uses a standard to achieve the objective
of the teaching". Errors can occur when students always get something wrong
that happens when a student has not learned something and consistently
„get(s) it wrong‟.
part of the language learning process because students cannot learn a language
making error students know how to fix it and they will learn something.
Afterward, the appearance of oral error while using English cannot be denied.
Since, students need to deal with a new vocabulary, new grammar, and rules
of the target language due to the language are different from their mother
tongue (first language). Based on Corder (1981, p. 73), “Errors can occur as
the result of the interference from the habit of the first language”.
Even though students are allowed to make some errors while learning
process, yet it does not mean language students are allowed to do errors all the
time. Rydahl (2005, p. 32) also stated when student pronounce words
incorrectly, make syntax errors, or use words in a context where they do not
belong, it may be necessary for the students to receive feedback that makes the
students aware of the error and thus provides information about how to avoid
making the same mistakes again. When it happens, the lecturer's role in the
classroom is very important. The lecturer needs to give feedback which can
notice and avoid students to make the same errors. There are three kinds of
verbal feedback based on Gattullo (2000) and Harmer (2001), they are
make students notice their errors, this research focuses on corrective feedback.
29
definition of applying to their research context. For this study, an oral error is
responses with the repair of the non-target items as well as utterances still in
need of repair (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). The correction may come from the
student, a peer or the teacher. After some key definitions, the issue of oral
the contemporary research seems to agree on the fact that rather than
a. Pronunciation Errors
terrible dream last night. I was deserted [dezetid] in the desert [dezet]
30
dog ran up and took it away." Actually, the wall knows the story of the
boy in the dream, the boy was deserted in the desert feeling hungry. A
deserted dog took the dessert he found in his pocket before he put it
into his mouth. Without a doubt, the boy failed to express himself. The
b. Grammatical Errors
We often hear some sentences like this “The problem will discuss
these errors don't get corrected in time, the students will keep them in
mind and think they are right. The result will be very terrible. The
three short sentences are enough to show us that the students must
She asked the students to have a free talk –introduce themselves or ask
31
her some questions. A boy was so excited that he stood up and blurted
out “How old are you? Are you married? How much do you earn a
year?” These questions made the teacher a bit embarrassed, but she
just smiled and replied, “It is a secret.” Then she told the class it is
who can tolerate it. We are not sure whether everyone will accept it. If
student gives a real picture of the extent to which the student needs
little corrective feedback may enable the student to focus improving in one
or few areas, but the student might be led to perceive that he is not making
errors at all, or that his errors are insignificant that he does not exert effort
future.
32
to be corrected for each minor error they make. This practice ruins their
focus on should be that which will be most productive for the learners in
future communication. The following are the types of errors that need
the current classroom focus; c) errors that have high "stigmatizing" effect;
and d) errors that are produced the most frequent. The language teacher
D. Feedback
information to clarify ideas, a parent can encourage, and a learner can look up the
"consequence" of performance.
the feedback and instruction become intertwined until "the process itself takes on
the forms of new instruction, rather than informing the student solely about
of learning that fills a gap between what is understood and what is aimed to be
understood (Sadler, 1989), and it can do this in some different ways. These may
students that they are correct or incorrect, indicating that more information is
information with which a learner can confirm, add to, overwrite, tune, or
Feedback does not affect a vacuum; to be powerful in its effect, there must
process and is that which happens second-after a student has responded to initial
providing feedback should have little effect on criterion performance, since there
1977, p. 220).
and/or understanding of the constructions that students have made from the
Feedback by itself may not have the power to initiate further action. In addition, it
is the case that feedback is not only given by teachers, students, peers, and so on,
but can also be sought by students, peers, and so on, and detected by a learner
also needs to prompt active information processing on the part of learners, have
low task complexity, relate to specific and clear goals, and provide little threat to
35
directed to the task, processes, and/or regulation and not to the self-level. These
conditions highlight the importance of classroom climates that foster peer and
discrepancies at the task level, and void of cues that direct attention to the self is
feedback. Feedback can only build on something; it is of little use when there is
one of the most powerful influences on learning, too rarely occurs, and needs to
Gattullo (2000) and Harmer (2001) have divided feedback into three
different kinds which are evaluative feedback, strategic feedback, and corrective
feedback.
help students to fix their errors and improve their performance. Gatullo
b. Strategic Feedback
example, for students who cannot pronounce "the", the lecturer might
say, "Look at my tongue, put your teeth on your tongue, and say, the."
the students in order they can correct their errors by themselves. Tsui
Feedback is used to correct the students' errors. This type will explain
Ayoun (2001) have pointed out that lecturer's oral feedback might
depends on how the lecturer uses the feedback toward their students.
performance and at the same time encourage the student. On the other
There are several other types of feedback that are usually used in the
language classroom. Some scholars name them as positive and negative feedback,
and others call them implicit and explicit feedback. Positive feedback is feedback
that the teacher, parent, or peer gives to praise the student regarding their good
students to do better in the future. Ellis (2009) admits that positive feedback as a
speech was really excellent, Akbar.” On the other hand, negative feedback is
given as a response towards the errors made by a student in using the target
language. Hussein and Ali (2014) say that negative feedback is a way to let the
student know that she has made mistakes in using the target language. Ellis (2009)
strengthens their argument by stating that negative feedback is used to show there
are errors in what the learner has said. For example, when a student says “I not
sees him for two days” a teacher could correct the grammatical error by saying
“No, you should say, I have not seen him for two days.”
38
Other types of feedback are implicit and explicit feedback. From the word
implicit feedback, the teacher tries to correct the students‟ error without giving a
when the teacher corrects the students‟ errors by clearly pointing them out.
According to Pérez et al. (2013), implicit feedback does not obviously state where
the students‟ errors appear while explicit feedback is obvious and can be easily
noticed and corrected by the students. Through explicit correction, the students
will clearly know what their errors were, therefore they can fix them better.
According to Ellis (2006), explicit feedback enables the students‟ to realize their
errors better. Therefore they can do self-correction and the result will promote
correcting students' errors by clearly pointing out the error and giving a correct
that does not obviously signal the students' errors in using the target language.
feedback process: the sources of feedback (teachers and students); the mode of
occasion (when it is presented) (Rucker & Thomson, 2003). While there has been
little has been done to integrate these constructs into a coherent theoretical model.
Few studies have focused on teacher feedback about student performances, and
fewer on student perceptions or preferences. Drew (2001) found that for students,
39
feedback relating to all aspects of progress was important, not just performance in
learning styles; clearly identifies strengths and weaknesses; has suggestions for
Parikh, McReelis & Hodges, 2001; Rucker & Thompson, 2003). Earlier research
also established feedback as a necessary condition for student goal setting (Erez,
1977). Although the purpose of the present study was to explore student
is useful for refining teaching methods. For the purpose of this paper, Hattie and
p.81).
feedback, because the giving of corrective feedback by the lecturer indicates the
language user uses the language incorrectly (Lightbown and Spada, 1999, p.171).
40
Since it does not provide the correct form, corrective feedback will force the
students to use their knowledge about the language to fix their error.
and limited amount of negative feedback, it allows for response and interaction.
provide any additional information to students to correct their utterance. So, while
the lecturer gives implicit feedback, usually he/she does not interrupt the
conversation but directly corrects the error that the student makes. Explicit
feedback types offer additional or clear information for students to correct their
error. The lecturer will provide any information about the correct form of the
Lyster and Ranta (1997) classified kind of oral error corrective feedback
1. Repetition is when the lecturer repeats the student's error and changes the
problem.
For example:
T: /pakıt/?
S: /pokıt/
41
2. Elicitation is when the lecturer elicits the correct form from the student by
asking the question. There are at least three techniques that Lecturer use to
directly elicit the correct form from the student. First, the lecturer uses
students to reformulate the utterance, for example: “Can you say that
again?”
providing the correct form. Metalinguistic comments such as, “Can you
For example:
T: + there are is used for a plural noun, for example, there are six apples
in the fridge. If there is only one book on the table, it should use is.
4. Clarification request, the instructor asks what the speaker meant by the
error utterance by using phrases like "Pardon me? Excuse me?, Again?". It
lecturer or instructor.
For example:
T: Pardon me?
42
expressions like "Oh, you mean …", "You should say …” However, recast
are more salient than others in that they may focus on one word only.
Recast is when the lecturer repeat of the utterance, replace the error with
the correct form without directly pointing out that the student‟s utterance
was incorrect.
For example:
the lecturer provides the correct form, he or she indicates that the student
had said was incorrect. (e.g. “Oh, you mean …”, “You should say …”)
For example:
S: I drive a motorcycle.
T: You should say “I ride a motorcycle because drive is used for car or
bus; when ride is used for motorcycle, horse, bicycle, and so on.”
Before Lyster and Ranta (1997) classified kind of oral error corrective
feedback into six, Fanselow (1997) has stated 16 kinds of oral error corrective
feedback. His taxonomy included traits such as vocal emphasis and gesture as
defining characteristics. However, since Lyster and Ranta published their findings
in 1997, their six kinds of oral error corrective feedback have been used to guide
As we know that not only about kinds of oral error corrective feedback
which lecturer should consider in giving oral error corrective feedback to the
students but also how and when it should be given have to be considered in order
to help students in notice and correct their errors. The way which the lecturer uses
important errors? Should it be done privately between the lecturer and the student
or it should be done individually while they are studying in the classroom? Should
it be done in the class or after the class over? These questions are needed to be
Hendrickson (1978) stated that when the lecturer allows some errors and
correct others, students feel more comfortable speaking than if the lecturer is to
correct every error. Havranek (2002) suggests if the corrective feedback is best for
correcting simple grammar rules such as verb endings and the auxiliary do is an
example of the research indicating that the type of error being corrected may
determine whether or not it should be corrected. When Catchart & Olsen (1976)
study found that students want most oral their mistakes corrected.
is done in the classroom can give negative emotional experience to the students
which can impede them in the learning process. On another hand, Smith (2010)
study showed most of the students want their error to be corrected immediately in
the class.
44
However, the lecturer should have his/her own priorities and consider
many things in giving the corrective feedback to the students and it should have
coincided with the circumstances in the teaching and learning activity for it can
Firwana (2010), in his study, found that finding the perfect timing of doing
Corrective feedback can give a positive impact and negative impact. The
positive impact will appear if the corrective feedback is given correctly by the
lecturer and negative impact will appear if corrective feedback is given incorrectly
given to the students, the way of lecturer in giving it and kind of corrective
considered.
if the lecturer gave it in appropriate way. Sometimes when the lecturer corrects
avoid that, the lecturer needs to know learners' preferences toward oral error
RESEARCH METHOD
A. Research Design
preparing to complete research and achieve the goal of the research. The writer
wants to know the students' responses and perceptions toward oral corrective
design is plans and the procedures for research to detailed methods of data
research can be explained as a statement of affairs as they are at present with the
while analytical research attempts to establish why it is that way or how it came
to be”. A descriptive study determined naturally, and the research has no control
over the condition and the situation, and could only measure what already exists.
45
46
yield statistical data. The finding from quantitative research can be predictive,
1. Population
The population of this study was all students who took Public Speaking
Table 3.1
The Number of 5th Semester Students at English Education Study
Program in IAIN Palangka Raya Academic Year 2017/2018
2. Sample
research.
on the sample, it's mean that information was constituted from the sample.
sample. The total of the sample must be chosen before doing research.
population explained.
population) to take the sample. This refers to Arikunto (2002) that says if
the students are less than 100, it is better to take all of the subject. So, it
can be said as population of the research. Then, if the subjects are more
Based on the statement above, the writer would take all population as
sample of this study. It is caused that the population of this study is less
than 100.
C. Research Instrument
p. 20). Likert scale in this study Strongly Disagree (SD), Disagree (D),
Neutral (N), Agree (A), and Strongly Agree (SA). Harris (1969, p. 15)
by Likert Scale.
Table 3.2
Range Score of Statements
Answers Score
Agree (A) 4
Neutral (N) 3
Disagree (D) 2
Table 3.3
Questionnaire Item Specification
b. Observation
observation is all form in getting data that does by record even, count,
measure and note all of even that occurred. Sutrisno Hadi (1986) agues
observes what people do, listen to what they say, and participates in
participate. Field note prepared to write some important data while the
learning process that will help the researcher to analyse the data.
class.
51
2. Instrument Validity
similarity between the data that have collected by the testes and the true
There are five types of validity (Setyadi, 2006. p. 22). They are face
validity concerns with the layout of the test. They are content validity that
Based on the types above, the writer used face validity, content
validity and construct validity because the other two are considered to be
less needed.
a. Face Validity
ensures that the test items look right to other testers, teacher,
certain criterion, but it does not guarantee that the test actually
face of the test, thus it can also be judge by the experts in the field.
b. Content Validity
2002).
the ability to be measured and the test being used to measure it.
c. Construct Validity
with the theory of what it means to know the language. It means that
the test measures certain aspect based on the indicator. The researcher
53
of those aspects.
3. Instrument Reliability
Reliability is defined as how much consistency the test scores the test
2017).
In this study, the researcher collected the data from questionnaire and
observation.
2. The researcher delivered the questionnaire to the sample that has been
4. The researcher has done the observation to public speaking class directly.
5. After find the data, the researcher analyzed the result of questionnaire
7. The researcher drawn conclusion from the data finding and theories about
analyse data of the questionnaire, the researcher used simple basic statistical
techniques, as follows:
2. The researcher arranges the collected score into the distribution of the
Standard Deviation.
a. Mean,
is:
55
̅=
Σ = Sum of
X= raw score
N = Number of case
b. Median
which 50 percent of the cases lie (which means that the other 50
c. Mode
et al, 2010)
d. Standard Deviation
N = Number of cases
Table 3.4
N Valid 64
Missing 0
Mean 58.64
Median 60.50
Mode 59a
56
numbers:
With description:
N : Number of subjects
rhitung compared with product moment rtabel with the following criteria:
Table 3.5
Result of Test Validity
same tester (Sugianto, 2017). To find the reliability of data, the researcher
k S i
r11 1
k 1 St
With description:
r11 = Coefficient reliability
k = Number of items
∑Si = Total score varians each item
St = Total score Varians
Table 3.6
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid 64 100.0
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 64 100.0
As it can be seen from Table 3.6 that 64 students rated the statement
analysis.
Table 3.7
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.821 17
the scale.
Table 3.8
Rating of Students’ Perspective
This chapter presented the result of the findings. It was intended to answer
the problems of the study. In finding, the researcher described the process of
calculating and presenting result of the data. Whereas; in the discussion section
the researcher will analyze the finding. The researcher presents the data which
had been collected from the research in the field of study which consists of
A. Data Presentation
For the first data, the researcher took from the students‟ questionnaire.
questions in the questionnaire. Questions number one, two, three, seven, and e
ight to find out the students‟ preferences toward how oral error corrective
feedback should be given by the lecturer. Questions number four, five, and six
to find out the students‟ preferences toward when oral error corrective
feedback should be given by the lecturer. Questions number nine, ten, eleven,
and twelve to find out the students‟ feeling when oral error corrective
sixteen, and seventeen to find out how EFL learners emotionally react to the
61
62
For the second data was doing an observation, the researcher used field
note technique to know how oral corrective feedback given by the lecturer in
speaking class. The kind of oral corrective feedback that the researcher
observe in the class, as follows; recast: the lecturer repeats the students‟
utterance in the correct form without pointing out the student‟s error,
specifically pointing out the mistake, explicit correction: the lecturer gives
the correct form to the student with a grammatical explanation, repetition: the
elicitation: the lecturer asks the student to correct and complete the sentence,
and asking for clarification: the lecturer asks the student to reformulate the
answer to indicate that the student‟s utterance was not understood. (Lyster &
Ranta, 1997)
B. Research Findings
The first step was to tabulate score into the table of calculation
Table 4.1
The Calculation of Mean
X F FX
5 23 115
4 30 120
3 7 21
2 1 2
1 3 3
N=64 261
X
Next step is to tabulate the score into the table of calculation Deviation
Table 4.2
The Calculation of Deviation Score and Standard Deviation of
Students’ Perception
X F FX X x2 Fx2
5 23 115 0.93 0.86 19.78
4 30 120 0.07 0.05 1.5
3 7 21 1.07 1.15 8.05
2 1 2 2.07 4.28 4.28
1 3 3 3.07 9.42 28.26
64 ∑ 261 ∑ 61.87
64
Stdev= √ =√ =√ =√ = 0.981
Then the score of Mean, Median, Modus, and Standard Deviation are
Table 4.3
Result of Questionnaire
Scale
M
SA A N D SD M
No Statement Total MN D SD
O
5 4 3 2 1 N
I prefer when my
lecturer gives
corrective feedback to 23 30 7 1 3 261 4.08 4 4 0.981
1 every error which
made by me.
Percent 35.9 46.9 10.9 1.6 4.7
I prefer when my
lecturer gives
corrective feedback to 7 30 16 7 4 221 3.45 4 4 1.038
2 only important errors
which made by me.
Percent 10.9 46.9 25 10.9 6.2
I prefer when my
lecturer gives me
12 23 24 4 1 233 3.64 4 3 0.915
3 corrective feedback in
private.
Percent 18.8 35.9 37.5 6.2 1.6
I prefer when my
lecturer gives me
6 34 18 5 1 231 3.61 4 4 0.828
4 corrective feedback in
class.
Percent 9.4 53.1 28.1 7.8 1.6
I prefer when my
lecturer gives
5 corrective feedback to 9 29 18 5 3 228 3.56 4 4 0.990
my oral error
immediately.
65
Note:
SA = Strongly Agree
A = Agree
N = Neutral
D = Disagree
MN = Mean
MDN = Median
MO = Modus
SD = Strongly Disagree
lecturer gives corrective feedback to only important errors which made by them.
strongly agree.
lecturer gives them corrective feedback in the class. There are 1 students
agree.
lecturer gives corrective feedback to their oral error after the class. There
corrected when everyone in the class makes the same error as them. There
strongly agree.
Dealing with statement number 11, the students feel fine when my
lecturer gives corrective feedback to their oral error. There are 3 students
strongly agree.
Dealing with statement number 12, the students feel bad or angry
when the lecturer correct their errors. There are 18 students (28.1%) state
making oral mistakes in language class. There are 2 students (3.1%) state
Dealing with statement number 14, the students get upset when
they don‟t understand what the lecturer is correcting. There are 4 students
agree.
correct their errors in speaking English. There are 3 students (4.7%) state
necessary and helpful. There are 3 students (4.7%) state strongly disagree,
70
Dealing with statement number 17, the student feel they have
learnt a lot from oral correction. There are 4 students (6.2%) state strongly
feedback and their response based on feedback that given by the lecturer in
This kind of research process was aimed to make sure the activity
in the class about how is their lecturer gives oral corrective feedback when
the students are speaking. This process was shown the data that support
the result of the questionnaire. The data was taken on September 26th in B
Table 4.4
The Process Teaching Learning in Public Speaking Class
utterance.
- The lecturer closing the meeting
and give some advices and
suggestions for the students.
- Which is the lecturer used recast,
repetition, and asking for
clarification for giving feedback
to the students.
speaking class, the lecturers have their own method in giving corrective
students often produces errors while teaching and learning process in the
class. The error which usually appear are in many aspects, such as:
their errors which they produce, the lecturers always do the corrective
feedback. Each lecturer has their own way in giving corrective feedback,
such as: direct feedback, peer correction, or ask them to clarify their
utterance. From six kind of oral corrective feedback by Lyster and Ranta,
the lecturers only used four of them, there are recast, repetition, explicit
Table 4. 5
Result of Students’ Perspective
60
50
P
E
40
R SA
C
E
30 A
N
T N
A
G 20 D
E
SD
10
0
Item 5
Item 13
Item 1
Item 2
Item 3
Item 4
Item 6
Item 7
Item 8
Item 9
Item 10
Item 11
Item 12
Item 14
Item 15
Item 16
Item 17
above that most students agree to receive oral corrective feedback from their
C. Discussion
corrective feedback in speaking class with the score is 3.43. All of the
indicators show a good point above 3.00 which is answering the research
speaking class. Also, it obviously answered that the use of oral corrective
speaking ability.
Based on the finding from the first indicator which is purpose to see
the student‟s preferences how oral error corrective feedback should be given
to the students in the speaking class, most students agree that the lecturer
gives corrective feedback to every error that made by them in 3.65 average
that oral corrective feedback is a part of the teaching process because it has
(Chapter II, p. 8) It could be conclude that the most of the students have
see the students‟ preferences toward when oral error corrective feedback
should be given by the lecturer the average score is 3.50. The result of this
study have shown that the students prefer if corrective feedback is given
immediately in the class. In this case, the students prefer if the lecturer gives
oral corrective feedback in the class immediately. It has the same result as
Quinn‟s study, majority of the students prefer if the lecturer gives oral error
know errors they have made. They cannot wait to find it out. If corrective
feedback is delayed, the students may forget what errors which they have
produced or said and it may be difficult to analyse which error they made.
his study wanted their errors to be corrected by the lecturer in the classroom.
This finding also shows the giving of oral error corrective feedback in
the classroom gets higher percentage than giving oral error corrective
feedback after the class. By giving oral error corrective feedback in the
classroom can be helpful for the students in the classroom. Making an error is
a part of learning process, it can be beneficial not only for the one who
produced the error but also his/her friends in the classroom. All students can
76
learn what the errors are and how to fix the error together; so, all students can
Based on the finding from the third indicator which is purpose to see
the students‟ feeling when oral error corrective feedback is given by the
lecturer, most students agree that they feel fine when the lecturer gives
corrective feedback to their errors in 3.09 average score. The third data
describe the students feeling when they got oral corrective feedback in
speaking learning class. In line with Ananda (2017) stated that most of
students show they are fine when their lecturer gives corrective feedback to
them. They are not annoyed nor angry, it means most of students show
positive perception toward oral error corrective feedback which given by the
Lastly, Based on the finding from the third indicator which is purpose
classroom situations, most students agree that they have learnt a lot from oral
error correction with 3.50 average score. In line with (Storch) “providing
teachers should know when and how to correct errors and, above all, should
consider learners' sensitiveness and personality. Despite the fact that most
learners find corrective feedback highly helpful and, thus, need and wish to
the students have positive perception about corrective feedback give students
77
to their students. The observation proves that the most of students often
produces errors while teaching and learning process in the class. In order
to notice the students to their errors which they produce, the lecturers
always do the corrective feedback. The lecturer only give the corrective
students and the other lecturer gives the corrective feedback individually
The conclusion was to summarize the finding, and suggestion was aimed to the
Program of IAIN Palangka Raya, and those who are interest further in
A. Conclusion
public speaking class who has took basic speaking course. The result
positive. All of indicator show a good point that most students agree to
receive oral corrective feedback from their lecturer. These findings could
corrective feedback when the students‟ make some errors in the classroom.
The result of this study shows that students‟ agree if oral corrective
feedback that given by the lecturers give beneficial and can improve their
speaking ability. Hence, to make teaching and learning process can be done
79
80
B. Suggestion
a. In correcting students‟ speaking error, the lecturer does not only focus
b. The lecturer could give any variation of kinds corrective feedback for
c. The lecturer could give a praise and motivation after giving explicit
the researchers as the subject beside the students. It will provide a better
Alqahtani, A. A., & Al-enzi, E.K. (2011). EFL Teachers‟ Feedback to Oral Errors
in An EFL Classroom: Teachers‟ Perspectives. Arab World English Journal,
2 (1), 214-232.
Asnawi, Zulfikar, T., & Astila, I. (2017). Students’ Perception of Oral Corrective
Feedback in Speaking Classes. English Education Journal, 8, 275-278.
Ayedh, A., & Khaled, E. (2011). EFL Teachers‟ Feedback To Oral Errors in EFL
Classroom: Teachers' perspectives. Arab World English Journal, 2(1), 214-
232.
Brown, J. D., & Rodgers, T. S. (2002). Doing Second Language Research. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Bueno, A., Madrid, D., & McLaren, N. (2006). TEFL in Secondary Education.
Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada.
Gitsaki, C., & Althobaiti, N. (2010). ESL Teachers‟ Use of Corrective Feedback
and Its Effect on Learners‟ Uptake. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 7 (1), 197-
219.
Jing, H., Xiaodong, H., & Yu, L. (2016). Error Correction in Oral Classroom
English Teaching. Canadian Center of Science and Education, 9, 99.
Kassa, A. A. (2011). Oral Corrective Feedback: An Exploratory Case Study of the
Interplay Between Teachers’ Beliefs, Classroom Practices and Rationales.
(Disertation). Ethiopia: Addis Ababa University.
Keizer, E., Albakry, M., & Weijer, J. V. D. (2007). English Language. Year’s
Work in English, 86 (1). doi:http://ywes.oxfordjournals.org/
content/86/1/1.1.short
Leedy, P., & Ormrod, J. (2001). Practical Research: Planning and Design (7th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merril Prentice Hall. Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Publications.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective Feedback and Student Uptake:
Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classroom. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Mendez, E.H., & Cruz, M.R. (2012). Teachers‟ Perceptions About Oral
Corrective Feedback and Their Practice in EFL Classrooms. Retrieved from
www.redalyc.org/pdf/1692/169224635005
Razak, N. A., Saeed, M., & Ahmad, Z. (2013). English Language Teaching, 6
(11), 187–198. Adopting Social Networking Sites (Snss) as Interactive
Communities Among English Foreign Language (EFL) Learners in Writing:
Opportunities And Challenges. doi:http://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n11p187
Rowe, A.D. & Wood L.N. (2008). Student Perceptions and Preferences for
Feedback. Journal of Learning Excellence and Development (LEAD) Grant
from the Division of Economics and Financial Studies, 4, 78-88.
Samad, I. A., Rahma, E. A., & Fitriani, S. S. (2016). Providing Indirect Corrective
Feedback: A Technique to Reduce Errors in Students‟ Writing. Journal of
English Education, 1 (2), 133-139.
Setyadi, A. B. (2006). Teaching English as Foreign Language. Yogyakarta:
Graha Ilmu.
Voerman, L., Meijer, P. C., Korthagen, F. A. J., & Simons, R. J. (2012). Types
and Frequencies of Feedback Interventions in Classroom Interaction in
Secondary Education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28 (8), 1-9.
Way, N., Reddy, R., & Rhodes, J. (2007). Students' perceptions of school climate
during the middle school years: Associations with trajectories of
psychological and behavioral adjustment. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 40, 3-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9143-y