ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND LEARNER UPTAKE IN A YOUNG LEARNER EFL CLASSROOM A CASE STUDY IN AN ENGLISH COURSE IN BANDUNG.

(1)

ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND LEARNER UPTAKE IN A YOUNG LEARNER EFL CLASSROOM

(A CASE STUDY IN AN ENGLISH COURSE IN BANDUNG)

A THESIS

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master’s Degree in English Education

By:

ELIS HOMSINI MAOLIDA

1104036

ENGLISH EDUCATION PROGRAM SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

(2)

ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND LEARNER UPTAKE IN A YOUNG LEARNER EFL CLASSROOM

(A CASE STUDY IN AN ENGLISH COURSE IN BANDUNG)

Oleh

Elis Homsini Maolida

S.Pd UPI Bandung, 2005

Sebuah Tesis yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Magister Pendidikan (M.Pd.) pada Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris

Agustus 2013

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

Tesis ini tidak boleh diperbanyak seluruhnya atau sebagian, dengan dicetak ulang, difoto kopi, atau cara lainnya tanpa ijin dari penulis.

(3)

APPROVAL PAGE

A Thesis

Oral Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake in a Young Learner EFL Classroom (A Case Study in an English Course in Bandung)

Elis Homsini Maolida 1104036

Approved by

Main Supervisor,

Dr. Dadang Sudana, M.A.

Co-Supervisor,

(4)

DECLARATION

I hereby certify that this thesis entitled “Oral Corrective Feedback and Learner

Uptake in a Young Learner EFL Classroom (A Case Study in an English Course

in Bandung)” is completely my own work. I am fully aware that I have quoted some statements and ideas from various sources, and all quotations are properly acknowledged.

Bandung, August 23, 2013

(5)

ABSTRACT

This study reports various types of oral corrective feedback in relation to learner uptake in an English class for young learners. It unfolds types of teacher’s oral corrective feedback and their distribution in classroom interaction and learner uptake following the different types of oral feedback. This study employed a qualitative research design, embracing the characteristics of a case study. The data were collected by means of approximately 9 hours audio and video recording to capture types of teacher’s oral corrective feedback and learner uptake in the classroom interaction which were then transcribed and coded by using the categorization from Lyster&Ranta (1997) and Ellis (2009). The data were also obtained from stimulated recall interview one week after the observation finished. The first finding reveals that the teacher employed seven types of oral corrective feedback: recast, elicitation, clarification request, explicit correction, repetition,

metalinguistic feedback, and paralinguistic signal. In this case, the teacher’s choice to give oral corrective feedback was led by three motives: the teacher’s

perception of the benefit of correction for language learning, the teacher’s

professional concern, and the teacher’s intention to avoid fossilization. It is also

revealed that in employing different types of oral corrective feedback, the teacher put several aspects into her consideration such as learners’ proficiency, learners’ types of spoken error, and learning objectives. The distribution of oral corrective feedback in the interaction shows that recast was the most preferred strategy even though it resulted in the least frequency of learners’ uptake. The second finding

reveals that the learners responded to the teacher’s oral corrective feedback with

uptake or topic continuation. The learner uptake in the form of self-repair, peer-repair, repetition and incorporation were identified as repair while the learner uptake in the form of same error, different error, partial error, hesitation and acknowledgement were identified as need-repair. The distribution of learner uptake following different types of oral corrective feedback shows that elicitation, clarification request, repetition, metalinguistic feedback and paralinguistic signal repair resulted in a higher number of learner uptake comparing to recast and explicit correction. It is also noteworthy that elicitation and repetition led to the highest number of repair. The results imply that the types of oral corrective feedback utilized by the teacher influence the types of learner uptake. In this case, output prompting feedback strategies are more successful in encouraging learner uptake and learner generated repair than input providing feedback strategies. Keywords: Oral corrective feedback, learner uptake, young learner

(6)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPROVAL PAGE……… DECLARATION……… ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……… TABLE OF CONTENTS……… LIST OF TABLES……….. LIST OF FIGURES……… ABSTRACT……… CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION………

1.1 Background………..

1.2 Research Questions………..

1.3 Aims of the Study………

1.4 Significance of the Study……….

1.5 Scope of the Study………...

1.6 Definition of Key Terms………..

1.7 Organization of the Paper………

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW………... 2.1 Corrective Feedback………

2.1.1 Types of Oral Corrective Feedback………..

2.1.1.1 Recast………. 2.1.1.2 Repetition………... 2.1.1.3 Clarification Request……….. 2.1.1.4 Explicit Correction ……… 2.1.1.5 Elicitation………...

2.1.1.6 Metalinguistic Feedback………

2.1.1.7 Paralinguistic Signal……….. 2.1.2 Choice of Errors to Correct………... 2.1.3 Choice of Corrector………... 2.1.4 The Timing of Correction………..

2.1.5 Teaching Speaking to Young Learner and Oral Corrective

Feedback………..

2.2 Uptake……….. 2.2.1 Types of Uptake……… 2.2.1.1 Repair………. 2.2.1.1.1 Repetition………...

2.2.1.1.2 Incorporation………..

2.2.1.1.3 Self Repair……….. 2.2.1.1.4 Peer Repair………. 2.2.1.2 Needs Repair……….. 2.2.1.2.1 Acknowledgment……… 2.2.1.2.2 Same Error ……….

iii iv v vi viii viii ix 1 1 3 3 4 5 5 5 7 7 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 22 23 24 25 30 32 32 32 33 33 34 34 34

(7)

2.2.1.2.3 Different Error………

2.2.1.2.4 Hesitation……… 2.2.1.2.5 Partial Error……… 2.2.1.2.6 Off Target………... 2.2.1.3 Topic Continuation………... 2.3 Theoretical Rationale for Error Correction………..

2.3.1 Cognitive Theories of Error Correction………

2.4 Previous Studies………... CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY……… 3.1 Introduction………. 3.2 Research Design……….. 3.3 Data Collection……… 3.3.1 Research Site………. 3.3.2 Subjects of the Study………. 3.3.3 Steps of Data Collection……… 3.3.4 Data Collection Techniques………..

3.3.4.1 Observation (Audio and Video Recording) ………

3.3.4.2 Stimulated Recall Interview……… 3.4 Data Analysis………... 3.4.1 Analysis of Audio and Video Recording……….. 3.4.2 Analysis of Stimulated Recall Interview……….. 3.5 Validity and Reliability……… CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION……… 4.1 Types of Oral Corrective Feedback and Their Distribution ………….. 4.1.1 Recast………. 4.1.2 Explicit Correction……… 4.1.3 Elicitation………..

4.1.4 Metalinguistic Feedback………

4.1.5 Clarification Request………. 4.1.6 Repetition………... 4.1.7 Paralinguistic Signal……….. 4.2 Types of Learner Uptake and Their Distribution……….

4.2.1 Repair………. 4.2.1.1 Repetition………... 4.2.1.2 Incorporation……….. 4.2.1.3 Self Repair……….. 4.2.1.4 Peer Repair………. 4.2.2 Need Repair………...

4.2.2.1 Acknowledgment………...

4.2.2.2 Same Error………. 4.2.2.3 Different Error……… 4.2.2.4 Hesitation………...

36 36 37 37 37 38 39 45 53 53 53 54 54 55 58 58 59 60 62 62 66 67 69 69 70 75 77 80 83 84 85 93 96 96 97 98 99 100 100 101 102 103

(8)

4.2.2.5 Partial Error……… 4.3 Synthesis of Findings………...

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION, LIMITATION & RECCOMENDATION

5.1 Conclusion ……….. 5.2 Limitation of the Study……… 5.3 Recommendation for Further Studies………..

REFERENCES………... APPENDICES……… APPENDIX 1: Coding of Oral Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake… APPENDIX 2: Result of Stimulated Recall Interview………... APPENDIX 3: Sample of Students’ Activities………...

104 112 113 113 114 115 117 124 125 142 151

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Types of Oral Corrective Feedback from Lyster&Ranta (1997) and Ellis (2009) ……….. Table 2.2 Definition of Recast from Different Experts……… Table 2.3 Various Categorizations of Feedback from Different Experts…… Table 2.4 Taxonomy of Oral Corrective Feedback (Sheen&Ellis, 2011)…... Table 2.5 Assessment of Young Learners’ Oral Skills (Cameron, 2001)…… Table 2.6 Three Hypotheses Supporting the Use of Corrective Feedback…..

Table 3.1 Schedule of Data Collection………

Table 3.2 Categorization of Oral Corrective Feedback (Lyster&Ranta,1997) Table 3.3 Categorization of Uptake (Lyster&Ranta, 1997)………. Table 3.4 Table Design for the Distribution of Feedback Types………. Table 3.5 Table Design for the Distribution of Learner Uptake……….. Table 4.1 Distribution of Different Types of Oral Corrective Feedback……. Table 4.2 Distribution of Learner Uptake Following Teacher’s Feedback….

10 11 19 21 26 39 58 63 64 65 66 70 94

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Model of Error Treatment Sequence (Lyster &Ranta, 1997)……

Figure 3.1 Typical Seat Arrangement in the Classroom During Observation 9 59

(9)

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

The first chapter is an initial description that sets the nature of the present research in exploring various types of oral corrective feedback in relation to learner uptake in a young learner EFL classroom. It starts with the background of the study on oral corrective feedback and learner uptake. This section is followed by research questions and aims of the study. The subsequent section is the significance of the study, scope of the study, definition of key terms and organization of the paper.

1.1Background

Corrective feedback has been discussed for decades in the realm of language teaching. Ellis (2009, p.3) states that most theories of second language learning and language pedagogy give a place for a role of feedback, “In both behaviorist and cognitive theories of L2 learning, feedback is seen as contributing to language learning. In both structural and communicative approaches to language teaching, feedback is viewed as a means of fostering learner motivation and ensuring

linguistic accuracy.” However, nativist such as Krashen (1981) questions the role

of feedback by stating that error correction is not useful for language learning and harmful for learners’ affective factor. This dilemma, to certain extent, can bewilder EFL teachers in giving corrective feedback to their learners (Rezaei, Mozaffari, Hatef, 2011).

Responding to the dilemma, experts on language teaching such as Brown (2001), Harmer (2007), and Riddell (2001) welcome the use of corrective feedback in the class with several notices. Brown (2001) asserts that too much negative cognitive feedback often leads learners to shut off their attempts at communication. On the other hands, too much positive cognitive feedback serves to reinforce the errors of the speaker-learner that may lead to the persistence and eventual fossilization. Therefore, he suggests that teachers need to provide a

(10)

balance of positive feedback to encourage communication and negative feedback to call attention to the crucial errors. Harmer (2007) adds that in giving oral corrective feedback, teachers should consider the stage of the lesson, the activity, the type of mistake made and the particular student who is making mistake. Furthermore, Riddell (2001) asserts that teachers should focus their correction on mistakes involving the target language, repeated common mistakes, and significant mistake. Those general points on the use of oral corrective feedback suggested by the experts need to be described in a more practical way with some real examples. This study is clearly useful for that purpose.

The importance of corrective feedback in classroom is recognized by cognitive theories (Sheen&Ellis, 2011; Ellis, 2009; Ellis, 2010) and sociocultural theory (Sheen&Ellis, 2011; Aljaafreh&Lantolf, 1994). Cognitive theories claim that CF serves as a valuable input in interaction (Long, 1996), it gives opportunity for learners to stretch their interlanguage to meet targeted output (Swain, 2007) and it functions as noticing tool (Schmidt, 2010). Meanwhile sociocultural theory considers corrective feedback as having a facilitative role to assist learners through self correction to achieve self regulation (Sheen&Ellis, 2011). Both perspectives endorse that “learning is viewed not as an outcome (i.e., something that results from correction) but rather as a process that occurs within the

enactment of a corrective episode” (Ellis, 2010, p. 346).

To date, studies on corrective feedback have covered several different areas such as different effects of corrective feedback in classroom interaction (Chu, 2011; Campos, 2011), the application of corrective feedback in different contexts (see Chu, 2011; Magilow, 1999; Nabei, 2005;Campos, 2011;Fu, 2012; Pany, et al., 1981; Bower, 2011; Erel&Bulut, 2007 ; Lyster&Ranta, 1997; Khaerunisa, 2002; Maolida, 2012; Sheen, 2004; Nabei, 2005), teachers’ and students’ perception on corrective feedback (Guennete, 2009; Vasquez&Harvey, 2010; Harris, et al., 2012), the application of corrective feedback in different levels of age (see Panova&Lyster, 2002; Surakka, 2007; Choi&Li, 2012; Diaz, 2009) and

(11)

the strengths and weaknesses of recast as a corrective strategy (Carpenter, 2006; Leeman, 2003). More relevant to this research are studies on oral corrective feedback and uptake (Lyster&Ranta, 1997; Choi&Li, 2012; Panova&Lyster, 2002; Diaz, 2009; Nabei, 2005; Surakka, 2007; Sheen, 2004; Taipale, 2012). The last types of research focus more on the occurrence of oral corrective feedback and uptake and catch a glimpse of the potential relation between the corrective feedback and uptake.

However, most studies on oral corrective feedback and learner uptake listed above were conducted in CLIL, speaking contexts in ESL and immersion formal education setting. None of them was conducted in young learner’s speaking class in EFL informal education setting such as English course in Indonesia. Then, this study is expected to fill the gap of previous studies by revealing types of oral corrective in relation to learner uptake in young learner speaking sessions in an English course where learning circumstance is, to certain extent, different from formal educational setting (e.g. school).

1.2 Research Questions

To reveal various types of oral corrective feedback in relation to learner uptake in a young learner EFL classroom, there are two research questions posed in this study:

1. What are the types of oral corrective feedback and their distribution in a young learner EFL classroom?

2. What are the types of learner uptake and their distribution following different types of oral corrective feedback?

1.3 Aims of the Study

Relevant to the research questions, this present study aims:

1. To explore various types of oral corrective feedback and their distribution in a young learner EFL classroom.

(12)

2. To explore various types of learner uptake following different types of oral corrective feedback.

1.4Significance of the Study

This study is potentially significant in three aspects of contribution. The first is its theoretical contribution to research in corrective feedback. The second is its practical contribution to practice in teaching and learning in Indonesia. And the third is its professional contribution to teacher’s development.

Theoretically, this study offers some information on the application of oral corrective feedback in a young learner EFL classroom in an English course that is rare since the studies on corrective feedback in young learner classroom context are dominated by ESL and immersion formal education context. Therefore, this study attempts to fill in the gap of previous studies.

Practically, this study is advantageous for teachers to recognize different types of oral corrective feedback and apply them in their classroom interaction by

suiting with learners’ development and needs. In this case, Allwright (1975, in

Panova and Lyster, 2002) states that study on corrective feedback is able to show the effectiveness of instructional process in the classroom and it can also describe how language learning happens. In this case, this study is expected to enable teachers to see the potential effectiveness of certain oral feedback in initiating uptake and how the feedback may influence young learners’ language learning through interaction in the class.

Professionally, this study can be a reflection for the researcher and other teachers in giving oral feedback to the learners. It is hoped that this study can give information for teachers about various types of oral corrective feedback and give the teachers hints in choosing certain type of oral corrective feedback. The

(13)

skill of choosing appropriate types of oral corrective feedback can be put in teacher training program to improve teaching quality in the classroom as stated by Riddell (2001) that all teachers need to know the skills of correction, and trainee teachers are assessed on their ability to recognize and correct both spoken and written mistakes.

1.5Scope of the Study

The scope of this study is exploration of oral corrective feedback strategies employed by a teacher in a young learner EFL classroom in an English course and identification of various types of learner uptake following the teacher’s oral corrective feedback strategies. By answering those questions, the occurrence of oral corrective feedback and learner uptake are revealed and the relation between them is disclosed.

1.6Definition of Key Terms

a. Corrective feedback is “The feedback that learners receive on the linguistic errors they make in their oral production in a second language” (Sheen and Ellis, 2011, p. 593).

b. Uptake is “A student’s utterance that immediately follows the teachers’ feedback and that constitutes a reaction in some way to the teacher’s intention to draw attention to some aspect of the student’s initial utterance“(Lyster and Ranta, 1997, p. 49).

c. Young Learners in this study refer to 10 years old learners who learn

(14)

1.7Organization of the Paper

This paper consists of five chapters. Chapter I provides a general description for the present research. This introductory chapter consists of background, research questions, aims of the study, significance of the study, definition of key terms, and organization of the paper.

Chapter II deals with literature review concerning several theories underpinning the study. It covers the definition, categorization, and discussion of corrective feedback and uptake. It also discusses the notion of corrective feedback and uptake in regard to cognitive theories including interaction, output, and noticing hypotheses.

Chapter III elaborates research method of the present study. It presents research questions and develops research design for this study. It also explains data collection for the present study by means of audio-video recording and stimulated recall interview. Lastly, it explains the analysis process of the collected data to answer the stated research questions.

Chapter IV presents and analyzes findings from the result of recording and stimulated recall interview. The findings are discussed to find out types of oral corrective feedback employed by the teacher in classroom interaction and types of learner uptakes following different types of oral corrective feedback. Finally the findings and analysis are synthesized to answer the research questions.

Chapter V elaborates conclusion, limitation, and recommendation. It concludes the synthesis of data analysis and discussion in the previous chapter. It also presents the limitation of the study. Lastly, it mentions several potential topics for further research in the same vein of study and several suggestions for teachers in applying oral corrective feedback in the classroom.

(15)

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the methodology used to collect and analyze data in this study. There are six sections in this chapter. In the first section, aims of the study are displayed in the introduction section to show readers the research problems addressed in this study. Second, research design is discussed to inform research method and approach applied in this study. Next, data collection is described to show research site, subjects of study, steps of data collection and techniques used in collecting the data. Finally, data analysis is explained to report how the collected data are analyzed step by step to answer research questions.

3.1 Introduction

It was acknowledged in chapter one that this research mainly aims to report various types of oral corrective feedback in relation to learner uptake. To fulfill the aim, two research questions are proposed: The first deals with types of oral corrective feedback and their distribution in a young learner EFL classroom, the second copes with types of learners’ uptake and their distribution following different types of oral corrective feedback. The following sections elaborate the methodology used in collecting and analyzing the data to answer the proposed research questions.

3.2Research Design

Based on the categorization of research design from Nunan and Bailey (2009), this study can be classified as a case study research because the case in this study has physical boundary (this study was conducted in a certain English course in Bandung), temporal boundary (this study investigated several lesson sessions which had a beginning and an end) and bounded instance (this study focused on one classroom with a teacher and her students). This study was also conducted in

(16)

naturally occurring situation and context without manipulating variables (p.162). Hence, the result is centered on description, inference, and interpretation.

This study applied a qualitative approach by taking transcripts of lessons and interview to find the teacher’s strategies of oral corrective feedback and learner uptake in classroom interaction. To make the description clearer, some qualitative data were quantified to show the number, percentage and distribution of corrective feedback strategies and learner uptakes. In this case, Nunan and Bailey (2009) state:

All qualitative data can be quantified in some way. In other words, things can be counted in qualitative data. In fact, there is almost no limit to the things that can be counted in qualitative data sets. Consider a lesson

transcript…(Nunan&Bailey, 2009, p.414)

In addition, stimulated recall responses from the teacher were also analyzed to look for parallel and connected comments that confirm or contradict the findings from observation data. The description of research design and data analysis hopefully can give a clear picture on how this study was carried out to answer the three research questions mentioned above.

3.3Data Collection

This part answers who were taken as subjects of study and where, when and how the data were collected:

3.3.1 Research Site

This study was conducted in a young learner English Classroom in an English course in Bandung. The course was designed for young learners to learn English as foreign language (EFL). There were six levels of classes: Gogo 1, Gogo 2, Gogo 3, Gogo 4, Gogo 5, and Gogo 6 (The levels of class followed the levels of English book Gogo series published by Longman). Each level was designed for a semester.

(17)

This course was chosen as research site for several reasons. The first reason was the English course serves as a typical case (Nunan&Bailey, 2009)to find out information from a specific case to fill in the gap of previous research. In this case, the site fit with the researcher’s intention to investigate the occurrence of oral corrective feedback in a young learner English class in English course. The programs in this English course were targeted for young learners. With more than a hundred and fifty young learners learning English at the course, classroom research is important to conduct in order to improve teaching and learning quality there.

The second reason was the researcher’s convenience (Patton, 1980, in Alwasilah, 2002) to conduct research in chosen research site due to its support and accessibility. The research was fully supported by the owner, the manager, and the teachers since this research was expected to help teachers in improving the quality of language instruction in the classroom. In addition, the research site was fully accessible. In this case, the researcher was fully permitted and supported to conduct observation in the classroom.

3.3.2 Subjects of the Study

After several considerations, a class of Gogo 4 was chosen. This class was taken due to several reasons. The class was more homogenous in terms of age comparing to other classes. The students were 9-10 years old and most of them were in grade four. Homogenous age was put into consideration to avoid multiple variables in the research since age may influence the way teacher corrects

students’ errors. The students in the class were also considered as active students

who usually take part in oral interaction.

There were seven students in the class. Most of them came from family with high socioeconomic status. The students in this study had learned formal English for three semesters in the English course. Their first language was Sundanese and Indonesian. Therefore, English was considered as foreign language for them.

(18)

Since there were only seven students in the class, it was easier for the teacher to

identify the students’ proficiency and personality. The teacher identified her seven

students this way:

1) B (Female)

B is a competent student. Her ability in four basic English skills is sufficient. She is able to receive new input, especially new vocabularies, very well. However, in writing, she sometimes makes unnecessary mistakes, due to her carelessness. Considering personality, she is often whiny, and also negotiates a lot.

2) M (Female)

M finds it difficult to understand new materials all at once. Since she still has problem with spelling, writing is her biggest challenge. She also still has to practice more on her reading, speaking, and listening because all skills are related one to another, for example in dictation. Regarding personality, she often feels unconfident when practicing her English because she realizes her weaknesses. 3) H (Male)

For proficiency, H is similar to B. However, he is often uncertain when practicing his English, for example when speaking; he speaks in low volume because he is afraid that he pronounces the vocabularies wrong. About personality, he is a nice student. He is submissive yet still cheerful.

4) I (Female)

I is a bright student, the four basic English skills are mastered quite well. However, the patterns (grammar) given sometimes limit her creativity in using her

(19)

English that she tends to play safe. For example when being asked to make sentences; she chooses to make simple sentences as long as the pattern is correct. She gets anxious easily; and her anxiety often influences her learning mood. She is a good student, though.

5) A (Female)

A’s attention span is probably the biggest concern. Although her English

competence is basically adequate, she is very easily distracted and that definitely has impacts in her learning process. Her attention is usually maintained by asking her questions regarding the materials being learnt and involving her actively in class activities. However, her eagerness to learn is very helpful. About her personality, A is a very cheerful student. She is also physically active.

6) Ay (Female)

Since Ay is a new student, she needs to catch up what she has missed. This might has resulted unconfident use of English. Speaking is probably her biggest

challenge, specifically pronunciation; that’s why she speaks in a very low volume.

Concerning personality Ay is an easygoing student. She can mingle with the other students well.

7) F (Female)

It is no problem for F to receive new inputs. She is very smart. Her background knowledge also helps her a lot in her learning process, like a support-system. She knows many vocabularies, and she is brave in using them when writing and speaking. For her personality, F realizes that she is smart that she often underestimates the materials; unfortunately that results in unnecessary mistakes.

The teacher was an English teacher with more than five years teaching experience in different levels (young and teenager). She was a teacher who was considered as having potential to be a model teacher. The institution had chosen

(20)

her as one of curriculum team and sent her to teacher trainings. In that case, she was often assigned to share the result of trainings. The evaluation of teacher’s performance also revealed that she was more consistent in using English as language instruction in the class comparing to other teachers. Furthermore, she wrote articles in English for a reputable airline in Indonesia. With the qualifications mentioned above, the teacher was expected to be a good teacher model in employing corrective feedback strategies in the classroom. More importantly, she volunteered herself to be observed for research and improvement. Classroom interaction usually lasted in 90 minutes. However, the interaction that was transcribed only covered speaking sessions, especially those that focused on oral oriented skill. The steps of classroom activities were designed in line with the syllabus and the book that had been provided by Longman. Each lesson unit had a topic with several learning activities: conversation, vocabulary, practice 1, practice 2, song, activity 1, activity 2, and sounds & words.

3.3.3 Steps of Data Collection

Prior to this study, a preliminary study had been conducted in different research site. The preliminary study was conducted in a first grade of an elementary school in Bandung Barat. The stated purpose of the preliminary study was to describe the

occurrence of teacher’s feedback (Maolida, 2012). The study revealed that the

corrective feedback utilized by the teacher was used to negotiate meaning and form in classroom interaction. It was also used to expand conversation and scaffold learning. By conducting the preliminary study, the researcher also

practiced coding process by using Lyster and Ranta’s categorization (1997) and

learnt how the context contributed a lot to the result of study.

Data collection for the present study was conducted in five weeks. The following table is the schedule of data collection for this study:

(21)

Tuesday, April 9th, 2013 90 minutes Video-audio recording, field note Friday, April 12th, 2013 90 minutes Video-audio recording, field note Tuesday, April 16th, 2013 90 minutes Video-audio recording, field note Friday, April 19th, 2013 90 minutes Video-audio recording, field note Tuesday, April 23rd, 2013 90 minutes Video-audio recording, field note Friday, April 26th, 2013 90 minutes Video-audio recording, field note Tuesday, April 30th, 2013 Stimulated recall interview

Friday, May 3rd, 2013 Interview to confirm previous data

Observation in the class was conducted for three weeks that involved six meetings. Those six meetings covered two unit lessons. The stimulated recall interview was conducted one week after all observations were carried out.

3.3.4 Data Collection Techniques

This section describes the procedures utilized to collect the data. There were two data collection techniques employed in this study: Observation and stimulated recall interview. The two techniques were used to corroborate the findings to answer the research questions. By employing two different techniques, this study is expected to provide triangulated findings and analysis on the teacher’s strategies on employing oral corrective feedback and the learner uptake following different types of feedback.

3.3.4.1Observation (Audio and Video Recording)

This technique was employed for three purposes. First, it was utilized to investigate the teacher’s oral corrective feedback strategies to correct young

learners’ erroneous spoken utterances. Second, it was utilized to investigate the learner uptake as a response to the oral corrective feedback. Third, it was utilized to see the context of how the teacher and students naturally interacted in the learning process, especially in the feedback episodes.

(22)

To achieve those three purposes, the classroom interaction was observed electronically by recording the interaction using audio and video recording (Nunan&Bailey, 2009). Besides, the researcher presented there to make sure the recorders worked well and jot down some important things regarding the focus of this study. In the process of observation, the researcher tried to set up the recorders and located herself so the students did not feel disrupted. The following picture shows the typical seat arrangement during the observation and the location of recorders to record the interaction.

Figure 3.1 Typical Seat Arrangements in the Classroom during Observation

Five hundred and forty minutes of lesson were recorded using a video camera and a digital audio recorder that involved six sessions (90 minutes per meeting). The video camera of Samsung Camcorder F70 series was used to record the

Board

Audio

Observer

(23)

interaction. Before the students entered the class, the camera was turned on and put on a bookcase behind the students. To make sure the voice could be well recorded; an audio recorder (Blackberry Curve 9930) was turned on and put on

teacher’s table in front of the class. By setting up a camera at the back side and an

audio recorder in the front side of the classroom, it was hoped that all interactions were well documented.

In observing classroom interaction, the researcher took a role as a non-participant observer. The researcher did not take a part in planning the lesson nor in teaching and learning process. She only put the video and audio recorder in a hidden place in the classroom and sat on a chair with a computer in order to avoid possible distraction to the students. The teacher was informed that the researcher was going to record the classroom interaction without specifically mentioning what features of interaction were going to be investigated.

3.3.4.2Stimulated Recall Interview

This technique of data collection was applied for three purposes. First, it was

employed to reveal the teacher’s comments on employing different types of

corrective feedback. Second, it was employed to reveal the teacher’s comments on her intentions on applying different types of oral corrective feedback in connection with the learner uptake. Third, it was employed to confirm the data findings obtained from observation. By conducting this technique, the teacher’s comments, opinions, justifications, and decision making process in employing different types of oral corrective feedback in connection with the learners’ uptake were revealed.

The application of this technique followed the definition of stimulated recall from Nunan and Bailey (2009):

Stimulated recall, as the name suggests, is a procedure by which a researcher stimulates the recollection of a participant in an event by having that person reviews data collected during the event. The data used in stimulated recall usually consist of videotape or audiotape recordings, or transcripts made from

(24)

such recordings, though some researchers have also used field notes (Nunan&Bailey, 2009, p.259).

The researcher showed the transcript to the teacher, especially specific parts of transcript which contained oral corrective feedback episode. Then, the researcher asked the teacher to comment on what happened during the feedback episodes and the decision making process she had at that time. For some parts, the video recording was shown and paused at specific part of interaction. By doing this, the teacher reflected on the cognitive process of decision making she made in employing different type of corrective feedback.

The questions in the interview were divided into three parts. First were grand tour questions that involved six questions. The first six questions were intended as starting questions that introduced the teacher to the core questions that would be given later. These questions were also intended to lead the teacher to focus on her corrective strategies that were shown in the transcript and video later. Second were stimulated recall interview that involved seven main questions regarding the

teacher’s choice to employ different types of feedback. In this case, transcript and

some parts of video recording were shown to recall the teacher’s cognitive process

at that time. Third was stimulated recall closing that involved five questions

regarding the teacher’s opinion on the findings that were based on the transcript

and recordings.

Stimulated recall interview was chosen due to its appropriateness to use in this study and several advantages (Nunan& Bailey, 2009, p. 259). First, by doing stimulated recall interview, the researcher did not need to interrupt classroom interaction. It was mentioned earlier that the teacher was aware that her interaction with the students was observed but she did not know that the focus of the

observation was on corrective feedback and learners’ uptake. By delaying the

interview until all observations were finished, it was hoped that the natural interaction could be maintained. It was also expected that the teacher was not distracted in interacting with her students. Second, by using stimulated recall

(25)

interview, it was hoped that the researcher could get better data than simply asking the teacher to remember the lesson without supporting data. By doing this,

the researcher could get teacher’s response without pushing her to answer certain

questions while in the same time the teacher could comment freely on what she did and how she decided to do that.

3.4 Data analysis

Data analysis in this study focused on data collected above: data from the recordings and data from interview. The recording results were transcribed, coded, categorized and analyzed. Meanwhile, the result of interview was coded and analyzed. Then, the analysis of each data collection was synthesized and discussed to answer the research questions. The following parts explain the process of analysis of each collected data to fulfill the aims of study.

3.4.1 Analyzing the Data from Audio and Video Recording

The data from audio and video recording were transcribed, coded, categorized, described and analyzed to reveal the different types of oral corrective feedback and learner uptake following different types of oral corrective feedback. From the total recordings of six lesson events, only the interactions in oral production – oriented sessions were transcribed. In this case, lesson opening and closing were also included in transcription, since the opening and closing were always done orally and targeted to provide opportunities for students to ‘speak up’ and review the previous topics.

The process of analysis started with transcribing the data. In this case, the transcription strategy adapted the transcription conventions from Ellis and Duff (in Nunan&Bailey, 2009, pp.348-349), with the following conventions:

a. T=teacher; students are designated by their initials; Ss is used to refer to more than one students.

(26)

c. XXX is used to indicate speech that could not be deciphered.

d. Phonetic transcription is used when the student’s pronunciation is

markedly different from the teacher’s pronunciation and also when it was

not possible to identify the English word the pupils were using.

e. …indicates an incomplete utterance.

f. A limited amount of contextual information is given in brackets ( ). g. Italics is used to distinguished L1 and L2 utterance.

h. Period (.) is for terminal falling intonation, coma (,) is for rising continuing intonation and question mark (?) is for high rising intonation. The result of transcribed recording was read and confirmed by the observed teacher. To be noted, the transcription process did not wait until all recordings finished. Every time a recording was conducted, it was immediately transcribed and confirmed. Different from recording data that were transcribed in detail by following the convention mentioned above, interview data were not transcribed in a detailed way. In other words, the data from interview were transcribed to reveal the ideas from the teacher, excluded the linguistic form used by the teacher in answering the questions.

After the transcription process was finished, the result of transcription was shown to the observed teacher for clarification. In that case, the observed teacher gave some clarifications on some utterances she and her students produced, especially in corrective feedback episodes.

After the recordings of interaction in speaking sessions were transcribed, the data were coded and categorized by adapting the categorization of oral corrective feedback from Lyster&Ranta (1997) and Ellis (2009) to answer the first research question regarding the various types of oral corrective feedback and their distribution in the classroom interaction.

Table 3.2 Categorization of Oral Corrective Feedback (Lyster and Ranta, 1997) 1 Recast Reformulation of all or part of a learner’s

(27)

erroneous utterance without changing its original meaning.

2 Explicit correction Provision of the correct form with a clear indication of what is being corrected.

3 Elicitation Techniques to elicit the correct form from the students without providing the correct form in the form of elicit completion, elicitative question and reformulation request.

4 Metalinguistic feedback Metalinguistic information regarding the

student’s erroneous utterance.

5 Clarification request Moves that indicate learners that their utterances were either not understood or were ill-formed.

6 Repetition A repetition of the student’s erroneous

utterance.

7 Paralinguistic signal The use of gesture or facial expression to indicate the error has taken place

(The last category was taken from Ellis (2009))

The process of coding the data to answer the first research question was done simultaneously with the coding of data to answer the second research question (see appendix). To answer the second research question, the categorization of uptake from Lyster and Ranta (1997) was used in the coding process.

Table 3.3 Categorization of Uptake (Lyster and Ranta, 1997)

1 Repair Uptake that leads to the correct reformulation of an error as a response to feedback.

2 Need repair Uptake that does not entail the correct form.

(28)

the teacher feedback and carries on topic continuation.

As a result, the types of corrective feedback and uptake were revealed. To maintain the validity and reliability of data codification, the coding process was also coded by a partner (see validity and reliability in the next part).

After oral corrective feedback strategies and learner uptakes were coded and categorized, they were quantified to look at their distribution in the interaction. Then, the numbers and percentage of oral corrective feedback were put in the table, as shown below:

Table 3.4 Table Design for the Distribution of Feedback Types Feedback Types Number of Turns with

Corrective Feedback

Percentage

Recast Elicitation Metalinguistic

Feedback Explicit Correction Clarification Request

Paralinguistic Signal Repetition

(Adapted from Lyster&Ranta, 2007; Panova & Lyster, 2002; Khaerunisa, 2002; Choi and Li, 2012)

Regarding the second research question, the different types of learners’ uptake

following different types of oral corrective feedback were distributed to look at the potential influence of oral corrective feedback to the learner uptake.

(29)

Table 3.5 Table Design for the Distribution of Learner Uptake

(Adapted from Lyster&Ranta, 2007; Panova & Lyster, 2002; Khaerunisa, 2002; Choi and Li, 2012)

Based on the result of coding and distribution, the researcher described each type of oral corrective feedback given by the teacher by providing examples, describing the context, explaining the distribution in the interaction and interpreting the occurrence of feedback in the interaction to answer the first research question. In answering the second research question, the researcher described each type of learner uptake, describing the context and explaining the distribution for each type of oral corrective feedback and interpreting on the potential influence of corrective feedback to learner uptake.

3.4.2 Analyzing the Data from Stimulated Recall Interview

The data from stimulated recall interview were transcribed and analyzed qualitatively. The interview data were analyzed to confirm the findings obtained

Feedback Types

Uptake

No Uptake

Repair Needs Repair Total

Uptake

RP IN SR PR Total AC SE DE OT HE PE Total

Recast Elicitation Metalinguistic Clarification Request Explicit Correction Paralinguistic Signal Repetition

(30)

from observation in answering the first and second research questions. In analyzing the data, the researcher carried out several steps. First, data from stimulated recall interview were transcribed. Second, the transcribed data were coded by following Alwasilah’s coding strategy (2002, p.232) by categorizing the data based on the responses given by the teacher. Third, the result of coding was condensed to confirm or contradict the findings obtained from observation.

In supporting the findings from observation, the findings from stimulated recall interview were cited in the analysis following Creswell’s (2003, p.197) suggestion to use the wordings from participants to give a detailed descriptive portrait. The wordings from interview were also compared and contrasted with the data from observation, theories and previous studies on oral corrective feedback and uptakes.

3.5 Validity and Reliability

In maintaining validity, the researcher did several things:

a. Methods Triangulation: Multiple methods were used in collecting the data including audio recording, video recording and stimulated recall interview. b. Theory triangulation: Various theories were brought to bear in this study

including interaction, output and noticing theories.

c. Member Validation/member checking: It involved asking the teacher to review the data and the interpretation to provide the researcher with feedback.

In maintaining reliability of this study, the researcher applied intercoding process, following Nunan&Bailey (2009) who suggest researchers to conduct intercoder agreement with the following steps:

One way to sort out this problem is to determine intercoder agreement-an index of the consistency with which different people categorize the same data. A simple percentage is calculated by dividing the number of items upon which coders agree by the total number of items that were coded.

(31)

The general rule of thumb is that intercoder agreement should be at least 85% for readers to have confidence in the reported findings (Nunan&Bailey, 2009, p. 428 )

In applying intercoder agreement, the researcher carried out several steps. First, a partner was purposively chosen as an intercoder. She was chosen due to

the researcher’s assumption of her linguistic sensitivity. Second, the partner was

trained to code the data base on detail descriptors. Third, the researcher and the intercoder coded 10% of data together as an internalization of agreement toward the descriptor. Fourth, the researcher asked a partner to code 90% of data (see Sheen, 2004) and looked at the result whether agreement reached more or less than 85%. After the coding process was finished, the results were compared to look at the level of agreement. As a result, the agreement for learners’ uptake codification reached 91% while the agreement for oral corrective feedback codification reached 87%. The differences were resolved by discussion and modification of descriptor.

(32)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION, LIMITATION, AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter discloses conclusions of the data analyses and discussions that are presented in the previous chapter. It provides the answers for the research questions that have been directing this paper. It also reveals several gaps in some areas. These gaps are discussed as limitations of the study. Then, the limitations provide several recommendations for further studies in the same area.

5.1 Conclusion

This study reports various types of oral corrective feedback used by a teacher and their distribution in classroom interaction. This study also explores types of learner uptake and their distribution following the different types of oral corrective feedback. The study was conducted in a young learner EFL classroom in an English course in Bandung. The findings of discussion can be described as follow:

First of all, the teacher employed seven types of oral corrective feedback in the interaction with young learners: recast, elicitation, metalinguistic feedback, clarification request, explicit correction, paralinguistic signal and repetition. The distribution shows that recast was the most preferred oral corrective feedback while at the same time it was identified as the least feedback type that resulted in uptake. This finding is parallel with the results of previous studies (see Lyster&Ranta, 1997; Panova&Lyster, 2002; Surakka, 2007; Taipale, 2012; Choi&Li, 2012) that the teachers tend to prefer recast than other types of feedback even though recast leads to less number of uptakes. In this case, teacher’s preference of recast is confirmed to give valuable input for the students (Long, 1996) by giving them models to copy and fulfill the objective of prioritizing fluency over accuracy (Linse, 2005) without distracting the flow of conversation (Cameron, 2001). Meanwhile, the fact that recast as the most favored feedback resulted in the least number of uptakes is possibly due to its potential ambiguity

(33)

since the learners may perceive recast as affirmation of their utterance (Lyster&Ranta, 1997; Panova&Lyster, 2002), especially in the context of young learner where the learners might not be able to recognize less salient corrective feedback. In addition, the teacher’s providence of correct answer likely contributes to the less number of learner uptakes (Choi&Li, 2012). It is also found that in employing oral corrective feedback, the teacher considered several aspects such as learner’s proficiency, types of spoken error and learning objectives. Furthermore, it is revealed that in employing oral corrective feedback, the teacher was led by several motives such as professional consideration, the benefit of feedback for language learning and the intention to avoid fossilization.

Responding to the teacher’s various types of oral corrective feedback, the learners used various types of uptake: repair which includes repetition, incorporation, self-repair, peer-repair and needs repair which includes partial error, same error, different error, hesitation and acknowledgement. In this case, input providing feedback such as recast and explicit correction resulted in the less number of uptakes comparing to output prompting feedback such as elicitation, repetition, metalingusitic feedback, clarification request, and paralinguistic signal that resulted in 100% uptake. It is also noteworthy that among those that resulted in 100% uptake, elicitation and repetition led to the highest percentage of repair. The finding that output prompting feedback led to more uptake and repair than input providing feedback corroborates the findings from previous studies (see Lyster&Ranta, 1997; Panova&Lyster, 2002; Surakka, 2007; Taipale, 2012; Choi&Li, 2012). The reason is likely because output prompting feedback has the characteristic of pushing learners in their output (Ellis, 2009; Sheen& Ellis, 2011; Lyster& Ranta, 1997) by giving the learners opportunity to uptake the feedback while input providing tends to provide learners with the correct answer (Choi&Li, 2012).

The results imply that the types of oral corrective feedback utilized by the teacher influence the types of learner uptake. In this case, output prompting

(34)

feedback strategies such as elicitation, repetition, metalingusitic feedback, clarification request, and paralinguistic signal are shown to be more effective than input providing such as recast and explicit correction in drawing learner uptake. It can also be identified that output prompting feedback strategies tend to be more successful in encouraging learner uptake since they give the opportunity for the learners to restructure and modify their utterance. On the other hand, input providing strategies are shown to be less successful in encouraging learner uptake since they often skip the opportunity for learners to restructure and modify their utterance due to the teacher’s decision to directly provide the correct version of utterance and continue the topic. In the case of recast, fewer uptakes may also result from the ambiguity of its illocutionary force as a corrective feedback since learners may perceive recast as an affirmation and another way of saying something. It is different from recast, explicit correction gives a clear highlight on what to correct so the less number of uptakes for explicit correction is mostly caused by the teacher’s direct providence of the correct answer and topic continuation.

5.2 Limitation of the Study

This present study is limited in some ways. First, this study is limited in terms of context and time. As acknowledged in chapter three, this study was conducted only in a young learner EFL classroom. Therefore, the result cannot be generalized to other contexts.

This study is also limited in terms of content coverage for it only focuses on teacher’s oral corrective feedback and learner uptake. In this case, the types of error have not been covered by the present study. Finally, the empirical result is also considered as limitation of study. The result of this study cannot be used to claim whether certain types of oral corrective feedback are beneficial for language acquisition since this study only provides conjectures of the benefit of oral corrective feedback in relation to learner uptake for language learning.

(35)

5.3 Recommendation

This study offers several recommendations that provide some spaces for further studies in the field of oral corrective feedback and several practical suggestions that can be applied by teachers in their classroom.

First, the research on oral corrective feedback and uptake is suggested to be applied in various contexts and settings to look at the possible similarities and differences of the result. Since this study focuses only on the occurrence of oral corrective feedback and uptake in young learner context, further study in another context such as adult level will give a significant contribution to the topic of corrective feedback. Besides, a longitudinal study is recommended since it can give a promising result on the corrective feedback for it may result in a pattern that gives a clue on the influence of oral corrective feedback for acquisition. Second, the study on the whole aspects of error treatment is suggested since it can give a more holistic picture on the phenomena of oral correction. Finally, more laborious research that gives empirical data on the benefit and drawbacks of corrective feedback is recommended since it can give more convincing information on the effectiveness of oral corrective feedback.

Furthermore, this study suggests several practical guidelines for teachers. First, this study recommends teachers to recognize different types of oral corrective feedback and apply them in their classroom interaction by suiting with learners’ proficiency, language development and needs. Second, in line with the findings mentioned above, this study suggests that teachers need to employ output prompting strategies to give learners opportunity for self and peer-repair by involving their existing knowledge. In this case, output prompting strategies are likely to be more effective to correct the errors that result from the failure in performing the competence but less effective for the failure that results from lack of knowledge or competence. It does not mean that teachers should omit input providing strategies since they may be beneficial in certain contexts. Since it is potentially disruptive for correcting every error, especially in young learner

(36)

context where the learners are in the beginning stage of learning foreign language, recast can be advantageous to give a correct model for the learners. Its function as corrective feedback can be highlighted by changing the tone, using gesture, providing wait time or isolating the error. Explicit correction can also be effective to correct errors that result from the failure from lack of knowledge by directly giving the learners clear correct unambiguous information.

(37)

REFERENCES:

Aljaafreh, A. & J. Lantolf. (1994). Negative Feedback as Regulation and Second Language Learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, pp.465-483.

Alwasilah, A.C. (2002). Pokoknya Kualitatif. Bandung: Pustaka Jaya

Archer, A. L. & Hughes, C.A. (2011). Explicit Instruction: Effective and Efficient Teaching. New York: The Guilford Press.

Boot,K.D.,Lowie,W.&Verspoor,M. (2005). Second Language Acquisition: An Advanced Resource Book. New York: Routledge

Bower, J. (2011). Negotiation of Meaning and Corrective Feedback in Japanese/English e-Tandem. Language Learning & Technology 15 (1),

pp. 41–71. Retrieved from

http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2011/bowerkawaguchi.pdf

Brown, H.D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New York: Longman

Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Language to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Campos, L.V. (2011). Corrective Feedback in Second Language Classrooms. Literatura Lingüística ,19, pp. 283-292

Carpenter, H.,Jeon K.S.,MacGregor, D.,&Mackey, A. (2006). Leaners’ Interpretation of Recast. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, pp.209–236. DOI: 10+10170S0272263106060104

Chaudron, C. (1988). Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Choi, S.Y. & Li, S. (2012). Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake in a Child ESOL Classroom. RELC Journal, 43(3), pp. 331 –351. DOI:

10.1177/0033688212463274, retrieved from

(38)

Chu, R. (2011). Effects of Teacher’s Corrective Feedback on Accuracy in the Oral English of English-majors College Students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(5), pp. 454-459

Corder, S.P. (1976). The Significance of Learners’ Error. International Review of Applied Linguistics, pp. 161-169

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method. London: Sage Publication

Cullen, R. 2002. Supportive Teacher Talk: The Importance of the F Move. ELT Journal, 56 (2)

Diaz, N. R. (2009). A Comparative Study of Native and Non-Native Teachers’ Scaffolding Techniques in SLA at an Early Age. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 17, pp.57-73

Djiwandono,P. (2013).Error correction (Facebook group thread). Retrieved from www.facebook.com/group/Teachers Voice

Ellis, R.&Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the Role of Recasts in Second Language Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, pp. 575-600. DOI:10.10170S027226310606027

Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective Feedback and Teacher Development. L2 Journal, 1(1), pp.1-18, retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2504d6w3 Ellis, R. (2010). Epilogue: A framework for Investigating Oral and Written

Corrective Feedback. Studies of Second Language Acquisition,32,pp.335-449.DOI:10.1017/S0272263109990544

Emilia, E. (2010). Teaching Writing: Developing Critical Learner. Bandung: Rizki Press.

Erel, S &Bulut, D. (2007). Error Treatment in L2 Writing: A Comparative Study of Direct and Indirect Coded Feedback in Turkish EFL Context. Sosyal

(39)

Fu, T. (2012). Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake in a Chinese as a Foreign Language Class: Do Perceptions and the Reality Match? University of Victoria: Unpublished (Thesis)

Gass S. M. (1997). Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gass, S. M. (1991). Grammar Instruction, Selective Attention, and Learning. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy Research (pp. 124-141). Gass, S.M.& Selinker, L. (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory

Course. New York: Routledge

Guénette, D. (2009). The Cyberscript Project: A Mixed-Method Study of

Pre-service ESL Teachers’ Corrective Feedback Beliefs and Practices. McGill

University: Unpublished (Dissertation)

Hammond, J.&Gibbons, P. (2001). What is Scaffolding? In Hammond, J (ed).Scaffolding Teaching and Learning in Language and Literacy Education. Newtown: PETA

Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Essex: Pearson Education

Hartono, D. & Wahyuningsih,N. (2012). Corrective Feedback as a Meaningful Element of Error Treatment in Speaking. A paper presented at the TEFLIN 59 , 6-8November, Widay Mandala Catholic University, Surabaya.

Harris, L.R. et al. (2012, April). Student Pictures of Feedback: Feedback is for Learning and from Teachers. A paper presented at the 2012 AERA Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association conference, Vancouver, BC to the Classroom Assessment SIG

Heift, Trude. (2004). Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake in CALL. ReCALL, 16, pp.416-431, Doi:10.1017/S0958344004001120.

Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error Correction in Foreign Language Teaching: Recent Theory, Research, and Practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387-398.

Hornby, A.S. (2000). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, (6th ed). New York: Oxford University Press.

(40)

Ianziti, J. R. (2006).Teacher Corrective Practices in the Foreign Language Classroom: The Effect of Timing. A paper presented to the Social Change in the 21st Century Conference Centre for Social Change Research, 27th October 2006, Queensland University of Technology, Queensland.

Khaerunisa. (2002). Teachers’ Corrective Feedback on Students’ Spoken Errors in Second Grade EFL Classrooms of a Senior High School (Thesis, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, unpublished).

Krashen, S.D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York: Longman.

Krashen, S.D. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. NewYork : Pergamon Press.

Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and Second Language Development: Beyond Negative Evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 37–63, retrieved from http://journals.cambridge.org

Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (2006). How Languages are Learned (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press

Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-Form and Corrective Feedback in Communicative Language Teaching: Effects on Second Language Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429-448 retrieved from http://journals.cambridge.org

Linse, C. T. 2005. Practical English Language Teaching: Young Learners. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies

Long, M.H. (1996). The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition. In W.C. Ritchie & T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second

Language Acquisition, pp. 413–468. San Diego: Academic Press.

Lyster, R.,&Ranta, L. (2012). Counterpoint Piece: The Case for Variety in Corrective Feedback Research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, pp.1-18 Doi:10.1017/S027226311200071X. Retrieved from http://journals.cambridge.org

(41)

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L.(1997). Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake: Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, pp.37-66

Lyster, R and Saito, K. (2010). Oral Feedback in Classroom SLA: A Meta-Analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, pp. 265-302

Magilow, D.H. (1999). Error Correction and Classroom Affect. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 32 (2), pp. 125-129 retrieved from http://www.jstor.org

Maolida, E.H. (2012). A Descriptive Study of Teacher’s Oral Feedback in ESL Young Learner Classroom in Indonesia. UPI: Unpublished (Paper)

Mustafha, B. (2010). Teaching English to Young Learners in Indonesia: Essential Requirements. EDUCATIONIST 4 (2), pp. 120-125

Nabei, Toshiya. (2005). Teacher Feedback, Learner Dialogue, and the Zone of Proximal Development, pp.41-58, retrieved from http//www. Kansai-u.ac.jpfl

Nunan, D. & Bailey,K.M. (2009). Exploring Second Language Classroom Research. Boston: Heinle Cengage Learning

Panova, I and Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of Corrective Feedback and Uptake in an Adult ESL Classroom. TESOL QUARTERLY 36(4), pp. 575-595

Pany, D., McCoy, Kathleen, M., Peters & Ellen.E. (1981). Effects of Corrective Feedback on Comprehension Skills of Remedial Students. Journal of

Reading Behavior, 13 (2), pp.131-143, DOI:

10.1080/10862968109547401, retrieved from http://jlr.sagepub.com Rassaei, E & Moinzadeh, A.(2011). Investigating the Effects of Three Types of

Corrective Feedback on the Acquisition of English Wh-question Forms by Iranian EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 4 (2), retrieved from www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language doi:10.5539/elt.v4n2p97

Rezaei, S.& Derakhshan, A. (2011). Investigating Recast and Metalinguistic Feedback in Task-Based Grammar Instruction. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(3), pp. 655-663. Doi:10.4304/jltr.2.3.655-663.

(42)

Rezaei, S, Mozaffari, F &Hatef, A. (2011). Corrective Feedback in SLA: Classroom Practice and Future Directions. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(1), pp. 21-29 retrieved from www.ccsenet, org/jel Riddell, D. (2001). Teach EFL. London: Hodder Education

Russell, V. (2009). Corrective Feedback, over a Decade of Research since Lyster and Ranta (1997): Where Do We Stand Today? Electronic Journal of

Foreign Language Teaching 2009, 6(1), pp. 21–31

Samar, R. G.& Shayestefar, P. (2009). Corrective Feedback in EFL Classrooms: Learner Negotiation Strategies and Uptake. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning , 52 (212), pp. 107-134, retrieved from

www.SID.ir

Schachter, J. (1991). Corrective Feedback in Historical Perspective. Second Language Research, 7, pp. 89-102

Schmidt, R. (2010). Attention, Awareness, and Individual Differences in Language Learning. In W.M.Chan, S.Chi, K.N. Cin, J. Istanto, M. Nagami, L.W.Sew, T. Suthiwan & I.Walker, Proceedings of Clasic 2010, Singapore, December 2-4 (pp.721-737). Singapore:National University of Singapore, Centre for Language Studies.

Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake in Communicative Classrooms across Instructional Settings. Language Teaching Research, 8 (3), pp. 263-300

Sheen, Y & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective Feedback in Language Teaching. In Hinkel, E. (ed). (2011). Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, 2, pp.593-607. New York: Routledge.

Surakka, K. (2007). Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake in an EFL Classroom. University of Jyvaskyla: Unpublished (Thesis)

Swain, M. (2007).The Output Hypothesis: Its History and Its Future [PowerPoint

Slide]. Retrieved from

http://www.celea.org.cn/2007/keynote/ppt/Merrill%20Swain.pdf

Tatawy, M.E. (2002). Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition. Tesolalwebjournal, 2( 2), pp.1-19, retrieved from www.tc.columbia.edu

(43)

Tedick, D. J & Gortari, B.D. (1998). Research on Error Correction and Implications for Classroom Teaching. ACIE Newsletter, 1( 3)

Taipale, P. (2012). Oral Errors, Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake in an EFL Setting. University of Jyväskylä: Unpublished (thesis)

Tomasello, M., & Herron, C. (1989). Feedback for Language Transfer Errors: The Garden Path technique. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, pp. 385-395, retrieved from http://journals.cambridge.org

Vasquez, C.& Harvey, J. (2010). Raising Teachers' Awareness about Corrective Feedback through Research Replication. Language Teaching Research 14(4), pp. 421–443 DOI: 10.1177/1362168810375365, retrieved from ltr.sagepub.com

Vialle, W., Lysaght, P., and Verenikina, I. (2000). Handbook on Child Development. Melbourne: Thomson Social Science Press.

Zhuo, C. (2010). Explicit Recast, Implicit Recast and the Acquisition of English Noun Plural: A Comparative Study. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33 (6), pp.55-70