T1 112010146 Full text
ORAL FEEDBACK USED BY ENGLISH TEACHER FOR JUNIOR HIGH
SCHOOL STUDENTS
Nur Kurnia Rahman
ABSTRACT
This research focuses on study teacher‟s feedback, with a particular
concern on oral feedback. This study is aimed to find out types of oral
feedbacks used by English teachers. The participants were two English
teachers who taught at one of junior high school in Banyubiru. One type of
research tools was used: Observation. Ten observations have been conducted to
gain data. This study includes quantitative study. The result shows the
participants used all types of feedback by Lyster & Ranta (1997) (e.g., recast,
clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, repetition of error and
explicit correction). Explicit correction is the most frequent oral feedback used
by the two participants, then recast is the lowest. This finding is also expected
to improve teacher‟s knowledge in giving oral feedback.
KEY WORDS: Feedback, oral feedback, types of feedback
INTRODUCTION
Teacher‟s feedback is regarded as an important key to improve student‟s
skills at all levels, starting from the first grade of elementary until senior high
school. There are many common definition of feedback, for an example Collin
(2013) as citied in Mahdy & Shaadany (2013). He mentioned that teacher
feedback is a process in which factor that produce a result from modified,
corrected and processed. In another definition of feedback from Hattie (1999), he
described feedback as one of most influential factor in learning, as essential as
instruction. Additionally, feedback can also help reduce errors and engage
students in the learning process. Black and Wiliam (1998) explained that the
1
student will involve in his learning when we focus our feedback on a specific
problem of a student‟s work, then tell them what was wrong with it and how to fix
it.
Teachers also have a role in providing corrective feedback. In giving
feedback, teachers do not only give information or comments to their students, but
also they see the kind of feedback their students need. They believe feedback is a
key point for student‟s achievement. According to Hattie & Rowe (2003) teacher
is the major in-school influence on student achievement.
In the educational field, there are many types of oral feedback. Lyster and
Ranta (1997) in Lyster, Saito & Sato (2013) identify six different teacher oral
feedbacks, they were recast, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback,
elicitation, repetition of error and explicit correction. In contrast, in classroom
application there are some teachers who don‟t apply it. They even provide limited
feedback for their students, such as mentioned by Tabatabaei & Banitalebi (2011)
in Al-Faki (2013) their result of their study showed that explicit correction was
the most frequent feedback technique used by teachers whereas elicitation was the
second one (49 % & 19%).
Another finding from Rydahal (2005) showed that recast is the most oral
feedback. In line with Pauli (2012) in Voerman (2012) found that most of the
feedback in classroom from vocational education to pre- university level was in
the form of appraising, for example “well done, good “. Moreover study from
Edith, Rosario, & Griselda (2010) also found repetition and recast are often used
2
by teachers in providing feedback. It showed from the three studies teachers
sometimes gave monotone feedback, mostly recast and appraising or even the
frequency of giving feedback was seldom.
According to Lyster and Ranta (1997) there are six types of oral feedback.
These six oral feedbacks are important elements to improve learner acquisition
which focus on the student‟s goal. Moreover, these elements improve teacher
awareness providing good quality feedback and corrective feedback. A number of
studies have also used types of oral feedback proposed by Lyster and Ranta
(1997). For example, Lin (2009) and Doughty (1998) who investigated types oral
of feedback used by ESL teachers in low, intermediate and advance speaking.
They found most of teacher used “ recast, repetition and clarification request “.
Since several teachers provided monotone feedback for their students, it is
essential to carry out a study which focuses on types of teacher oral feedback. The
aim of this study is to find out the types of oral feedback which were used by
English teacher. Therefore, my research question is “ What are the types oral
feedback which are used by English teachers in junior high school?‟. The findings
of this study are also expected to improve teacher‟s knowledge about types of oral
feedback for students since some teachers provide limited feedback.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Teacher oral feedback
Feedback occurred when there are interaction between teacher and
students. Feedback is not only about teacher‟s comments on students errors. It
3
refers to teacher motivation for their students to do better in their performances. In
a study about feedback in recent years ( Edith, Rosario & Griselda, 2010 ;
Boyung, 2010 ; Lyster, Saito & Sato, 2013), teacher oral feedback can be inferred
from implicit and explicit form. In this case term of implicit, teachers don‟t
directly state student‟s utterances as incorrect. They tend to provide correct form,
so it can force students thought again of their errors or self repair. With explicit
feedback, teachers explicitly state there are errors or mistakes from student‟s
utterances.
According to Lyster and Ranta (1997) in Lyster, Saito & Sato (2013)
there are six types of oral feedback. They were classified into two categories,
reformulation and prompt. Reformulation includes recast and clarification request
because both teach the learner with target reformulations. On the other hand,
prompt includes metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, repetition of error and
explicit correction. These types of prompt teach the learner self repair.
Recast. Long (1996) in Boyung ( 2010) defined recast as “ an utterances
that rephrase an utterances by changing one or more of its sentence
components (subject, verb or object) while still referring to its central
meaning‟‟.
S : I go to cinema this week
T : you went to cinema. What did you see?
S : Gladiator is great
4
By such feedback, students know what they have to do and can revise their works.
Similar with Lyster and Ranta (1997), XieNan (2007) adds that errors of student‟s
performance should be located and identified. It means teachers identify the error
in student‟s work. Mignon et al.(2013) conducted a study about the forms of oral
feedback that are given to students. They observed seven teachers in Gorinchem
Nertherlands. They found most English teacher used recast feedback 45% for the
students. While, other percentages for clarification and elicitation. It was based on
six types of oral feedback Lyster and Ranta (1997). According to them recast
feedback involves teacher‟s reformulation of all students‟ utterance and corrects
the error. Recast usually uses words such as “ You mean “, “You should say” and
“Use this word “.
Clarification request. Elis (2002) in Boyung (2010) defined clarification
request are “any that elicit clarification the preceding utterance”. For
example
S : I was really chuffed
T : uh
S : really pleased
In simply, clarification indicates that the student‟s utterance has been
misunderstood by teacher, and then the teacher asked for clarification or gave
feedback by saying “What do you mean when you say it?” this is kind of feedback
to check whether students keep on their track or not. Chastain (1998) proposed
5
without corrective feedback, it is difficult for students to ascertain that a learning
task has been completed correctly.
Metalingustic feedback. It refers to teaching techniques of providing
feedback by adding some information. It contains comments, information
or questions related to students utterances, such as when students make
sentences,
“ S : There are four chair in the classroom”.
“T : four chair, four chairs”
This kind of feedback helps student to gain new knowledge and information about
what they have done. Richards and Lockhart (1996) suggest that the teacher
should expland student‟s performance as an oral feedback in order to broaden
student‟s knowledge to what students have already performed.
Elicitation. There are two types of elicitation techniques according to
Lyster & Ranta (1997) in Boyung (2010), the first one is the teacher gives
feedback to encourage student in correcting form by pausing to allow the
student to complete teacher‟s utterance.
S : well, there‟s a stream of perfume that doesn‟t smell very nice.
T : so smell stream of perfume we‟ll call a…. “
In the second one, teacher directly elicits correct form from students
answer by asking a question.
6
T : In fast food restaurant, how much do you tip?
S : no money
T : what‟s the word?
In the last one, teacher asks student to reformulate the student‟s utterance.
S : yes, yes, I like it.
T : well say that again.
This kind of feedback will trigger students to think further, moreover
students can move beyond opinions to critical thinking.
Repetition of error. The teacher repeats the student‟s error. Most of
teachers usually use intonation or stress to correct and highlight student‟s
error. For example
S : we going to visit my grandfather.
T : we going to (emphasis),
S : we are going to visit my grandfather.
Here, teacher wants student to identify and investigate what their error is and how
they can fix it. It is an indirect way for student self correction.
Explicit correction. Refers to the technique where teachers provide
explicit correct form, teachers are direct or straight to what students said is
incorrect. For example
S : I like orange
7
T : oranges, it should be plural since you are talking to general
S : I like oranges
T: right, that‟s good
Hence, teachers are focused on drawing student‟s attention to the target languages.
Elis (2002) in Boyung (2010) proposed the teacher used explicit correction
feedback by asking question or metalingual comments (providing information).
An interesting point from Elis‟s study (2006) is statistical of student‟s
performance through explicit feedback was improving for student ability. This
result indicated that explicit feedback was a beneficial for student knowledge.
Several Studies
In several studies toward oral feedback like the study from Mignon et
al.(2013) stood out that recast was the most feedback given to students with 34
times and next after recast was elicitation. A surprising finding from this study
was that sometimes teachers do not provide feedback for a student due to various
reasons. The main reason, depends on the context of lesson and what the student‟s
goals are. Because of this, teachers choose not to provide feedback for their
students.
Some previous studies like Edith et al.(2010) and Mignon et al.(2013) on
types of oral feedback give similar findings, teachers tend to not provide feedback
due to various reasons that depend upon the context of the lesson and concern for
the student‟s feelings. It can also be seen from the study Hamed (2003) conducted
8
research about oral feedback with 100 participants in Dakhiliya, Oman. From the
data analysis, he pointed out oral feedback supposed to be evaluative. The reason
teachers choose not to provide feedback because of being afraid to hurt their
student‟s feeling and depending on the content of materials.
In detail, when Dana & Noha (2013) studied about oral feedback in the
EFL classroom, they also found some reasons why teachers seldom give oral
feedback. As for an example with clarification request, the teacher will use
clarification request if she did not understand what students were talking about. In
line with clarification request, the use of metalinguistic feedback in classroom
interaction was seldom. Teachers did not use metalinguistic feedback often due to
it not being useful for students to develop their English fluently. If looking at the
variety of feedback from Lyster and Ranta (1997), there are six types of feedback.
In reality, those all six types of feedback are not used in classroom interaction.
Several studies from ( Edith et al, 2010 ; Mignon et al, 2013 ; Dana &
Noha, 2013) proved that sometimes teachers gave limited oral feedback or used
certain types of feedback due to several reasons, such as depending on the context
of lesson and concern for the student‟s feeling. Therefore, in my research, I would
like to find out what types of oral feedback techniques are used by English
teachers for junior high school students.
9
RESEARCH DESIGN
Context of the Study
This study is qualitative research, since the data was gained from
observation. This study, mainly focused on the types of oral feedback which were
used by English teachers in Junior High School. The context of study was
undertaken in one of junior high school in Banyubiru. This school is located in
Banyubiru (kab. Semarang), Central Java, Indonesia. In this school, the
observation teacher A was conducted six times with 4 hours. While Teacher B
only observed four times, in notes with same duration around 4 hours. This school
was selected as setting of the study because the researcher has teaching
experiences in there. As a note, the researcher found some teachers seems
providing monotone and limited feedback.
Participants
The subjects were two English teachers of this school who were teaching
first grades. The participants of this study were 2 people. All participants were
Indonesian speakers, they have teaching experience in English Language
Teaching ranging from 10 up to 26 years. All of them have degrees from English
Department.
Instrument of Data Collections
To obtain data, the researcher used observation. Observation was used to
obtain live data form in the natural teaching learning process. The researcher was
a non-participant and sat in the back row of class in order to not disturb the
10
learning process. In addition, I tried not to attract the students‟ attention from the
teachers. Ten observations from different classes were conducted to gain valid
data. Before I conducted real observation, I carried out a piloting study in the
same school with two different teachers, who taught in the second and third
grades. This pilot study helped me be aware of potential problems that may appear
in my real observation. Here is the example of observation protocol.
Table (1)
The Example of Observation Protocol Form
Observation Protocol
Name of teacher :
Class :
Class time :
Total number of students :
Topic :
Date :
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
Type of
feedback
oral
In class
occurrences
Example
Notes
Extract
T = Teacher
S = Student
Recast
Clarification
Request
Metalinguistic
feedback
Elicitation.
Repetition of
error
Explicit
correction
Data Collection Procedures
To obtain data, there were several steps in data collections.
1. The researcher asked for permission to conduct observations.
2. The researcher made appointment with the teacher to arrange
observation schedules.
11
Time
The observation was conducted in six different classes‟ based on the
schedule of each teacher. Here, the descriptive of observation data.
Table (2)
The Descriptive of Observation Data
Name
of
teacher
Teacher
A
Teacher
B
Date of
Observation
Time
(Minutes)
Class
Topic
February, 10th
2014
February, 17th
2014
February, 17th
2014
March, 19th
2014
May, 14th
2014
May, 16th
2014
February, 8th
2014
February, 22nd
2014
February, 28th
2014
March, 29th
2014
25
7A
WH question
32
7B
WH question
35
7A
Descriptive text
35
7D
Present Continues Tense
25
7C
Procedure text & greeting cards
31
7D
Procedure text & greeting cards
76
7E
Asking & giving fact
67
7E
Recount text
20
7F
(Discuss homework)
50
7E
Present continues tense
Data Analysis Procedures
These following steps were conducted to answer my research question.
The researcher just observed two teachers during the teaching learning process
then recorded them using a video camera. Next, I transcribed the video, then input
the data in observation protocol form. After finishing with the data, I made
percentages and display it in figure. The result of observation with the participants
indicates what types of oral feedbacks are used by teachers.
12
FINDINGS
After ten observations have been conducted during two months, the results
showed surprising data. The frequency of oral feedback which were used by the
two participants was limited.
Table (3)
The frequency and percentages of oral feedback which used by two participants
Types of
feedback
Observation Teacher A
1
(Feb
,
10th)
1
Recast
2
Clarificatio
n Request
3
Metalinguis
tic feedback
4
Elicitation
5
Repetition
of Error
6
Explicit
Correction
2
(Feb
,
17th
)
3
(Feb
,
17th
)
4
(Mar,
19th )
5
(Ma
y,
14th)
Observation Teacher B
6
(Ma
y,
16th)
1
(Fe
b,
8th)
2
(Fe
b,
22nd
)
3
(Fe
b,
28th
)
1
1
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
4
1
4
2
6
4
Percentage
s
1
2,13 %
9
19,1 %
7
14,9%
5
10,6%
1
2.13 %
24
51 %
4
(Ma
y,
16th)
1
1
Total
Frequency
2
Table 3 shows the frequency of oral feedback used in the classroom
between two participants. The table also reveals how often teachers gave oral
feedback to their students. The percentages of feedback were dominated by
explicit correction with 51%, clarification request 19,1%, metalinguistic feedback
14,9%, elicitation 10,6 %, recast and repetition of error have same percentages
13
2.13 %. The figure 1 displays the frequency of oral feedback occurred in the
classroom more clearly.
FIGURE 1
The Number of Oral Feedback Used by Two participants
The figure summarizes the results of the types of oral feedback were used
by two English teachers, all types of feedback by Lyster and Ranta (1997) are
used in class. In addition, the table shows that two participants gave limited of
oral feedback for students based on ten observations.
Types of Oral feedback
Explicit correction
This is the most frequent feedback which was used in the classroom,
Explicit correction occurred 24 times from ten observations. Each Teacher gave
12 explicit correction feedback to their students. The teachers provide the
14
feedback when the students made mistake, so that the students see their error. This
feedback refers to teacher‟s technique of giving correct form. Based on the
observation, Teacher A directly gave explicit correction on student‟s
pronunciation errors. The situation happened in class 7A, with total students are
32. At the time, the teacher discussed the WH question. Then Teacher A gave an
example using “ where “, (data from observation 5)
T : where do you live?
S : where do you life?
T : life?, live
After the teacher gave an example, a student repeated teacher‟s utterances with
wrong pronunciation. It should be live /lív/ but the student said life /líf/. The
teacher might have used explicit correction to save time in delivering the material
and at the same time encourage students to speak with correct pronunciation.
Similar situation happened in Teacher B‟s class. He gave an explicit
correction on a student‟s answer. During the fourth observation, the teacher
discussed the student‟s answer were written on the white board. Here is an
example of explicit correction in the class (data from observation 3)
T : Sarah and her friends clean the floor it, in here there is a word “it”, it
refers to floor, so it can be omitted
After the teacher provides the feedback, the class wrote their correct answer.
The two participants have same goal for using explicit correction in their
class. Teacher A focuses on student‟s pronunciation while teacher B focuses on
15
the student‟s answer or content. Teacher B focuses deeper on grammatical errors,
he used explicit correction when correcting student grammatical errors. Similar to
teacher A, teacher B seemed to save time and presented information about
grammar. Especially, seventh grade junior high school students have already
known English subject.
Another finding that occurred in class is student‟s vocabulary errors, it
happened when a student wrote the word “mother”. (data from observation 4)
S : (write their answer on white board)
T : (pointed student‟s answer on white board) mother use e not a
S : (write the correct one in their book)
A vocabulary or spelling error is common mistake in the seventh grade of junior
high school, because they have limited vocabulary and knowledge of English.
Explicit correction could be presented for teachers to guide and give information
completely. In addition at this stage of learning, teachers have to encourage their
students to become independent learners. These all indicate that both teachers use
explicit correction in the same patterns and forms.
Clarification request
The second highest oral feedback were used by two participants is
clarification request. It happened 9 times out 10 observations. Clarification
request is teacher‟s technique to ask for repetition or reformulation from what a
learner has said before. (Observation 6)
S : (discuss handbooks exercises) the word “we “ refers to students
T : pardon me, why students
S : (silent)
16
In that situation, it seemed teacher A has misunderstood the student‟s utterances
or the teacher wanted a student to self repair. Unfortunately, the student was only
silent and does not answer teacher reformulation. It was hard to define whether
teacher misunderstood or the student had to self repair. If looking at the purpose
of clarification request, the teacher seems providing clues for student to self
repair.
Another surprising fact from this data is that teacher B did not use
clarification request in the classroom based on 4 observations. It might be indicate
teacher B used another type of feedback by Lyster & Ranta (1997), like in figure 1
shows teacher B used explicit correction, elicitation and metalinguistic feedback
Metalingustic feedback
Metalinguistic feedback is the third highest feedback after clarification
request. Metalingustic feedback happens when a teacher gives feedback and adds
information to a student‟s mistake. It includes comments, information and
questions. From the data, there are only two metalinguistic feedbacks,
metalinguistic feedback which focus on question and information. Here is the
example of metalinguistic feedback question form from teacher B (data from
observation 2)
S : (write their answer on white board)
T : (point to student‟s answer on white board) books or book?
S : books
And the information form, teacher adds information in giving feedback
17
S : (write their answer on white board)
T : look at the pattern again, if there is to be “are” in here, are there so the
answer?
S : there are
Teacher B frequently used that feedback in each meeting, except the first meeting.
That situation (data observation 2) occurred when teacher B discussed a student‟s
assignment, the teacher knew the answer was wrong, and then he used
metalinguistic feedback for expanding the student‟s knowledge about what they
have learnt. Even thought it was different form, metalinguistic feedback has aim
to make students aware and understand the correctness of their common errors.
Students might be not annoyed by the teacher‟s comment, because the comments
directly guide students to know what their mistakes. Moreover students were
aware of their mistakes, so they would make correct and appropriate answers.
In a different situation, teacher A has the same form of providing
metalinguistic feedback. He also used a question form on giving feedback, as the
following example (data from observation 3)
S : (write their answer on white board)
T : (point to student‟s answer on white board) your or you?
S : your
Teacher A seems force his students to think again about the answer, therefore it
can push them be critical and precise of their output in giving answer. On this
occasion, the teachers did not directly correct the answer, but providing correct
form so that the students would consider their utterances. Related to teacher B, an
example of metalinguistic feedback when adding information as the following
(data from observation 5)
18
T : what is the purpose of this text?
S : chicken soup
T : procedure text usually indicates with how to make or how to use
S : C sir (how to make chicken soup)
Further explanations are given on the student‟s error, which clear explanations can
guide them towards self repair. Metalinguistic feedback provides complete
information that refers to the student‟s error. It can be seen from data observation
5, teacher gave extra information, therefore students could answer correctly.
DISCUSSION
In this section, the results show explicit correction the most frequent oral
feedback which was used by two participants. As clearly shown in figure 1, the
two participants used explicit correction 12 times based upon 10 observations.
The high frequency of the use of explicit correction may be indicated this
technique is appropriate feedback for student at level junior high school. Since
junior high school students are categorized as teenagers, Brown (2001) stated that
they are an age of transition, confusion, self-consciousness, growing, and
changing bodies and mind. Thus, it is essential to the teacher provides appropriate
oral feedback for their students. Teacher might use explicit correction more to
encourage student‟s awareness of their common mistake. The participants used
explicit correction in the form of phonological errors like mispronunciation and
grammatical error (data observation 4 & 5). These findings are in contrast with the
study from Lyster & Ranta (1997). They found teachers preferred to use recast
19
when students made grammatical errors and recast were used over other types of
oral feedback.
On the other hand, this finding may be illustrated teacher‟s desire to save
time. Since the duration of English for junior high school students was limited,
only 5 hours per week. Onk (2009) stated a teacher is often faced with the lack of
time to reflect in action, because of the necessity to react immediately. Teachers
might be prefers to explain further material for test or assignments, therefore they
use explicit correction for saving time.
Metalinguistic feedback is the third most popular feedback after
clarification request with 14.9 %. The use of this feedback indicates there were
negotiations in teaching learning process between teachers and students. Two
participants gave more chances for their students to active in the classroom. Thus,
the students can take a part in negotiation meaning for teaching learning process.
Since there was assumption that EFL learners are passive students, therefore the
teacher has important role to provide appropriate feedback for classroom
interaction. Brown (2001) in Karim (2004) states that in most EFL (English as
Foreign Language) situations, students are totally dependent on the teacher for
useful linguistics feedback. When teacher adds negotiation meaning giving
feedback, it can increase the participation students. Therefore a successful
teaching learning process occurred. Even though this findings not significant
proved that Metalinguistic feedback is useful for students, but the data from
observation 2 shows the successfulness and there were interactions between
teacher and students.
20
S : (write their answer on white board)
T : look at the pattern again, if there is to be “are” in here, are there so the
answer?
S : there are
However,
metalinguistic
feedback
happened
when
discussing
student‟s
assignments. The teacher„s way of giving feedback was successful. By adding
information related to the question students can answer correctly. An interesting
point in observation 2 is that students already know the correct answer, but they
need to be pushed to say it. The teacher seems to encourage the student to self
repair. Bot (1996) underlines the importance of pushing learners to produce
correct forms themselves after some kind of corrective clue so that they can make
meaningful connections in their brains. This finding is similar with Smith‟s study
(2010) he found metalinguistic feedback and explicit correction were the most
types of feedback.
The findings also show the two participants used clarification request,
elicitation, recast and repetition of error with the percentage (19,1%), (10,6%),
(2,13%) & (2,13%). Recast has the lowest usage from the two participants, it only
happened once during 10 observations. The lowest usage of recast indicates two
participants prefer to use other types of feedback. The result may indicate that
recast has negative meaning for students. Long (1996) in Boyung (2010) defined
recast as any utterances that rephrase an utterances by changing one or more of its
sentence components (subject, verb or object) while still referring to its central
meaning. (Observation 5)
T : what did you do last night Ucup?
21
S : I see TV
T : oh you watched TV, what movies?
S : ganteng-ganteng serigala
Data from observation 5, shows the teacher corrected student‟s utterance without
saying it was wrong. Hence, the teacher assumed students can be aware of their
errors, the word “see” should be replaced by “watched”. It could encourage to self
repair. The main problem is when a student did not realize what the teacher‟s
intension, therefore recast becomes negative form for the student. Nunan (1989)
in Lyster, Saito & Sato (2013) stated mismatches between teachers‟ intentions and
learners‟ interpretations may result in negative effects on learning. Lyster et al
(2013) also found recast has both positive and negative effects. If the learner
perceives the feedback as indication an error has occurred. Those all might be the
reasons teachers rarely use recast.
The findings show the teacher A was dominant in giving feedback rather
than teacher B. It may stands for teacher‟s perspectives about oral feedback.
Teacher‟s beliefs play central role in teaching learning process. Moreover, theirs‟
beliefs affect what teachers say and do in the classroom. Johnson (1992) in
Kartchava (2006) found teacher‟s choice of methodological approach as well as
types of instruction they implemented consistently reflected their theoretical
beliefs. In other words, teachers used theirs‟ beliefs to provide appropriate
feedback for their students.
Teacher‟s experiences might also influence the providing of types oral
feedback. If teachers had very limited teaching experiences, it might be affected
on providing types of oral feedback. Such as, they applied their ideas about
22
effective teaching learning process based on their own experiences. The
correlation between types oral feedback and teacher‟s beliefs is interesting. The
two participants used different types of feedback indicate that they have their own
perspective toward oral feedback.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of the current study was to find out the types of oral feedback
were used by English teacher in junior high school. Since several teachers seem to
provide monotone and limited feedback.
Teacher oral feedback plays an important role in teaching learning process
for junior high school students. According to Lyster & Ranta (1997) there are six
types of oral feedback, recast, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback,
elicitation, repetition of error and explicit correction. The participants used all
types of oral feedback from Lyster & Ranta (1997). Explicit correction is the
most frequent oral feedback used by the two participants. The teachers used
explicit correction for correcting student‟s grammatical and pronunciation errors.
The second highest is clarification request (19,1%), then metalinguitic feedback
(14,9%), elicitation (10,6%), repetition of error (2,13) and the last one is recast
(2,13).
There are some possibilities factors why explicit correction, clarification
request and metalinguistic feedback were more dominant rather than other types
of feedback. The teachers may be considering learner‟s age and student‟s feelings,
since junior high school students categorize as teenagers not adult learners as
23
suggested by Brown (2001). Moreover, teacher‟s experiences and their beliefs
toward oral feedback could be influent in providing feedback for students.
However the participants used all types of oral feedback, but the proportion in
giving feedback was limited. Based upon 10 observations that had been
conducted, only 47 feedbacks occurred in the classroom.
The present study, however, makes several noteworthy contributions to
teachers. This result of this study enhance teacher understanding toward several
types oral feedback. Moreover, this study can give informations for teachers to
provide varieties of oral feedback. It also helps teachers in designing appropriate
feedback for the students, since there are several factors influent corrective
feedback. Furthermore, this study can beneficial for future teachers.
This research has some limitations. The first one is limited of time in
observation, I could only observe 10 times during two months. In which I
expected more to get extra observation, moreover I had to follow teacher‟s
schedule. The second one, there were only two teachers who were willing to be
observed.
For the future study, I hope the researcher not only finds out types of oral
feedback used by teachers, but also the reason why teachers give oral feedback for
their students. In addition, it will be interesting if included learner‟s perspectives
and teacher‟s beliefs about oral feedback in the next study. Also, some
methodology such as interviews should be used for the next research.
24
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was accomplished with help of many people. First, I would
like thank to Allah SWT, because Allah give me soul that never loses faith. Then,
my Prophet Muhammad PBUH as my inspiration to write my thesis.
I would like to appreciate and thanks for my supervisor ibu Anita
Kurniawati M.Hum and Ibu Victoria Usadya Palupi, M.A-ELT because their
patience and kindness on guiding me until I could finish my thesis. Intan has been
a friend and mentor. My old friends Anjanis, Yogi, Remon, Yudis, Robi, Lilik,
Andris, Desi, Ika Sinta, Ria, Chintia thanks for sharing joyful moments for me.
A special words for my family due to support and motivate throughout the
whole thesis process. I am indebted to the participants for the patience and
dedication to my thesis. The last but not least, I am also indebted to Febriana
Sukma Ramadhani, thanks for always beside me.
Finally, I would say thanks all lectures and staffs Faculty of Language and
Literature for everything during 4 years.
25
REFERENCES
Al-Faki, M.I. (2013). Techniques Used by Teachers in Correcting Students‟ Oral
Errors in an Omani Boys School”. Theory and Practice in Language
Studies, Vol. 3, No. 10, pp. 1770-1783. Finland: Academy Publisher
Manufactured.
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment
in Education 5(1), 7-74.
Bond, L., Smith, T., Baker, W., & Hattie, J. (2000). The certification system of the
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards: A construct and
consequential validity study. Washington DC: National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards.
Brown, H.D. (2001).Teaching by Principles: An interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy. (Second Edition). San Francisco: Longman.
Chastain K. (1988). Developing second language skills Theory to practice. New
York: Harcourt Brace Jovanich, Inc.
De Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language
Learning, 46, 529- 555.).
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C.
Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second
language acquisition (pp. 114-138). New York: Cambridge University Press
Edith H.M., Rosario R. C. & Griselda M. (2010). Oral feedback by EFL
teachers at Universidad de Quintana Roo. Mexico, : FEL international.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language leaming and teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective
feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 28, 339-368.
Fathman, A.K., Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus
on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing (pp.
178-190). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hamed, E. (2003). The effect of two co-operative learning strategies on
developing oral communication competence and attitudes towards
26
cooperative learning among secondary school students. Unpublished M.A
thesis, Faculty of Educationm, Al-Azhar University.
Hampton, S. (1994). In Jack J. Richard, Patrick B. Gallo, Willy A. Renandya
(2008). Exploring teacher’s belief and the processes of change. Seameo
regional language centre, Singapore.
Hattie, J. (1999). Influences on student learning. Unpublished inaugural lecture
presented at the University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Hattie, J. (2003). „Teachers Make a Difference: What is the Research Evidence?‟
http://www.leadspace.govt.nz/leadership/arti-cles/teachers-make-adifference.php.
Johnson, K.E. (1994). The emerging beliefs and instructuctional practices of
preservice English as Second Language teachers. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 10 (4), 439-452.
Karim, K.M. (2004). Teachers' perceptions, attitudes and expectations about
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in post-secondary education in
Bangladesh. Unpublished master thesis, University of Victoria.
Kartchava, E. (2006). Corrective feedback: Novice ESL Teachers’ Beliefs and
Practices. Concordia University.
Krashen, Stephen. (1996). Under Attack: The Case Against Bilingual Education.
Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates retrieve on September, 23
http://www.languagepolicy.net/archives/Krashen3.htm
Lee, Boyoung. (2010). Effects of task and feedback types on Korean adult ESL
learners' oral proficiency. English Teaching, 65(2), 101-130.
Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll
(Ed.), Second Language Writing (pp. 57-68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Lin, H. (2009). Patterns of Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake in ESL Low,
Intermediate, and Advanced Level Speaking Classrooms (PHD
Dissertation). Alliant International University, San Diego.
Lumpe, A., Haney, J., & Czerniak, C.M. (2000). Assessing teacher beliefs about
their science teaching context. Journal of Research in science teaching,
275-292.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake:
Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
27
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato M (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second
language
classrooms.
Language
Teaching,
46,
pp
140
doi:10.1017/S0261444812000365.
Mahdi,D. & El Shaadany, N (2013). Oral Feedback in the EFL classroom.
Fakulteten för lärande och Samhälle, Malmö högskola.
Mignon J. , Anne, D. L & Meike, K. (2013). Giving oral feedback in a bilingual
context. Utrecht University.
Oonk, W. (2009). Theory-enriched practical knowledge in mathematics teacher
education . Chapter 2: Theory and practice in teacher education. Doctoral
Thesis, Leiden University.
Richards, Jack C. and Lockhart, Charles. (1996). Reflective teaching in second
language classrooms. New York: Cambridge University press 1996.
Rydahl, Susanna (2005). Oral Feedback in the English Classroom: Teachers’
Thoughts and Awareness. Karlstads Universitet.
Smith, H. (2010). Correct Me if I'm Wrong: Investigating the Preferences in Error
Correction Among Adult English Language Learners. (MA thesis 2010).
University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida.
Voerman, L.(2012). et al., Types and frequencies of feedback interventions in
classroom interaction in secondary education, Teaching and Teacher
Education (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.06.006.
XieNan. (2007). “A study of spoken transfer errors of tertiary- level EFL
learners”. English. Edu, Vol.7. 2007.
28
SCHOOL STUDENTS
Nur Kurnia Rahman
ABSTRACT
This research focuses on study teacher‟s feedback, with a particular
concern on oral feedback. This study is aimed to find out types of oral
feedbacks used by English teachers. The participants were two English
teachers who taught at one of junior high school in Banyubiru. One type of
research tools was used: Observation. Ten observations have been conducted to
gain data. This study includes quantitative study. The result shows the
participants used all types of feedback by Lyster & Ranta (1997) (e.g., recast,
clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, repetition of error and
explicit correction). Explicit correction is the most frequent oral feedback used
by the two participants, then recast is the lowest. This finding is also expected
to improve teacher‟s knowledge in giving oral feedback.
KEY WORDS: Feedback, oral feedback, types of feedback
INTRODUCTION
Teacher‟s feedback is regarded as an important key to improve student‟s
skills at all levels, starting from the first grade of elementary until senior high
school. There are many common definition of feedback, for an example Collin
(2013) as citied in Mahdy & Shaadany (2013). He mentioned that teacher
feedback is a process in which factor that produce a result from modified,
corrected and processed. In another definition of feedback from Hattie (1999), he
described feedback as one of most influential factor in learning, as essential as
instruction. Additionally, feedback can also help reduce errors and engage
students in the learning process. Black and Wiliam (1998) explained that the
1
student will involve in his learning when we focus our feedback on a specific
problem of a student‟s work, then tell them what was wrong with it and how to fix
it.
Teachers also have a role in providing corrective feedback. In giving
feedback, teachers do not only give information or comments to their students, but
also they see the kind of feedback their students need. They believe feedback is a
key point for student‟s achievement. According to Hattie & Rowe (2003) teacher
is the major in-school influence on student achievement.
In the educational field, there are many types of oral feedback. Lyster and
Ranta (1997) in Lyster, Saito & Sato (2013) identify six different teacher oral
feedbacks, they were recast, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback,
elicitation, repetition of error and explicit correction. In contrast, in classroom
application there are some teachers who don‟t apply it. They even provide limited
feedback for their students, such as mentioned by Tabatabaei & Banitalebi (2011)
in Al-Faki (2013) their result of their study showed that explicit correction was
the most frequent feedback technique used by teachers whereas elicitation was the
second one (49 % & 19%).
Another finding from Rydahal (2005) showed that recast is the most oral
feedback. In line with Pauli (2012) in Voerman (2012) found that most of the
feedback in classroom from vocational education to pre- university level was in
the form of appraising, for example “well done, good “. Moreover study from
Edith, Rosario, & Griselda (2010) also found repetition and recast are often used
2
by teachers in providing feedback. It showed from the three studies teachers
sometimes gave monotone feedback, mostly recast and appraising or even the
frequency of giving feedback was seldom.
According to Lyster and Ranta (1997) there are six types of oral feedback.
These six oral feedbacks are important elements to improve learner acquisition
which focus on the student‟s goal. Moreover, these elements improve teacher
awareness providing good quality feedback and corrective feedback. A number of
studies have also used types of oral feedback proposed by Lyster and Ranta
(1997). For example, Lin (2009) and Doughty (1998) who investigated types oral
of feedback used by ESL teachers in low, intermediate and advance speaking.
They found most of teacher used “ recast, repetition and clarification request “.
Since several teachers provided monotone feedback for their students, it is
essential to carry out a study which focuses on types of teacher oral feedback. The
aim of this study is to find out the types of oral feedback which were used by
English teacher. Therefore, my research question is “ What are the types oral
feedback which are used by English teachers in junior high school?‟. The findings
of this study are also expected to improve teacher‟s knowledge about types of oral
feedback for students since some teachers provide limited feedback.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Teacher oral feedback
Feedback occurred when there are interaction between teacher and
students. Feedback is not only about teacher‟s comments on students errors. It
3
refers to teacher motivation for their students to do better in their performances. In
a study about feedback in recent years ( Edith, Rosario & Griselda, 2010 ;
Boyung, 2010 ; Lyster, Saito & Sato, 2013), teacher oral feedback can be inferred
from implicit and explicit form. In this case term of implicit, teachers don‟t
directly state student‟s utterances as incorrect. They tend to provide correct form,
so it can force students thought again of their errors or self repair. With explicit
feedback, teachers explicitly state there are errors or mistakes from student‟s
utterances.
According to Lyster and Ranta (1997) in Lyster, Saito & Sato (2013)
there are six types of oral feedback. They were classified into two categories,
reformulation and prompt. Reformulation includes recast and clarification request
because both teach the learner with target reformulations. On the other hand,
prompt includes metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, repetition of error and
explicit correction. These types of prompt teach the learner self repair.
Recast. Long (1996) in Boyung ( 2010) defined recast as “ an utterances
that rephrase an utterances by changing one or more of its sentence
components (subject, verb or object) while still referring to its central
meaning‟‟.
S : I go to cinema this week
T : you went to cinema. What did you see?
S : Gladiator is great
4
By such feedback, students know what they have to do and can revise their works.
Similar with Lyster and Ranta (1997), XieNan (2007) adds that errors of student‟s
performance should be located and identified. It means teachers identify the error
in student‟s work. Mignon et al.(2013) conducted a study about the forms of oral
feedback that are given to students. They observed seven teachers in Gorinchem
Nertherlands. They found most English teacher used recast feedback 45% for the
students. While, other percentages for clarification and elicitation. It was based on
six types of oral feedback Lyster and Ranta (1997). According to them recast
feedback involves teacher‟s reformulation of all students‟ utterance and corrects
the error. Recast usually uses words such as “ You mean “, “You should say” and
“Use this word “.
Clarification request. Elis (2002) in Boyung (2010) defined clarification
request are “any that elicit clarification the preceding utterance”. For
example
S : I was really chuffed
T : uh
S : really pleased
In simply, clarification indicates that the student‟s utterance has been
misunderstood by teacher, and then the teacher asked for clarification or gave
feedback by saying “What do you mean when you say it?” this is kind of feedback
to check whether students keep on their track or not. Chastain (1998) proposed
5
without corrective feedback, it is difficult for students to ascertain that a learning
task has been completed correctly.
Metalingustic feedback. It refers to teaching techniques of providing
feedback by adding some information. It contains comments, information
or questions related to students utterances, such as when students make
sentences,
“ S : There are four chair in the classroom”.
“T : four chair, four chairs”
This kind of feedback helps student to gain new knowledge and information about
what they have done. Richards and Lockhart (1996) suggest that the teacher
should expland student‟s performance as an oral feedback in order to broaden
student‟s knowledge to what students have already performed.
Elicitation. There are two types of elicitation techniques according to
Lyster & Ranta (1997) in Boyung (2010), the first one is the teacher gives
feedback to encourage student in correcting form by pausing to allow the
student to complete teacher‟s utterance.
S : well, there‟s a stream of perfume that doesn‟t smell very nice.
T : so smell stream of perfume we‟ll call a…. “
In the second one, teacher directly elicits correct form from students
answer by asking a question.
6
T : In fast food restaurant, how much do you tip?
S : no money
T : what‟s the word?
In the last one, teacher asks student to reformulate the student‟s utterance.
S : yes, yes, I like it.
T : well say that again.
This kind of feedback will trigger students to think further, moreover
students can move beyond opinions to critical thinking.
Repetition of error. The teacher repeats the student‟s error. Most of
teachers usually use intonation or stress to correct and highlight student‟s
error. For example
S : we going to visit my grandfather.
T : we going to (emphasis),
S : we are going to visit my grandfather.
Here, teacher wants student to identify and investigate what their error is and how
they can fix it. It is an indirect way for student self correction.
Explicit correction. Refers to the technique where teachers provide
explicit correct form, teachers are direct or straight to what students said is
incorrect. For example
S : I like orange
7
T : oranges, it should be plural since you are talking to general
S : I like oranges
T: right, that‟s good
Hence, teachers are focused on drawing student‟s attention to the target languages.
Elis (2002) in Boyung (2010) proposed the teacher used explicit correction
feedback by asking question or metalingual comments (providing information).
An interesting point from Elis‟s study (2006) is statistical of student‟s
performance through explicit feedback was improving for student ability. This
result indicated that explicit feedback was a beneficial for student knowledge.
Several Studies
In several studies toward oral feedback like the study from Mignon et
al.(2013) stood out that recast was the most feedback given to students with 34
times and next after recast was elicitation. A surprising finding from this study
was that sometimes teachers do not provide feedback for a student due to various
reasons. The main reason, depends on the context of lesson and what the student‟s
goals are. Because of this, teachers choose not to provide feedback for their
students.
Some previous studies like Edith et al.(2010) and Mignon et al.(2013) on
types of oral feedback give similar findings, teachers tend to not provide feedback
due to various reasons that depend upon the context of the lesson and concern for
the student‟s feelings. It can also be seen from the study Hamed (2003) conducted
8
research about oral feedback with 100 participants in Dakhiliya, Oman. From the
data analysis, he pointed out oral feedback supposed to be evaluative. The reason
teachers choose not to provide feedback because of being afraid to hurt their
student‟s feeling and depending on the content of materials.
In detail, when Dana & Noha (2013) studied about oral feedback in the
EFL classroom, they also found some reasons why teachers seldom give oral
feedback. As for an example with clarification request, the teacher will use
clarification request if she did not understand what students were talking about. In
line with clarification request, the use of metalinguistic feedback in classroom
interaction was seldom. Teachers did not use metalinguistic feedback often due to
it not being useful for students to develop their English fluently. If looking at the
variety of feedback from Lyster and Ranta (1997), there are six types of feedback.
In reality, those all six types of feedback are not used in classroom interaction.
Several studies from ( Edith et al, 2010 ; Mignon et al, 2013 ; Dana &
Noha, 2013) proved that sometimes teachers gave limited oral feedback or used
certain types of feedback due to several reasons, such as depending on the context
of lesson and concern for the student‟s feeling. Therefore, in my research, I would
like to find out what types of oral feedback techniques are used by English
teachers for junior high school students.
9
RESEARCH DESIGN
Context of the Study
This study is qualitative research, since the data was gained from
observation. This study, mainly focused on the types of oral feedback which were
used by English teachers in Junior High School. The context of study was
undertaken in one of junior high school in Banyubiru. This school is located in
Banyubiru (kab. Semarang), Central Java, Indonesia. In this school, the
observation teacher A was conducted six times with 4 hours. While Teacher B
only observed four times, in notes with same duration around 4 hours. This school
was selected as setting of the study because the researcher has teaching
experiences in there. As a note, the researcher found some teachers seems
providing monotone and limited feedback.
Participants
The subjects were two English teachers of this school who were teaching
first grades. The participants of this study were 2 people. All participants were
Indonesian speakers, they have teaching experience in English Language
Teaching ranging from 10 up to 26 years. All of them have degrees from English
Department.
Instrument of Data Collections
To obtain data, the researcher used observation. Observation was used to
obtain live data form in the natural teaching learning process. The researcher was
a non-participant and sat in the back row of class in order to not disturb the
10
learning process. In addition, I tried not to attract the students‟ attention from the
teachers. Ten observations from different classes were conducted to gain valid
data. Before I conducted real observation, I carried out a piloting study in the
same school with two different teachers, who taught in the second and third
grades. This pilot study helped me be aware of potential problems that may appear
in my real observation. Here is the example of observation protocol.
Table (1)
The Example of Observation Protocol Form
Observation Protocol
Name of teacher :
Class :
Class time :
Total number of students :
Topic :
Date :
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
Type of
feedback
oral
In class
occurrences
Example
Notes
Extract
T = Teacher
S = Student
Recast
Clarification
Request
Metalinguistic
feedback
Elicitation.
Repetition of
error
Explicit
correction
Data Collection Procedures
To obtain data, there were several steps in data collections.
1. The researcher asked for permission to conduct observations.
2. The researcher made appointment with the teacher to arrange
observation schedules.
11
Time
The observation was conducted in six different classes‟ based on the
schedule of each teacher. Here, the descriptive of observation data.
Table (2)
The Descriptive of Observation Data
Name
of
teacher
Teacher
A
Teacher
B
Date of
Observation
Time
(Minutes)
Class
Topic
February, 10th
2014
February, 17th
2014
February, 17th
2014
March, 19th
2014
May, 14th
2014
May, 16th
2014
February, 8th
2014
February, 22nd
2014
February, 28th
2014
March, 29th
2014
25
7A
WH question
32
7B
WH question
35
7A
Descriptive text
35
7D
Present Continues Tense
25
7C
Procedure text & greeting cards
31
7D
Procedure text & greeting cards
76
7E
Asking & giving fact
67
7E
Recount text
20
7F
(Discuss homework)
50
7E
Present continues tense
Data Analysis Procedures
These following steps were conducted to answer my research question.
The researcher just observed two teachers during the teaching learning process
then recorded them using a video camera. Next, I transcribed the video, then input
the data in observation protocol form. After finishing with the data, I made
percentages and display it in figure. The result of observation with the participants
indicates what types of oral feedbacks are used by teachers.
12
FINDINGS
After ten observations have been conducted during two months, the results
showed surprising data. The frequency of oral feedback which were used by the
two participants was limited.
Table (3)
The frequency and percentages of oral feedback which used by two participants
Types of
feedback
Observation Teacher A
1
(Feb
,
10th)
1
Recast
2
Clarificatio
n Request
3
Metalinguis
tic feedback
4
Elicitation
5
Repetition
of Error
6
Explicit
Correction
2
(Feb
,
17th
)
3
(Feb
,
17th
)
4
(Mar,
19th )
5
(Ma
y,
14th)
Observation Teacher B
6
(Ma
y,
16th)
1
(Fe
b,
8th)
2
(Fe
b,
22nd
)
3
(Fe
b,
28th
)
1
1
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
4
1
4
2
6
4
Percentage
s
1
2,13 %
9
19,1 %
7
14,9%
5
10,6%
1
2.13 %
24
51 %
4
(Ma
y,
16th)
1
1
Total
Frequency
2
Table 3 shows the frequency of oral feedback used in the classroom
between two participants. The table also reveals how often teachers gave oral
feedback to their students. The percentages of feedback were dominated by
explicit correction with 51%, clarification request 19,1%, metalinguistic feedback
14,9%, elicitation 10,6 %, recast and repetition of error have same percentages
13
2.13 %. The figure 1 displays the frequency of oral feedback occurred in the
classroom more clearly.
FIGURE 1
The Number of Oral Feedback Used by Two participants
The figure summarizes the results of the types of oral feedback were used
by two English teachers, all types of feedback by Lyster and Ranta (1997) are
used in class. In addition, the table shows that two participants gave limited of
oral feedback for students based on ten observations.
Types of Oral feedback
Explicit correction
This is the most frequent feedback which was used in the classroom,
Explicit correction occurred 24 times from ten observations. Each Teacher gave
12 explicit correction feedback to their students. The teachers provide the
14
feedback when the students made mistake, so that the students see their error. This
feedback refers to teacher‟s technique of giving correct form. Based on the
observation, Teacher A directly gave explicit correction on student‟s
pronunciation errors. The situation happened in class 7A, with total students are
32. At the time, the teacher discussed the WH question. Then Teacher A gave an
example using “ where “, (data from observation 5)
T : where do you live?
S : where do you life?
T : life?, live
After the teacher gave an example, a student repeated teacher‟s utterances with
wrong pronunciation. It should be live /lív/ but the student said life /líf/. The
teacher might have used explicit correction to save time in delivering the material
and at the same time encourage students to speak with correct pronunciation.
Similar situation happened in Teacher B‟s class. He gave an explicit
correction on a student‟s answer. During the fourth observation, the teacher
discussed the student‟s answer were written on the white board. Here is an
example of explicit correction in the class (data from observation 3)
T : Sarah and her friends clean the floor it, in here there is a word “it”, it
refers to floor, so it can be omitted
After the teacher provides the feedback, the class wrote their correct answer.
The two participants have same goal for using explicit correction in their
class. Teacher A focuses on student‟s pronunciation while teacher B focuses on
15
the student‟s answer or content. Teacher B focuses deeper on grammatical errors,
he used explicit correction when correcting student grammatical errors. Similar to
teacher A, teacher B seemed to save time and presented information about
grammar. Especially, seventh grade junior high school students have already
known English subject.
Another finding that occurred in class is student‟s vocabulary errors, it
happened when a student wrote the word “mother”. (data from observation 4)
S : (write their answer on white board)
T : (pointed student‟s answer on white board) mother use e not a
S : (write the correct one in their book)
A vocabulary or spelling error is common mistake in the seventh grade of junior
high school, because they have limited vocabulary and knowledge of English.
Explicit correction could be presented for teachers to guide and give information
completely. In addition at this stage of learning, teachers have to encourage their
students to become independent learners. These all indicate that both teachers use
explicit correction in the same patterns and forms.
Clarification request
The second highest oral feedback were used by two participants is
clarification request. It happened 9 times out 10 observations. Clarification
request is teacher‟s technique to ask for repetition or reformulation from what a
learner has said before. (Observation 6)
S : (discuss handbooks exercises) the word “we “ refers to students
T : pardon me, why students
S : (silent)
16
In that situation, it seemed teacher A has misunderstood the student‟s utterances
or the teacher wanted a student to self repair. Unfortunately, the student was only
silent and does not answer teacher reformulation. It was hard to define whether
teacher misunderstood or the student had to self repair. If looking at the purpose
of clarification request, the teacher seems providing clues for student to self
repair.
Another surprising fact from this data is that teacher B did not use
clarification request in the classroom based on 4 observations. It might be indicate
teacher B used another type of feedback by Lyster & Ranta (1997), like in figure 1
shows teacher B used explicit correction, elicitation and metalinguistic feedback
Metalingustic feedback
Metalinguistic feedback is the third highest feedback after clarification
request. Metalingustic feedback happens when a teacher gives feedback and adds
information to a student‟s mistake. It includes comments, information and
questions. From the data, there are only two metalinguistic feedbacks,
metalinguistic feedback which focus on question and information. Here is the
example of metalinguistic feedback question form from teacher B (data from
observation 2)
S : (write their answer on white board)
T : (point to student‟s answer on white board) books or book?
S : books
And the information form, teacher adds information in giving feedback
17
S : (write their answer on white board)
T : look at the pattern again, if there is to be “are” in here, are there so the
answer?
S : there are
Teacher B frequently used that feedback in each meeting, except the first meeting.
That situation (data observation 2) occurred when teacher B discussed a student‟s
assignment, the teacher knew the answer was wrong, and then he used
metalinguistic feedback for expanding the student‟s knowledge about what they
have learnt. Even thought it was different form, metalinguistic feedback has aim
to make students aware and understand the correctness of their common errors.
Students might be not annoyed by the teacher‟s comment, because the comments
directly guide students to know what their mistakes. Moreover students were
aware of their mistakes, so they would make correct and appropriate answers.
In a different situation, teacher A has the same form of providing
metalinguistic feedback. He also used a question form on giving feedback, as the
following example (data from observation 3)
S : (write their answer on white board)
T : (point to student‟s answer on white board) your or you?
S : your
Teacher A seems force his students to think again about the answer, therefore it
can push them be critical and precise of their output in giving answer. On this
occasion, the teachers did not directly correct the answer, but providing correct
form so that the students would consider their utterances. Related to teacher B, an
example of metalinguistic feedback when adding information as the following
(data from observation 5)
18
T : what is the purpose of this text?
S : chicken soup
T : procedure text usually indicates with how to make or how to use
S : C sir (how to make chicken soup)
Further explanations are given on the student‟s error, which clear explanations can
guide them towards self repair. Metalinguistic feedback provides complete
information that refers to the student‟s error. It can be seen from data observation
5, teacher gave extra information, therefore students could answer correctly.
DISCUSSION
In this section, the results show explicit correction the most frequent oral
feedback which was used by two participants. As clearly shown in figure 1, the
two participants used explicit correction 12 times based upon 10 observations.
The high frequency of the use of explicit correction may be indicated this
technique is appropriate feedback for student at level junior high school. Since
junior high school students are categorized as teenagers, Brown (2001) stated that
they are an age of transition, confusion, self-consciousness, growing, and
changing bodies and mind. Thus, it is essential to the teacher provides appropriate
oral feedback for their students. Teacher might use explicit correction more to
encourage student‟s awareness of their common mistake. The participants used
explicit correction in the form of phonological errors like mispronunciation and
grammatical error (data observation 4 & 5). These findings are in contrast with the
study from Lyster & Ranta (1997). They found teachers preferred to use recast
19
when students made grammatical errors and recast were used over other types of
oral feedback.
On the other hand, this finding may be illustrated teacher‟s desire to save
time. Since the duration of English for junior high school students was limited,
only 5 hours per week. Onk (2009) stated a teacher is often faced with the lack of
time to reflect in action, because of the necessity to react immediately. Teachers
might be prefers to explain further material for test or assignments, therefore they
use explicit correction for saving time.
Metalinguistic feedback is the third most popular feedback after
clarification request with 14.9 %. The use of this feedback indicates there were
negotiations in teaching learning process between teachers and students. Two
participants gave more chances for their students to active in the classroom. Thus,
the students can take a part in negotiation meaning for teaching learning process.
Since there was assumption that EFL learners are passive students, therefore the
teacher has important role to provide appropriate feedback for classroom
interaction. Brown (2001) in Karim (2004) states that in most EFL (English as
Foreign Language) situations, students are totally dependent on the teacher for
useful linguistics feedback. When teacher adds negotiation meaning giving
feedback, it can increase the participation students. Therefore a successful
teaching learning process occurred. Even though this findings not significant
proved that Metalinguistic feedback is useful for students, but the data from
observation 2 shows the successfulness and there were interactions between
teacher and students.
20
S : (write their answer on white board)
T : look at the pattern again, if there is to be “are” in here, are there so the
answer?
S : there are
However,
metalinguistic
feedback
happened
when
discussing
student‟s
assignments. The teacher„s way of giving feedback was successful. By adding
information related to the question students can answer correctly. An interesting
point in observation 2 is that students already know the correct answer, but they
need to be pushed to say it. The teacher seems to encourage the student to self
repair. Bot (1996) underlines the importance of pushing learners to produce
correct forms themselves after some kind of corrective clue so that they can make
meaningful connections in their brains. This finding is similar with Smith‟s study
(2010) he found metalinguistic feedback and explicit correction were the most
types of feedback.
The findings also show the two participants used clarification request,
elicitation, recast and repetition of error with the percentage (19,1%), (10,6%),
(2,13%) & (2,13%). Recast has the lowest usage from the two participants, it only
happened once during 10 observations. The lowest usage of recast indicates two
participants prefer to use other types of feedback. The result may indicate that
recast has negative meaning for students. Long (1996) in Boyung (2010) defined
recast as any utterances that rephrase an utterances by changing one or more of its
sentence components (subject, verb or object) while still referring to its central
meaning. (Observation 5)
T : what did you do last night Ucup?
21
S : I see TV
T : oh you watched TV, what movies?
S : ganteng-ganteng serigala
Data from observation 5, shows the teacher corrected student‟s utterance without
saying it was wrong. Hence, the teacher assumed students can be aware of their
errors, the word “see” should be replaced by “watched”. It could encourage to self
repair. The main problem is when a student did not realize what the teacher‟s
intension, therefore recast becomes negative form for the student. Nunan (1989)
in Lyster, Saito & Sato (2013) stated mismatches between teachers‟ intentions and
learners‟ interpretations may result in negative effects on learning. Lyster et al
(2013) also found recast has both positive and negative effects. If the learner
perceives the feedback as indication an error has occurred. Those all might be the
reasons teachers rarely use recast.
The findings show the teacher A was dominant in giving feedback rather
than teacher B. It may stands for teacher‟s perspectives about oral feedback.
Teacher‟s beliefs play central role in teaching learning process. Moreover, theirs‟
beliefs affect what teachers say and do in the classroom. Johnson (1992) in
Kartchava (2006) found teacher‟s choice of methodological approach as well as
types of instruction they implemented consistently reflected their theoretical
beliefs. In other words, teachers used theirs‟ beliefs to provide appropriate
feedback for their students.
Teacher‟s experiences might also influence the providing of types oral
feedback. If teachers had very limited teaching experiences, it might be affected
on providing types of oral feedback. Such as, they applied their ideas about
22
effective teaching learning process based on their own experiences. The
correlation between types oral feedback and teacher‟s beliefs is interesting. The
two participants used different types of feedback indicate that they have their own
perspective toward oral feedback.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of the current study was to find out the types of oral feedback
were used by English teacher in junior high school. Since several teachers seem to
provide monotone and limited feedback.
Teacher oral feedback plays an important role in teaching learning process
for junior high school students. According to Lyster & Ranta (1997) there are six
types of oral feedback, recast, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback,
elicitation, repetition of error and explicit correction. The participants used all
types of oral feedback from Lyster & Ranta (1997). Explicit correction is the
most frequent oral feedback used by the two participants. The teachers used
explicit correction for correcting student‟s grammatical and pronunciation errors.
The second highest is clarification request (19,1%), then metalinguitic feedback
(14,9%), elicitation (10,6%), repetition of error (2,13) and the last one is recast
(2,13).
There are some possibilities factors why explicit correction, clarification
request and metalinguistic feedback were more dominant rather than other types
of feedback. The teachers may be considering learner‟s age and student‟s feelings,
since junior high school students categorize as teenagers not adult learners as
23
suggested by Brown (2001). Moreover, teacher‟s experiences and their beliefs
toward oral feedback could be influent in providing feedback for students.
However the participants used all types of oral feedback, but the proportion in
giving feedback was limited. Based upon 10 observations that had been
conducted, only 47 feedbacks occurred in the classroom.
The present study, however, makes several noteworthy contributions to
teachers. This result of this study enhance teacher understanding toward several
types oral feedback. Moreover, this study can give informations for teachers to
provide varieties of oral feedback. It also helps teachers in designing appropriate
feedback for the students, since there are several factors influent corrective
feedback. Furthermore, this study can beneficial for future teachers.
This research has some limitations. The first one is limited of time in
observation, I could only observe 10 times during two months. In which I
expected more to get extra observation, moreover I had to follow teacher‟s
schedule. The second one, there were only two teachers who were willing to be
observed.
For the future study, I hope the researcher not only finds out types of oral
feedback used by teachers, but also the reason why teachers give oral feedback for
their students. In addition, it will be interesting if included learner‟s perspectives
and teacher‟s beliefs about oral feedback in the next study. Also, some
methodology such as interviews should be used for the next research.
24
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was accomplished with help of many people. First, I would
like thank to Allah SWT, because Allah give me soul that never loses faith. Then,
my Prophet Muhammad PBUH as my inspiration to write my thesis.
I would like to appreciate and thanks for my supervisor ibu Anita
Kurniawati M.Hum and Ibu Victoria Usadya Palupi, M.A-ELT because their
patience and kindness on guiding me until I could finish my thesis. Intan has been
a friend and mentor. My old friends Anjanis, Yogi, Remon, Yudis, Robi, Lilik,
Andris, Desi, Ika Sinta, Ria, Chintia thanks for sharing joyful moments for me.
A special words for my family due to support and motivate throughout the
whole thesis process. I am indebted to the participants for the patience and
dedication to my thesis. The last but not least, I am also indebted to Febriana
Sukma Ramadhani, thanks for always beside me.
Finally, I would say thanks all lectures and staffs Faculty of Language and
Literature for everything during 4 years.
25
REFERENCES
Al-Faki, M.I. (2013). Techniques Used by Teachers in Correcting Students‟ Oral
Errors in an Omani Boys School”. Theory and Practice in Language
Studies, Vol. 3, No. 10, pp. 1770-1783. Finland: Academy Publisher
Manufactured.
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment
in Education 5(1), 7-74.
Bond, L., Smith, T., Baker, W., & Hattie, J. (2000). The certification system of the
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards: A construct and
consequential validity study. Washington DC: National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards.
Brown, H.D. (2001).Teaching by Principles: An interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy. (Second Edition). San Francisco: Longman.
Chastain K. (1988). Developing second language skills Theory to practice. New
York: Harcourt Brace Jovanich, Inc.
De Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language
Learning, 46, 529- 555.).
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C.
Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second
language acquisition (pp. 114-138). New York: Cambridge University Press
Edith H.M., Rosario R. C. & Griselda M. (2010). Oral feedback by EFL
teachers at Universidad de Quintana Roo. Mexico, : FEL international.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language leaming and teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective
feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 28, 339-368.
Fathman, A.K., Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus
on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing (pp.
178-190). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hamed, E. (2003). The effect of two co-operative learning strategies on
developing oral communication competence and attitudes towards
26
cooperative learning among secondary school students. Unpublished M.A
thesis, Faculty of Educationm, Al-Azhar University.
Hampton, S. (1994). In Jack J. Richard, Patrick B. Gallo, Willy A. Renandya
(2008). Exploring teacher’s belief and the processes of change. Seameo
regional language centre, Singapore.
Hattie, J. (1999). Influences on student learning. Unpublished inaugural lecture
presented at the University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Hattie, J. (2003). „Teachers Make a Difference: What is the Research Evidence?‟
http://www.leadspace.govt.nz/leadership/arti-cles/teachers-make-adifference.php.
Johnson, K.E. (1994). The emerging beliefs and instructuctional practices of
preservice English as Second Language teachers. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 10 (4), 439-452.
Karim, K.M. (2004). Teachers' perceptions, attitudes and expectations about
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in post-secondary education in
Bangladesh. Unpublished master thesis, University of Victoria.
Kartchava, E. (2006). Corrective feedback: Novice ESL Teachers’ Beliefs and
Practices. Concordia University.
Krashen, Stephen. (1996). Under Attack: The Case Against Bilingual Education.
Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates retrieve on September, 23
http://www.languagepolicy.net/archives/Krashen3.htm
Lee, Boyoung. (2010). Effects of task and feedback types on Korean adult ESL
learners' oral proficiency. English Teaching, 65(2), 101-130.
Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll
(Ed.), Second Language Writing (pp. 57-68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Lin, H. (2009). Patterns of Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake in ESL Low,
Intermediate, and Advanced Level Speaking Classrooms (PHD
Dissertation). Alliant International University, San Diego.
Lumpe, A., Haney, J., & Czerniak, C.M. (2000). Assessing teacher beliefs about
their science teaching context. Journal of Research in science teaching,
275-292.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake:
Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
27
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato M (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second
language
classrooms.
Language
Teaching,
46,
pp
140
doi:10.1017/S0261444812000365.
Mahdi,D. & El Shaadany, N (2013). Oral Feedback in the EFL classroom.
Fakulteten för lärande och Samhälle, Malmö högskola.
Mignon J. , Anne, D. L & Meike, K. (2013). Giving oral feedback in a bilingual
context. Utrecht University.
Oonk, W. (2009). Theory-enriched practical knowledge in mathematics teacher
education . Chapter 2: Theory and practice in teacher education. Doctoral
Thesis, Leiden University.
Richards, Jack C. and Lockhart, Charles. (1996). Reflective teaching in second
language classrooms. New York: Cambridge University press 1996.
Rydahl, Susanna (2005). Oral Feedback in the English Classroom: Teachers’
Thoughts and Awareness. Karlstads Universitet.
Smith, H. (2010). Correct Me if I'm Wrong: Investigating the Preferences in Error
Correction Among Adult English Language Learners. (MA thesis 2010).
University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida.
Voerman, L.(2012). et al., Types and frequencies of feedback interventions in
classroom interaction in secondary education, Teaching and Teacher
Education (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.06.006.
XieNan. (2007). “A study of spoken transfer errors of tertiary- level EFL
learners”. English. Edu, Vol.7. 2007.
28