14 mistakes would not fossilize in their minds. An argument from Ms. T showed the similar idea
which said “Yes, grammar is important in English language teaching because grammar is like
the foundation in everything, like in speaking and writing. If we have good grammar we can speak fluently or use the language appropriately”. Ms. T, My Translation. Furthermore, Mr.
Ed also supported Ms. T‟s statements which said “If we correct students‟ grammatical
mistakes, it can help the students to have a good foundation so that fossilization toward incorrect grammar will not happen
”. Mr. Ed, My Translation.
These two arguments are similar to Han and Odlin ‟s study. Han and Odlin 2006
described that fossilization means the failure in L2 learning process; this is also permanent state of not attaining desire of some L2 competence in learning process. Understanding the
effect of fossilization toward second language or foreign language to students, Ms. S argued that
“Oral grammar correction also helps the teachers to show the mistakes that the students made at a particular time and the teachers can make sure that the students really know the
mistakes that they mad e”. Ms. S, My Translation.
It means that based on the participant‟s teaching experience in using oral grammar correction as shown in the interview results, the students could remember better about the
corrections or evaluations from the teachers because the teachers directly notice, show, and correct students‟ grammatical mistakes.
2. Efficiency in technical problems
In this part, I will discuss about another advantage of using oral grammar correction which is the efficiency in using oral grammar correction in speaking activities. Efficiency
which is meant in this part is about time efficiency in giving direct corrections toward the grammatical mistakes and showing the correct grammatical patterns. So, in brief it means that
teachers could spend less time to show the grammatical mistakes that the students did and
15 give the correction. All of my participants agreed that using oral grammar correction in
speaking activities really helped the teachers to spend less time in showing grammatical mistakes that the students had made, gave the correct grammatical patterns to revise the
mistakes, and also made sure that the students understood the grammatical mistakes and not to do the same grammatical mistakes again in the following teaching and learning process. In
response to the time efficiency in using oral grammar correction, one of my participants gave her argument which said
“It is helpful, because it does not take time and is very efficient because the teacher can dir
ectly correct students‟ mistakes and makes sure that the students understand and also not to do the same mistakes again”. Ms. Y, My Translation.
According to the participant, oral grammar correction did not take much time because the teacher could direct
ly correct students‟ mistakes and could make sure that the students really understood the mistakes they had made. Then the students could remember the correct
patterns because the teacher directly noticed and corrected the grammatical mistakes that the students had made. An idea that comes from another participant in order to give additional
information about it, saying “The students will be more aware if we correct grammatical
mistakes orally rather than in written because the students will pay more attention and aware of their mistakes”. Ms. S, My Translation. Furthermore, another opinion which comes from
Ms. Pt mentioned that “Oral grammar correction gives students opportunities not only notice
their mistakes but also directly use the correct one”. Ms. Pt.
From those participants, it shows that when teachers used oral grammar correction in class, students could also feel the benefit of not having delay time for knowing the correction
and could notice and also understood their grammatical mistakes instantly like what Ms. Pt has mentioned previously. Then, further information shown in the interview also mentioned
that if teachers orally corrected students‟ mistakes, the students would remember it better
than if the teachers did it in written forms. Based on my experience in teaching speaking
16 classes, usually when the teachers gave the correction in written forms, the students would
not pay attention more about their grammatical mistakes compare to when the correction was done orally because the students received no direct corrections when talking, and the chance
of forgetting the correct patterns was higher in the following meetings when corrected using written forms. An argument from Ms. St strengthens this statement, she said:
It is because the students respond much faster on oral grammar correction than written correction as what I have said previously. So when they make grammatical mistakes, they
will be corrected directly about which the correct forms are. By doing this, they will memorize the correct ones instantly in the following meetings that when they almost make
the same mistakes again, they will know from the experience they had in the previous meetings and they will not do the same grammatical mistakes again in the future Ms. St, My
Translation
From those results, conclusion that could be clearly seen was that oral grammar correction seems to be beneficial in terms of time efficiency. Time efficiency was important
to help the students instantly notice their own grammatical mistakes, remembered the correct patterns immediately, and prevented them from making the same grammatical mistakes in the
following meetings, as Tomczyk 2013 mentioned in his study saying that the teacher needs to give the correct forms of grammar to the students so that the students will not do the same
mistakes in the following meetings or future learning. Tomczyk, 2013.
3. Effectiveness toward students’ learning process
