ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS.
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION --- i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS --- ii
ABSTRACT --- iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS --- iv
LIST OF FIGURES --- ix
LIST OF TABLES --- x
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1.1Background of the Study --- 1
1.2Statement of the Problems --- 3
1.3Purpose of the Study --- 4
1.4Significance of the Study --- 4
1.5Scope of the Study --- 4
1.6Clarification of Terms --- 5
(2)
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu CHAPTER II: THEORITICAL REVIEW
2.1Corrective Feedback--- 6
2.1.1 Types of Corrective Feedback --- 7
2.1.1.1 Recast --- 8
2.1.1.2Explicit Correction --- 10
2.1.1.3Repetition --- 11
2.1.1.4Clarification Request --- 12
2.1.1.5Metalinguistic Feedback --- 13
2.1.1.6Elicitation --- 14
2.1.1.7Paralinguistic Signal --- 16
2.1.1.8Translation --- 16
2.1.2 Benefits and Drawbacks of Corrective Feedback --- 18
2.1.2.1Benefits --- 18
2.1.2.2Drawbacks --- 20
2.1.3 Factors Influencing the Use of Corrective Feedback --- 23
2.1.3.1Internal Factors --- 23
2.1.3.2Eksternal Factors --- 26
2.2Uptake --- 27
(3)
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
2.3Students’ Attitude --- 32
2.4Previous Studies --- 34
2.5Concluding Remarks --- 37
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY 3.1Setting --- 38
3.2Participants --- 38
3.3Research Design --- 39
3.4Data Collection Techniques --- 40
3.4.1 Observation --- 40
3.4.2 Interview --- 41
3.5Data Analysis --- 43
3.5.1 Analyzing the Data from Video Recording --- 43
3.5.2 Analyzing the Data from Interview --- 46
3.5.3 Concluding Remarks --- 46
CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 4.1Oral Corrective Feedback for Students of Different Proficiency Levels --- 47
(4)
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
4.1.1.1Recast --- 49
4.1.1.2Elicitation --- 52
4.1.1.3Metalinguistic Feedback --- 54
4.1.1.4Translation --- 56
4.1.1.5Clarification Request --- 58
4.1.1.6Explicit Correction --- 60
4.1.1.7Repetition --- 62
4.1.1.8Paralinguistic Signal --- 63
4.1.2 Data Gained from Interview with the Teacher --- 65
4.2The Type of Corrective Feedback Contributing More to the Uptake --- 69
4.2.1 Data gainned from Observation --- 69
4.2.1.1Uptake Following Corrective Feedback In Low Level --- 69
4.2.1.2Uptake Following Corrective Feedback In Mid Level --- 73
4.2.1.3Uptake Following Corrective Feedback In High Level --- 76
4.2.2 Data Gained from Interview with the Teacher --- 77
(5)
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
4.3.1 Cognitive Component --- 78
4.3.2 Affective Component --- 81
4.3.3 Behavioral Component --- 84
4.4Concluding Remarks --- 86
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION, LIMITATION, AND RECOMENDATION 5.1Conclusion--- 87
5.2Limitation--- 88
5.3Recomendation --- 89
REFERENCES --- 91
(6)
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
LIST OF FIGURES
2.1 Attitude Component --- 33
4.1 The Use of Recast in All Proficiency Levels --- 50
4.2 The Use Elicitation in All Proficiency Levels --- 52
4.3 The Use Metalinguistic Feedback in All Proficiency Levels--- 54
4.4 The Use Translation in All Proficiency Levels --- 56
4.5 The Use Clarification Request in All Proficiency Levels --- 58
4.6 The Use Explicit Correction in All Proficiency Levels --- 60
4.7 The Use Repetition in All Proficiency Levels --- 62
(7)
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
LIST OF TABLES
2.1 Types of Oral Corrective Feedback --- 7
2.2 Taxonomy of Corrective Feedback Strategy --- 18
3.1. Categorization of Corrective Feedback --- 44
3.2 Categorization of Uptake --- 45
4.1 The Distribution of Corrective Feedback --- 48
4.2. Uptake Following Corrective Feedback in Low Level --- 70
4.3 Uptake Following Corrective Feedback in Mid Level --- 73
(8)
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents some aspects related to the background of the study. It also includes the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the significance of the study, the scope of the study, clarification of terms, and the thesis organization.
1.1 Background of the Study
In second language learning classrooms, teacher usually provides feedback
to correct students’ erroneous utterance. This kind of feedback is known as
corrective feedback. According to Ellis (2009), corrective feedback refers to the
teacher’s responses to the students’ utterance containing linguistic error. The
responses can consist of indication that an error has been committed, provision of the correct target language form, metalinguistic information about the nature of error, or any combination of these (Ellis, et al, 2006 and Ellis, 2009).
Corrective feedback has various types. Lyster and Ranta (1997) develop six types of corrective feedback. They are explicit correction, recast, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation and repetition. The same type of corrective feedback is also offered by Panova and Lyster (2002) with the addition of translation and Ellis (2009) with the addition of paralinguistic signal. In conclusion, corrective feedback may come in eight different forms.
Corrective feedback is found to have positive influence on the students’
second language acquisition. Through corrective feedback, the students will be aware of their error (Schmidt, 2001; Swain, 2010; Corpuz, 2011; and Jeong, 2013). They will realize that there is a gap between what they have already said and the correct rule of the target language (Long, 1996; Rutherhood and White in Hashimoto, 2002; Beuningen, 2010; Park, 2010, and Vanpatten in Ellis, 2009, Swain, 2010, and Corpuz, 2011). This can promote improvement in their second
(9)
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
language production (Park, 2010) and contribute to their acquisition in a long term (Chaudron in Ellis, 1994 and Vanpatten in Ellis, 2009).
Apart from the positive effect offered by corrective feedback, there are several factors influencing the use of corrective feedback in the classroom
activities. One of them is students’ language proficiency levels. Students’ language proficiency levels may influence the teacher’s choice of corrective feedback types (see Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Kennedy, 2010; Ajideh and Aghdam, 2012; Al-Naqbi, 2009; and Anghari and Amirzadeh, 2011). For the intermediate and advance students, for instance, the teacher tends to use corrective feedback types in which the correct form is not provided and force them to correct the error by themselves (Kennedy, 2010). This is because the students are assumed to have more linguistic knowledge about the target language than the beginning students (Kennedy, 2010). In contrast, for the beginning students, who may not have as much knowledge about the target language, the teacher provides corrective feedback in which the repair work is actually provided, such as explicit correction and recast (Kennedy, 2010).
In other countries, the studies relating to the use of corrective feedback for
students’ of different proficiency levels have been widely conducted. In the case of recast in which the teachers reformulate the students’ error, for instance, Lyster
and Ranta (1997) found that teacher tended to use for the beginning and advanced students. Ajideh and Aghdam (2012) study discovered that recast was used not only for the beginning and advanced students, but also for the intermediate one. On the contrary to those two studies, Anghari and Amirzadeh (2011) study revealed that the teacher reduced the use of recast for the advanced students and incorporated others types of corrective feedback such as clarification request. This
is similar to Kennedy’s study (2010) which found that recast was only used to correct the error produced by the beginning students. For the intermediate and advanced students, the teacher used other types of corrective feedback in which there is no correct form, such as metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, clarification request, and repetition.
(10)
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Meanwhile, in Indonesia, most studies (e.g Khaerunisa, 2002; Jarkasi, 2007; and Maolida, 2013) focused on investigating the implementation of corrective
feedback on students’ spoken error, students’ uptake, the teacher’s role in giving corrective feedback to the students’ spoken error, the type of error that teacher prefers to respond, and the strategy that teacher chooses to employ in treating the error. The studies have depicted the use of corrective feedback in classroom
activities, but have not touched upon other factors, such as students’ language
proficiency levels.
Based on the facts above, this study is intended to observe and explore the oral corrective feedback that a teacher provides for the students of different proficiency levels. In addition, the study also attempts to investigate the types of
corrective feedback contributing to more uptake and the students’ attitude to the
use of oral corrective feedback. It is expected that the findings of this study will offer a different insight in term of the use of oral corrective feedback in the foreign language classroom.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Based on the explanation in the background of the study above, there are three research questions that will be answered in this study. They are:
1. What types of oral corrective feedback does a teacher provide for the students in low, mid, and high proficiency levels?
2. What are the types of oral corrective feedback contributing to more uptake
in low, mid, and high proficiency levels?
3. What attitude do the students of different proficiency levels hold to the oral corrective feedback used by a teacher in the classroom activity?
(11)
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
1.3 Purpose of the Study
This study is intended to:
1. Discover the types of oral corrective feedback that a teacher provides for
the students in low, mid, and high proficiency levels.
2. Discover the types of oral corrective feedback contributing to more uptake
in low, mid, and high proficiency levels.
3. Discover the attitude of the students of different proficiency levels toward
the oral corrective feedback used by a teacher in the classroom activity.
1.4 Significance of the Study
This study is considerably significant in three aspects. Theoretically, the result of this study is expected to enrich the literature of English teaching since it offers a different insight on the use oral corrective feedback in classroom activities. Practically, the result of this study can provide information regarding
the actual condition of the teacher’s use of oral corrective feedback for students of
different proficiency levels, the types of corrective feedback that lead to more uptake, and the students’ attitude to the use of oral corrective feedback. Professionally, the result of this study can be made as guidance for teachers so that they can carefully select the types of oral corrective feedback to correct
students’ errors.
1.5 Scope of the Study
Since corrective feedback can be used in both written and oral language, this study mainly focuses on the second one. The study only examines the types of corrective feedback used by a teacher across beginning, intermediate, and advance levels, the types of corrective feedback contributing to more uptake, and the
(12)
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Regarding the site and participants, this study will be conducted in one of the department in a polytechnique in Bandung. A teacher and first year students will be selected as participants. The students are selected since they are considered to have heterogeneous levels of English proficiency.
1.6 Clarification of Terms
Oral Corrective Feedback: The feedback that the students receive on the
error they make in their oral target language production.
Students’ Proficiency Levels: The degree of skill in which the students can use the target language. In this study, students’ proficiency levels deals with how well the students can speak.
Uptake: The students’ response to theteacher’s corrective feedback.
Students’ Attitude: Students’ tendency to response to the implementation of
corrective feedback. It has three components, which are cognitive (belief), affective (feeling), and behavioral (action).
1.7 Thesis Organization
This thesis is started with introduction chapter, which contains background, research questions, research objectives, scope of the study, and thesis organization. The second chapter is mainly designed to review theories that will be used in the study. The third chapter provides some information on methodology which includes research design, site and participants, data collection method, and data analysis.
Next, the fourth chapter of this study covers the report on the implementation of corrective feedback for the students of different proficiency levels, the types of
corrective feedback contributing to more uptake, and the students’ attitude to the corrective feedback that a teacher uses in the classroom activity. The last chapter, chapter five, presents a conclusion and suggestion for further research.
(13)
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY
This chapter deals with some important aspects related to the methodology of the study covering research setting, participants, research design, data collection techniques, and data analysis.
3.1 Setting
This study was conducted in one of department in a polytechnique in Bandung. There were several reasons in choosing the site as the research site. Firstly, the department has given greater attention to English proficiency in its curriculum. It was indicated by the inclusion of English course in each semester. Besides, some activities in the classroom focused more on improving students speaking skills, such as role play, presentation, and interviewing. These activities fit with the researcher’s intention to investigate the occurrence of oral corrective feedback.
Another reason was related to access. The research site was fully accessible. The researcher was fully supported and permitted by either head of the program or teacher to conduct the observation in the classroom. The other department, especially the teacher, was reluctant to take a part of the research since they view it as a threat.
3.2 Participants
Participants of the study were an English teacher and thirty six first year students. The teacher was an English teacher who had more than five years teaching experience. She was consistent in using English as the language instruction in the classroom. She also used to give the correction or feedback for the students. Thus, this teacher was relevant to the purpose of this study which aimed to investigate the use of oral corrective feedback in the classroom activity.
(14)
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
The selection of the first year students is based on the fact that they actively engaged in the classroom interaction. Moreover, they were heterogeneous in term of English proficiency levels. Based on the rubric scored by the teacher, there were 11 students categorized as low proficiency, 21 as mid proficiency, and 4 as high proficiency. The heterogeneous level of students’ proficiency was put into consideration to support the investigation of the use oral corrective feedback for students of different proficiency levels.
3.3 Research Design
This study was designed as a qualitative case study. A qualitative approach was appropriate to be employed since this study took transcript of lesson to find the use of oral corrective feedback for students of different proficiency levels (Nunan and Bailey, 2009, p. 413). To make a clear description, some qualitative data were quantified to show the number, percentage, and distribution of oral corrective feedback for students of different proficiency levels. Regarding this, Nunan and Bailey state:
All qualitative data can be quantified in some ways. In other words, thing can be quantified in qualitative data. In fact, there is almost no limits to the things that can be counted in qualitative data sets... (Nunan and Bailey, 2009, p.414)
Meanwhile, a case study design has been chosen for four reasons. Firstly, this study was conducted in naturally occurred situation and context without manipulating variables (Nunan and Bailey, 2009). Secondly, this study treated oral corrective feedback as single case that is investigated (Heighman and Croker, 2009; Stake in Creswell, 2009; and Yin in Emilia, 2008). Thirdly, the case in this study has physical boundary (this study was conducted only in one department), temporal boundary (this study investigated several lesson session which had beginning and an end) and bounded instance (this study focused on one classroom with a teacher and her students) (Nunan and bailey, 2009, p 162). Lastly, the study used more than one data collection techniques (classroom observation, interview, and rubric) (Heighman and Croker, 2009 and Stake in Creswell, 2009). To
(15)
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
investigate the teacher’s oral corrective feedback strategy for the students of different proficiency levels, three data collection techniques (classroom observation, rubric, and interview) were used. To discover the types of corrective feedback that contribute to more uptake, the data were obtained from classroom observation and rubric. Meanwhile, to draw a picture of students’ attitude to the teacher’s corrective feedback, the data were gained through observation and interview which will be discussed subsequently.
3.4 Data Collection Techniques
This section describes the procedure utilized to collect the data. There were two data collection techniques employed in this study: Observation and interview. By using these two data collection techniques, this study was expected to provide triangulated findings and analysis.
3.4.1 Observation
The purpose of observation was to record the use of oral corrective feedback that a teacher provided for low, mid, and high levels students. It was also used to record the students’ uptake in response to the teacher’s oral corrective feedback. Moreover, it was also utilized to record the students’ actual behavior, thought, and feeling.
To achieve these three purposes, the classroom interaction was observed. The observation was conducted three times. It was conducted from October to November, 2013 with each meeting lasting in 150 minutes. In observing the classroom interaction, video recording was used (the transcribing result can be seen in Appendix 1). The use of video recording was not hidden. In this case, the place where the video recording put was highly considered in order to anticipate the unclear view or voice. The researcher was aslo presented in the classroom to make sure that the recorder worked well.
(16)
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
During the classroom observation, the researcher also filled the observation sheet which was prepared before. The observation sheet was developed based on the categorization of oral corrective feedback proposed by Lyster and Ranta (1997), Lyster and Panova (2002), and Ellis (2009). The data from the observation sheet was used to support the data gained from the video recording. Besides, the researcher also wrote some important things on the field note as suggested by McMillan and Schumacher (2001). This note was aimed to record unspoken thought, feeling, or behavior. The description of observation sheet and field note can be seen in Appendix 4.
In addition, the researcher also gave a rubric for the teacher to be scored. The rubric was used to capture the information of students’ oral proficiency level in English. The rubric was adapted from Rost’s (2005) speaking rubric. The rubric used 4-point scale. The students who get score 4 - 8 were
categorized as low achievers, 9 - 13 as middle achievers, and 14 – 16 as high
achievers. The description of speaking rubric can be found in the Appendix 2.
3.4.2 Interview
The interview was second data collection used in this study. A semi-structured interview was chosen due to its flexibility to confirm the respondents’ answers. In a semi structured interview, the researcher’s question did not exactly follow the interview guideline which was made before, but it was developed based on the respondents’ answers (Merriam, 1998). Through this, it was expected that the data findings could deepen and enrich.
The interview was employed for both teacher and students. For the
teacher, it was employed to reveal the teacher’s opinion on corrective
feedback used for low, mid, and high proficiency students. It also employed to reveal the teacher’s choices on applying certain type of corrective feedback for low, mid, and high proficiency students. Besides, it was employed to confirm the data findings obtained from observation.
(17)
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
For the teacher, the interview’s questions were divided into three parts. (see Appendix 5). First was grand tour question that involved four questions. The first four questions were intended as the starting question that led the teacher to focus on her oral corrective feedback. Second part was related to the teacher’s choice to employ certain types of oral corrective feedback for low, mid, and high achievement students. Third part was related to the other factors which might influence the use of corrective feedback in the classroom.
Meanwhile, the interview with the students was employed to reveal their
attitude to the teacher’s oral corrective feedback. According to Muller (1996)
and Azwar (1997), interview can be used to measure attitude since it can directly asked what people think or how they feel. As a result, greater depth and detail of response would be got. Besides, interview with the students also employed to confirm the data obtained from observation. Only nine students are chosen as the interviewees. They are chosen based on their proficiency levels, especially speaking skill: three students from lowest level, three from the middle level, and the other three from the cleverest level.
For the students, the questions of the interview were developed based on the component of attitude proposed by Oskamp and Schultz (2005), which were cognitive, affective, and behavioral component. The question were divided into four parts (see Appendix 6). First part was related to the implementation of teacher’s oral corrective feedback. Second part was related to the students’ belief of oral corrective feedback. Third part was consisted of several questions which asked their feeling after they received oral corrective feedback from the teacher. The last part asked the students’ behavior after getting the correction from the teacher.
The interview was recorded to get the verbatim data (Alwasillah, 2010). The interview was conducted in the classroom at the end of the lesson. The interview lasted for about 5-10 minutes for each participant. The interview was conducted in Bahasa Indonesia to get clear understanding of what the
(18)
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
researcher and participants uttered. The interview was later transcribed and translated into English. The data from interview will be presented and discussed in Chapter 4.
3.5 Data Analysis
This section discussed the data analysis of this study. The analysis contained three data collection techniques used: classroom observation and interview. The following part explains the analysis of each collected data.
3.5.1 Analyzing the Data from Video Recording
The process of analysis started from the transcribing the data gained through video recording. The transcription was focused on oral production. Lesson opening and closing were also included in transcription since on the opening and closing the teacher gave the opportunity for the students to speak up.
The strategy of transcribing video recording was adapted from Ellis’s
transcription system (In Nunan and Bailey, 2009) below:
1. Teacher and students are designated by initials. T = Teacher, S= students, Ss= more than one students.
2. Pause is indicated in parentheses with one or more periods. For
instance (.) indicates pause of second or shorter.
3. XXX is used to indicate speech that could not be deciphered.
4. Phonetic transcription is used when the students’ pronunciation is markedly different from the teacher’s pronunciation and also when it was not possible to identify the English word the students were using. 5. ... Indicates an incomplete utterance.
(19)
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
After the transcription process was finished, the data were coded and classified based on the categorization of oral corrective feedback from Lyster and Ranta (1999), Lyster and Panova (2002), and Ellis (2009). There were eight types of corrective feedback namely recast, explicit correction, elicitation, metalinguistic feedback, clarification request, repetition, translation, and paralinguistic sign.
Afterward, the categorization of students’ proficiency levels was done. As previously mentioned, the categorization of students’ proficiency levels was based on the Rost’s (2005) speaking rubric which was scored by the teacher, in which there were 11 students categorized as low achievers, 21 students as middle achievers, and 4 students as high achievers.
The categorization of teacher’s oral corrective feedback was then distributed based on students’ proficiency levels. For instance, which types of corrective feedback was given to low, mid, and high proficiency students. The number and percentage of teacher’s oral corrective feedback were put in the table as shown below:
Table 3.1
Categorization of Corrective Feedback based on Lyster and Ranta (1997), Lyster and Panova (2002), and Ellis (2009)
Types of oral corrective feedback
Students’ proficiency levels
Low Mid High
No % No % No %
Recast
Explicit correction Elicitation
(20)
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
The result of categorizing and distribution will be discussed in Chapter 4. The discussion will be divided into eight parts, based on the types of corrective feedback. In the discussion, the researcher will describe the types of oral corrective feedback given by the teacher by explaining the distribution, providing the example, describing the context, and interpreting their occurrences to answer the first research question of the study.
To investigate the types of corrective feedback contribute to more uptake, the data were coded and classified based on the categorization of uptake from Lyster and Ranta (1997). There were two types of uptake, namely repair and need repair. Repair consisted of four types of uptake, which are repetition, incorporation, self- and peer-correction. Meanwhile, need repair consisted of six forms of uptake, which are acknowledgement, same error, different error, partial error, off target, and hesitation. The number and percentage of uptake in each student’s proficiency level were put in the Table as can be seen below:
Table 3.2 Categorization of Uptake by Lyster and Ranta (1997)
Clarification request Repetition
Translation Paralinguistic signal Total
Types of Corrective
Feedback
UPTAKE
Total Uptake
NO UPTAKE
Repair Need Repair
R I SC PC AC SE DE OT H PR
Recast Explicit correction Elicitation
(21)
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
R=repetition; I=incorporation; SC= sefl-corretion; PR=peer correction; AC=acknowledgement; SE= same error; DE= different error; OT =off target; H=hesitation; PR=partial correction
The result of categorizing and distribution will be discussed in Chapter 4. The discussion will be divided into three parts, based on the students’ proficiency levels. In the discussion, the researcher will describe the percentage of uptake and interpreted their occurrences to answer the second research question of the study.
3.5.2 Analyzing the Data from Interview
The interview data were analyzed to confirm the findings obtained from the observation. In analyzing the interview data, the researcher did several steps. First, the interview data were transcribed. Second, the transcribed data were categorized based on the response given by a teacher and students. Third, the result of categorization was discussed and used to contradict or
confirm the findings form observation. The discussion of the students’
interview, particularly, will be based on the component of attitude proposed by Oskamp and Schultz (2009) in order to answer the third research question of the study.
3.6 Concluding Remarks
This chapter provides the information on research methodology used in this study. There are three important points reviewed in this chapter. First, this study was qualitative case study. Second, the data were collected from two sources including classroom observation and interview. Third, the data analysis was conducted based on the categorization of oral corrective feedback from Lyster and
Metalingustic feedback Clarification request Repetition Translation Paralinguistic signal
(22)
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Ranta (1997), Panova and Lyster (2002), and Ellis (2009); categorization of uptake from Lyster and Ranta (1997); and attitude component by Oskamp and Schultz (2005). Further, the data analysis and interpretation will be presented in the next chapter.
(23)
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION, LIMITATION OF THE STUDY, AND RECOMENDATION
This chapter discloses conclusion of the data analysis and discussion that are presented in the previous chapter. It also reveals several gaps in some areas. These gaps are discussed as the limitation of the study. Then, the limitation provides several recommendations for further studies in the same area.
5.1Conclusion
There are three significant conclusions that can be inferred from this study. First, oral corrective feedback can be used in a classroom with students of multi-level abilities with one enabling condition, which is the appropriateness of
corrective feedback with the students’ ability. It is found that each type of corrective feedback has different effect on the students’ uptake in each level. The
corrective feedback which provides the students with the corrected form of their error, such as recast and explicit correction, seems to work better with lower and middle achievers. Meanwhile, the corrective feedback which prompts the students to do self-repair, such as elicitation, metalinguistic feedback, seems to be beneficial for middle and higher achievers.
Second, the teacher tends to give corrective feedback as spontaneous correction. In other words, giving correction tends to be instinctive. This is shown from the inconsistency of findings between interview and observation data. From this inconsistency, it can be inferred that the teacher has good knowledge of corrective feedback, but she does not put her knowledge into use.
Third, even though the corrective feedback is not implemented effectively, the students thought that corrective feedback is beneficial. Unfortunately, some of low level students discourage by the correction from the teacher. Many of them
(24)
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
feel embarrassed and afraid of making mistake after getting the correction form the teacher. This means that the teacher needs to pay attention to the students’ feeling in giving the correction. Corrective feedback, in this case, might be delivered carefully in a positive way. Hence, it reduces the risk of blaming the students. The teacher also should be aware that giving correction should not be spontaneous, and thus it can maximize the benefit of corrective feedback for the students.
All the above conclusions indicate that the teacher plays a key role in the implementation of oral corrective feedback. In this case, the teacher should know which types of error that should be corrected in the spoken language and how to correct it. The teacher even should know and be aware of what type of oral corrective feedback strategy that should be used to correct the error made by low,
mid, and high level students. Moreover, the teacher should know the students’
attitude to the implementation of oral corrective feedback since in certain condition it might discourage the students.
5.2Limitation
This study is a specific context study. As mentioned in Chapter 3, this study was only conducted in one of department in a polytechnique in Bandung. Therefore, the result of this study cannot be generalized to other contexts.
This study is also limited in the time of observation. The observation of this study is only conducted in three meetings. If it is conducted in a longer period of time, the result of this study will be richer.
Besides, the research design in this study only focuses on qualitative design. This study just describes and explains the real condition of the implementation corrective feedback in the classroom activity. Besides, it also just describes the
students’ attitude descriptively. If it uses quantitative study or mix method design, it allows for statistical data to figure out the effectiveness of some types of
(25)
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
corrective feedback for certain students’ levels and students’ attitude to the implementation of corrective feedback.
Moreover, the results of this study only provide the information of types of corrective feedback that a teacher provides and the types of corrective feedback that contribute to more uptakes. This cannot be used to determine certain type of
corrective feedback is beneficial for students’ language acquisition. It is because acquisition is a complex process which needs longer period of time to be discovered.
5.3Recommendation
Based on the limitation of the study mentioned above, this study offers several recommendations for further study in the field of oral corrective feedback.
The research of oral corrective feedback for students’ of different proficiency
levels is suggested to be conducted in various contexts and settings. Thus, the similarity and dissimilarity of the result can be found. The research which investigates the whole aspect of oral corrective feedback in a longer period of time is also recommended to be conducted since it can give a holistic picture of the
phenomenon of oral corrective feedback for students’ of different proficiency
levels. In addition, a longitudinal study also can be conducted to discover the
effect of oral corrective feedback for students’ second language acquisition.
Furthermore, this study recommends the teacher to apply oral corrective
feedback by suiting them with the students’ proficiency levels. In line with the findings mentioned above, it is suggested that the teacher employs input providing feedback for low proficiency students, input providing feedback and output prompting feedback for mid proficiency student, and output prompting feedback for high proficiency students. However, it does not mean that input providing feedback cannot be used for high proficiency students since this feedback might be beneficial in certain condition. For instance, it will be beneficial when what the
(26)
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
The teacher also should be more reflective in giving the correction for the students. In other words, giving correction should not be spontaneous. The teacher should think for a while of what is the best corrective feedback that should be given for the students in each level. The teacher also should give corrective
feedback carefully by considering the students’ feeling. At last, training to enhance teacher’s understanding of oral corrective feedback should be conducted.
(1)
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
R=repetition; I=incorporation; SC= sefl-corretion; PR=peer correction; AC=acknowledgement; SE= same error; DE= different error; OT =off target; H=hesitation; PR=partial correction
The result of categorizing and distribution will be discussed in Chapter 4. The discussion will be divided into three parts, based on the students’ proficiency levels. In the discussion, the researcher will describe the percentage of uptake and interpreted their occurrences to answer the second research question of the study.
3.5.2 Analyzing the Data from Interview
The interview data were analyzed to confirm the findings obtained from the observation. In analyzing the interview data, the researcher did several steps. First, the interview data were transcribed. Second, the transcribed data were categorized based on the response given by a teacher and students. Third, the result of categorization was discussed and used to contradict or confirm the findings form observation. The discussion of the students’ interview, particularly, will be based on the component of attitude proposed by Oskamp and Schultz (2009) in order to answer the third research question of the study.
3.6 Concluding Remarks
This chapter provides the information on research methodology used in this study. There are three important points reviewed in this chapter. First, this study was qualitative case study. Second, the data were collected from two sources including classroom observation and interview. Third, the data analysis was conducted based on the categorization of oral corrective feedback from Lyster and Metalingustic
feedback Clarification request Repetition Translation Paralinguistic signal
(2)
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Ranta (1997), Panova and Lyster (2002), and Ellis (2009); categorization of uptake from Lyster and Ranta (1997); and attitude component by Oskamp and Schultz (2005). Further, the data analysis and interpretation will be presented in the next chapter.
(3)
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION, LIMITATION OF THE STUDY, AND RECOMENDATION
This chapter discloses conclusion of the data analysis and discussion that are presented in the previous chapter. It also reveals several gaps in some areas. These gaps are discussed as the limitation of the study. Then, the limitation provides several recommendations for further studies in the same area.
5.1Conclusion
There are three significant conclusions that can be inferred from this study. First, oral corrective feedback can be used in a classroom with students of multi-level abilities with one enabling condition, which is the appropriateness of
corrective feedback with the students’ ability. It is found that each type of corrective feedback has different effect on the students’ uptake in each level. The
corrective feedback which provides the students with the corrected form of their error, such as recast and explicit correction, seems to work better with lower and middle achievers. Meanwhile, the corrective feedback which prompts the students to do self-repair, such as elicitation, metalinguistic feedback, seems to be beneficial for middle and higher achievers.
Second, the teacher tends to give corrective feedback as spontaneous correction. In other words, giving correction tends to be instinctive. This is shown from the inconsistency of findings between interview and observation data. From this inconsistency, it can be inferred that the teacher has good knowledge of corrective feedback, but she does not put her knowledge into use.
Third, even though the corrective feedback is not implemented effectively, the students thought that corrective feedback is beneficial. Unfortunately, some of low level students discourage by the correction from the teacher. Many of them
(4)
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
feel embarrassed and afraid of making mistake after getting the correction form the teacher. This means that the teacher needs to pay attention to the students’ feeling in giving the correction. Corrective feedback, in this case, might be delivered carefully in a positive way. Hence, it reduces the risk of blaming the students. The teacher also should be aware that giving correction should not be spontaneous, and thus it can maximize the benefit of corrective feedback for the students.
All the above conclusions indicate that the teacher plays a key role in the implementation of oral corrective feedback. In this case, the teacher should know which types of error that should be corrected in the spoken language and how to correct it. The teacher even should know and be aware of what type of oral corrective feedback strategy that should be used to correct the error made by low,
mid, and high level students. Moreover, the teacher should know the students’
attitude to the implementation of oral corrective feedback since in certain condition it might discourage the students.
5.2Limitation
This study is a specific context study. As mentioned in Chapter 3, this study was only conducted in one of department in a polytechnique in Bandung. Therefore, the result of this study cannot be generalized to other contexts.
This study is also limited in the time of observation. The observation of this study is only conducted in three meetings. If it is conducted in a longer period of time, the result of this study will be richer.
Besides, the research design in this study only focuses on qualitative design. This study just describes and explains the real condition of the implementation corrective feedback in the classroom activity. Besides, it also just describes the
students’ attitude descriptively. If it uses quantitative study or mix method design, it allows for statistical data to figure out the effectiveness of some types of
(5)
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
corrective feedback for certain students’ levels and students’ attitude to the implementation of corrective feedback.
Moreover, the results of this study only provide the information of types of corrective feedback that a teacher provides and the types of corrective feedback that contribute to more uptakes. This cannot be used to determine certain type of
corrective feedback is beneficial for students’ language acquisition. It is because acquisition is a complex process which needs longer period of time to be discovered.
5.3Recommendation
Based on the limitation of the study mentioned above, this study offers several recommendations for further study in the field of oral corrective feedback.
The research of oral corrective feedback for students’ of different proficiency
levels is suggested to be conducted in various contexts and settings. Thus, the similarity and dissimilarity of the result can be found. The research which investigates the whole aspect of oral corrective feedback in a longer period of time is also recommended to be conducted since it can give a holistic picture of the
phenomenon of oral corrective feedback for students’ of different proficiency
levels. In addition, a longitudinal study also can be conducted to discover the
effect of oral corrective feedback for students’ second language acquisition.
Furthermore, this study recommends the teacher to apply oral corrective
feedback by suiting them with the students’ proficiency levels. In line with the findings mentioned above, it is suggested that the teacher employs input providing feedback for low proficiency students, input providing feedback and output prompting feedback for mid proficiency student, and output prompting feedback for high proficiency students. However, it does not mean that input providing feedback cannot be used for high proficiency students since this feedback might be beneficial in certain condition. For instance, it will be beneficial when what the
(6)
Gartika Pandu B, 2014
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
The teacher also should be more reflective in giving the correction for the students. In other words, giving correction should not be spontaneous. The teacher should think for a while of what is the best corrective feedback that should be given for the students in each level. The teacher also should give corrective
feedback carefully by considering the students’ feeling. At last, training to enhance teacher’s understanding of oral corrective feedback should be conducted.