TEACHERS’ CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON STUDENTS’ SPOKEN ERRORS IN SECOND GRADE EFL CLASSROOOMS OF A SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Approval Page ii

Declaration iii

Acknowledgements iv

Abstract v

Table of contents vi

Chapter One Introduction 1

1.1. Background of the study 1

1.2. Research questions 4

1.3. General approach to the study 4

1.4. Significance of the study 4

1.5. Clarification of key terms 5

1.6. Thesis organization 6

Chapter Two Error Correction in EFL Classrooms 8

2.1. Contrastive analysis 8

2.2. Error analysis 10

2.2.1. Errors and mistakes 11

2.2.2. Types of errors 12

2.2.3. Sources of errors 17

2.2.4. Teachers’ attitudes toward errors 20 2.2.5. Error correction strategies for language classrooms 28

Chapter Three Methodology 35

3.1. Research problems 35

3.2. Research Design 36

3.3.1. Research Site 37

3.3.2. Subjects of the study 37

3.3.3. Researcher’s role 40

3.3.4. Phases of data collection 40

3.3.5. Procedures 42

3.3.5.1. Observation 43

3.3.5.2. Interview 44

3.4. Data Analysis 44

Chapter Four Data Analysis 46

4.1. Teachers’ roles in response to the students’ spoken errors 46

4.2. The corrected spoken errors 56

4.3. Teacher’s rationale for correcting the errors 66

4.4. Corrective feedback strategies 69

Chapter Five Conclusion and Suggestion 80

5.1. Conclusion 80

5.2. Suggestion 82

5.2.1. For the next researcher 82

5.2.2. For teachers 83

5.2.3. For government 84

References 85

Appendix A Observation Sheet 89

Appendix B Classroom Observations 100

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the Study

The need for foreign language-proficient citizens appears to become essential in this free trade era. Being proficient in a language to most people may mean being able to communicate orally in the target language. Oral proficiency in a foreign language, for example, can be an important asset in seeking a job. Therefore, many foreign language students consider mastering speaking skill as their primary goal of study (Harlow and Muyskens, 1994 in Hadley, 2001). Moreover, according to Hadley (2001) recent research in second language acquisition has also regarded oral interaction as an important factor in the shaping of the learner’s developing language.

Mastering a foreign language, however, is not a simple process. Brown (1991) contends that there is no ‘quick-fix recipe’ in learning a foreign language. Instead, it requires hard work from the students to learn the language because one language item cannot be acquired in one quick step. Often the students have to stumble on the errors that lead both the students and teachers to frustration. They could not help wondering why the same errors occurred over and over again even though the errors have been pointed out frequently. Do the students’ errors indicate that the learners have failed to master the language?

When contrastive analysis theory dominated the theory of second language acquisition, errors were considered as the result mainly of L1 interference (Lightbown and Spada, 2003). Thus if the students commit errors, it shows that the students have failed to master the target language. Recent theories, however, discover that error is a natural phenomenon in foreign language classrooms. Further, it claims that the error is an indication of a learning process taking place in the learners’ minds.

According to Ellis (2000) learning a foreign language is unlike building a wall like most people used to think, where we put one brick over the other. The process of learning a foreign language is “a U-shaped process where the students are able to produce correct language utterance early on only start making errors with it later” (Ellis, 2000: 23). Learning a language is about restructuring-constructing the knowledge by adding rules, deleting rules and rerestructuring-constructing the whole system (Ellis, 2000). Selinker (in Ellis, 2000) calls this process as “interlanguage”. Hence, Lightbown and Spada (2003) claimed that the more the errors the students committed, the more advanced their language competencies are.

Although the students’ errors are natural phenomena in the language classroom, it is quite difficult to figure out if the teachers should ignore or treat them. If the teachers decided to correct the errors, they will be faced with these questions: which errors should be corrected? And how can teachers help the students to make the errors work for them? The answers to these questions are as complex as learning the language itself. It is even generally accepted that for the last two decades the language practitioners have different opinions on how to deal

3 with the students’ errors (Tedjick and Gortari, 1998). The reason for the debate as Arnold (1999) rightly said is related to the negative impact of correction on the students’ ego. Therefore, correcting the students’ errors may convey, as Magilow (1999:125) puts it

… in many ways …: confrontation, potential discouragement, a focus of forms instead of content, and subtexts of “I know the L2 better than you” and “you failed in spite of your good intentions to succeed”. … each correction subtly reminds students of the asymmetrical power relationship in the classroom – an imbalance that exists in spite of the teachers’ attempts to efface it through encouragement and humor.

This assumption leads some people (such as Krashen and Truscott) to have believed that the negative feedback is unnecessary in language classrooms. Moreover, Dekeyser (1993 in Johnson and Redmond, 2003) stated that error treatment did not improve the students’ oral proficiency at all. The opposing view, on the other hand, believe that error correction is important in language classroom because some studies have shown that if the correction is given in the right way, it can improve the students’ language skills. By providing the students with correction the students can learn which language item they need to work on and which feature they have made progress.

They even argue that the students whose errors are corrected show no feeling of offense. Therefore, they claim that the assumption that the correction makes the students discouraged is untenable. Puchta (1999) notes that the students may react negatively to the correction if they have weak self-concept, or if the teacher overreacts verbally or nonverbally to the errors.

Nevertheless, the teachers are dealing with the students whose characteristics and learning styles varied. Some students may accept corrective

feedback as one process of learning, while the other students may see it as an offense. The teachers want the students to like and respect them, but they also need to treat the errors which may receive negative reaction from some students. This teacher’s pedagogical dilemma is what this study attempts to investigate. This study tries to explore the patterns of senior high school teachers’ corrective feedback on students’ spoken errors. The research would focus on the teachers’ roles in response to the students’ spoken errors, the type of error they prefer to respond, and the strategy they choose to employ in treating the errors.

1.2. Research Questions

There are four questions that this study aims to explore. Those questions are:

1. What roles do the teachers play in response to the students’ spoken errors? 2. What spoken errors do the teachers choose to correct?

3. Why do the teachers correct those errors?

4. What strategies do the teachers employ to correct the students’ spoken errors?

1.3. General Approach to the Study

This study attempts to investigate the teachers’ provision of corrective feedback in the language classrooms. The phenomena under investigation were largely approached using qualitative, descriptive, and interpretive method of inquiry (Maxwell, 1996) and some descriptive quantification of data was employed to find

5 the percentage of the corrected errors and the employed corrective feedback strategies. This approach is suitable for the study since it examines the teachers’ perspective on their actions, and the way in which their belief affects their behavior (Maxwell, 1996).

To elicit data from the field, both preliminary and primary research were conducted. The underlying reason for conducting preliminary research was to gain a brief insight on what was going on in the classroom specifically in terms of corrective feedback. The information gathered from the preliminary research may help the researcher to understand the phenomena encountered in the main study.

1.4. Significance of the Study

Many people believe that English teaching-learning in Indonesia has failed to equip the learners with English competence. Some people claimed that the core of this problem lies on the teacher’s limited competence of the target language. Being non native speakers of English and being the learner language, the Indonesian English teachers are faced with the possibility of their linguistic competence getting fossilized and stabilized. When the teachers’ knowledge is fossilized, it may cause the learners to commit errors and it may be difficult for the teachers to notice the students’ errors. Thus there might be many errors left uncorrected.

Barlett (2002) found in his study that Korean English teachers had difficulty in identifying students’ errors and explaining why some students’ utterances were considered as errors. These phenomena prompted the present study to find out if the

same phenomena occurred in the Indonesian English classrooms. Allwright (1975, in Pannova and Lyster, 1996) said that “the research on teacher feedback had the potential to provide information about the effectiveness of the instructional process and ultimately knowledge about how language learning takes place”.

Hence it is hoped that this study would give picture of how language teaching and learning process occurred in Indonesia, and a glimpse description of teacher’s abilities in identifying errors.

1.5. Clarification of Key Terms

Because of the possible confusion arising from the use of the terminology, a brief review of the definitions of terms is presented as follows:

The first term is corrective feedback. Lyster (2002) stated that there are at least four feedback terminologies: error correction, negative feedback, corrective feedback, and interactional feedback. Schachter (1991, in Lyster and Ranta, 1997) noted that the different labels of feedback reflect different research concerns and approaches to data collection. Corrective feedback is the term used by the teachers in second language classrooms. Thus the term corrective feedback is chosen in the present study to refer to “any behavior following an error that minimally attempts to inform the learner of the fact of error” (Chaudron, 1988 in el Tatawy, n.d.:1). While Lightbown and Spada define corrective feedback as

Any indication to the learners that their use of the target language is incorrect. This includes various responses that the learners receive. When a language learner says, ‘He go to school everyday’, corrective feedback can be explicit, for example, ‘no, you should say goes, not go’ or implicit ‘yes, he goes to school everyday’, and may or may not

7

include metalinguistic information, for example, ‘Don’t forget to make the verb agree with the subject’. (1999, in El Tatawi, n.d.:1)

Hence, the teachers’ corrective feedback is the teachers’ response to the students’ errors to let them know that their utterances contained a particular form that is not acceptable according to the target language norms.

The second term is spoken errors. Spoken errors refer to the students’ deviant oral utterances. The deviant utterances do not necessarily occur in communicative activities in which the students are required to produce their own utterances, but they may also occur during the students reading the text, dialogue or questions and answers from the LKS (students’ workbooks).

1.6. Thesis Organization

Following the introductory chapter is a review of theories that frame the research. The theories reviewed include types of error, error correction strategy from Lyster and Ranta (1997), and teachers’ roles in response to spoken errors which are adapted from Tanner and Green (1998). Chapter 3 provides a detailed discussion on the research method adopted for the study.

The analysis of the data taken from the field is elaborated in chapter four. The sequence of discussions of each part in chapter four is based on the research questions. The explanation in chapter four may be overlapping, the elaborated data in one part may be repeated in another parts. A plausible explanation for this is that the answers to the research questions are interrelated to one another.

The last chapter, chapter 5, discusses the theoretical and practical implications of the findings on the teaching learning activities. The chapter ends with suggestions for future research.

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY

The first step of conducting a research is setting up the questions and objectives of the research, and the next step to take is employing the appropriate method to assist the researcher in collecting and analyzing the data so that the objectives of the research can be accomplished. This chapter describes the methodology used to collect and analyze the data for the present study.

This chapter is divided into six sections. The first section is about the research problems aimed to be explored in the study. The second section discusses the research design. The third section describes the data collection which includes research site, subjects of the study, researcher’s role, phases of data collection, and procedures. The latter elaborated the techniques of data collection: observation and interview. The last section briefly explains how the data are analyzed.

3.1. Research Problems

There are four problems to be explored. Those problems are formulated in the following questions:

1. What roles do the teachers play in response to the students’ spoken errors? 2. What spoken errors do the teachers choose to correct?

3. Why do the teachers correct those errors?

3.2. Research Design

This study is largely qualitative in nature as it attempts to understand a phenomenon of teachers’ decision-making process of giving corrective feedback. The research is interested not only in the process of error-correction, but also in how the teachers’ understanding of correction influences their decisions of correcting the errors. Some descriptive quantification data is utilized to find: (1) the number and percentage of the corrected errors, (2) the employed corrective feedback, and (3) the students’ response following the feedback.

Before the data were gathered, preliminary study was conducted two weeks prior to the main study. The preliminary study was carried out in different site from the main research. The preliminary research was conducted in one of private senior high schools in Cirebon. The aims of having preliminary study were to obtain a general picture of teaching-learning process specifically the correction the teachers provided for the students. The site in which the data were taken was genuine English classrooms which Nunan (1990: 4) defines as “classrooms specifically constituted for the purposes of foreign language learning and teaching”. The classrooms used for conducting the study belong to one of senior high schools in Cirebon. Only after were the data all gathered, they were analyzed to answer the research questions.

3.3. Data Collection

37 3.3.1. Research Site

For ethical reason, the name of the site in which the present study was conducted is not revealed. The site will be addressed as SMA X throughout the paper. SMA X is one of the favorite schools in Cirebon. The categorization of being favorite/good school is based on the annual passing grade the school holds, and in the 2004/2005 school year the passing grade of SMA X was around 19.00 on a scale 30.00.

The reason for choosing senior high school as the research site is due to the assumption that there would be various interesting phenomena of corrective feedback. Moreover, the government of Indonesia is recently very concerned with the English competence of SMA graduates which is still below the expectation. Thus, by carrying out the research, there would reveal some clues of the root of the problem. SMA X is chosen because it is the only school that allows a research to take place. The other schools, either the headmasters or the teachers were reluctant to take part in the research. They see research as a threat.

3.3.2. Subjects of the Study

The second grade is chosen to be involved in the research as it is assumed to be a suitable place. The students of the second year have been exposed longer to English so they are perceived to have more knowledge of English and courage to speak English than the freshmen. The third grade students cannot participate in this study since they are preparing for UN (National Examination), and any interference from the outsiders might disturb the regular teaching-learning process.

There are only four classes used for the research: 2.1, 2.3, 2.5, and 2.6. The other classes were used for the student teacher practices (PPL). The number of the female students is higher than of the male’s in each class. The distribution of the number of the female and male students is described in table 3.1.

Table 3.1. The distribution of the number of female and male students

Class/Gender Female Male Total

2.1 22 20 42

2.3 23 18 41

2.5 24 18 42

2.6 21 19 40

The students in these classes are mostly high achievers and highly motivated. This can be seen from their passing grade and their attitudes toward the lesson in the classroom. Despite the monotonous learning activities they have, they participate in those learning processes. They do the exercises and take part in the questions and answer sessions. The activities are designed based on the student book. The students in class 2.5 and 2.6 are quiet while the students in class 2.1 and 2.3 are noisy and active. There are two teachers for the second grade. They are male teachers.

These teachers are the respondents of the research. These teachers use English as the medium of instruction, and they have engendered friendly classroom atmosphere, by including jokes in their teaching. Respondent #1 makes a joke about the issue they were discussing:

39

T: … what is it rough? S: kasar

T: Kasar or nasar?

S: (laugh) Nasar mah KDI pak!

T: yah Nasar is the contestant of KDI. Mita is contestant of KDI. S: huuu…

(Observation data, September 4th 2004)

The classroom atmosphere the teacher has created proved to have enabled the students to feel relaxed. Respondent #1 teaches class 2.1 and 2.3. He has been teaching English for four years. He is an S1 graduate of English Education from one of the local universities in Cirebon. His teaching style is a typical of most Indonesian English teachers’ teaching style; the workbook is the Holy book which the teachers follow blindly the activities written there. Consequently, the students have limited chance of practicing speaking skill and the chance for making error and learn from them. The correction was given when the students read the text or the questions and answers from the book.

This respondent is well prepared specifically for the pronunciation of words in the book. However, his English is not very clear and one of his students complained that she and her classmates often find it hard to understand his English.

Respondent #2 is very quiet and he has small voice and his students who sit at the back very often cannot hear what he is talking about. His teaching style is like his colleague, respondent #1, follows the Holy workbook. His greeting is so predictable that sometimes the students have already answered his greeting before he utters it.

This respondent is an experienced teacher for he has been teaching English for thirteen years. He received his D3 degree from one of the state universities in Bandung.

3.3.3. Researcher’s Role

During the classroom activities, the researcher played a role as a passive observer. Taking notes on things such as how the students’ errors were corrected, how the students reacted to the correction, which errors the teachers corrected, and the teachers’ facial expressions when correcting was what a passive observer did in the classroom. A passive observer does not take part in the teaching and learning process.

The information collected from taking notes were recorded on the observation sheet, which is adapted from Tanner and Green (1998). Before the observation began, the observation sheet was shown to the respondents to ensure them of what was being observed, and it would put their mind at ease when they see the researcher writing something.

3.3.4. Phases of Data Collection

Before the main study was conducted, a pilot study was carried out for two weeks in one of private schools in Cirebon. The pilot study began on August 10th and ended on August 14th, 2004. The reasons for conducting pilot study, as mentioned earlier, were to get pictures of classroom condition and teaching and learning activities specifically related to corrective feedback.

The pilot study yielded some characteristics of teacher’s approaches to error-correction. The first characteristic is that the classroom activities are mostly based on the students’ workbook so that the chance of students practice their speaking skill was limited. The students rarely produce their own sentences and make errors as well as learn

41 from their errors. The second characteristic is the correction given is largely concerned with the students’ answers of the questions written in the book. The errors the students committed during the dialogue session tended to be left uncorrected because the teacher assumed that error correction would distract the students’ attention and discourage the students from practicing the dialogue. The third characteristic is the teacher’s attempt to address the entire class when correcting the error rather than asked the student concerned to reformulate the incorrect utterances. This type of correction prevented the student who made the error tried to self correct his/her own error.

Data collection for the main study was conducted for four weeks, two meetings for class 2.1 and 2.5, one meeting for class 2.6, and four meetings for class 2.3. The primary study took place from August 28th to September 4th, 2004. As a matter of fact there should be two meetings left, but due to the conflicting schedules with the other school activities, the meetings were cancelled. Nevertheless, the data taken from the observation have already captured the answers of the research questions. For more detailed information of the observation schedule, see table 3.2.

The observation was followed by the interview with the teachers and the students whose errors were corrected. The interviews were carried out informally, and not all the questions for the teachers could be asked to them because the time the teachers had was limited as they had to attend the meeting or to teach the other classes. Hence, the formal interview was conducted on November 22nd, 2004.

Table 3. 2. Observation and interview Schedule

Time and Date Class Time Allocation Activities

7.00-8.30 August 28th ₂₀₀₄

2.1 2 x 45’ Observation and interview 8.30-9.00

August 28th ₂₀₀₄

2.5 2 x 45’ Observation and interview 7.00-8.30

September 2nd_{, 2004}

2.6 2 x 45’ Observation and interview 8.30 – 9.00

September 2nd ₂₀₀₄

2.3 2 x 45’ Observation and interview 7.00 – 8.30

September 4th ₂₀₀₄

2.1 2 x 45’ Observation and interview 8.30 – 9.00

September 4th ₂₀₀₄

2.5 2 x 45’ Observation and interview 7.00 -7.45

September 7th ₂₀₀₄

2.3 1 x 45’ Observation and interview 8.30 – 9.00

September 16th ₂₀₀₄

2.3 2 x 45’ Observation 8.30 – 9.00

September 23rd ₂₀₀₄

2.3 2 x 45’ Observation and interview 10.00 – 11.00

November 22nd ₂₀₀₄

- - Interview with R#2 11.30 -14.30

November 22nd ₂₀₀₄

- - Interview with R#1

3.3.5. Procedures

This section elaborates the techniques employed to gather the data needed for the research. To obtain the intended data, emic and etic perspectives were used. Freeman (1998:78) explains that

Emic and etic perspectives describe the point of view intrinsic to the information we gather. Together those two sets of distinctions sensitize us to the fact that what we see and hear will depend on where we sit, what we can ask, and what we can say. Emic is what the respondents know, and etic is what the observers see.

There are two techniques used for collecting the data: observation and interview. These techniques were employed to gather the respondents’ perspectives of the issues being researched.

43 3.3.5.1. Observation

Some teachers are reluctant to being observed for the sake of the research because they have negative perspective on the observation. These teachers, as Tanner and Green (1998: 5) put it “tend to see observation as something that is judgmental, subjective, and intimidating”. Moreover, according to Lynch (1997), most language teachers regard research and teaching as irrelevant. It is because most teachers cannot see the positive impact of the research result on the teaching process.

Nevertheless, classroom observation provides concrete information about what occurs in the classroom that the other instruments cannot give. The teachers’ facial expressions and gestures when correcting the errors, the students’ reactions toward the correction, the classroom atmosphere, and the strategies the teachers use to correct the errors can only be captured by classroom observation.

During the lesson, the things that are the focuses of the observation were recorded on the observation sheet. These focused things are the students’ spoken errors, the corrected errors, the corrective strategies, teachers’ gestures and facial expressions when correcting the errors, the students’ reactions toward the correction as well as the classroom atmosphere in which the teaching and learning process takes place.

As stated earlier, the observation sheet was shown to the teachers before the observation began in order for them to know what was being observed. To be able to re-examine the records of the observation as well as to check the items that might have been missed out, teaching-learning activities were audio-taped. R#1 kept the tape-recorder in his pocket during the observation so that the students and teacher interaction were mostly

recorded. The tape-recorder in R#2’s class was placed on the student’s front desk as the respondent refused to carry it. Hence, only the utterances of the students who sat near to the tape recorder could be recorded well, while the utterances produced by the students who sat at the back of the class were inaudible. Some teacher’s utterances were also inaudible.

3.3.5.2. Interview

The interview was carried out to elicit the teachers’ reasons for their corrective feedback: why particular errors were corrected and the others remain uncorrected, and why they use certain technique to correct the students’ errors. The interview was also conducted to know the teachers’ perception on the students’ errors. Thus, the questions for the interview were planned and structured.

The interview was carried out as soon as the class was over, but it was an informal one and sometimes it was not audio-taped. The formal and audio-taped interviews were carried out at the teacher’s houses a month later after the observation, and that is on November 22nd, 2004.

Not only were the teachers interviewed but also some students whose errors were corrected. The interview was about their feelings when being corrected. The interview taken place as soon as the class was over.

3.4. Data Analysis

Data analysis is a process of drawing responses out of the data, finding the answers of the research questions in the data (Freeman, 1998). To analyze the data, the

45 audio-taped classroom activities and interviews were transcribed. However, some parts of the utterances were not transcribed because some were unclear or inaudible. This is the drawback of utilizing audio-tape in a large and noisy classroom.

The classroom observation transcripts were used to identify the students’ spoken errors and the corrected and uncorrected spoken errors. Whereas the transcripts of the interview were used to figure out the teachers’ reasons for correcting and not correcting the errors, the corrective strategies, and students’ feelings toward the correction.

The types of corrective feedback adopted from Lyster and Ranta (1997) were used to categorize which feedback the teachers utilized. In order to find the roles the teachers play in response to the students’ spoken errors, Tanner and Green’s (1998) four teacher roles were applied. Donald’s classification of errors was adapted to categorize the students’ spoken errors.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1. Conclusion

This study tried to investigate the patterns of senior high school teachers’ corrective feedback on students’ spoken errors. The research focused on the teachers’ roles in response to the students’ spoken errors, the types of spoken error they prefer to respond, the teacher’s reasons of correcting the errors, and the strategy he choose to employ in treating the errors.

The present study discovered that the teachers reacted differently to the students’ spoken errors. R#1 behaved as Mr Busybody who chased all the spoken errors the students made, while R#2 preferred to be Mr Aloof, who ignored the students’ spoken errors. The teachers’ attitudes seemed to be affected by the language theory the teachers adopted and the teachers’ period of teaching experience.

The most frequently corrected error is recorded for translation error (100%). Being the most frequently occurring error, the phonological error was only 9% corrected. Syntactic error was the least occurring and corrected type of error. The study found that the errors R#1 chose to correct seemed to make some patterns. It seemed that the teacher tended to correct the errors that caught his attention, and the teacher knew the correct form. Those errors were: (1) the students’ mispronunciation of words the teacher thought the students would find unfamiliar, (2) the errors which were

81 committed during the student-teacher interaction, and (3) the students’ mispronunciation which was too obvious to ignore.

The teacher’s reasons for providing the learners with correction were related to three factors: fossilization, learning, and professional concern. This finding was in line with what Ancker (2000) found in his study- teachers tended to pose those three reasons for correction.

In response to the students’ spoken errors, the teacher employed various types of corrective feedback: explicit correction, recast, elicitation, metalinguistic clues, and repetition. R#1 seemed to use elicitation most frequently. This finding was in contrast with the result of the previous studies (e.g. Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Pannova and Lyster, 2001; and Johnson and Redmond, 2003) that elicitation was the least frequent type of corrective feedback employed by the teachers, and recast was the most favorite type of feedback. However, in line with what Lyster and Ranta (1997) had found in their study, the study revealed that elicitation and metalinguistic clues are the effective feedback strategy in eliciting uptake from the students.

Corroborating the result of the previous research (e.g. Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Magilow, 1999), the present study did not find any observable anxiety caused by the teacher’s correction. It is assumed that the corrective feedback becomes less intimidating to the learners due to the friendly rapport the teacher had built with the students.

These findings suggest that the teachers still regard students’ errors merely as the deviant utterances which need to be treated. This may imply that the errors the

students produced are not yet seen as the clues of the progress the students pass through which may help the teachers to define the suitable materials for the learners. The corrective feedback the teachers employed showed that the teachers chose the corrective feedback strategy according to the level of difficulty of the language item. The teacher, however, still had some difficulty in identifying the students’ errors and that led him to correct only the deviant utterances within his linguistic competence.

According to Hadley (2001) the teachers’ classroom activities the teachers employed are motivated by the language theories they adopted. Whatever the teachers’ policy of correction in their language classroom, it is aimed at assisting the students to promote the development of their language proficiency.

5.2. Suggestion

Based on the findings of the present research, there are some suggestion that can be provided to the next researcher, teacher, and government.

5.2.1 The next researcher

The limitation of the present study is the short period of classroom observation. Thus, for those who are interested in conducting the same research, it is suggested that longer period of classroom observation should be taken in order to gain more detailed data. Moreover, the classrooms in which the observation taking place should be the place where the teacher has not built good rapport with the students. In such classroom condition different phenomenon of students’ reactions toward the corrective feedback may arise.

83 The present study did not conduct an interview with the students in R#2’s classrooms to figure out their feelings of having their spoken errors left uncorrected. Thus for the next researcher, it is important to have an interview with both students whose errors corrected and not corrected so that the study would discover whether the students preferred to have their errors corrected or not.

The errors the students produced should be identified by the two or more independent collaborators whose TOEFL score is above 500 in order to have the errors appropriately identified and evaluated.

5.2.2. The teacher

Based on the findings, it is important for the teachers to give more time allocation to the classroom activities in which the students are able to produce their own utterances so that the teachers would be able to know which language features the students still need to work on, and which they have made progress. The errors the students produced should be seen as an indication of the learning process taking place in the learner’s minds. Errors should not only be regarded as the deviant utterances that need to be treated.

It is a must for the teachers to start to correct the types of errors which interfere with comprehension of meaning as well as those that are (1) frequently committed, (2) stigmatizing, (3) the subject of pedagogical focus (Hadley, 2001).

It is also suggested that the teacher should be well-prepared before coming to the classroom in order for them to identify and explain the errors the students committed. The well preparation would help the teachers also to prevent themselves

from making the errors. In addition to this, the teachers must refine their linguistic competence in order for the competence not to get stabilized.

5.2.3. The government

The present study discovered that the teachers still had limited language competency. Therefore, it is insisted upon the government to have the teacher law enacted immediately. This would prompt the teachers to have always developed their language competencies.

REFERENCES

Ancker, William. (2000, December). Errors and Corrective Feedback: Updated Theory and Classroom Practice. FORUM, 13(4). Retrieved February 22, 2005 from

http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol38/vol4/p.20.htm

Azar, B.S. (1989). Understanding and Using English Grammar (2nd Ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.

Barlett, Craig C. (2002). Error Identification by Korean Teachers of English. ELTED, 6. Retrieved February 22, 2005 from

http://www.cells.bham.ac.uk/ELTED/Vol6Issue1/V6Barlett.pdf

Brown, D.H. (1991). Breaking the Language Barrier. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Donald, Rolf. (n.d.). Error Correction 1. BBC Teaching English. Retrieved April 14, 2004 from

http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/methodology/error_correct.shtml

Dulay, C. Heidi & Burt, K. Marina. (1980). You Can’t Learn Without Goofing: An Analysis of Children’s Second Language ‘Errors’. In Jack C. Richards (Ed.)

Error Analysis: Perspective on Second Language Acquisition (pp. 95-123).

London: Longman.

Ellis, Rod. (2002). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hadley, A.O. (2001). Teaching Language in Context (3rd Ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle Publisher.

Harsono, Y.M. (2003, August). Language Learner Language: A Case Study of Seventh Semester Students of the English Department, Faculty of Education, Atma Jaya Catholic University Jakarta. TEFLIN Journal, 14(2). Malang: TEFLIN

Publication Division, c.o.

Johnson, K.J., & Redmond, M.L. (2003, December). Oral Proficiency and Error

Correction in the High School Spanish Program. Retrieved April 14, 2004 from http://www.wfu.edu/users/johnkj03/Research%20Paper%20Abstract.pdf

Kim, He-Rim, & Mathes, Glenn. 2001. Explicit vs Implicit Corrective Feedback: The Korea TESOL Journal 4(1). Retrieved October 12, 2004 from

http://www.kotesol.org/pubs/journal/2001/korjrl_u_57_72.pdf

Lengo, Nsakala. (1995). What is an Error?. FORUM, 33(3). Retrieved February 16, 2004 from http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol33/no3/p20.htm.

Lightbown, P.M. & Spada, N. (2003). How Languages are Learned (Revised Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lynch, Tony. (1997, October). Nudge, Nudge: Teacher Intervention in Task-Based Learner Talk. ELT Journal 51(4). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

87 Lyster, Roy. (2002). The Importance of Differentiating Negotiation of Form and

Meaning in Classroom Interaction. Retrieved June 21, 2006 from http://www.education.mcgill.ca/profs/lyster/Lyster2002.pdf

Lyster, R., & Lightbown, P.M., & Spada, N. (1999, June). A Response to Truscott’s ‘What’s Wrong with Oral Grammar Correction’. UTP Journal. Retrieved May 17, 2004 from http://www.utpjournals.com/product/cmlr/554/554-Lyster.html

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake: Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classrooms. SSLA 20(pp.37-66). Retrieved June 22, 2006 from

http://www.education.mcgill.ca/profs/lyster/Lyster&Ranta1997_SSLA.pdf

Magilow, Daniel H. (1999). Error Correction and Classroom Affect. UP 32(pp.125-129). Retrieved April 15, 2004 from

http://www.web.utk.edu/~germslav/uphome/1999cPrize.html

Maxwell, Joseph A. (1996). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. California: Sage Publications Inc.

Pannova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of Corrective Feedback and Uptake in an

Adult ESL Classroom. Retrieved June 22, 2006 from

http://www.education.mcgill.ca/profs/lyster/Pannova&Lyster2002.TESOLQ.pdf

Puchta, Herbert. (1999). Creating A Learning Culture to Which the Students Want to Belong: the Application of Neuro-Linguistic Programming to Language Teaching. In Jane Arnold (Ed.) Affect in Language Learning (pp.246-259). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tanner, R., & Green, C. (1998). Tasks for Teacher Education: A Reflective Approach (2nd Ed.). Essex: Addison Wesley Longman Ltd.

Tedjick, D.J., & de Gortari, B. (1998, May). Research on Error Correction and

Implications for Classroom Teaching. ACIE Newsletter 1(3). Retrieved April 15, 2004 from http://www.carla.umn.edu/Immersion/acie/vol1/May1998.pdf

The present study did not conduct an interview with the students in R#2’s classrooms to figure out their feelings of having their spoken errors left uncorrected. Thus for the next researcher, it is important to have an interview with both students whose errors corrected and not corrected so that the study would discover whether the students preferred to have their errors corrected or not.

The errors the students produced should be identified by the two or more independent collaborators whose TOEFL score is above 500 in order to have the errors appropriately identified and evaluated.

5.2.2. The teacher

Based on the findings, it is important for the teachers to give more time allocation to the classroom activities in which the students are able to produce their own utterances so that the teachers would be able to know which language features the students still need to work on, and which they have made progress. The errors the students produced should be seen as an indication of the learning process taking place in the learner’s minds. Errors should not only be regarded as the deviant utterances that need to be treated.

It is a must for the teachers to start to correct the types of errors which interfere with comprehension of meaning as well as those that are (1) frequently committed, (2) stigmatizing, (3) the subject of pedagogical focus (Hadley, 2001).

84 from making the errors. In addition to this, the teachers must refine their linguistic competence in order for the competence not to get stabilized.

5.2.3. The government

The present study discovered that the teachers still had limited language competency. Therefore, it is insisted upon the government to have the teacher law enacted immediately. This would prompt the teachers to have always developed their language competencies.

REFERENCES

Ancker, William. (2000, December). Errors and Corrective Feedback: Updated Theory and Classroom Practice. FORUM, 13(4). Retrieved February 22, 2005 from

http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol38/vol4/p.20.htm

Azar, B.S. (1989). Understanding and Using English Grammar (2nd Ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.

Barlett, Craig C. (2002). Error Identification by Korean Teachers of English. ELTED, 6. Retrieved February 22, 2005 from

http://www.cells.bham.ac.uk/ELTED/Vol6Issue1/V6Barlett.pdf

Brown, D.H. (1991). Breaking the Language Barrier. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Donald, Rolf. (n.d.). Error Correction 1. BBC Teaching English. Retrieved April 14, 2004 from

http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/methodology/error_correct.shtml

Dulay, C. Heidi & Burt, K. Marina. (1980). You Can’t Learn Without Goofing: An Analysis of Children’s Second Language ‘Errors’. In Jack C. Richards (Ed.)

Error Analysis: Perspective on Second Language Acquisition (pp. 95-123).

London: Longman.

86 Ellis, Rod. (2002). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Hadley, A.O. (2001). Teaching Language in Context (3rd Ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle Publisher.

Harsono, Y.M. (2003, August). Language Learner Language: A Case Study of Seventh Semester Students of the English Department, Faculty of Education, Atma Jaya Catholic University Jakarta. TEFLIN Journal, 14(2). Malang: TEFLIN

Publication Division, c.o.

Johnson, K.J., & Redmond, M.L. (2003, December). Oral Proficiency and Error

Correction in the High School Spanish Program. Retrieved April 14, 2004 from

http://www.wfu.edu/users/johnkj03/Research%20Paper%20Abstract.pdf

Kim, He-Rim, & Mathes, Glenn. 2001. Explicit vs Implicit Corrective Feedback: The Korea TESOL Journal 4(1). Retrieved October 12, 2004 from

http://www.kotesol.org/pubs/journal/2001/korjrl_u_57_72.pdf

Lengo, Nsakala. (1995). What is an Error?. FORUM, 33(3). Retrieved February 16, 2004 from http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol33/no3/p20.htm.

Lightbown, P.M. & Spada, N. (2003). How Languages are Learned (Revised Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lynch, Tony. (1997, October). Nudge, Nudge: Teacher Intervention in Task-Based Learner Talk. ELT Journal 51(4). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lyster, Roy. (2002). The Importance of Differentiating Negotiation of Form and

Meaning in Classroom Interaction. Retrieved June 21, 2006 from

http://www.education.mcgill.ca/profs/lyster/Lyster2002.pdf

Lyster, R., & Lightbown, P.M., & Spada, N. (1999, June). A Response to Truscott’s ‘What’s Wrong with Oral Grammar Correction’. UTP Journal. Retrieved May 17, 2004 from http://www.utpjournals.com/product/cmlr/554/554-Lyster.html

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake: Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classrooms. SSLA 20(pp.37-66). Retrieved June 22, 2006 from

http://www.education.mcgill.ca/profs/lyster/Lyster&Ranta1997_SSLA.pdf

Magilow, Daniel H. (1999). Error Correction and Classroom Affect. UP 32(pp.125-129). Retrieved April 15, 2004 from

http://www.web.utk.edu/~germslav/uphome/1999cPrize.html

Maxwell, Joseph A. (1996). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. California: Sage Publications Inc.

Pannova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of Corrective Feedback and Uptake in an

Adult ESL Classroom. Retrieved June 22, 2006 from

http://www.education.mcgill.ca/profs/lyster/Pannova&Lyster2002.TESOLQ.pdf

Puchta, Herbert. (1999). Creating A Learning Culture to Which the Students Want to Belong: the Application of Neuro-Linguistic Programming to Language

88 Tanner, R., & Green, C. (1998). Tasks for Teacher Education: A Reflective Approach

(2nd Ed.). Essex: Addison Wesley Longman Ltd.

Tedjick, D.J., & de Gortari, B. (1998, May). Research on Error Correction and

Implications for Classroom Teaching. ACIE Newsletter 1(3). Retrieved April 15, 2004 from http://www.carla.umn.edu/Immersion/acie/vol1/May1998.pdf