T1 112010049 Full text
INTRODUCTION
Joining speaking classes, as a student, I experienced a feeling that some of
teacher oral feedback caused me some drawback. At that time, instead of improving
my speaking skills, I thought that the given feedback lowered my motivation. I felt
that the feedback was not clear and often too much focus on my weaknesses. As a
result, I rarely put teacher feedback into my considerations, although I did want to
improve my speaking performance. My unfortunate experiences show that my
perception toward teacher feedback has influenced the way I respond to feedback.
Those experiences lead me to the curiosity whether the other students also
share the same experiences with me, the negative feeling caused by how I perceive
the way used by my teachers in giving the feedback and the content of it. In this case,
students perception is crucial because it affect the way students react toward the
feedback given. Students‟ perception is an important part in learning process.
According to Cook (1994: 90), perception guides people‟s behavior. More broadly,
Kreitner (1992: 126) states that perception will also lead to the change of attitude,
motivation, and behavior. From those two experts, it is clear that students‟ perception
will both guide the behavior and change the attitude, motivation, and behavior of the
students. Moreover, motivation is considered as an essential part in students‟
perception. Dörnyei, (2001) suggests that it has a very important role in determining
success or failure in any learning situation. Considering the importance of students‟
perception, Lee (2008) in his book warns teachers not to ignore the students‟
6
perception because they may risk themselves of continually using counterproductive
strategies if they do not understand how students feel about and respond to teacher
feedback. Stiggins (2007) adds that students‟ emotional response is a determinant
factor of success in learning.
Oral feedback, according to Annie (2011), is the feedback provided verbally
by teachers to students as the consequences of students‟ performance, revealing their
competence in speaking such as pronunciation and delivery, communication
strategies, vocabulary and language patterns, and ideas and organization. Oral
feedback in speaking class is chosen as the focus of this study because of several
reasons. Firstly, oral feedback offers direct (face-to-face) interactions between
teachers and students, which more or less involve students‟ feeling. The next reason
is that oral feedback mostly happens more in speaking class than any other classes.
The third reason is that in second language learning, speaking ability is considered as
a very crucial skill, therefore it usually causes students‟ anxiety. In fact, many
students feel that speaking in target language arouses their worry and nervousness.
Since the problems aroused are due to the fact that feedback affects
perception, this paper is aimed to investigate the students‟ perception toward teacher
oral feedback in speaking class. Therefore, four determining factors related to
students‟ perception toward teacher oral feedback are used as the framework in this
paper in order to elicit students‟ perceptions. Those factors are students‟ motivation,
positive characteristics of feedback in building students‟ motivation, feedback in
7
relation with students‟ accuracy and fluency, and encouraging students to apply the
feedback.
There are four research questions of this study: how are students‟
perceptions toward teacher oral feedback in speaking class in relation with their
motivation?; how are students‟ perceptions toward teacher oral feedback in speaking
class in relation with positive characteristics of feedback in building their
motivation?; how are students‟ perceptions toward teacher oral feedback in speaking
class in relation with their accuracy and fluency?; and how are students‟ perceptions
toward teacher oral feedback in speaking class in relation in with the students‟
encouragement in applying the feedback?. The result of this investigation will create
teacher awareness of students‟ perceptions toward the use of oral feedback.
Feedback in Relation with Students’ Motivation
There is a strong and unavoidable connection between teacher oral feedback
and students‟ motivation, and some theories are presented in line with this fact.
Some experts believe that feedback builds students‟ motivation (Dörnyei,
2001; Lewis, 2002:4). From motivational point of view, Dörnyei (2001) mentions
that feedback increases learners‟ satisfaction and learning spirit which he calls as
“gratifying function” of feedback. Gratifying function occurs when feedback which
provides praise for the students is due and appropriate. However, feedback should not
offer praise after success in easy tasks (Graham 1994). Paris and Turner (1994) point
out that students may interpret success that comes without challenge or risk-taking as
8
an indication of the lower expectations held by others for their own level of
achievement.
Apart from increasing satisfaction and learning spirit, Dörnyei (2001), from
motivational perspective declares that feedback also promotes a positive self-concept
and self-confidence in the students. Students‟ positive self-concept and selfconfidence
arouse
when
the
teacher
feedback
communicates
trust
and
encouragement. Raffini (1993: 147) states that when teachers believe in students,
students believe in themselves. Started with this statement, it can be inferred that
when the students believe that the teachers trust them and they find that teacher
feedback encourages them to improve their performance, students will be sure about
their ability.
However, feedback may cause several drawbacks in building students‟
motivation. Dörnyei (2001) notes that from the motivational perspective, not every
type of feedback is equally positive and on occasion. If teachers are not careful
enough, their comments might be counterproductive. Furthermore, Lightbown, and
Spada (2000) believe that feedback that is given excessively or more than needed is
detrimental for student development since it only causes embarrassment, anger,
inhibition, and feeling of inferiority. In line with Lightbown, and Spada (2000), Ur,
(1996) underlines some negative consequences such as discouragement, depression,
and decrease in learning interest of the students if feedback is given more than it is
needed.
9
Positive Characteristics of Feedback in Building Students’ Motivation
Several characteristics of feedback in promoting students‟ motivation are
proposed by some experts. Dörnyei (2001) suggests that in order to build the
motivational feedback, teachers should promote “information feedback” instead of
“controlling feedback”. Unlike the controlling feedback which gives judgments
against external standards or peer achievements, positive information feedback
reflects constructively on the areas needed to be improved by the students and
identifies things that the students can do to increase the effectiveness of learning.
Positive information feedback involves positive, descriptive feedback
regarding student strength, achievements, progress, and attitudes (Dörnyei, 2001).
Moreover, Dörnyei (2001) illustrate the characteristics of positive information
feedback. Those characteristics are noting positive or negative trends, identifying
areas that were proper and areas that the students should focus on to improve their
progress, and providing information on how successfully the learners were applying
various strategies and how their strategy was improving their performance.
Also, to increase students‟ motivation, feedback should be balanced. It means
that the feedback should not only focus on negative or positive area of students‟
performance. Related to this statement, Weaver (2006) discovers that feedback which
does not dwell only on the negative aspects of students‟ work is more preferable for
them.
10
Moreover, it also needs to be considered that feedback should be constructive
(Davidson, 2007; Hong Kong Examination and Assessment Authority, 2009a). The
constructive actions can be executed by the teacher by pointing the area the students
need to improve. Accordingly, Littlewood (1981) and Lewis (2002) state that teacher
feedback should tell students about their progress and show them their errors in order
to guide them to areas for improvement. It means that the teacher feedback should
give notification to the students which area they have already performed well and
which areas that need improving.
Feedback in Relation with Students’ Accuracy and Fluency
Accuracy and fluency are inseparable with the process of learning speaking.
Accuracy deals with grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary (Harmer, 2007).
Richards (2006, pp. 13-14) describes the criteria of activities that are focused on
accuracy. Those criteria are reflecting classroom use of language, focusing on the
formation of correct examples of language, practicing language out of context,
practicing small samples of language, not requiring meaningful communication, and
controlling choice of language are some activities that focus on accuracy. On the
other hand, fluency deals with asking the students to use the language as fluently as
possible (Harmer, 2007). Richards (2006, pp. 13-14) gives the criteria of activities
that are focused on fluency such as revealing natural use of language, focusing on
getting communication, involving meaningful use of language, entailing the use of
11
communication strategies, producing unpredictable language, and seeking to link
language use to context. Both accuracy and fluency need to be mastered by students
in order to successfully speak the target language.
In connection with feedback, feedback helps to improve learners‟ accuracy
and fluency (Freiermuth, 1998:7). Teachers‟ feedback notes students‟ strong points to
strengthen as well as the weak points to improve in accuracy and fluency they
perform. The ways of giving feedback in accuracy-focused activities are different
with those of fluency-focused. Rahimi& Dastjerdi (2012) suggest that if the focus of
the lesson is on accuracy, students‟ errors should be corrected immediately. On the
other hand, if fluency is the focus, gentle and delayed correction techniques are
applied in order not to damage the flow of the activity or the learners‟ confidence.
Harmer (2001) also states that teachers should not interrupt students to point out a
grammatical, lexical, or pronunciation error when students do communicative
activities and they involve themselves in fluency because it can stop the
communication.
At the beginning of the learning process, the teachers have to decide whether
the focus of the speaking activity on that day is on accuracy or on fluency. After
defining the focus of the speaking activity, the teachers have to make sure that
students also know the focus so that the feedback given by the teacher will be
accepted by the students without any misunderstanding. If the teacher feedback does
not address the focus clearly, the students will be confused and disappointed because
the feedback is out of their expectation.
12
Encouraging the Students to Apply the Feedback Given
One of the objectives of giving feedback to the students is for students to
apply it in order to improve their performance. According to Lewis (2002), feedback
can encourage students not only to study but also to use language to the best of their
ability by following the teacher‟s suggestions. However, sometimes some students
tend to disregard the feedback given instead of taking it into consideration.
In order to avoid students‟ reluctance to apply the feedback given, several
aspects in delivering feedback to the students need to be considered. Firstly, feedback
should be understandable by making it clear. One of the feedback‟s functions is to
provide important information for the students (Konold; Miller; and Konold, 2004).
The clarity of the feedback is magnitude in delivering this information. If the
feedback is not clear, the students will face difficulties in comprehending the
feedback. Thus, the ignorance toward teacher feedback has a big chance to happen,
no matter how important the content of the feedback is. Some experts note the
importance of the clarity of the feedback. Weaver (2006) finds that students want
feedback which is not too general or too vague. It means that feedback should be
clear and specific. Furthermore, according to Hattie & Timperley (2007), feedback
needs to address a specific task or process of learning. Clear and understandable
feedback will result in helping students become “effective and efficient learner”
(Konold et al., 2004). The students will understand the feedback if they can receive
the corrections or comments that the teacher is likely to use. If the teacher feedback is
13
clear enough, the students will be successful in applying suggestions without wasting
time or energy.
Secondly, students have to be given an understanding that feedback is given
to them to accommodate their learning. Hargreaves (2011) states that teacher
feedback is considered to be effective when the students realize that the feedback is
intended to help their learning. Some students may produce various points of view
about feedback if the teachers do not clearly state the purpose of giving feedback
which sometimes are in the forms of criticism and revealing weaknesses.
Harmer
(2007) also adds that it is the teacher‟s responsibility to make students aware that
feedback is a crucial part of the learning process. It is the teacher‟s duty to find the
best and appropriate way in making the students realize about the role of feedback in
their learning process.
Thirdly, Harmer (2007) underlines that sensitiveness should be considered by
the teacher in giving feedback. It means that the teachers have to consider the way
they give feedback and correction. In other words, the teachers have to judge the right
moment to correct and taking into account the preferences of the group and individual
students.
14
THE STUDY
Context of the Study
The context of this research was nine (9) Transactional Speaking classes in
Faculty of Language and Literature, Satya Wacana Christian University (Central
Java, Indonesia), available in Semester II Academic Year 2013-2014. Two study
programs in Faculty of Language and Literature (English Teacher Education and
English Language and Literature) provide Transactional Speaking with similar
syllabus. Transactional Speaking attempts to bring students‟ speaking skills to a
higher level where the students are familiarized to the use of language
communicatively in a wider range of topics, language functions, and language skills.
Activities will include pairs and group discussions, individual and group
presentations. The objectives of Transactional Speaking class are developing
students‟ communication skills using topics related to daily life, building confidence
and develop students‟ oral presentation skills through presentations, supporting
students to speak in expressing their own ideas and opinions, and developing skills in
providing and asking for information. Speaking classes offer more teacher oral
feedback than any other classes such as writing or grammar classes and Transactional
Speaking classes were chosen for two reasons. This study was possible to be held in
any speaking classes. However, Transactional Speaking classes were the only
available classes during the data collecting process which had sufficient number of
participants for this study.
15
Participants of the Study
A purposive sampling technique is used in this study. The participants of this
study were 100 students (77 English Teacher Education students and 23 English
Language and Literature students) from nine (9) groups of Transactional Speaking
classes. Those students were chosen because they had experienced of having teacher
oral feedback in the speaking class.
Instrument of Data Collection
In this study the writer used close-ended questionnaires using Lickert scale.
The options provided were Never (N), Seldom (S), Often (O), and Always (A). Four
determining factors which had been mentioned earlier in this paper are transferred
into the questionnaire. This questionnaire contained 18 statements eliciting students‟
perceptions toward teacher oral feedback in speaking class. The statements number 4,
5, 6, 11, and 18 talked about the first determining factor (feedback in relation with
students‟ motivation); statements number 8 until 10 discussed about the second
determining factor (positive characteristics of feedback in building students‟
motivation); statements number 12 until 17 talked about the third determining factor
(feedback in relation with students‟ accuracy and fluency); and statements number 1,
2, 3 and 7 discussed about the fourth determining factor (encouraging the students to
apply the feedback given). Indonesian language was used in order to ease both the
participants and the writer. The English version of the questionnaire was provided as
an attachment at the end of this paper.
16
Procedure of Data Collection
After the questionnaires for the students were ready, the writer piloted those
questionnaires to the participants which had similar criteria with the real target
participants. The aim of piloting was to check whether the questionnaire was
understandable for the participants. The number of the piloting participants was 20
(20% from the real target participants). Those piloting participants were Faculty of
Language and Literature students from various angkatan.
After the piloting process, the writer revised several parts of the questionnaire.
Then, the questionnaires were delivered to 120 participants to anticipate the
incomplete questionnaire-filling. There were two ways used by the writer to get the
questionnaire filled by the participants: meeting the participants directly and asking
them to fill the questionnaire via telephone. From 120 questionnaires, 100 most
reliable questionnaires which were completely answered by the participants and filled
by the students who had taken Transactional Speaking class were used as the data for
this research. After the data were gathered, the writer started to analyze the data.
Data Analysis
After the data were collected, the percentages of the answers of each
statement in the questionnaire were counted using Microsoft Excel. Those
percentages were used to answer the research questions which were mentioned
17
previously in the introduction. Finally, a conclusion was drawn in accordance with
the findings.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The data collected from the participants‟ answers in questionnaires are
displayed, described, analyzed, and interpreted in this part. A table is presented on
every beginning of each discussion, while the order of discussion is arranged based
on the order of the four sub topics on the literature review. Those sub topics are
feedback in relation with students‟ motivation, positive characteristics of feedback in
building students‟ motivation, feedback in relation with students‟ accuracy and
fluency, encouraging the students to apply the feedback given.
Feedback in Relation with Students’ Motivation
Table 1 displays the students‟ perception related to feedback, students‟
motivation, and students‟ self- confidence. This table is taken from the statement on
number 4 and 6 in questionnaire.
No
Condition
4
Students feel that the feedback
given by the lecturers motivate
them to increase their ability in
speaking English.
18
Never
Seldom
Often
Always
0%
7%
54%
39%
6
Students feel that the feedback
given by the lecturers in speaking
class increases their confidence to
speak English in speaking class.
0%
7%
69%
24%
Table 1. Students‟ perception related to feedback, students‟ motivation, and
students‟ self- confidence
The questionnaire item number 4 shows that 54% of the students often felt
and 39% always felt that the feedback motivated them to increase their ability in
speaking English, and the questionnaire item number 6 demonstrates that 69% of the
students often felt and 24% always felt that the feedback could increase their
confidence to speak English in speaking class. The findings from these two
statements show that students felt that feedback could motivate and increase selfconfidence of most of the students in speaking English. It can be inferred that from
students‟ point of view, the feedback in the speaking classes had functioned
accordingly. This condition is in line with Dörnyei‟s and Lewis‟ theories. Dörnyei (
2001) and
Lewis (2002:4) states that feedback builds students‟ motivation.
Furthermore, Dörnyei (2001) also declares that feedback also promotes a positive
self-concept and self-confidence in the students.
Table 2 displays the students‟ perception related to the praise given by the
teacher. This table is taken from the statement on number 5 in questionnaire.
No Condition
5
Students feel that the lecturers give too
much praise, even for easy tasks
19
Never
Seldom
Often
Always
13%
66%
20%
1%
accomplished by the students in
English speaking class.
Table 2. Students‟ perception related to the praise given by the teacher
From table 2, it can be seen that 66% of students seldom felt that the teacher
in their speaking class gave lavish praise for easy tasks accomplished. It reveals the
fact that in the speaking classes joined by the participants, the students perceived that
the feedback had addressed appropriate praise. This fact matches with Graham‟s
(1994) advice which states that feedback should not offer praise after success in easy
tasks.
Table 3 displays the students‟ perception about the excessive feedback and
students‟ inferiority. This table is taken from the statement on number 18 and 11 in
questionnaire.
No
Condition
Never
Seldom
Often
Always
18
Students feel that the lecturers give 20%
them too much feedback while they
are speaking in English in speaking
class.
62%
16%
2%
11
Students feel that the feedback given 41%
by the lecturers in speaking class
makes them feel inferior.
50%
5%
4%
Table 3. Students‟ perception about the excessive feedback and students‟ inferiority
Table 3 statement number 18 shows that 62% of the students seldom and 20%
never felt that the teachers gave too much feedback to the students while statement
number 11 elicits that only 5% of the students often felt and 4% always felt that the
feedback caused inferiority. From this result, it can be figured out that from the
20
students‟ perceptions, teachers seldom and even never gave too much feedback to the
students. At the same time, the students also felt that they seldom and even never
experienced inferiority. It proves that there was a causal connection between the
excessive feedback given by the teacher and students‟ inferiority. When the students
felt that the teachers did not give too much feedback to them, they felt that inferiority
could not exist. It matches with Lightbown and Spada‟s (2000) theory stating that
feedback given excessively will cause student inferiority.
In relation with students‟ motivation, the above findings show that from
students‟ point of view, teacher oral feedback had addressed appropriate praise to the
students and was not given excessively, and the result was that most of the students
felt that the feedback built their motivation, positive self-concept, and selfconfidence. The result also shows that only few of them who felt inferior caused by
the feedback given.
Positive Characteristics of Feedback in Building Students’ Motivation
Table 4 displays the students‟ perception related to the students‟ weaknesses,
strength, and improvement strategy contained in teacher feedback. This table is taken
from the statement on number 8, 9, and 10 in the questionnaire.
No Condition
8
Students feel that the feedback given
by the lecturers in speaking class only
shows students‟ weaknesses in
speaking English.
21
Never
Seldom
Often
Always
31%
55%
14%
0%
9
Students feel that the feedback given
by the lecturers in speaking class
shows students‟ strengths in speaking
English.
4%
42%
45%
9%
10
Students feel that the feedback given
by the lecturers in speaking class
shows how the students should
improve their English speaking ability.
0%
4%
60%
36%
Table 4. Students‟ perception related to the students‟ weaknesses, strength, and
improvement strategy contained in teacher feedback
The table illustrates that 55% of the students seldom felt and 31% never felt
that the feedback only showed the students‟ weaknesses. The table also shows that
45% of the students often felt that the teacher showed students‟ strengths. The data
show that according to students‟ opinion, feedback focused not only on students‟
weaknesses but also on their strength. Students saw that feedback was balance and
they perceived that the teacher focused not only on their weaknesses. Thus, according
to students‟ perceptions, the feedback had fulfilled the requirement of a good
feedback proposed by Weaver (2006). According to Weaver (2006), students want
feedback which does not dwell only on the negative aspects of their work.
Furthermore, the table shows that 60% of the students often felt and 30%
always felt that the feedback given had shown how the students should improve their
speaking performances. It means that the students felt that the feedback given had
directed them to the improvement area. This fact is in line with Davidson‟s (2007)
and Hong Kong Examination and Assessment Authority‟s (2009a) statement which
says that feedback should be constructive. Moreover, it also matches to Littlewood‟s
22
(1981) and Lewis‟s (2002) theory that feedback should give direction to areas of
improvement for the students.
In relation with positive characteristics of feedback in building students‟
motivation, the result shows that from the students‟ perception, the feedback given by
the teacher had provided the students with positive characteristics which support them
to build their motivation.
Feedback in Relation with Students’ Accuracy and Fluency
Table 5 displays the students‟ perception related to the focus of the feedback
given. This table is taken from the statement on number 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 in
the questionnaire. Statement number 12, 13, and 14 indicate accuracy-focused
activities, while number 15, 16, and 17 indicate fluency-focused activities.
No Condition
Never
Seldom
Often
Always
12
Students feel that the feedback given
by the lecturers in speaking class
focuses only on grammar.
22%
67%
11%
0%
13
Students feel that the feedback given
by the lecturers in speaking class
focuses only on pronunciation.
5%
50%
42%
3%
14
Students feel that the feedback given
by the lecturers in speaking class
focuses only on vocabulary.
9%
59%
29%
3%
15
Students feel that when the lecturers
give feedback in speaking class, they
also explain about the strategies in
speaking English, such as asking for
1%
9%
66%
24%
23
clarification.
16
Students feel that when the lecturers
give feedback in speaking class, they
also explain about the skills in
speaking English, such as how to
speak English fluently.
2%
20%
56%
22%
17
Students feel that the lecturers
interrupt them to give feedback when
they are speaking English in
speaking class.
41%
46%
12%
1%
Table 5. Students‟ perception related to the focus of the feedback given
The table shows that the students seldom felt that the feedback only focused
in grammar (67%), pronunciation (50%) and vocabulary (59%). These results prove
that students felt that feedback given in the speaking classes did not merely focus on
accuracy aspects (grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary).
On the other hand, the different results come from fluency aspects. In
statement number 15, 16, and 17 which indicate fluency-focused activities, students
often felt that they had been given the explanation about the strategies (66%) and the
skills (56%) in speaking English. Moreover, 46% of the students seldom felt and 41%
never felt that the teachers interrupted them when they were speaking in English. The
results from number 15, 16, and 17 show that according to the students‟ perspective,
the feedback in speaking class supported the fluency-focused activity.
Moreover, it can be concluded that from students‟ perception, feedback
concerning fluency-focused activities was given bigger portion than that of accuracy-
24
focused activities in the speaking classes. It is in line with the characteristic of
transactional speaking class where fluency-focused activities are more dominant.
The compatibility between transactional speaking and fluency-focused
activities comes from the similar criteria shared by the syllabus of transactional
speaking course issued by Faculty of Language and Literature where this study took
place and the theory of the criteria of fluency-focused activities proposed by Richards
(2006, pp. 13-14). In these two sources, the importance of speaking skills and
strategies is emphasized to develop students‟ communication. Since fluency-focused
activity is more dominant in transactional speaking, the feedback should not interrupt
the students while they are speaking. As it is stated by Harmer (2001) that when
students do communicative activities and they involve themselves in fluency, teachers
should not interrupt students to point out a grammatical, lexical, or pronunciation
error, because it can stop the communication.
Related with students‟ accuracy and fluency, the findings reveal that from
students‟ perception, feedback concerning fluency-focused activities was given
bigger portion than that of accuracy-focused activities in the speaking classes.
Encouraging the Students to Apply the Feedback Given
Table 6 displays the students‟ perception about their awareness,
understanding, and application of feedback. This table is taken from the statement on
number 1, 2, and 3 in questionnaire.
No Condition
Never
25
Seldom
Often
Always
1.
Students realize that feedback given
by their speaking lecturers help them
to learn to speak English.
0%
9%
67%
24%
2
Students understand the feedback
given by the lecturers in English
speaking class.
0%
10%
66%
24%
3
Students apply the feedback given by
the lecturers while they are speaking
English.
1%
29%
51%
19%
Table 6. Students‟ perception about their awareness, understanding, and application
of feedback
From the table, 67% of students often felt that they realized that the feedback
helped them to learn to speak English in the speaking class, 66% of the participants
often understood the feedback given by the teacher, and 51% of the students often
applied the feedback given by their teacher while they were speaking in English.
From these results, it can be inferred that the students were aware that the feedback
was intended to help their learning. Based on Hargreaves‟ theory (2011), when the
students realize that teacher feedback helps their learning, the feedback is considered
to be effective. Moreover, the clarity of the feedback which considered as important
point in giving feedback by Weaver (2006) and Hattie and Timperley ( 2007) has
already been provided with the feedback given. The fact that the feedback was clear
can be indicated from the high number of the students who felt that they understood
the feedback given by the teachers. However, the participants‟ answers indicate that
students did not always apply the feedback given, although they often realized the
function and understood the content of the feedback.
26
Table 7 displays the students‟ perception toward teachers‟ sensitivity in
delivering feedback. This table is taken from the statement on number 7 in
questionnaire.
No Condition
7
Students feel that the lecturers also
consider students‟ feeling when
they give feedback to the students in
speaking class.
Never
Seldom
Often
Always
3%
25%
55%
17%
Table 7. Students‟ perception toward teachers‟ sensitivity in delivering feedback
The table shows that 55% of the students often felt that the teachers also
considered the students‟ feeling when the teachers gave feedback in speaking class. It
means the students perceived that the feedback was carefully delivered to them.
When the students feel that their feeling is being considered while being given the
feedback, feedback can motivate them. This fact is in accordance with Harmer‟s
(2007) opinion which states that to be motivational the teacher should be sensitive in
delivering feedback to the students.
In relation with encouraging the students to apply the feedback, students
perceived that the feedback was given in order to help their learning, understandable,
and caring about their feeling. However, it can be indicated that the students did not
always apply the feedback given although they often realized the function and
understood the content of the feedback.
27
CONCLUSION
This study, held in Transactional Speaking classes, is aimed to investigate the
students‟ perception toward teacher oral feedback in English speaking class. Based on
the data collected through the questionnaire, the writer found some facts about how
students actually perceive feedback.
Firstly, in relation with students‟ motivation according to students‟ point of
view, the teacher oral feedback could motivate and increase their self-confidence.
Moreover, students also perceived that the feedback had addressed appropriate praise
and been given on the right portion. The right portion of feedback caused most of the
students not to experience negative feeling such as inferiority.
Secondly, related to positive characteristics of feedback in building students‟
motivation, in students‟ point of view, the feedback was balance because students
perceived that the teachers focused not only on their weaknesses but also on their
strength. Also, the students felt that the feedback given had directed them to the
improvement area.
Thirdly, in relation with students‟ accuracy and fluency, students felt that
feedback given in the speaking classes did not merely focus on accuracy aspects
(grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary). Instead, the feedback in speaking classes
supported more on the fluency-focused activity. Moreover, it can be concluded that
28
from students‟ perception, feedback concerning fluency-focused activities was given
bigger portion than that of accuracy-focused activities in the speaking classes.
Fourthly, in encouraging the students to apply the feedback given, based on
students‟ perception, students were aware that the feedback was intended to help their
learning. In addition to that, the students also felt that they understood the given
feedback and it indicated that the feedback given was clear. There was also an
indication that the students did not always apply the feedback given, although they
often realized the function and understood the content of the feedback. Furthermore,
students felt that their feeling was being considered while the feedback was being
delivered.
Lastly, from the participants‟ answers in the questionnaire, it can be inferred
that although teachers provide the appropriate feedback, their inconsistency in
providing it still appeared. The fact that the students‟ answers were mostly in
“seldom” and ”often” part instead of “always” and “never” show this condition.
Based on the facts found, the writer suggests that to increase the motivation of
the students, teacher training about how to create motivational feedback for the
students should be held in order to increase the quality of feedback.
The study is limited only to transactional speaking classes where developing
students‟ communication skills is the aim of the learning process. Thus, this study
cannot be generalized into wider context. Further research with broader context
29
including other speaking classes is needed. Moreover, classroom observation is also
needed in order to check whether the students‟ perception toward teacher feedback is
proper. Specifically, the limitation of this study is that the questionnaire did not
provide open-ended questions which resulted in limitation of developing the findings.
Thus, in further research, it is suggested that the questionnaire should include openended questions.
ACKNOLEDGEMENT
The greatest thank I address to Allah, S.W.T for His guidance. I would also
like to express my appreciation to my thesis supervisor, Anita Kurniawati, M.Hum.
and my thesis examiner, Debora Tri Ragawanti, M.A.-ELT for the knowledge and
advice given to me. I also deliver my thanks to my questionnaire participants from
angkatan 2013 and Erio Fanggidae, S. Pd. for his help in giving information about
transactional speaking class. Gratuitous thanks are also dedicated to my family,
especially my father, Sigit Basuki, who always supports me and becomes my
motivator to finish this study. Special thanks are also addressed to my wonderful
friends: Lintar, Dewi, Adit, Argo, Titan, Annisa, Ardanti, Lintang, and Nindy. Many
thanks also go for „Tenners‟ for togetherness we shared. Last but not least, I would
like to thank all brilliant people whose encouragement and support have been
devastatingly valuable in this study.
REFERENCES
Annie, T. (2011). Exploring Students' Perception of and Reaction to Feedback in
School-based Assessment . Malaysian Journal of ELT Research , 7 (2), 107127.
Cook, G.(1994). Discourse and Literature: the interplay of form and mind. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
30
Davidson, C. (2007). Views from the chalkface: English language school-based
assessment in Hong Kong. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(1), 37-68.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational Strategies in the Language Clasroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Freiermuth (1998:7). Using a chat program to promote group equity. CAELL
Journal, 8, 16-24.
Graham, S. (1994). Classroom motivation from an attributuonsl perspective. In H. F.
O‟Neil Jr and M. Drillings (Eds.) Motivation: Theory and Research.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 31-48.
Hargreaves, E. (2011). Teachers‟ feedback to pupils: “Like so many bottles thrown
out to sea”? In Berry, R. & Adamson. B. (Eds.) Assessment reform in
education: policy and practice (pp. 121-133). Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Springer.
Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching (3rd ed.). England:
Pearson Education Limited.
Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching (4th ed.). England:
Pearson Education Limited.
Hattie, J. and Timperley. H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational
Research, 77, 1, 81-112.
Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority. (2009a). Handbook for School
Leaders on School-based Assessment. Retrieved from
31
http://www.hkeaa.edu.hk/DocLibrary/SBA/HKDSE/ SBAhandbookSchoolLeaders-E-300609.pdf
Konold, K. E., Miller, S. P., & Konold, K. B. (2004). Using teacher feedback to
enhance student learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(6), 64-69.
Kreitner, R. (1992). Management (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary
classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 144-164.
doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.12.001,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.12.001
Lewis, M. (2002). Giving Feedback in Language Classes. Singapore: SEAMEO
Regional Language Center.
Lightbown, P. M. & N. Spada. (1999). How Languages are Learned. 2nd ed. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative Language Teaching: an introduction.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paris, S. G., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Situated motivation. In P. R. Pintrich, D. R.
Brown & C. E. Weinstein (Eds.), Student motivation, cognition, and
learning (pp. 213-237). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32
Rahimi, A., & Dastjerdi, H. V. (2012). Impact of Immediate and Delayed Error
Correction on EFL Learners‟ Oral Production: CAF. Mediterranean Journal
of Social Sciences , 3 (1), 45-54.
Raffini, J. P. (1993). Winners without losers: Structures and strategies for increasing
student motivation to learn. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today. [e-book] New
York. Cambridge University Press.
Stiggins, R. (2007). Assessment through student‟s eyes. Educational Leadership,
64(8), 22-26.
Ur, P. (1996). A Course in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Weaver, M. (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perception of tutors‟ written
responses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 379-394.
33
APPENDIX
Questionnaire (English Version)
No Condition
Never
1.
Students realize that feedback given
by their speaking lecturers help them
to learn to speak English.
2
Students understand the feedback
given by the lecturers in English
speaking class.
3
Students apply the feedback given by
the lecturers while they are speaking
English.
4
Students feel that the feedback given
by the lecturers motivate them to
increase their ability in speaking
English.
5
Students feel that the lecturers give
too much praise, even for easy tasks
accomplished by the students in
English speaking class.
6
Students feel that the feedback given
by the lecturers in speaking class
increases their confidence to speak
English in speaking class.
7
Students feel that the lecturers also
consider students‟ feeling when they
give feedback to the students in
speaking class.
8
Students feel that the feedback given
by the lecturers in speaking class
only shows students‟ weaknesses in
speaking English.
9
Students feel that the feedback given
by the lecturers in speaking class
34
Seldom
Often
Always
shows students‟ strengths in speaking
English.
10
Students feel that the feedback given
by the lecturers in speaking class
shows how the students should
improve their English speaking
ability.
11
Students feel that the feedback given
by the lecturers in speaking class
makes them feel inferior.
12
Students feel that the feedback given
by the lecturers in speaking class
focuses only on grammar.
13
Students feel that the feedback given
by the lecturers in speaking class
focuses only on pronunciation.
14
Students feel that the feedback given
by the lecturers in speaking class
focuses only on vocabulary.
15
Students feel that when the lecturers
give feedback in speaking class, they
also explain about the strategies in
speaking English, such as asking for
clarification.
16
Students feel that when the lecturers
give feedback in speaking class, they
also explain about the skills in
speaking English, such as how to
speak English fluently.
17
Students feel that the lecturers
interrupt them to give feedback when
they are speaking English in
speaking class.
18
Students feel that the lecturers give
them too much feedback while they
are speaking in English in speaking
35
class.
36
Joining speaking classes, as a student, I experienced a feeling that some of
teacher oral feedback caused me some drawback. At that time, instead of improving
my speaking skills, I thought that the given feedback lowered my motivation. I felt
that the feedback was not clear and often too much focus on my weaknesses. As a
result, I rarely put teacher feedback into my considerations, although I did want to
improve my speaking performance. My unfortunate experiences show that my
perception toward teacher feedback has influenced the way I respond to feedback.
Those experiences lead me to the curiosity whether the other students also
share the same experiences with me, the negative feeling caused by how I perceive
the way used by my teachers in giving the feedback and the content of it. In this case,
students perception is crucial because it affect the way students react toward the
feedback given. Students‟ perception is an important part in learning process.
According to Cook (1994: 90), perception guides people‟s behavior. More broadly,
Kreitner (1992: 126) states that perception will also lead to the change of attitude,
motivation, and behavior. From those two experts, it is clear that students‟ perception
will both guide the behavior and change the attitude, motivation, and behavior of the
students. Moreover, motivation is considered as an essential part in students‟
perception. Dörnyei, (2001) suggests that it has a very important role in determining
success or failure in any learning situation. Considering the importance of students‟
perception, Lee (2008) in his book warns teachers not to ignore the students‟
6
perception because they may risk themselves of continually using counterproductive
strategies if they do not understand how students feel about and respond to teacher
feedback. Stiggins (2007) adds that students‟ emotional response is a determinant
factor of success in learning.
Oral feedback, according to Annie (2011), is the feedback provided verbally
by teachers to students as the consequences of students‟ performance, revealing their
competence in speaking such as pronunciation and delivery, communication
strategies, vocabulary and language patterns, and ideas and organization. Oral
feedback in speaking class is chosen as the focus of this study because of several
reasons. Firstly, oral feedback offers direct (face-to-face) interactions between
teachers and students, which more or less involve students‟ feeling. The next reason
is that oral feedback mostly happens more in speaking class than any other classes.
The third reason is that in second language learning, speaking ability is considered as
a very crucial skill, therefore it usually causes students‟ anxiety. In fact, many
students feel that speaking in target language arouses their worry and nervousness.
Since the problems aroused are due to the fact that feedback affects
perception, this paper is aimed to investigate the students‟ perception toward teacher
oral feedback in speaking class. Therefore, four determining factors related to
students‟ perception toward teacher oral feedback are used as the framework in this
paper in order to elicit students‟ perceptions. Those factors are students‟ motivation,
positive characteristics of feedback in building students‟ motivation, feedback in
7
relation with students‟ accuracy and fluency, and encouraging students to apply the
feedback.
There are four research questions of this study: how are students‟
perceptions toward teacher oral feedback in speaking class in relation with their
motivation?; how are students‟ perceptions toward teacher oral feedback in speaking
class in relation with positive characteristics of feedback in building their
motivation?; how are students‟ perceptions toward teacher oral feedback in speaking
class in relation with their accuracy and fluency?; and how are students‟ perceptions
toward teacher oral feedback in speaking class in relation in with the students‟
encouragement in applying the feedback?. The result of this investigation will create
teacher awareness of students‟ perceptions toward the use of oral feedback.
Feedback in Relation with Students’ Motivation
There is a strong and unavoidable connection between teacher oral feedback
and students‟ motivation, and some theories are presented in line with this fact.
Some experts believe that feedback builds students‟ motivation (Dörnyei,
2001; Lewis, 2002:4). From motivational point of view, Dörnyei (2001) mentions
that feedback increases learners‟ satisfaction and learning spirit which he calls as
“gratifying function” of feedback. Gratifying function occurs when feedback which
provides praise for the students is due and appropriate. However, feedback should not
offer praise after success in easy tasks (Graham 1994). Paris and Turner (1994) point
out that students may interpret success that comes without challenge or risk-taking as
8
an indication of the lower expectations held by others for their own level of
achievement.
Apart from increasing satisfaction and learning spirit, Dörnyei (2001), from
motivational perspective declares that feedback also promotes a positive self-concept
and self-confidence in the students. Students‟ positive self-concept and selfconfidence
arouse
when
the
teacher
feedback
communicates
trust
and
encouragement. Raffini (1993: 147) states that when teachers believe in students,
students believe in themselves. Started with this statement, it can be inferred that
when the students believe that the teachers trust them and they find that teacher
feedback encourages them to improve their performance, students will be sure about
their ability.
However, feedback may cause several drawbacks in building students‟
motivation. Dörnyei (2001) notes that from the motivational perspective, not every
type of feedback is equally positive and on occasion. If teachers are not careful
enough, their comments might be counterproductive. Furthermore, Lightbown, and
Spada (2000) believe that feedback that is given excessively or more than needed is
detrimental for student development since it only causes embarrassment, anger,
inhibition, and feeling of inferiority. In line with Lightbown, and Spada (2000), Ur,
(1996) underlines some negative consequences such as discouragement, depression,
and decrease in learning interest of the students if feedback is given more than it is
needed.
9
Positive Characteristics of Feedback in Building Students’ Motivation
Several characteristics of feedback in promoting students‟ motivation are
proposed by some experts. Dörnyei (2001) suggests that in order to build the
motivational feedback, teachers should promote “information feedback” instead of
“controlling feedback”. Unlike the controlling feedback which gives judgments
against external standards or peer achievements, positive information feedback
reflects constructively on the areas needed to be improved by the students and
identifies things that the students can do to increase the effectiveness of learning.
Positive information feedback involves positive, descriptive feedback
regarding student strength, achievements, progress, and attitudes (Dörnyei, 2001).
Moreover, Dörnyei (2001) illustrate the characteristics of positive information
feedback. Those characteristics are noting positive or negative trends, identifying
areas that were proper and areas that the students should focus on to improve their
progress, and providing information on how successfully the learners were applying
various strategies and how their strategy was improving their performance.
Also, to increase students‟ motivation, feedback should be balanced. It means
that the feedback should not only focus on negative or positive area of students‟
performance. Related to this statement, Weaver (2006) discovers that feedback which
does not dwell only on the negative aspects of students‟ work is more preferable for
them.
10
Moreover, it also needs to be considered that feedback should be constructive
(Davidson, 2007; Hong Kong Examination and Assessment Authority, 2009a). The
constructive actions can be executed by the teacher by pointing the area the students
need to improve. Accordingly, Littlewood (1981) and Lewis (2002) state that teacher
feedback should tell students about their progress and show them their errors in order
to guide them to areas for improvement. It means that the teacher feedback should
give notification to the students which area they have already performed well and
which areas that need improving.
Feedback in Relation with Students’ Accuracy and Fluency
Accuracy and fluency are inseparable with the process of learning speaking.
Accuracy deals with grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary (Harmer, 2007).
Richards (2006, pp. 13-14) describes the criteria of activities that are focused on
accuracy. Those criteria are reflecting classroom use of language, focusing on the
formation of correct examples of language, practicing language out of context,
practicing small samples of language, not requiring meaningful communication, and
controlling choice of language are some activities that focus on accuracy. On the
other hand, fluency deals with asking the students to use the language as fluently as
possible (Harmer, 2007). Richards (2006, pp. 13-14) gives the criteria of activities
that are focused on fluency such as revealing natural use of language, focusing on
getting communication, involving meaningful use of language, entailing the use of
11
communication strategies, producing unpredictable language, and seeking to link
language use to context. Both accuracy and fluency need to be mastered by students
in order to successfully speak the target language.
In connection with feedback, feedback helps to improve learners‟ accuracy
and fluency (Freiermuth, 1998:7). Teachers‟ feedback notes students‟ strong points to
strengthen as well as the weak points to improve in accuracy and fluency they
perform. The ways of giving feedback in accuracy-focused activities are different
with those of fluency-focused. Rahimi& Dastjerdi (2012) suggest that if the focus of
the lesson is on accuracy, students‟ errors should be corrected immediately. On the
other hand, if fluency is the focus, gentle and delayed correction techniques are
applied in order not to damage the flow of the activity or the learners‟ confidence.
Harmer (2001) also states that teachers should not interrupt students to point out a
grammatical, lexical, or pronunciation error when students do communicative
activities and they involve themselves in fluency because it can stop the
communication.
At the beginning of the learning process, the teachers have to decide whether
the focus of the speaking activity on that day is on accuracy or on fluency. After
defining the focus of the speaking activity, the teachers have to make sure that
students also know the focus so that the feedback given by the teacher will be
accepted by the students without any misunderstanding. If the teacher feedback does
not address the focus clearly, the students will be confused and disappointed because
the feedback is out of their expectation.
12
Encouraging the Students to Apply the Feedback Given
One of the objectives of giving feedback to the students is for students to
apply it in order to improve their performance. According to Lewis (2002), feedback
can encourage students not only to study but also to use language to the best of their
ability by following the teacher‟s suggestions. However, sometimes some students
tend to disregard the feedback given instead of taking it into consideration.
In order to avoid students‟ reluctance to apply the feedback given, several
aspects in delivering feedback to the students need to be considered. Firstly, feedback
should be understandable by making it clear. One of the feedback‟s functions is to
provide important information for the students (Konold; Miller; and Konold, 2004).
The clarity of the feedback is magnitude in delivering this information. If the
feedback is not clear, the students will face difficulties in comprehending the
feedback. Thus, the ignorance toward teacher feedback has a big chance to happen,
no matter how important the content of the feedback is. Some experts note the
importance of the clarity of the feedback. Weaver (2006) finds that students want
feedback which is not too general or too vague. It means that feedback should be
clear and specific. Furthermore, according to Hattie & Timperley (2007), feedback
needs to address a specific task or process of learning. Clear and understandable
feedback will result in helping students become “effective and efficient learner”
(Konold et al., 2004). The students will understand the feedback if they can receive
the corrections or comments that the teacher is likely to use. If the teacher feedback is
13
clear enough, the students will be successful in applying suggestions without wasting
time or energy.
Secondly, students have to be given an understanding that feedback is given
to them to accommodate their learning. Hargreaves (2011) states that teacher
feedback is considered to be effective when the students realize that the feedback is
intended to help their learning. Some students may produce various points of view
about feedback if the teachers do not clearly state the purpose of giving feedback
which sometimes are in the forms of criticism and revealing weaknesses.
Harmer
(2007) also adds that it is the teacher‟s responsibility to make students aware that
feedback is a crucial part of the learning process. It is the teacher‟s duty to find the
best and appropriate way in making the students realize about the role of feedback in
their learning process.
Thirdly, Harmer (2007) underlines that sensitiveness should be considered by
the teacher in giving feedback. It means that the teachers have to consider the way
they give feedback and correction. In other words, the teachers have to judge the right
moment to correct and taking into account the preferences of the group and individual
students.
14
THE STUDY
Context of the Study
The context of this research was nine (9) Transactional Speaking classes in
Faculty of Language and Literature, Satya Wacana Christian University (Central
Java, Indonesia), available in Semester II Academic Year 2013-2014. Two study
programs in Faculty of Language and Literature (English Teacher Education and
English Language and Literature) provide Transactional Speaking with similar
syllabus. Transactional Speaking attempts to bring students‟ speaking skills to a
higher level where the students are familiarized to the use of language
communicatively in a wider range of topics, language functions, and language skills.
Activities will include pairs and group discussions, individual and group
presentations. The objectives of Transactional Speaking class are developing
students‟ communication skills using topics related to daily life, building confidence
and develop students‟ oral presentation skills through presentations, supporting
students to speak in expressing their own ideas and opinions, and developing skills in
providing and asking for information. Speaking classes offer more teacher oral
feedback than any other classes such as writing or grammar classes and Transactional
Speaking classes were chosen for two reasons. This study was possible to be held in
any speaking classes. However, Transactional Speaking classes were the only
available classes during the data collecting process which had sufficient number of
participants for this study.
15
Participants of the Study
A purposive sampling technique is used in this study. The participants of this
study were 100 students (77 English Teacher Education students and 23 English
Language and Literature students) from nine (9) groups of Transactional Speaking
classes. Those students were chosen because they had experienced of having teacher
oral feedback in the speaking class.
Instrument of Data Collection
In this study the writer used close-ended questionnaires using Lickert scale.
The options provided were Never (N), Seldom (S), Often (O), and Always (A). Four
determining factors which had been mentioned earlier in this paper are transferred
into the questionnaire. This questionnaire contained 18 statements eliciting students‟
perceptions toward teacher oral feedback in speaking class. The statements number 4,
5, 6, 11, and 18 talked about the first determining factor (feedback in relation with
students‟ motivation); statements number 8 until 10 discussed about the second
determining factor (positive characteristics of feedback in building students‟
motivation); statements number 12 until 17 talked about the third determining factor
(feedback in relation with students‟ accuracy and fluency); and statements number 1,
2, 3 and 7 discussed about the fourth determining factor (encouraging the students to
apply the feedback given). Indonesian language was used in order to ease both the
participants and the writer. The English version of the questionnaire was provided as
an attachment at the end of this paper.
16
Procedure of Data Collection
After the questionnaires for the students were ready, the writer piloted those
questionnaires to the participants which had similar criteria with the real target
participants. The aim of piloting was to check whether the questionnaire was
understandable for the participants. The number of the piloting participants was 20
(20% from the real target participants). Those piloting participants were Faculty of
Language and Literature students from various angkatan.
After the piloting process, the writer revised several parts of the questionnaire.
Then, the questionnaires were delivered to 120 participants to anticipate the
incomplete questionnaire-filling. There were two ways used by the writer to get the
questionnaire filled by the participants: meeting the participants directly and asking
them to fill the questionnaire via telephone. From 120 questionnaires, 100 most
reliable questionnaires which were completely answered by the participants and filled
by the students who had taken Transactional Speaking class were used as the data for
this research. After the data were gathered, the writer started to analyze the data.
Data Analysis
After the data were collected, the percentages of the answers of each
statement in the questionnaire were counted using Microsoft Excel. Those
percentages were used to answer the research questions which were mentioned
17
previously in the introduction. Finally, a conclusion was drawn in accordance with
the findings.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The data collected from the participants‟ answers in questionnaires are
displayed, described, analyzed, and interpreted in this part. A table is presented on
every beginning of each discussion, while the order of discussion is arranged based
on the order of the four sub topics on the literature review. Those sub topics are
feedback in relation with students‟ motivation, positive characteristics of feedback in
building students‟ motivation, feedback in relation with students‟ accuracy and
fluency, encouraging the students to apply the feedback given.
Feedback in Relation with Students’ Motivation
Table 1 displays the students‟ perception related to feedback, students‟
motivation, and students‟ self- confidence. This table is taken from the statement on
number 4 and 6 in questionnaire.
No
Condition
4
Students feel that the feedback
given by the lecturers motivate
them to increase their ability in
speaking English.
18
Never
Seldom
Often
Always
0%
7%
54%
39%
6
Students feel that the feedback
given by the lecturers in speaking
class increases their confidence to
speak English in speaking class.
0%
7%
69%
24%
Table 1. Students‟ perception related to feedback, students‟ motivation, and
students‟ self- confidence
The questionnaire item number 4 shows that 54% of the students often felt
and 39% always felt that the feedback motivated them to increase their ability in
speaking English, and the questionnaire item number 6 demonstrates that 69% of the
students often felt and 24% always felt that the feedback could increase their
confidence to speak English in speaking class. The findings from these two
statements show that students felt that feedback could motivate and increase selfconfidence of most of the students in speaking English. It can be inferred that from
students‟ point of view, the feedback in the speaking classes had functioned
accordingly. This condition is in line with Dörnyei‟s and Lewis‟ theories. Dörnyei (
2001) and
Lewis (2002:4) states that feedback builds students‟ motivation.
Furthermore, Dörnyei (2001) also declares that feedback also promotes a positive
self-concept and self-confidence in the students.
Table 2 displays the students‟ perception related to the praise given by the
teacher. This table is taken from the statement on number 5 in questionnaire.
No Condition
5
Students feel that the lecturers give too
much praise, even for easy tasks
19
Never
Seldom
Often
Always
13%
66%
20%
1%
accomplished by the students in
English speaking class.
Table 2. Students‟ perception related to the praise given by the teacher
From table 2, it can be seen that 66% of students seldom felt that the teacher
in their speaking class gave lavish praise for easy tasks accomplished. It reveals the
fact that in the speaking classes joined by the participants, the students perceived that
the feedback had addressed appropriate praise. This fact matches with Graham‟s
(1994) advice which states that feedback should not offer praise after success in easy
tasks.
Table 3 displays the students‟ perception about the excessive feedback and
students‟ inferiority. This table is taken from the statement on number 18 and 11 in
questionnaire.
No
Condition
Never
Seldom
Often
Always
18
Students feel that the lecturers give 20%
them too much feedback while they
are speaking in English in speaking
class.
62%
16%
2%
11
Students feel that the feedback given 41%
by the lecturers in speaking class
makes them feel inferior.
50%
5%
4%
Table 3. Students‟ perception about the excessive feedback and students‟ inferiority
Table 3 statement number 18 shows that 62% of the students seldom and 20%
never felt that the teachers gave too much feedback to the students while statement
number 11 elicits that only 5% of the students often felt and 4% always felt that the
feedback caused inferiority. From this result, it can be figured out that from the
20
students‟ perceptions, teachers seldom and even never gave too much feedback to the
students. At the same time, the students also felt that they seldom and even never
experienced inferiority. It proves that there was a causal connection between the
excessive feedback given by the teacher and students‟ inferiority. When the students
felt that the teachers did not give too much feedback to them, they felt that inferiority
could not exist. It matches with Lightbown and Spada‟s (2000) theory stating that
feedback given excessively will cause student inferiority.
In relation with students‟ motivation, the above findings show that from
students‟ point of view, teacher oral feedback had addressed appropriate praise to the
students and was not given excessively, and the result was that most of the students
felt that the feedback built their motivation, positive self-concept, and selfconfidence. The result also shows that only few of them who felt inferior caused by
the feedback given.
Positive Characteristics of Feedback in Building Students’ Motivation
Table 4 displays the students‟ perception related to the students‟ weaknesses,
strength, and improvement strategy contained in teacher feedback. This table is taken
from the statement on number 8, 9, and 10 in the questionnaire.
No Condition
8
Students feel that the feedback given
by the lecturers in speaking class only
shows students‟ weaknesses in
speaking English.
21
Never
Seldom
Often
Always
31%
55%
14%
0%
9
Students feel that the feedback given
by the lecturers in speaking class
shows students‟ strengths in speaking
English.
4%
42%
45%
9%
10
Students feel that the feedback given
by the lecturers in speaking class
shows how the students should
improve their English speaking ability.
0%
4%
60%
36%
Table 4. Students‟ perception related to the students‟ weaknesses, strength, and
improvement strategy contained in teacher feedback
The table illustrates that 55% of the students seldom felt and 31% never felt
that the feedback only showed the students‟ weaknesses. The table also shows that
45% of the students often felt that the teacher showed students‟ strengths. The data
show that according to students‟ opinion, feedback focused not only on students‟
weaknesses but also on their strength. Students saw that feedback was balance and
they perceived that the teacher focused not only on their weaknesses. Thus, according
to students‟ perceptions, the feedback had fulfilled the requirement of a good
feedback proposed by Weaver (2006). According to Weaver (2006), students want
feedback which does not dwell only on the negative aspects of their work.
Furthermore, the table shows that 60% of the students often felt and 30%
always felt that the feedback given had shown how the students should improve their
speaking performances. It means that the students felt that the feedback given had
directed them to the improvement area. This fact is in line with Davidson‟s (2007)
and Hong Kong Examination and Assessment Authority‟s (2009a) statement which
says that feedback should be constructive. Moreover, it also matches to Littlewood‟s
22
(1981) and Lewis‟s (2002) theory that feedback should give direction to areas of
improvement for the students.
In relation with positive characteristics of feedback in building students‟
motivation, the result shows that from the students‟ perception, the feedback given by
the teacher had provided the students with positive characteristics which support them
to build their motivation.
Feedback in Relation with Students’ Accuracy and Fluency
Table 5 displays the students‟ perception related to the focus of the feedback
given. This table is taken from the statement on number 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 in
the questionnaire. Statement number 12, 13, and 14 indicate accuracy-focused
activities, while number 15, 16, and 17 indicate fluency-focused activities.
No Condition
Never
Seldom
Often
Always
12
Students feel that the feedback given
by the lecturers in speaking class
focuses only on grammar.
22%
67%
11%
0%
13
Students feel that the feedback given
by the lecturers in speaking class
focuses only on pronunciation.
5%
50%
42%
3%
14
Students feel that the feedback given
by the lecturers in speaking class
focuses only on vocabulary.
9%
59%
29%
3%
15
Students feel that when the lecturers
give feedback in speaking class, they
also explain about the strategies in
speaking English, such as asking for
1%
9%
66%
24%
23
clarification.
16
Students feel that when the lecturers
give feedback in speaking class, they
also explain about the skills in
speaking English, such as how to
speak English fluently.
2%
20%
56%
22%
17
Students feel that the lecturers
interrupt them to give feedback when
they are speaking English in
speaking class.
41%
46%
12%
1%
Table 5. Students‟ perception related to the focus of the feedback given
The table shows that the students seldom felt that the feedback only focused
in grammar (67%), pronunciation (50%) and vocabulary (59%). These results prove
that students felt that feedback given in the speaking classes did not merely focus on
accuracy aspects (grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary).
On the other hand, the different results come from fluency aspects. In
statement number 15, 16, and 17 which indicate fluency-focused activities, students
often felt that they had been given the explanation about the strategies (66%) and the
skills (56%) in speaking English. Moreover, 46% of the students seldom felt and 41%
never felt that the teachers interrupted them when they were speaking in English. The
results from number 15, 16, and 17 show that according to the students‟ perspective,
the feedback in speaking class supported the fluency-focused activity.
Moreover, it can be concluded that from students‟ perception, feedback
concerning fluency-focused activities was given bigger portion than that of accuracy-
24
focused activities in the speaking classes. It is in line with the characteristic of
transactional speaking class where fluency-focused activities are more dominant.
The compatibility between transactional speaking and fluency-focused
activities comes from the similar criteria shared by the syllabus of transactional
speaking course issued by Faculty of Language and Literature where this study took
place and the theory of the criteria of fluency-focused activities proposed by Richards
(2006, pp. 13-14). In these two sources, the importance of speaking skills and
strategies is emphasized to develop students‟ communication. Since fluency-focused
activity is more dominant in transactional speaking, the feedback should not interrupt
the students while they are speaking. As it is stated by Harmer (2001) that when
students do communicative activities and they involve themselves in fluency, teachers
should not interrupt students to point out a grammatical, lexical, or pronunciation
error, because it can stop the communication.
Related with students‟ accuracy and fluency, the findings reveal that from
students‟ perception, feedback concerning fluency-focused activities was given
bigger portion than that of accuracy-focused activities in the speaking classes.
Encouraging the Students to Apply the Feedback Given
Table 6 displays the students‟ perception about their awareness,
understanding, and application of feedback. This table is taken from the statement on
number 1, 2, and 3 in questionnaire.
No Condition
Never
25
Seldom
Often
Always
1.
Students realize that feedback given
by their speaking lecturers help them
to learn to speak English.
0%
9%
67%
24%
2
Students understand the feedback
given by the lecturers in English
speaking class.
0%
10%
66%
24%
3
Students apply the feedback given by
the lecturers while they are speaking
English.
1%
29%
51%
19%
Table 6. Students‟ perception about their awareness, understanding, and application
of feedback
From the table, 67% of students often felt that they realized that the feedback
helped them to learn to speak English in the speaking class, 66% of the participants
often understood the feedback given by the teacher, and 51% of the students often
applied the feedback given by their teacher while they were speaking in English.
From these results, it can be inferred that the students were aware that the feedback
was intended to help their learning. Based on Hargreaves‟ theory (2011), when the
students realize that teacher feedback helps their learning, the feedback is considered
to be effective. Moreover, the clarity of the feedback which considered as important
point in giving feedback by Weaver (2006) and Hattie and Timperley ( 2007) has
already been provided with the feedback given. The fact that the feedback was clear
can be indicated from the high number of the students who felt that they understood
the feedback given by the teachers. However, the participants‟ answers indicate that
students did not always apply the feedback given, although they often realized the
function and understood the content of the feedback.
26
Table 7 displays the students‟ perception toward teachers‟ sensitivity in
delivering feedback. This table is taken from the statement on number 7 in
questionnaire.
No Condition
7
Students feel that the lecturers also
consider students‟ feeling when
they give feedback to the students in
speaking class.
Never
Seldom
Often
Always
3%
25%
55%
17%
Table 7. Students‟ perception toward teachers‟ sensitivity in delivering feedback
The table shows that 55% of the students often felt that the teachers also
considered the students‟ feeling when the teachers gave feedback in speaking class. It
means the students perceived that the feedback was carefully delivered to them.
When the students feel that their feeling is being considered while being given the
feedback, feedback can motivate them. This fact is in accordance with Harmer‟s
(2007) opinion which states that to be motivational the teacher should be sensitive in
delivering feedback to the students.
In relation with encouraging the students to apply the feedback, students
perceived that the feedback was given in order to help their learning, understandable,
and caring about their feeling. However, it can be indicated that the students did not
always apply the feedback given although they often realized the function and
understood the content of the feedback.
27
CONCLUSION
This study, held in Transactional Speaking classes, is aimed to investigate the
students‟ perception toward teacher oral feedback in English speaking class. Based on
the data collected through the questionnaire, the writer found some facts about how
students actually perceive feedback.
Firstly, in relation with students‟ motivation according to students‟ point of
view, the teacher oral feedback could motivate and increase their self-confidence.
Moreover, students also perceived that the feedback had addressed appropriate praise
and been given on the right portion. The right portion of feedback caused most of the
students not to experience negative feeling such as inferiority.
Secondly, related to positive characteristics of feedback in building students‟
motivation, in students‟ point of view, the feedback was balance because students
perceived that the teachers focused not only on their weaknesses but also on their
strength. Also, the students felt that the feedback given had directed them to the
improvement area.
Thirdly, in relation with students‟ accuracy and fluency, students felt that
feedback given in the speaking classes did not merely focus on accuracy aspects
(grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary). Instead, the feedback in speaking classes
supported more on the fluency-focused activity. Moreover, it can be concluded that
28
from students‟ perception, feedback concerning fluency-focused activities was given
bigger portion than that of accuracy-focused activities in the speaking classes.
Fourthly, in encouraging the students to apply the feedback given, based on
students‟ perception, students were aware that the feedback was intended to help their
learning. In addition to that, the students also felt that they understood the given
feedback and it indicated that the feedback given was clear. There was also an
indication that the students did not always apply the feedback given, although they
often realized the function and understood the content of the feedback. Furthermore,
students felt that their feeling was being considered while the feedback was being
delivered.
Lastly, from the participants‟ answers in the questionnaire, it can be inferred
that although teachers provide the appropriate feedback, their inconsistency in
providing it still appeared. The fact that the students‟ answers were mostly in
“seldom” and ”often” part instead of “always” and “never” show this condition.
Based on the facts found, the writer suggests that to increase the motivation of
the students, teacher training about how to create motivational feedback for the
students should be held in order to increase the quality of feedback.
The study is limited only to transactional speaking classes where developing
students‟ communication skills is the aim of the learning process. Thus, this study
cannot be generalized into wider context. Further research with broader context
29
including other speaking classes is needed. Moreover, classroom observation is also
needed in order to check whether the students‟ perception toward teacher feedback is
proper. Specifically, the limitation of this study is that the questionnaire did not
provide open-ended questions which resulted in limitation of developing the findings.
Thus, in further research, it is suggested that the questionnaire should include openended questions.
ACKNOLEDGEMENT
The greatest thank I address to Allah, S.W.T for His guidance. I would also
like to express my appreciation to my thesis supervisor, Anita Kurniawati, M.Hum.
and my thesis examiner, Debora Tri Ragawanti, M.A.-ELT for the knowledge and
advice given to me. I also deliver my thanks to my questionnaire participants from
angkatan 2013 and Erio Fanggidae, S. Pd. for his help in giving information about
transactional speaking class. Gratuitous thanks are also dedicated to my family,
especially my father, Sigit Basuki, who always supports me and becomes my
motivator to finish this study. Special thanks are also addressed to my wonderful
friends: Lintar, Dewi, Adit, Argo, Titan, Annisa, Ardanti, Lintang, and Nindy. Many
thanks also go for „Tenners‟ for togetherness we shared. Last but not least, I would
like to thank all brilliant people whose encouragement and support have been
devastatingly valuable in this study.
REFERENCES
Annie, T. (2011). Exploring Students' Perception of and Reaction to Feedback in
School-based Assessment . Malaysian Journal of ELT Research , 7 (2), 107127.
Cook, G.(1994). Discourse and Literature: the interplay of form and mind. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
30
Davidson, C. (2007). Views from the chalkface: English language school-based
assessment in Hong Kong. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(1), 37-68.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational Strategies in the Language Clasroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Freiermuth (1998:7). Using a chat program to promote group equity. CAELL
Journal, 8, 16-24.
Graham, S. (1994). Classroom motivation from an attributuonsl perspective. In H. F.
O‟Neil Jr and M. Drillings (Eds.) Motivation: Theory and Research.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 31-48.
Hargreaves, E. (2011). Teachers‟ feedback to pupils: “Like so many bottles thrown
out to sea”? In Berry, R. & Adamson. B. (Eds.) Assessment reform in
education: policy and practice (pp. 121-133). Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Springer.
Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching (3rd ed.). England:
Pearson Education Limited.
Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching (4th ed.). England:
Pearson Education Limited.
Hattie, J. and Timperley. H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational
Research, 77, 1, 81-112.
Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority. (2009a). Handbook for School
Leaders on School-based Assessment. Retrieved from
31
http://www.hkeaa.edu.hk/DocLibrary/SBA/HKDSE/ SBAhandbookSchoolLeaders-E-300609.pdf
Konold, K. E., Miller, S. P., & Konold, K. B. (2004). Using teacher feedback to
enhance student learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(6), 64-69.
Kreitner, R. (1992). Management (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary
classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 144-164.
doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.12.001,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.12.001
Lewis, M. (2002). Giving Feedback in Language Classes. Singapore: SEAMEO
Regional Language Center.
Lightbown, P. M. & N. Spada. (1999). How Languages are Learned. 2nd ed. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative Language Teaching: an introduction.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paris, S. G., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Situated motivation. In P. R. Pintrich, D. R.
Brown & C. E. Weinstein (Eds.), Student motivation, cognition, and
learning (pp. 213-237). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32
Rahimi, A., & Dastjerdi, H. V. (2012). Impact of Immediate and Delayed Error
Correction on EFL Learners‟ Oral Production: CAF. Mediterranean Journal
of Social Sciences , 3 (1), 45-54.
Raffini, J. P. (1993). Winners without losers: Structures and strategies for increasing
student motivation to learn. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today. [e-book] New
York. Cambridge University Press.
Stiggins, R. (2007). Assessment through student‟s eyes. Educational Leadership,
64(8), 22-26.
Ur, P. (1996). A Course in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Weaver, M. (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perception of tutors‟ written
responses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 379-394.
33
APPENDIX
Questionnaire (English Version)
No Condition
Never
1.
Students realize that feedback given
by their speaking lecturers help them
to learn to speak English.
2
Students understand the feedback
given by the lecturers in English
speaking class.
3
Students apply the feedback given by
the lecturers while they are speaking
English.
4
Students feel that the feedback given
by the lecturers motivate them to
increase their ability in speaking
English.
5
Students feel that the lecturers give
too much praise, even for easy tasks
accomplished by the students in
English speaking class.
6
Students feel that the feedback given
by the lecturers in speaking class
increases their confidence to speak
English in speaking class.
7
Students feel that the lecturers also
consider students‟ feeling when they
give feedback to the students in
speaking class.
8
Students feel that the feedback given
by the lecturers in speaking class
only shows students‟ weaknesses in
speaking English.
9
Students feel that the feedback given
by the lecturers in speaking class
34
Seldom
Often
Always
shows students‟ strengths in speaking
English.
10
Students feel that the feedback given
by the lecturers in speaking class
shows how the students should
improve their English speaking
ability.
11
Students feel that the feedback given
by the lecturers in speaking class
makes them feel inferior.
12
Students feel that the feedback given
by the lecturers in speaking class
focuses only on grammar.
13
Students feel that the feedback given
by the lecturers in speaking class
focuses only on pronunciation.
14
Students feel that the feedback given
by the lecturers in speaking class
focuses only on vocabulary.
15
Students feel that when the lecturers
give feedback in speaking class, they
also explain about the strategies in
speaking English, such as asking for
clarification.
16
Students feel that when the lecturers
give feedback in speaking class, they
also explain about the skills in
speaking English, such as how to
speak English fluently.
17
Students feel that the lecturers
interrupt them to give feedback when
they are speaking English in
speaking class.
18
Students feel that the lecturers give
them too much feedback while they
are speaking in English in speaking
35
class.
36