A PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF THE TEACHERS’ SPOKEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON THE ENGLISH TEACHING (A Study of English Teachers in Public Junior High School 9 Salatiga in the Academic Year of 20162017) A GRADUATING PAPER Submitted to the Board of Examiners as a par
A PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF THE TEACHERS’
SPOKEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON THE
ENGLISH TEACHING
(A Study of English Teachers in Public Junior High School 9
Salatiga in the Academic Year of 2016/2017)
A GRADUATING PAPER
Submitted to the Board of Examiners as a partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan (S.Pd.)
English Education Department of Teacher Training and
Education Faculty State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN)
Salatiga
By:
By:
NOFI ZULIYATI NINGSIH
NIM 113-12-159
ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY
STATE INSTITUTE FOR ISLAMIC STUDIES (IAIN)
SALATIGA
2016
(Muttafaq ‘Alaih)
MOTTO
- Indeed, the legitimate action depends on the intention….
DEDICATION
This graduating paper is proudly dedicated to: 1.
My beloved Father (Muhammad Ridwan) and Mother (Siti Zuhriyah) who give me any support and the best education. You are the best parents in the world.
2. My beloved Brother (Fadhilah), Sister (Latifah) who remind me to be a good older sister, and also my beloved Grandmother (Napsirah) who always teaches me to become a sincere person.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful, the Lord of universe. The writer would like to express the gratefulness to Allah SWT for His blessing, chance, and guidance to finish this graduating paper as one of the requirement for Sarjana Pendidikan in English Education Department of Teacher Training and Education Faculty at State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) Salatiga in 2016. Peace and salutation always be given to our beloved prophet Muhammad SAW as the best human’s model in the world and who has guided us to be the righteous human.
This research would not have been completed without supports, guidance, advice, and help from individual’s institution. Therefore, the writer would like to express deep appreciation to: 1.
Dr. Rahmat Hariyadi, M.Pd. as the Rector of State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) Salatiga who has always given the best support and praying for his students.
2. Suwardi, M.Pd. as the Dean of Teacher Training and Education Faculty of State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) Salatiga.
3. Noor Malihah, Ph.D., as the Head of the English Education Department of State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) Salatiga and as the writer’s counselor who has educated, guided, supported and given advice, suggestion and recommendation for this graduating paper from beginning until the end. Thank you so much for your patience, sincerity, and care.
ABSTRACT
Ningsih, Nofi Zuliyati. 2016. A Pragmatic Analysis of the
Teachers’ Spoken Corrective Feedback on the English Teaching (A Study of English Teachers in Junior High Public School 9 Salatiga in the Academic Year of 2016/2017). A Graduating Paper. Educational Faculty, English
Departement, State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) Salatiga. Counselor: Noor Malihah, Ph.D.
Key words: Teacher’s Corrective Feedback, Maxim of Quantity, Maxim of Relation
This research deals with the pragmatic analysis of corrective feedback produced by two English teachers in Junior High Public School 9 Salatiga. The objectives of this research are (1) to find out the types of the teachers’ spoken corrective feedback in Junior High Public School 9 Salatiga and (2) to describe the violation of the maxim of quantity and maxim of relation in the teachers’ spoken corrective feedback in Junior High Public School 9 Salatiga. This research applies the descriptive qualitative method in analyzing the data. The method of collecting data is documentation and the technique is using record. The object of this study is 35 conversations which contain corrective feedback in the learning process. Firstly, the researcher analyzes the types of each corrective feedback produced by the teachers. Secondly, the researcher analyzes the violation of maxims in the teachers’ corrective feedback which are limited in analyzing the violation of maxim of quantity and maxim of relation. The finding of this research indicates that there are 6 types of corrective feedback used by two English teachers in Junior High Public School 9 Salatiga (Explicit explanation, Recast, Clarification request, Metalinguistic signal, Elicitation, and Repetition) which Recast is the most frequently used (60%). The researcher assumed that this type is easily understood by the students and it is brief practicing. Furthermore, it is appropriate to be used on the time limitation of classes. The finding also shows that there is not violation of maxim of relation (0) and 91.43% conversation shows that both teachers do not violate both maxims. Thus, both teachers tend to obey cooperative principles in communication and they present good communication with their students during the teaching and learning process.
TABLE OF CONTENT
TITLE PAGE .................................................................................................... i
DECLARATION ............................................................................................... ii
ATTENTIVE COUNSELOR ........................................................................... iii
CERTIFICATION PAGE ................................................................................ iv
MOTTO ............................................................................................................. v
DEDICATION ................................................................................................... vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................ vii
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................... ix
TABLE OF CONTENT .................................................................................... x
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................ xiii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 1
A. Background of the Research ................................................................... 1 B. Research Questions ................................................................................. 4 C. Objectives of the Research ...................................................................... 4 D. Benefits of the Research ......................................................................... 4 E. Limitation of the Research ...................................................................... 6 F. Definition of the Key Terms ................................................................... 6 G. Graduating Paper Outline........................................................................ 10CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ......................................... 12
A. Review of Related Researcher ................................................................ 12 B. Definition of Pragmatics ......................................................................... 13 C. Concept of Utterance .............................................................................. 16 1. Definition of Utterance ..................................................................... 162. Kinds of Utterance ............................................................................ 17 D. Feedback ................................................................................................. 19 1.
3) Maxim of Relation ................................................................ 33
Violating Maxim of Manner ................................................. 37 2. Conventional Implicature .................................................................. 38
Violating Maxim of Relation ................................................ 36 4)
Violating Maxim of Quality .................................................. 36 3)
Violating Maxim of Quantity ................................................ 35 2)
Violation of Maxims ................................................................... 35 1)
4) Maxim of Manner ................................................................. 34 d.
2) Maxim of Quality .................................................................. 32
Definition of Feedback ..................................................................... 19 2. Corrective Feedback ......................................................................... 21 a.
1) Maxim of Quantity ................................................................ 32
Particularized Conversational Implicature .................................. 30 c. Cooperative Principle .................................................................. 31
Generalized Conversational Implicature ..................................... 30 b.
Conversational Implicature ............................................................... 30 a.
Strategies and Types of Corrective Feedback ............................. 23 c. Student’s Error and Mistake ....................................................... 27 E. Implicature ............................................................................................. 29 1.
Definition of Corrective Feedback .............................................. 21 b.
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .......................................... 40
A. Type of the Research............................................................................... 40 B. Research Approach ................................................................................. 41 C. Data Source ............................................................................................. 42 D. Respondent of the Research .................................................................... 42 E. Method of Collecting Data ...................................................................... 42 F. Technique of Analyzing Data ................................................................. 44
CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................. 47
A. Distribution of Teachers’ Corrective Feedback ...................................... 47 B. Maxim Analysis of Teachers’ Corrective Feedback ............................... 53CHAPTER V CLOSURE ................................................................................. 57
A. Conclusions ............................................................................................. 57 B. Suggestions ............................................................................................. 59REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 61
CURRICULUM VITAE ................................................................................... 65
APPENDICES ................................................................................................... 66
LIST OF TABLES 1.
Table 2.1 Two dimensions of corrective feedback’s strategies ............. 23 2.Table 2.2 Types of teachers’ corrective feedback .................................. 25 3.Table 3.1 Coding of the Kinds of Teachers’ Corrective Feedback ......... 45 4.Table 3.2 Coding of the Maxims’ Analysis of Teachers’Corrective Feedback ............................................................................... 46 5.
Table 4.1 Distribution of Teachers’ Corrective Feedback ...................... 53 6.Table 4.2 Violation of Maxims in Teachers’ Corrective Feedback ........ 56CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. Background of the Research Indonesian sets English as a foreign language
. “English as a foreign language refers to a traditional term for the use or study of the English language by non-native speakers in countries where English is generally not the local medium of communication” (Nordquist, 2014). On the other hand, the people are expected to pay more attention if they want to master English which it has been determined as a foreign language.
Since English is a foreign language in Indonesia, English is not usually used in the daily activity. But, sometimes we can find that English is used in the learning process as the subject of study. As stated by Broughton, et al. (1980: 6), “English as a foreign language is taught in schools, often widely, but it does not play an essential role in national or social life”. An essential role in national or social life means that English is not frequently used as the normal medium of communication and instruction in daily life.
In the teaching and learning process, the teachers have a duty to teach, educate, and control their students to help them to gain the development and the improvement of comprehension and skills accordance with the teaching goal. As in the English subject, this is one of the te acher’s challenges. challenges as a foreign language teacher can be
The teacher’s
such as choosing the corrective and effective methods to teach, considering the strategy of teaching, and preparing the subject matter in order to give understanding for the students about specific context of English and achieve the goal of teaching. Those challenges agree with what Wallace (1991: 28) has argued. He argues that different people have different attitudes to learn and their own individual ways of learning. These are the evidence that people can also have considerable control over which style of learning they use in particular situations. Thus, it needs the learning strategies which students can use as required.
Sometimes, the teaching and learning process do not occur fluently.
The teacher frequently meets the students’ difficulties in understanding the
material, even they often make a mistake. It is normal if the teacher gives
correction to the students’ mistake because it is expected to help the students
to know their mistakes, then they can produce the work well and will not do
the same mistake again in the future (Johnson, 1988, in Ellis, 2012: 136).Discussing correction or feedback in the teaching and learning process, Richards and Lockhart (1996: 188) argue that feedback given by the teacher is an important aspect of teaching. Feedback could be a positive or negative statement to the students and not only find out the improvement of learners’ ability but also create the motivation and supportive classroom environment.
Giving feedback has a variety of strategies applied in the classroom, such as by indicating an incorrect answer, praising, and modifying a student’s answer. Generally, there are two forms to produce a corrective feedback: oral corrective feedback and written corrective feedback. In order to be focus, this research limits on the oral corrective feedback produced by the teacher in the language teaching.
Corrective feedback includes the utterance produced by the teacher in the teaching and learning process. In pragmatics, each utterance produced by the speaker is discussed its meaning and social context which is involved. The researcher would like to note that pragmatics is the most appropriate field to do this research because the analysis has a close relationship to the study of utterance meaning, sentences which are used in communication, and also the study of meaning in language as a means of interaction and context.
There are also some principles used in communication in order to create a good communication, called as cooperative principles in communication or maxims (Grice, 1989). In fact, not all utterances produced by teachers in teaching and learning process, especially corrective feedback, obey these maxims. Sometimes, they unconsciously violate these maxims. According to this condition, the researcher tries to learn and analyze the types and the violating of maxims on the teachers’ spoken corrective feedback in the teaching process. The researcher is inspired to conduct the paper entitled
“A Pragmatic Analysis of the Teachers’ Spoken Corrective Feedback on the English Teaching
” (A Study of English Teachers in Public Junior High School 9 Salatiga in the Academic Year of 2016/2017).
B. Research Questions
To clarify the problem that is going to be analyzed, the researcher formulates the research questions as follow:
1. What the types of spoken corrective feedback are produced by teachers in English teaching of Public Junior High School 9 Salatiga?
2. How are the violations of maxim of quantity and maxim of relation in the teachers’ spoken corrective feedback in English teaching of Public
Junior High School 9 Salatiga? C.
Objectives of the Research
The objectives of the research are as the following: 1. To find out the types of spoken corrective feedback produced by teachers in English teaching of Public Junior High School 9 Salatiga.
2. To describe the violation of maxim of quantity and maxim of relation in the teachers’ spoken corrective feedback in English teaching of Public Junior High School 9 Salatiga.
D. Benefits of the Research
The results of the research are expected to give some important contribution to those related.
1. Practically a.
For the students This research gives knowledge for the students about the types and the pragmatic analysis of the maxim’s theory on the spoken corrective feedbacks that are used by the teacher in the learning process. The students can gain more information and understanding about corrective feedback. Furthermore, this research can be used to enrich knowledge about the study of corrective feedback and to be the reference to the other research related to the topic.
b.
For the teacher Feedback is given by the teacher to the students when they got an error in the learning process. The results of this research enable the teachers to gain information about corrective feedback. It will help the teachers to analyze and comprehend the corrective feedback they used. On the other hand, the teacher also gains the information about the suitability between the utterances which are produced with the theory of maxim which is analyzed in this research. In addition, the teachers are able to select the suitable feedback in the learning process in order to create good communication in teaching.
c.
For English Education Department of IAIN Salatiga This research is expected to give a contribution on finding the types of corrective feedback used by teachers in Public Junior
High School 9 Salatiga based on the theory from Lyster and Ranta (1997) and pragmatic analysis of corrective feedback based on theory of maxim as stated by Grice (1989). In the English department of IAIN Salatiga, this research will add the reaches of knowledge about the pragmatic study and the results are able to be used to make a reference for another research or others related to the subject.
2. Theoretically
This research is expected to improve the understanding of the types of corrective feedbacks used by teachers in the teaching and learning process. It also can linguistically contribute the overview of a pragmatic analysis based on the theory of maxim on the corrective feedbacks used by teachers.
E. Limitation of the Research
The researcher limits this research in the field of teachers’ spoken corrective feedback on the English teaching. This research focuses on the analysis of corrective feedback
’s types produced by two English teachers in Public Junior High School 9 Salatiga in the academic year of 2016/2017 based on the theory from Lyster and Ranta (1997) and their pragmatic analysis which focus on the analysis of violating maxim of quantity and maxim of relation based on Grice’s theory (1989).
F. Definition of the Key Terms 1.
Pragmatics Levinson (1983: 21) state s, “pragmatics is the study of the relations between language and context that are the basic to an account of language understanding.
” Here, he declares that pragmatics elaborates the meaning of language itself related to the situation and the term of language understanding is related to producing inferences to what is said and assumed before.
Yule (1996: 4) states that pragmatics is the study of the relationships between linguistic forms and the users, exactly speakers, of those forms. Here, linguistics form means the words or phrases or utterances produced by people and need a large interpretation to understand the meaning supported by recognizing the circumstances.
2. Utterance According to Leech (1983: 14), “the utterances are the elements whose meaning studied in pragmatics”. An utterance refers to the product of a verbal act that may consist of single words, phrases, clauses and clauses combination spoken in context (Carter and McCarthy, 2006).
3. Corrective Feedback Lightbown and Spada (1999, in Tatatwy, 2002: 1) define corrective feedback as: Any indication to the learners when their use of the target language is incorrect. This explanation includes various responses that the learners receive. When a language learner says, ‘He go to school every day’, corrective feedback can be explicit, for example, ‘No, you should say goes, not go’ or implicit ‘yes, he goes to school every day’, and may or may not include metalinguistic information, for example, ‘Don’t forget to make the verb agree with the subject’.
4. Theory of Cooperative Principle or Maxims in Communication A s stated by Grice (1989: 26), “cooperative principle makes your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exch ange in which you are engaged.”
There are four maxims as stated by Grice (1989: 26-27) as follow: a.
Maxim of Quantity The principle theory of this maxim is serving the enough answers like what the people want to know. It gives the most helpful amount of information. This maxim is not too much, not too little, but just right as stated by Grice as follow:
1) Make your contribution as informative as is required for the current purposes of the exchange.
2) Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
b.
Maxim of Quality Only giving the right answer to the questioner and without any intention to tell untruth but 'tell the truth'. It is divided into super- maxim and sub-maxim as follow:
1) Super-maxim: Try to make your contribution one that is true.
2) Sub-maxim:
a) Do not say what you believe to be false.
b) Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
c.
Maxim of Relation The principle of this maxim is being relevant. d.
Maxim of Manner This maxim indicates about what the speaker’s say is in the clearest, briefest, and most orderly manner. It is divided into super- maxim and sub-maxim as follow:
1) Super-maxim: Be perspicuous.
2) Sub-maxim:
a) Avoid obscurity of expression.
b) Avoid ambiguity.
c) Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).
d) Be orderly. In the communication, someone does not always obey the cooperative principle. Although the people seem to try to be cooperative, but potentially they produce the violation of maxims. The violation of maxim is happened when the speaker knows that the hearer will not understand all information that are being talked (Cutting, 2002: 40). There are the discussions about violating maxims in the communication as follow (Cutting, 2002: 40-41): a.
Violating the maxim of quantity If the speaker violates the maxim of quantity, he or she does not give the hearer enough information to know what is being talked about, because the speaker does not want the hearer to know the full information. b.
Violating the maxim of quality The conversation can violate the maxim of quantity if the speaker is not being sincere and giving the hearer wrong information.
c.
Violating the maxim of relation A speaker who violates the maxim of relation is seen that she does not talk related to the topic which is being discussed.
d.
Violating the maxim of manner The violating of the maxim of manner happens when a speaker gives the ambiguous information to the hearer. The sentences are not orderly arranged and certainly difficult to be understood.
G. Graduating Paper Outline
The paper consists of five chapters. Each chapter will be discussed as follows: Chapter I tells about introduction, which consists of background of the research, research questions, objectives of the research, benefits of the research, limitation of the research, definition of key terms, and graduating paper outline.
Chapter II presents the theoretical framework. It consists of review of related researcher, definition of pragmatics, concept of utterance, theory of feedback and corrective feedback, and implicature which contains cooperative principle or maxims of pragmatics.
Chapter III extends the methodology of research. It discusses type of the research, research approach, data source, respondent of the research, method of collecting data and technique of analyzing data.
Chapter IV presents the research findings of data followed by the discussion that could be derived from the analysis. It consists of distribution and maxim analysis of teachers’ corrective feedback.
Chapter V consists of the conclusions and suggestions. The last part is references, curriculum vitae, and appendices.
CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK In this chapter, the researcher writes the theories that have correlation with
the research. They consist of review of related researcher, definition of pragmatics, concept of utterance, theory of feedback and corrective feedback, and implicature which contains cooperative principles in pragmatics. Thus, they are expected to assist the process of the graduating paper.
A. Review of Related Researcher
The researcher starts to discuss some previous work related to the pragmatic study and the analysis of corrective feedback. Firstly, Esmaeili (2014) conducts a research about the stud y of corrective feedback and learner’s uptake in classroom interactions. She described and analyzed the patterns of corrective feedback utilized by Iranian teachers and the learners’ uptake and repair of their errors. She also analyzed the achievement of t he learners’ uptake as based on the teachers’ corrective feedback. She concluded that all the six corrective feedback’s types suggested by Lyster and Ranta (1997) were used with different frequencies by the teachers. There is also the other corrective feed back’s type used by teachers. Moreover, she concluded that the most frequent type of corrective feedback does not always achieve the most effective way of learners’ uptake.
The second researcher is Chotimah (2015). Chotimah conducts a research about the an alysis of implicature in the conversation of “The Little Rascals Save the Day” Movie. She observed about the violated conversation principles, the most dominant of the conversation principle, and the contextual meaning of the conversational implicature used in that movie. She concluded that not all conversation is going well. Sometimes there is an implicit meaning in the utterance that should be understood more by the hearer.
Based on the review above, the researcher would analyze the different topic from both previous researchers. Here, the researcher conducts the research about the teachers’ spoken corrective feedback on English teaching in Public Junior High School 9 Salatiga. This research would be focus on analyzing the types and the maxim analysis of t he teachers’ spoken corrective feedback. Meanwhile, this research aims to find out and discusses them deeper in order to know the types of corrective feedback used by teachers based on the theory from Lyster and Ranta (1997) and the maxim analysis based on
Grice’s theory (1989).
B. Definition of Pragmatics
This research uses a pragmatic approach to analyze the teachers’ spoken corrective feedback in the English classroom. According to Parker (1946: 11, as cited in Chotimah, 2015: 9-10), pragmatics is the study of how language is used to communicate. It has, consequently, more to do with the analysis of what people mean by their utterances than what the words or phrases in those utterances might mean by themselves.
In contrast to Parker, according to Levinson ( 1983: 21), “pragmatics is the study of the relations between language and context that are the basic to an account of language understanding”. Here, he declares that pragmatics elaborates the meaning of language itself related to the situation and the term of language understanding is related to producing inferences to what is said and assumed before.
Similar to Levinson, Yule (1994: 3) defines “pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning. It requires a consideration of how the speakers organize what they want to say accordance with who they are talking to, where, when, and under what circumstance”. He also states that pragmatics is the study of the relationships between linguistic forms and the users, exactly speakers, of those forms (1994: 4). Here, linguistics form means the words or phrases or utterances produced by the human.
Mey (2001: 6) similarly states that pragmatics is the study of how people use language in communication accordance with the circumstance in society.
The focus of pragmatics, consequently, does not only describe the way humans use their language but also involves social context which covers.
Pragmatics also discusses the utterance meaning or sentence used in communication between the speaker and the hearer. As stated by Adisutrisno (2008: 63), “pragmatics is the study of utterance’s meaning, sentences which are used in communication, and also the study of meaning in language interaction between a speaker and a hearer”.
Based on the explanations above, pragmatics more focuses on the meaning of speakers’ utterances rather than on the meaning of words or sentences themselves. They are also affected by the context of a society where the produced utterances occurred. It concerns with the study of speaker meaning, contextual meaning, how more gets communicated than is said and the expression of relative distance.
The study of pragmatics is quite interesting. It is in line with linguistics and sociolinguistics, dealing with how someone produces utterances, how the speakers clarify the meaning of their utterances, and how the circumstance around the speaker happened are learned here. Thus, pragmatics is appealing because it discusses how people make sense of each other linguistically, but it can be a frustrating area of study because it requires us to make sense of people and what they have in mind.
However, the researcher quite agrees with the definition of pragmatics as stated by Yule and Mey above. They define that pragmatics learns about how speakers express their utterances according to their assumptions of language by considering the circumstance. However, the researcher will use this concept to assist accomplishing the analysis of the research.
In addition, according to the explanation above, pragmatics frequently involves the study about utterances produced by the speakers. It is appealing.
Because of the utterance is the object of pragmatics, that is the reason why the researcher will analyze the utterance using a pragmatic approach and the researcher focuses on one of the utterance’s type, called feedback. For more detailed, the researcher will discuss the explanation of utterance in the next section of this chapter.
C. Concept of Utterance 1. Definition of Utterance
One of the main purposes of this research is to analyze the utterances which are produced by the teacher in English teaching and merely contains feedback. According to Leech (1983: 14), “the utterances are the elements whose meaning studied in pragmatics”. In linguistics, an utterance is a unit of speech. The term ‘utterance’ refers to the product of a verbal act that may consist of single words, phrases, clauses and clauses combination spoken in context (Carter and McCarthy, 2006).
More detailed, Hurford et al. (2007: 16) define: An utterance contains any stretch of talk, by one person, before and after which there is silence on the part of that person. It is used by a particular speaker, on a particular occasion, of a piece of language, such as a sequence of sentences, or a single phrase, or even single word. For examples:
Hello! = shows a single word Without any response. = a phrase A beautiful rose in my hand. = a phrase Although his bag was broken. = a clause Today is very hot! = a sentence
Furthermore, an utterance is produced when a speaker utters a sentence in a particular context and this sentence is directed to a listener (Adisutrisno, 2008: 63).
Based on the explanation above, it can be concluded that an utterance can be single words, phrases, or sentences which are produced by the speaker in the communication to express their thought. A sentence can take utterance form, but not every utterance is a sentence.
2. Kinds of Utterance
There are several kinds of utterance and their functions (Adisutrisno, 2008: 67-68) as follow: a.
Declarative utterance These utterances have the function to make the statement and give information.
For example:
Geoffrey : On Monday next week I will fly to Honolulu. I got a scholarship to study for a Master’s Degree in Linguistics at the University of Hawaii. Alice : That is good news. I wish you Good Luck. Geoffrey : Thank you very much.
b.
Interrogative utterances These are the utterances to make questions.
For example:
Lewis : Did your brother pass his final examination? Astrid : Yes, he did. He passed with a scoring grade.
Lewis : Will he continue studying at the Graduate Program? Astrid : No. He is planning to work. c.
Imperative utterances The function of these utterances is to commands or requests.
For example:
Gregory : Would you be so kind as to help me? I am carrying a heavy book.
Mathews : It is my pleasure.
d.
Exclamative utterances These are utterances to exclaim surprise or delight.
For example:
Pamela : What a brilliant idea you have! Nancy : Thank you for your compliment.
Based on the explanation of the utterance’s kinds above, there are several functions of utterance in communication. They appear in a particular event. Here, the researcher assumes that an utterance can have the form of a feedback. So, there is an utterance in a feedback produced by the speaker, such as the form of feedback to give information, question, or request.
In the learning process, there are many interactions between teacher and students which obviously produce feedback. It is usually used to give affirmation to the students in order to motivate or appreciate their works or correct the responses. Thus, the researcher sets feedback as the data source which is going to be analyzed in this research. Furthermore, the researcher will discuss feedback more detailed in next section of this chapter.
D. Feedback 1. Definition of Feedback
Feedback is the specific descriptions and suggestions which are given to a particular student’s work. Kluger and DeNisi (1996: 255) define feedback as “actions taken by an external agent to provide information regarding some aspects o f one’s task performance”. This definition clearly puts emphasis on an external agent and performance. An external agent can be the teacher, whereas the classroom’s performances involve the learning, the achievement, or the attitudes about the “work” that is being taught.
More detailed, Ellis (2009: 3) states that feedback is seen as contributing to language learning as a means of motivating the students and determining the linguistic accuracy. As supporting the language learning process, feedback typically can be consisted of constructive critique and advice, but could also be behavior, social interactions, and praise such as “Good job!” (Hattie, 2011: 1).
Feedback can be positive or negative. Based on Ellis (2009: 3), feedback has two types based on the teacher. There are positive and
negative feedbacks
. Positive feedback explains that the students’ responses to an activity of any target language are correct. Here, the teacher provides the good feedback to appreciate students’ effort, such as saying “Good job”, “Yes”, or “Right”. In this condition, the students can follow the learning process and do the assignment well, such as having correct of producing an utterance and making an accurate answer which is suitable with linguistic correctness. According to Ellis (2009: 3), there are some theories that discuss positive feedback produced by the teacher. First, in pedagogical theory, positive feedback is an important and effective way to support the students and excite the motivation in learning. When the students have comprehended a specific content and they receive an appreciation from their teacher, it will trigger their motivation to continue learning. Being different with the first concept of positive feedback, on the second theory, in Second Language Acquis ition (SLA) states that teacher’s positive feedback has a little attention in the learning process. It is caused by the ambiguity of the feedback in the classroom interaction. For example, when a teacher says “Good” or “Yes”, do not always indicate that the student is correct. These responses may merely as a beginning to correct the student’s response or modify the student’s utterance when they make a mistake. So, positive feedback does not always give the best solution in the class because it is frequently ambiguous. Thus, it needs more analysis in order to get the accurate intention of the feedback.
Negative feedback indicates that the student’s utterance is far from the linguistic correctness. The students lack in comprehending the target language. So, the teacher provides feedback to correct the mistake of the student. Thus, the teacher’s feedback that corrects the student’s mistake called negative feedback and corrective feedback is one of the branches of negative feedback (Loewen, 2012: 24).
For example: Student : Uhm, the, the elephant. The elephant grows.
Teacher : Do we say the elephant? The example above shows that the student lacks producing the sound which is opposite with the vowel sound. So, the teacher provides correction in order to give the opportunity for the student to correct his mistake.
2. Corrective Feedback a. Definition of Corrective Feedback
The teacher’s corrective feedback can be defined as ‘a treatment of error’ which is produced by the students. The term “treatment of error” refers to any teacher’s behavior following an error that minimally attempts to tell the students about the fact of error they made (Chaudron, 1988, in Tatawy, 2002: 1). The behavior does not only provide directly the corrective form of the error, but sometimes the teacher also makes the significant effort to elicit a revised student response. This second form allows the students to make a correction by themselves. Thus, corrective feedback is expected to eliminate the students’ error for the target language.
Lightbown and Spada (1999, in Tatawy, 2002: 1) define corrective feedback as: Any indication to the learners when their use of the target language is incorrect. This explanation includes various responses that the learners receive. When a language learner says, ‘He go to school every day’, corrective feedback can be explicit, for example, ‘No, you should say goes, not go’ or implicit ‘yes, he goes to school every day’, and may or may not include metalinguistic information, for example, ‘Don’t forget to make the ve rb agree with the subject’.
Here, Lightbown and Spada denote the way of teacher’s corrective feedback in three types. The teacher may use the implicit, explicit or metalinguistic information to correct the students’ error. It is also completed by the example of the correction form from each type.
Furthermore, Loewen (2012: 24) develops the meaning of corrective feedbacks. Corrective feedback also known as negative feedback is as information given by the teacher to the learners in their production of errors of their second language production. Here, the information can be oral or written feedback. By this action, the students are given the opportunity to revise their wrong response and understand about the error that they have made. Then, those errors are hoped to do not happen in the next process of learning.
As explained above, corrective feedback takes the form of a response to a student’s utterance which contains a linguistic error. The response has a goal to repair the error where may consist of an indication that an error has been committed, the correct clause of the target language form, metalinguistic signal about the nature of the error (Ellis et al., 2006: 340). The parts of corrective feedback consist of a trigger, the feedback move, and uptake (optionally).
This is an example of the parts of corrective feedback conducted by Ellis and Sheen (2006: 581): S1 : What do you spend with your wife? T : What? S1 : What do you spend your extra time with your wife? T : Ah, how do you spend? S2 : How do you spend The example above shows three parts of corrective feedback.
The first student commits the error, then the teacher tries to give feedback. Because there is still a wrong response, the teacher gives the correct answer. Then, the second student can apply the correct form as the current explanation from the teacher.
Based on the explanation above, it can be concluded that corrective feedback is any correction forms which are given by the teacher to the students when they perform a linguistic error of the target language. The goal of this treatment is to eliminate the students’ error which may happen to the next learning process. Thus, the students truly understand the correct linguistic form and habitually use it.
b.
Strategies and Types of Corrective Feedback Ellis (2012: 139) defines the strategies of corrective feedback in two dimensions. He notes that some teacher’s corrective moves involve multiple strategies. These are the strategies as shown in table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Two dimensions of corrective feedb ack’s strategiesImplicit Explicit
Input-providing Recast Explicit correction
Output- Repetition Metalinguistic signal prompting Clarification request Elicitation