1
ORAL FEEDBACK USED BY ENGLISH TEACHER FOR JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
Nur Kurnia Rahman
ABSTRACT
This research focuses on study teacher‟s feedback, with a particular concern on oral feedback. This study is aimed to find out types of oral feedbacks used by English teachers. The participants were two English teachers who taught at one of junior high school in Banyubiru. One type of research tools was used: Observation. Ten observations have been conducted to gain data. This study includes quantitative study. The result shows the participants used all types of feedback by Lyster & Ranta (1997) (e.g., recast, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, repetition of error and explicit correction). Explicit correction is the most frequent oral feedback used by the two participants, then recast is the lowest. This finding is also expected to improve teacher‟s knowledge in giving oral feedback.
KEY WORDS: Feedback, oral feedback, types of feedback
INTRODUCTION
Teacher‟s feedback is regarded as an important key to improve student‟s
2
student will involve in his learning when we focus our feedback on a specific problem of a student‟s work, then tell them what was wrong with it and how to fix it.
Teachers also have a role in providing corrective feedback. In giving feedback, teachers do not only give information or comments to their students, but also they see the kind of feedback their students need. They believe feedback is a key point for student‟s achievement. According to Hattie & Rowe (2003) teacher is the major in-school influence on student achievement.
In the educational field, there are many types of oral feedback. Lyster and Ranta (1997) in Lyster, Saito & Sato (2013) identify six different teacher oral feedbacks, they were recast, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, repetition of error and explicit correction. In contrast, in classroom application there are some teachers who don‟t apply it. They even provide limited
feedback for their students, such as mentioned by Tabatabaei & Banitalebi (2011) in Al-Faki (2013) their result of their study showed that explicit correction was the most frequent feedback technique used by teachers whereas elicitation was the second one (49 % & 19%).
3
by teachers in providing feedback. It showed from the three studies teachers sometimes gave monotone feedback, mostly recast and appraising or even the frequency of giving feedback was seldom.
According to Lyster and Ranta (1997) there are six types of oral feedback. These six oral feedbacks are important elements to improve learner acquisition which focus on the student‟s goal. Moreover, these elements improve teacher awareness providing good quality feedback and corrective feedback. A number of studies have also used types of oral feedback proposed by Lyster and Ranta (1997). For example, Lin (2009) and Doughty (1998) who investigated types oral of feedback used by ESL teachers in low, intermediate and advance speaking. They found most of teacher used “ recast, repetition and clarification request “.
Since several teachers provided monotone feedback for their students, it is essential to carry out a study which focuses on types of teacher oral feedback. The aim of this study is to find out the types of oral feedback which were used by English teacher. Therefore, my research question is “ What are the types oral feedback which are used by English teachers in junior high school?‟. The findings of this study are also expected to improve teacher‟s knowledge about types of oral feedback for students since some teachers provide limited feedback.
LITERATURE REVIEW Teacher oral feedback
4
refers to teacher motivation for their students to do better in their performances. In a study about feedback in recent years ( Edith, Rosario & Griselda, 2010 ; Boyung, 2010 ; Lyster, Saito & Sato, 2013), teacher oral feedback can be inferred from implicit and explicit form. In this case term of implicit, teachers don‟t
directly state student‟s utterances as incorrect. They tend to provide correct form,
so it can force students thought again of their errors or self repair. With explicit feedback, teachers explicitly state there are errors or mistakes from student‟s
utterances.
According to Lyster and Ranta (1997) in Lyster, Saito & Sato (2013) there are six types of oral feedback. They were classified into two categories, reformulation and prompt. Reformulation includes recast and clarification request because both teach the learner with target reformulations. On the other hand, prompt includes metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, repetition of error and explicit correction. These types of prompt teach the learner self repair.
Recast. Long (1996) in Boyung ( 2010) defined recast as “ an utterances
that rephrase an utterances by changing one or more of its sentence components (subject, verb or object) while still referring to its central meaning‟‟.
S : I go to cinema this week
5
By such feedback, students know what they have to do and can revise their works.
Similar with Lyster and Ranta (1997), XieNan (2007) adds that errors of student‟s
performance should be located and identified. It means teachers identify the error
in student‟s work. Mignon et al.(2013) conducted a study about the forms of oral
feedback that are given to students. They observed seven teachers in Gorinchem Nertherlands. They found most English teacher used recast feedback 45% for the students. While, other percentages for clarification and elicitation. It was based on six types of oral feedback Lyster and Ranta (1997). According to them recast feedback involves teacher‟s reformulation of all students‟ utterance and corrects
the error. Recast usually uses words such as “ You mean “, “You should say” and “Use this word “.
Clarification request. Elis (2002) in Boyung (2010) defined clarification request are “any that elicit clarification the preceding utterance”. For
example
S : I was really chuffed T : uh
S : really pleased
In simply, clarification indicates that the student‟s utterance has been misunderstood by teacher, and then the teacher asked for clarification or gave feedback by saying “What do you mean when you say it?” this is kind of feedback
6
without corrective feedback, it is difficult for students to ascertain that a learning
task has been completed correctly.
Metalingustic feedback. It refers to teaching techniques of providing
feedback by adding some information. It contains comments, information
or questions related to students utterances, such as when students make
sentences,
“ S : There are four chair in the classroom”.
“T : four chair, four chairs”
This kind of feedback helps student to gain new knowledge and information about
what they have done. Richards and Lockhart (1996) suggest that the teacher
should expland student‟s performance as an oral feedback in order to broaden
student‟s knowledge to what students have already performed.
Elicitation. There are two types of elicitation techniques according to
Lyster & Ranta (1997) in Boyung (2010), the first one is the teacher gives feedback to encourage student in correcting form by pausing to allow the student to complete teacher‟s utterance.
S : well, there‟s a stream of perfume that doesn‟t smell very nice.
T : so smell stream of perfume we‟ll call a…. “
7
T : In fast food restaurant, how much do you tip? S : no money
T : what‟s the word?
In the last one, teacher asks student to reformulate the student‟s utterance.
S : yes, yes, I like it. T : well say that again.
This kind of feedback will trigger students to think further, moreover
students can move beyond opinions to critical thinking.
Repetition of error. The teacher repeats the student‟s error. Most of teachers usually use intonation or stress to correct and highlight student‟s
error. For example
S : we going to visit my grandfather. T : we going to (emphasis),
S : we are going to visit my grandfather.
Here, teacher wants student to identify and investigate what their error is and how
they can fix it. It is an indirect way for student self correction.
Explicit correction. Refers to the technique where teachers provide
explicit correct form, teachers are direct or straight to what students said is incorrect. For example
8
T : oranges, it should be plural since you are talking to general S : I like oranges
T: right, that‟s good
Hence, teachers are focused on drawing student‟s attention to the target languages.
Elis (2002) in Boyung (2010) proposed the teacher used explicit correction feedback by asking question or metalingual comments (providing information). An interesting point from Elis‟s study (2006) is statistical of student‟s performance through explicit feedback was improving for student ability. This result indicated that explicit feedback was a beneficial for student knowledge.
Several Studies
In several studies toward oral feedback like the study from Mignon et al.(2013) stood out that recast was the most feedback given to students with 34 times and next after recast was elicitation. A surprising finding from this study was that sometimes teachers do not provide feedback for a student due to various reasons. The main reason, depends on the context of lesson and what the student‟s goals are. Because of this, teachers choose not to provide feedback for their students.
9
research about oral feedback with 100 participants in Dakhiliya, Oman. From the data analysis, he pointed out oral feedback supposed to be evaluative. The reason teachers choose not to provide feedback because of being afraid to hurt their student‟s feeling and depending on the content of materials.
In detail, when Dana & Noha (2013) studied about oral feedback in the EFL classroom, they also found some reasons why teachers seldom give oral feedback. As for an example with clarification request, the teacher will use clarification request if she did not understand what students were talking about. In line with clarification request, the use of metalinguistic feedback in classroom interaction was seldom. Teachers did not use metalinguistic feedback often due to it not being useful for students to develop their English fluently. If looking at the variety of feedback from Lyster and Ranta (1997), there are six types of feedback. In reality, those all six types of feedback are not used in classroom interaction.
10 RESEARCH DESIGN
Context of the Study
This study is qualitative research, since the data was gained from observation. This study, mainly focused on the types of oral feedback which were used by English teachers in Junior High School. The context of study was undertaken in one of junior high school in Banyubiru. This school is located in Banyubiru (kab. Semarang), Central Java, Indonesia. In this school, the observation teacher A was conducted six times with 4 hours. While Teacher B only observed four times, in notes with same duration around 4 hours. This school was selected as setting of the study because the researcher has teaching experiences in there. As a note, the researcher found some teachers seems providing monotone and limited feedback.
Participants
The subjects were two English teachers of this school who were teaching first grades. The participants of this study were 2 people. All participants were Indonesian speakers, they have teaching experience in English Language Teaching ranging from 10 up to 26 years. All of them have degrees from English Department.
Instrument of Data Collections
11
learning process. In addition, I tried not to attract the students‟ attention from the teachers. Ten observations from different classes were conducted to gain valid data. Before I conducted real observation, I carried out a piloting study in the same school with two different teachers, who taught in the second and third grades. This pilot study helped me be aware of potential problems that may appear in my real observation. Here is the example of observation protocol.
Table (1)
The Example of Observation Protocol Form
Data Collection Procedures
To obtain data, there were several steps in data collections.
1. The researcher asked for permission to conduct observations. 2. The researcher made appointment with the teacher to arrange
observation schedules.
Observation Protocol Name of teacher :
Class : Class time :
Total number of students : Topic :
Date :
No Type of oral feedback
In class occurrences
Example Notes Extract T = Teacher S = Student
Time
1 Recast
2 Clarification Request
3 Metalinguistic feedback
4 Elicitation.
5 Repetition of error
[image:11.595.101.558.237.630.2]12
The observation was conducted in six different classes‟ based on the schedule of each teacher. Here, the descriptive of observation data.
Table (2)
The Descriptive of Observation Data
Name of teacher Date of Observation Time (Minutes)
Class Topic
Teacher A
February, 10th 2014
25 7 A WH question
February, 17th 2014
32 7B WH question
February, 17th 2014
35 7A Descriptive text
March, 19th 2014
35 7D Present Continues Tense
May, 14th 2014
25 7 C Procedure text & greeting cards
May, 16th 2014
31 7 D Procedure text & greeting cards
Teacher B
February, 8th 2014
76 7E Asking & giving fact
February, 22nd 2014
67 7E Recount text
February, 28th 2014
20 7F (Discuss homework)
March, 29th 2014
50 7E Present continues tense
Data Analysis Procedures
[image:12.595.100.555.195.616.2]13 FINDINGS
After ten observations have been conducted during two months, the results showed surprising data. The frequency of oral feedback which were used by the two participants was limited.
Table (3)
The frequency and percentages of oral feedback which used by two participants
Types of feedback
Observation Teacher A Observation Teacher B Total Frequency Percentage s 1 (Feb , 10th) 2 (Feb , 17th ) 3 (Feb , 17th ) 4 (Mar, 19th )
5 (Ma y, 14th)
6 (Ma y, 16th)
1 (Fe b, 8th)
2 (Fe b, 22nd ) 3 (Fe b, 28th ) 4 (Ma y, 16th)
1 Recast 1 1 2,13 %
2 Clarificatio n Request
1 1 2 2 3 9 19,1 %
3 Metalinguis tic feedback
1 1 1 1 1 2 7 14,9%
4 Elicitation 1 1 2 1 5 10,6%
5 Repetition of Error
1 1 2.13 %
6 Explicit Correction
1 4 1 4 2 6 4 2 24 51 %
[image:13.595.103.539.209.612.2]14
[image:14.595.97.516.191.647.2]2.13 %. The figure 1 displays the frequency of oral feedback occurred in the classroom more clearly.
FIGURE 1
The Number of Oral Feedback Used by Two participants
The figure summarizes the results of the types of oral feedback were used by two English teachers, all types of feedback by Lyster and Ranta (1997) are used in class. In addition, the table shows that two participants gave limited of oral feedback for students based on ten observations.
Types of Oral feedback
Explicit correction
15
feedback when the students made mistake, so that the students see their error. This feedback refers to teacher‟s technique of giving correct form. Based on the observation, Teacher A directly gave explicit correction on student‟s
pronunciation errors. The situation happened in class 7A, with total students are 32. At the time, the teacher discussed the WH question. Then Teacher A gave an example using “ where “, (data from observation 5)
T : where do you live? S : where do you life? T : life?, live
After the teacher gave an example, a student repeated teacher‟s utterances with
wrong pronunciation. It should be live /lív/ but the student said life /líf/. The teacher might have used explicit correction to save time in delivering the material and at the same time encourage students to speak with correct pronunciation.
Similar situation happened in Teacher B‟s class. He gave an explicit correction on a student‟s answer. During the fourth observation, the teacher
discussed the student‟s answer were written on the white board. Here is an
example of explicit correction in the class (data from observation 3)
T : Sarah and her friends clean the floor it, in here there is a word “it”, it refers to floor, so it can be omitted
After the teacher provides the feedback, the class wrote their correct answer.
16
the student‟s answer or content. Teacher B focuses deeper on grammatical errors,
he used explicit correction when correcting student grammatical errors. Similar to teacher A, teacher B seemed to save time and presented information about grammar. Especially, seventh grade junior high school students have already known English subject.
Another finding that occurred in class is student‟s vocabulary errors, it happened when a student wrote the word “mother”. (data from observation 4)
S : (write their answer on white board)
T : (pointed student‟s answer on white board) mother use e not a S : (write the correct one in their book)
A vocabulary or spelling error is common mistake in the seventh grade of junior high school, because they have limited vocabulary and knowledge of English. Explicit correction could be presented for teachers to guide and give information completely. In addition at this stage of learning, teachers have to encourage their students to become independent learners. These all indicate that both teachers use explicit correction in the same patterns and forms.
Clarification request
The second highest oral feedback were used by two participants is clarification request. It happened 9 times out 10 observations. Clarification request is teacher‟s technique to ask for repetition or reformulation from what a
learner has said before. (Observation 6)
S : (discuss handbooks exercises) the word “we “ refers to students T : pardon me, why students
17
In that situation, it seemed teacher A has misunderstood the student‟s utterances
or the teacher wanted a student to self repair. Unfortunately, the student was only silent and does not answer teacher reformulation. It was hard to define whether teacher misunderstood or the student had to self repair. If looking at the purpose of clarification request, the teacher seems providing clues for student to self repair.
Another surprising fact from this data is that teacher B did not use clarification request in the classroom based on 4 observations. It might be indicate teacher B used another type of feedback by Lyster & Ranta (1997), like in figure 1 shows teacher B used explicit correction, elicitation and metalinguistic feedback
Metalingustic feedback
Metalinguistic feedback is the third highest feedback after clarification request. Metalingustic feedback happens when a teacher gives feedback and adds information to a student‟s mistake. It includes comments, information and
questions. From the data, there are only two metalinguistic feedbacks, metalinguistic feedback which focus on question and information. Here is the example of metalinguistic feedback question form from teacher B (data from observation 2)
S : (write their answer on white board)
T : (point to student‟s answer on white board) books or book? S : books
18 S : (write their answer on white board)
T : look at the pattern again, if there is to be “are” in here, are there so the answer?
S : there are
Teacher B frequently used that feedback in each meeting, except the first meeting. That situation (data observation 2) occurred when teacher B discussed a student‟s
assignment, the teacher knew the answer was wrong, and then he used metalinguistic feedback for expanding the student‟s knowledge about what they
have learnt. Even thought it was different form, metalinguistic feedback has aim to make students aware and understand the correctness of their common errors. Students might be not annoyed by the teacher‟s comment, because the comments
directly guide students to know what their mistakes. Moreover students were aware of their mistakes, so they would make correct and appropriate answers.
In a different situation, teacher A has the same form of providing metalinguistic feedback. He also used a question form on giving feedback, as the following example (data from observation 3)
S : (write their answer on white board)
T : (point to student‟s answer on white board) your or you? S : your
19 T : what is the purpose of this text? S : chicken soup
T : procedure text usually indicates with how to make or how to use S : C sir (how to make chicken soup)
Further explanations are given on the student‟s error, which clear explanations can
guide them towards self repair. Metalinguistic feedback provides complete information that refers to the student‟s error. It can be seen from data observation
5, teacher gave extra information, therefore students could answer correctly.
DISCUSSION
In this section, the results show explicit correction the most frequent oral feedback which was used by two participants. As clearly shown in figure 1, the two participants used explicit correction 12 times based upon 10 observations. The high frequency of the use of explicit correction may be indicated this technique is appropriate feedback for student at level junior high school. Since junior high school students are categorized as teenagers, Brown (2001) stated that they are an age of transition, confusion, self-consciousness, growing, and changing bodies and mind. Thus, it is essential to the teacher provides appropriate oral feedback for their students. Teacher might use explicit correction more to encourage student‟s awareness of their common mistake. The participants used
20
when students made grammatical errors and recast were used over other types of oral feedback.
On the other hand, this finding may be illustrated teacher‟s desire to save
time. Since the duration of English for junior high school students was limited, only 5 hours per week. Onk (2009) stated a teacher is often faced with the lack of time to reflect in action, because of the necessity to react immediately. Teachers might be prefers to explain further material for test or assignments, therefore they use explicit correction for saving time.
21 S : (write their answer on white board)
T : look at the pattern again, if there is to be “are” in here, are there so the answer?
S : there are
However, metalinguistic feedback happened when discussing student‟s assignments. The teacher„s way of giving feedback was successful. By adding
information related to the question students can answer correctly. An interesting point in observation 2 is that students already know the correct answer, but they need to be pushed to say it. The teacher seems to encourage the student to self repair. Bot (1996) underlines the importance of pushing learners to produce correct forms themselves after some kind of corrective clue so that they can make meaningful connections in their brains. This finding is similar with Smith‟s study
(2010) he found metalinguistic feedback and explicit correction were the most types of feedback.
The findings also show the two participants used clarification request, elicitation, recast and repetition of error with the percentage (19,1%), (10,6%), (2,13%) & (2,13%). Recast has the lowest usage from the two participants, it only happened once during 10 observations. The lowest usage of recast indicates two participants prefer to use other types of feedback. The result may indicate that recast has negative meaning for students. Long (1996) in Boyung (2010) defined recast as any utterances that rephrase an utterances by changing one or more of its sentence components (subject, verb or object) while still referring to its central meaning. (Observation 5)
22 S : I see TV
T : oh you watched TV, what movies? S : ganteng-ganteng serigala
Data from observation 5, shows the teacher corrected student‟s utterance without saying it was wrong. Hence, the teacher assumed students can be aware of their errors, the word “see” should be replaced by “watched”. It could encourage to self
repair. The main problem is when a student did not realize what the teacher‟s intension, therefore recast becomes negative form for the student. Nunan (1989) in Lyster, Saito & Sato (2013) stated mismatches between teachers‟ intentions and learners‟ interpretations may result in negative effects on learning. Lyster et al
(2013) also found recast has both positive and negative effects. If the learner perceives the feedback as indication an error has occurred. Those all might be the reasons teachers rarely use recast.
The findings show the teacher A was dominant in giving feedback rather than teacher B. It may stands for teacher‟s perspectives about oral feedback.
Teacher‟s beliefs play central role in teaching learning process. Moreover, theirs‟
beliefs affect what teachers say and do in the classroom. Johnson (1992) in Kartchava (2006) found teacher‟s choice of methodological approach as well as
types of instruction they implemented consistently reflected their theoretical beliefs. In other words, teachers used theirs‟ beliefs to provide appropriate
feedback for their students.
Teacher‟s experiences might also influence the providing of types oral
23
effective teaching learning process based on their own experiences. The correlation between types oral feedback and teacher‟s beliefs is interesting. The
two participants used different types of feedback indicate that they have their own perspective toward oral feedback.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of the current study was to find out the types of oral feedback were used by English teacher in junior high school. Since several teachers seem to provide monotone and limited feedback.
Teacher oral feedback plays an important role in teaching learning process for junior high school students. According to Lyster & Ranta (1997) there are six types of oral feedback, recast, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, repetition of error and explicit correction. The participants used all types of oral feedback from Lyster & Ranta (1997). Explicit correction is the most frequent oral feedback used by the two participants. The teachers used explicit correction for correcting student‟s grammatical and pronunciation errors.
The second highest is clarification request (19,1%), then metalinguitic feedback (14,9%), elicitation (10,6%), repetition of error (2,13) and the last one is recast (2,13).
There are some possibilities factors why explicit correction, clarification request and metalinguistic feedback were more dominant rather than other types of feedback. The teachers may be considering learner‟s age and student‟s feelings,
24
suggested by Brown (2001). Moreover, teacher‟s experiences and their beliefs toward oral feedback could be influent in providing feedback for students. However the participants used all types of oral feedback, but the proportion in giving feedback was limited. Based upon 10 observations that had been conducted, only 47 feedbacks occurred in the classroom.
The present study, however, makes several noteworthy contributions to teachers. This result of this study enhance teacher understanding toward several types oral feedback. Moreover, this study can give informations for teachers to provide varieties of oral feedback. It also helps teachers in designing appropriate feedback for the students, since there are several factors influent corrective feedback. Furthermore, this study can beneficial for future teachers.
This research has some limitations. The first one is limited of time in observation, I could only observe 10 times during two months. In which I expected more to get extra observation, moreover I had to follow teacher‟s schedule. The second one, there were only two teachers who were willing to be observed.
For the future study, I hope the researcher not only finds out types of oral feedback used by teachers, but also the reason why teachers give oral feedback for their students. In addition, it will be interesting if included learner‟s perspectives
and teacher‟s beliefs about oral feedback in the next study. Also, some
25
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was accomplished with help of many people. First, I would like thank to Allah SWT, because Allah give me soul that never loses faith. Then, my Prophet Muhammad PBUH as my inspiration to write my thesis.
I would like to appreciate and thanks for my supervisor ibu Anita Kurniawati M.Hum and Ibu Victoria Usadya Palupi, M.A-ELT because their patience and kindness on guiding me until I could finish my thesis. Intan has been a friend and mentor. My old friends Anjanis, Yogi, Remon, Yudis, Robi, Lilik, Andris, Desi, Ika Sinta, Ria, Chintia thanks for sharing joyful moments for me.
A special words for my family due to support and motivate throughout the whole thesis process. I am indebted to the participants for the patience and dedication to my thesis. The last but not least, I am also indebted to Febriana Sukma Ramadhani, thanks for always beside me.
26 REFERENCES
Al-Faki, M.I. (2013). Techniques Used by Teachers in Correcting Students‟ Oral Errors in an Omani Boys School”. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 3, No. 10, pp. 1770-1783. Finland: Academy Publisher Manufactured.
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education 5(1), 7-74.
Bond, L., Smith, T., Baker, W., & Hattie, J. (2000). The certification system of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards: A construct and consequential validity study. Washington DC: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.
Brown, H.D. (2001).Teaching by Principles: An interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. (Second Edition). San Francisco: Longman.
Chastain K. (1988). Developing second language skills Theory to practice. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanich, Inc.
De Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46, 529- 555.).
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). New York: Cambridge University Press Edith H.M., Rosario R. C. & Griselda M. (2010). Oral feedback by EFL teachers at Universidad de Quintana Roo. Mexico, : FEL international. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language leaming and teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339-368.
Fathman, A.K., Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing (pp. 178-190). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27
cooperative learning among secondary school students. Unpublished M.A thesis, Faculty of Educationm, Al-Azhar University.
Hampton, S. (1994). In Jack J. Richard, Patrick B. Gallo, Willy A. Renandya (2008). Exploring teacher’s belief and the processes of change. Seameo regional language centre, Singapore.
Hattie, J. (1999). Influences on student learning. Unpublished inaugural lecture presented at the University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Hattie, J. (2003). „Teachers Make a Difference: What is the Research Evidence?‟
http://www.leadspace.govt.nz/leadership/arti-cles/teachers-make-a-difference.php.
Johnson, K.E. (1994). The emerging beliefs and instructuctional practices of preservice English as Second Language teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10 (4), 439-452.
Karim, K.M. (2004). Teachers' perceptions, attitudes and expectations about Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in post-secondary education in Bangladesh. Unpublished master thesis, University of Victoria.
Kartchava, E. (2006). Corrective feedback: Novice ESL Teachers’ Beliefs and
Practices. Concordia University.
Krashen, Stephen. (1996). Under Attack: The Case Against Bilingual Education.
Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates retrieve on September, 23
http://www.languagepolicy.net/archives/Krashen3.htm
Lee, Boyoung. (2010). Effects of task and feedback types on Korean adult ESL learners' oral proficiency. English Teaching, 65(2), 101-130.
Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing (pp. 57-68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lin, H. (2009). Patterns of Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake in ESL Low, Intermediate, and Advanced Level Speaking Classrooms (PHD Dissertation). Alliant International University, San Diego.
Lumpe, A., Haney, J., & Czerniak, C.M. (2000). Assessing teacher beliefs about their science teaching context. Journal of Research in science teaching, 275-292.
28
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato M (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, pp 140 doi:10.1017/S0261444812000365.
Mahdi,D. & El Shaadany, N (2013). Oral Feedback in the EFL classroom. Fakulteten för lärande och Samhälle, Malmö högskola.
Mignon J. , Anne, D. L & Meike, K. (2013). Giving oral feedback in a bilingual context. Utrecht University.
Oonk, W. (2009). Theory-enriched practical knowledge in mathematics teacher education . Chapter 2: Theory and practice in teacher education. Doctoral Thesis, Leiden University.
Richards, Jack C. and Lockhart, Charles. (1996). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. New York: Cambridge University press 1996.
Rydahl, Susanna (2005). Oral Feedback in the English Classroom: Teachers’
Thoughts and Awareness. Karlstads Universitet.
Smith, H. (2010). Correct Me if I'm Wrong: Investigating the Preferences in Error Correction Among Adult English Language Learners. (MA thesis 2010). University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida.
Voerman, L.(2012). et al., Types and frequencies of feedback interventions in classroom interaction in secondary education, Teaching and Teacher Education (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.06.006.
XieNan. (2007). “A study of spoken transfer errors of tertiary- level EFL learners”.English. Edu, Vol.7. 2007.
