ISSN 2580-1937 (Print); 2580-7528 (Online) 97
EXPLORING THE TEACHER‘S USE OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK
98 ISSN 2580-1937 (Print); 2580-7528 (Online)
feedback techniques to students from different proficiency level. Prasetyawati (2014) conducted a study in a public school in Surabaya, which was SMPN 1 Surabaya and she took the seventh grade students as the participants of the research. It was found that teacher tended to use feedback on content more frequently than feedback on form. The present study discussed about the use of corrective feedback from different views and object as well. One of the previous studies presented above focused on three different proficiency levels of students, while the one conducted by the writer only focused on one level, the Intermediate level. Besides, this research would also use different theory of teacher‘s feedback, which is from Lyster and Ranta (1997). In this study, the writer analyzed the most frequent type of corrective feedback given by the teacher to the students in Intermediate level at EF English First Kayun Surabaya, and the reason of the teacher in giving a certain type of corrective feedback to the students.
Feedback
Lyster and Ranta (1997) examined that there are six types of feedback; explicit correction, recast, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, and repetition. Explicit correction is basically the same with the form of correction in giving feedback, so the teacher directly revises when the student answers incorrectly by saying the correct answer directly (e.g., ―Oh you mean…‖ or
―You should say…‖) Recast is more explicit than explicit feedback. The example of recast, when the student pronounces ―occur‖
[əˈkjur], instead of [əˈkɜr], teacher will directly mention the correct pronunciation without saying ―you should say….. , rather than……..‖. Clarification request is often included the expression of ―What do you mean…?‖ or ―Pardon‖. Hence, these two phrases function to clarify what the student has said, in case that the teacher misunderstood. While in metalinguistic feedback the teacher gives comment,
response, or further explanation about the student‘s utterance. In metalinguistic comment, the teacher usually indicates that there was an error somewhere. Teacher may utter ―can you find the error?‖.
Metalinguistic information provides either some grammatical metalanguage that refers to the error that the student has made or a word definition in the case of lexical errors (e.g., when students pronounce ―occur‖
[əˈkjur], instead of [əˈkɜr], the teacher will say the correct pronunciation and add it up with the definition, (e.g., occur means
―happen‖ or ―take place‖)). The next type is elicitation. According to Lyster and Ranta (1997), there are three techniques used in elicitation. First, teacher elicits completion of their own utterance by strategically pausing to allow the student ―fill in the blank‖ as it was. Second, teacher uses question to elicit correct form, for example teacher usually writes the word that student(s) pronounced incorrectly on the board and ask the whole students in the class by asking ―how do we say this word in English?‖ while pointing at the word, and third, teacher occasionally asks students to reformulate or repeat their utterance. And for repetition, the teacher usually uses high tone or highlights the errors made by student, not only errors, but also things that are important related to the material.
Methodology
This study involved two teachers who taught the intermediate level classes at EF Kayun Surabaya. The number of students in each class is different to one another. The writer decided that she would give requirement to the number of students in a class that she observed. Since this research required interaction between teacher and students, the writer decided that she only observed classes that had at least five students. The writer assumed that she would get sufficient data if she had this minimum number of students in a class. There were two classes observed The
ISSN 2580-1937 (Print); 2580-7528 (Online) 99 first class was observed on the 7th October
2016 which was taught by Mr. Felli. The second was observed on the 8th October 2016 which was taught by Ms. Yasmine.
The writer took four steps to obtain the data;
conducting the observation in Intermediate classes in EF Kayun; recording the situation in the classes by using audiovisual recording.
Each lesson was recorded in about 80 minutes; interviewing the teachers whose classes has been observed by utilizing stimulated recall method; transcribing the result of the observation and the interview.
Furthermore, the writer had six steps in analyzing the data; identifying the types of teacher feedback by referring to the observation result; classifying the types of teacher feedback by using (Lyster & Ranta, 1997) six types of corrective feedback theory; investigating which type is the most frequent to be used by the teachers in giving feedback; presenting the teacher‘s reason about using certain types of feedback to students in the class that the writer had observed previously; making interpretation
of the observation result and interview result;
giving the conclusion of the research.
Finding and Discussion
The writer observed two classes of intermediate level at EF Kayun Surabaya.
The first class that she observed was on 7 October 2016, taught by Mr. Felli, the second class was on 8 October 2016, taught by Ms.
Yasmine. The topic of the first class observed was about rules in public places with some common phrases presented, like
―you are not allowed to…‖ , ―you are not supposed to…‖ , and ―you have got to…‖
Meanwhile, the topic of the second class observed was about the use of time signal (since and for) in present perfect tense. The writer focused on the feedback given by the teacher to the students, specifically during the speaking activities. By utilizing Lyster and Ranta (1997) six types of feedback, it was found that the teacher used the feedback interchangeably. The frequency and the number of occurrence of each type of teachers‘ feedback used during the observation can be seen below:
Table 1: The frequency of teacher feedback types used Types of
Teacher Feedback
Frequency Occurrence 7
October 2016
8 October 2016
Explicit Correction
0 0 0
Recast 8 2 6
Clarification Request
0 0 0
Metalinguistic Feedback
10 5 5
Elicitation 11 6 5
Repetition 10 2 8
Total of Feedback Occurrence
39 15 24
Source : Processed Interview Data
100 ISSN 2580-1937 (Print); 2580-7528 (Online)
According to the table, it can be seen that the total number of the most frequent type of feedback used by EF Kayun teachers is elicitation (11 times of occurrences).
However, this total number is not similar to the number of occurrences of the feedback type for each class. As we can see above, the number of occurrences of feedback type in the first class observed was elicitation (six times of occurrences), similar to the total number of the most frequent type of feedback used. While in the second class observed, repetition (eight times of occurrences) was the most frequent one used by the teacher.
Although the teachers used almost all types of feedback, explicit correction and clarification request were the types of feedback that were not used by the both of the teachers observed.
Elicitation
This type of feedback has the most total number of occurrences compared to other type of feedback. According to Lyster and Ranta (1997), this type allows the teacher to elicit the answer from the students. This type of feedback can also trigger the students to be active and to take part in answering the question being asked. Below are two excerpts of the classroom situation when the teacher was giving elicitation as type of feedback:
[Excerpt 1]
S : You can playing football.
T : you can play or you can playing?
S : play…..you can play football.
T : okay that‘s good..
[Excerpt 2]
S : They have been popular since they play AADC.
T : play or played?
S : Played T : yes, played.
We can see that the teacher did not directly utter the correct answer. They use question to elicit the correct form. Based on the interview, both of the teachers whose classes
were observed agreed that, this type of feedback can get as much involvement from the students. Therefore, the answer did not only just come from the teacher, but also from the students.
Repetition
Repetition refers to the teacher‘s repetition by adjusting their intonation to indicate there is an error on the students‘ utterances. Based on the research, repetition is the most frequent type of feedback used by the second class observed. Here are some examples of excerpts when the teachers provided this type of feedback:
[Excerpt 3]
T : … Number 3!
S : how long Joe Taslim….
T : How long Joe Taslim?
S : How long has Joe Taslim ….starred in action movies?
[Excerpt 4]
S : you are not allowed to feed.
T : you are not allowed to feed…..
S : you are not allowed to feed animal T :…, okay!
From the observation, the writer realized that the teachers modified their tone when repeating students‘ incorrect answer.
Moreover, the teachers tended to provide this type of feedback because it is effective and quick. The teachers agreed that this type of feedback can minimize the TTT (teacher talking time). They added that as a teacher, we need to consider about the time management. Thus, all the lesson plans can be done in the classroom.
Metalinguistic Feedback
According to the table, the number of occurrences of metalinguistic feedback for both of the classes observed was similar. It was five times of occurrences. Metalinguistic feedback itself contains either comments, information, or questions related to the correct form over the student‘s utterance,
ISSN 2580-1937 (Print); 2580-7528 (Online) 101 without directly providing the correct one.
The excerpts of this teacher feedback used are as follows:
[Excerpt 5]
S : Brad Pitt has been an actor since ten….
T : no.. it is a duration, ten years.
S : Brad Pitt has been an actor for ten years T : yes
[Excerpt 6]
S : guide tour
T : Very close but that‘s not how we say the job
S : Tour guide
T : very good, tour guide
It can be seen in both excerpt that the teacher gave a sort kind of information about the correct answer expected. They did not directly mention the correct form. Otherwise, they give a ―clue‖ in order to make the students easier get the correct answer. Based on the post observation interview, there are two factors of using this feedback; the first one is to help them to refer back to the presentation stage. Another factor that was stated by the teacher is that they use this feedback when the students seem to find difficulty in getting the expected answer. To save the time, it is better for the teacher to give more help to the students.
Recast
This type of feedback was also used by both of the teachers observes when they gave feedback to their students in the class. This type of feedback allows the teachers to reformulate what the students have said directly with the correct form. The two examples of the excerpts below were taken from the observation of both classes:
[Excerpt 7]
S : uh… Butcher / bɒtʃ.ə(ɹ)/
T : Good job, Vincent! Two points. The job is Butcher /bʊtʃ.ə(ɹ)/
[Excerpt 8]
S : How long have my sister joined the audition?
T : my sisters
S : my sisters joined the audition.
In excerpt 7, the error that the student made was the pronunciation of the word ―butcher‖, while in excerpt 8, there was an absence of
―s‖ in the word ―sisters‖. The teacher emphasized it in accordance with the auxiliary used, which was ―have‖. From the interview, the writer got the information from the teachers that they used this type of feedback because it is considered as minor error, but it is still important to be corrected.
In addition, the correction itself is seen as essential in order to gain the student‘s knowledge about a certain form of language.
Explicit Correction and Clarification Request During the two observations, both of the teachers never provided these two types of feedback. Based on the table, it showed zero occurrences in both of the classes observed.
According to the teachers, since explicit correction is almost the same as recast, they prefer choosing recast to explicit correction.
It is because this type of feedback takes more time. Clarification request was not used by the teachers as well. It is because that the number of the students are only a few and the size of the class is not that big, so the teacher could just catch what the students uttered clearly without having them repeat the sentences again. Furthermore, teachers also need to consider teacher talking time (TTT).
Therefore, both of the teachers chose to avoid these two types of feedback in order to save the time.
Reasons in Providing Feedback
Based on the post observation interview, feedback is important to be given to the students in order to inform them about how well they have done a task and to give correction. Feedback is best to be delivered to the students after they practice using the
102 ISSN 2580-1937 (Print); 2580-7528 (Online)
target language presented. Furthermore, feedback is beneficial for both teachers and also students. It is beneficial for teacher to see if students understand and not and to see if the lesson is successful or not. It is also beneficial for students to gain new knowledge from the feedback and to find out if they have met the teacher‘s expectation or not. One of the teachers interviewed stated if the students consistently produce the target language presented, it means the lesson is successful. Otherwise, if they do not, it means there is something wrong with the activity from the previous stage.
We have seen that the teachers observed used almost all types of feedback by Lyster and Ranta (1997). Elicitation and repetition were two types that were considered as the most used by EF Kayun teachers observed by the writers. In elicitation, the teachers allowed the students to finish the incorrect sentence by themselves by eliciting it. In repetition, the teachers repeated the students ill-formed of language by modifying their tone while uttering it to indicating the students that there is something wrong with the sentence they produced. The teachers also used recast and metalinguistic feedback to the students. In metalinguistic feedback, the teachers tried to trigger the students to give the correct answer by providing them information related to the target answer. In recast, the teacher reformulated what the students have said directly in the correct form. The writer found that there was absence used of explicit correction and clarification request type of feedback by the teacher observed.
According to the interview, the writer found out there are four main reasons why the teachers provide feedback to the students.
First, they provide elicitation feedback because it can get the students‘ involvement in answering the questions, which will carry out interaction in the classroom. The feedback given by the teacher should not be explicitly correct the students‘ incorrect
answer. The teachers may get the correct answer from the other students, in order to get them to think harder. Second, they give feedback, particularly for repetition, because this feedback is effective and quick. In addition, it can minimize TTT (teacher talking time), because as a teacher, we need to consider about the time management.
Thus, all the lesson plans can be done in the classroom. The third reason is that they gave feedback because it could give the students help to make them refer back to the previous stages. The teachers used feedback when the students seemed to need more ―clues‖ in order to get the correct answer. Even though this feedback involved more TTT, the teacher agreed that sometimes it is better for them to let the TTT a bit lose. The last reason is when the teacher gave feedback, especially recast, because the error is considered as minor error, but it is still important to be corrected.
In addition, the correction itself is seen as essential in order to gain the student‘s knowledge about a certain form of language.
Conclusions
Based on the findings from the observation, it can be concluded that elicitation and repetition are two of the most frequent type of feedback used by teachers of intermediate level at EF Kayun Surabaya. Four out of six type of feedback proposed by Lyster and Ranta (1997) were used by them. Therefore, there were two feedback types which were not used by the teachers. There are some factors of the teachers in giving feedback.
First, it is about the teacher talking time (TTT). Second, it is about the aim of lesson presented that day. If the error made by students is about that target language, the teacher will trigger the students to involve correcting the mistake. The teachers stated that since in EF Kayun there is a fix stage in the lesson plan that they have made, the feedback given should be as effective as well, because every stage is timed. The teachers have to manage that all of the stages have to be done in class, in order to achieve
ISSN 2580-1937 (Print); 2580-7528 (Online) 103 the aim of the lesson and also the students‘
successful learning.
References
Ahangari, S., & Amirzadeh, S. (2011).
Exploring the Teachers' Use of Spoken Corrective Feedback in Teaching Iranian EFL Learners at Different Level of Proficiency.
Procedia Social and Behaviour Sciences; SciVerse ScienceDirect, 1859-1868.
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D.
(2005). The Effect of Different Type of Corrective Feedback on ESL Student Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing , 191 - 205.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Teaching by Principles An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy, Second Edition. Longman.
Harmer, J. (2001). The Practicee of English Language Teaching. In J. Harmer, The Practice of English Language Teaching (p. 269). Cambridge : Longman ELT.
Hawa, F. (2007). The Application of Teacher Feedback during English Speaking Class at the Second Grade of SMP Al
Hikmah Surabaya: A Case Study.
Surabaya: Universitas Airlangga.
Lei, X. (2009). Communicative Teacher Talk in the English Classroom. English Language Teaching Journal of CCSE, 75-79.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake;
Negotiations of Form in Communicative Classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37- 66.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J.
E. (2001). Classroom Instruction that Works; Research Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement.
Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Prasetyawati, R. (2014). The Use of Teacher Feedback in English Speaking Activity of First Grade Students at SMPN 1 Surabaya. Surabaya:
Universitas Airlangga.
Ur, P. (1991). A Course in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
104 ISSN 2580-1937 (Print); 2580-7528 (Online)