Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning (JETLE)

Volume 4, Issue 2, April 2023, Page 125-135

● ISSN 2686-665X

Corrective oral feedback on students’ errors in speaking courses

Anis Firdatul Rochma
Yogyakarta State University; Indonesia, (586168 (0274
e-mail: [email protected] ,[email protected]

ABSTRACT
Keywords : It is considered essential to improve students' speaking abilities in
Corrective, diagnostic, oral order to communicate in English. Unfortunately, students face a
feedback, students variety of difficulties in acquiring their speaking skills. Despite the
fact that corrective feedback is claimed to have an influence on
students' performance, particularly in speaking courses, research
focused explicitly on the perceptions of students and lecturers on
corrective feedback in speaking courses is still rare. Employing
descriptive study including observation and survey methods, the
findings revealed three results: the length of oral corrective
feedback given by the lecturer, the forms of oral corrective
feedback offered by lecturer in speaking courses, and the types of
oral corrective feedback most desired by students during speaking
courses particularly students taking courses of Speaking for Social
Intercultural Communication and Speaking for Academic Purposes.
The present study indicates that the teachers should be able to
recognize which errors to correct and which sorts of corrective
feedback to employ in their speaking classes.

1. INTRODUCTION
It is essential to improve the speaking ability in order to communicate in English. The
capacity to carry on a conversation in the language is the single most crucial part of learning as
a second or foreign language, and the performance is judged in terms of oral
communication (Nunan, 1991), including speaking. People may communicate and provide
direct messages to interlocutors by speaking. Hence, in speaking, EFL students are expected to
focus on their language abilities; spelling, pronunciation, vocabulary, word construction,
grammatical structure, sentence structure, and language semantics are thus required (Hedge,
2000). It is also possible that learners' self-esteem influenced their speaking abilities. As a result,
the higher the learners' self-esteem, the better their speaking abilities (Tripudiyana et al., 2022)
Unfortunately, students have various challenges in mastering their speaking abilities.
According to Ihsan (1999), 20 students in the fifth semester are prone to commit mistakes such
as misusing parts of speech, syntactical construction, lexical choice, and voice. Handoyo (2010)
expanded on the accuracy explanation in another research. He conducted his research on 26 first
semester accounting students. He discovered that grammar rarely benefited students in gaining
the ability to activate language characteristics since, in communication activities, they learned to
generate phrases. In addition, when students employed the word-to-word translation, an
issue appeared since Indonesian and English arrange words differently at the phrase level.
Suryanto (2014) said that tenses were causing misunderstanding among Indonesian learners. I
ate rice, for example; I have eaten rice; I had eaten rice. In Indonesia, these lines are simply
phrased as "Saya sudah makan nasi".

125 https::/ejournalourn-nanrnlnalui:uri/eltht:e/ea/:uri/e
 Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning (JETLE)
Volume 4, Issue 2, April 2023, Page 125-135
● ISSN 2686-665X

Some scholars had developed strategies to address these issues, one of them was by
utilizing oral corrective feedback. Corrective feedback is considered as the teacher's response to
an incorrect student speech. Corrective feedback (CF) has been described simply as response to
students’ utterances containing an error according to Ellis (2006). That is to say, corrective
feedback is a teacher reaction to students’ error, such as a statement about the error. As a result,
corrective feedback refers to teacher and peer reactions to students’ work. When teacher give
performance task such as telling story, role play, discussion/talk show, presentation, reading
poetry and drama, they corrects students’ performances in order to increase their understanding
of their mistakes (Rohmana,2017). Thus, when students perform and make errors, the teacher
explicitly comments on the students’ errors.
According to Brookhart (2008), oral feedback is a kind of participatory feedback in
which the teacher may converse with the students. Oral feedback is a form of discussion
between a teacher and students about how well they speak. Students may obtain specific
information regarding their errors in public speaking performance and may, thus, increase their
capacity to talk when performing in speaking classes. In summary, oral corrective feedback is a
teacher's correction or answer to a student's utterances including any errors immediately when
the student makes a mistake or error so that the teacher may offer the student with information
to amend their errors. Students might increase their knowledge by having their faults corrected
by the teacher. In addition, the knowledge they get from the teacher can help them enhance their
speaking abilities, particularly in speaking performances.
Since oral corrective feedback is likely to be one important strategy to correct students’
errors, it can be delivered through several ways. Ellis (2009) offers six types of oral corrective
feedback that can be employed by the teachers including recast, repetition, clarification request,
explicit correction, elicitation, and paralinguistic signal. Recast is one sort of corrective
feedback in which the teacher gives feedback without explicitly declaring that the student's
remark was wrong expressed through unobtrusive way (Lyster & Panova, 2002). That is to say,
the teacher indirectly reformulates the student's error or offers the correction. Repetition occurs
when the teacher repeats the student's error and either adjusts his or her tone to call the student’s
attention to it (Nunan, 1996) or repeats the students’ ill-formed utterances without any changes
(Kennedy, 2010). Meanwhile, clarification request occurs when the teacher uses language to
suggest that the message is not understood or that the student's speech has some type of error
and that a repetition or reformulation is necessary. The teachers are likely to utilize clarification
by stating I am sorry (Sheen & Ellis, 2011) or I cannot get your point (Yoshida, 2010).
Furthermore, explicit correction may happen when the teacher's tone plainly indicates that the
student's speech is improper, so that the teacher supplies the right form. It can be said that the
provision of the appropriate form is referred to as explicit corrective feedback. Elicitation occurs
when the teacher elicits the right form from the student’s error directly by asking questions,
pausing to enable the student to finish the teacher's utterance (Sheen, 2004), or asking students
to reformulate the utterance. Moreover, a paralinguistic signal occurs when a teacher utilizes a
gesture or facial expression to convey that an error has been committed by the student. In a
nutshell, it can be seen that each sort of corrective feedback corrects students' errors in an
alternate manner. Some kinds are specified explicitly. In this situation, the teachers immediately
provide the right form. The other categories, on the other hand, are provided implicitly. In this
instance, the teachers might employ numerous methods such as providing information, asking
questions, using certain intonation, and explaining what the students stated. It is anticipated that
students would recognize and generate the right form of the utterances.

126 https::/ejournalourn-nanrnlnalui:uri/eltht:e/ea/:uri/e
 Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning (JETLE)
Volume 4, Issue 2, April 2023, Page 125-135
● ISSN 2686-665X

The utilization of corrective feedback was once suggested by Akhyak and Indramawan
(2013). Corrective feedback was used as a delayed correction approach with 25 undergraduate
students. It was claimed that the method improved their students' fluency, grammar,
pronunciation, and vocabulary as a consequence. Because the "outside" classroom does not
provide feedback to students and English is not spoken in the community, students are
completely reliant on the lecturer for relevant linguistic input. According to Fungula (2013),
providing corrective feedback (CF) to students can be a useful method to assist students
improve their target language speaking abilities.
Even though, recently, the most effective kind of corrective feedback has been the
subject of corrective feedback research, there are significant disputes over sorts of CF that are
more effective to EFL learning. Lyster and Saito (2010), for example, performed the most
current experimental investigations, which focused solely on 15 classroom-based trials (N =827).
This meta-analysis included three forms of CF: recasts, explicit correction, and prompts. They
discovered that the effects were stronger for prompts than for recasts, and that they were most
noticeable in measures that elicit free constructed replies. Meanwhile, according to Ellis (2006),
recasts may be more successful in fostering the learning of new language traits. Ellis (2009)
indicated that it may have a favorable influence on learners' CF belief, reduce anxiety, and assist
learners in increasing their speaking skills. Although recast is commonly associated with the
forms of feedback used by lecturers (Ellis, 2006; Yoshida, 2008; Choi and Li, 2012), other
researchers (Lyster, 2010; Dilans, 2010) have shown that prompts have a stronger influence and
are more noticeable in tests that elicit free constructed replies. In fact, the role of corrective
feedback is also influenced by the age of the learners since according to Lyster (2010), the
effects of CF may be altered by the age of the learners.
That is to say, corrective feedback may have an impact on students' performance,
particularly in the speaking courses. Although the subject of the most effective corrective
feedback remains unsolved, the most important element to remember is that an excellent
education may occur when it is in agreement with what the students require and expect to
achieve. Thus, as an expert in the classroom, the speaking courses lecturers should therefore
take precautions in selecting the forms of feedback that will be provided. When the students'
cognitive and affective preferences are taken into account, corrective feedback as one method of
education is likely to be beneficial (Zhang, Zhang, & Ma, 2010). As a result, identifying
students' preferences may be an excellent beginning point for teachers in moving closer to better
education. Furthermore, it indicates that students learn better when the education is adjusted to
their preferences. It indicates that the closer the lesson is to the students' expectations, the easier
language acquisition will be for them. In other words, incorporating students' choices may help
instructional techniques succeed.
Considering the data shown above, it is challenging to determine which sorts of
corrective feedback are most effective for all students. There have been several research on the
preferences of lecturers and students in applying oral corrective feedback across ages, genders,
and settings. However, research that focuses specifically on the perspectives of students and
lecturers on corrective feedback in speaking courses are still uncommon. To be precise, the
present research emphasizes three focuses, namely (1) time spent by lecturers in providing
corrective feedback in speaking classes, (2) sorts of corrective feedback utilized by the lecturers
in speaking class, and (3) types of corrective feedback preferred by students for their speaking
improvement. The descriptive analysis involving observation and survey methods were carried
out to disclose various types of corrective feedback employed in speaking classes and determine

127 https::/ejournalourn-nanrnlnalui:uri/eltht:e/ea/:uri/e
 Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning (JETLE)
Volume 4, Issue 2, April 2023, Page 125-135
● ISSN 2686-665X

the most effective and preferred ones. Hence, the lecturers are able to select proper types of
corrective feedback to assist students in improving their speaking skills.

2. METHOD
The present research employed a descriptive study involving observation and survey
methods. The courses were in speaking courses offered in the even semester at one institution in
Yogyakarta, namely Speaking for Social Intercultural Communication and Speaking for
Academic Purposes. The researcher employed the observation technique to investigate the
various sorts of oral corrective feedback offered during speaking courses. The observation took
place during the speaking performance activities. The data were collected through textual
transcriptions and videos. The data contained lecturer's and students' utterances during
observation which focused on several sorts of corrective feedback. Moreover, the survey
technique was utilized by the researcher to evaluate the most preferred kind of corrective
feedback based on the students' preferences using Smith suggested questionnaires (2010). Smith
(2010) investigated adult English language learners' preferences in error correction using the
proposed questionnaire.
From six different speaking classes, 97 students were selected to fill out a questionnaire
based on observation and survey procedures. The students chosen were from two speaking
courses namely Speaking for Social Intercultural Communication and Speaking for Academic
Purposes. The two speaking courses were conducted in even semester; thus, the students were
considered able to carry out the courses properly since they already took previous speaking
courses within the odd semester.
Following the observation sessions, the questionnaires were delivered to the students.
The collected data was then descriptively evaluated. The data gained from the observation were
written transcriptions of students' and lecturer' utterances. The transcriptions were then
categorized according to Ellis’ six forms of corrective feedback (2009). The categories of
corrective feedback that had been classified were then calculated in percentage form to ascertain
the quantity of feedback that occurred during observation. The data from the surveys were listed
and summarized in Ms. Excel to make calculating the results simpler. The mode of rankings
was then utilized to determine the high position of students' preferences for different sorts of
corrective feedback.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The time of offering feedback in speaking courses, the sorts of feedback offered by
lecturer in speaking courses, and the forms of corrective feedback most favored by students
were the three key areas under the present research.

3.1 Time of offering feedback in speaking course

In this study, the time spent by lecturer correcting their students' errors could be divided
into two categories; those are delayed and immediate feedback. In delayed corrective feedback,
the correction was delivered after the students conducted a discussion, presentation, and
speaking performance. The following talk discusses an example of delayed corrective feedback
occurred during observations.

128 https::/ejournalourn-nanrnlnalui:uri/eltht:e/ea/:uri/e
 Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning (JETLE)
Volume 4, Issue 2, April 2023, Page 125-135
● ISSN 2686-665X

Example 1
Lecturer : Is it answer your question? Any comments?
Students : It does.
Lecturer : Does it answer your question? See that?
Students : Yes.
This feedback sequence was delivered following the presentation of the contents by the
first group of presenters. This error was frequently encountered in class; thus, the lecturer
underlined it and advised all students of the right form. As a result, the following round of
presentations would not make the same mistakes. According to observations, providing
correction for the topic or content was unnecessary because the major focus of the students'
speaking performance was on presenting speech. As a result, the lecturer opted to provide
correction after the students had completed their speaking performances. According to Méndez
and Maria (2012), it is critical to assess when the correction should be offered. That is to say,
when the lecturer concentrated on meaning education and encouraging fluency in the classroom,
delayed correction was preferred. This finding is similar to the prior research results conducted
by Park (2010), Tomczyk (2013), as well as Atma and Widiati (2015) in which the participants
strongly agreed to get feedback only after they complete the speaking activity. One of the
reasons of the students preferred delayed feedback is that delayed feedback allows students to
complete the information they are trying to deliver. As a result, it does not disrupt the flow of
discourse. Although students valued delayed feedback, they despised it if it was offered before
the lecturers ended the class. A few students complained that the wait for the lesson to conclude
was too long since they could have forgotten what they said during the speaking activity.
However, if students consistently made the same errors in class, it was preferable to
provide both delayed and immediate feedback. This viewpoint was aligned with Méndez and
Maria's (2012) study, which showed that if the lecturer intended to enhance students' accuracy,
immediate and delayed correction were suggested. The findings of this study justified this
assertion. The data suggested that the dialogue between lecturer and the students below focused
on grammatical usage, which might increase students' correctness awareness.

Example 2
Students : The moderator is someone who actually leading the presentation.
Lecturer : Once more.
Students : Someone who actually leads the presentation.

Example 2 above is an immediate correction that displays the lecturer immediately

clarify toward the student's error of employing grammatical pattern by saying once more.
During observations, the following immediate feedback occurred: recast, repeat, clarification
request, explicit correction, elicitation, and metalinguistic clue. Only explicit correction with
metalinguistic explanation was not identified during observation as a sort of corrective feedback.

3.2 Types of corrective feedback in speaking courses

In terms of the frequency of different sorts of corrective feedback used during
observations, the lecturer chose recast as the type of corrective feedback that was most
commonly employed among other types of corrective feedback during learning activity. Recast
was noticed in 42.2% of the 19 cases of the Speaking courses examined. Ellis and Sheen also
discovered that recast was the most common sort of feedback (2006). They noted that, while

129 https::/ejournalourn-nanrnlnalui:uri/eltht:e/ea/:uri/e
 Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning (JETLE)
Volume 4, Issue 2, April 2023, Page 125-135
● ISSN 2686-665X

numerous sorts of feedback had piqued the interest of academics, none had attracted the same
level of attention as recast. Furthermore, Yoshida (2008) stated that recast helped students avoid
social embarrassment when they were unable to deliver an appropriate answer.
As recast was the most commonly employed corrective feedback by lecturers to correct
students' errors utterances, it could be classified as a natural response from lecturers in
providing corrections. According to Fungula (2013), the reason why recast was the most
commonly utilized corrective feedback among the six forms of corrective feedback was because
it came effortlessly to most lecturers. The present study also discovered that there was an aspect
to ponder in recast. The example is presented as follows.

Example 3
Student : Any questions?
Lecturer : Any other questions?
Students : Any other questions?

In the preceding case, the student lacked uptake, which meant that the student did not
detect the incorrect utterances and realize that the lecturer had corrected it. It was in line with
several research conducted previously showing that adult learners who are more conscious of
and receptive to recast should be provided with it (Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Sheen, 2004; Yoshida,
2010). The finding of the present study is also in line with prior research conducted by Rahmi
(2017). The findings of the observations and interviews showed that, among the seven forms of
corrective feedback used by the four teachers on students' speaking performance, recast
feedback was the most commonly employed. That is to say, the college students who were
taking the speaking courses were suggested to be provided with recast as corrective feedback as
they were considered as conscious and adaptive learners.
However, according to Lyster and Ranta (1997), recast only becomes short-
term memory for the students. It means only after receiving corrective criticism can students
remember the words or phrases that the teachers modified. When students come across similar
words or sentences, they are likely to make the same errors. Subsequently Ellis (2009)
also disagrees with the efficacy of recast since it does not force the student to identify the
problem. Then, recast is also considered not a useful sort of corrective feedback (Rahmi, 2017)
if teachers intend to increase student acquisition. That is to say, even though recast is found to
be the most occurred feedback provided by the teachers and is considered to be effective
corrective feedback (Ammar & Ahlem, 2003), it can be denoted that recast cannot help the
students to locate their errors and, thus, should be employed along with any other types of
corrective feedback.
On the other hand, repetition was seldom employed as a sort of corrective
feedback (5.2%) in this study. This outcome was consistent with Yoshida's earlier research
(2008). Yoshida (2008) discovered that, compared to recast, which occurred in more than half
of the feedback sessions, repetition was only counted 1% of the time. The instance is provided
as follows.

Example 4
Student : They ask them to introduce each other.
Lecturer : Each other?
Students : They ask them to introduce ourselves.

130 https::/ejournalourn-nanrnlnalui:uri/eltht:e/ea/:uri/e
 Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning (JETLE)
Volume 4, Issue 2, April 2023, Page 125-135
● ISSN 2686-665X

In this study, it was observed that students realized their errors when the lecturer
highlighted their incorrect statements. This finding was in accordance with the results of
Buyukbay and Dabaghi (2010), who showed that the use of repetition led to students' own repair.
They also proposed that repetition should be employed more frequently since it is beneficial
when it comes to advancement. Although repetition is considered as essential corrective
feedback for students’ own repair yet the present study found that it was rarely employed in the
speaking courses. It happened due to the fact that, based on the observation, the lecturer tends to
immediately correct the students’ errors by presenting the correct forms rather than highlighting
the students’ errors. Thus, Rahmi (2017) suggested that the use of repetition can be
accompanied by other types of corrective feedback such as recast. Thus, the teacher is able to
correct the students’ errors by emphasizing the incorrect phrases and directly providing the
correct forms.

3.3 Types of corrective feedback mostly preferred by student

The third research focus was related to the forms of feedback that students preferred
during speaking classes. According to students' perceptions and preferences of corrective
feedback given during speaking courses, forms of corrective feedback were ranked in terms of
usefulness. According to the mode rankings from all 97 students, recast earned the highest score
as the most valuable feedback from various sorts of corrective feedback. In recast, lecturers
directly delivered the right form to students without providing them the option to self-repair.
Nonetheless, Han (2002) claimed that recasts were tricky because they may have a
detrimental impact by directing students' attention away from the issue of ambiguity. As a result,
Han (2002) proposed that recasts would be more advantageous for linguistic forms that were
already being internalized than for forms that were unfamiliar to students. The example is
presented in the following.

Example 5
Student : Some of Japan
Lecturer : Japanese
Students : Some of Japanese.

The lecturer did not teach a new term in this instance, but rather increased the student's
awareness of the word "Japanese" as a suitable usage on the speech form. Furthermore, Lyster
(2004) observed that recasts were employed as corrective movements in a communicative
classroom. It was also utilized to provide supportive and scaffolding aid to take the lesson
forward when the goal forms were not accessible in the students' existing production capabilities.
According to the findings, recast allowed students to remedy their errors, as illustrated in the
following example.

Example 6
Student : The researchers have conducted /konˈdʌktid/.
Lecturer : Conducted /kənˈdʌktid/
Students : Yes, Conducted /kənˈdʌktid/

This evidence occurred at the end of the speaking class. As a result, in order to keep the
discussion on track, the lecturer corrected the student's mispronunciation immediately. It can be

131 https::/ejournalourn-nanrnlnalui:uri/eltht:e/ea/:uri/e
 Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning (JETLE)
Volume 4, Issue 2, April 2023, Page 125-135
● ISSN 2686-665X

said that when it came to the students' preferences for corrective feedback from the lecturer,
their desire to receive it was evident. In this study, practically all students felt comfortable being
corrected when they committed an error. It contradicted Truscott's (1999) study, which found
that corrective feedback had a detrimental impact on learning because it made students feel
humiliated, irritated, and inadequate. It was discovered that ten students were uncomfortable
after being corrected by their lecturers during speaking courses; nevertheless, feeling
embarrassed did not imply that the students did not want to be corrected. In fact, none of the
students were irritated when the lecturers corrected their mistakes.
In response to students' preferences for timing and method of providing corrective
feedback during speaking activities, the timing of types of corrective feedback provided
revealed that more than half of students in speaking classes disagreed with the statement that a
lecturer should only correct errors considered to be significant. It indicated that students expect
to be corrected whenever they commit an error. This finding was consistent with Tomcyzk
(2013)'s research on teachers' and students' perceptions of corrective feedback. Tomcyzk (2013)
discovered that the majority of teachers (81.4%) and students (92.8%) agreed that all errors had
to be addressed.
Additionally, although some studies claimed that immediate feedback disrupted the
flow of students' performances, interactionists argued that corrective feedback was most
effective when given in context at the time the student committed the error (Ellis, 2009). This
study discovered that students favored quick feedback over delayed input. The researcher
concluded that the interactionist concept was supported by this study, which discovered that
students accepted to be corrected immediately when they committed errors.
Also, during class, lecturers corrected students in various ways. The study's findings
demonstrated that students clearly preferred to be corrected in a group or class setting rather
than in private. This conclusion was also consistent with Hillary (2010)'s current study, which
found that 96% of students accepted to be corrected in class. The scenario was particularly
different when lecturers explicitly displayed students' faults and named their names, since these
evidences might amplify the unfavorable impact on the students. By providing correction to all
students and indirectly in the classroom, it is possible to lessen students' fear and improve
students' positive influence.
In general, excessive corrective feedback may demotivate students from learning and
discourage them from engaging in the classroom since they will not say anything unless they
think they have right utterances to create (Martinez, 2006). The need for correcting all errors
might be connected to the importance of corrective feedback in raising students’ linguistic
awareness. This viewpoint is consistent with the findings of the observation, in which students
state that they want their teacher to correct any errors since it allows them to learn from their
mistakes and avoid repeating them in the future. Although the students desire that all errors be
addressed, particular domains require greater attention. In this instance, grammar and phonology
are seen as more important, and errors in these two areas should always be corrected. In other
words, teachers should be thoughtful in selecting which errors to correct and which sorts of
corrective feedback to employ in their speaking classes.

4. CONCLUSION
There are certain conclusions that can be drawn from the current study's findings and
discussion. The first is the greatest chance to provide oral corrective feedback to students
concerning their errors, and the second is the most favored sorts of oral corrective feedback to

132 https::/ejournalourn-nanrnlnalui:uri/eltht:e/ea/:uri/e
 Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning (JETLE)
Volume 4, Issue 2, April 2023, Page 125-135
● ISSN 2686-665X

students regarding their errors in speaking courses. There are two methods to describe the time
spent providing oral corrective feedback to students' errors. They are corrective feedback, both
immediate and delayed. In terms of grammatical use, both immediate and delayed corrections
are preferable for students' errors. It could be observed from the fact that when lecturers desire
to enhance students' accuracy, they encourage both immediate and delayed correction.
Making errors is regarded as a sign or natural progression of students' speaking
development. Furthermore, providing spoken corrective feedback might be a serious approach
for assisting students in improving their target language competence. As a result, selecting the
most desired sorts of oral corrective feedback is regarded as the greatest technique to develop
students' abilities. Because the data demonstrate that students prefer recast, the lecturer might
utilize recast to address the students' errors. Furthermore, in communicative classrooms, recast
is utilized as a supporting aid to carry the lesson forward when the goal forms are not available
in the students' existing production capacity.
The results of the types of corrective feedback observed during speaking courses and
the students' preferences for forms of corrective feedback demonstrate the implication of the
present study. It is encouraged that English Speaking lecturers utilize recast. When the goal
forms are not accessible in the students' existing production ability, the English-Speaking
lecturer might employ recast as supporting, scaffolding aid to carry the course forward although
the lecturers should also consider to employ other types of corrective feedback as well to
accompany recast. It should be noted that the lecturers should be able to recognize which errors
to correct and which sorts of corrective feedback to employ in their speaking classes.
Furthermore, the findings of the study should provide valuable references and comparison
findings for future researchers who are interested in the same topic. Nonetheless, the duration
and frequency of the observations are the study's weaknesses. It was done for a brief amount of
time. As a result, future researchers with a similar interest in studying a comparable issue should
conduct longer and more frequent observations so that forms of corrective feedback are more
firmly established since the observation can approach data redundancy.

REFERENCES
Akhyak, M., & Indramawan, I. (2013). Improving the students english speaking competence
Storytelling (Study in Pengeran Diponegoro Islamic College (STAI) of Nganjuk, East
Java, Indonesia. International Journal of language and Literature. 1(2).
Ammar, A. (2003). Corrective feedback and L2 learning: Elicitation and recast. Unpublised
Thesis. Montreal : Montreal. Mc Gill University.
Atma, N., & Widiati, U. (2015). EFL students’ preferences for corrective feedback in speaking
instruction across speaking course levels. Bahasa dan Seni. 43(2). 183-195.
Bogdan, C., & Sari K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and
methods. Allyn & Bacon.
Bogdan, C., & Sari K. (2003). Qualitative Research for Education: an Introduction to Theory
and Methods, (Online), (http://n.ereserve.fiu.edu/010013009-1.pdf), on 25th November
2022.
Brookhart, S. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. ASCB.
Buyukbay, S. and Dabaghi, A. (2010). The effectiveness of repetition as corrective feedback.
Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(3), 181–193.
Choi, S., & Shaofeng L. (2012). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in a child. TESOL
Quarterly. 43(3): 331-351.

133 https::/ejournalourn-nanrnlnalui:uri/eltht:e/ea/:uri/e
 Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning (JETLE)
Volume 4, Issue 2, April 2023, Page 125-135
● ISSN 2686-665X

Dilans, G. (2010). Corrective feedback and L2 vocabulary development: Prompt and recasts in
the adult ESL classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review. 787-815.
Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focused instruction on L2 acquisition. AILA
Review, 19, 18-41.
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal. 1(1), 3- 18.
Ellis, R., & Younghee S. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 28, 576-600.
Fungula, B. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in the Chinese EFL classroom. Karlstads
Universitet: Unpublished Thesis.
Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL
Quarterly. 36(4), 543-572.
Handoyo, F. (2010). Improving English implicit grammar knowledge using semantic syntactic
translation practice. TEFLIN Journal, 21(2), 186-201.
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (4th Edition). Pearson Longman.
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the classroom. Oxford University Press.
Hendrickson, J. (1978). Correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and
practice. A historical perspective of learner errors. The Modern Language Journal, 62(8),
387-398.
Hillary, S. (2002). Correct me if I’m wrong: Investigating the preferences in error correction
among adult English language learners. University of Central Florida: Unpublished
Thesis.
Ihsan, D. (1999). Speaking and writing errors made by students of English Education. Jurnal
Ilmu Pendidikan, 6(3), 222-234.
Kennedy, S. (2010). Corrective feedback for learners of varied proficiency levels: A teacher’s
choices. Spring TESL Canada Journal, 27.
Lyster, R., Kazuya S., & Masatoshi S. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in Second Language
classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40.
Lyster, R., & Kazuya S. (2010). Oral corrective feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 32, 265-302.
Lyster, R., & Panova, L. (2002). Pattern of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL
classroom. TESOL Quarterly Journal , 36, 573-595.
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. SSLA,
26, 399-432.
Martinez, G. (2006). Should we correct our students errors in L2 learning?. Encuantro, 16, 1-7.
Méndez, E., & Cruz, M. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions about oral corrective feedback and their
practice in EFL classrooms. Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 14(2), 63-75.
Moedjito, M., & Harumi, I. (2008). Perceptions of the seriousness of mispronunciations of
English speech sounds. TEFLIN Journal, 19(1), 70-93.
Nunan, D. (1991). Language Teaching Methodology: A textbook for teachers. Prentice-Hall.
Nunan, D. (1996). The self directed teacher managing the learning process. Cambridge
University Press
Nunan, D. (2003). Practical english language teaching. McGraw Hill.
Park, H. (2010). Teachers’ and learners’ preferences for error correction. Unpublished
master’s thesis. California State University, Sacramento, USA.
Rahmi, S. (2017). Types of corrective feedback used by four lecturers on students’ speaking
performance. INOVISH Journal, 2(2), 79-95.

134 https::/ejournalourn-nanrnlnalui:uri/eltht:e/ea/:uri/e
 Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning (JETLE)
Volume 4, Issue 2, April 2023, Page 125-135
● ISSN 2686-665X

Roberts, R. (2012). Task repetition: Helping students to improve accuracy, repertoire and
fluency. (Online), (https://elt-resourceful.com/2012/11/14/task-repetition-helpingstudents-
to-improve-accuracyrepertoire-and-fluency/, on 30th October 2022.
Serra, R. (2014). The importance of giving feedback, (Online),
(http://www.richmondshare.com.br/the-importance-of-giving-feedback/), on 5th February
2022.
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classroom across
instructional setting. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263-300.
Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning.
American University: Department of Language and Foreign Studies.
Sheen,Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed),
Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp.593-607).
Routledge.
Suryanto, S. (2014). Issues in teaching English in a cultural context: A case of Indonesia.
Journal of English Literacy Education, 1(2), 75-83.
Tomcyzk, E. (2013). Perceptions of oral errors and their corrective feedback: Teachers vs.
students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(5), 924-931.
Tripudiyana, T., Sartika, D., & Nery, R. (2022). A Correlation between Students’ Self-Esteem
and Speaking Skill. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning (JETLE), 3(2),
Article 2. https://doi.org/10.18860/jetle.v3i2.15610
Truscott. (1999). The case for “The cast against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A
response to ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(20), 111-122.
Rohmana, W. I. M. (2017). The Implementation of Performance Assessment in Curriculum
2013 (A Case Study at the Eleventh Grade of SMAN 1 Magetan in the Academic Year of
2016/2017) [Universitas Sebelas Maret].
https://digilib.uns.ac.id/dokumen/detail/65955/The-Implementation-of-Performance-
Assessment-in-Curriculum-2013-A-Case-Study-at-the-Eleventh-Grade-of-SMAN-1-
Magetan-in-the-Academic-Year-of-20162017
Rolin-Ianziti, J. (2010). The organization of delayed second language correction. Language
Teaching Research, 14(2), 183-206.
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teacher’s choice and learners’ preference of corrective feedback types.
Language Awareness, 17(1), 78-93.
Yoshida, R. (2010). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preferences of corrective feedback types.
Sidney: University of New South Wales
Zhang, Y., Zhang, L. & Ma, L. (2010). A brief analysis of corrective feedback in oral
interaction. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1 (3), 306-308.

135 https::/ejournalourn-nanrnlnalui:uri/eltht:e/ea/:uri/e