ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN SPEAKING CLASS OF ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

The objective of this study is to see kinds of corrective feedbacks used by English lecturer in speaking class. The study used classroom based observation as the design, assigning 30 students and one speaking lecturer in English department University of Bantara (UNIVET) Sukoharjo. Data were collected using observation and interview. The study revealed that teacher’s corrective feedback is one factor that influences the progress of students in learning English. It did not bother the students in building a communication. The evidence showed that that the teacher applied recasts, explicit correction, and clarification requests. Recasts was dominated the type of corrective feedback used by the teacher because it did not make the students confused. Three criteria of effective corrective feedback occurred in correction given by the teacher. He was consistent in treating the errors, gave correction without breaking the flow of the communication, and did not ridicule the students in giving correction.

This study reports how corrective feedbacks are executed in speaking class of English department University of Bantara (UNIVET) Sukoharjo.The focus of corrective feedback is to identify techniques the teacher made when she found her students' made mistakes in the classroom interactions for oral and written contexts.Speaking class undergoes in an integrated teaching where grammar and vocabulary are implicitly taught, medium of instruction is English and reading and speaking are the main activities.In practice, however, variety of techniques that focuses on reading and focused grammar is mundane.
Interactions that involve questions and answers work well for some cases, suggesting repairs and clarification of students' illform sentences in oral or written works.However, emphasis of corrections that shows how teachers corrects and repairs students' mistakes is not clear.As a technique of classroom management, error correction or corrective feedback is prominent.Therefore, strategies to use corrective feedback needs to maintain considerably.Corrective feedback is defined as information given to learners regarding a linguistic error they of giving feedback during fluency work such as: (a) Gentle correction, (b) Recording mistakes, (c) After the event, and (4) Feedback on written work.
Feedback on oral work can be done in a number of ways.Teacher can put some of the mistakes the teacher has recorded up on the board and ask students firstly if they can recognize the problem, and then they can put it right.Or, teacher can write both correct and incorrect words, phrases, or sentences on the board and ask the students decide which is correct.When you do this, do not say who made the mistakes since this may expose them in front of their classmates, just concentrate on those mistakes were made by more than one person.Another possibility is for teacher to write individual notes to students, recording mistakes he/she heard from those particular students with suggestions about where they might look for information about the language -in dictionaries, grammar books, or on the internet.
The way the teacher gives feedback on writing will depend on the kind of writing task the students have undertaken, and the effect the teacher wishes to create.When students do workbook exercises based on controlled testing activities, teacher can mark their efforts right or wrong, possibly penciling in the correct answer for them to study.However, when teacher gives feedback on more creative or communicative writing (such as letters, reports, stories, or poems) teacher will approach the task with circumspection and clearly demonstrate the teacher interest in the content of the students' work.
There are two techniques to give feedback on students' written work: (a) Responding: one way of considering feedback is to think of it as 'responding' to students' work rather than assessing or evaluating what they have done.When the teacher responds, it means the teacher shows to the students how the text could be improved.Such responses are vital at various stages of the writing process cycle.Firstly, students show the teacher a first draft of their work; then, the teacher gives response about how it is progressing and how it can be improved.It can be done on the students' work or a separate piece of paper.This type of feedback takes time, of course, but it can be more useful to the student than a draft covered in correction marks.
However, it is designed specially for situations in which the student will go back and review the draft before producing a new version.Another constructive way of responding to students' written work is to show alternative ways of writing through reformulation.Instead of providing the kind of comments, teacher might say I would express this paragraph slightly different from you, and then rewrite it.Such reformulation is useful for students since by comparing their version with teacher's, they discover a lot about the language.(b) Coding.Here, teacher uses codes, and puts these codes either in the body of the writing or in a corresponding margin.This makes correction much neater, less threatening, and more helpful than random marks and comments.Frequently used symbols of this kind refer to issues such as word order, spelling, or verb tense.Teacher can decide on the particular codes and symbols the teacher use with the students, making sure that they are quite clear about what the symbols mean through demonstration and example.
Methodologists and SLA researchers have developed hierarchical taxonomies of strategies of how corrective feedback works as seen in Table 1.Correcting students is seen as potentially dangerous because it can damage learners' receptivity to learning.It needs to be given in an atmosphere of support and warm solidarity.Because the object of using correction techniques is to give the students a chance to get the new language right, the teachers must be careful to do such correction.It means that when a teacher does corrections, it should be done nicely and kindly (Ur, 1996:255).Table 2 describes corrective feedback strategies a teacher can select proposed by Ellis (2009:9).
Teachers are often advised to give students the opportunity to self-correct and, if that fails, to invite other students to perform the correction (Hedge in Ellis, 2009:7) There are, however, a number of problems with learner self-correction.First, learners typically prefer the teacher do the correction for them.Second, learner can only self-correct if they possess the necessary linguistic knowledge.They can correct their "mistakes" but not their "errors".
According to Doughty and Varela (in Ellis, 2009:7) teachers responded to learner errors by first repeating the learner utterance highlighting the error by means of emphatic stress and, then, if the learner failed to correct, reformulating the utterance, as in this sample: Learner: I think that the worm will go under the soil.Teacher: I think that the worm will go under the soil?Learner: (no response) Teacher: I thought that the worm would go under the soil Learner: I thought that the worm would go under the soil In written or oral work, students should be responsible for their own errors.Written work must always be read through and carefully checked before handing in.This is good for developing an awareness of one's own errors.Correction might also come from another source apart from the student himself and the teacher, for example, other members of the group can

92
In oral work, a class can be trained to listen closely for mistakes in a talk, and should be given the chance to discuss them with the speaker and teacher afterwards.This research emphasizes on the English teachers' corrective feedback in speaking class in English Department at UNIVET Sukoharjo.The study was focused to (1) types of corrective feedback, and (2) teacher's conducts in presenting corrective feedback in speaking class of English Department at UNIVET Sukoharjo.

METHODS
The design of this study was Classroom Research Design.The classroom research involved a process of involving teachers in the formal study of teaching and learning.It attempted to answer two fundamental questions: how well are students learning and how effectively are teachers teaching.Trough close observation, the collection of feedback on student learning and the careful design of experiments, classroom teachers was able to learn more about how students learn, and more specifically, how students responded to particular teaching approaches (Cross and Angelo, 1988).sThe subject of this study the fourth semester students of English Department at UNIVET containing 30 students and a speaking lecturer handling the speaking course.The focus of this study was corrective feedback made by English teachers in the classroom.In this study, the researcher identified occurrences of the correction during the speaking class and the way teachers performed the corrective feedback in the classroom.Data of this study were occurrences of feedbacks the teacher executed when teaching, and the way teacher implemented the feedback.Data were collected from videotape and notes during the class through observation and interview.Data were presented under the descriptive way and analyzed inductively in terms of features and facts of teacher's teaching process.

FINDINGS Types of Corrective Feedback
The result of observation showed that teacher entered the class for six meetings.During the six meetings, corrective feedbacks that the teacher used are presented in Table 3.

93
As seen in Table 3, total frequency of repairs conducted by the teacher is 246.Of six types of feedback, recast was executed 66 times (26.83%).It means that during 6 meetings, teacher did recast for 66 times, allotting 11 times in each meeting.However, over 11 repairs on one meeting, students practiced to repair using recast strategies for 4 times in one meeting.This view indicates that teacher did corrective feedbacks in every meeting several times, but how much each kind of feedback applies for students is still in effective.Recast promotes 0% on students repairs.
The study produced interesting results in terms of feedback types.Corrective feedback using recasts achieves 26.83%.Elicitation feedback was offered in 19.51% of the cases, clarification requests 17.07%, metalinguistic feedback 7.32%, explicit correction 14.3%, and repetition 14.63%.Repetition feedback has negative effect because teachers often produce repetitions along with other types of feedback.
Let's see how each kind of feedback has been implemented.Elicitation was done for 48 times in six meeting, allotting 8 times each.In practice where students did actual repair using elicitation was 18 times.This means during 6 meetings teacher did elicitation 3 times only; once in the first meeting and twice in the fifth meeting.The evidence shows that the teacher is not aware of using effective feedback during classroom interactions, indicating that classroom management in teaching speaking does not work effectively.
As clearly shown in Table 3, recasts did not result in student-generated repair at all, because this feedback types provide students with the correct forms and thus can only lead to student the correct form provided by the teacher.On the other hand, when the other types lead to repair, it must be student-generated because these feedback types do not provide the correct form.

Recasts
Recasts involved the teacher's reformulation of all part of a students' utterance minus the error.Excerpts below exemplify recasts used by the teacher: (1) S : "It's about Sam's birthday party.
If we look at ... ee ... on the wall.
There is a picture of family Sam" T : "Sam's family" (2) S2 : "a man is offering a hamburger to a woman and said "I'm not eat meat" T : " I don't eat meat" Those samples of recasts show that the teacher reformulated the students' utterance without repeating the error when the student made grammatical errors.

94
Recast are generally implicit in that they are not introduced by phrase such as "you mean," "use this word," or "you should say."See excerpt (3) for the example.
(3) S1 : "refused it because vegetarian..I think.." T : "ah.. she's a vegetarian" Here, the teacher only provided the correct form of students' utterances, even the utterance was not totally incorrect, and he did not use those phrases to realize the students what he said is incorrect.The researcher thought there was a subjectivity of the teacher in seeing an error.
Recasts also include translations in response to a student's use of the L1.See the quotations on scripts (4) and ( 5).
(4) S : "ehm... a book, lamp, toy spider.." T : "spider toy" (third meeting) (5) S : "... the function of A tuts is to give a high ball" T : "tuts A" Sometimes the students made error because the of mother tongue.Even the teacher understood the meaning of student's utterance, he gave correction to it.The researcher found that the use of recasts dominated almost in all meetings.The teacher seldom made correction with complete explanation.It was considered he did not want to break the flow of communication.

Explicit Correction
It refers to the explicit provision of the correct form.As the teacher provides the correct form, he or she clearly indicated that what the students had said was incorrect.(e.g."you mean..," "you should say...").See script (6) for the example.
(6) S : " and the Sam's wife offering the man.But the man refusing... T : "ah... you mean he doesn't drink coffee" The teacher considered what the student had said was incorrect when he just said "the man refusing..." On researcher's mind, the error was not really significant because the teacher could understand the meaning but it was grammatically incorrect.Here, the researcher thought there was a subjectivity of the teacher's mind in seeing the errors.But in excerpt (6) there was no repetition from the student.In contrast with the quotation below: (7) S : "... maybe he is conversing... e... to..." T : "makes a conversation kan maksudnya"

S :
" makes a conversation... e... eee... to a woman..." Quotation (7) showed that the student repeated what the teacher had corrected.The student uttered inappropriate to state what is on his mind, and the teacher tried to comprehend the by providing the correct form while asking "….kan maksudnya?" to ensure him.
When the teacher gave correction explicitly, the researcher observed that the students were aware then they are being corrected because teacher clearly indicated what the students had said.

Clarification Requests
Clarification requests indicate to students either that their utterance has been misunderstood by the teacher or that the utterance is ill-formed and that a repetition or a reformulation is required.Script (8) exemplifies the model.( 8) S : "the man is offering hamburger to the woman but she don't want to eat meat...

T :
"what did you say?" S : "but she doesn't eat meat" When the student made grammatical error, the teacher did not provide the appropriate form, he just paused the conversation by saying "what did you say?" and this correction worked well so that the student reformulated his utterance himself.
Sometimes, the teacher could not understand what the student had said.So, it was important to the teacher to ask the student.This is a type of feedback that can refer to problems in either comprehensibility or accuracy, or both.Clarification requests include phrases such as "pardon me?" and it may also include a repetition of the error as in "what do you mean by X?" For details, we can see the excerpt (9) below: (9) S : "Inside, party attending from her friends.. T : "pardon me, what do you mean by party attending?S : "Inside, they attending the party" Here, the teacher clearly indicated that he did not understand what the students had said.The teacher also did not provide the correct form.But the student directly understood that his utterance was incorrect, and he repaired it himself.
The researcher found that the student's ability to comprehend the correction was not same.The quotation below showed that the student did not understand the correction from the teacher in English.The teacher repeated in Indonesian to make the student understand.See excerpt (10) for the example."what do you mean?" T : "maksudmu apa?" S : "anu..bagaimana cara menendang tendangan bebas?"T : "ooh..how to do the free kick?" From excerpt (10), the researcher thought that the student did not know that he was being corrected while he repeated the teacher's utterance and finally, the teacher used Indonesian in giving correction.

Teacher Performs Corrective Feedback
In analyzing the way teacher performs the corrective feedback, the researcher borrowed three criteria for efficient and effective corrective, correct selectively, choose productive items, and correct constructively from Mendelson (in Salikin, 2001).

Selective Corrective Feedback
It is impossible for the teachers to correct all the errors students make.It was proven on the Speaking Class in English Department of UNIVET where had been observed.The teacher did not correct all the students error, sometime he just ignored some errors.Examples of Selective Corrective Feedback appear on excerpts (11) and ( 12). ( 11) S : "because...the...because the... in hers bag T : "there is..." (second meeting) (12) S : "I usually using joystick in PS2..." Excerpts ( 11) and ( 12) showed that sometimes teacher tolerated the grammatical errors made by the student.The researcher believed that when the students are overcorrected they may become discouraged and confused, when the researcher interviewed the teacher in regard with his way in giving correction, he stated.See excerpt (13).( 13) "in giving correction, I try not to make negative effect to the students, and I don't give the correction to all errors, especially when the error did not break the communication." Hendrickson (in Salikin, 2001) believes that the learners do not like to be corrected for each errors they made because this practise destroy their confidence to use the target language.Based on the observation, the researcher assumed that the correction from the teacher did not break the LINGUA, Vol. 13, No. 1, Maret 2016p-ISSN: 1979-9411;e-ISSN: 2442-238X;Web: lingua.pusatbahasa.or.idPusat Kajian Bahasa dan Budaya, Surakarta, Indonesia Solikhah, Imroatus.2016.Oral Corrective Feedback in Speaking Class of English Department.

97
flow of communication, because the teacher give the correction in the right time without giving explanation in the middle of communication.We can see the excerpt (14) below: ( 14) S : "this is happy birthday Sam" T : "Sam's birthday party" S : "Sam's birthday party.Many and friends and family to be an English teacher" (recasts).
On researcher's mind, as a learner, sometime the students do not care about accuracy as long as they get the message across.It is important for them to understand the meaning of their fiends' utterances.

Choice of Productive Items for Correction
The decision as to what to correct should be based on the rule that the teachers should concentrate on that will be most productive for the learners' future communication.This is not an easy job for the teachers usually are not consistent in treating errors.
In this study, the researcher observed the teacher tried to give the correction toward the lesson materials which are expected have been mastered by the students.Look at the excerpts (15), ( 16), (17), and (18) below: (15) S : "... there is a picture of family Sam" T : "Sam's family" (Recasts) (First meeting) (16) S : "It is picture Princess" T : "Princess' picture" (Recasts) (second meeting) (17) S : "suddenly a man using a black glasses enter the office to send five box of pizza" T : "five boxes of pizza" (recasts) (third meeting) (18) S : "and there, there teacher English" T : "you mean, there is an English teacher" (explicit correction) Those four excerpts ( 15), ( 16), ( 17), ( 18) show that the teacher concentrated to the simple errors that should have been mastered by the students, and those errors occurred frequently in learner's speaking, so the teacher did not have to give detail explanation.And the students realized that they had uttered incorrect form.The quotation below shows that sometimes the teacher gave correction when he did not get the meaning of the students' utterance.

(clarification requests)
Errors that impair the communication significantly which are shown in excerpt (19) need a correction from the teacher immediately.

Constructive Error Correction
Creating a very good atmosphere in the classroom is very essential to gain the successful language learning, the classroom atmosphere should be built on a premise of mutual respect.This means learners and the teachers should respect each other.The researcher observed that when teacher gave correction to the students he did not make the students feel fear or ridicule.Within six meetings, the researcher saw that the students kept talking even though they got correction from the teacher.And other students did not laugh at anyone when a student made a mistake.Sometime other student helped his friend when a student uttered incorrect form.The quotation (20) below is the example: (20) S : "yes, how to play is hard for me...my finger is not able for the key...keyboard... T : "ooh...using the keyboard" In regard with laughing at anyone at UNIVET, they have special tradition when someone made a mistake whether in a competition or presentation or in learning activities, they give applause to him or her.It does not mean they humiliate the student, but it is one way to support him or her.So, when a student is being corrected, he or she is expected not to feel ashamed.This tradition has been applied since the first time they entered UNIVET.It makes the class environment safe to take risk for the student to try thing out without fear or ridicule.

Result of Interview
The result of interview was applied to clarify more details information on these questions: (1) Which errors should be corrected?, (2) When errors should be corrected?, and (3) How should errors be corrected?" The researcher got the fact on the field that the teacher always gave correction simple errors such as use of possessive, simple present tense, and word orders.When the researcher confirmed it to the teacher, he agreed and explained that he gives correction for these reasons, first, if the errors break the meaning of students utterance so his friends or himself can not get the meaning across.Second, he always gives the correction for the simple errors which should have been mastered by the students, and also for the errors which need correction based on his point of view that students' utterance was wrong.
The right time in giving correction contributes positive effects toward the students on response to their ill-form of target language they made.The researcher had observed that the teacher could give the correction well and in the right time.To ensure this assumption, she LINGUA, Vol. 13, No. 1, Maret 2016p-ISSN: 1979-9411;e-ISSN: 2442-238X;Web: lingua.pusatbahasa.or.idPusat Kajian Bahasa dan Budaya, Surakarta, Indonesia Solikhah, Imroatus.2016.Oral Corrective Feedback in Speaking Class of English Department.

99
clarified it to the teacher about the timing in giving correction.He stated that he usually gives correction to his students when they are involved in communication process in English learning activities.He added that he tends to give the correction in the right time otherwise the correction will disturb student' utterance and flow of communication.Besides, he said further, overcorrected is not good for the students.
Based on the observation within six meetings, the researcher found that the teacher never gave a detail correction and complete explanation toward students' errors in the middle of communication.He coined that he doesn't want to give negative effect to the students in giving correction, by means of simple word and without giving details explanation.But he tried to give the information and correction at the end of meeting.He assumed that this is a good way to concentrate the error and repair it all at once.He added that when he gives correction, it depends on student's ability to comprehend the correction.So, he doesn't correct all students who made the same errors, but he tries to consider their ability.

DISCUSSION
The finding of the study showed types of corrective feedback used by the teacher included recasts, explicit correction, and clarification requests.Teacher performed corrective feedback by selecting corrective feedback, choosing productive items for correction, and making a constructive error correction.But, it is necessary to discuss the classroom setting first based on the researcher's field notes.
This study took place on Speaking Class of English Department at UNIVET Sukoharjo.Speaking Class was one of the lectures in one semester, and it was given at the second semester.For the first semester they learned basic English which was dominated by 70% of theory and the rest was for practice.When the students were in second semester they had 70% practise with less theory that they built on Speaking Class.The students were expected to have a good skill in English.This class consisted of 38 students with 70% men.
The Speaking Class was held three times a week every Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday at 11 a.m.The classroom was set as comfortable as possible by the management team.It was a large classroom with air conditioner and good lighting.It was not a big problem when the students had to study in the middle of the day or at night.The conditions were still comfortable to study.The other facilities were television, VCD, OHP, and in-focus which were accessible for the teachers to vary the teaching learning activities.Within six meetings the teacher gave the students two materials to be discussed.First, the teacher provided a copy of picture and the students described and explained the activities on the picture.The communication ran between teacher and each student.For the second materials, the teacher brought the topic about Information Technology to the class.The students were very enthusiastic toward this topic, because it was their specialization and they knew a lot about it.Here, the teacher ordered them to make their own dialogue without teacher's intervention.

100
The findings showed that the teacher applied three types of corrective feedback.Within six meeting, recasts almost dominated the error correction from the teacher.According to Lyster and Ranta, recast involved the teacher's reformulation of all part of a student's utterance, minus the error.Continued with explicit correction and the least was clarification requests.Teacher considered that those three types are as effective ways in giving correction.It is possible for the teacher to give other type of corrective feedback on previous meetings, or perhaps for the next meetings.By giving recast means the teacher provided the correct answer or the right form.According to Lyster and Ranta, recast involved the teacher's reformulation of all part of a student's utterance, minus the error.It is believed that when the teacher gave the right answer, the students were not confused.They directly recognized that their answers were wrong.
Concerning the teacher performance on corrective feedback, it showed that the teacher conducted it well.He used simple word and tolerated some ill-form of the students' utterances.The teacher provided the corrective feedback for the sake of the learners.In normal communication, even when people talking in their mother tongue, linguistic errors often exist without breaking the communication.It is a conventional wisdom not to destroy the flow of the communication by stopping the learners to correct them.The teacher avoided interrupting communicative exchange.The correction did not make the students lose their face so that they did not mind to keep talking in target language.The corrections were not frightening for the students so that the teacher didn't have to work hard to make them speak.Mendelson (in Salikin) coined that the speaking class should be a sheltered environment in which it is always safe to take risk for the students to try everything out without fear or ridicule.By this the learner might be more confident to use the language they are learning.But still there are some weaknesses.Sometimes the teacher just let the error away, even it needed a correction.The teacher also provided the correction in target language.Sometimes the correction in L1 is necessary to be used by the teacher to clarify his correction.s This study showed that different types of corrective feedback applied by the teacher did not break the flow of the communication.And the students seemed they did not mind to be corrected by the teacher proven by they kept to continue talking in target language.Related to earlier studies, the evidences of this research support the earlier studies.The result of the previous study by Daniel H. Magilow showed that students did not seem at all offended or disturbed by corrective feedback, some not only did not mind correction but wanted it and noticed its absence.Another study by Syahiddin showed that the learners thought their English teacher's explicit correction is a normal thing and they believe that it is one of the important things in English teaching learning activities.s CONCLUSION Relying upon the findings, discussion and purpose of the study, the researcher can draw the conclusion as the following: s LINGUA, Vol. 13, No. 1, Maret 2016p-ISSN: 1979-9411;e-ISSN: 2442-238X;Web: lingua.pusatbahasa.or.idPusat Kajian Bahasa dan Budaya, Surakarta, Indonesia Solikhah, Imroatus.2016.Oral Corrective Feedback in Speaking Class of English Department.

101
1. Teacher's corrective feedback is one factor that influences the progress of the students in learning English.It did not bother the students in building a communication.The evidence showed that that the teacher applied recasts, explicit correction, and clarification requests.
Recasts was dominated the type of corrective feedback used by the teacher because it did not make the students confused.s 2. Three criteria of effective corrective feedback occurred in correction given by the teacher.He was consistent in treating the errors, gave correction without breaking the flow of the communication, and did not ridicule the students in giving correction.s