Explicit Correction in Scaffolding Students: A Case of Learning
Spoken English
Friscilla Wulan Tersta and Wawan Gunawan
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, Indonesia
Keywords: Explicit Correction, Corrective Feedback, Scaffolding.
Abstract: This study attempted to portray the potential of oral corrective feedback, especially explicit correction as one
of the dominant types used by the teacher in teaching the students who learn spoken English. Oral corrective
feedback has been often considered as a correcting tool for students’ errors. Most of the previous studies
which investigated oral corrective feedback found that recast is the most common type used by the teacher in
which it was an opposite from the result of this study. It is essential to know the types of oral corrective
feedback used by the teacher, as a functional English model, to help the students develop their own capacity
in learning. This study used qualitative method. One English teacher and 39 students were involved in this
study. The data were collected by classroom observation, interview, and teacher’s document. The data were
then analyzed, described, and interpreted comprehensively. The result of this study revealed that explicit
correction was the most frequently used corrective feedback from the teacher in the classroom. Correcting by
giving motivation and emphasizing on students’ error was claimed as the teacher’s strategy in scaffolding the
students in learning English.
1 INTRODUCTION
Speaking is claimed as one of the pivotal skill that
should be achieved and mastered for language
learners. According to Derakhsan, Khalili, and
Baheshti (2015) as cited in Derakhsan et al. (2016),
the past four decades have witnessed the rapid
development of speaking skill in second language
learning because speaking plays an important role in
learners’ language development
Indonesian learners still consider speaking to be
one of the most challenging skills to be acquired.
Speaking is an even more problematic skill to be
mastered by foreign language students (Al-Saadi,
Tonawanik, & Al-Harthy, 2013). Indeed, some
frustration commonly voiced by learners is that they
have spent years studying English, but still they
cannot speak it.
Students remain to make mistakes which may lead
to get error fossilized (see Harmer, 2001). According
to Martinez (2006), in order to lead students to be
aware of some errors, learners need to receive
comprehensible input from teachers who can help
them improve their competence and performance. In
a similar vein, Lengkanawati (2017) argues that
teacher as a facilitator in the classroom should let the
students involved in the process of learning itself to
give them an autonomous learning experience.
One of the strategies to scaffold the students is
providing feedback as comprehensible input for
students. There are several strategies in providing
feedback, such as evaluative feedback and interactive
feedback (Cullen, 2002; Richard & Lockhart, 1996 as
cited in Ran & Danli, 2016). The feedback given by
the teacher may contribute to developing students’
capacity or may only correct students’ error to help
students complete the task (Thompson, 2010).
The most common feedback that teachers usually
employ in their teaching is corrective feedback
(Fawbush, 2010). Hen (2008, as cited in Méndez &
Cruz, 2012) suggests that corrective feedback is a
more general way of providing some clues, or
eliciting some correction, in addition to the direct
correction made by the teacher. Moreover, corrective
feedback can push the students to modify their faulty
utterances (Swain in Lowen & Reinders, 2011) and
prevent fossilization (Gass, 1991; Mendez & Cruz,
2010). Corrective feedback is defined as a teacher’s
reactive move that invites the learners to attend to the
grammatical accuracy of the utterance which is
produced by the learner (Sheen, 2007).
Tersta, F. and Gunawan, W.
Explicit Correction in Scaffolding Students: A Case of Learning Spoken English.
DOI: 10.5220/0007163701530159
In Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference
on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education (CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017) - Literacy, Culture, and Technology in Language Pedagogy and Use, pages 153-159
ISBN: 978-989-758-332-2
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
153

Previous research has investigated about oral
corrective feedback in educational setting and most of
the result found that Recast was the most dominant
type among the other types of corrective feedback
(Subekti, 2016; Fajriah 2015; Bhuana, 2014; Maolida
2013).
Based on the preliminary investigation, it was
found that the teacher in one of the best schools in
Bandung Barat regency tended to use explicit
correction in indicating the students’ errors in the
classroom. To expand on the existing types of
corrective feedback, this study focuses on exploring
the potential of corrective feedback, specifically
explicit correction, to scaffold students in their
learning spoken English.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Corrective Feedback
More recently, according to Beuningen (2010), Ellis
(2009), Ellis et al. (2006), and Li (2010), corrective
feedback is the teacher’s responses to the students’
erroneous second language production. According to
Calsiyao (2015) “oral corrective feedback is a means
of offering modified input to students, which could
consequently lead to modified output by the
students”(p. 395). Likewise, Chaudron (1997, as cited
in Mendez & Cruz, 2012) defines “oral corrective
feedback as any reaction of the teacher, which clearly
transforms, disapprovingly refers to, or demands
improvement of the learner utterance”(p. 64).
2.1.1 Types of Corrective feedback
Recast: “A recast is a reformulation of the learner’s
erroneous utterance that corrects all or parts of the
learner’s utterance and is embedded in the continuing
discourse” (Sheen, 2011, p. 2).
Explicit correction refers to the explicit provision
of the correct form (Lyster & Ranta, 1997) or the clear
indication of error made (Kagimoto & Rodger, 2007).
Repetition is defined as the teacher’s repetition, in
isolation, of the students’ erroneous utterance (Lyster
& Ranta, 1997).
Clarification request is defined as a way to
indicate to the students that their utterance has been
misunderstood by the teacher or that the utterance is
ill formed in some way and that a repetition is
required (Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Ellis, 2009;
Kagimoto & Rodger, 2007; Surakka, 2007 as cited in
Rezaei et al., 2011).
Elicitation is a correction technique that prompts
the students to self-correct (Panova & Lyster, 2002;
Lee, 2013) by pausing, so the student can fill in the
correct word of phrase (Lee, 2013), and may be
accomplished in one of the three following ways
during face-to-face interaction, each of which vary in
their degree of implicitness or explicitness (Panova &
Lyster, 2002).
Metalinguistic feedback refers to comment,
information, or question related to the well-
formedness of the students’ utterance, without
explicitly proving the correct form (Lyster & Ranta,
1997; Panova & Lyster, 2002).
Paralinguistic signal, or known as body language
(Ellis, 2009; Mendez & Cruz 2012), is defined as
gesture or facial expressions used by the teacher to
indicate that the students’ utterance is incorrect (Ellis,
2009; Mendez & Cruz, 2012).
2.2 Scaffolding in Educational Setting
There are many definitions which define scaffolding
in educational context. Many theories outline that
scaffolding is the temporary framework for learning.
According to Lawson and Linda (2002) state that the
strategy of the scaffolding can be appropriately done
if the teacher encourages the learners to develop their
initiative, motivation, and resourcefulness. Moreover,
Hammond and Gibbons (2001) also argue that
scaffolding is classified as a term of temporary
supporting structures. According to them, teachers
need to assist learners to develop new understandings,
new concepts, and new abilities. As the learner
develops control of these, so teachers need to
withdraw that support, only to provide further support
for extended or new tasks, understandings and
concept.
In addition, Maybin, Mercer, and Stiere, (1992)
also assert that scaffolding in the context of classroom
interaction is defined as the "temporary but the
essential nature of the mentor's assistance", in which
the teacher supporting learners to carry out tasks
successfully, so that they later will be able to
complete similar tasks alone.
In the process of scaffolding, the teachers help the
students in mastering a task or lesson that the students
are initially unable to grasp independently (Lipscomb
et al., 2004). Lipscomb also states that student’s
errors are expected, but the teacher should give
feedback and prompting so that the student is able to
achieve the task or goal. The teacher begins the
process of fading and the gradual removal of the
scaffolding when the students take responsibility for
CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017 - Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology
Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education
154

the task and masters the task, which allows them to
do it independently.
2.3 Scaffolding vs Rescuing
Thompson (2010) differentiates two aspects of
scaffolding, first, when the teacher’s activity is
classified as the real help (scaffolding) or second,
when the teacher’s activity is classified as a sense of
urgency (rescuing). According to Thompson, there
are 13 points that make scaffolding and rescuing are
different. The 13 points are summarized in three
points. Scaffolding concepts consist of; firstly, it
takes in-depth knowledge of readers as well as the
instructional practices that will most benefits them,
and secondly the students are working just as hard as
the teacher (if not harder) as the teacher assumes a
facilitative role-supporting, modelling, and
encouraging, and thirdly scaffolding requires a shared
responsibility with an end goal in mind.
In addition, the criteria of rescuing consist of;
firstly, rescuing definitely had a sense of urgency for
their readers to get it right, secondly the teacher is
generally the only one working-the sole responsibility
is placed on the rescuer, and thirdly rescuers simple
take over.
3 METHODOLOGY
This study was designed as a qualitative method with
a case study approach. Qualitative method is
appropriate to this investigation as it produces
detailed data from a small group of participant (Coll
& Chapman, 2000) while exploring feelings,
impressions, and judgments (Best & Kahn, 2006).
Moreover, qualitative method is suitable to develop
hypothesis for further testing, understanding the
feelings, values and perception that underlie and
influence behavior. Qualitative is a multi-method in
focus, involving an interpretative, naturalistic
approach to its subject matter, which means that the
researcher sees things in different angle or different
point of view (Malik & Hamied, 2016).
The site for this study was conducted in one of the
best junior high school in Lembang, west Bandung
regency. One English teacher and thirty nine students
involved in this study. The choice of informants and
participants was based on their potential to supply the
data needed for this study.
Three data collections were employed in this
study. There were; classroom observation, interview,
and document analysis. The data collection was
conducted from March 24
th
, 2017 to June 15
th
, 2017.
The recording’s results were transcribed, coded,
categorized and analyzed. After that, analysis of each
data collection was synthesized and discussed to
answer the research questions.
4 FINDINGS
The analysis showed that the teacher used various
types of oral corrective feedback followed by explicit
correction among the other types used during the
speaking practice. This analysis found that there are
seven types of corrective feedback as in the teacher’s
strategy in improving the students’ spoken English
competence. The corrective feedback types consist of
explicit correction, elicitation, recast, linguistic
feedback, paralinguistic signal, repetition, and
clarification request. The distribution of oral
corrective feedback in the classroom is illustrated in
Figure 1.
Figure 1: The distribution of oral corrective feedback types.
4.1 The Teacher’s Focus in Explicit
Correction
In correcting the students’ error, the teacher had main
concern in choosing any types of errors or mistakes
that were made by the students. Based on the
classroom observation, the teacher had frequently
corrected the students’ error on the grammatical
errors and then followed by phonological errors.
By doing the corrective feedback to the students,
they were helped to increase their understanding of
the background knowledge, especially for the use of
tense, specifically between present and past. The
teacher preferred using explicit correction since the
teacher believed that the students needed a further
explanation about the concept of basic grammatical
form. Ran and Danli (2016) claimed that explicit
correction is an effective way for students to correct
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
The Total of Corrective Feedback
The Total of
Corrective
Feedback
Explicit Correction in Scaffolding Students: A Case of Learning Spoken English
155

their mistakes because teachers provide the
correction.
The data also showed that the learners did not
operate the linguistic features correctly. The teacher
used the explicit correction mostly about the students’
error especially on tenses. According to Littlewood
(1980) as cited in Fawbush (2010) this phenomenon
usually happens when the students were asked to
change the tense. This statement was also justified by
the teacher. The teacher assumed that grammatical
form is the most vital type of error that should be
corrected, because of the language’s cultural
differences of the students between Bahasa and
English languages.
4.2 The Characteristics of Explicit
Correction
The teacher believed that explicit correction is an
effective way for the teacher in correcting the
students’ error and mistake. The teacher also argued
that explicit correction can save the time and energy
for the teacher, as a result, the teacher didn’t need an
extra time to only focus on the students’ error
repeatedly.
By using explicit correction, the teacher could
clearly indicate that the students’ utterance contained
an error and then the teacher gave the direct
correction to them. For example, as mentioned in
Excerpt 4.1:
T : bukan was, tapi diganti sama is.
Easy emotion, itukan dipakai pake apa?
Harusnya kalimatnya ini apa? “He gets
angry easily” nah gitu ngomongnya.
Disini jangan lupa harus pakai “s”
((teacher is pointing the word “get”)).
Karena HE, inget. He loved his family,
iyaa liat sini kurang tepat ((Teacher is
circling the word “loved”)). Hello... ha...
kalau sudah koma jangan H nya besar
juga.
Regarding the effectiveness of explicit correction,
this type of corrective feedback brings some
advantages for the learners in the classroom. Since it
is believed that explicit correction can avoid the
students’ ambiguity and reduce confusion, because
the teacher stated what is incorrect and what is
correct.
It is also supported by Emilia (2010) who asserts
that learning occurs more effectively when the
teachers are explicitly talking about what is expected
of students. Moreover, some experts claim that
explicit correction is useful for the students who have
limited knowledge of the target language, such as
beginning and intermediate students (Lyster & Ranta,
1997). As it can be seen on the subheading of the
teacher’s focus in explicit correction, the teacher
claimed that most of the students’ errors were in the
grammatical form. This was because the students
were lack of the English competences and also
because English is not the students’ native language.
On the one hand, explicit correction can also have
some drawbacks for the students. This type of
corrective feedback can be less effective for the
students to modify their faulty utterances as stated by
Lyster and Ranta (1997). The moment when the
teacher directly indicates the students’ error can also
be a problem for the students, because it can disturb
the flow of students’ communication (Long, 1996). In
addition, explicit correction also has the tendency for
the students to feel humiliated because the teacher
gives the correction at the same time when the
students uttered the mistakes (Lowen & Reinders,
2011). It can be seen from the observation that some
of the students lowered their voices or just keeping
their silence while the teacher corrected their
mistakes.
In order to judge whether the teacher’s corrective
feedback is classified into some types of corrective
feedback, the researcher finds that there are
prominent factors that can be interpreted as the
characteristic of explicit correction. The analysis
shows that the teacher used explicit correction in the
following characterization. The first characterization
is notifying the students’ error which means the
teacher explicitly told to the students that they were
making the error. Here are some examples of
students’ error notification of explicit correction:
Excerpt 4.2
T : aaa ini tidak boleh was.. (You may not
use was) ((The teacher is trying to
correct the student’s error on the white
board)).
Excerpt 4.3
Z : what does his look like?
T : Ooh ... salah kamu, what does HE!
(Ooh... you are wrong, what does HE).
From the two excerpts, it shows that the teacher
mentioned the students’ error spontaneously in
natural interaction. There were no some kinds of chit-
chat that were uttered by the teacher to correct the
students’ errors. Without any consideration in
choosing many types of a good manner in
communicating the erroneous, the teacher signalled
the error that was made by the students directly.
The second characterization is providing the
input, which means the teacher gives the correct form
of the students’ error or an accurate answer.
CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017 - Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology
Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education
156

Additionally, further explanations also provided by
the teacher in order to minimize the students’ error for
the next lesson. For example:
Excerpt 4.4
T : Kalau was itu untuk kata kerja lampau,
misalnya kalau dulu ayahku suka
marah, maka dipakai was. Apakah
sekarang ayahnya masih suka marah?
(“Was” is used to indicate that something
happened in the past, if in the past, your
father was easy to get anger so you can
use “was. Now, does your father still get
anger?”)
S : ((nodded))
T : bukan was, tapi diganti sama is (It is not
‘was” but it must be changed into “is”)
From the excerpts above, it can be concluded that
in explicit correction, the teacher tended to declare the
students’ error unambiguously. The teacher
attempted to mention and communicate the error that
was made by the students, indicated the student’s
error, and jumped to the correct answer.
As it can be seen in the excerpt 4.1, 4.2, and 4.9
the teacher clearly indicated that what the students
said was irrelevant. The word “not” is the
predominated character in this conversation. The
teacher precisely mentioned what kind of error that
the students made in their assignment. It can be
formulated that in explicit correction, the teacher
mostly used the pattern such as “It is not X but Y’,
“You should say X”, “We say X not Y” as stated by
Sheen (2011). It is also supported by Surakka (2007)
and Ellis (2009) who determine two characters of
explicit correction. According to them, explicit
correction contained some executions that were made
by the teacher in terms of the students’ error and the
teacher’s direct correction of the students’ errors.
4.3 The Teacher’s Strategy in Explicit
Correction
In the process of indicating the students’ error in the
classroom, especially in the types of corrective
feedback for explicit correction, it was found that
there were similar patterns that the teacher applied in
correcting the students’ errors. Based on the
classroom observation, there were two strategies that
were used by the teacher, which can be classified into
some types of teacher’s strategy, such as; correcting
by giving motivation and correcting by emphasizing.
4.3.1 Correcting by Giving Motivation
The motivation that the teacher gave to the students
can be interpreted from the teacher’s utterance to the
students’ performance. According to Nyborg (2011)
the term motivational utterances refer to the teacher
utterances that can help to increase pupils' expectancy
of success and task value.
4.3.2 Correcting by Emphasizing
Based on the observation, correcting by emphasizing
as a way of correcting done by the teacher can be
classified into two points.. Firstly, emphasizing in
order to get the students’ attention. Secondly,
emphasizing on the students’ mistakes and errors.
Emphasizing the sentence with the aim to get the
students’ attention is one of the strategies that the
teacher utilized in the classroom in order to indicate
that the students’ error.
4.4 Explicit Correction related to
Scaffolding
This type of corrective feedback is classified as the
scaffolding because:
First, there is the responsibility between the
teacher and students to change the correct answer.
Besides the teacher indicated the students’ mistakes,
he also gave some explanations in terms of the
mistakes. On the other hand, by some explanation that
have been mentioned by the teacher, the students can
clarify the correct answer.
Second, this type is not classified as rescuing
because the teacher provided some input, not just
leave the students’ mistake.
5 CONCLUSION
It can be concluded that this study showed a different
trend of research in the feedback of scaffolding. The
findings are different from those of previous research,
in which recast is the most frequently used types of
corrective feedback by many teachers (see Lyster &
Ranta, 1997; Panova & Lyster, 2002; Sheen, 2004;
Anghari & Amirzadeh, 2011; Maolida, 2013;;
Esmaeili and Behnam, 2014;q; Bhuana, 2014; and
Subekti, 2016).
Firstly, explicit correction is the most dominant
type used by the teacher in the classroom. According
to the teacher, explicit correction is the best way that
the teacher can do to correct the students’
mistakes/errors especially in saving the teacher’s time
Explicit Correction in Scaffolding Students: A Case of Learning Spoken English
157

and energy. The teacher can indicate the students’
error directly, and then give the further explanation
Secondly, explicit correction can avoid students’
ambiguity and reduce confusion because the teacher
stated what is correct and what is incorrect.
Moreover, explicit correction is useful for the
students who have limited knowledge of the target
language, such as beginning and intermediate
students as stated by Lyster and Ranta (1997)
The type of corrective feedback that is used by the
teacher in this study is determined based on the level
and the characteristics of the students in the
classroom. Based on this observation, the type of
explicit correction, which is dominantly used by the
teacher is the appropriate type that is used in this
context, especially for the types and the
characteristics of the students in this classroom
observation. Explicit correction comes in order to
answer the students’ needs. The teacher scaffolds the
students based on some utterances and episodes in
which it is improving their performance and
competence in learning English.
REFERENCES
Ahangari, S., & Amirzadeh , S. 2011. Exploring the
teacher's use of spoken corrective feedback in teaching
Iranian EFL learners at different level of proficiency. In
Z. Bekirogullari (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference on Education and
Educational Psychology. 29, pp. 1859-1868. Elsevier.
Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187
7042811029028
Best, J.W. & Kahn, J. 2006. Research in education. New
Delhi: Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd.
Beuningen, V. C. 2010. Corrective feedback in L2 writing:
Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future
directions. International Journal of English Studies,
10(2), 1-27.
Bhuana, G.P. 2014. Oral corrective feedback for students
of different proficiency levels (Master’s Thesis).
Department of English Education, School of
Postgraduate Studies, Indonesia University of
Education, Bandung, Indonesia.
Calsiyao, I. S. 2015. Corrective feedback in classroom oral
errors among Kalinga- Apayao state college students.
International Journal of Social Science and Humanities
Research, 3 (1), 135.
Coll, R. K., & Chapman, R. 2000. Qualitative or
quantitative? Choices of methodology for cooperative
education researchers. Journal of Cooperative
Education., 35(1), 25-35.
Derakhshan, A., Khalili, A.N., & Baheshti, F. (2016).
Developing EFL learner’s speaking ability, accuracy
and fluency. English Language and Literature Studies,
6(2), 177-186.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. 2006. Implicit and
explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2
grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
28(2), 339-368.
Ellis, R. 2009. Corrective feedback and teacher
development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18.
Emilia, E. (2010). Teaching writing: Developing critical
learners. Bandung: Rizqi Press.
Esmaeili, F., & Behnam, B. 2014. A study of corrective
feedback and learner's uptake in classroom interactions.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English
Literature, 3(4), 204-212.
Fajriah, Y.N. 2015. Comprehensible input, explicit
teaching, and corrective feedback in genre based
approach to teaching spoken hortatory exposition
(Master’s Thesis), Department of English Education,
School of Postgraduate Studies, Indonesia University of
Education, Bandung, Indonesia.
Fawbush, B. 2010. Implicit and explicit corrective feedback
for middle school esl learners. Hamline University.
Gass, S. M. 1991. Grammar instruction, selective attention,
and learning. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L.
Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.),
Foreign/second language pedagogy research (pp. 124-
141). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Hammond, J. 2001. Scaffolding: Teaching and learning in
language and literacy education. Newtown, NSW:
PETA.
Hammond, J., Gibbons, P. 2001. What is scaffolding? In J,
Hammond (Ed.), Scaffolding teaching and learning in
language and literacy education (pp. 1-14). Sydney:
Primary English Teaching Association Australia
(PETA).
Harmer, J. 2007a. The practice of English language
teaching. Malaysia: Pearson Education.
Kagimoto, E., & Rodgers, M. P. H. 2008. Students’
perceptions of corrective feedback. In K. Bradford
Watts, T. Muller, & M. Swanson (Eds.), JALT2007
Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT.
Lawson., & Linda. 2002. How Scaffolding works on a
teaching strategy. Retrieved from
http://condor.admin.ccny.cuny.edu/~group4/Lawson/
%20paper-doc
Lengkanawati, N.S. 2017. Learner autonomy in the
Indonesian EFL settings. Indonesia Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 6(2), 222-231.
Li, S. 2010. The effectiveness of corrective feedback in
SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2),
309–365.
Lipscomb, L., Swanson, J., & West, A. 2004. Scaffolding.
In M. Orey (Ed.),
Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching and
technology. Retrieved from
http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/index.php?title=Scaffolding
Loewen, S., & Reinders, H. 2011. Key concepts in second
language acquisition. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017 - Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology
Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education
158

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. 1997. Corrective feedback and
learner uptake: Negotiation on form in communicative
classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
19(1), 37-66.
Malik, R.S., & Hamied, F. A 2016. Research methods: A
guide for the first time researchers. Bandung: UPI
Press.
Maolida, E. H. 2013. Oral corrective feedback and learner
uptake in a young learner EFL classroom: A case study
in an English course in Bandung (Master’s Thesis).
Department of English Education, School of
Postgraduate Studies, Indonesia University of
Education, Bandung, Indonesia.
Martinez, S.G. 2006. Should we correct our students’ errors
in l2 learning?. Encuentro 16, 1-7.
Maybin, J., Mercer, N., & Stiere, B. 1992. 'Scaffolding'
learning in the classroom. In H., &. Stoughton (Ed.),
Thinking voice (pp. 21-31). London.
Mendez, E. H., & Cruz, M.D.R. 2012. Teachers’
perceptions about oral corrective feedback and their
practice in EFL classrooms. PROFILE. 14(2), 63-75.
Nyborg, G. 2011. Teachers use of motivational utterances
in special education in Norwegian compulsory
schooling. A contribution aimed at fostering an
inclusive education or pupils with learning difficulties.
International Journal of Special Education, 26(3), 248-
259.
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. 2002. Patterns of corrective
feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL
QUARTERLY, 36(4), 575-595.
Ran, Q., & Danli, L. 2016. Teachers' feedback on students'
performance in a secondary EFL classroom.
Proceeding of CLaSIC, (pp. 242-254). Singapore.
Rezaei, S., Mozaffari, F., & Hatef, A. 2011. Corrective
feedback in SLA: Classroom practice and future
directions. International Journal of English Linguistics,
1(1), 21-29.
Sheen, Y. 2007. The effects of corrective feedback,
language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the
acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Eds.),
Conversational interaction in second language
acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 301-
322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Subekti, E. 2016. Teacher oral corrective feedback in a
non-formal adult EFL conversation class (Master’s
Thesis). Department of English Education, School of
Postgraduate Studies, Indonesia University of
Education, Bandung, Indonesia.
Sheen, Y. 2011. Corrective feedback, individual differences
and second language learning. NewYork: Springer.
Thompson, T. 2010. Are you scaffolding or rescuing?
Retrieved from
http://eldnces.ncdpi.wikispaces.net/file/view/Are+You
+Scaffolding+or+Rescuing.pdf.
Explicit Correction in Scaffolding Students: A Case of Learning Spoken English
159