How Teachers Treat Pronunciation Errors in Young Learners’
Class
Ihsan Nur Iman Faris and Dian Budiarti
English Education Department, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Setiabudhi Street, Bandung, Indonesia
Keywords: Young learners, pronunciation errors, corrective feedback.
Abstract: To pronounce words correctly is one of the most important elements in language learning. Children can learn
pronunciation more effectively when teachers provide sufficient modelling and correct their erroneous
utterances properly. If children’s erroneous pronunciations are left untreated, the errors will fossilize and be
difficult to correct. Despite its vital role, research on how teachers treat young learners’ pronunciation errors
is still scant. Therefore, this study aims to investigate what corrective feedback teachers use to treat young
learners’ pronunciation errors and the reasons behind the decision. Case study is employed as the research
method with two teachers differing in educational background and teaching experiences selected as
participants. Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) categorization of corrective feedback was employed in this research.
The findings demonstrate that recast and explicit correction are predominantly used to treat young learners’
erroneous pronunciation. The action mainly is unintended, but the secondary consideration is due to the
characteristic pronunciation learning which, unlike grammar learning, is considered to be void of systematic
thinking process. This study is expected to enrich the theories of corrective feedback and pronunciation
teaching as well as to help teachers to decide what types of corrective feedback appropriate to treat their
students’ pronunciation errors.
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Attaining accurate pronunciation is one of the main
goals of English learning. According to Hughes
(2011), there are two main components of speaking
which need to be mastered by students, namely forms
(grammar and vocabulary) and delivery
(pronunciation and fluency). The failure of
incorporating the two components in speaking can
lead to communication breakdown. Among all factors
causing misunderstanding in communication,
pronunciation errors tend to trigger more breakdown
compared to lexical or grammatical errors (Derwing
& Rossiter, 2002; Levis, 2005). Hence, giving
considerable time allotment to focus on students’
pronunciation development should become a
common endeavour for English teachers. However,
the practical English learning situation is far-fetched
from being ideal.
Despite uniformed curriculum, English classes in
Indonesia tend to have various skills and contents
focused. Yet, most schools, especially during high-
take testing preparation period, are commonly geared
toward teaching reading and listening skills tested in
the National Examination (Ujian Nasional) (Hamied,
2010; Sukyadi & Mardiani, 2011). To make matter
worse, the time allocation for English subject in
schools is very limited. Learners have English class
only four to six credit hours a week. These
disadvantageous conditions tend to give teachers
considerable pressure when teaching English. At this
rate, enabling students to speak fluently and
pronounce words accurately should be conducted by
optimizing the limited amount of time they have. The
optimization of pronunciation teaching specifically
may not occur if corrective feedback is not given
properly (Havranek & Cesnik, 2001; Havranek, 2002;
Saito & Lyster, 2012).
1.2 Theoretical Review
Despite the criticisms from some experts (see for
example Halliwel, 1992; Gordon, 2006; Harmer,
2007), many experts to some extent agree that oral
corrective feedback is an effective tool for improving
Faris, I. and Budiarti, D.
How Teachers Treat Pronunciation Errors in Young Learners’ Class.
DOI: 10.5220/0007164101750180
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 175-180
ISBN: 978-989-758-332-2
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
175

learners’ language proficiency (Ellis, Loewen, &
Erlam, 2006; Lyster & Saito, 2010; Choi & Li, 2015).
Sheen and Ellis (2011) suggest that oral corrective
feedback draw learners and teachers’ attention to the
language features which have not been mastered
completely. In other words, it serves both learners and
teachers’ importance. Learners are helped to
understand which part of the lesson they have not
mastered completely, while teachers are suggested
which language features they need to teach more
intensively (Lochtman, 2002; Lyster, Saito, & Sato,
2013). Applying corrective feedback strategy can
also help teachers to optimize their pronunciation
teaching as it enables teachers to provide time for
students to practice as well as giving necessary inputs
in the middle of activities. Nevertheless, the giving of
oral corrective feedback as a strategy to improve
learners’ pronunciation accuracy tends to be
underrated. Rahimi and Zhang (2015) for instance,
reported that compared to other aspects of teaching
such as material development and teaching skills,
reports on teachers’ practice and understanding of
corrective feedback are relatively scarce.
Children or young learners might get considerable
drawbacks from the lack of oral corrective feedback
in pronunciation teaching. Experts (see for example
Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor, 2005; Gordon, 2006; Gass
& Selinker, 2008) state that young learners tend to
learn pronunciation more quickly and precisely than
adults. The best time for learning pronunciation is
stated to be before adolescence (Bot, Lowie, &
Verspoor, 2005; Gordon, 2006; Gass & Selinker,
2008). The effective learning time which is also
referred as the golden period (Gass & Selinker, 2008)
may come in waste if teachers do not give sufficient
modelling and correction for young learners. Lyster
and Saito (2010) assert that children can benefit from
oral corrective feedback when the types of corrective
feedback given fit the contexts of learning and
characteristics of learners. If teachers want to
optimize the limited time allotment and maximize
young learners’ potency of learning pronunciation,
they need to know how to treat young learners’
pronunciation errors correctly by applying oral
corrective feedback strategies in their class.
Corrective feedback usually is initiated by the
noticing of errors Then, the next correction process
can be carried out by 1) indicating where the error has
occurred; 2) providing the correct structure of the
erroneous utterance, or, 3) providing metalinguistic
information describing the nature of the error (Ellis,
Loewen, & Erlam, 2006). If teachers decide to ignore
the errors, then topic continuation may follow.
Learners are expected to produce an uptake after the
correction has been given, but they may ignore the
correction and continue the topic. When the utterance
is still erroneous or needs repair, teachers may give
more feedback or continue the topic. The sequence
usually ends when repair uptake is provided by
students and reinforcement is given by teachers
(Lyster & Ranta, 1997).
The most noteworthy categorization of corrective
feedback strategies is proposed by Lyster and Ranta
(1997). They categorize corrective feedback into six
types, namely (1) recast (teachers’ reformulation of
all or part of learners’ utterance without the errors) (2)
explicit correction (giving additional information
indicating the error) (3) clarification request (asking
for reformulation) (4) error repetition (repeating the
errors with emphasis or high intonation) (5)
elicitation (eliciting the reformulation directly) and
(6) metalinguistic feedback (comments, information,
or question leading to reformation of learners’
utterances). Additional types of corrective feedback,
namely translation, proposed by Panova & Lyster
(2002) and paralinguistic signal, proposed by Ellis
(2009) can also be included as they may enrich and
deepen the analysis of feedback types used by
teachers. Among eight corrective feedback strategies
mentioned above, recast and explicit correction are
predominantly used to address pronunciation errors
since they can serve as models (Choi & Li, 2012;
Yang, 2016).
Research on oral corrective feedback tends to
focus on general errors and adult English class (see
for example Panova & Lyster, 2002; Sheen, 2004;
Yoshida, 2008), while research focused on corrective
feedback on teachers’ corrective feedback on young
learners’ pronunciation errors is relatively scarce.
Brown (2014) and Yang (2016) reported that the
types of error predominantly addressed by the
teachers are grammar errors, while pronunciation
errors were not seen as priorities by the teachers.
Nevertheless, Yang (2016) suggests that despite its
infrequent numbers, using explicit correction to
address pronunciation errors tends to be effective.
Choi and Li (2012) reported quite a distinctive
finding as they found that various corrective feedback
strategies were successfully used to address the
students’ pronunciation errors. Although the research
reports might shed a light on the issues being
discussed, the investigations mentioned above were
not conducted in EFL young learners’ classes. Hence,
investigations on what corrective feedback strategies
teachers use to address students pronunciation errors
and reasons behind the consideration are still quite
urgent.
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
176

This research endeavours to fill the lacuna by
investigating what oral corrective feedback types that
teachers use to address young learners’ pronunciation
errors and the reasons behind the selection. This
research is expected to provide teachers with potential
insights about oral corrective feedback strategies for
young learners’ class.
2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This study is qualitative in nature as it aims to
describe a phenomenon and understand a certain
context deeply (Gay, et al, 2009; Alwasilah, 2014).
Case study is employed in this research since it tries
to reveal certain practices conducted by participants
who are considered to possess distinctive qualities.
Two experienced teachers of English for young
learners from a state university-funded English
training centre in Bandung, Indonesia, are invited to
participate in this study on voluntary basis. The
participants are selected due to their teaching
experiences and different educational background.
Both teachers have been teaching English for young
learners for more than two years. In terms of
educational background, teacher A has bachelor of
English education degree, while teacher B is currently
pursuing his master of humanism degree. They were
advised that their class would be observed for certain
lengths and they would be invited to participate in an
interview and member checking sessions on a
voluntary basis.
The data collected in this study are teachers’ oral
corrective feedback and explanation. Lyster and
Ranta (1997) and Lyster and Panova’s (2002) types
of corrective feedback theory categorizing corrective
feedback into 1) explicit correction, 2) recast, 3)
clarification request, 4) metalinguistic feedback, 5)
elicitation, 6) repetition, 7) translation, and 8)
paralinguistic signal were utilized to categorize the
teachers’ utterances when addressing their students’
pronunciation errors. Students’ errors and corrective
feedback moves which do not relate to speaking
activities were not proceeded to data analysis.
Furthermore, the frequency of pronunciation errors
and corrective feedback types used were calculated.
To unearth the reasons behind the selection of
corrective feedback types, semi-structured interview
and member checking were conducted. The questions
of the interview were about their understanding and
perspectives towards students’ pronunciation errors
and error correction. Member checking was used to
discuss the findings from the observation and the
reasons behind the practices.
3 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
3.1 Teachers’ Corrective Feedback
In general, the number of pronunciation errors found
in the class was relatively low. The reason might due
to the tendency of dividing the focus of the class into
several skills (Nation & Newton, 2009). Furthermore,
in the very limited time, the teachers also need to
address other types of error such as grammar and
vocabulary errors during the speaking session,
making focusing on pronunciation becomes more
limited. Four meetings of each teacher were observed
to reveal the types of corrective feedback used by the
teachers. The findings of the observation are as
follows:
Table 1: corrective feedback used by teacher A.
Corrective
feedback
types
Pronunciation
errors
Uptake
(effectiveness of
the feedback)
Occurred
Treated
19
19
Recast
9
7
Explicit
correction
4
2
Elicitation
4
4
Metalinguistic
Feedback
2
2
Table 2: corrective feedback used by teacher B.
Corrective
feedback
types
Pronunciation
errors addressed
Uptake
(effectiveness
of the
feedback)
Occurred
Treated
14
9
Recast
8
0
Metalinguistic
Feedback
1
0
The number of pronunciation errors of teacher A’s
class is more than those in teacher B’s class. In terms
of error addressing, teacher A’s treatments covered
all students’ pronunciation and were always followed
by uptakes or students’ follow up after the correction
(Ellis, 2009). The types of corrective feedback used
by teacher A were also more varied than teacher B’s.
On the other hand, despite having lower number of
errors, teacher B did not address all the errors and
used only two types of corrective feedback to treat the
errors.
How Teachers Treat Pronunciation Errors in Young Learners’ Class
177

The predominant occurrence of recast to address
students’ pronunciation errors echoes many
researchers (see for example Panova & Lyster, 2002;
Nabei & Swain, 2002) stating that recast is the most
frequently used corrective feedback to address
students’ errors. In terms of young learners’ error
correction, recast has also been favoured as it tends to
be less face-threatening and inhibiting (Saito &
Lyster, 2012; Saito, Kazuya, & Lyster, 2012; Lyster,
Saito, & Sato, 2013; Tuan & Mai, 2015). This
tendency might due to the implicitness of recast
which fits young learners’ characteristic who prone to
lose their motivation to learn English (Nikolov,
1999).
Another finding worth to note is the occurrences
of some explicit corrective feedback types, namely
explicit correction and metalinguistic feedback.
Explicit corrective feedback is distinctive as it clearly
shows that learners produce erroneous utterances in
their speaking (Ellis, Loewen, & Erlam, 2006; Ellis,
2009). According to some researchers (Lyster &
Ranta, 1997; Panova & Lyster, 2002; Sheen, 2004;
Ellis, Loewen, & Erlam, 2006), this type of corrective
feedback is less favoured by young and low-level
learners. Moreover, metalinguistic explanation
generally is used to address grammatical errors which
can be corrected by explaining the underlying
grammar concepts. In other words, to use explicit
correction and metalinguistic feedback to address
young learners’ pronunciation errors are quite
unusual due to the learners and errors’ characteristics.
3.2 Reasons for the Corrective
Feedback Types’ Selection
The interview revealed that in general, the teachers
were not really aware of the notion of corrective
feedback. They explained that they could not recall
learning about corrective feedback specifically
during their teacher training and pre-service teaching
programs. Even if they had learned about the notion
before, they admitted that they forget about and do
not apply the concepts consciously in their classroom.
The use of corrective feedback found in the class is
stated to be unintended and based on accumulation of
experiences. The finding is in a similar vein with
Rahimi and Zhang (2015) who reported that teachers
tend to develop teaching strategies based on the
reflection of experiences rather than knowledge
acquired from their teacher education program.
Nevertheless, the teachers still could give further
explanation although the use of corrective feedback
tend to be intuitive or unintentional.
The member checking of teacher A confirms that
the giving of feedback to address all students errors is
due to her believe that all errors need to be addressed,
otherwise they will fossilize. This believe echoes
(Ellis, 2009; Gebhard, 2009), who supports the giving
of corrective feedback to errors produced by learners.
When asked about the possibility of making learners
feel inhibited, like what Ok and Ustact (2013)
reported, teachers A explained that the learners are
still motivated to learn when they are corrected,
making her firmer to keep correcting learners’ errors
until followed by uptakes even if explicit correction,
stating explicitly that learners make errors, needs to
be used. As for the selection of corrective feedback
type which is admitted to be new for her, she
explained that the tendency of using recast is due to
the characteristic of pronunciation which does not
involve pattern and formula. While for other types of
feedback, the possible reasons explained were the
frequency of repeated errors and prior explanation of
the contents. If the errors are about the contents which
have been explained before, she assumed that the
students just forgot about the contents, hence
elicitation and metalinguistic feedback could serve as
prompts or clues for the answer rather than recast
which gives the answer directly.
Different insights were given by teacher B who
confirmed that what was found from the observation
is relevant. He explained that the low frequency of
corrective feedback is in line with his believe that
young learners should not be corrected frequently as
it can lower their motivation to learn (Horwitz,
Horwitz, & Cope, 1986; Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor,
2005). He believes that fluency should be prioritized,
thus young learners should not be stopped and
pointed out that they produced erroneous utterances.
This finding is in similar vein with some experts
(Halliwel, 1992; Gordon, 2006; Harmer, 2007)
stating that correcting young learners’ attempt to
speak will discourage them to speak up. As for the use
of corrective feedback types in his class and the low
number of uptakes, he explained that the reason is still
in line with his belief that learners should not be
demotivated by corrections. Leaving some number of
errors untreated or without uptakes tends to be
intentional as he was concerned about learners’
attitude toward the correction. The use of recast
which is implicit is intended to blur the correction
itself. As for the use of metalinguistic feedback in his
attempt to address the error, the explanation was that
the errors was about the content that learners have
known or learned before.
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
178

4 CONCLUSION
Both teachers from educational and humanism
backgrounds used recast the most frequently to
address their students’ pronunciation errors. Explicit
correction, elicitation, and metalinguistic feedback
follow the frequency of occurrence respectively.
In general, the teachers tend to be unaware of the
notion of corrective feedback practiced. However,
after a deeper questioning, teacher A explained that
she considers using recast to address learners’ errors
due the characteristic of pronunciation errors which
does not need step-by-step explanation, while teacher
B uses the same type of corrective feedback to avoid
threatening students’ face. Moreover, both teachers
use output-prompting corrective feedback when they
consider the errors to be repetitive or have been
discussed before.
REFERENCES
Alwasilah, A. C., 2014. Pokoknya studi kasus: pendekatan
kualitatif. Bandung: Kiblat.
Bot, K. d., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M., 2005. Second
language acquisition: an advanced resource book.
London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Brown, D., 2014. The type and linguistic foci of oral
corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-
analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436-
458.
Choi, S. & Li, S., 2012. Corrective feedback and learner
uptake in a child ESOL classroom. RELC Journal,
43(3), 331 - 351.
Derwing, T. M., and Rossiter, M. J., 2002. ESL learners’
perceptions of their pronunciation needs and strategies.
System, 30(2), pp. 155-166.
Ellis, R., 2009. Corrective feedback and teacher
development. L2 Journal, 1(1).
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R., 2006. Implicit and
explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2
grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
28(02), pp. 339-368.
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L., 2008. Second Language
Acquistion (third ed.). London: Routledge.
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P., 2009. Educational
Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications.
London: Pearson Education.
Gebhard, J. G., 2009. Teaching English as a foreign or
second language (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Gordon, T., 2007. Teaching young children a second
language. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Hamied, F. A., 2010. EFL Assessment in Indonesia:
National Exams and Quality of Education. In Y.-i.
Moon, & B. Spolsky, Language Assessment in Asia:
Local, Regional or Global? (pp. 99-120). Seoul: Asia
TEFL.
Harmer, J., 2007. The practice of English language
teaching (4th ed.). New York: Pearson Longman.
Havranek, G., 2002. When is corrective feedback most
likely to succeed? International Journal of Educational
Research, 37(3), pp. 255-270.
Havranek, G. and Cesnik, H., 2001. Factors affecting the
success of corrective feedback. EUROSLA Yearbook,
1(1), pp. 99-122.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., and Cope, J., 1986. Foreign
language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language
Journal, 70(2), pp. 125-132.
Hughes, R., 2011. Teaching and researching speaking (2nd
ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Levis, J. M., 2005. Changing contexts and shifting
paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL
Quarterly, 39(3), pp. 369-377.
Lochtman, K., 2002. Oral corrective feedback in the foreign
language classroom: how it affects interaction in
analytic foreign language teaching. International
Journal of Educational Research, 37(3), pp. 271-283.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L., 1997. Corrective feedback and
learner uptake. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 19(1), pp. 37-66.
Lyster, R., & Saito, K., 2010. Oral feedback in classroom
SLA: a meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 32, pp. 265-302.
Lyster, R., Saito, K. and Sato, M., 2013. Oral corrective
feedback in second language classrooms. Language
Teaching, 46(1), pp. 1-40.
Nabei, T. and Swain, M., 2002. Learner awareness of
recasts in classroom interaction: a case study of an adult
EFL student’s second language learning. Language
Awareness, 11(1), pp. 43-63.
Nation, I. S., & Newton, J., 2009. Teaching ESL/EFL
Listening and Speaking. New York: Routledge.
Nikolov, M., 1999. “Why do you learn English?” because
the teacher is short.” a study of Hungarian children’s
foreign language learning motivation. Language
Teaching Research, 3(1), pp. 33-56.
Ok, S., & Ustact, H. Y., 2013. Preferences of ELT students
on the strategies instructors use in the correction of
grammar errors. International Journal of Business and
Social Science, 4(8), pp. 244-254.
Panova, I. and Lyster, R., 2002. Patterns of corrective
feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL
Quarterly, 36(4), pp. 573-595.
Rahimi, A. and Zhang, L. J., 2015. Exploring non-native
English-speaking teachers’ cognitions about corrective
feedback in teaching English oral communication.
System. 55, pp. 111-112.
Saito, Kazuya, and Lyster, R., 2012. Investigating the
pedagogical potential of recasts for L2 vowel
acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), pp. 387-398.
Saito, K. and Lyster, R., 2012. Effects of form-focused
instruction and corrective feedback on L2
pronunciation development of /r/ by Japanese learners
of English. Language Learning, 62(2), pp. 595-633.
How Teachers Treat Pronunciation Errors in Young Learners’ Class
179

Sheen, Y., 2004. Corrective feedback and learner uptake in
communicative classrooms across instructional
settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), pp. 263-
300.
Sheen, Y. and Ellis, R., 2011. Corrective feedback in
language teaching. Handbook of Research in Second
Language Teaching and Learning, 2, pp. 593-610.
Sukyadi, D., & Mardiani, R., 2011. The washback effect of
the English national examination (ENE) on English
teachers' classroom teaching and students' learning.
K@ta, 13(1), pp. 96-111.
Tuan, N. H., & Mai, T. N., 2015. Factors affecting students'
speaking performance at Le Thanh Hien high school.
Asian Journal of Educational Research, 3(2), pp. 8-24.
Yang, J., 2016. Learners' oral corrective feedback
preferences in relation to their cultural background,
proficiency level and types of error. System, 61, 75-86.
Yoshida, R., 2008. Teachers’ choice and learners’
preference of corrective feedback types. Language
Awareness, 17 (1), pp. 78-93.
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
180