Exploring the Implementation of Teacher’s Corrective Feedback on

Students’ Pronunciation: A Case Study in an

Indonesian Public High School

Faisal Abdul Rahman

, Erni Haryanti Kahfi

, R.Nadia R-P Dalimunthe

English Education Department, Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung, Jalan A.H. Nasution No. 105,

Keywords: Corrective Feedback, Pronunciation, Preference, Teacher, Student

Abstract: The study aims to investigate teachers’ corrective feedback techniques used to correct students’

pronunciation in teaching learning process and it also aims to identify teachers’ preference toward the use of

corrective feedback on students’ pronunciation. This qualitative case study involved one English teacher

and thirty students of eleventh-grade science in a public high school in Indonesia. The data were obtained

from observation and interview. The results of the study revealed that the most commonly used type of

corrective feedback was explicit and recast. The findings also showed that the teacher preferred to use

explicit type to correct students’ pronunciation error. In addition, in the timing of giving correction, the

teacher tended to choose both immediate and delayed correction based on the students’ activities in teaching

learning process because the teacher did not want to interrupt their students, even though she recognized

pronunciation errors. Therefore, it is suggested that it is important for the teachers to consider the corrective

feedback techniques which would be implemented in a classroom.

1 INTRODUCTION

Be advised that papers in a technically unsuitable

form will be returned for retyping. After returned the

manuscript must be appropriately modified.

This research is intended to reveal the teacher’s

corrective feedback on students’ English

pronunciation. Pardede (2010) stated “intelligible

pronunciation is an essential component of

communication competence”. Pronunciation is one

of the components in speaking ability. This

component plays a very important role in speaking

ability because by pronouncing English words

correctly, students are able to avoid

misunderstanding when they are speaking.

Chongning (2009) stated “mastering the sounds

and pronunciation of the target language is a high

priority for the speaker of English”. It means a good

pronunciation will be the basis for students to master

English well. According to Maniruzzaman (2008)

pronunciation is considered as an integrated and

integral component of second/foreign language

learning, as it influences learners’ communicative

competence and performance. In other words, if

someone is difficult to hear English well, she or he

will be isolated from the language. Consequently,

students should be guided early as good as possible

in order to have perfect pronunciation capabilities.

Otherwise, students will make fatal mistakes

continuously. When students have applied the

pronunciation of a particular word, they will always

remember it and use it. Hence, the error in

pronunciation will cause a misunderstanding when

the students communicate in English.

Kim (2004) stated that corrective feedback

provides information and correction regarding

aspects of one’s performance or understanding that

students highly benefit from teacher. Hence,

implementing corrective feedback is useful for the

students to find out their mistakes when they

pronounce the words. It makes them motivated to

minimize their pronunciation error so that they are

able to develop their competence in English

pronunciation. According to Harmer (1983), when

teaching pronunciation is applied in the class,

teacher will make students intelligible in

Rahman, F., Kahﬁ, E. and Dalimunthe, R.

Exploring the Implementation of Teacher’s Corrective Feedback on Students’ Pronunciation: A Case Study in an Indonesian Public High School.

DOI: 10.5220/0008220800002284

In Proceedings of the 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference (BELTIC 2018) - Developing ELT in the 21st Century, pages 477-485

ISBN: 978-989-758-416-9

477

pronunciation. Besides, Purnawarman (2011) stated

that, teachers, as role model, are also responsible for

helping students develop their capability to reach

their learning goals through teacher’s feedback.

In this research, based on the researchers’

preliminary observation to the object of this

research, it is found that the accuracy of students’

English pronunciation can also be indicated that they

still have difficulties to pronounce the words

correctly due to mostly still strongly influenced by

their mother tongue pronunciation.

There are several studies regarding teacher’s

feedback in teaching pronunciation. One research is

conducted by Mendez et al. (2015). They

investigated the role of corrective feedback on

pronunciation in EFL classroom. They involved five

English teachers from University of Quintana Roo in

Mexico. To gain the data, an interview was used to

find out the information from five language

instructors from the language bachelors’ program at

their university. They used a semi-structured

interview with 20 questions. The data showed that

from the techniques of corrective feedback, the

English teacher mostly used recast type to correct

students. They also concluded that corrective

feedback was important to be implemented due to

the lack of accuracy of students’ competence in

English pronunciation.

The research is also conducted by Haryanto

(2015) to five experienced teachers of The Daffodils

English Course who were aware of giving corrective

feedback on students’ pronunciation. The results

indicated that the five teachers as respondents gave

corrective feedback at two different times that

involved immediate and delayed correction and they

influenced students’ speaking performance.

This present research is different from the two

researches above. The researchers focus on

discovering both a teacher and the students in senior

high school level in order to explore the corrective

feedback techniques used by teacher to correct

students’ pronunciation error and teacher’s

preference towards the implementation of teacher’s

corrective feedback. Thus, the researchers conduct a

research with the title “Exploring the

Implementation of Teacher’s Corrective Feedback

on Students’ Pronunciation”.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Pronunciation

In the study by Richards and Renandya (2002)

pronunciation refers to sound of the language, or

phonology; stress, rhythm; intonation and includes

the role of individual sounds both segmental and

supra segmental sounds. To understand

pronunciation is able to entail the production and

reception of sounds of speech and the achievement

of the meaning.

Furthermore, Burgess and Spencer (2000)

states that pronunciation is the practice and

meaningful use of the target language phonological

features in speaking, supported by practice in

interpreting those phonological features in a target

language discourse that one hears in language

learning. It means pronunciation is a way to

recognize words, pay attention the sounds of words

and reproduce those sounds by speaking.

From those statements above, it can be said

that pronunciation means the way of people produce

and pronounce the words in terms of segmental and

supra-segmental sound that is understood or

generally accepted by listener.

2.1.1 Features of Pronunciaion

According to Kelly (2006), the main features of

pronunciation is divided into two categories. The

first is phonemes or segmental, there are two

branches of segmental, namely; consonants and

vowels. The consonants consist of voiced and

unvoiced, while vowels consist of single vowels and

diphthongs, and the second is supra-segmental

features. There are two kinds of supra-segmental

features. They are intonation and stress. Stress

consists of word stress and sentence stress.

The study of segmental features of pronunciation

is known as phonetics, which refers to the sounds of

words, letters, and how they are produced in the

speech, as well as, their combination and

representation by phonetic symbols. According to

Darjowidjojo (2009) phonetics is defined as a

science that deals with the sound of human

language. In the study by Rogerson-Revell (2011)

stated that segmental features are connected to the

small units of pronunciation like vowels, consonant

sounds, single and compound words; meanwhile,

supra-segmental features are related to bigger units

of spoken language like; word stress, intonation and

connected speech.

BELTIC 2018 - 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference

478

Kelly (2006) stated that segmental features are

sets of distinctive sounds of particular language and

the supra-segmental features are related to

intonation; stress and change of sounds in connected

speech.

2.2 Corrective Feedback

Tomczyk (2013) stated that correction is defined as

a reaction to an utterance produced by someone who

has made an assessment that the part of its utterance

is wrong. It means when the students are producing

an error word in speaking English, the teacher

should correct it in order to prevent the same error

occurred. Hattie & Timperley (2007)stated that

feedback is a process of sharing observations,

concerns and suggestions between persons or

divisions of the organization with an intention of

improving both personal and organizational

performance. They said that feedback is “one of the

most powerful influences on learning and

achievement”. Further, feedback is conceptualized

as information provided by an agent (e.g., teacher,

peer, book, parent, self, experience) regarding

aspects of one’s performance or understanding. A

teacher or parent can provide a corrective

information, a peer can provide alternative strategy,

a book can provide information to clarify ideas, a

parent can provide encouragement, and a learner can

look up the answers to evaluate correctness of a

response. Feedback thus is “consequence” of

performance. One of the most frequently used

definitions of CF is provided by Ellis (2006) stated

that any response to learner utterances containing

error which is intended to correct the learners’

erroneous utterance. It can be concluded that

feedback becomes important thing in teaching and

learning process. It is a way of correcting students’

errors. Therefore, they do not make those errors

again and try to enhance their capability to be better.

2.2.1 Types of Corrective Feedback

There are several categorization of corrective

feedback which has been classified into six types by

Lyster and Ranta (1997). First, explicit, refers to the

explicit provision of the correct form. As the teacher

provides the correct form, he or she clearly indicates

that what the students had said was incorrect.

For example: Student : You have a bad

story (/bed/). Teacher:You should say a bad (/bæd/)

story. Second, recast, involves the teacher’s

reformulation of all part of a student’s utterance,

minus the error. Without directly indicating that the

student’s utterance was incorrect, the teacher

implicitly reformulates the student’s error, or

provides the correction. For example: Student :

You have a bad story (/bed/), Teacher: You have

a bad story (/bæd/) (Repeat with correction). Third,

clarification request, indicates to students either that

the teacher has misunderstood their utterance or that

the utterance is ill-formed in some way and that a

repetition of reformulation is required. Clarification

request can include phrases such as “Pardon me”,

“Sorry”, “Excuse me”, “what”, and “I do not

understand what you just said” or repetition of the

error as in “what do you mean by X?”. For example:

Student : You have a bad story

(/bed/),Teacher:Pardon me?. Fourth, metalinguistic

feedback refers to comments, information, or

question related to the well-formedness of the

students’ utterance, without explicitly providing the

correct form. For example: Student : You have a

bad story (/bed/), Teacher: Do we say “bad” like

that?. Fifth, elicitation refers to a technique that

teachers use to directly elicit the correct form from

the student. For example: Student : You have a

bad story (/bed/), Teacher:You have…… (Ask to

correct it). Sixth, repetition is the teacher’s

repetition, in isolation, of the student’s error

utterance. For example: Student: You have a bad

story (/bed/), Teacher: bad? (/bed/) (Emphasis),

Student: bad (/bæd/).

2.2.2 Teacher’s Preference

Preference in this context is teacher’s choice

regarding the implementation of corrective feedback

to students’ pronunciation error. Therefore, teacher’s

preference is important since it offers a knowledge

into students’ perspective and it can lead to more

effective teaching learning process as well as

resulting more satisfactory learning outcome when it

combined with the result of the effectiveness

corrective feedback research (Ellis et al., 2006). In

this present research, when the students make an

error in classroom activity especially in

pronunciation, the teacher decides to correct their

error, and she or he may have many options. There

are six types of corrective feedback proposed by

Lyster and Ranta (1997; also in Chandler, 2003;

Ferris, 2010). Each of types has been decided by the

teacher as techniques to correct students’

pronunciation error.

Exploring the Implementation of Teacher’s Corrective Feedback on Students’ Pronunciation: A Case Study in an Indonesian Public High

School

479

3 METHOD

The method used in the research is a qualitative

method. In the qualitative method, the researcher

explores a problem and develops a detailed

understanding of a central phenomenon (Creswell,

2002). A central phenomenon is the key idea,

concept, or process studied in qualitative research

(Creswell, 2002). The central phenomenon in this

research is discovering the students’ pronunciation

error by giving teacher corrective feedback in

teaching- learning process. Furthermore, the

research approach used case study based on

Creswell’s (2002) theory that a case study is an in

-depth exploration of a bounded system such as

activity, event, process, or individuals based on

extensive data collection. The case study is used

because this research focuses on obtaining a deep

description of the process of giving corrective

feedback by the teacher to students’ pronunciation

error. There are two techniques for collecting data

that are considered to assist in answering the

research questions, namely; observation and

interview. This research involved an English teacher

and the second grade of senior high school. The

recruitment of the participants was performed by

employing purposive sampling (Creswell, 2002).

There were actually two science classes in the

second grade but only one class (IPA 1) based on

teacher’s recommendation because they were mostly

ready to work cooperatively in conducting the

research. Besides, based on the preliminary

observation to that class, they should be follow up

regarding their English pronunciation that should be

improved by giving teacher’s corrective feedback on

their pronunciation error.

The observation conducts a teacher and the

second-grade students at SMA Plus Al-Hasan

Banjarsari Ciamis. In the observation, the researcher

acts as a nonparticipant observer within the

classroom activity. A nonparticipant observer is an

observer who visits a site and records notes without

becoming involved in the activities (Creswell,

2002). By the observation, the researcher records the

process of giving corrective feedback using video-

recorded and then transcribed. The observation takes

place in a class of 30 students. The researcher also

takes field notes in order to capture both teacher and

students’ dialogues and utterances.

The interview is used to check the accuracy of

the data obtained through observation in order to

find out the teacher’s preference towards corrective

feedback on students’ pronunciation. The researcher

also records the interview by audio-recorder and

note in order to keep the information from the

respondent during interview session. The intervie

is done after the researcher conducted the

observation.

4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Based on the researchers’ observation, it was found

that the English teacher used some techniques to

correct students’ pronunciation in teaching-learning

process. According to Lyster and Ranta (1997) there

are six types of corrective feedback, namely explicit,

recast, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback,

elicitation, and repetition (Chandler, 2003; Ferris,

2010). In fact, there were only five types used by the

teacher to correct students’ pronunciation found in

the observation. The teacher only implemented

explicit, recast, clarification request, metalinguistic

feedback, and elicitation in correcting the students.

These five types were calculated based on teacher’s

frequency in employing the correction on students’

pronunciation error. The types of corrective

feedback implemented by the teacher were shown by

the following table 1.

Tabel 1: Teacher's frequency of using corrective feedback

NO Types of CF

Teacher’s

Frequency

(n)

Percentage

(%)

Explicit

15 41%

Recast

Clarification

request

7 19%

Metalinguistic

feedback

4 11%

Elicitation

2 5%

Total N=37 100%

Table 1 showed that the largest category was the

explicit correction, which was calculated 41% of the

total number of the teacher used corrective feedback.

Besides, the other types of corrective feedback were

distributed in decreasing frequency as follows:

recast (24%), clarification request (19%),

metalinguistic feedback (11%), and elicitation (5%).

The last types of corrective feedback (repetition) did

not occur in the classroom activities. Therefore, it

was obtained that among five types of corrective

feedback, explicit correction is the most frequently

used by the English teacher to correct students’

pronunciation.

BELTIC 2018 - 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference

480

The first type is explicit. There were 15 of

teacher’s frequency in three times observation. The

data were found;

S: Let’s change (/tʃæns/) the schedule.

T: you should say change (/tʃeɪndʒ/).

(Student and teacher’s dialogue in observation

S: could you taste (/test/) this food?

T: you have to pronounce taste (/teɪst/).

(Student and teacher’s dialogue in observation

S: I don’t know (/naʊ/) where I put it.

T: you have to say know (/noʊ/).

(Student and teacher’s dialogue in observation

The second type is recast. There were 9 of

teacher’s frequency in three times observation. The

data were found;

S: I don’t have a partner (/ˈpɑːt.nɚ/) to

speak English.

T: partner (/ˈpɑːrt.nɚ/).

(Student and teacher’s dialogue in observation

S: you have to follow my voice (/pɔɪs/) guys.

T: voice (/vɔɪs/).

S: you have to follow my voice (/vɔɪs/) guys.

T: nice.

(Student and teacher’s dialogue in observation

S: calm down (/dɑːn/), I can help you.

T: calm down (/dɑːn/).

(Student and teacher’s dialogue in observation

The third type is clarification request. There

were 7 of teacher’s frequency in three times

observation. The data were found;

S: I cannot listen (/ˈlɪst.ən/) your voice.

T: pardon? Listen? (/ˈlɪst.ən/)

S: listen (/ˈlɪs.ən/).

T: yes, listen (/ˈlɪs.ən/) without “t”

(Student and teacher’s dialogue in observation 1)

S: don’t you remember this stuff (/stæf/).

T: what?

S: don’t you remember this stuff (/stʌf/)?

T: yeah.

(Student and teacher’s dialogue in observation

S: today, our school has a new (/nyuː/) regulation

for us.

T: what?

S: oh yeah, sorry, today, our school has a new

(/nuː/) regulation for us.

(Student and teacher’s dialogue in observation

The fourth type is metalinguistic feedback.

There were 4 of teacher’s frequency in three times

observation. The data were found;

S: can we make (/mek/) it simple?

T: do we say “make” like that?

S: hmm, make (/mek/)?

T: make (/meɪk/).

S: can we make (/meɪk/) it simple?

T: that’s right.

(Student and teacher’s dialogue in observation

S: don’t touch (/totʃ/) this table!

T: wait, you said touch (/totʃ/), is that right? S:

don’t touch (/tʌtʃ/) this table!

T: Ok good.

(Student and teacher’s dialogue in observation

S: In my opinion, we must stop smoking because

it’s dangerous (/ˈden.dʒɚ.əs/)? for our health.

T: hmmm, can you find the error?, do we say

dangerous like that?

S: hmmm, dangerous (/ˈdeɪn.dʒɚ.əs/)?

T: yeah.

S: In my opinion, we must stop smoking because

it’s dangerous (/ˈdeɪn.dʒɚ.əs/)? for our health.

(Student and teacher’s dialogue in observation

The fifth type is elicitation. There were 2 of

teacher’s frequency in two times observation. The

data were found;

T: partner (/ˈpɑːrt.nɚ/).

S: did you do your homework (/ˈhom.wɝːk/) last

night?

T: No, you do your………..? S: hmmm,(

/ˈhom.wɝːk/)?

T: homework (/ˈhoʊm.wɝːk/) (Recast type)

S: did you do your homework (/ˈhoʊm.wɝːk/)

Last night?

T: that’s right.

(Student and teacher’s dialogue in observation 1)

T: partner (/ˈpɑːrt.nɚ/).

S: should we go now?( /noʊ/) (low intonation) T:

should we go ……..?

S: (/noʊ/)?

T: now (/naʊ/) (Recast type) S: should we go

now? (/naʊ/)

T: good.

(Student and teacher’s dialogue in observation

It can be concluded that from the third

observations above, it was obtained that there were

37 times correction done by the teacher during

teaching learning process. From the five types

corrective feedback implemented by the teacher, the

largest category was the explicit correction, which

was calculated 41% of the total number of the

teacher used corrective feedback. Besides, the other

types of corrective feedback were distributed in

decreasing frequency as follows: recast (24%),

clarification request (19%), metalinguistic feedback

(11%), and elicitation (5%).

Exploring the Implementation of Teacher’s Corrective Feedback on Students’ Pronunciation: A Case Study in an Indonesian Public High

School

481

In order to find out the information from the

teacher, semi-structure interview was used to answer

the research question number 2 regarding the

teacher’s preference. The teacher’s preference in this

context refers to the teacher’s choice regarding

implementing corrective feedback to pronunciation

error. The interview was held after conducting the

classroom observations and it took place in teacher’s

room. The result of interview data emphasized the

findings from the observation related to teacher’s

practice inside classroom to implement corrective

feedback on students’ pronunciation.

In doing interview session, there were 10 list

of questions given to the teacher, namely;

1. In teaching speaking, have you ever

found the student's pronunciation error?

2. What error aspects did you find in

students’ pronunciation?

3. How are your techniques to

correct students’ pronunciation error?

4. How often do you give corrections

to students' pronunciation error?

5. In your opinion, what is the most

effective correction given in correcting

students’ pronunciation errors?

6. To correct student pronunciation

errors,

which one do you choose: correct

them immediately or delay them?

7. In your opinion, how does the student

feel after being given a correction?

8. What is the development of

students’

pronunciation after being

given the correction?

9. Does your correction motivate the

students to correct their errors in

pronunciation?

10. In your opinion, what are the benefits

of giving correction to the students’

pronunciation?

Teacher’s preference could be classified into two

main points, namely; teacher’s choice in using the

types of corrective feedback techniques and the

timing of giving correction.

Based on the 10 questions in the interview

above, the researchers classified into three points,

namely; first, asking the condition of students’

pronunciation error in the classroom. Second, asking

the teachers’ techniques, frequency, and preference

toward corrective feedback. Third, asking the

students’ condition based on teacher’s perspective

regarding the implementation of corrective

feedback. The interview data showed the teacher’s

explanation about teacher’s perspectives regarding

the use of corrective feedback implemented in

teaching learning process. In the interview data, the

researchers asked question number 1 and 2 “In

teaching speaking, have you ever found the student's

pronunciation error?” and “what error aspects did

you find in students’ pronunciation?” . Those

questions were emphasized the condition of

students’ pronunciation error in the classroom that

related to the observation. Then, the teacher

answered:

“Of course, I’ve ever found it, even there

are many students mispronounce the words

when they are in speaking class. It’s quite

hard, because they seldom talk or just say

“hello” in English. So, they still do many

mistakes in pronouncing the words.

“Most students got error in

spelling words either it is vowel or

consonant. Because they are not used to

speaking in English. Sometimes there were

also some students who made errors in

stressing or intonation, for example

intonation sentences seemed like intonation

statements.”

The teacher’s answers were appropriate with

the students’ condition in the classroom. It reported

that in teaching learning process, there were many

students who did error pronunciation. Most of them

got error in spelling words either in vocal or

consonant, and also intonation.

Next questions number 3 until 6, the researcher

asked “How are your techniques to correct students’

pronunciation error?”, How often do you give

corrections to students' pronunciation error?”, “In

your opinion, what is the most effective correction

given in correcting students’ pronunciation errors?”,

and “To correct student pronunciation errors, which

one do you choose: correct them immediately or

delay them?”. Those questions were aimed to find

out teacher’s techniques, frequency, and preference

in correcting students’ pronunciation error. The

teacher answered:

“I often correct immediately their error words

in spelling or in intonation. Sometimes I

wrote first their pronunciation errors that

I’ve heard. Well, at the end of the learning, I

gave the words or intonation which was

wrong when they said in practicing speaking,

and the last I gave the correct pronunciation

to them.”

“It can be said very often, because many

students who have been corrected, sometimes

they still do mistakes again in pronouncing

BELTIC 2018 - 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference

482

word or in intonation. So I often corrected

again. Every time I teach, there must be

students who still mispronounce the words.

“If we say whether it is effective or not, I give

correction depends on the students do their

mistakes. There must be students who were

confused and nervous. Besides, there were

some students who were happy to be

corrected. In fact, some of them ever said that

they want to be corrected immediately by

their teacher.”

“I choose both of them, correcting immediately

or delay it. The most often I did was

correcting immediately. Because I always

spontaneously want to correct them if they do

their mistakes in pronouncing the words. But

I also consider whether the students are

ready or not to be corrected because

somehow, they are so nervous if I correct

them immediately.”

These explanations proved that in every

teaching, the students were often corrected their

pronunciation by the teacher. Based on the

observation, in the process of giving corrective

feedback on students’ pronunciation error, she used

several techniques, such as explicit, recast,

clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, and

elicitation (Chandler, 2003; Ferris, 2010; Lyster and

Ranta, 1997). After conducting the interview, it was

found that the teacher preferred correcting students’

pronunciation immediately by using explicit

techniques. Besides, for the timing of correcting

pronunciation error, she chose both immediate and

delayed correction in speaking activities. Further,

she also considered whether the students were ready

or not to be corrected due to sometimes they were

nervous given correction immediately, so that she

delayed to correct till the students stopped speaking.

The last questions number 7, 8, 9 and 10 were

aimed to find out the effect after giving corrective

feedback to students’ pronunciation error. The

researcher asked:

“In your opinion, how does the student feel

after being given a correction?”, “What is the

development of students’ pronunciation after giving

the correction?”, “Does your correction motivate the

students to correct their errors in pronunciation?”,

and “In your opinion, what are the benefits of giving

correction to the students’ pronunciation?”. These

questions were also intended to find out the

students’ condition based on teacher’s perspective

regarding giving correction in teaching learning

process. The teacher answered:

“Yes, there were some students who

were happy because of correction, and the

rest of them did not like if I correct them

because they might feel shy. Moreover, there

were also who were very nervous till they lost

their concentration.

“The development of students’ pronunciation

after being given teacher’s correction, most of

them can improve their pronunciation to

better, even though few students still have not

showed their progress.

There were some students that motivated to

correct their mistakes, because every meeting I

found the wrong words again from the students but

actually I have corrected them frequently to

pronounce the correct form.”

“There are many benefits actually, by giving

correction to students’ pronunciation error, this is

very useful for those who still lack of pronunciation.

Step by step, they will understand and know their

mistakes, and in the end they indirectly can correct

his own mistakes without my correction. Then, by

giving correction, they can improve their learning

motivation and they want to correct themselves

every time they make an error in their

pronunciation.”

From the teacher’s explanations above, during

implementing corrective feedback, the teacher

showed her attention to development of students’

pronunciation. It was found that the students gave

their responses either positive attitude or negative

attitude towards the corrective feedback. Even

though there were some students who were still shy,

nervous and confused after being given correction,

but the majority of the students were motivated and

able to improve their pronunciation to be better.

The following discussions are based on the

research questions, namely; the teacher’s techniques

of giving corrective feedback on students’

pronunciation and the teacher’s preference toward

the use of corrective feedback on students’

pronunciation.

The first section to be discussed was the

teacher’s corrective feedback techniques on

students’ pronunciation. There were five types of

corrective feedback found in classroom observation,

namely; explicit, recast, clarification request,

metalinguistic feedback, and elicitation. These refers

to the theory proposed by Lsyter and Ranta (1997;

also in Chandler, 2003; Ferris, 2010).

The observation showed that there were five

types of corrective feedback which sorted from the

most frequently used, namely; explicit, recast,

Exploring the Implementation of Teacher’s Corrective Feedback on Students’ Pronunciation: A Case Study in an Indonesian Public High

School

483

clarification request, metalinguistic feedback and

elicitation. The data reported that the most

frequently used were explicit correction which was

distributed 41%, and recast was 24%. In other

words, based on teacher’s perspective, it was

obtained that the teacher preferred choosing explicit

correction. It showed that the most frequently used

was explicit correction in this present study. This

result is line with the previous study (Park, 2010)

stated that explicit correction is the most frequently

used by teacher. Then, another frequent correction

implemented by the teacher was recast. It linked to

the theory proposed by Lyster and Ranta (1997; also

in Chandler, 2003; Ferris, 2010) stated that recast is

the most widely used type corrective feedback in

language classroom. Besides, Haryanto (2015) and

Mendez et al. (2010) found that recast is a favorite

oral feedback method among teachers.

The second section to be discussed was

teacher’s preference toward corrective feedback

on students’ pronunciation error. The data were

gained from interview which emphasized the data

from classroom observation. It was found that the

teacher preferred choosing to use explicit correction

than the other techniques. This finding linked to the

previous study conducted by Park (2010), stated that

explicit correction is the most frequently used as his

preference in choosing type of corrective feedback.

More preference for explicit CF was also found in a

study by Amador (2008) who investigated twenty-

three beginners of English from the University of

Costa Rica’s School of Modern Languages. The

students were given twenty different correction

techniques for errors that took place in interactional

dialogue between teacher – student or student-

students. They were asked to choose their preference

by circling the letter of their choice. The results were

in line with Sheen (2006) indicating a preference for

explicit corrective feedback techniques.

Further, it was also found in the interview data,

based on timing of giving correction, the teacher

tended to correct students’ pronunciation error both

immediate and delayed correction. This linked to the

previous study conducted by Haryanto (2015) stated

that immediate and delayed correction and the

models of communicative task displayed by the

students, it can influence students’ psychological

performance. As a result, in this present research, the

teacher considered to give correction based on the

students’ activities in teaching learning process

because she did not want to interrupt their students

even though she recognized pronunciation errors.

There were several benefits from the corrective

feedback implemented in correcting pronunciation

error. Based on the teacher’s perspective, it was

found that corrective feedback was important and it

could improve students’ pronunciation. This linked

to the theory proposed by Hattie and Timperley

(2014) stated that feedback was the most powerful

moderator that enhanced achievement. In other

words, theory from Lee et al. (2014) corrective

feedback (CF) on errors facilitates pronunciation

improvement of language learners. Then, it linked to

the previous study conducted by Huang and Jia

(2016) stated corrective feedback is not only

important but necessary since the students still have

pronunciation problems which need teacher’s help.

5 CONCLUSIONS

There are two main conclusions that are discussed in

this section. The first is corrective feedback

strategies used by the teacher in correcting students’

pronunciation and the second is teacher’s preference

toward the use of corrective feedback on students’

pronunciation

First, it reveals the teacher’s corrective

feedback strategies implemented on students’

pronunciation error. There are five corrective

feedback used by the teacher in teaching learning

process. Those are explicit, recast, clarification

request, metalinguistic feedback, and elicitation.

Based on the observation, interview, and

questionnaire, it was found that the most frequent

correction used by the teacher are explicit and recast

in teaching learning process.

Second, it discovers the teacher’s preference

toward the use of corrective feedback on students’

pronunciation. It was obtained from the findings, the

teacher preferred choosing explicit techniques as her

choice of corrector. Besides, in the timing of giving

correction, the teacher tended to choose both

immediate and delayed correction based on the

students’ activities in teaching learning process

because she did not want to interrupt their students

even though she recognized pronunciation errors.

REFERENCES

Amador, Y.A 2008. 'Learner attitudes toward error

correction in a beginners English class'. Rev. Comun.

17, 18–28. https://doi.org/10.18845/rc.v17i1.903

Burgess, J., Spencer, S 2000. 'Phonology and

pronunciation in integrated language teaching and

teacher education'. System 28, 191–215.

BELTIC 2018 - 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference

484

Chandler, J 2003. 'The efficacy of various kinds of error

feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency

of L2 student writing'. J. Second Lang. Writ. 12, 267–

296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9

Chongning, X 2009. 'Students’ feedback to their

pronunciation learning'. Teach. Engl. China CELEA J.

32, 38–49.

Creswell, J.W 2002. Educational research: Planning,

conducting, and evaluating quantitative. Prentice

Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Dardjowidjojo, S 2009. English Phonetics & Phonology

for Indonesians. Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia.

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Erlam, R 2006. 'Implicit and explicit

corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2

grammar'. Stud. Second Lang. Acquis. 28, 339– 368.

Ferris, D.R., 2010. 'Second language writing research and

written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections

and practical applications'. Stud. Second Lang. Acquis.

32, 181–201.

Harmer, J 1983. 'The practice of English language

teaching'. ERIC.

Haryanto, E 2015. 'Teachers’corrective feedback on

students’pronunciation at the daffodils english course

kampung inggris pare Indonesia'. Linguists 2.

Hattie, J., Timperley, H 2007. 'The power of feedback'.

Rev. Educ. Res. 77, 81–112.

Huang, X., Jia, X 2016. 'Corrective feedback on

pronunciation: Students’ and teachers’ perceptions'.

Int. J. Engl. Linguist. 6, 245.

Kelly, G 2006. How To Teach Pronunciation (With

Cd).Pearson Education India.

Kim, J.H 2004. 'Issues of corrective feedback in second

language acquisition'. Teachers College. Columbia

University Working papers in TESOL & Applied

Linguistics, 4 (2), 1-24.

Lee, J., Jang, J., Plonsky, L 2014. 'The effectiveness of

second language pronunciation instruction: A meta-

analysis'. Appl. Linguist. 36, 345–366.

Lyster, R., Ranta, L 1997. 'Corrective feedback and

learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative

classrooms'. Stud. Second Lang. Acquis. 19, 37–66.

Maniruzzaman, M 2008. Teaching EFL Pronunciation:

Why, What and How?

Méndez, E.H., Cruz, R.R., Loyo, G.M 2010. 'Oral

corrective feedback by EFL teachers at Universidad de

Quintana Roo'. Int. FEL Memo Retrieved Httpfel

Uqroo

Mxadminfilefilesmemoriashernandezmendezedit

hetal2 Pdf.

Pardede, P 2010. 'The Role of Pronunciation in a Foreign

Language Program. Univ. Kristen Indonesia'.

Available from Http sparlindunganpardede

Wordpress Com20101007349.

Park, H.-S 2010. Teachers’ and learners’ preferences for

error correction (PhD Thesis).

Purnawarman, P 2011. 'Impacts of different types of

teacher corrective feedback in reducing grammatical

errors on esl/efl studentsâ writing (phd thesis)'.

Virginia Tech.

Richards, J.C., Renandya, W.A 2002. Methodology in

language teaching: An anthology of current practice.

Cambridge university press.

Rogerson-Revell, P 2011. English phonology and

pronunciation teaching. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Sheen, Y 2006. 'Exploring the relationship between

characteristics of recasts and learner uptake'.

Lang.

Teach. Res. 10, 361–392.

Tomczyk, E., 2013. Perceptions of Oral Errors and Their

Corrective Feedback: Teachers vs. Students. J. Lang.

Teach. Res. 4.

Exploring the Implementation of Teacher’s Corrective Feedback on Students’ Pronunciation: A Case Study in an Indonesian Public High

School

485