THE MINISTRY OF HIGHER AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
OF THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN
THE UZBEKISTAN STATE WORLD LANGUAGES UNIVERSITY
ENGLISH FACULTY II
ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING METHODOLOGY DEPARTMENT№2
Final work on Research Writing
(8th semester)
THEME:
THE IMPORTANCE OF POSITIVE FEEDBACK IN
THE CORRECTION OF SPOKEN ERRORS
Done by:
Group: 1814
Scientific adviser:
Gained score _________
Tashkent-2022
CONTENTS
I.
II.
Statement of Intent...........……..........…………………….…
LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………
a. studies of learner errors
b. studies of corrective feedback
c. ways to correct spoken errors
III.
CONCLUSION….…………………….........……………....…
IV. REFERENCE LIST………………...................…………………..
V.
GLOSSARY……………………………………………………….
2
Abstract
Speech error correction and giving feedback is a controversial issue in second
language learning and there are some complexities about whether to use error
correction and feedback or not and if speech error correction is necessary, when or
how to correct speech errors of students in language classroom. So, this topic has
always caused complex questions in the teachers’ minds in the teaching process.
(Salikin, 2001, pp. 28) According to research on error correction, there is not a
common idea on the most effective method of error correction. According to
observations, it is clear that language learners are eager to be corrected. However,
some methods are against the direct error correction. In normal school environments,
native speakers only correct the global errors of the non-native speakers, and they
do not interrupt their communication. (Brown, 2000, pp.237-238 ) According to
observations, error correction may be useful for many learners, but it may not always
be seen as a powerful technique for every language learner and in any classroom
environment. (BRAC University Journal, Vol. II, No. 1, 2005, pp. 80-81) It is
asserted that language learners have the need of feedback in speaking in order to
develop students’ performance especially in pronunciation and it is effective to lead
the students to think on their errors themselves as a group or pair and get them to
check their own performance by observation. (Case, 2008) Error correction in
speaking is stimulating and complicated issue to a great extent because of the
individual differences such as situations, vocabulary knowledge, and pronunciation
as effective items in speaking. There are many things that should be definitely taken
into consideration such as students’ language level, what kinds of errors to be
corrected, and how to correct such errors. It is asserted that errors in speaking are
quite normal and unavoidable; therefore, a proper method should be developed and
used in error correction. Error correction in spoken language requires careful and
effective treatment because of the fact that each learner may react to the teacher’s
feedback in a different way. One of the main aims of the speaking classroom is to
get the students to learn and practice the target language in a proper and correct way.
3
Therefore, it is recommended that teachers should behave carefully and selectively
in speech error correction. (Tedjaatmadja & Wijaya, 2004) Students support the
error correction which can be understood from their practice and routines. Teachers’
methods are under the influence of this concept. Some methods suggest that direct
error correction should not be made. Native speakers pay attention only to global
errors and they do not prefer immediate and direct correction as they do not want to
interrupt in communication. It states that there are many possible conditions when it
is recommended that teachers should lead to the kinds of errors that students make.
Bailey (1985) says in his study that there should be a balance between accuracy and
fluency of communicative language in the treatment of error correction. (Haluskova,
2008) It is argued that excessive negative cognitive feedback, which means frequent
interruptions and corrections, may get the student to avoid communication. On the
other hand, excessive positive cognitive feedback, which means ignoring the errors
to some extent, may reinforce the speech errors, and may cause fossilization of such
errors. So, there should be a balance while giving feedback. (Brown, 2001, pp. 288293)
4
Statement of intent
Error correction is an indispensable part of the foreign language classroom, but
one that at the same time raises many concerns. Some of the concerns surrounding
error correction are when to correct learners and when error correction should be
avoided, what type of corrective feedback is best to use, and how much error
correction should be used in a particular situation. Foreign language teaching has
changed over the past and shifted from “an explicit focus on the language itself” to
placing focus on “expression and comprehension of meaning” (Lightbown and
Spada 430) since, according to Krashen, approaches focusing on the latter lead to
high proficiency in the L2 because, in that case, the language instruction is
conducted in a “natural” environment (qtd. in Lightbown and Spada 430). This
approach, however, does not lead to grammar accuracy, which is why contemporary
foreign language teaching includes a form-focused approach as well as the
communicative-based approach and tries to use different types of feedback
depending on the circumstances in order to implement both meaning and form
(Pawlak 12). Corrective feedback can be written and oral. However, it is usually oral
feedback that is of topical interest in various disciplines and theoretical frameworks
and an issue concerning many teachers since the teacher has to make immediate
decisions as to whether to correct a learner’s erroneous utterance or not and which
feedback technique to use. The corrective feedback techniques that teachers in
communicatively oriented classrooms have at their disposal include explicit
correction, recasts, clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, and
repetition (Lyster and Ranta 46). The teacher should keep in mind, however, that
these techniques should be chosen not only according to the particular learning
situation, but also to the individual differences among the learners in terms of
intelligence (or intelligences), aptitude, learning style, personality, motivation,
attitudes , etc. (Lightbown and Spada 57–67), as learners will react differently to
different types of error correction depending on their individual characteristics. This
seems to complicate corrective feedback processes even more, as the teacher usually
5
has to deal with more than 20 learners per class who all have different learning styles,
abilities, motivation, personalities, etc. This article is divided into eight sections
dealing with issues connected to error correction while providing theoretical
background and research findings. Our experiences gained during teacher training,
an obligatory part of the Teaching Stream graduate programme at the Department of
English (Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Zagreb) during which students
of English visit elementary and secondary schools and/or faculties, observe classes,
and have the opportunity to teach, will also be included in order to raise questions
about the important topic of corrective feedback as well as to help future colleagues
and teacher trainees who are struggling to find their path in the world of teaching.
Corrective feedback a crucial aspect of foreign language teaching, but also
one of the most complex decisions the teacher has to make in a foreign language
classroom. However, based on the personal experiences of pre-service teachers and
scientific findings, the first thing to do, even before deciding on the appropriate error
correction technique, is to prepare the learners to receive corrective feedback and
regard it as part of learning a foreign language. Having a positive attitude towards
corrective feedback is the first step in making error correction a necessary part of
language acquisition. Furthermore, it is crucial that the learners notice the teacher’s
correction following their error, because, according to the Noticing Hypothesis, it is
only that part of the corrective feedback that is noticed by the learner that turns into
intake, the internalised part of the input (Gass and Selinker 305). Teachers should
also take into consideration the fact that even error correction can and should be
provided within a communicative context so that their learners will have as many
opportunities to be involved in meaningful communication in the foreign language
as possible (Lightbown and Spada 443). Apart from correcting learners’ errors
verbally, teachers have the choice of using nonverbal techniques of error correction,
which are also unobtrusive in nature. They can use various gestures, facial
expressions, pointing, and other metalinguistic cues that do not interfere with the
communication flow and do not deprive the learners of valuable speaking time
(Wang and Loewen 1). Besides, such techniques can be humorous and contribute to
6
a friendly atmosphere in the classroom. Another aspect of corrective feedback,
which is perhaps neglected in the education of young teachers, is written error
correction. As in verbal correction, teachers also have an abundance of techniques
to choose from when correcting written compositions. What might be the most
useful, however, is self-correction, which provides the learners with the opportunity
to reflect more deeply on their errors and eventually learn more from them than if
the correct solution is simply provided by the teacher (Makino 340). The teacher is
there to give cues, and it is the learners’ task to come to the correct form. This
statement is in line with Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of language acquisition,
which suggests that teachers should use scaffolding when providing corrective
feedback.This means that they should give their learners the amount of help they
need to correct their own errors and no more than needed (Vygotsky
86).However, this is nearly impossible when working with young learners.
Corrective feedback becomes a real challenge in the classroom of very
young learners, due to their lack of metalinguistic knowledge, short
attention span, and other factors. This is why teachers who work with this
group of learners need to be even more patient and combine various
types of feedback until they find methods which suit their learners best.
Apart from age, there are a number of other individual factors, such as the
learners’ intelligence, language aptitude, motivation, attitudes towards
language learning, and proficiency, that teachers should take into account
when choosing the appropriate method of error correction (Kartchava
and Ammar 86–87). Due to the individual differences among learners,
which determine how they notice and perceive corrective feedback, one
technique which has proved to be excellent for one group of learners may
be completely useless in another group.
All in all, the conclusion can be reached that there is no right way
of correcting learners’ errors. It is the teacher’s task to find a method which
both serves its purpose – providing a basis for further language acquisition
– and is well accepted by their group of learners.
7
In this research project, I will try to answer the following questions:
1-What is the importance of speech error correction and feedback in second
language learning?
2-When and how speech errors should be corrected?
3-What are some basic criteria in error correction and giving feedback in
speaking?
8
LITERATURE REVIEW
STUDIES OF LEARNER ERRORS
Corder introduced the distinction between errors (in competence) and
mistakes (in performance). This distinction directed the attention of researchers of
SLA to competence errors and provided for a more concentrated framework. Thus,
in the 1970s researchers started examining learners' competence errors and tried to
explain them. We find studies such as Richards's "A non-contrastive approach to
error analysis" (1971), where he identifies sources of competence errors; L1 transfer
results in interference errors; incorrect (incomplete or over-generalized) application
of language rules results in intralingual errors; construction of faulty hypotheses in
L2 results in developmental errors.
Not all researchers have agreed with the above distinction, such as Dulay and
Burt (1974) who proposed the following three categories of errors: developmental,
interference and unique. Stenson (1974) proposed another category, that of induced
errors, which result from incorrect instruction of the language. As most research
methods, error analysis has weaknesses (such as in methodology), but these do not
diminish its importance in SLA research; this is why linguists such as Taylor (1986)
reminded researchers of its importance and suggested ways to overcome these
weaknesses.
As mentioned previously, Corder noted to whom (or in which areas) the study
of errors would be significant: to teachers, to researchers and to learners. In addition
to studies concentrating on error categorization and analysis, various studies
concentrated on these three different areas. In other words, research was conducted
not only in order to understand errors per se, but also in order to use what is learned
from error analysis and apply it to improve language competence.
Such studies include Kroll and Schafer's "Error-Analysis and the Teaching of
Composition", where the authors demonstrate how error analysis can be used to
improve writing skills. They analyze possible sources of error in non-native-English
9
writers, and attempt to provide a process approach to writing where the error analysis
can help achieve better writing skills.
STUDIES OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK
Corder elaborated on Carroll's work to show that the most efficient way to
teach a student the correct linguistic form is to let him test various hypotheses and
eventually find the right form (point 6, listed above). In these steps, Hagège points
out the importance of self correction (p. 82-83). According to Hagège, it is useful to
always perform an error analysis based on written tests administered by the teacher,
but without informing the student of the purpose of the test. On that basis, selfcorrection is preferable to correction by the teacher, especially if the latter is done in
a severe or intimidating way. Self correction is even more efficient when it is done
with the help of children's classmates. According to teachers, the younger the
children, the greater the cooperation among them and the less aggressive or
intimidating the corrections. Hagège dedicates a section in his book to the
importance of treating errors in a positive way. In this section, titled "The teacher as
a good listener", he notes that it is useless, if not harmful, to treat errors as if they
were "diseases or pathological situations which must be eliminated", especially if
this treatment becomes discouraging, as occurs when teachers lose their patience
because of children's numerous errors. This, of course, does not mean that
corrections should be avoided; after all it is the teacher's duty to teach the rules of
the L2. But the correction of every error as soon as it occurs is not recommended.
The justification that Hagège offers is the following: the linguistic message that the
child tries to produce is a sequence of elements which are interdependent; immediate
corrections which interrupt this message tend to produce negative consequences,
even to the less sensitive children; such consequences include anxiety, fear of
making an error, the development of avoidance strategies, reduced motivation for
participation in the classroom, lack of interest for learning, reduced will for self
correction, and lack of trust towards the teacher. Esser (1984, cited in Hagège) also
10
made a similar point: repetitive and immediate corrections, he noted, may cause
sensitive children to develop aggressive behavior towards their classmates or
teacher. Thus, Hagège concludes, correction must not be applied by the teacher
unless errors obstruct communication. This is the main criterion for error correction
(i.e. obstruction of communication) presented by Hagège; however there have been
studies which examined such criteria in greater detail, such as Freiermuth's "L2 Error
Correction: Criteria and Techniques" (1997). Freiermuth accepts Corder's view
(point 6) and proposes criteria for error correction in the classroom. These criteria
are: exposure, seriousness, and students' needs.
In the case of exposure, Freiermuth claims that when a child creates language
(for example, when he tries to express an idea by using a linguistic form he has not
yet acquired), he will most likely make errors; correcting these errors will be
ineffective because the learner is not aware of them. Thus, error correction would
result in the acquisition of the correct form only if the learner has been previously
exposed to that particular language form.
As regards the seriousness criterion, Freiermuth claims that the teacher must
determine the gravity of an error before deciding whether he should correct it or not.
Here Freiermuth sets a criterion which agrees with that of Hagège's: "the error, he
states, must impede communication before it should be considered an error that
necessitates correction". But what constitutes a serious error? Which errors are those
which should not be corrected? As an examples of non-serious errors, Freiermuth
mentions those errors which occur due to learners' nervousness in the classroom, due
to their stress or the pressure of having to produce accurately a linguistic form in the
L2. These errors can occur even with familiar structures; in that case, they are not of
serious nature and are similar to what Corder called "mistakes". Here again we see
Corder's influence in error analysis, and in particular in the distinction between
errors and mistakes. Freiermuth goes on to suggest a hierarchy of errors (according
to seriousness) to help teachers decide which errors should be corrected: "Errors that
significantly impair communication [are] at the top of the list, followed by errors
that occur frequently, errors that reflect misunderstanding or incomplete acquisition
11
of the current classroom focus, and errors that have a highly stigmatizing effect on
the listeners". He also clarifies what can cause stigmatization: profound
pronunciation errors, or errors of familiar forms.
Another important criterion that must be considered by the teacher is
individual students' needs. The importance of this factor is mentioned in Corder,
who in turn notes that this idea had been suggested previously by Carroll (1955,
cited in Corder 1967) and Ferguson (1966, cited in Corder 1967). Each student is
different and thus may react differently to error correction. We infer from
Freiermuth's claim that the teacher must perform two main tasks: first, assess some
specific character traits of students, such as self-confidence and language acquisition
capability. Freiermuth agrees with Walz (1982, cited in Freiermuth) that selfconfident, capable students can profit from even minor corrections, while struggling
students should receive correction only on major errors. This claim agrees with Esser
and Hagège's claim that repetitive corrections are likely to decrease motivation; it is
reasonable to accept that students who lack self-confidence will be "stigmatized" to
a greater degree than confident students.
The teacher's second task, according to Freiermuth, is to listen to learners' L2
utterances in order to determine where errors occur (i.e. which linguistic forms cause
students difficulties), their frequency, and their gravity (according to the severity
criteria mentioned above). Then the teacher can combine the outcome of these tasks
and decide on correction techniques for individual students.
A different approach to error correction was suggested by Porte (1993), who
stressed the importance of self-correction. Porte refers to Corder's distinction of
errors and mistakes and points out that many students do not know the difference. It
is important, Porte notes, that students know how to identify an error in order to
avoid it in the future. She agrees with Corder that it is more efficient for learners to
correct themselves than be corrected by the teacher, and goes on to suggest a fourstep approach for self-correction. This approach consists of questions that the
teacher provides to students. After writing an essay, students should read it four
times, each time trying to answer the questions included in each of the four steps.
12
Thus, in each re-reading task (each step) they concentrate on a different aspect of
their essay. In brief, the first task asks them to highlight the verbs and check the
tenses; in the second task students concentrate on prepositions; the third task requires
them to concentrate on nouns (spelling, agreement between subject and verb); finally
in the fourth task students should try to correct potential personal mistakes. Porte
also offers some clarification of what is meant by personal mistakes, in order to help
the students identify them.
The studies mentioned above are only a few examples that demonstrate how
S. Pit Corder's work influenced the area of error analysis in linguistics. The concepts
that Corder introduced directed researcher's attention to specific areas of error
analysis; they helped linguists realize that although errors sometimes obstruct
communication, they can often facilitate second language acquisition; also they
played a significant role in training teachers and helping them identify and classify
students' errors, as well as helping them construct correction techniques.
13
WAYS TO CORRECT SPOKEN ERRORS
1. Collect the errors for later You can then correct them later in the same class
(with a game like a grammar auction or just eliciting corrections from the class) or
in a future class (for example writing error dictation pairwork worksheets or using
the same techniques as can be used in the same class). […]
1. Collect the errors for later
You can then correct them later in the same class (with a game like a grammar
auction or just eliciting corrections from the class) or in a future class (for example
writing error dictation pairwork worksheets or using the same techniques as can be
used in the same class). Make sure you give positive reinforcement as well, e.g.
“Someone said this sentence, and that is really good.”
Useful language:
“Here are some things that people said in the last activity”
“I heard several people say this one”
“Can anyone correct this sentence? It has one missing word/ one word missing/
You need to add one word”
“The words are in the wrong order/ You need to change the words around/ change
the word order/ mix the words up”
“This is a typical mistake for students from…”
“Don’t worry, even native speakers make this mistake sometimes/ every
nationality makes this mistake”
“This mistake is something we studied last week”
2. Facial expression
For example, raise an eyebrow, tilt your head to one side or give a slight frown.
Most people will do this naturally, but there is a slight chance a teacher’s
expression will be too critical or too subtle for your students to pick up on, and you
can (amusingly) practice facial expressions in a teaching workshop by participants
communicating certain typical classroom messages (“move over there to work with
14
this person”, “work in pairs” etc.) using just their heads and faces, including
feedback on spoken errors in that list.
3. Body language
The problems with using body language to show errors could also be that it is
taken as very serious criticism or that it is too vague. Possibilities include using
your hands (rolling a hand from side to side to mean “so-so attempt”; making a
circle by moving your index finger to mean “one more time”; or a cross with
fingers, open palms or even forearms to show a very clear “no” or “wrong”probably only suitable for a team game etc where the responsibility is shared),
head (tilted to one side to mean “I’m not sure that sounds correct”), or shoulders
(hunched to reinforce “I don’t understand what you are saying”). Again, practising
this in a teaching workshop can be useful, as can eliciting other body language
teachers could have used after an observation.
4. Point at the correct language
If you have something on the correct form easily accessible on the whiteboard, in
the textbook or on a poster, just pointing at it can be a subtle but clear way of
prompting students to use the correct language. What you point at could be the
name of the tense or word form they are supposed to be using, a verb forms table
or the actual correct verb form, a grammatical explanation, or another grammatical
hint such as “future”, “prediction” or “polite”.
Useful language:
“Have a look at your books/ the board”
“The correct version is somewhere in this chart/ poster/ table”
“You copied this down earlier. Have a look in your notebooks”
5. Repeat what they said
This can mean repeating the whole sentence, one section of it including the wrong
part, the sentence up to the wrong part, the sentence with the wrong part missed out
(with maybe a humming noise to show the gap that should be filled) or just the
15
wrong part. You can illustrate that you are showing them an error and give some
hint as to which bit is wrong by using a questioning tone (for everything you say or
just for the wrong part). This method is overused by some teachers and can sound
patronising if used too often or with the wrong tone of voice, so try to mix up the
different versions of it described here and to alternate with methods described in
the other tips.
Useful language:
“The man GOED to the shops?”
“The man GOED?”
“GOED?”
6. Just say the right version
The students can then repeat the correct version or tell you what the difference
between the two sentences was and why their version was wrong. Because the
students don’t do much of the work in this way of being corrected, it might not be
as good a way of remembering the correction as methods where you give more
subtle clues. Its advantages are that it is quick and suits cultures, classes and
students that think of elicitation as shirking by the teacher. It can also be more
face-saving than asking them for self-correction, as trying to correct themselves
risks making even more mistakes. The “right version” could mean the whole
sentence or just the correction of the part that was wrong. In the latter case, you
can then ask them to put it into the sentence in the right place and repeat the whole
thing.
Useful language:
“I understand what you are saying, but you need to say…”
“We studied this last week. “Hardly” has a different meaning to “hard”, so you
need to say…?”
“The past of say is pronounced /sed/. So your sentence should be…?”
7. Tell them how many mistakes
This method is only really suitable for controlled speaking practice, but can be a
16
very simple way of giving feedback in that situation. Examples include “Most of
the comparatives were right, but you made two mistakes” and “Three words are in
the wrong position in the sentence/ are mixed up”. Make sure you only use this
method when students can remember what you are referring to without too much
prompting.
Other useful language:
“Very good, but you made just one mistake with the passive”
(For a tongue twister) “Good attempt/ Getting better, but in two places you said
/sh/ where it should have been /s/. Can you guess which words?”
8. Use grammatical terminology to identify the mistake
For example, “(You used) the wrong tense”, “Not the Present Perfect”, “You need
an adverb, not an adjective” or “Can change that into the passive/ indirect speech?”
This method is perhaps overused, and you need to be sure that the grammatical
terminology isn’t just going to confuse them more.
Other useful language:
“Because that is the present simple, you need to add the auxiliary (verb) ‘do’”
“Say the same sentence, but with the comparative form”
9. Give the rule
For example, “‘Since’ usually takes the Present Perfect” or “One syllable
adjectives make the comparative with –er, not more + adjective” This works best if
they already know the rule, and you at least need to make sure that they will
quickly understand what you are saying, for example by only using grammatical
terminology you have used with them several times before.
10. Give a number of points
This is probably best saved for part of a game, especially one where students work
together, but you can give each response a number of points out of 10. The same or
other teams can then make another attempt at saying the same thing to see if they
can get more points. If you don’t want students to focus on accuracy too much, tell
17
them that the points will also give them credit for good pronunciation, fluency,
politeness, persuasiveness and/ or originality of ideas.
Useful language:
“Very good fluency and very interesting, but a few basic mistakes, so I’ll give your
team a score of (IELTS) 5.5. Practice your script in your team again for 5 minutes
and we’ll try it one more time”
“You got all the articles right this time, so I’ll give you 9 out of 10”
11. Just tell them they are wrong (but nicely)
Positive ways of being negative include “nearly there”, “getting closer”, “just one
mistake”, “much better”, “good idea, but…”,”I understand what you mean but…”,
“you have made a mistake that almost everyone does/ that’s a very common
mistake”, “we haven’t studied this yet, but…” and “much better pronunciation,
but…” With lower level and new classes, you might have to balance the need to be
nice with the need to be clear and not confuse them with feedback language that
they don’t understand, perhaps by sticking to one or two phrases to give feedback
for the first couple of months. It can also be useful to give them translations of this
and other classroom language you will use, for example on a worksheet or a poster.
12. Tell them what part they should change
For example, “You need to change the introduction to your presentation” or “Try
replacing the third word with something else”
13. Ask partners to spot errors
This is a fairly well-known way of giving feedback in speaking tasks, but it can be
a minefield if the person giving feedback has no confidence in their ability to do so
or in how well the feedback (i.e. criticism) will be taken, and even more so if the
person receiving the feedback will in fact react badly. This method is easier to do
and easier to take when they have been told specifically which language to use
while speaking and so to look out for when listening, usually meaning controlled
speaking practice tasks. The feedback can be made even simpler to give and collect
18
and more neutral with some careful planning, e.g. asking them count how many
times their partner uses the target form as well as or instead of looking for when it
used incorrectly.
14. Try again!
Sometimes, students don’t need much help at all but just a chance to do it again.
This is likely to be true if you have trained them well in spotting their own errors,
if there was some other kind of mental load such as a puzzle to solve that was
distracting them from the language, or if they have had a chance to hear someone
else doing the same speaking task in the class or on a recording.
Useful language:
“One more time (but think about the grammar more this time/ but concentrating on
making less mistakes instead of speaking quickly)”
“Give it another go”
“Do you want one more chance before you get the final score”
15. Remind them when you studied that point
For example, “Nearly right, but you’ve forgotten the grammar that we studied last
week” or “You’ve made the same mistake as everyone made in the last test”.
19
Conclusion
Error correction in speaking is a deep issue and requires a serious and careful
treatment because each learner has different features and gives different reactions to
the teachers’ error correction and feedback. The purpose of the communicative
language class is to make the students use the language in a correct and fluent way.
Therefore, teachers should be careful about error correction, make a clear distinction
between global and local errors, and should be somewhat tolerant by considering the
flow of the communication. We can say that they should behave selectively and
constructively in speech error correction and giving feedback. We should have in
mind that correcting too many errors may lead the learner to feel discouraged and
lose the hope of communicative use of language, but ignoring their errors may cause
fossilization of the errors. Therefore, attitude toward error correction has a
determinative role in the success of error correction; thus, the teacher should give
optimal feedback and they should provide the learner with a balanced feedback and
error correction. Feedback has a crucial role in learners’ awareness of their errors
and performance. However, immediate feedback or correction should be avoided so
that the learner has the time to think on his/her error and to maintain the flow of
communication. So, feedback should be given after the learner’s performance.
Teaching speaking is a very important part of second language learning. The
ability to communicate in a second language clearly and efficiently contributes to
the success of the learner in school and success later in every phase of life. Therefore,
it is essential that language teachers pay great attention to teaching speaking. Rather
than leading students to pure memorization, providing a rich environment where
meaningful communication takes place is desired. With this aim, various speaking
activities such as those listed above can contribute a great deal to students in
developing basic interactive skills necessary for life. These activities make students
more active in the learning process and at the same time make their learning more
meaningful and fun for them.
Teaching speaking for EFL students is never an easy way for an English Lecturer.
20
Lecturer must be able to stimulate the students to speak up and open their mouth to.
utter something in front of the class clearly. This research focus on the method of
teaching speaking for EFL students based on ESP materials in the class. The students
were very shy and afraid to speak in front of the class before because they had
obstacles to produce words, phrase and arrange into good sentence to speak up.
Teaching speaking based on content-oriented input give the students ammunition to
prepare their oral speech by giving pre-teach vocabulary in listening test as a series
of teaching and learning activity before the students practicing the speaking in front
of the class. By this method, the students show significant confident to speak up in
front of the audience because they have already got the information for what to be
done before speaking in front of the audience.
21
References:
1. Celce-Murcia. M. 2001. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language
(3rd ed). USA: Heinle&Heinle.
2. Chaney, A.L., and T.L. Burk. 1998. Teaching Oral Communication in Grades
K-8. Boston: Allyn&Bacon.
3. Baruah, T.C. 1991. The English Teacher's Handbook. Delhi: Sterling
Publishing House.
4. Brown, G. and G. Yule. 1983. Teaching the Spoken Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
5. Harmer, J. 1984. The Practice of English Language Teaching. London:
Longman.
6. McDonough, J. and C. Shaw. 2003. Materials and Methods in ELT: a
teacher’s guide. Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell.
7. Nunan, D., 2003. Practical English Language Teaching. NY:McGraw-Hill.
8. Staab, C. 1992. Oral language for today's classroom. Markham, ON: Pippin
Publishing.
9. Brown H Douglas. Principals of language learning and teaching. Pearson
education.2007
10.Lyman, F. «The responsive classroom discussion». In Anderson, A. S. (Ed.),
Mainstreaming Digest. College Park, MD: University of Maryland College of
Education.1981
11.Ahmed, M.K.1996. Teaching oral communication skills in academic settings:
A case study in task-based approach to syllabus design.
12.Presented at Thai TESOL 16th Annual Convention, Pataya, Thailand
13.Byström, Katriina. 2007. Approaches to “task” in contemporary information
studies. Sweden: Swedish School of Library and Information Science
22
14. Giyoto. 2007. Task-Based Approach Of Facilitating The Speaking Practice
For A Big Class (From the bravery of being wrong to the pride of being
acceptable). A paper presented in TEFLIN 2007
15.Krashen, S. D. 1985a. Applications of psycholinguistic research to the
classroom. In C. James (Ed.), Practical applications of research in foreign
language teaching (pp.51-66). Lincolnwood, IL:
23
GLOSSARY
abstract
A summary of a magazine or journal article, written by someone other than
the original author.
abstract words
Words that refer to ideas or concepts.
acceptance speech
A speech that gives thanks for a gift, an award, or some other form of public
recognition.
acronym
A word composed of the initial letters or parts of a series of words.
active listening
Giving undivided attention to a speaker in a genuine effort to understand the
speaker's point of view.
ad hominem fallacy
An attempt to discredit a position by attacking the people who favor it.
adrenaline
A hormone released into the bloodstream in response to physical or mental
stress.
after-dinner speech
A brief, often humorous, ceremonial speech, presented after a meal, that
offers a message without asking for radical changes in attitude or action.
balance
Achieving a balance among the major parts of a presentation.
bandwagon
A fallacy which assumes that because something is popular, it is therefore
good, correct, or desirable.
bar graph
A graph that uses vertical or horizontal bars to show comparisons among
two or more items.
begging the question
Assuming that an argument has been proved without actually presenting the
evidence.
beliefs
24
Ideas we express about subjects that may explain our attitudes towards them.
bibliography
A list of all the sources used in preparing a speech.
Bill of Rights
The first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.
biographical aid
A reference work that provides information about people.
body
The middle part of a speech, used to develop the main ideas.
body language
Communication achieved using facial expressions, eye contact, movements,
and gestures.
call number
A number used in libraries to classify books and periodicals and to indicate
where they can be found on the shelves.
call the question
A motion that proposes to end the discussion on a motion and to bring it to a
vote.
catalogue
A listing of all the books, periodicals, and other resources owned by a
library.
categorical design
The use of natural or traditional divisions within a subject as a way of
structuring an informative speech.
causal order
A method of speech organization in which the main points show a causeeffect relationship.
causal reasoning
Reasoning that seeks to establish the relationship between causes and
effects.
causation design
A pattern for an informative speech that shows how one condition generates,
or is generated by, another.
central idea
A one-sentence statement that sums up or encapsulates the major ideas of a
speech.
25
ceremonial speaking
(ceremonial speech) Speaking that celebrates special occasions. Common
forms are speeches of tribute, inspiration, eulogies, toasts, introduction,
making and accepting awards, and the after-dinner speech. Their deeper
function is to share identities and reinforce values that unite people into
communities.
26