Corrective Feedback in Learning Interaction: Integration of Surface Strategy Taxonomy

Yeasy Agustina Sari; Linda Septiyana; Suhono Suhono; Aria Septi Anggaira; Umar Al Faruq A. Hasyim

doi:10.35445/alishlah.v13i3.847

Corrective Feedback in Learning Interaction: Integration of Surface Strategy Taxonomy

Yeasy Agustina Sari, Linda Septiyana, Suhono Suhono, Aria Septi Anggaira, Umar Al Faruq A. Hasyim

Abstract

The article aimed to determine the types of errors found in classroom learning interactions at (Perguruan Tinggi Keagamaan Islam) PTKI Metro, to analyze the strategies used in correcting student errors in classroom learning interactions at PTKI Metro and to know the aspects of Surface Strategy Taxonomy which was found in classroom learning interaction errors at PTKI Metro. In analyzing the data, the researchers used the theory of Dalton-Puffer (2007) which was used to find out and describe the types of common student errors in the interaction of learning English in the classroom. Then, using the theory offered by Mendez at al (2010) which is applied to analyze the types of lecturer strategies in correcting student errors in learning. The researcher also analyzed the linguistic aspects of the taxonomy category in the student's errors using the theory of Dulay, Burth, and Krhashen (1982). The results show that the corrective feedback strategies used by lecturers at PTKI Metro City were Explicit Correction, Recast, Clarification Request, and Metalinguistic Feedback. And this study also classifies the types of errors based on the Aspects Surface Strategy Taxonomy on learning interactions in the classroom.

Keywords

Corrective Feedback, Suraface Strategy Taxonomy, Learning Interaction

Full Text:

PDF

References

Abeer Al Ghazo & Aljoun, Monta. (2016).”Error correction strategies for the classroom oral proficiency used by Jordania Teaches at Secondary Level”. International Journal of Learning and Development. Vol.6 No.1.

Alsolami, R. (2019). Effect of oral corrective feedback on language skills. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 9(6), 672-677.

Al-Faki & Siddiek. (2013).”Techniques used by teachers in correcting students”.Theory and practice in language studies. Vol.3 No.10

Al-Ghazo, A. (2016). Error Correction Strategies for the Classroom Oral Proficiency Used By Jordanian Teachers at Secondary Level. International Journal of Learning and Development, 6(3), 156-167.

Al-Zahrani, M. Y., & Al-Bargi, A. (2017). The Impact of Teacher Questioning on Creating Interaction in EFL: A Discourse Analysis. English Language Teaching, 10(6), 135-150.

Celemin, C., & Ruiz-del-Solar, J. (2019). An interactive framework for learning continuous actions policies based on corrective feedback. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 95(1), 77-97

Chen, X., Breslow, L., & DeBoer, J. (2018). Analyzing productive learning behaviors for students using immediate corrective feedback in a blended learning environment. Computers & Education, 117, 59-74.

Dulay, H. MK Burt, and S. Krashen, (1982). Language two. Oxford University Press, 200 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016.

Diab, N. M. (2015). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: Does type of error and type of correction matter?. Assessing Writing, 24, 16-34.

Eom, S. B., & Ashill, N. J. (2018). A system's view of e‐learning success model. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 16(1), 42-76.

Fu, T., & Nassaji, H. (2016). Corrective Feedback, Learner Uptake, and Feedback Perception in a Chinese as a Foreign Language Classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 159-181.

Jácome, L. M. P., Jaimes, C. A. L., & Angulo, L. C. D. (2016). From feedback to follow-up in the third turn of IRF sequences: A challenge to promote genuine interaction in EFL classes. Rastros Rostros, 18(33), 71-81.

Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2019). The effects of written corrective feedback: A critical synthesis of past and present research. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3(1), 28-52.

Ken Hyland & Flona Hyland. (2019).”Feedback in second language writin: contexts and issues”. Cambride University Press.

Méndez, E. H., Cruz, R. R., & Loyo, G. M. (2010). Oral corrective feedback by EFL teachers at Universidad de Quintana Roo. International FEL Memo, 1, 240-253.

Pérez-Dattari, R., Celemin, C., Ruiz-del-Solar, J., & Kober, J. (2018, November). Interactive learning with corrective feedback for policies based on deep neural networks. In International Symposium on Experimental Robotics (pp. 353-363). Springer, Cham

Rusmiati, R. (2019). Surface Strategy Taxonomy On Foreign Language Writing: A Study On Verb Tense Usage. Jurnal Serambi Ilmu, 20(2), 189-201.

Suhono, S. (2016). Surface strategy taxonomy on the efl students composition a study of error analysis. Jurnal Iqra': Kajian Ilmu Pendidikan, 1(2), 1-30.

Yen Han & Flona Hyland. . (2019). “Academic emotion in written corrective feedback situation”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. Vol.1 No.13

Yu, Runmei. (2010). “Interaction in EFL Classes”. ABVsian Social Science Journal. Vol.4 No.4. China: Qingdao University

Zhang, Sen & Chatupote, Monta. (2014).” Error Treatment Sequence in Classroom with Native and Non-Native English Teachers”. Jornal for the study of English Linguistics. Vol.2 No.1.

Zimmerman, T. D. (2012). Exploring learner to content interaction as a success factor in online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4), 152-165.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v13i3.847