LECTURER’SCORRECTIVE FEEDBACKIN SPEAKING FOR DEBATE CLASSES AT ENGLISH STUDY PROGRAM MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF BENGKULU

LECTURER’SCORRECTIVE FEEDBACKIN SPEAKING FOR DEBATE CLASSES AT ENGLISH STUDY PROGRAM MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF BENGKULU

This thesis aimed to investigate the types of corrective feedback and the dominant types of corrective feedback given by lecturer in speaking for debate classes at English Study Program Muhammadiyah University of Bengkulu. The research used Qualitative approach which involved the case study method. The subject of this research was English lecturer who taught the speaking for debate classes of fourth semester students academic year 2018/2019. The data was collected for 3 times for each class. The result of this research shows that the first, types of corrective feedback is recast, explicit correction and elicitation, and thesecond, lecturer often used was elicitation corrective feedback. The researcher suggested to the lecturer to give another type of corrective feedback in teaching and learning speaking for debate classes is repetition, and to students recommended to understand types of corrective feedback in speaking ability, especially when learning in the classroom. In this case, the researcher purposes the types of corrective feedback as strategies for the teacher to convey correction in many ways.

ANGGI NOVIYANTI
NPM: 1521110100

Pembimbing I:
Ivan Achmad Nurcholis, M. Pd

Pembimbing II:
Ria Anggraini, M. Hum

Penguji 1:
Drs. Epi Wadison, M. Pd

Penguji 2:
Yupika Maryansyah, M. Pd

Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris

UPT Perpustakaan

15 Oktober 2020

Universitas Muhammadiyah Bengkulu

Universitas Muhammadiyah Bengkulu

Bahasa Indonesia

Anggoro, Ipung. (2013). Corrective Feedback Found In Speaking Class at theEnglish Department of Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta. Biggs, J. (1999). What the Student Does: Teaching for Enhanced Learning.Higher Education Research & Development.Hadzic, S. (2016). Oral and Written Teacher Feedback in an English as a ForeignLanguage Classroom in Sweden. Linnaes University Swedan.Hattie & Timperley. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of EducationalResearch, vol 77, no 1, pp. 81)Hattie& Timperley.(2007). Type of Feedback. State of New South Wales,Departement of Education & Communication.Ho. P. V. P. & Duong N. T. T. (2014). The Effectivenessof Feedback onGraduate Academic Writting at Ho Chi Minh City Open University.Ho Chi Minh City Open University.Jo. Mc Donough and Christhoper Shaw. (1993). Material and Method in ELT,A Teacher’s Guide. Cambridge.Lely, Oktavia. (2013). An Analysis of Corrective Feedback in Students‟ SpeakingActivity at Senior High School. University Muhammadiyah of Gresik.Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral Feedback in Classroom SLA. McGillUniversity.Ma, Fei. (2015). A Review of Research Methods in EFL Education. Universityof Nottingham Ningbo China.Marianne, Celce-Murcia. (1991). Teaching English as a Second or a ForeignLanguage Second edition.Boston.Milani, Novie. (2009). An Analysis of CorrectiveFeedback in Speaking ClassroomAt English Department of Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.Richards, C. & Renandya, W. A. (2002) Methodology In Language Teaching.Cambridge University Press.
Surlitasari, Desi. (2015). Corrective Feedback in Speaking Class.Journal Anglosaxon, VI.Solikhah, Imroatus. (2016). Oral Corrective Feedback in Speaking Class of EnglishDepartment. Lingua. 13(1) : 87-102.Wahyu,Anggraini. (2012). The Characteristic of Teacher‟s Feedback in TheSpeaking Activities of The Grade Nine Students of SMP N 2 Depok.Yogyakarta State University.Xhomara, N. & Bara, G. (2018). The Relationship between Lecturer Feedbackabout Academic Performance and Academic Progress of Students.European Journal of Education.