THE EFFECTS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON FLUENCY AND ACCURACY IN 4/3/2 ACTIVITY: A CASE OF STUDENTS AT ELTO SPELL-OUT PROGRAM

Muntasir Muntasir; Fadhlur Rahman; Muhammad Haekal

doi:10.24252/elite.v9i1.26526

Muntasir Muntasir Victoria University of Wellington
(ID)
Fadhlur Rahman State Islamic Institute of Lhokseumawe
(ID)
Muhammad Haekal Monash University
(AU)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24252/elite.v9i1.26526

Abstrak

ABSTRAK

Karena waktu yang terbatas dalam pembalajaran bahasa di kelas, guru tidak dapat menargetkan banyak hal bagi siswanya dalam proses belajar-mengajar. Kegiatan 4/3/2 yang semakin populer di kalangan guru bahasa Inggris, menjadi fokus pada penelitian ini. Strategi umpan balik korektif ditawarkan dalam penelitian ini sebagai salah satu cara untuk meningkatkan kegiatan 4/3/2. Ada empat partisipan yang menjadi objek dalam penelitian ini, semuanya adalah siswa spell-out English Language Training for Officials (ELTO) dari beberapa negara Asia Tenggara. Mereka menjalani kursus singkat di Victoria University of Wellington, Selandia Baru. Temuan dari penelitian ini menunjukkan peningkatan kefasihan berbicara, paling signifikan didapati dalam aktivitas 4/3/2. Kefasihan responden dalam kedua kegiatan tersebut meningkat tajam sebagai efek dari penekanan waktu pada aktivitas tersebut. Anehnya, tidak ada cukup bukti untuk mendukung klaim bahwa kedua aktivitas tersebut lebih bernilai dalam hal peningkatan akurasi berbicara. Terlepas dari kenyataan bahwa umpan balik korektif telah dimasukkan ke dalam aktivitas tersebut, hasilnya tidak menunjukkan perubahan yang signifikan. Meskipun menyesuaikan aktivitas 4/3/2 dapat membantu, itu tidak menggantikan penyesuaian prioritas aktivitas tersebut. Umpan balik yang benar tidak mengganggu peningkatan kelancaran, oleh karena itu klaim ini dibantah.

Kata Kunci: Akurasi Berbicara; Aktivitas 4/3/2; Kefasihan Berbicara; Umpan Balik.

##plugins.generic.usageStats.downloads##

##plugins.generic.usageStats.noStats##

##submission.authorBiography##

##submission.authorWithAffiliation##

Postgraduate Student at Victoria University of Wellington

Referensi

Boers, F. (2014). A reappraisal of the 4/3/2 activity. RELC Journal, 45, 221–235.

Chambers, F. (1997). What do we mean by fluency? System, 25, 535-544.

De Jong, N., & Perfetti, C. A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of ﬂuency development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 61, 533–568.

De Jong, N. H. (2018). Fluency in second language testing: Insights from different disciplines. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(3), 237-254.

Ellis R (2005) Planning and task-based performance: theory and research. In: Ellis R (ed.) Planning and Task Performance in Second Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 3–34.

Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focussed instruction on L2 acquisition. AILA review, 19(1), 18-41.

Fukuta, J. (2016). Effects of task repetition on learners’ attention orientation in L2 oral production. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 321-340.

Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL quarterly, 36(4), 543-572.

Hsu, H. C. (2019). The combined effect of task repetition and post-task transcribing on L2 speaking complexity, accuracy, and fluency. The Language Learning Journal, 47(2), 172-187.

Kormos, J., & Dénes, M. (2004). Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System, 32(2), 145-164.

Ranta, L., & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The Awareness–Practice–Feedback sequence. In R. DeKeyser (ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 141–160.

Lambert, C., Kormos, J., & Minn, D. (2016). Task repetition and second language speech processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39 (1), 167–196.

Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40, 387–417.

Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language teaching, 46(1), 1-40.

Maurice, K. (1983). The ﬂuency workshop. TESOL Newsletter, 17, 429.

Mochizuki, N., & Ortega, L. (2008). Balancing communication and grammar in beginning-level foreign language classrooms: A study of guided planning and relativization. Language Teaching Research, 12(1), 11-37.

Nassaji, H. (2016). Anniversary article interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20 (4), 535–562.

Nation, I. S. P. (1989). Improving Speaking Fluency. System, 17, 377–384.

Quinn, P. G., & Nakata, T. (2017). The timing of oral corrective feedback. In Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp. 35-47). Routledge.

Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied linguistics, 22(1), 27-57.

Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012). Effects of form‐focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of/ɹ/by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62(2), 595-633.

Samuel, I. J. (2020). Teaching Effectiveness Strategies in Reducing Anxiety During English Learning and Speaking. Psychology and Education Journal, 57(8), 1312-1318.

Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, ﬂuency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532.

Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239–273). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439-473.

Tavakoli, P., Nakatsuhara, F., & Hunter, A. M. (2020). Aspects of fluency across assessed levels of speaking proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 104(1), 169-191.

Terriche, A. A. (2017). Watch their language: Feedback provision via audio-visual recordings. International E-Journal of Advances in Education, 3(8), 329-333.

Thai, C., & Boers, F. (2016). Repeating a monologue under increasing time pressure: Effects on fluency, complexity, and accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 50, 369–393.

Tran, M. N. (2019). Scrutinizing the effects of the 4/3/2 activity: repetition, increasing time pressure, accuracy enhancement and cognitive individual differences (Doctoral dissertation, Birkbeck, University of London).

Tran, M. N., & Saito, K. (2021). Effects of the 4/3/2 activity revisited: Extending Boers (2014) and Thai & Boers (2016). Language Teaching Research, 1362168821994136.

Wang, Z. (2014). On-line time pressure manipulations (pp. 27-62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Witton-Davies, G. (2010). The role of repair in oral fluency and disfluency. Disponibile in: http://www. forex. ntu. edu. tw/files/writing/2856_40576291. pdf Vai.