perpustakaan.uns.ac.

id 1
digilib.uns.ac.id

IMPROVING STUDENTS’ PRONUNCIATION SKILL BY USING

ORAL PEER FEEDBACK
(A Classroom Action Research at the First Grade Students of English Department
of Galuh University Ciamis in the Academic Year 2013/2014)

Didih Faridah1, Joko Nurkamto 11, Ngadiso 22

English Education Program, Post Graduate School, Teacher Training and Education
Faculty, Sebelas Maret University
[email protected]

Abstract

The present study investigated the effects of oral peer feedback on students‘ improvements in
pronunciation skill and class situation. It is underpinned by a premise that peer feedback gives
students chances to share evaluative comments with peers to improve pronunciation skill. The
study took place in English Education Program of Galuh University, involving the subjects of 22
students. A three-cycle CAR study was intended to discover how oral peer feedback can improve
students‘ pronunciation skill. This problem was then broken down into five more specific sub-
questions. To get the data, achievement tests, classroom observation, interview, and questionnaire
were conducted and administered. Data from test were analyzed quantitatively by calculating the
mean scores. Meanwhile data from observation, questionnaires, and interview were analyzed
qualitatively by reducing and transforming data, displaying data, and drawing conclusion. The
results showed that students became more active as the cycle progressed. They practiced dialogues
in pairs, taking turns giving feedback to each other when mistakes were noticed. Corrective
feedback was used to correct the errors made by their peers. This activity finally led to the
improvement in the pronunciation skills. Oral peer feedback not only gave positive impact, but
was also received positive responses from the pupils. Peer feedback motivated them to have better
pronunciation, and they became more focused on practicing pronunciation because the teacher did
not correct their mistakes directly. Playing a role as feedback providers made them more critical.
Gradual improvements of students‘ achievements were evident especially in the four features. Of
the four pronunciation features taught, minimal pair sound and word stress were the most easily
increased features. Meanwhile, the most difficult ones were linking sound and intonation. During
the provision of oral peer feedback, teacher must play roles as teacher, controller, and sometimes a
feedback provider because some students felt unsure with their own feedback.

Keywords: peer feedback, collaboration, classroom atmosphere

INTRODUCTION

To be able to communicate in English, students are required to master all the

language skills and its elements. One of the English elements that is important and needs
more attention to be improved is pronunciation. Since English is a language that has no
consistency between the written codes and its saying, it is necessary for English students
to recognize English pronunciation which is mainly focused on sounds, word stress,
phrase stress, sentence stress, connected speech, and intonation.
In Pronunciation Practice I syllabus (English Education Program Syllabus, 2012),
students are expected to recognize individual sounds or groups of sounds, weak and
strong forms, intonation, and word linking. In dealing with intonation, students are also
required to practice and to be well-trained to use different types of intonation, word
stress, phrase stress, and sentence stress (intonation). Students are also required to
practice everyday English in which commit to user
meaning is normally understood, though its
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id 2
digilib.uns.ac.id

pronunciation is often difficult, for example in saying names of a country, saying

fractions, temperature, etc.
Ideally, the first grade students have to be able: (1) to pronounce the different sounds
of minimal pairs in sentences; (2) to use the pronunciation features (e.g. word stress and
phrase stress) in English to communicate with others, both in their daily conversation and
in academic situation; (3) to pronounce the linking in words and sentences; and (4) to
pronounce correct intonation in the sentences to show different type of expressions.
Regarding the purposes of the present study, a preliminary study consisting of pre-
observation, pre-questionnaire and pre-test was conducted before the action research was
implemented. Firstly, pre-observation was conducted to know the situation and condition
of pronunciation practice class in class 1E, the research site. This pre-observation was
carried out during the teaching-learning process. Through this observation, the writer (the
teacher as researcher) found some problems encountered in the classroom atmosphere.
In the initial observation, the teacher taught pronunciation with the commonly used
methods, namely lecturing and practicing. In the lectures, she explained the concepts
related to aspects of pronunciation rules that would be practiced. Meanwhile, the practice
was used to train students' pronunciation of the words being studied. In the learning
process, not all students attended the lessons; there were also still many students who did
not pay attention to the teacher‘s explanation. Many of them still talked with their friends
while some others practiced the pronunciation less-seriously.
From the pre-questionnaire, it can be drawn that almost all students sometimes faced
difficulties to pronounce different sounds between two minimal pair. In the second
statement, most students also sometimes found difficulties in pronouncing words with
different sounds in sentences. In addition, some students often felt that they did not know
how to pronounce stressed syllable in words and sentences. Some other students also
sometimes experienced it. There was even one student who completely did not know how
to practice intonation for different expressions. Further data also indicated that many
students sometimes had found difficulties in practicing linking word in sentences and to
practice intonation for different expressions. From those indications, it can be concluded
that there were still many students who found difficulties in studying some aspects of
pronunciation.
The next initial investigation was focused on the role of teachers in the learning
process. For example, it can be seen that 27% of students were sometimes still afraid of
practicing pronunciation because of the teacher's feedback or comments. In addition,
some students felt that the teacher did not activate all students when the class was
passive. Meanwhile, more than half of the students found that they could not focus on
practicing their pronunciation because the teacher discussed not only the material, but
also grammar and vocabulary. However, a small number of students sometimes lacked
focus when the teacher discussed other aspects of learning pronunciation. 27% of the
students thought that the teacher sometimes did not monitor all students when they
practiced pronunciation. A very striking fact indicated that almost 50% of students felt
neglected when the teacher explained all the time in the class. This means that students
wanted a more pleasant teaching method rather than attending courses by lecturing. Other
findings indicate that the teacher talked more in class than students did. Almost all the
students were afraid of making mistakes because of their poor pronunciation. Moreover,
most students felt that their friends had not paid attention to their performance. Other
constraint experienced by the students is that they sometimes lacked motivation because
of limited feedback given by their friends. Data from the questionnaire is also confirmed
by data from the interview to examine more deeply about the students' knowledge in
commit to user
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id 3
digilib.uns.ac.id

every aspect of pronunciation practice. Data from the interview indicated that students
found difficulties in practicing linking sounds, word linking, and intonation.
Meanwhile, data from pre-test shows that the highest score for the overall aspects
only reaches 28, it means that the average score was only 7. Meanwhile, the lowest score
is 22 which is the average only reached 5.5. This score is still very low and did not reach
the passing grade. To sum up, students‘ pronunciation needs to be improved.
In dealing with the students‘ problems in pronunciation, then writer tried to choose
oral peer feedback as the solution to overcome them. As already known by some
researchers, peer feedback or peer review can be used in improving English skills and
elements including pronunciation. Peer feedback gives positive contribution to students in
improving their pronunciation. This effect is not only for the students as the speakers, but
also for the other students as the listeners and the reviewers. As the speakers, students can
be more careful in pronouncing some words related to the topic.
The target of using oral peer-feedback is to make students aware of their competence
in spoken language, in this case pronunciation. Oral peer feedback can provide students
with some correction and feedback for making their spoken English better. Feedback
from their friends can become a challenge for their further presentation.

The Features of Pronunciation

Pronunciation involves two distinctive features at the segmental (micro) level and
the supra- segmental (macro) level. The first level, segmental level is the major focus for
pronunciation teaching (for example, minimal pairs such as fill/feel). While these features
are important, recent research has shown that when teaching focuses on supra segmental
features, learners‘ intelligibility is greatly enhanced. It is important, therefore, to provide
activities at both levels (Burns, 2003: 6). Burns (2003: 7) describes the features of
pronunciation as follows:
1. Suprasegmental features
Suprasegmental features relate to sounds at the macro level. Advances in research
have developed descriptions of the suprasegmental features of speech extending across
whole stretches of language (prosody). Linking, intonation and stress are important
features for effective pronunciation at the suprasegmental level.
1) Linking
Linking refers to the way the last sound of one word is joined to the first sound of
the next word. To produce connected speech, we run words together to link consonant to
vowel, consonant to consonant, and vowel to vowel. We also shorten some sounds and
leave others out altogether.
2) Intonation
Intonation can be defined as the melody of the language (Burns, 2003: 7), or the
music of the voice (Cunningham, 1991: xi) – the way the voice goes up and down
according to the context and meanings of the communication.
3) Word stress
Word stress relates to the prominence given to certain words in an utterance. These
focus words are stressed (made long and loud) to convey:

2. Segmental features
Segmental features relate to sounds at the micro level. They include specific sounds
within words (for example, l as in lamp, r as in ramp, a as in hat). The sound systems of
consonants, vowels or their combinations are called phonemes. Phonemes are sounds that,
commit
when pronounced incorrectly, can change the to user of the word ( Burns, 2003: 6).
meaning
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id 4
digilib.uns.ac.id

Consonant sounds can be voiced (a part of the mouth is closed and the air behind it is
released suddenly – for example, v as in van, b as in bun) – or unvoiced (air is pushed
through a narrow part of the mouth – for example, f as in fan, th as in thin). Vowels
sounds are articulated as single sounds. They can be short (for example, æ as in cat) or
long (a: as in cart). Diphthongs are two vowel sounds put together (for example, ei as in
Kate or as in boy).
In line with Burns, Florez (1998: 2) differentiates aspects of pronunciation. She
explains two groups of features are involved in pronunciation: segmental (vowels and
consonants) and suprasegmentals (stress, rhythm, adjustments in connected speech,
prominence and intonation).
The segmental features cover the learners‘ ability in differentiating sounds,
pronouncing vowel and consonant sounds and also the diphthong, whereas the
suprasegmental features cover the learners‘ ability in making the linking words, using
correct intonation in the sentences, and word stressing in sentences. In this research, the
indicators of pronunciation are as follows:
1) Students are able to pronounce the vowel sounds, consonant sounds, and diphthongs
correctly, in this case, they are able to differentiate the sounds;
2) Students are also able to recognize stressing in word, whether it is in the first,
second, third or fourth syllable;
3) Students are able to pronounce word linking in sentences.
4) Students are also able to pronounce the correct intonation in sentences, whether its
intonation go up (rising) or go down (falling).

Oral Peer Feedback

Łęska as cited in Grombczewska (2010) provides the definition of feedback: ―It is
information concerning the comprehension and reception of the speaker’s message given
by the listener.” On the basis of this definition writer assumes that feedback is the
information given back to the speaker during a conversation. Everything that students
perform and give some response to the speaker can be considered as feedback. There are
many different ways of providing classroom feedback. It can be provided in verbal and
non-verbal form. Verbal feedback can be expressed by positive or negative comments and
corrections. Non-verbal is shown by, for example, gestures or facial expressions. Harmer
(2003: 144) views that feedback as correction or assessment that can come from teacher
and students. The correction or assessment can be in form of written or spoken.
In addition, Kepner (1991: 141) as cited in Grami (2005: 3) defines feedback in
general as any procedures used to inform a learner whether an instructional response is
right or wrong. To support this view, Yang (in Zeng, 2006) defines peer feedback as
feedback given by peer. It can be in written form or spoken/oral form. Feedback can be a
critic, suggestion or even correction from their peer, in this research is oral feedback from
peer to peer‘s work or performance.
To sum up, it can be concluded that oral peer feedback is a kind of assessment or
correction, given by peer or students toward their peer‘s work or performance in spoken
or oral form. In this research, the form of peer feedback is given by students to another
orally in pronunciation practice.

Teaching Steps in Giving Oral Peer Feedback

commit to user
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id 5
digilib.uns.ac.id

This research adapted the steps of conducting peer feedback from Bitchener, et al.
(2005: 6) as follows:
1. Students take their pronunciation practices sheet and work in pair.
2. Every pair reads the dialogue on their seats. His or her peer listens to their peer‘s
practice. By having the feedback sheets first, he or she has the opportunity to correct
her or his peer‘s errors and make the correction in written form.
3. Each performance is begun by asking the student practice the dialogue in front of the
class.
4. When student make an error in pronouncing words, his or her peer gives corrective
feedback orally in order they pronounce the correct sounds.
5. After all the performances, then writer draws particular attention to errors that were
made in the indicators of sounds discrimination, word stress, word linking and
intonation.
6. At the end of the performance, all four targeted indicators of error are discussed (if
errors made in these categories) as teacher‘s confirmation on the students‘ work.

The Advantages of Oral Peer Feedback

The use of oral peer feedback in teaching pronunciation offers a number of
advantages including: increasing the timeliness of feedback, providing new learning
opportunities for both givers and receivers of feedback, humanizing the environment, and
building community (Corgan, Hammer, Margolies, & Crossley, 2004).
By asking students to provide constructive feedback to each other, teacher invites
them to participate in each other's learning and thus achieve greater understanding and
appreciation for their peers' experiences and perspectives. Moreover, by engaging
students in the feedback process, meaningful interaction increases—interaction with peers
and interaction with the content of the discussion or presentation—which subsequently
promotes students' satisfaction with the course (Richardson & Swan, 2003) and with the
instructor (Fulford & Zhang, 1998). If used effectively, both teacher and peer feedback
have the potential to increase the quality of students speaking skill, and thus the quality of
teaching learning process. Thus, feedback can raise self-esteem, encourage dialogue,
clarify goals and standards, and empower students to improve their own learning
(Dawson, Magne and Sentito, 2009).
In addition to the benefits of receiving adequate feedback, students may also benefit
from giving peer feedback. Liu, et al. (2001) propose that when asked to offer feedback
to peers, students progress beyond the cognitive processes required for completing a
given task, as they must now "read, compare, or question ideas, suggest modifications, or
even reflect on how well one's own work is compared with others". McConnell (2002)
also suggests that collaborative assessment moves students away from dependence on
instructors as the only, or major, source of judgment about the quality of learning to a
"more autonomous and independent situation where each individual develops the
experience, know-how, and skills to assess their own learning".

Review of Relevant Studies

Similar research was undertaken by some researches. Ertmer, et al. (2007) did ―An
Exploratory Study on Using Peer Feedback to Enhance the Quality of Student Online
Postings.‖ This study investigated the impact of peer feedback used as an instructional
strategy to increase the quality of students' online postings. Results suggest that the
quality of students' postings was maintained through the use of peer feedback despite
students' preferences for instructor feedback.
commit to user
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id 6
digilib.uns.ac.id

Ware, et al. (2008: 1) did the relevant research on using peer feedback in language
form of telecollaboration. They investigated specifically how and when postsecondary
learners of English and Spanish provide corrective feedback on their partners' use of the
target language in weekly asynchronous discussions by assigning them to one of two
conditions: e-tutoring, in which students were asked to provide peer feedback on any
linguistic form they perceived as incorrect; and e-partnering, in which students were not
required to provide peer feedback but could do so on their own initiative. The findings
indicate that students in both conditions preferred an inclusion of feedback on form as
part of their exchange, but such feedback only occurred when explicitly required in the e-
tutoring condition. Pedagogical implications include the need to situate peer feedback on
form within current models of telecollaboration and to assist students in using feedback
strategies such as reformulations, which do not rely on a deep understanding of the target
or native language grammar.
In another studies, Lin (2009) did ―An Investigation into Effectiveness of Peer
Feedback”. He focuses his study on investigating effectiveness of peer feedback from
communal, cognitive, cooperative and pedagogical perspectives. The results of this study
revealed that most participants believed that peer feedback positively assisted their
learning in English writing.
Regarding to some researches above, most of researchers focused their studies on the
use of peer feedback in speaking and writing class. Then writer differentiates her study in
improving students‘ pronunciation by using oral peer feedback. It is an action research to
22 students in a class of the first grade English students in Galuh University.
As already noted, teaching and assessing pronunciation can be done in various ways,
one of the ways is using oral peer feedback. There are some reasons why I used oral peer
feedback to improve students‘ pronunciation. Firstly, oral peer feedback can help students
to be confident in pronouncing the words because the assessor is their peer. In this case,
students‘ pronunciation in differentiating minimal pairs of sounds will be better because
they prepare themselves with the feedback to their own work, and they are brave enough
to practice because they are not monitored by teacher. Secondly, students will be able to
recognize their peers‘ error and automatically to correct it orally. Giving oral peer
feedback will improve students‘ pronunciation in making word stressing. Since they
correct their peer orally, it will make them aware of avoiding the mistakes in their
pronunciation. Then, through oral peer feedback, students will also improve their
attention toward their own works. It helps students pay great attention towards their
peer‘s work. Furthermore, their confidence will increase rapidly because they have
chance to evaluate and correct their pronunciation themselves before the practice is
begun. I designed the research based on the following questions:
1) How do I use oral peer feedback to improve my students‘ pronunciation skill in
class 1E of English Department in Galuh University?
a. How is oral peer feedback implemented by the students in order to improve
their peers‘ pronunciation skill?
b. How intensive is oral peer feedback given by the students so that their peers‘
pronunciation skill can be increased?
c. How do the students respond towards oral peer feedback given by their
peers?
d. Among all pronunciation features, which one is the easiest and which one is
the hardest to improve by means of oral peer feedback?
e. What are my roles during the implementation of oral peer feedback to
improve students‘ pronunciation skill?
commit to user
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id 7
digilib.uns.ac.id

METHOD
The present study followed the classroom action research traditions. It promotes
broad participation in the research process and supports action Kemmis and McTaggart
(1988) as cited in Burns (2010: 8), action research typically involves four broad phases in
a cycle of research. Data collection included test, questionnaires, interview, and
observation.
The first grade students of English Program in Galuh University in Ciamis
participated in the study. There were five classes, consisting of about 120 students. I only
chose one class as a subject of the study, class E that consisted 22 students. This class is
chosen purposively because it is the most complicated class in which the ranges of their
achievements were strictly various, from the worst to the best.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Findings
Regarding the way students conducted the oral peer feedback, based on the
observation, we found that students have been able to practice giving feedback in pairs.
Besides, confirmation from the teacher encouraged them to have self confidence in
practice class. Then, the provision of feedback has also been quite frequent in the last
cycle. It was because Oral feedback creates challenging and active class because every
student has their chance to practice. This intensive practice was also due to enough
chance given by me to practice pronunciation with their friends.
In relation to the students‘ reponses towards feedback given by their peers, this
last cycle showed that all students responded positively. They accepted the feedback from
their peers; I also found that all students have been able to provide corrective feedback
well. Several responses taken from the questionnaire can be seen below:
- Feedback from my peer motivates me to have better pronunciation.
- I can be more focus to practice my pronunciation because my teacher did not
correct my mistakes directly.
- My friends give more attention to my performance because she/he has to give me
feedback and so do I.
- I became more critical after learning pronunciation by using oral peer feedback.
From the overal sessions of observation in the last cycle, I conclude that all
features are now not quite difficult to master. Surprisingly, the features that once were
regarded difficult are no longer a hard thing to do. Based on the students‘ answers from
questionnaire items, all students got better understanding in all pronunciation features. In
the meantime, during the provision of oral peer feedback, I reduced my role as a feedback
provider. It was because my students have become more critical and knowledgeable about
the subjects being dicussed. However, of course I still taught and controlled the activity.
The study also proved that the use of peer feedback gave significant effects to
students‘ better improvements in pronunciation. The three cycles of the planned and
designed treatment indicate gradual pronunciation improvements. The following table
explains the comparative achievements of student pronunciation test of each cycle.

Table 1 The Improvement of Pronunciation Score in Cycle 1, 2, 3

Pronunciation indicators Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3

Minimal pair of sounds 7.32 7.50 7.59
Secondary and primary stress 7.32 7.45 7.55
Linking sound 6.36 6.45 7.05
Intonation commit to6.55
user 6.86 7.27
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id 8
digilib.uns.ac.id

Discussion
Peer feedback activities are process-based collaborative improvements that can
enable the students to get involved in self-generated and developed practice under the
control of teacher (see Morley, 1991). The problematic barriers in teaching pronunciation
with such conditions as students‘ lack of practice and low motivation, less conducive
classroom, and big size class, can be encountered by peer feedback since it can help
stimulate each student in small groups (peer) to freely and collaboratively give evaluative
comments to their peers‘ ways of pronouncing English words/expressions properly.
The treatment in cycle 1 indicated the teacher‘s endeavors to introduce the new
strategies of using oral peer feedback so as to overcome the identified problems faced by
the students and less productive and conducive classroom situations. Integrated and
varied task-giving strategies seemed to be significantly helpful and fruitful, though there
were still some problems in students‘ mastery in certain aspects such as linking sounds
and less conducive and cooperative classroom that was caused by high achievers‘ class
domination.
In cycle 1, to make sure that peer feedback was applicable and feasible, students‘
familiarity with the concept of oral peer feedback needed enhancing. Therefore, writer
firstly explained about the definition of oral feedback and peer feedback, the aspects, as
well as the procedures of implementation. Throughout the comprehensively and
systematically proposed and planned cyclic procedures of teaching by means of peer
feedback, the gradual improvements of students‘ pronunciation have been clearly
exposed. Cycle 2 promoted the students‘ better achievements in pronunciation and
cooperative classroom interaction and atmosphere that led to increasing achieved
betterments in cycle 3.
More specifically, in connection with the aforementioned research questions, this
study found several worth-noting findings. First, the implementation of oral peer
feedback reveals almost similar findings from the first until the last cycle. In the first
cycle, due to the unfamiliarty of oral feedback, many students seemed uneasy in
implementing the activity. They are used to getting teacher feedback in the previous
lessons. In other words, a teacher-centered activity is quite common for them in teaching
pronunciation. It was also noticed that in the first session of cycle 1, some pairs only used
non-verbal communication during the observation; they frequently showed facial
expressions that looked a little different when their friends made mistakes in
pronunciation. Consequently, students did not understand their roles as feedback
providers. However, the students became more active as the cycle progressed. They
practiced a dialogue in pairs, taking turns giving feedback to each other when mistakes
were noticed. Some pairs were sometimes confused with their feedback, so that I tried to
give some clarifications. Most of the times, students tended to give corrective feedback
directly to correct the errors made by their peers (AbuSeileek & Abualsha‘r, 2012:76).
The provision of oral peer feedback has undergone some changes in terms of its
frequency. In the very beginning of the first cycle, students got limited time to practice
giving feedback. It was because they needed to understand first about what oral peer
feedback is and how to implement it. In the subsequent sessions, the activity was more
intensive, although some students tended to be dominant feedback providers. As a
teacher, I realized that students must be given ample chances to practice giving oral
feedback. To this end, I gave them more opportunities to practice in the classroom. It has
fulfilled a requirement that ―feedback should be sufficient in frequency‖ (Gielen, et.al.,
2010:304).
commit to user
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id 9
digilib.uns.ac.id

Students‘ responses towards oral peer feedback given by their peers are also
necessary to discover. In this case, the observer and I noticed a gradual change from the
cycles. At first, all students felt quite strange with the activity. Many of them showed
disbelief towards the feedback given. They also preferred teacher feedback to peer
feedback. However, since students‘ knowledge of correct pronunciation also increased
throughout the cycles, and they also began to know more about oral peer feedback, they
finally gave positive responses. They accepted the feedback from their peers and they
also tried hard to give feedback to their peers. They claimed that peer feedback motivated
them to have better pronunciation. They also asserted that they became more focused on
practicing pronunciation because the teacher did not correct their mistakes directly. In
other words, the students no longer felt strange about the feedback given. They now used
to getting feedback from friends. When they played a role as feedback providers, they
also responded that this role made them more critical because they had to give oral
feedback to their peers. This fact is in line with Janssen and Fernandes‘ statement
(2012:1) that ―providing peer feedback is an activity that does not only support the
receiver of the feedback in his or her learning process, it is also useful for those who
provide feedback, as they have to critically analyze the work or performance of
colleagues.‖
From the four features applied during oral peer feedback, the results showed that
minimal pair sound and word stress were the most easily increased feature through oral
peer feedback. Meanwhile, the most difficult ones were linking sound and intonation. It
was due to the fact that EFL learners do not usually consider the use of linking sound and
intonation in speaking English. Even worse, minimal exposure to the target language and
contact with native speakers could also be the causes (Gilakjani, 2012:124). Surprisingly,
the features that once were regarded difficult are no longer a hard thing to do in the last
cycle. All students always and often got better understanding in all pronunciation
features.
Finally, during the provision of oral peer feedback, I played my roles as teacher and
controller. I taught my students the pronunciation concept, I directed them to give oral
feedback appropriately, and I controlled the activities of oral peer feedback. Sometimes,
especially in the first cycle, I also became feedback provider. I gave feedback to some
students who felt unsure with their own feedback. If students were let alone in giving
feedback, I was afraid of the possibility of giving incorrect feedback. It is because ―Not
all feedback leads to performance improvement‖ (Gielen, et.al., 2010:304). In the next
two cycles, I reduced my role as a feedback provider. It was because my students have
become more critical and knowledgeable about the subjects being dicussed. However, of
course I still taught and controlled the activity.
Peer feedback basically offers empowering process of students‘ active roles, which
is student-centered. The less powerful position of teacher can decrease students‘ anxiety
and other psychological barriers. The more empowering to students‘ roles, the more the
students feel secure and free in ‗enjoying‘ the lesson/subject. The students‘ active role in
assessing their own improvements in learning leads to their higher language awareness.
In pronunciation class, students deserve sufficient moments to try to practice with
their peers and at the time self-regulate themselves to learn and evaluate what they
themselves have achieved. The indication of the effect of peer feedback at the research
site to the classroom betterments was obvious. The evidences covered students‘ bravery
to try to do, and the chemistry of communicative relations in giving comments on their
pronunciation practices among them.

commit to user
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id 10
digilib.uns.ac.id

After being treated by peer feedback, the changes of continuous improvements in

classroom atmospheres reflected the least (that indicated students‘ low motivation and
reluctance) to the most (that showed cooperative classroom).
The problematic approach to teaching pronunciation to the students at the research
site has to do with the condition of big size class. It was difficult for me to proportionally
and optimally pay attention to each student‘s individual improvement. Peer feedback
treatment has helped the writer get alternative solutions. Each student gradually got
chances to share their evaluative inputs with their peers, and they deserved more rooms to
have practices and non-threatening (self) evaluations.
The use of peer feedback in teaching pronunciation can pedagogically cater for each
student‘s different needs and growths in mastering the required skills. It is so because
peer with their close relationship have less power in terms of their position in academic
authority. Socially speaking, peer feedback techniques can enable the members of the
classroom to strengthen their social relationship in- and out of the classroom.
Yet, peer feed-backing is time consuming, and needs careful planning in terms of
strategies in making groups or certain pairs of collaborative works. Other pitfalls may be
concerned with the domination of high level (or clever) achievers in classroom practice
and evaluations that discourage the lower ones.

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

The findings of the present study, generated from a classroom action research,
revealed that the use of oral peer feedback in teaching pronunciation can overcome
students‘ problems in mastering pronunciation aspects/elements as well as less conducive
classroom atmosphere. More specifically, throughout the cyclic programs, the significant
beneficial effects of the use of peer feedback on the improvements of teaching
pronunciation include such points as pronunciation of minimal pairs, word stress, linking
sounds, and intonation.
In addition, the more conducive classroom atmosphere suggested such following
indicators as democratic classroom, non-threatening classroom interaction (among
students, and between teacher and students), students‘ self-confidence and high
motivation in trying to express ideas, and student empowerment.
The present study is actually limited to the time allotment in giving the treatment,
sophisticated technology, and the writer‘s (the teacher as researcher) subjective
perspectives in some cases. Therefore, the further study is suggested to focus more on
longer time of giving treatment, the use of high technology (internet-based teaching, for
example), and the influence of gender on the results of the study.

REFERENCES

Abuseileek, A. & Abualshar, A. (2014). Using Peer Computer-Mediated Corrective

Feedback to Support EFL Learners‘ Writing. Journal of Language Learning and
Technology, Vol.18, No.1, February 2014.
Bennet, Kat Bradley. (2007) Teaching Pronunciation –Objectives/Instructions.
Bitchener, John., Stuart, Young, and Cameron, Denise. (2005). The effect of different
types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second
Language Writing. 14. 191–205.
Bogdan, Robert C. Sari Knopp Bliken.(1982). Qualitative Research for Education: An
Introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bowler, Bill and Cuningham, Sarah. (1991). Headway Upper Intermediate
Pronunciation. Oxford: Oxfordcommit to user
University Press.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id 11
digilib.uns.ac.id

Brown, Douglas H. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. San

Fransisco State University: Addison Weley Longman.
Burns, Anne. (2010). Doing Action Research in English Language Teaching. New York:
Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Burns, Anne. (1999). Collaborative Action Research for English Language Teachers.
U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Burns, Anne and Claire, Stephanie. (2003). Clearly speaking: pronunciation in action for
teachers. Sydney: Macquarie University.
Cantillon, Peter & Sargeant, Joan (2008). Giving feedback in clinical settings. Retrieved
from BMJ 2008;337:a1961 doi:10.1136/bmj.a1961
Cho, N. H. (2011) An exploration of the nature of teacher/peer feedback interactions on
pre-sessional English for academic purposes (EAP) courses in UK higher
education. PhD Thesis. Oxford Brookes University.
Crook, Anne. __. Peer-Assessed Oral Presentations: A quick method to generate
feedback for individual presentation in bioscience. CDOTL.
Cunningham, Sarah & Bowler, Bill. (1991). Headway-Intermediate Pronunciation.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Darlington, Yvonne., & Scott, Dorothy. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Stories
from the field. Australia: Allen and Unwin.
Fraenkle, Jack R. and Norman E. Wallen. (2000). How to Design and Evaluate Research
in Education. San Fransisco: San Fransisco University Press.
Fraser, H. (2000). Coordinating Improvements in Pronunciation Teaching for
Adult Learners of English as a Second Language. Canberra: DETYA (ANTA
Innovative Project).
Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P. & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the
Effectiveness of Peer Feedback for Learning. Journal of Learning and
Instruction, Vol.20, pp. 304-315, Elsevier Ltd.
Gilakjani, A.P. (2012). A Study of Factors Affecting EFL Learners‘ English
Pronunciation Learning and the Strategies for Instruction. International Journal
of Humanities and Social Science, Vol.2, No.3, February 2012.
Gilbert, Judy B. (2008). Teaching Pronunciation Using the Prosody Pyramid.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grami, M. A (2004). The Effect of Teachers‘ Written Feedback on ESL Students‘
Writing: A Study on a Saudi ESL University-Level Context, University of
Essex:Unpublished MA Dissertation.
Greenwood, Davyd J. and Morten Levin. 1998. Introduction to Action Research.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.
Harmer, Jeremy. (2003). The Practice of English language Teaching. London: Pearson,
Longman.
Harris, Kerri- Lee., Farrel, Kelly., Bell, Maureen., Devlin, Marcia., and James, Richard.
(2008). Peer Review of Teaching in Australian Higher Education: Resources to
support institutions in developing and embedding
effective policies and practices. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne.
Hoepfl, Marie C. (1997). Choosing Qualitative Research: A Primer of Technology
Education. Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu./journal/JTE/9n1/hoepfl/html.
Indriani, M.I. (2005). English Pronunciation. The English Speech Sounds, Theory &
Practice. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
Janssen, N.V.H., & Fernandes, J.M. (2012). Peer Feedback: Quality and Quantity in
Large Groups. Presented at SEFI 4th Annual Conference, September 2012,
Thessaloniki, Greece. commit to user
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id 12
digilib.uns.ac.id

Kelly, Gerald. (2000). How to Teach Pronunciation. London: Longman, Pearson

Education Limited.
Kemmis Stephen and Taggart, Robbin Mc. (1988). The Action Research Reader.
Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Kennedy, Sara. (2003). Oral Corrective Feedback in an ESL Classroom: Training
Quebec Francophone Learners in the Pronunciation of th-. Canada: ProQuest
Information and Learning.
Kenworthy, Joanne. (1988). Teaching English Pronunciation. New York: Longman
Group UK Limited.
Key, James P. (1997). Other Gathering Tool for a Research Investigation. Oklahoma
State University. Retrived from http://edu
/egendem4h/academic/aged_5980a/new_ page_R9.html.
Koshy, Valsa. (2005). Action Research for Improving Practice. London: Paul Chapman
Publishing.
Kreidler, Charles W., (2004). The pronunciation of English : a course book. Second
editon. Australia: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Laroy, Clement. (1995). Pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Liu, N. and Carless, D. (2006) Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment.
Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), pp.279-290. Retrieved from
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/13562517.asp on Saturday,January 19,
2013 02.07 p.m.
Lodico, M. G., Dean T. Spaulding, and Katherine H. Voegtle. (2010). Methods in
Educational Research. San Fransisco: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Mack, Natasha., Woodsong, Cynthia,. M. Macqueen, Kathleen., Guest, Greg., Namey,
Emily. (2005). Qualitative research methods: a data collector’s field guide. USA:
Family Health International.
Mackey, A. and Susan M. Gass. (2005). Second Language Research: Methodology and
Design. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Mcniff, Jean & Whitehead, Jack. (2006). All You Need to Know about Action Research.
London: Sage Publication ltd.
Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the Development of Children's
Thinking. London: Routledge.
Mills, Geoffrey. (2003). Action Research: A Guide for The Teacher Researcher. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Nunan, David. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nunan, David. (1999). Second Language Teaching and Learning. Massachusets: Heinle
& Heinle Publisher.
Richards, Jack C. (2008). Teaching Listening and Speaking; from Theory to Practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sadler, D.R. (1989) Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems,
Instructional Science,18 (2), 119-144.
Stringer, Ernest T., Christensen, Lois McFadyen., Baldwin, Shelia C. (2010). Integrating
teaching, learning, and action research: enhancing instruction in the K–12
classroom. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.
Stake, Robert E. (2010). Qualitative Research: Studying How things Work. New York:
Guilfor Publications, Inc.
Tomal, Daniel R. (2010). Action Research for Educators. USA: Rowman & Littlefield
Education
commit to user
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id 13
digilib.uns.ac.id

White, Eddy. (2009). Student Perspectives of Peer Assessment for Learning in a Public
Speaking course. Asian EFL Journal, 33.

commit to user