THE USE OF PEER REVIEWING IN OVERCOMING PHONOLOGICAL ERRORS IN ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION

Ira Adinegara, A. M. Surachmat, Didih Faridah

Abstract


ABSTRACT

 

This study reports on the use of peer reviewing in overcoming phonological errors in English pronunciation conducted to the freshmen of English Education Program in Galuh University. Peer review is one of appropriate techniques to support students in learning speaking particularly English pronunciation. In this regard, the writers addressed some questions: 1) How does the lecturer use peer review technique in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation?, 2) What are the students’ perceptions toward the use of peer review technique in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation?, and 3) What are the benefits of peer review technique in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation?. Related to the research questions, the writers adopted qualitative approach particularly a case study as the research design. The writers conducted classroom observation, interview to an English lecturer and six students and administered a questionnaire to the students as well. In this case, the respondents were selected purposively. The results showed that the use of peer review is useful to support and motivate the students to learn well. By using peer review, students can be active in their process learning and also they can improve their critical thinking in speaking particularly in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation.

Keywords: peer review, pronunciation


Full Text:

PDF (page 1 - 17)

References


Baker, A. (1982). Introducing English pronunciation: A teacher’s guide to tree or three? and shep or sheep?. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Burns, A., & Claire, S. (2003). Clearly speaking: Pronunciation in action for teachers. Sydney: NCELTR Macquarie University.

Chen, Pi-Ching & Lin, Yi-Li. (2009). The Effect of Peer-Review and Teacher-Review in Young NNS Learners’ Guided Writing Instruction. 屏東教育大學學報-教育類 第三十二期, 3, 333-358.

Creswell, J. (2012). Education research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research 4th Ed. US: Person Education, Inc.

Forel, A. C., & Puskas, G. (2005). Phonetics and phonology: Reader for first year English linguistics. Retrieved from https://www.uni oldenburg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/anglistik/personen/cornelia.hamann/Phonology.pdf

Frisch, S. A., & Wright, R. (2002). The phonetics of phonological speech errors: An acoustic analysis of slips of the tongue. Journal of Phonetics, 30, 139–162. doi:10.1006/jpho.2002.0176

Gilakjani, A. P., & Ahmadi, M. R. (2011). Why is pronunciation so difficult to learn?. English Language Teaching, 4 (3). doi:10.5539/elt.v4n3p74

Goldrick, M. (2016). Running head: Speech errors and phonological theory. Department of Linguistics: Northwestern University.

Jahin, J. H. (2012). The effect of peer reviewing on writing apprehension and essay writing ability of prospective efl teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37 (11).

Jobbit, T. (2015). Secret paper: A practical peer review technique. International Journal of Teaching, Education and Language Learning, 2 (4), 1-11.

Luo, J. (2014). A study of mother tongue interference in pronunciation of college English learning in China. Theory and Practice in Language Studie, 4 (8), 1702-1706. doi:10.4304/tpls.4.8.1702-1706

Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think. ELT Journal, 46 (3), 274-284.

McMahon, A. (2002). An introduction to English phonology. Edinburg: University Press.

Mendonca, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (4), 745-769.

Odom, S., Glenn, B., Sanner, S., and Cannella, K. A. S. (2009). Group Peer Review as an Active Learning Strategy in a Research Course. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21 (1), 108-117.

Perlman, B., & McCann, L. I. (1998). Peer review of teaching: An overview. OTRP Instructional Research Award. Retrieved from http://teachpsych.org/resources/Documents/otrp/resources/perlman98.pdf

Rodriguez-Farrar, H. B. (2006). The teaching portfolio: A handbook for faculty teaching assistants and teaching fellow 3rd Ed. The Harriet W. Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning: Brown University.

Sachs, J. & Parsell, M. (2013). Peer review of learning and teaching in higher education. Netherlands: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-7639-5

Tigelaar, D. E. H., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., De Grave, W. S., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2006). Portfolio as a tool to stimulate teachers’ reflections. Medical Teacher, 28 (3), 277–282.

Tiono, N. I., & Yostanto, A. M. (2008). A study of english phonological errors produced by english department students. English Department, Faculty of Letters, Petra Christian University, 10 (1), 79-112.

Todd, V., & Hudson, J. C. (2007). Using graded peer evaluation to improve students’ writing skills, critical thinking ability, and comprehension of material in a principles of public relations course. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 4 (10).

Wager, E., Godlee, F., & Jefferson, T. (2002). How to survive peer review. London: BMJ Books.

Wu, Wen-Shuenn. (2006). The effect of blog peer review and teacher feedback on the revisions of EFL writers. Journal of Education and Foreign Languages and Literature, 3, 125-139.

Yang, Yu-Fen. (2010). Students' reflection on online self-correction and peer review to improve writing. Journal Computers & Education, 55 (3), 1202-1210.

Yule, G. (2010). The study of language 4th Ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Yoshizawa, S., Terano, T., & Yoshikawa, A. (2010). Analyzing the effects of peer review activities in the EFL writings. S. L. Wong et al. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computers in Education. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.25157/jall.v3i1.2618

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.  

Indexed in Google Scholar, ResearchGate