Students' self-repairs in spoken English class at UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya

The existence of self-repairs in spoken language production indicate that students have the capability in doing monitoring process. It would also be important to know whether students make self-repairs more in linguistic error category or in contextual category in their speech. The researcher would like to get information in regard of self-repair kind that occurs within students’ speaking performance of Spoken English class of UIN Sunan Ampel. The researcher would also know the availability of corrective feedback from the lecturer, to ensure that language correction comes from initiation of the students and also helped by the lecturer’s guidance. In order to find the answer of these matters, the researcher conducts a study in regard with students’ self-repairs and lecturer’s corrective feedback in Spoken English class. The study is done in qualitative method to ensure the richness of the data. The research subject is one Spoken English Class of UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya in 2016-2017 academic years, taking both the students and the lecturer as the research subject. There are total 29 individual speaking and 5 feedback sessions records collected to be analyzed in this study. The result in regard with students’ percentage of self-repairs kind shows that in term of frequency, error repair has the frequency of 65,2%, Appropriateness repair is 22,2%, and different information repair is 12,6%. While in term of availability within every students, D-repairs occurred in 13 of 29 students’ presentations (44,8%), A-repairs were done by 21 students’ in their presentations (72,4%), while E-repairs occur in 28 of 29 presentations (96,5%). It shows that the percentage shows that error repair has the most occurrences within students. Then, the data on lecturer’s feedback sessions shows that among 5 feedback sessions, 3 of them contain corrective feedback. From those lecturer’s feedbacks, there are two types of lecturer’s corrective feedback among six types available in the class: explicit correction and elicitation. In the corrective feedbacks, the lecturer mostly corrects students’ pronunciation and grammatical errors. These results show that both students do monitoring mostly in linguistic errors and the lecturer is also takes consideration in students’ linguistic error by giving corrective feedbacks