The particular dialect or language that a person chooses to use on any occasion is called a code 695 Copyright © 2022 The Author IDEAS is licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 License Issued by English study program of IAIN Palopo IDEAS Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) Volume 10, Number 1, June 2022 pp.695 - 706 The Teachers’ Corrective Feedbacks on the Students’ Grammatical Errors in their Written Descriptive Text and Their Response. Harianto1, Ratna Dewi2 Radiah Hamid3 hari19anto75@gmail.com 123Muhammadiyah University of Makassar ABSTRACT This study aimed to find out (1) The teachers’ feedbacks on the students’ grammatical errors in the students’ descriptive text; (2) The students’ responses towards the teachers’ grammatical feedbacks in their descriptive text. The research design is Descriptive Qualitative Research conducted at SMP 1 Ma’rang Pangkep. The subject of research was three English teachers and thirty students who were selected by Purposive Sampling Technique. The instrument of data collected were teachers’ corrective feedback and the student’s response from the descriptive text. The result of the research showed that corrective feedback on the students’ grammatical errors in descriptive texts was more dominant in syntax errors, in this case mis formation errors. These errors occurred because of student’s mother tongue interference. The students still confused to choose the right word in a sentence because of the lack of knowledge or poor vocabularies and its used. Besides that, some students tried to translate the words one by one from Indonesian language into English without paying attention to the English structure rules. Students’ response by imitating the teacher's corrective feedback. Because they were aware that the parts which were given feedback were incorrect and they agreed with the correction suggested by the teacher. Thus, they directly imitated the corrections and did not change any other parts. And a few students ignore. Key words: grammatical error, corrective feedback, descriptive text http://u.lipi.go.id/1457703302 mailto:hari19anto75@gmail.com Harianto, Ratna Dewi, Radiah Hamid The Teachers’ Corrective Feedbacks on the Students’ Grammatical Errors in their Written Descriptive Text and Their Response. 696 Introduction In language classroom, there will always be failure or errors during the learning process. Teachers’ feedback is provided to learners to correct their errors. Corrective feedback, according to Larsen and Freeman (2011:262), is negative evidence provided to learners which is used to correct their misconception about some aspects of the target language. It means that teachers’ feedback indicates the learners’ misunderstanding or wrong hypothesis about aspects of a language which can be in grammar, spelling, and others. The indication or evidence then can be utilized to repair their language production. On the other hand, corrective feedback definition can be specified in the scope of grammar matter only. Sheen (2007) in Rassaei and Moinzadeh (2011:97) defines corrective feedback as a teacher’s act that invites a learner to attend to grammatical accuracy of the utterance produced by learners. In addition, Pawlak (2014:6) says that corrective feedback refers to teachers’ response to incorrect language forms. Pawlak further explain that this corrective feedback can be given to students’ speech and writing. Both have similar notions that corrective feedback is focused on language forms or grammatical accuracy. Teachers’ corrective feedback in EFL classroom is very important and influential for students’ language development. Brown (2000:275) states that in EFL context, teachers provide useful linguistic feedback and their students are and Abeywickrama (2010:7) assert that corrective feedback also functions as a dependent on them because students cannot get it in real life. In addition, Brown and Abeywickrama (2010:7) assert that corrective feedback also functions as a formative assessment to help students improve their language for continuation of learning. Therefore, when students make errors, corrective feedback from teachers can direct them to notice it and stimulate them to repair it for learning growth. Further, teachers’ feedback results improvement on students’ competence. Chandler (2002:270) states that teachers’ feedback improves language accuracy overtime. It means that the benefit of giving correction on students’ works cannot occur a blink of eyes. It takes time for teacher and students starting from giving correction, instructing student to notice it and make use of it. Thus, once it is practiced, students should be given chances to learn and internalize the correction to result the positive effect. Teachers’ feedback on grammatical errors can be in written forms. Meanwhile, written ones are performed in print, permanent and concrete. Moreover, based on preliminary research, many task or assignments in schools in Pangkep regency. These days are in written form such as doing excercises from textbooks, completing LKS and others. Therefore, written teachers’ feedback on grammatical errors considerably deserves attention in language teaching. IDEAS, Vol. 10, No. 1, June 2022 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 697 There were some researchers which had been conducted related to the teachers’ feedbacks on the students’ errors of grammar in writing classroom. Nassaji (2019) analyzed correcting students’ written grammatical errors: The effects of negotiated versus non negotiated feedback, This classroom-based on study examined the effects of oral negotiation in addressing L2 written errors. Data was collected in two intermediate adult English as a second language classes. Feedback with limited negotiation (i.e.,prompt + reformulation) and feedback with negotiation. The linguistic targets chosen were the two most common grammatical errors in English: articles and prepositions. The effects of feedback were measured by means of learner-specific error identification / correction tasks administered three days, and again ten days, after the treatment. The results showed an overall advantage for feedback that involved negotiation. However, a comparison of data per error types showed that the differential effects of feedback types were mainly apparent for article errors rather than preposition errors. These results suggest that while negotiated feedback may play an important role in addressing L2 written errors, the degree of its effects may differ for different linguistic targets. Maria (2017) analyzed errors and corrective feedback in writing: implications to our classroom practices. This action research endeavors to survey prevalent attitudes of teachers and students toward corrective feedback and examine their implications to classroom practices. This paper poses the major problem: How do teachers perspectives on corrective feedback match the students views and expectations about error treatment in their writing? Results showed that there are differing perceptions of teachers and students regarding corrective feedback. Next, Mareta (2020) analyzed written corrective feedback on EFL students at an islamic junior high school. This study aimed to investigate the types of corrective feedback that the teacher used in teaching writing recount text, this also employed to reveal the students' motivation for writing recount texts, and to explore the benefit of teacher corrective feedback to the students' ability in writing recount text at Man Baul Huda Islamic Junior High School Central Java Indonesia. The findings of this study turned out that the teacher employed indirect corrective feedback and gave symbols to the student’s error production. Most of the students are highly motivated to be able to write a status on face book or other online media by using English. The most important advantage of obtaining corrective feedback for the students is to understand the use of grammar in making a sentence and increase Harianto, Ratna Dewi, Radiah Hamid The Teachers’ Corrective Feedbacks on the Students’ Grammatical Errors in their Written Descriptive Text and Their Response. 698 their ability in writing English. Royani (2019) did a research an analysis of grammatical errors in students’ writing descriptive text. Researcher believes that grammar is really important in writing that is why he suggested to consult grammar books to make the writing grammatically correct. Therefore, the data was analyzed based on the error analysis’s of students in writing. From the result finding, students were suggested to learn more about English grammar. In learning process, the students still make errors in their descriptive text, especially in the use of grammar as the researcher experienced. This problem is also faced by the students at SMP 1 Ma'rang Kab. Pangkep. Sometimes, although the students have studied grammar, the students seem still to be unaware of grammatical rules in writing. Based on the previous research and explanation above, the researcher wants to conduct a research which is entitled “the teachers’ corrective feedbacks on the students’ grammatical errors in their descriptive text and their response”. Method In this study, the researcher used the descriptive qualitative design, because it describes the teachers’ corrective feedbacks on the students’ grammatical errors in their written descriptive text and their response towards the teachers’ grammatical feedbacks at State Junior High School 1 Ma’rang Pangkep Regency where the students do not have good skill in writing descriptive text and it could be seen from their writing descriptive text. Therefore the researcher selected this title because it conveyed a broader understanding of the grammatical errors in students’ writing descriptive text. The data was collected in the form of texts. Result and Discussion the findings and discussion which answer the question previously formulated in the research question. The first question concerns with corrective feedback provided by teacher on students' grammatical errors in descriptive text. The second question concerns with students' responses towards teachers’ corrective feedback. The results are presented in the following order: (1) teacher corrective feedback, and (2) students' responses. IDEAS, Vol. 10, No. 1, June 2022 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 699 Teachers’ Corrective Feedbacks on the Students’ Grammatical Errors in their Descriptive Text. Teachers’ Corrective Feedbacks were given in written form. This can be seen through the students’ descriptive text that was revised by the teacher. Minimal marking was applied to the whole students’ descriptive texts revised by the teacher. The teacher gave corrections on each student’s work. Based on, the teacher’s correction in the students descriptive text, it is found some errors such as; Teachers’ Corrective Feedbacks on Morphological Errors 1). Teacher’s Feedback on Indefinite Article Errors The error made by omitting article an. It had been three students’ grammatical errors Iqbal Ramadhan is Artist* ( S1) The correct sentence is Iqbal Ramadhan is an artist Teacher’s corrective feedback to the student is by directly putting article an before the word artist. Prabowo is president Indonesia* (S2) The correct sentence is Prabowo is a president. Teacher’s corrective feedback to the student is by directly putting article a before the word president. Lionel Messi is football player* (S3) The correct sentence is Lionel Messi is a football player. Teacher’s corrective feedback to the student is by directly putting article a before the word football. 2.) Teacher’s Feedback on Possesive case incorrect or omission The error made by omitting of ‘s. It had been two students’ grammatical errors Eye ball elephant* (S1) The correct sentence is Harianto, Ratna Dewi, Radiah Hamid The Teachers’ Corrective Feedbacks on the Students’ Grammatical Errors in their Written Descriptive Text and Their Response. 700 Elepant’s eye ball Teacher’s corrective feedback to the student is given by directly putting possessive’s at elephant. Cat hat’s ground* (S2) The correct sentence is Cat’s hat is round Teacher’s corrective feedback to the student is given by directly putting apostrope’s at cat word. 3). Teacher’s Feedback on Regular Past Tense Error The error made is by omitting the suffix – ed on verb. It had been one student’ s grammatical errors She play bowling yesterday* (S1) The correct sentence is She played bowling yesterday Teacher’s corrective feedback to the student is given by directly putting ed at the end of the word play. Teachers’ Corrective Feedbacks on Syntax Errors 1). Teacher’s Feedback on Verb Phrase Errors The error made by omitting of main verb It had been two students’ grammatical errors He performance good* (S1) The correct sentence is He has good performance. Teacher’s corrective feedback to the student is by directly putting main verb has after subject he. . cow feet four* (S2) The correct sentence is Cow has four feet. Teacher’s corrective feedback to the student is by directly putting main verb has after subject cow. IDEAS, Vol. 10, No. 1, June 2022 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 701 2). Teacher’s Feedback on Verb Phrase Errors The error made by omitting of to be It had been two students’ grammatical errors He very good* (S1) The correct sentence is He is very good. Teacher’s corrective feedback to the student is by directly putting to be after subject he. Who polite* (S2) The correct sentence is Who is polite. Teacher’s corrective feedback to the student is by directly putting to be after subject. a. Misformation Errors Misformation errors is the wrong form of the structure. Misordering errors occurs when the writer put an item in the incorrect place in a construction. It had been twenty students’ grammatical errors : Has eleven friend …* (S1) The correct sentence is Has eleven friends. Teacher’s corrective feedback to the student is by directly putting s at the end of friend word. many colors kind…..* (S2) The correct sentence is many kinds of colors. Teacher’s corrective feedback to the student is by directly putting of after the word kind. Harianto, Ratna Dewi, Radiah Hamid The Teachers’ Corrective Feedbacks on the Students’ Grammatical Errors in their Written Descriptive Text and Their Response. 702 animal kind carnivore* (S3) The correct sentence is Kind of carnivore animal. Teacher’s corrective feedback to the student is by directly putting of after the word kind. Tiger is animal that have big body* (S4) The correct sentence is Tiger is animal that has big body. Teacher’s corrective feedback to the student is by directly changing have become has after the word that. She have two ear which long and board* (S5) The correct sentence is She has two ears with long beard. Teacher’s corrective feedback to the student is by directly changing have become has after noun. Hi have two eye* (S6) The correct sentence is He has two eyes. Teacher’s corrective feedback to the student is by directly changing have become has after noun. Cat have four feet* (S7) The correct sentence is Cat has four feet. Teacher’s corrective feedback to the student is by directly changing have become has after noun. he to have …….. able to fly and have * (S8) The correct sentence is He has to…..able to fly and has. Teacher’s corrective feedback to the student is by directly changing have become has after noun. IDEAS, Vol. 10, No. 1, June 2022 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 703 tiger is animal that have…* (S9) The correct sentence is Tiger is animal that has... Teacher’s corrective feedback to the student is by directly changing have become has after noun. cat have nose one.* (S10) The correct sentence is Cat has one nose. Teacher’s corrective feedback to the student is by directly changing have become has after noun. ....have for leg, have one nausea* (S11) The correct sentence is .... Has four legs, has one nose. Teacher’s corrective feedback to the student is by directly changing have become has after noun. he have leg* (S12) The correct sentence is He has four legs. Teacher’s corrective feedback to the student is by directly changing have become has after noun. the cat,..they’re have…* (S13) The correct sentence is The cat …..it has ….. Teacher’s corrective feedback to the student is by directly changing have become has after noun. drink cat is milk..* (S14) Harianto, Ratna Dewi, Radiah Hamid The Teachers’ Corrective Feedbacks on the Students’ Grammatical Errors in their Written Descriptive Text and Their Response. 704 The correct sentence is Cat has milk drink. Teacher’s corrective feedback to the student is by directly changing have become has after noun. Uncnake have …* (S15) The correct sentence is A snake has…... Teacher’s corrective feedback to the students is by directly changing have become has after noun. Owl is animal hagher* (S16) The correct sentence is Owl is higher animal. Teacher’s corrective feedback to the student is by directly rearranging the sentence. They is very easy get angry* (S17) The correct sentence is They are very easy to get angry. Teacher’s corrective feedback to the student is by directly putting to be are after the subject. She is like eat fish* (S18) The correct sentence is She likes to eat fish. Teacher’s corrective feedback to the student is by directly putting to infinitive between the two verbs. player from Argentina…..* (S19) The correct sentence is The player is from Argentina. Teacher’s corrective feedback to the student is by directly putting article the. IDEAS, Vol. 10, No. 1, June 2022 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 705 ...and the eyes, the eyes kitten is the big, and the bright.* (S20) The correct sentence is ...and the eyes, the kitten eyes are big and bright. Teacher’s corrective feedback to the student is by directly omitting article the. Discussion The result of the error analysis research showed that the students’ misformation errors based on the third person singular, simple present and past tense. Addition errors occur because the students add an item or some items that must appear in the sentence. Meilia who is also supported by Sulistyawati (2011) classified the types of addition error and researcher finds misformation error in the analysis. Conclusion The result of the research showed that corrective feedback on the students’ grammatical errors in descriptive texts was more dominant in syntax errors, in this case mis formation errors. These errors occurred because of student’s mother tongue interference. The students still confused to choose the right word in a sentence because of the lack of knowledge or poor vocabularies and its used. Besides that, some students tried to translate the words one by one from Indonesian language into English without paying attention to the English structure rules. Students’ response by imitating the teacher's corrective feedback. Because they were aware that the parts which were given feedback were incorrect and they agreed with the correction suggested by the teacher. Thus, they directly imitated the corrections and did not change any other parts. And a few students ignore Refernces Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New York: Pearsong Education Press. Brown, H. D. & Abeywickrama, P. (2010). Language assessment: principles andclassroom practice (2nd ed.). New York: Pearson Education Inc. Chandler, Daniel. 2002. Semiotics: The Basic. New York, USA: Routhledge. Harianto, Ratna Dewi, Radiah Hamid The Teachers’ Corrective Feedbacks on the Students’ Grammatical Errors in their Written Descriptive Text and Their Response. 706 Larsen-Freeman (2011). A Complexity Theory Approach to Second Language Development / Acquisition. University of Michigan Mareta (2018). Corrective Feedback in English Class. Center of Language and Culture Studies, 3(3), 111–122. https://doi.org/10.30957/ijotl- tl.v3i3.502 Maria. (2017). Kesalahan Leksikal dan Akurasi dalam Peulisan Bahasa Asing Inggris. Masalah Multibahasa. Nassaji - Science & Education, 2019 - Springer Pawlak, (2014). “Error Correction in the Foreign Language Classroom” Spinger Link. Rassai, E., & Moinzadeh, A. (2011). Investigating the Effects of Three Types of Corrective Feedback on the Acquisition of English Wh-question Forms by Iranian EFLLearners. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 97-106. Royani, M. (2019). The implementation of local wisdom-based learninf and hots- based assessment: Teacher survey in Banjarmasin. Jurnal pendidikan biologi Indonesia. 5(3): halaman 407-414. Sulistyawati, A. D. 2011. Asuhan Kebidanan Pada Ibu Bersalin. Jakarta: alemba Medika https://doi.org/10.30957/ijotl-