Corrective Feeback

1. Introduction

The study on corrective feedback has become an important aspect in the language writing development of the students. Through this corrective feedback it helps them to identify the errors in written output of the student. The scope of this research is the teacher which are the one giving a correction on writing output of the students. There are types corrective feedback and this are direct feedback and indirect feedback. In this research it shows how the language teacher in College of Arts and Sciences give feedback in writing output of their students. The focus of this paper is on how CF will help the students and support learner in developing written works using this corrective feedback.
(Ellis, 2009). Stated that direct feedback provides learners with explicit feedback and this is more desirable if learners do not know that the correct form. (Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005) said that in direct feedback the correct linguistic form or structure is provided above or near the linguistic error, it may include the crossing out of a word/phrase, the insertion of a missing word/phrase or the correct form or structure is provided. (Ferris & Roberts, 2001) Stated that indirect corrective feedback indicates that an error has been made in the form of underlining the error, using a code to show where the error occurred and what type of error it is, however, rather than the teacher providing an explicit correction, students are left to resolve and correct the problem that has been drawn to their attention.
The use of CF is in line with interactional hypothesis of Long’s (1983) state that interaction facilitates SLA because conversational and linguistic modifications that occur in discourse provide learners with necessary comprehensible linguistic input. This comprehensible input can take the form of corrective feedback. In writing teachers provide CF through their comments wither in written or spoken form.
Moreover Swain’s (1985) output hypothesis support conduct of corrective feedback in writing instruction. This output hypothesis claims that the act o producing language (speaking or writing) constitutes, under certain circumstances part of the process of second language learning. One of the problems of the students was in writing, teacher assess their works through correcting there papers with the use of CF. This form of assessment will give the student idea on what is the right way in writing.
There are several studies conducted of CF Bitchener, Young, Camero (2005) studied the type of corrective feedback used by teachers in determining the linguistic error of 53 learners who had only just entered a post-intermediate ESOL programme. They were predominantly mainland Chinese adult migrants, other participant include those from Sri Lanka, Romania, Iran, Turkey, Serbia, Russia, Korea, Indonesia, Taiwan, Japan, and India. Ages ranged from early twenties to late fifties, but the majority were in their late twenties and early thirties. The design that the researcher used in the research is descriptive this was done through interview and survey. These research shows learners learn best in giving feedback in their written works because they will now and they are guided on which way they need to improve. ANOVA test revealed that there was not a differential effect for any of the feedback options at the 0.05 level (F (2, 38) = 2.7, p = .081).
Liu (2008) Studied how ESL students respond and if do students make fewer errors. The study was conducted in a South-Western University in the United States. Twelve students participated the study. They were all first-year students enrolled in ENGL108, a three-unit composition class for first-year ESL students. The participants were divided into two groups six in each group. The teacher used direct feedback in the first group and indirect feedback in second group. The result showed that second draft of student in the first group was better than the second group. In the end the result show that direct feedback is most preferred in improving the written work of students and learning occur in giving CF to the student. Another study conducted by Chuang (2008) on four ways of responding to EFL students in writing class to study whether they resulted in different outcomes in term of student’s errors in writing. A total of 119 students were involved in this study. 96 of them were students enrolled in the advanced English reading and writing classes at a university in Taiwan. 23 of them were voluntary participants in this study. The students of the English reading and writing class received different kinds of feedback for the grammatical mistakes in their writing: 35 students of the advanced English reading and writing class received direct written feedback from the teacher followed by peer feedback and student-teacher conferences subsequently; the other class of 24 students received direct written feedback from the teacher and student-teacher conferences only. Another class that had 37 students received direct written correction feedback from the teacher only. The group of voluntary participants, which had 23 students serving as the control group, received no feedback on the grammatical errors in their writing. ANOVA was performed to compare the differences between the four groups before the treatments. The results showed that there were significant differences between the four groups in terms of noun endings, articles and sentence structures.
Sheen (2007) study on how to differential effect of two types of written corrective feedback (CF) and the extent to which language analytic ability mediates the effects of CF on the acquisition of articles by adult intermediate ESL learners. The participants were five native-English-speaking American teachers and their 111 intermediate-level students. The students were drawn from both international and immigrant ESL populations and represented various language and ethnic backgrounds. through 4 present the descriptive statistics for total scores for the tests taken together as well as for the scores on the dictation test, writing test, and error correction test separately over the three testing periods: pre-test, Post-test 1 (i.e., immediate post-test) and Post-test 2 (i.e., delayed post-test). A one-way ANOVA showed no statistically significant group differences in the pre-test total scores among the three groups, F(2,88) = 1.23, ns.
The revised studied showed that Corrective Feedback to help learners in their writing development can be a daunting and confusing task for teachers. Particularly complex is identifying which aspects to address in a student’s writing and how to do so to best help the learner improve. However there is no study about how the teacher gives CF to the student in BSU. None of the graduate thesis in the library of BSU dealt with CF. Thus, this study will used the types of CF used by L&L teacher in BSU. This on CF will provide baseline info on the types of CF used by teacher in this University. Specifically, the study will answer the problem given.

2. Methodology
2.1. Research Design
This study utilized the descriptive research design. It involved collecting in order to answer questions concerning on what type of corrective feedback teachers used in correcting their student in language writing. Descriptive design also called Statistical Research. This type of research is to describe the data and characteristics about what is being studied. The idea behind this type of research is to study frequencies, averages, and other statistical calculations. Although this research is highly accurate, it does not gather the causes behind a situation. Descriptive research is mainly done when a researcher wants to gain a better understanding of a topic.
2.2. Research Locale This study will be conducted at Bukidnon State University, College of Arts and Sciences. In Language and Letter Department there were 31 teachers, 21 English instructors and 9 Filipino instructors.
2.3. Research Participants
The respondent of this study are the teachers in Language and Letter Department in Bukidnon State University which are the one giving writing feedback to written works of the student. In 21 English teachers 4 of them are my respondent.
2.4. Analysis of Data

3. Presentation of Results and Discussions
Table 1
Table 1 is the result of which type of feedback used by teacher in L&L Department.
Types of Feedback Percentage

Direct feedback 58%
Indirect feedback 42%

The table shows that the teacher gave more direct feedback than indirect feedback. the result shows that 58% of the papers of the used direct feedback and 42 % used indirect feedback According to (Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005) direct feedback the correct linguistic form or structure is provided above or near the linguistic error, it may include the crossing out of a word/phrase, the insertion of a missing word/phrase or the correct form or structure is provided. In contrast, indirect corrective feedback indicates that an error has been made in the form of underlining the error, using a code to show where the error occurred and what type of error it is, however, rather than the teacher providing an explicit correction, students are left to resolve and correct the problem that has been drawn to their attention (Ferris & Roberts, 2001). Below are the sample feedback:

Paragraph 1
Direct feedback

Above you can see are the sample of direct feedback there are correction word above the error this kind of feedback is direct. The words which put above the error are the correction for example the word “were “it should be “were” and the word “you gonna use” it should be write “will be using” in future tense. Through this feedback the student will directly know what the are the error in written output.

Paragraph 2
Indirect feedback

The encircle word above are sample of indirect feedback. There are words above with certain errors in spelling for example, the word “proffessional” should be written as “professional” and the name of the person should capitalize for example “aron” should be written as “Aron”.
Another example the word “try” it should be written as “tried” in a past tense form in the sentence. By encircle the words putting lines the teacher help the students to identify the error that they committed and improve their works.