58 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research ABSTRACT During instruction, a communication starts when the teacher imparts knowledge to the students. When the students absorb the information, process it and give feedback, they undergo a communication process. The study aimed to determine the extent of usage of teacher’s feedback in the classroom interactions among Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEEd) students to maximize learning. Frequency counts, frequency percentage, mean and simple correlation analysis were utilized as statistical tools. As a whole, verbal criticisms were often used in Fourth Year while it is sometimes used in the other three-year levels. In general, written feedback was often witnessed in Fourth Year while written response was sometimes observed in the other college levels. Teachers apply more verbal reactions in classroom interactions followed by written and non- verbal feedbacks. Age is significantly related to written opinions. Teachers who have more teaching experiences give more written feedbacks than teachers with less teaching experience. Hence, the type of feedback which was always used in classroom interaction as perceived by the students was written replies while the most often used feedback given by the teacher was verbal feedbacks. There is a significant relationship between the teacher’s profile on age, gender, civil status, educational attainment, subject taught and the length of service and the extent of the use of feedback in classroom interactions. Feed backing: A Classroom Interaction Tool in Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEEd) Classes ROBERTO Q. ROLDAN JR. http://orcid.org 0000-0003-2268-8371 hannah.tamayo@gmail.com Abra State Institute of Sciences and Technology Vol. 21 · June 2015 Print ISSN 2012-3981 • Online ISSN 2244-0445 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7719/jpair.v21i1.328 Journal Impact: H Index = 2 from Publish or Perish JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research is produced by PAIR, an ISO 9001:2008 QMS certified by AJA Registrars, Inc. 59 International Peer Reviewed Journal Keywords – Education, rejoinders, classroom intervention, descriptive design, Abra, Philippines INTRODUCTION “In a classroom setting, there are two persons involved, the teacher and the students. The teacher serves as a guide and the students are the center of teaching (Acero, 2007). Feed backing is a response of the learners to the teacher’s message. It is either positive or negative. Feedback is vital in the communication process because it constitutes the last part of the process, and it manifests whether the receivers understand the sender’s message or not. Feedbacks can be verbal, written and non-verbal. Pavlović (2004) explained that learning is viewed as a construction process not as knowledge transmission and emphasis is placed on the importance of the “zone of subsequent development for asymmetric partner communication in the process of building up knowledge”.  This means that a mutual relationship of respect is needed for the evolution of knowledge within the learning process. Moreover, communication among teachers has also an effect on the teaching-learning process as elucidated by the study of Guin (2004) which mentioned “it is clear schools with high teacher turnover rates have difficulty planning and implementing a coherent curriculum and sustaining positive working relationships among teachers”.  Communication undergoes different stages when the sender sends the message to the receiver. The stages are as follows: 1. Sender-is the entity that conveys or sends a message. The message is what is being transmitted from the sender to receiver. 2. Encoding-is a process through which messages are being sent. 3. Receiver-is the entity that receives the message. 4. Decoding-is the process in which the message is translated, and meaning is generated out of it. 5. Feedback-the process through which receiver sends the response (Rahman, Babu, & Ashrafuzzaman, 2011). The process of communication according to Rahman et al. (2011) can be further illustrated in this manner: 60 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Figure 1. Process of Feed backing Feed backing is a tool by the teacher for improving classroom interaction with the students, thus, enhancing student’s performance. Teachers are most often thought as sources of feedback. Teachers’ feedback reaction includes praising, criticizing, asking a question and commenting (Karim & Ivy, 2011). It is being observed that some teachers dominate the class by giving a lecture while the students are just passive receivers. The teacher monopolizes the discussion making the students find the class boring and frustrating. However, when the teacher gives feedback to the students, it motivates them to participate in the discussion. When the classroom interaction becomes active and alive, the teaching- learning becomes operational. Classroom interaction is the key to reach the different goals in education (Tuan & Nhu, 2010). Teacher Talking Time (TTT) is the time spent by the teacher in talking in class wherein many modern approaches aims to reduce the amount of teacher talking time to allow learners the opportunity to speak and learn. Feed backing maximizes students’ talking time, not teacher talking all the time. This is well recognized by the study of Abdrafikova  and Konopatskaya  (2014) which diagnose communicative, social, occupational and educational cognitive motives and motives of self-actualization and in the process avoiding failure. There are three kinds of feedback: verbal, written and non-verbal. Verbal feedbacks are spoken such as asking questions and giving comments. The written feedbacks are provided by the teacher to students’ written works such as comments to quizzes or written composition. The non- verbal feedbacks include gestures, smile and sigh. Verbal, written and non- verbal feedbacks are used in everyday classroom interactions. Ramaprasad (1983) states that feedback provides students a way to alter the gap between current performance and ideal. The feedback or information given Channel RECEIVER (DECODES) Message SENDER (ENCODES) Message Feedback Feedback 61 International Peer Reviewed Journal by the teacher helps students to study well. It can improve learning habits and enhance the student’s performance in school. This is made real by the study of Mellati and Khademi (2015) whose results suggested that a significant proportion of the total variations in learners’ outcomes were predicted by teachers’ sources of pedagogical beliefs and teachers’ teaching experiences.  According to Chickering and Gamson (1989), “knowing what you know and don’t know focuses your learning. It implies that feed backing can provide an improvement on student’s performance and accelerate learning. Furthermore, feedback is beneficial to both teacher and students. For the teacher, he will be able to diagnose his students’ problem and needs, solve current problems and improve classroom learning through feedback. For the students, feed backing can motivate them to study harder. This is explicated in the paper of Biondo Salomão (2011) which utilized reflective teaching paradigm and collaborative language learning with special emphasis on tandem learning, to determine the contributions of the collaborative relationship established between the graduate student and the student-teacher in her first teaching experience. Furthermore, Torrance and Pryor (1998) characterized feedback in terms of rewards and praise, rather than developing an idea that can motivate students to learn. Through rewards and praises, students are motivated to focus on positive gain in his or her studies. Roehrs, Maftum and Stefanelli (2007) elaborates this by saying that when teacher acknowledges the therapeutic function in communication, it progresses the interpersonal relationship between teacher and teenage student. To improve teacher-student relationship, non-verbal communication not just verbal should be stressed in teaching English in college classrooms (Huang, 2011). Furthermore, Van Vooren and Bess (2013) also demonstrated the prominence of communication in improving teacher-student relationship by young teenagers preferring Twitter as a mode of communication with their teacher which results to higher academic achievement in a middle school science class. In like manner, the researcher also experienced and observed that many teachers emphasized more verbal communication in the teaching-learning process which means that it is evident that the other forms of feedbacks are least utilized. It is perceived that the literature speaks of ways to improve the relationship between teacher and students, as well as academic achievement, using different modes of communication. It has been accomplished in 2009 by Assis and Teixeira whose inquiry on the tripartite relationship of teacher/student/text produced the student motivation and their development as critical and reflective people able to act in their social environment. 62 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research In line with these varying results of studies and the researcher’s experience, the researcher wants to know the extent of usage of teacher’s feedback in the classroom interactions among BEEd students to maximize learning. FRAMEWORK Lourdes (2010) elaborated that in utilizing feed backing, teachers are walking in a delicate tightrope between building students up or tearing them down. As a tool, feed backing can, therefore, shape the behavior of the students. Burrhus Frederic Skinner (1938) best described it when he said “Reinforcers can be positive or negative, and both are used to strengthen behavior”. In connection, Skinner’s behavior modification served as one of the bases of the study. Besides, Coello and Vásquez-Rizo (2008) described a comprehensive analysis of situations that occur in the teaching-learning process and how one of the key players in that process; namely, the student, has a decisive influence on how the teacher’s effectiveness is evaluated. The researcher wants to find out if the profile of faculty of Abra State Institute of Sciences and Technology has a significant influence in their usage of the different forms of feedbacks. The process of conducting this paper could be illustrated in this manner. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY The study focused on feedback as a classroom tool in the teaching learning process within the BEEd students and their teacher education instructors. Specifically, it aimed to seek clarity on the following: a) The profile of the teacher respondents in terms of age, gender, civil status, educational attainment, subject taught and length of service; b) The extent of usage of feed backing in classroom interactions as perceived by student and teacher respondents along verbal feedbacks, written feedbacks and non-verbal feedbacks; and c) The significant relationship between the profile of the teachers and the extent of use of feed backing in classroom interactions. The study will enlightened the researcher which among the types of feedbacks is being utilized and which feature within the types of feedback is commonly used in classroom interaction. 63 International Peer Reviewed Journal METHODOLOGY The study utilized the descriptive correlation to determine the extent of usage of feedback in classroom interactions among BEEd students. It also determined the relationship between teacher’s profile and their perception on the extent of usage of feedbacks in classroom interaction. The respondents of the study involved 19 faculty of CTE and 138 BEEd students: 44 First Year, 38 Second Year, 21 Third Year, and 35 Fourth Year. The research instruments used in gathering data were checklist and questionnaire, formulated by the researcher. The checklist identified the forms of feedbacks observed by the students from the teachers while the questionnaire measured the extent of usage of feedbacks during classroom interactions. The researcher formulated the checklist and questionnaire which was validated by the statistician and edited by the critic. The researcher got the number of all BEEd student respondents from the Registrar’s Office. The method used in the selection of the respondents was random sampling through the use of a scientific calculator. All teachers in CTEHT were taken as total enumeration. The letter was addressed to the dean and chairman to ask permission to conduct the study in the College of Teacher Education and Home Technology (CTEHT). The data-gathering tools were floated to the respondents during the last week of November 2012. Answers to the checklists and questionnaires were tallied, tabulated and subjected to statistical analyzes such as frequency, percentage, weighted means, and bivariate correlations. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Profile of the CTE Teacher-Respondents Ten out of 19 teacher respondents belong to the middle age group with a percentage of 52.63%. Most of the College of Teacher Education professors are young. The distribution of CTE teachers according to gender are as follows: 63.16% are females while 36.84% are males. There are more female teachers than male at CTE. Male teachers give more verbal feedbacks than female. On the other hand, female teacher gives more written feedbacks than male. Thirteen out of 19 CTE teachers are married to a proportion of 68.42% while four of them are single with a ratio of 21.05%. Most CTE teachers are married. 64 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Ten out of 19 CTE teachers have completed their master’s degree with a percentage of 47.37%. Four teachers finished their doctoral degree, and four have doctoral components with a measurement of 21.05%. Two teachers have their master’s units, and there is no teacher who is a bachelor’s degree holder. Most of the CTE teachers are master’s degree holders. Thirteen out of 19 teachers taught general education subjects with a calculation of 68.42%. Eight teach professional subjects (42.11%) and 6 teach major subjects (31.58). Most of the teachers in CTE are teaching general education subjects. Nine out of 19 teachers have a length of service ranging from 22-28 years with a fraction of 47.37%. There are two teachers whose length of service is from 29-35, two teachers whose length of service is from 8-14 and two teachers whose length of service is from 2-7 years with a section of 10.53%. Most of the teachers in CTE are seasoned teachers. A similar study in 2014 by Dr. Edgar M. Baylon, Jr. utilized teacher-related factors along gender, marital status, employment status, and number of awards received to find significant association with the questioning skills of the teachers to improve student performance. Extent of Usage of Feed backing in Classroom Interactions as Perceived by Student and Teacher Respondents Figure 2. Most Observed form of verbal feedback as observed by 138 student-respondents 65 International Peer Reviewed Journal Most form of verbal feedback observed was asking a question with a percentage of 80.4% while criticizing was rarely witnessed with a ratio of 18.8%. The teacher always asks the question after the discussion. On the other hand, criticizing or giving criticism or judgment was rarely heard as feedbacks. This contradicts the findings of Bochaver (2014) which states that the teachers direct and indirect bullying affects the participants. Figure 3. Most Observed form of written feedback as observed by 138 student-respondents The most frequently perceived form of written feedback was checking with proportion of 82.6% while replying via e-mail was sometimes observed with a ratio of 29%. The students’ written works were checked by teachers then they give corrections on it while it was rare to see that the teacher replies through e-mails. This result deviates from the findings of Kamlaskar and Killedar (2015) which mentioned that web-based system is designed to provide an opportunity to maximize interaction, discussion and spontaneous exchanges with ‘real’ teacher during live virtual class and at the same time, present quality learning material to individual to suit his/her learning styles, interests, needs, and at their own pace. 66 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Figure 4. Most Observed form of non-verbal feedback as observed by 138 student-respondents The most frequently experiential form of non-verbal feedback was guiding and smiling with a calculation of 74.6% while the least observed was clapping with a fraction of 31.9%. Teachers extend guidance to the students by encouraging them through a smile. Clapping from teachers was sometimes seen in classroom interaction. Figure 5. Most often observed verbal feedbacks by CTE Teachers as perceived by students 67 International Peer Reviewed Journal The most often observed verbal feedbacks by teachers of the College of Teacher Education and Home Technology (CTEHT) was asking questions after the discussion with an overall mean of 2. 90. Contrary, the least observed feedback was when the teacher criticizes the students constructively when they commit mistake with an overall mean of 1.89. The teachers always ask questions after the discussion while it was rare that the teacher criticizes the student constructively when they commit a mistake. Teachers employ more positive feedback than corrective feedback in the interaction (Maolida, 2013). As a whole, verbal feedbacks were often used in Fourth Year with a mean of 2.72. It is sometimes used in Third Year (2. 21), Second Year (2. 23) and First Year (1. 93). Figure 6. Most often observed written feedbacks by CTE Teachers as perceived by students In written feedback, the most often detected by the students was giving grades by the teacher according to student’s performance with an overall mean of 2.92. Furthermore, it was rare that teachers reply via e-mail about the result of the student’s assignment with an overall mean of 0.85. The teacher always gives grades according to student’s performance. However, it was rare that teachers 68 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research reply via e-mail about the result of their assignment. This result does not support the findings of Van Vooren and Bess (2013) that the usage of social media, like tweeter, will improve the learning achievement of students. Overall, written feedbacks were often witnessed among Fourth Year students with a mean of 2.47. On the other hand, written feedbacks were sometimes observed in First Year with a mean of 1.63, Second Year (2.06) and Third Year (2.38). In like manner, this result contradicts the study of Carles Dorado Perea in 2011 which elaborates the usage of interactive and collaborative communication on the Internet to produce the desired learning outcomes. Figure 7. Most often observed non-verbal feedbacks by CTE Teachers as perceived by students In non-verbal feedbacks, the most often observed feedback by students was the appreciation of teachers when students participate in a class activity with an overall mean of 2.70. Our hands or face are more sincere, more transparent in giving feedback (Unguru, 2010). It was rare that teachers exhibit the grades in 69 International Peer Reviewed Journal bulletin board with an overall mean of 0.82. Teachers always appreciate when students participate in class activity while it was rare that teachers display the best works in bulletin. As a whole, non-verbal feedback was sometimes experienced among Fourth Year (2.15), Third Year (1.65) and Second Year (2.06) while in First Year (1.33) non-verbal feedback was rarely observed. The result negates the importance of non-verbal feedback in a classroom as emphasized by the research findings of Liangguang Huang (2011) of Zhenjiang Watercraft College of PLA. Time is important in mastering the characteristics of social behavior, and it is nonverbal in relation to competence in communication (Bolotova, 2012). Teachers rephrase the question if the student was not able to answer and correct misconceptions on the topic were the most frequently used verbal feedbacks (3.59), sometimes teachers give the answer when a student did not get (2.31), underlining errors was the most regularly used written feedback (2.81) while replying though e-mails was rarely used as written feedback (1.3). This is far from the findings of Georges (2007) which informed that most pupils in Switzerland are familiar with the practical use of ICT. Guiding students in doing written work was always seen as non-verbal feedback with a weighted mean of 3.59 while pointing at students when they give the wrong answer was rare with a weighted mean of 1.07. This result promotes the importance of non-verbal feedback in a classroom as emphasized by the research findings of Huang (2011). In the same manner, a study investigated and analyzed students’ face wants and English teachers’ awareness of students’ face want in their classroom feedback in improving student academic performance (Zhao, 2010). Teachers apply more verbal feedbacks in classroom interactions which are followed by written and non-verbal feedbacks. This result does not agree with the findings of Huang (2011) who found out the significance non-verbal communication in the teaching and learning process. However, clients’ satisfaction with midwives’ verbal and non-verbal communication skills (50% and 48%) was related meaningfully to midwives’ communication skills application (Taghizadeh, Rezaiepour, Mehran, & Alimoradi, 2006). Relationship between the Profile of the Teachers and the Extent of the Use of Feed backing in Classroom Interactions Age is significantly related to written feedbacks. There is a significant relationship between educational background and written feedbacks. Furthermore, a significant relationship exists between the length of service and written feedbacks. Older teachers provide more written feedbacks than younger 70 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research teachers. The teachers who have more teaching experiences or length of service give more written feedbacks. This is collaborated by the study of Md Fazlur Rahman, Rasel Babu, and Md Ashrafuzzaman (2011) which discovered that Most of the students liked written assessments. However, the result clearly reverses Thompson’s (2014) study which suggests that teachers fully acknowledge the importance of gesture and commonly attribute similar functions to specific gestures within a teaching performance. There is no significant relationship between the profile of the respondents and their non-verbal feedback assessment. The results contradict the result of the study of Huang (2011) which postulates that “if the teacher knows how to use non-verbal communication more efficiently, the relationship between the teacher and students will be improved.” The results of this study are limited only within the context of BEEd Classes of Abra State Institute of Sciences and Technology-Main Campus. The study only focuses on the teachers of College of Teacher Education and Bachelor in Elementary Students although the school also offers the Bachelor of Secondary Education in the same campus and in the annex at Bangued, Abra. CONCLUSIONS The type of feedback always used in classroom interaction as perceived by the students was written feedback, while the most often used feedback given by the teacher was verbal feedback which is totally different from the result of Huang’s (2011) research that found out the importance of non-verbal communication in refining the teacher-student relationship. This is further supported by the study of Thompson (2014) which found out that teachers fully acknowledge the importance of gesture and commonly attribute similar functions to specific gestures within a teaching performance. In the same manner, the result also varies from Van Vooren and Bess’ (2013) study that teachers tweeting their students (emphasizing the utilization of social media) help in developing the learning efficiency of the students. There is a significant relationship between the teacher’s profile in terms of age, gender, civil status, educational attainment, subject taught and the length of service and the extent of the use of feedbacks in classroom interactions. Teacher’s feedback given during various stages of writing process can play a vital role in improving the student’s competence (Karim & Ivy, 2011). 71 International Peer Reviewed Journal TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH In relation to the findings of the study, the school administrators should encourage their teachers to be flexible in utilizing feedbacks in their classroom whether it be written, verbal or non-verbal. It also suggests that teachers, on their level, must frequently use varied pointers to raise the school performance of their students. On the level of students, they must be keen on the feedbacks of their teachers for them to know more about themselves and in the process, raise their school performance. LITERATURE CITED Abdrafikova, A. R., & Konopatskaya, E. A. (2014). The Case Study Technologies as the Means of Competency Building Approach Realization in Higher Education of Russia. English Language Teaching, 7(12), p94. Acero, V.O. (2007). Principles of Teaching 1. Manila. REX Book Store. Retrieved from http://www.elib.gov.ph/results.php?f=author&q=Acero%2C+Victorina +D. Assis, A., & Teixeira, O. P. B. (2009). Students’ and teacher’s discourse features concerning environmental aspects in the classroom: an analysis.Ciência & Educação (Bauru), 15(1), 47-60. Baylon JR, D. E. M., & Edgar, M. (2014). Effects of Classroom Assessment on the Critical Thinking and Academic Performance of Students.  Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research| Vol, 2(1). Biondo Salomão, A. C. (2011). Collaborative language learning in teletandem: a resource for pre-service teacher education. Profile Issues in TeachersProfessional Development, 13(1), 139-156. Bochaver, A. A. (2014). Bullying in a children’s group: teachers’ orientations and opportunities. Psychological Science and Education psyedu. ru, 6(1). Bolotova, A. K. (2012). Time parameters of nonverbal communication and personal communicative competence. Psychology in Russia: State of the art,5(1). 72 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1989). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. Biochemical Education, 17(3), 140-141. Coello, J. G., & Vásquez-Rizo, F. E. (2008). The Other Side of the Blackboard: The Student-Teacher Relationship from a Disciplinary Perspective. Educación y Educadores, 11(1), 103-126. Georges, C. (2007). Media education in Switzerland. COMUNICAR, (28), 103- 109. Guin, K. (2004). Chronic teacher turnover in urban elementary schools.education policy analysis archives, 12, 42. Huang, L. (2011). Nonverbal Communication in College English Classroom Teaching. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(4), 903-908. Kamlaskar, C., & Killedar, M. (2015). DESIGN AND DELIVERY OF ONLINE COURSES IN YCMOU.  Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education,16(2). Karim, M. Z., & Ivy, T. I. (2011). The nature of teacher feedback in second language (L2) writing classrooms: A study on some private universities in Bangladesh.  Journal of the Bangladesh Association of Young Researchers, 1(1), 31-48. Maolida, E. H. (2013). A Descriptive Study of Teacher’s Oral Feedback In an ESL Young Learner Classroom in Indonesia. k@ ta, 15(2), 117-124. Mellati, M., & Khademi, M. (2015). The Relationships among Sources of Teacher Pedagogical Beliefs, Teaching Experiences, and Student Outcomes. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 4(2), 177- 184. Pavlović, B. S. (2004). Partner relations in teaching as a factor encouraging learning and cognitive development. Zbornik Instituta za pedagoska istrazivanja, (36), 151-167. 73 International Peer Reviewed Journal Perea, C. D. (2011). Creación de objetos de enseñanza y aprendizaje mediante el uso didáctico de la pizarra digital interactiva (PDI).  Education in the Knowledge Society (EKS), 12(1), 116-143. Rahman, M. F., Babu, R., & Ashrafuzzaman, M. (2011). Assessment and Feedback Practices in the English Language Classroom.  Journal of NELTA, 16(1-2), 97-106. Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioral Science, 28(1), 4-13. Roehrs, H., Maftum, M. A., & Stefanelli, M. C. (2007). Therapeutic communication underlying interpersonal relationship between elementary school adolescent and teacher. Online Brazilian Journal of Nursing, 6(3). Skinner, B. F. (1938). The Behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York: Appleton-Century. Taghizadeh, Z. I. B. A., Rezaiepour, A., Mehran, A. B. A. S., & Alimoradi, Z. (2006). Usage of communication skills by midwives and its relation to clients’ satisfaction. Hayat, 12(4), 47-55. Thompson, J. M. (2014). Teachers’perceptions of Other Teachers’spontaneous Hand Gesturing in the Efl Classroom.Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 8(2), 119-135. Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (1998).  Investigating formative assessment: Teaching, learning and assessment in the classroom. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). Tuan, L. T., & Nhu, N. T. K. (2010). Theoretical review on oral interaction in EFL classrooms. Studies in literature and language, 1(4), 29-48. Unguru, E. (2010). Features of lie in verbal and nonverbal communication. Trăsături ale. Van Vooren, C., & Bess, C. (2013). Teacher Tweets Improve Achievement for Eighth Grade Science Students.  Journal of Education, Informatics & 74 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Cybernetics, 11(1). Zhao, W. (2010). An Investigation of Students’ Face Wants in Chinese English Teachers’ Classroom Feedback. Journal of Language Teaching and Research,1(1), 29-34.