Receiving feedback is part of the learning processes that any student has to go through. It is part of the fundamental learning process where every learner can acknowledge mistakes and shortcomings constructively. Brookhart (2008) states that feedback is an important component of the formative assessment process (p. 1), and it is a type of assessment that readily gives out what the students have improved or missed immediately after one activity or a lesson has been done(Baculi, et al., 2012).

Over the years, many researchers have attempted to prove the efficacy of the written corrective feedback (WCF). Written corrective feedback, sometimes called as grammar correction or written error correction (Truscott, 1996, 1999) , is a type of feedback that requires more time and attention (Siewert, 2011) from the teacher since the teacher needs to read the entire composition of the students before giving the remarks and corrections. Though many researchers have claimed the effectiveness of WCF in promoting greater grammatical accuracy (Farrokhi, 2012, p. 50) like Ferris (2002), Chandler (2003), Sheen (2007) , and Bitchener and Knoch (2008), Truscott in 1996 asserted that WCF is “ineffective and harmful” and demanded for its abolition(Bitchener, 2008, p. 102) .

In the Philippine setting, a study was done by Alamis (2010) regarding written corrective feedback of the students in two universities: the University of Santo Tomas (UST) and The De La Salle University (DLSU). Using comparison and contrast as the rhetorical pattern and with the adaptation of Canilao's (2004) questionnaire as cited by Alamis (2010), the results of the study yielded that 76% of UST students read their teacher's comments in order for them to gain awareness of certain points that they are good at and where they must improve on. When it comes to the usefulness of the teacher's comments in their writing, UST Students find praises helpful in improving their work which serves as their motivation.

On the other hand, De La Salle University (DLSU) students find written comments as the most helpful in improving their work (Canilao, 2004 as cited by Alamis, 2010). UST students also find telegraphic and conversational comments more helpful in their writing while DLSU students find conversational comments more useful in improving their work. Differences between the preferences of students from the two universities may account for certain environmental factors that influence them such as their social status. The results of Alamis' study also found out that students prefer to be given feedback on the content and organization of their work. Students prefer direct corrections, which refer to the clarity of the teacher's comments, instead of the traditional ones that use symbols, abbreviations, cryptic marks and comments as the form of feedback in the student's written work. These comments guide the student's ideas which will allow them to make their own confident judgments when it comes to editing their work on their own and not to impose the teacher's ideas regarding their written composition.

Another study from the Philippines was conducted by Baculi, et al (2012) regarding the type of written corrective feedback that is most commonly used by the Filipino (ESL) teachers, anchored on Rod Ellis' (2008) framework on written corrective feedback. Forty-one students from the four high school levels were gathered. Each set of written composition was categorized and the corrections were tallied according to the specific type of feedback. Based on the findings, Filipino English (ESL) teachers mostly use direct WCF and indirect WCF in checking the written compositions of the students.

The debate continued through different forms such as research articles, meta-analyses, and scholarly synthesis of the arguments of the topic and responses/rebuttals to other authors' research and/or arguments(Ferris, et al., 2013, p. 307) .

Anchored on the research of Anderson (2010), this study identified students' beliefs and perspectives regarding written corrective feedback. This study also tackled the type of feedback students receive and the most common errors students commit in writing short stories.

As mentioned earlier, teachers have their way of giving feedback. Some teachers prefer giving it through verbal, written, and with the emergence of technology, some may give through digital form. More often than not, majority of English teachers are dubbed as 'Grammar Nazis' since part of their jobs is to have a keen eye on grammatical errors. Most practitioners would agree that a language teacher's primary purpose is to help students achieve their language learning goals as efficiently and effectively as possible. (Evans, et al., 2011, p. 229). Siewert in 2011 provided different types of teacher feedback: Table 1.

Table 1. Siewert's Types of Teacher Feedback (2011)

Among the types of feedback, written corrective feedback applies the most on grammar teaching since it gives focus on syntactical and lexical errors. It is also the type of corrective feedback that requires more teachers' time and attention (Siewert, 2011) because this feedback is individualized according to the errors that a student commits. However, students sometimes do not favor written corrective feedback since they see it as a negative mark. In Guénette's study in 2012 (p. 120), it was mentioned that several tutors feared the effects of the 'red pen' on their learners' motivation; they also worried about hurting the learners' feelings and damaging their self-esteem. Meanwhile, Nicol in 2010 as cited by Wilson (2012) stated that some students find it difficult to understand teachers' written corrective feedback and this does not meet their needs. Therefore, teachers should also make the effort to explain the written corrective feedback that they provide in their students' papers. As Wilson (2012, p. 4) asserted, centrality of the learner in the process should be acknowledged.

In the past years, researches were reported regarding written corrective feedback, mostly relating to English L2 students. Storch's research article last 2010 reviews eleven published and most often cited studies on WCF. These studies focused primarily on whether WCF leads to improved accuracy(Storch, 2010, p. 30). In her findings, six out of eleven research articles showed that WCF lead to the improvement of grammatical accuracy.

One of the initial researches connected to WCF was that of Hendrickson's in 1981, which involved a heterogeneous sample of adult learners in an ESL class over a period of 9 weeks(Truscott, 2004, p. 263). In his research, it was discovered that there were no significant difference between the effects of comprehensive correction and global error correction(Truscott, 2004, p. 263). Of the earlier researches would be the study of Lalande in 1982 which stated that indirect WCF yielded results that require learners to engage in guided learning and problem solving and, therefore, promotes the type of reflection that is more likely to foster long-term acquisition(Bitchener, 2008, p. 105). Though Lalande's (1982) study affirmed the efficacy of WCF in grammatical accuracy, the results do not bear statistical significance. In 1986, the research of Robb, Ross and Shortreed provided 4 types of corrective feedback namely, (a) explicit correction; (b) coded correction; (c) highlighting; and (d) a marginal count of errors in each line, (Truscott, 2004, p. 261), but despite subjecting them to various corrective feedback, results showed that there was no significant difference among the different types of WCF.

However, in Sheppard's study in 1992, results showed that the group that received holistic comments outperformed the group that received WCF not only in terms of grammatical accuracy but also in terms of linguistic complexity (Storch, 2010, p. 31). John Truscott (1996), known for being someone who is against the thought of giving out WCFs, and has been the most vocal opponent of error correction(Anderson, 2010, p.21), noted that, error correction brings an air of negativity to the writing process, thus discouraging L2 writers to engage in long texts, or enjoy writing them.

In recent years, one of the studies that affirmed the efficacy of WCF in the improvement of grammatical accuracy was that of Ashwell's in 2000. His study composed of 50 EFL learners from a Japanese university and he used four (4) types of written corrective feedback(Bitchener, 2008, p. 104) . The results of his study showed that students who receive error correction produce more accurate texts than those who receive no error feedback(Ferris, 2004, p. 51). Another study that affirmed the role of WCF in grammar was Chandler's study in 2003. He asserted that direct WCF improved the grammatical accuracy of the learners than those who received the indirect feedback.

Most recently, Al Ajmi (2015) studied the use of WCF among Arab students studying English. The quasi-experiment showed that the experimental group showed improved per formance compared to the control group. Respondents also indicated that they find direct feedback to be effective among the types of feedback. Although the study was limited to the preposition use in writing, the improved performance of the experimental group has been attributed to the feedback provided by the teacher.

These contradicting and opposing views regarding WCF and effects of its different types have garnered more interest for researchers.

The following types of written corrective feedback were received by the students: direct feedback, indirect feedback, focused feedback, unfocused feedback, and reformulation for the written stories.

In Rod Ellis' (2008) typology of corrective feedback, direct feedback is explained as when the teacher provides the student with the correct from of the word. Meanwhile, indirect feedback is described as when teachers indicate error, but does not provide the correction. Another type of feedback is focused feedback which involved crossing out only the target form and providing the correct form solely for these errors (Frear, 2004, p. 64).

Unfocused feedback according to Ellis (2008) happens when teachers correct almost every errors found in a learners' written work. This type of CF can be viewed as 'extensive' because it treats multiple errors (Ellis, p. 356). Last on the list of WCF is reformulation. Reformulation happens when a student revises his own work with his teacher's correction at the same time, retaining the original content of the work(Ibarrola, 2009, p. 191).

In Anderson's (2010) study, he mentioned the commonly committed errors with writing, namely: articles, lexical items, relative pronouns, conjunctions, possessives, prepositions, singular/plural, subject-verb agreement, verb tense, and word form (Santos, 1988; Sheorey and Ward, 1984; Tomiyama, 1980; Vann and Meyer, 1984 as cited by Anderson, p. 62). Even though content is considered rather than form, grammatical accuracy has still been a major factor in determining the student's grades when it comes to writing compositions.

In Celce-Murcia's study in 1991, it was reported that 7.2 grammatical errors per every 100 words resulted to a failing mark at the post-secondary level. This notion was supported by Albrechtsen, Henriksen and Faerch (1980) and Hinkel (2004) saying that, all errors are equally irritating(Albrechtsen, Henriksen and Faerch, 1980, p. 395) and ESL errors in students texts are costly in terms of grades and overall evaluations of work quality(Hinkel, 2004, p. 24). It has been said that because learners have different learning styles when it comes to acquiring various language features, it is more difficult to acquire and is more difficult for error correction using the different kinds of corrective feedback (Anderson, 2010). Ferris (1999) was able to categorize the common ESL errors into two categories, namely: treatable and untreatable errors. According to her, treatable errors are rule governed and can be easily subjected to various forms of corrective feedback. Examples are subject-verb agreement, verb tense, and articles (Ferris p. 63). Untreatable errors are those which are subject to the student's knowledge regarding the language. Examples are word choice, possible exception of some pronoun and preposition use, and unidiomatic sentence structure which results to unnatural word order of either missing or unnecessary words (Bitchener, et al. 2005).

Timothy Anderson's research in 2010 (p. 90) stated that the central purpose of his study was to add to the existing evidence investigating the impact of written corrective feedback on the grammatical accuracy of ESL students' writing. He also reported that the results of his study affirmed the efficacy of written corrective feedback in the past researches.

Following his framework, this paper intends to answer the following research questions:

• What type of WCF do students get from their teacher?
• What are the most frequent errors that high school students commit when writing short stories?
• What are the beliefs of high school students toward WCF?

The data gathered were taken from 2 sections of the grade eight level of a private sectarian school located in Manila. The school was chosen because it has secured a high rank in National Achievement Test (NAT) and has been one of the top leading schools in Manila.

Original short stories from the English subject requirement were obtained as data. Ninety stories were collected. These stories were checked and corrected by their English teacher. The student errors and teacher's WCF were identified and tallied. Peer checking was done to determine the exact number of errors and WCF.

5.1 Instruments

This quantitative research applied the framework of Timothy Anderson (2010) making use of questionnaires and interviews.

The questionnaires were pilot-tested and after the pilot testing, the questionnaires were reduced to 35 items classified into eight (8) themes. The items were subjected to Reliability Analysis using Cronbach's Alpha to determine the internal consistency of the questions to measure a certain aspect or component of the belief. The reliability level resulted at 0.701 interpreted as acceptable reliability.

The themes were also adapted from his study, namely: 'grammar is important', 'corrective feedback is important', experience and preference for corrective feedback, 'corrective feedback has to be comprehensive', 'points out mistakes', constructivism, attentiveness to corrective feedback, and efficacy.

5.2 Statistical Tools

The results from the questionnaires were computed using the following statistical tools: Chi-square Test, One sample t- Test, Cronbach's Alpha, and Measures of Central Tendency (mean and standard deviation).

The ranking among the 13 grammar categories were identified through the use of the Measures of Central Tendency, namely the mean and standard deviation.

6.1 Common Errors

The students' short stories with WCF were used to determine the most common errors. Thirteen grammar categories and the errors were identified in the tally. The grammar categories were as follows: punctuation, capitalization, improper use of words, parallelism, verb tenses, run-on sentences, conjunction, pronouns, prepositions, use articles, spelling, subject-verb agreement and redundancy. Table 2 shows the summary of the total ranking of the different grammar errors. The ranking among the 13 grammar categories were identified through the use of mean. The mean was computed by adding the frequency of the errors of the students per category. The sum of the errors was divided to the total number of respondents which was 83.

Table 2. 13 Grammar Categories and the Identified Errors (N =83)

6.2 Most Common Errors

Among the thirteen (13) grammar categories, these five (5) were the most common errors that students commit (Table 3).

Table 3 indicated that punctuation ranked first as the most common error with the mean score of 6.37. Most of the students did not know that when it comes to dialogues, they are supposed to put the comma (,) inside the quotation marks (“ ”) and not outside of it most especially when the dialogue proceeds another dialogue among the characters (Figure 1).

Table 3. Top 5 Most Common Errors (N = 83)

Figure 1. Punctuation

Capitalization is second with 4.27 mean score because some students had a hard time in identifying which nouns should be capitalized (proper nouns and common nouns). Some students also forgot that proper nouns require capitalization while the use of common nouns does not. The improper use of words ranked third with the mean of 2.79. This happens when the students failed to appropriately phrase what they wanted to say in their essays. These errors were the ones that were difficult to correct because it needed to be completely revised in order for the intended meaning to be properly understood. The misuse of words also included words that did not fit with the sentence which made the sentence lose its intended meaning.

Verb tenses ranked fourth with 1.67 mean score. Some students failed to use the proper tenses needed for the essay while parallelism came in fifth wherein some students failed to balance their ideas with the mean score of 0.99.

Thirty-five statements were divided into 8 themes and were further subdivided with the appropriateness of the statements being taken into consideration. The statements having the highest and lowest, as well as its overall average percentage of their beliefs per theme are identified.

Figure 2 identified that most of the respondents gave strongly positive responses to the questions in the theme 1: Grammar is Important. Based on the results, the first statement (It is important to have good grammar) yielded 73.76% when it comes to the frequency of the strongly positive response which is the highest and the fourth question (Having good grammar is key to becoming successful) yielded for 40.71% which has the lowest strongly positive response among the four questions. As indicated in Figure 2, the results regarding the frequency of responses were found to be very significant.

Figure 2. Grammar is Important

As gleaned from Figure 3, the average percentage of beliefs for theme 1: Grammar is Important, yielded 93.07% which says that most of the students agree with the first statement (It is important to have good grammar). On the other hand, the second statement (Having good grammar is key to becoming successful) yielded the lowest result having 81.63%. All statements yielded strongly positive results having 88.25% proving the responses regarding the statements in this theme significant.

Figure 3. Grammar is Important - Average Percentage

Figure 4 indicates that most of the respondents gave strongly positive responses to the questions in the theme 1: Corrective Feedback is Important. Based on the results, the fourth statement (Corrective feedback helps me to be better) yielded 87.90% when it comes to the frequency of the strongly positive response which is the highest: and the fifth statement (I excel when given corrective feedback) having yielded 25.29% which has the lowest strongly positive response among the four questions. According to the figure the results regarding the frequency of their responses was found to be very significant.

Figure 4. Corrective Feedback is Important

Figure 5 presents the average percentage of their beliefs for the theme 2: Corrective Feedback is Important, 84.34% which states that most of the students agree with the fourth statement (Corrective Feedback helps me to be better). On the other hand, the fifth statement (I excel when given corrective feedback) yielded the lowest result having 72.89%. All statements yielded strongly positive results having 80.96% proving the responses regarding the statements in this theme significant

Figure 5. Corrective Feedback is Important - Average Percentage

According to Figure 6, most of the respondents gave strongly positive responses to the questions in the theme 3: Experience and Preference for Corrective Feedback. Based on the results, the second statement (My teacher gives me corrective feedback on grammatical errors) yielded 65.25% when it comes to the frequency of the strongly positive response which is the highest and the fifth statement (I do not like my teachers to provide less feedback on my writing assignments) having yielded 14.29% which has the lowest strongly positive response among the six statements. According to the figure, the results regarding the frequency of their responses were found to be very significant.

Figure 6. Experience and Preference for Corrective Feedback

As seen in Figure 7, the average percentage of their beliefs for theme 3: Experience and Preference for Corrective Feedback, yielded 78.31% which states that most of the students agree with the second statement (My teacher gives me corrective feedback on grammatical errors). On the other hand, the fifth statement (I do not like my teachers to provide less feedback on my writing assignments) yielded the lowest result having 61.14%which is interpreted as not significant. All statements yielded positive results having 72.04% proving the responses regarding the statements in this theme significant.

Figure 7. Experience and Preference for Corrective Feedback - Average Percentage

According to Figure 8, most of the respondents gave strong positive responses to the questions in the theme 4: Comprehensive Feedback has to be Comprehensive. Based on the results, the fourth statement (It is better if feedback is comprehensive) yielded 53.08% when it comes to the frequency of the strongly positive response which is the highest and the first statement (I prefer when teachers give corrective feedback on all errors) having yielded 32.48% which has the lowest strongly positive response among the four statements. According to the figure, the results regarding the frequency of their responses were found to be very significant.

Figure 8. Corrective Feedback has to be Comprehensive

The average percentage of their beliefs for theme 4: Corrective Feedback has to be Comprehensive, yielded 75.90% which states that most of the students agree with the fourth statement (It is better if feedback is comprehensive). On the other hand, the first statement (I prefer when teachers give corrective feedback on all errors) that yielded the lowest result having 71.08%. All statements found in Figure 9, yielded positive results having 72.97 proving the responses regarding the statements in this theme significant.

Figure 9. Corrective Feedback has to be Comprehensive - Average Percentage

In the Figure 10, most of the respondents gave strongly positive responses to the questions in the theme five: Points out Mistakes. Based on the results, the third statement (I prefer teachers to tell me exactly what I did wrong) at 48.75% is the highest and the first statement (I prefer when teachers give corrective feedback on all errors) having yielded 28.75% has the lowest positive response among the three statements. According to Figure 10, the results regarding the frequency of their responses were found to be very significant.

Figure 10. Points out mistakes

The average percentage of beliefs for theme 5: Points out Mistakes, yielded 74.11% which states that most of the students agree with the third statement (I prefer teachers to tell me exactly what I did wrong). On the other hand, the first statement (I prefer teachers to show me the correct answers to my mistakes) yielded the lowest result at 67.26%.

All statements as seen in the Figure 11, yielded positive results having 71.13% proving the responses regarding the statements in this theme significant.

Figure 11. Points out Mistakes - Average Percentage

Figure 12 indicated that most of the respondents gave strong positive responses to the questions in the theme 6: Constructivism. Based on the results, the fourth statement (It is better for my learning to discover answers on my own) yielded 49.23% when it comes to the frequency of the strongly positive response which is the highest and the second statement (I prefer when teachers give me a clue and let me fix the mistake on my own) having yielded 18.39% which has the lowest strongly positive response among the four statements. According to the figure, the results regarding the frequency of their responses were found to be very significant

Figure 12. Constructivism

As seen in Figure 13, average percentage of their beliefs for theme 6 showed that Constructivism, yielded 76.51% which states that most of the students agree with the first statement (I prefer teachers who allow me to figure out the mistake). On the other hand, the second statement (I prefer when teachers give me a clue and let me fix the mistake on my own) yielded the lowest result at 62.05%. All statements yielded positive results having seventy point eighteen percent (70.18%) proving the responses regarding the statements in this theme significant.

Figure 13. Constructivism - Average Percentage

Figure 14 presented that most of the respondents gave strong positive responses to the questions in the theme seven: Attentiveness to Corrective Feedback. Based on the results, the first and second statements (I always pay attention to the corrective feedback on my writing assignments and Paying attention to feedback helps improve my grammar) having 67.42% when it comes to the frequency of the strong positive response which is the highest and the fourth statement (I make sure to learn from feedbacks given to me) having yielded (13.47%) which has the lowest positive response among the four statements. According to the figure, the results regarding the frequency of their responses were found to be very significant.

The average percentage of beliefs for theme 7 showed that Attentiveness to Corrective Feedback, yielded 80.42% which states that most of the students agree with the first and second statements (I always pay attention to the corrective feedback on my writing assignments and Paying attention to feedback helps improve my grammar) as gleaned in Figure 15. On one hand, the fifth statement (I correct wrong grammar when pointed out by teachers) yielded the lowest result having 78.61% is that. All statements yielded positive results at 80.42% proving the responses regarding the statements in this theme significant.

Figure 14. Attentiveness to Corrective Feedback

Figure 15. Attentiveness to Corrective Feedback - Average Percentage

Figure 16 showed that most of the respondents gave strong positive responses to the questions in the theme eight: Efficacy. Based on the results, the first statement (Written corrective feedback (any written indication to show that an error has occurred) helped improve my grammar) yielded 67.80% for the highest and the fourth statement (I make sure to learn from feedbacks given to me) having yielded 18.87% is the lowest positive response among the four statements. According to the figure, the results regarding the frequency of their responses were found to be very significant.

Figure 16. Efficacy

The average percentage of beliefs for theme eight Efficacy, yielded the highest percentage, 86.75%, (Written corrective feedback (any written indication to show that an error has occurred)). On the other hand, the second statement (Corrective feedback increases my confidence about my academic writing) yielded the lowest result having 64.16%. All statements yielded positive results having 73.49% proving the responses regarding the statements in this theme significant. Figure 17 indicated this result.

Figure 17. Efficacy - Average Percentage

As indicated in Table 4, the top 5 strongly agreed statements came from the following themes: 'grammar is important,' 'corrective feedback is important' and 'efficacy.' The first three statements in the table which garnered the most number of 'strongly agreed' came from the theme 'grammar is important.' This means then that the students strongly agree that having good grammar is important in academic writing and academic success. These statements have a mean score of 93.07, 90.66 and 87.65 respectively. Fourth on the list of top five (5) strongly agreed statements came from the theme 'efficacy' which garnered a mean score of 86.75 is “Written corrective feedback (any written indication to show that an error has occurred) helped improve my grammar.” Meanwhile, the fifth most strongly agreed statement is “Corrective feedback helps me to be better,” from the theme “corrective feedback is important,” garnered an 84.34 mean score.

Table 4. 5 Most Strongly Agreed Items (N = 83)

Language is one of the key factors in the success of human race for without language, the ability to convey ideas is impossible (Carreon, et al., 2009). In their book, Social Dimensions of Education, grammar is defined as “the structure of a language which consists of two major parts: morphology and syntax,” whereas morphology deals with the study of language's “smallest units of meanings” and syntax refers to the combination of words in a sentence to make a coherent whole. Grammar plays a vital role in language learning. According to Silvia (2012) “it was believed that without knowing the grammatical rules of the language, one will not be able to communicate well.” In connection to the writing of this research, errors in grammar should be taken into account and should be given emphasis.

As mentioned earlier, written corrective feedback is the most applicable in identifying grammar errors since teachers devote much time and effort doing individualized correction. It also provides opportunity for students to correct their errors and improve their writing skills.

In the previous studies, there have been contradicting views on which type of feedback is more effective. In Lalande's study in 1982, it showed that those who received indirect feedback manifested greater improvement; meanwhile, Chandler in 2003 stated that students who received direct feedback have shown better results in grammatical accuracy. Baculi, et al.'s (2012) study in the Philippines last 2012 showed that direct feedback is the most practiced feedback among ESL teachers compared to other written corrective feedback. In this research, 5 types of written corrective feedback were identified, namely, direct feedback, indirect feedback, focused feedback, unfocused feedback and reformulation which showed that these students have been exposed to different forms of WCF that could help in the improvement of their writing skills.

In connection to this, the study found out that punctuation misuse is the most common error. Most students committed this error because majority of the students do not know where to place punctuation marks and also because they lack practice. It is possible also that they have not written a fable where dialogues are abundant. Dialogues tend to use more punctuation, especially commas and quotation marks.

When learning about grammar, usually, teachers tend to focus more on the parts of speech thus, sometimes; the mechanics of writing, such as placing punctuations, proper capitalization, observing margins, are disregarded. Also, among the four macro skills, most teachers give much importance to the improvement of communicative competence. English classes “aimed at native or highly competent speakers” (Guinda, 2002, p. 76). Since it is the most noticeable skill, feedback could be given immediately unlike written activities, feedback has to be detailed. In this case, teachers receive a lot heavier work load because they have to exert more time and effort in analyzing each composition.

Among the 5 strongly agreed statements regarding the beliefs in WCF, the item, which has the most number of 'strongly agreed', is the statement, “It is important to have a good grammar,” which garnered a mean score of 93.07. This suggests that Filipino high school students find that having good grammar in the English language is important in their success.

The influx of American colonizers paved way for the introduction of Filipinos to the English language. In fact, the education program for the secondary school proposed by Mabini during the Malolos Constitution put more stress on English language rather than the Spanish ( Majul, 1967 as cited by Gonzales, 2004) . Gonzales (2004) hypothesized that besides the negative feeling towards Spain, English was given much emphasis since it was preempted that English would be an important language. Since then the number of English speakers in the Philippines increase every year.

During the establishment of the 1987 Constitution, the English language was recognized as an official language in the Philippines together with Filipino as the national language. The 1974 Bilingual Education Policy (revised 1987) even mandated English as the medium of instruction for Science, Mathematics, and English Communication Arts (Bautista, 2001). In Geronimo's (2014) article, it was stated that Filipinos English proficiency has been their ticket to the world which was mainly due to the establishment of English in the formal schools in the Philippines.

The Filipino's writing proficiency has been recognized beyond the Philippines. Award giving bodies such as the Sweden's Nobel Prize and England's Booker Prize have considered authors of different race. Opportunities and options have never been better in an international scene that is increasingly hospitable to multicultural/multiethnic writing(Torres, 1995, p. 294). According to the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (The National Commission for Culture and Arts, 2014), poets like Jose Garcia Villa became famous abroad regardless of race or language. One of his poems was critically acclaimed which eventually resulted to awards like the Guggenheim, Bollingen, the American Academy of Arts and Letters Awards.

The emergence of call centers in the Philippines also proved the communicative competence of the Filipinos. Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, in her State of the Nation Address (SONA) in July 2004, mentioned that investments in call centers and back office operations have increased, resulting in 68 US-based call centers in 2004 compared to only two in 2000 (Friginal, 2007, p. 332). It is no doubt that Filipinos' skills in speaking English have been acknowledged by different countries worldwide.

These evidences relate to the most strongly agreed belief of high school students that having a good grammar is important. Filipino high school students give high regard to the English language since they believe that it will help them flourish in the future.

Based on the results, there are 5 types of WCF received by students and these are direct WCF, indirect WCF, focused WCF, unfocused WCF, and reformulation. Based on the WCF received by the students, the most number of errors that they committed was the use or non-use of punctuations, particularly the use of commas. A study done by Guinda (2002) and Awad (2012) supported the results in this study where students similarly had errors in this category.

These 2 factors, the WCF teachers use and the most common errors, served as the foundation to the beliefs of the students toward WCF. The top 3 beliefs which they placed more importance in the use of grammar. These beliefs are namely, it is important to have good grammar which has a mean of 93.07, having good grammar is very important in academic writing having a mean of 90.66, and having good grammar is important for my academic success with the mean score of 87.65.

The implications of this study will create awareness among teachers regarding focus on the use of punctuations even though it seems that this topic on punctuation has been taught as early as grade school. Apparently, punctuations remain to be a difficulty among students. In the case of the students, they should be more careful with the use of punctuations and editing of work should always be obligatory.

It is recommended that teachers should still place emphasis on the proper use of punctuation marks. It would be better if teacher would provide exercises and activities that would implicitly require its use. Punctuation marks are indeed essential so that the message being conveyed would not be lost and be explained according to the purpose of the writer.

The teacher should also make sure that the students remain attentive to the feedback being given to them so that their essays may have minimal errors when it comes to their final paper. Teachers should encourage their students to learn how to self-edit. In Ferris' study in 1995, she proposed the different steps on teaching students how to edit their own paper; first, focus on form, second, recognize the major error types, and third, the self-editing practice. Through these stages, students will be able to be conscious of their mistakes and process them by themselves. Teachers should aim for students to become skillful independent editors who can function beyond the ESL writing class (Ferris, 1995, p. 344). Furthermore, the teacher should also ensure to give feedback with whatever needs revisions in the students' paper so that students will be more aware of their mistakes and no longer repeat them the next time they write.