MOROCCAN EFL PUBLIC UNIVERSITY INSTRUCTORS’ PERCEPTIONS AND SELF-REPORTED PRACTICES OF WRITTEN FEEDBACK Текст научной статьи по специальности «Языкознание и литературоведение»

https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.15895

Moroccan EFL Public University Instructors' Perceptions and Self-Reported Practices of Written Feedback

Abderrahim Mamad ®, Tibor Vígh ®

University of Szeged, Hungary

Citation: Mamad A., & Vigh T. (2022). Moroccan EFL Public University Instructors' Perceptions and Self-Reported Practices of Written Feedback. Journal of Language and Education, 8(4), 117-136. https://doi.org/10.17323/ jle.2022.15895

Correspondence:

Abderrahim Mamad, abderrahim.mamad@edu.u-szeged.hu

Received: March 17, 2022 Accepted: November 15, 2022 Published: December 26, 2022

ABSTRACT

Background. Since the 1990s, teachers' written corrective feedback (WCF) has been recognized as vital in addressing linguistic issues or product aspects of writing. However, it is necessary to go beyond error correction and focus on written feedback (WF) that concerns other areas of process writing. Still, teachers' thinking on these issues is often an under-explored area. Purpose. This study aimed to explore English as a foreign language (EFL) instructors' perceptions and their self-reported practices of product- and process-based WF in the writing context of tertiary education.

Methods. The exploratory quantitative study collected data from 51 Moroccan EFL writing instructors through a self-developed questionnaire. The questionnaire items regarding perceptions and self-reported practices were valid and acceptable for factor analysis of nine subscales covering the features of product- and process-based WF, and all of them proved to be reliable. This structure allowed several comparisons during data analysis. Results. Concerning product-oriented WF, participants perceived applying WCF and WF modes on the written text as important techniques. As part of process-based WF, most of them highly valued effective WF modes in the writing process. Regarding their self-reported practices of product-based WF, instructors stated that they often employed WF modes on the written text. Within the process-based WF, they reported using judgemental feedback and effective WF modes as their most frequent practices. The comparisons between perceptions and self-reported practices showed mismatches in four subscales, including WCF, content-based WF related to macroaspects of writing, developing evaluative judgement, and effective WF modes in the writing process. Thus, instructors admitted the importance of WF in these areas although they acknowledged applying their practices less frequently.

Conclusions. This study verified the psychometric properties of a self-constructed questionnaire, which was justified to be appropriate to explore teachers' perceptions and self-reported practices regarding WF. The results obtained from the different subscales support the effectiveness of WCF and allow the exploration of a new conceptualisation of WF as a process.

KEYWORDS

written feedback, written corrective feedback, perceptions, self-reported practices, EFL writing

INTRODUCTION

In feedback research, the main topic of concern is that researchers hold different views on the effectiveness of written feedback (WF). One group of researchers (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Bitchener & Kn-och, 2010; Lee, 2008, 2009; Sia & Cheung, 2017) has considered product-oriented WF, and associated it with the product approach to writing, which focuses on developing learners' language accuracy (Guo et al., 2022), mastering gram-

matical forms (Hyland, 2003; Pramila, 2017; Puengpipattrakul, 2014), and improving content-related aspects of the written text (Lee, 2008, 2009; Junqueira & Payant, 2015). This group has investigated both focused and unfocused written corrective feedback (WCF) from two perspectives. In the first perspective, which supports Ferris's (1999, 2004, 2010) arguments, some researchers (e.g., Ashwell, 2000; Ellis, 1998; Ferris & Roberts, 2001) confirmed that even though error correction has only short-term ef-

fects, it is still beneficial to students struggling with writing accuracy. In the second perspective, which supports Trus-cott's (1996, 2001, 2004, 2007) arguments against grammar correction, researchers (e.g., Hillocks, 1986; Kepner, 1991; Polio et al., 1998) claimed that WCF is ineffective because it does not promote students' abilities to develop self-editing writing strategies as part of their long-term learning. Another group of researchers (Haines, 2004; Hyland, 2013; Stewart, 2015; Vatt0y & Smith, 2019) has focused on process-oriented WF and linked it to the process approach to writing in which learners are engaged in planning, revision, self- and peer-evaluation, and composing meaningful texts (Guo et al., 2022) and argued that WF is useful in developing students' metacognitive processes and macroaspects of writing. Metacognitive processes can be supported by encouraging students to take an active and constructive role in responding to feedback (Nicol, 2010), while the macroaspects pertain to students' response to feedback information beyond mechanics and form-based language (e.g., areas of developing students' ideas and revision, including purpose, coherence/cohesion, content, paragraphing, and developmental aspects of a text) (Ferris, 2003). To synthesise these different interpretations of feedback effectiveness, the current study aims to focus on both form- and teacher-directed product-oriented WF (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Ferris, 2003) and process-based learner-centered feedback in writing (Brooks et al., 2021), which enable students' active role in the process of seeking, receiving, providing, and acting upon WF (Henderson et al., 2019; Nieminen et al., 2022; Winstone et al., 2022).

Due to the various views regarding WF, it is worthwhile to understand how teachers perceive its effectiveness. Lee et al. (2017) argued that "it is important to understand why and how teachers provide feedback, as practice is often guided by beliefs" (p. 60). Based on the existing research, exploring teachers' perceptions can influence their feedback provision on students' writing and, therefore, the way they

... is provided on completed drafts or final written texts.

... focuses mainly on local (e.g., spelling, grammar, vocabulary, mechanics) or probably global (e.g., organisation, content) aspects of writing over cognitive and social aspects.

... is intended to improve students' language accuracy in writing.

... involves students primarily as recipients of feedback provided by teachers and other resources.

... is constructed using direct and indirect corrections, possibly with metalinguistic explanations, coding, general praise and criticism.

perceive revision and effective writing (Min, 2013; Tsui & Ng, 2000). It can also contribute to supplementing the paucity of such research in English as a second (ESL) and foreign language (EFL), compared to the many studies focusing on the forms and functions of teacher feedback (Lee, 2009; Lee et al., 2017; Min, 2013). Previous research has concentrated on perceptions and practices of WF based on teachers' preferences and usefulness of its focus and type, experience, and scope (Alshahrani & Storch, 2014; Cheng et al., 2021; Cho, 2015; Li & Barnard, 2011; Wei & Cao, 2020; Yu et al., 2021). Studies have mainly focused on error-directed WCF rather than on process-oriented WF. Yang et al. (2021) also argued that there is no agreement on the match between EFL/ESL teachers' beliefs and their practices on various purposes and the usefulness of WF. Therefore, to contribute to existing research, the current study aims to investigate and identify the relationships between teachers' perceptions and reported practices of product and process-based WF. To achieve this goal, we conducted an exploratory quantitative study and used a self-constructed questionnaire that covered various subscales to investigate teachers' perspectives and practices related to WF associated with a product- and a process-approach to writing respectively.

WF from the Product and Process Perspective

In ESL and EFL, WF has been viewed differently depending on its usefulness in developing students' writing as a product and/or process. The key features of and distinctions between product- and process-oriented WF can be defined by five main aspects. The differences lie in the provision, focus, and intentions of feedback, as well as the students' roles and the way of constructing WF. Table 1 summarises the key features based on these aspects, which will be explained in the following section.

To differentiate between WF from the product and process perspectives, Bowen et al. (2022) pointed out that pro-

... is provided before, during, and after writing activities.

... focuses on cognitive writing processes, social aspects, and content development based on standards of textuality and macroaspects of writing by using assessment criteria rather than linguistic ones.

... is intended to foster learner self-regulation, improve self-editing writing strategies, and make use of social processes to help students make writing improvements.

... involves students primarily as active and constructive constructors of feedback through self- and peer-feedback, oral feedback, and teacher-student discussions.

... is constructed using praise, criticism, and suggestions, with explanations formulated in supportive, specific, personalised, and detailed ways.

Table 1

Key Features of Product- and Process-Oriented WF

Product-oriented WF Process-oriented WF

cess-oriented feedback occurs in pre-, while-, and post-writing, which involves specific writing activities such as setting goals, planning, managing time, using resources, solving problems, and revising. Product-focused feedback is provided on completed drafts or final written texts, which aims to improve students' drafts in terms of content, organisation, language, and linguistic structure of the text. Despite this distinction, in the process approach to writing, the combinations of product and process-oriented feedback are "achieved through written or face-to-face comments, questions, and suggestions provided by teachers and/or peers on finished drafts" (Bowen et al., 2022, p. 3).

Supporters of the role of feedback in the product approach (e.g., Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Bitchener & Knoch, 2010; Lee, 2008, 2009; Sia & Cheung, 2017) have defined WCF as a process of underlining and/or correcting students' errors as well as of commenting on their text. WCF can be provided by using different types of corrections, such as direct correction, indirect correction, and coding (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012). WCF is deemed summative and aims at correcting linguistic forms, evaluating grammatical accuracy, checking appropriate use of vocabulary, and correcting spelling within the text (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Lee, 2009). Besides these microaspects, it is also valuable to focus on cognitive and social variables when improving writing (Hayes, 1996) through feedback. The cognitive aspects pertain to how students self-regulate their learning when receiving feedback (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006), self-assess their own writing by reflecting on their strengths and weaknesses (Zaman et al., 2012) using assessment criteria, and identify the next steps in the writing process (Ferguson, 2011; Tai et al., 2018). The social variables are associated with teacher-student dialogue and engagement in the feedback process (Nicol, 2010; Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006) in which students not only act on the feedback to improve the quality of their work but also behave as key feedback constructors (Carless & Boud, 2018). This engagement may also encourage teachers to provide feedback that fulfils long-term goals, such as scaffolding students to learn to proofread their writing independently, rather than short-term goals, such as supporting students in correcting errors in their written text (Nicol, 2010). To achieve these long-term goals, Haines (2004) and Stewart (2015) have argued that process-oriented WF can be formulated by providing (1) praise with explanation, (2) direct or refined criticism supported by arguments, and (3) direct instructions and encouraging suggestions. This feedback can also be given as the teacher's input on a writer's composition in the form of information to be used for revision (Keh, 1990). Thus, it shows students the cognitive connections between what they did in the writing process and the results they got, as well as what they can do to improve (Brookhart, 2008). The social aspect of feedback can be enhanced through the practices of peer reviews and teacher-student conferences that help students make improvements in their writing (Pramila, 2017). Myles (2002) argued that following the process approach is useful when learners

can receive feedback from multiple sources, take time to revise, and then seek input when they revise their text.

Content-related feedback can be used from both the product-oriented and process-oriented feedback perspectives; however, there are differences in how it is applied. While the product-based WF relates to the completed draft by providing comments on global issues such as organisation and content (Lee, 2008, 2009; Junqueira & Payant, 2015), assessment criteria need to be defined in an analytical way to fulfil the purposes of the process-oriented WF and to support the student revision process (Tai et al., 2018). From a process-oriented feedback perspective, content-related feedback includes both WF on macroaspects such as purpose and genre (Ferris, 2003) and WF provided based on the standards of textuality (Beaugrande & Dressler, 1981/1992). Thus, as part of process-based WF, the communicative purpose in students' written texts (Irimiea, 2008) can be achieved by taking into account the standards of textuality when several constituents and relations connect. This connection, as addressed by Beaugrande and Dressler (1981/1992), occurs through (1) syntactic as well as conceptual relations (cohesion and coherence) in the text; (2) both the author's and the reader's attitudes towards the text (intentionality and acceptability); (3) the way information is transferred (in-formativity); (4) the involvement of the setting (situation-ality); and (5) the reciprocal relationship between separate texts (intertextuality). These standards can be used as criteria for WF to help the writers make the text communicative (Mikhchi, 2011); thus, they can influence the steps to be taken in the writing process, especially during revision (Hayes, 1996, 2012; Flower & Hayes, 1980). While reviewing the text, students can find ways to evaluate and improve it based on the standards of textuality. To support students in this process, these standards can determine the content-based aspects in which WF can be effectively employed.

The effectiveness of feedback was highlighted by Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006), who outlined the following seven principles: To achieve effective feedback practice, teachers should (1) help clarify what the expected performance is (goals, criteria, expected standards); (2) facilitate the development of self-assessment (reflection) in learning; (3) deliver specific information to students about their learning; (4) foster teacher- and peer-dialogue around learning; (5) encourage positive motivational beliefs and self-esteem; (6) provide opportunities to close the gap between students' current and desired performance; and (7) use the information received from feedback to shape teaching (p. 205).

Research on Teachers' Perceptions and Self-Reported Practices of Product- and Process-Based WF

Examining the perceptions or beliefs of ESL/EFL writing teachers can shed light on "how their beliefs are formed

and developed or the extent to which these beliefs shape their practices" (Min, 2013, p. 627). Yang et al. (2021) argued that previous research has dealt more with EFL teachers' perceptions, preferences, or attitudes towards WCF than with process-based WF. In WF studies (Gul et al., 2016; Lee, 2008), most of the frequently used methods include questionnaires, which are sometimes supplemented by teachers' interviews or focus group discussions. These studies mainly concentrated on implementing different types of corrections (Jodaie & Farrokhi, 2012); on perceptions related to forms, focus, intent, and expectations of WF (Lee et al., 2017); and on the comparison between teacher feedback on one draft and multiple drafts in terms of error communication (Lee, 2008).

Regarding self-reported practices, teachers frequently targeted grammatical errors using coded feedback (Nguyen, 2019) and error corrections on single drafts (Lee, 2008) as the most used techniques of WCF. Other features of analysis were teachers' views on the purpose and nature of using WF; their practice, specifically their area of focus; their communication of assignment writing guidelines; the factors that influenced how they provide WF; and ways of improving teachers' understanding of WF (Gul et al., 2016).

Teachers' beliefs can shape their practices about how to meet their students' needs and capabilities in responding to teacher feedback (Lee et al., 2017). As an example of such a relationship, Indonesian EFL university teachers' actual practices of error correction in students' writing aligned with their perspectives (Purnomo et al., 2021). This indicates that teachers' perceptions can be enacted in their practices.

The existing few empirical studies on feedback conducted in Moroccan higher education have been investigated from the student point of view (Ouahidi & Lamkhanter, 2017, 2020; Zyad & Bouziane, 2020). Empirical studies (Abouab-delkader, 2018; Bouzenirh, 1991) indicated that students face many problems, especially in grammar, vocabulary, and organisation. The reasons are the focus on the product over the process approach to writing and the lack of effective feedback provision (Javadi-Safa, 2018; Ouahidi & Lamkhanter, 2020). Therefore, the present study aims to investigate instructors' perceptions and self-reported practices of product- and process-based WF. Based on this objective, the following research questions were addressed:

1. What are instructors' perceptions of product- and process-based WF?

2. What are instructors' self-reported practices of product- and process-based WF?

3. Is there any match between instructors' perceptions and their self-reported practices regarding the product- and process-based WF?

METHODS

Context of the Study

The importance of teaching EFL in Moroccan public higher education has grown over the years due to the increasing number of students (Jebbour, 2021). Because instructors in English departments have freedom in designing course objectives and content, there is a lack of a unified English language teaching (ELT) syllabus at the institutional level (Jebbour, 2021). However, according to published course descriptions (Abouabdelkader, 2018), product and process writing approaches are often emphasised in writing courses. In the first year of the Bachelor's degree study programme, the focus is on the basic components of writing, such as sentence construction, language mechanics, and paragraph writing. Second-year students are taught to write full compositions of expository, analytical, and argumentative texts with an emphasis on content, purpose, and audience to communicate effectively with mature readers. In the third year, students need to apply their acquired writing skills to produce their final degree research paper. MA students in English studies, such as applied linguistics, need to complete various writing assignments (e.g., reports, reviews, and research projects) to practice the writing process. However, besides the lack of a unified syllabus, the main sources of challenges in ELT are larger class sizes (Ouahidi & Lamkhanter, 2020), unfavourable student-teacher ratio, slow and unequal recruitment policy, and failure to implement continuous assessment (Jebbour, 2021). Although the National Education Charter has emphasised its implementation since 1999 (Jebbour, 2021), English departments often have a summative nature, and incorporating formative assessment into the practice is difficult for most instructors due to these external factors, unfamiliarity, and a lack of systematic training (Jebbour, 2021; Ouakrime, 2000). These factors can influence writing teachers' feedback practices in English writing classrooms, especially when selecting the most appropriate ones based on the context and students' differences and needs to provide adequate personal feedback in the revision process (Ouahidi & Lamkhanter, 2020). Based on the examination of Moroccan university students' perceptions about their teachers' WF, Ouahidi and Lamkhanter (2020) found that instructors provided feedback primarily to the end product because they appeared to frequently skip follow-up activities (e.g., remedial work, substantial revisions) in the writing process, and students claimed that teachers rarely used teacher-student conferencing.

Participants

The current study was conducted in Morocco with a focus on public university EFL writing instructors who are teaching at faculties of arts and humanities. An exploratory quantitative

study using a survey method was designed to analyse and compare the perceived importance of WF approaches with teachers' self-reported practices. To recruit enough participants, the questionnaires were administered both face-to-face and online, and participants anonymously completed them. Thus, data were randomly collected, and the study comprised 51 instructors. This sample size is relatively small because the involved participants were only teachers who taught EFL writing courses (writing paragraphs, composition I and II, and advanced writing) at one of the nine universities, mainly in Meknes, Oujda, Fez, El Jadida, and Kenitra.

Table 2 shows the main characteristics of the sample based on the background variables collected via questionnaire. There were 37 males and 14 females. Teachers between the ages of 31 and 40, and over 50 are the dominant subsam-ple. Concerning the teaching of EFL writing, the majority of teachers have around 15 years' experience, M = 14.39, SD = 11.17 years. As for the number of students in a writing class, most instructors teach around 70 students; thus, they have been teaching large groups of students.

Instrument and Procedures

Content Validity of the Questionnaire

The present study used a self-designed questionnaire. The reason for not adopting some of the existing questionnaires is due to their overall focus on WCF rather than other aspects of process-based WF, as well as their lack of attention to a comparison between teachers' perceptions and self-reported practices of WF. Thus, to ensure content validity and to be able to select items that reflect the variables of the construct in the measurement instrument, three procedures were implemented. First, the questionnaire structure, the subscales, and the individual items were developed and formulated based on the literature review about WF (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Beaugrande & Dressler, 1981/1992; Ferguson, 2011; Ferris, 2003; Haines, 2004; Koenka & Anderman, 2019; Koenka et al., 2019; Nicol, 2010; Stewart, 2015; Tai et al., 2018). Second, the first version of the item pool was assessed by researchers in the fields of EFL/ESL and education. They were asked to evaluate the items in terms of their necessity and relevancy to the constructs being measured, as

Table 2

Characteristics of Participants

Baseline characteristic

Full sample (N= 51)

N %

Gender

Male 37 73

Female 14 27

Age

20-30 years old 31-40 years old 41-50 years old Over 50 years old

Years of teaching experience in EFL writing

I-5 years 6-10 years

II-20 years

21-30 years Over 30 years

Average number of students in EFL writing classes

1-50 students 22 43

50-100 students 20 39

101-150 students 4 8

Over 150 students 5 10

10

15 10

16

20 29 20

31

13 25

14 27

11 22

8 16

5 10

well as their clarity. Third, after the statements were revised based on the feedback that was received, a pilot study was conducted among Moroccan EFL writing instructors to assess the questionnaires' suitability and adequacy. Considering their constructive feedback and suggestions, the questionnaire was finalized to conduct this study in November and December 2021.

The questionnaire items that were used are in the appendix. The questionnaire also contains background questions, but these were only applied to describe the sample (Table 2); thus, the variables are not considered in the data analysis and interpretation, and, therefore, the related questions are not included in the appendix. The two questions targeting the dimensions of teachers' perceptions and self-reported practices about WF show several similarities and differences. Each dimension contains 40 total items. These can be assigned to the same subscales that aim to cover the features of product- and process-based WF and, thus, allow several comparisons during data analysis. The difference between the two questions, however, is that the first question asks about EFL instructors' perceptions of WF practices. For each item, the teachers had to decide on the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the given statements by using a five-point Likert scale, which ranged from one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree). A scale with an odd number was chosen because it allowed participants to express their neutral positions. The second question asks instructors about their WF practices. Thus, participants are required to rate how frequently they use the feedback activities listed in this question. In the case of all statements, a five-point intensity scale ranging from one (never) to five (always) was offered. The aim of using these item-scale data was to compute composite scores for the two dimensions' subscales,

which can be interpreted as continuous variables on interval level (see e.g., Rukmana, 2022; Wicking, 2022).

As can be seen in Table 3, within the product-based WF approach, there are three subscales. The first is WCF, whose items were formulated based on its typology (direct, indirect, and coded correction). The second subscale contains WF modes on the written text. These modes are teacher- and product-oriented (Ferris, 2003), form-based, and focus on the linguistic structure of the final text (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012). The third subscale is judgemental WF on the written text. This feedback has a summative nature because it is often based on the number of errors and scores, and it often includes general praise and criticism, usually without any explanation (Koenka & Anderman, 2019).

The scale of the process-based WF approach has six sub-scales. The first is named content-based WF related to standards of textuality because, when developing its items, the main features of cohesion, coherence, intentionality, in-formativity, acceptability, situationality, and intertextuality (Beaugrande & Dressler, 1981/1992) were included. The second subscale is content-based WF related to macroaspects of writing. It contains aspects such as purpose, genre, and developmental aspects of a text (Ferris, 2003) that can function as areas in the revision process. The third subscale is developing evaluative judgement, which consists of WF practices that require students to assess their work and that of others in reflective and constructive ways that can be supported by predefined assessment criteria in order to make improvements in the writing process (Tai et al., 2018). The fourth subscale is supportive WF in the writing process, which aims to cover the new conceptualizations of feedback defined in the literature as being dialogic and including oral

Table 3

Overview of Scales, Subscales, and Items Related to Two Dimensions

c . . . . Number of_Dimensions_

Scales and subscales it, -

items Perceptions Self-reported practices

Product approach of WF

Written corrective feedback (WCF) WF modes on the written text Judgemental WF on the written text Process approach of WF

Content- based WF related to the standards of textuality Content-based WF related to macroaspects of writing Developing evaluative judgement Supportive WF in the writing process Effective WF modes in the writing process Judgemental WF in the writing process

11

4 9., 15., 28., 40. 2., 14., 20., 37.

3 1., 24., 26. 1., 25., 27.

4 19., 13., 32., 37. 8., 13., 32., 39.

29

7 3., 5., 8., 20., 22., 31., 33. 3., 5., 7., 10., 16., 29., 36.

4 6., 10., 12., 30. 9., 11., 18., 31.

4 11., 14., 21., 38. 15., 22., 33., 40.

4 7., 17., 23., 25. 17., 21., 23., 26.

6 2., 4., 18., 27., 29., 35. 6., 19., 24., 28., 30., 35.

4 16., 34., 36., 39. 4., 12., 34., 38.

Note. The numbers given in the dimensions' columns indicate the serial numbers of the questionnaire items in the appendix.

feedback, teacher-student discussions, and peer feedback during the revision and rewriting process (Nicol, 2010; Tai et al., 2018). The fifth subscale covers effective WF modes in the writing process. The effectiveness of feedback has been regarded as being supportive, specific, personalized, detailed, and as identifying the next steps (Ferguson, 2011; Koenka & Anderman, 2019; Koenka et al., 2019). The sixth subscale is judgemental WF in the writing process, which includes justified praise, criticism, and suggestions to improve writing (Haines, 2004; Stewart, 2015).

Construct Validity, Convergent Validity, and Reliability of the Questionnaire

To achieve the purposes of our study, the construct and convergent validity, along with the reliability of the questionnaire items, were examined. These analyses aimed to ensure that the items are relevant to the research focus and that, before analysing them at the subscale level, the extension of the results is reliable and valid. Thus, first, to control the construct validity of the questionnaire, exploratory factor analysis was applied to identify and compare the empirical structure of the variable system with the theoretical structure and to reduce the data set to a manageable size by maintaining most of the original information (Field, 2009; Pituch & Stevens, 2016). Therefore, four principal component analyses (PCA) with Varimax rotation were performed along the two dimensions and scales to determine the contribution of each item to the factor structure and to create composite scores of the different subscales. Second, to analyse the convergent validity of our instrument, the relationships between instructors' perceptions and their self-reported practices along the subscales were compared by computing Pearson's correlation coefficients. Third, the reliability of the subscales was examined by calculating the values of Cronbach's alphas.

Table 4 shows the results of the four PCAs conducted to examine the factorability of the items. In all cases, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy values ranged between .72 and .82, which, as recommended by

Table 4

Summary of Four PCAs

Kaiser (1974), were middling and meritorious, as well as above the minimum acceptable value of .5. Furthermore, results from Bartlett's test of sphericity were significant in all models, p < .001, confirming that the correlation coefficients between the items were sufficient for PCAs. Additionally, communalities of all items exceeded the minimal acceptable limit of .2 (Child, 2006), and the average values in all models were above .6, which is acceptable for a sample size of less than 100 (MacCullum et al., 1999). The total variance explained by the generated factors was around or higher than 65%. The number of factors in each model was determined based on scree plots. Figures 1 and 2 contain the eigenvalues for the two dimensions together because the number of components belonging to the two scales is the same. When identifying the factors, the eigenvalue greater than 1 was considered. In line with the theoretical structure, there are three factors for the product-based WF in both dimensions and six for the process WF approach related to self-reported practices. However, in the other dimension, the sixth component's eigenvalue was slightly lower than 1 (0.95), but the six-factor resolution was preferred because it can be supported by the theoretical background and allows the comparison of perceptions with the application frequency of the WF practices.

When examining the factor loadings at the item level, in the case of the product-oriented WF scales, each item in both dimensions corresponded to the theoretical structure. As shown in Table 5, the values for all factors were above the recommended and preferred limit of .4 (Field, 2009; Yang, 2022). Even in the case of the process approach, in line with the theoretical background, the individual factors could be identified by the majority of the items having factor loadings higher than .4. However, some cross-loading items were also recognised and could be classified into another factor. At the same time, it must be considered that the results are influenced by the number of generated factors and the sample size. This indicates that it is recommended to control the factor structure related to the process WF approach on a larger sample.

Dimensions and scales KMO

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Communalities X2 df p Min. Max. M

Total Variance Explained (%)

Perceptions

Product-based WF .75 201.48 55 <.001 .46 .80 .65

Process-based WF .80 1134.35 406 <.001 .60 .83 .73 Self-reported practice

Product-based WF .72 215.83 55 <.001 .35 .85 .65

Process-based WF .82 1243.09 406 <.001 .50 .86 .76

64.66 72.58

64.78 75.61

Note. KMO = Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy

Figure 1

Scree Plot regarding Product Approach of WF in Two Dimensions

Figure 2

Scree Plot regarding Process Approach of WF in Two Dimensions

= 3

bo 2

4 5 6 7! Component number

10 11

» Perceptions

• *o • • Self-reported practices

9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 Component number

• Perceptions

• •€>•• Self-reported practices

Table 5

Summary of Factor Loadings, Pearson's Correlation Coefficients, and Cronbach's Alphas

Scales and subscales Factor loadings Correlations Cronbach's between P- SP alphas

P SP

Min. Max. Min. Max. r p P SP

Product approach of WF

Written corrective feedback .42 .83 .49 .81 .74 <.001 .67 .76

WF modes on the written text .43 .80 .60 .88 .64 <.001 .50 .61

Judgemental WF on the written text .59 .85 .69 .82 .73 <.001 .83 .71

Process approach of WF

Content- based WF related to the standards of textuality .34 .77 .63 .87 .78 <.001 .87 .88

Content-based WF related to macroaspects of writing .39 .77 .53 .69 .75 <.001 .78 .74

Developing evaluative judgement .35 .55 .41 .77 .80 <.001 .84 .79

Supportive WF in the writing process .39 .84 .34 .81 .67 <.001 .80 .71

Effective WF modes in the writing process .43 .70 .43 .75 .75 <.001 .89 .88

Judgemental WF in the writing process .33 .86 .42 .62 .73 <.001 .75 .74

Note. P = perceptions, SP = self-reported practices

Table 5 indicates the correlations between the composite scores related to the two dimensions along the subscales, together with their Cronbach's alpha coefficients. In all cases, there were moderate or strong positive significant relationships between perceptions and their corresponding self-reported practices, indicating that these two constructs are not only theoretically but also empirically related. Most of the Cronbach's alpha values were acceptable; however, the figures regarding the process approach were higher than those of the product WF approach. Cronbach's alpha of WF modes on the written text in the perception dimension is low, but acceptable in the other dimension. Therefore, we

decided not to exclude this subscale from further analysis, but the results should be interpreted with caution. The lower reliability was due to the limited number of items; therefore, including more items seems necessary to improve the reliability of this subscale.

Data Analysis

To respond to the three research questions, the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (IBM SPSS) V25 was utilized. As a first step, composite scores were created that emerged from the PCAs. These scores indicated the importance of

perceptions of the items within the given subscales and, in the case of self-reported practice, revealed the reported frequency of using the given WF modes in the respondents' own practice. To identify instructors' perceptions and to investigate their self-reported practices of WF, descriptive statistical analyses were employed on these composite scores. The differences between them were examined by performing a series of paired-samples t-tests. The internal relationships between the subscales were indicated by calculating the correlation coefficients. Finally, the differences between perceptions and self-reported practices along the subscales were analysed.

RESULTS

Research Question One

The results in Table 6 related to the product-based WF show that university teachers involved in our study agreed on the value of both WCF and WF modes on the written text. The ranges, means, and standard deviations of these subscales were similar, t(50) = 1.82, p = .07, and there was a moderate significant correlation between them, r = .61, p < .001. Respondents also perceived the statements within these two subscales as more essential than judgemental WF, because most of them were neutral when they rated the items within this subscale, and the sample can also be considered more heterogeneous. Significant differences were found between the mean of this subscale and the means of WCF, t(50) = 10.06, p < .001, and WF modes, t(50) = 8.34, p < .001. While there was a weak significant correlation between WCF and judgemental WF, r = .33, p = .02, no significant correlation was found between WF modes and judgemental WF, r = .26, p = .07.

In the descending order of the averages of the six subscales belonging to process-oriented WF, significant differences between three subscales were identified. First, respondents mostly agreed with the efficacy of using effective WF modes in the writing process. The mean of this subscale differed significantly from the means of all other subscales. As an indicator of this, the difference in averages between this subscale and the second in the order was significant, t(50) = 2.21, p = .03. Second, instructors who completed our questionnaire perceived the three subscales that consist of content-based WF related to macroaspects of writing, developing evaluative judgement, and judgemental WF in the same way because the ranges, means, and standard deviations were similar. Third, they found these more important than the practices of content-based WF related to the standards of textuality. For example, the difference between this subscale and judgemental WF was significant, t(50) = 3.45, p = .001, but did not differ from the last subscale, supportive WF, t(50) = 0.89, p = .38. When comparing the standard deviations among the six subscales, the composition of the sample can be considered homogeneous, 0.61 < SD < 0.75. In terms of the relationships between all subscales, there were moderate or strong positive significant correlations, .53 < r < .87, p < .001.

Research Question Two

As can be seen in Table 7, the differences in averages of the subscales belonging to product-oriented WF were identical to those identified in the perception dimension. The means of WF modes on the written text and WCF subscales were not significantly different, t(50) = 0.78, p = .44, but there was a moderate correlation, r = .60, p < .001. The mean of judgemental WF is significantly lower than the averages of the previously mentioned subscales, p < .001. As for their rela-

Table 6

Moroccan EFL Instructors' Perceptions of Product- and Process-Based WF

Scales and subscales

Minimum

Maximum

M

SD

Product approach of WF

Written corrective feedback WF modes on the written text Judgemental WF on the written text Process approach of WF

Effective WF modes in the writing process Content-based WF related to macroaspects of writing Developing evaluative judgement Judgemental WF in the writing process Content-based WF related to the standards of textuality Supportive WF in the writing process

1.50 1.67 1.00

1.17 1.50 1.00 2.00 1.14 1.00

5.00 5.00 5.00

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

3.91 3.76 2.56*

4.10

3.98*

3.96

3.96

3.72*

3.65

0.61 0.68 0.97

0.68 0.62 0.75 0.61 0.66 0.72

Note. * Mean significantly differs from the previous subscale at p < .05.

tionships, weak significant correlations were identified, .28 < r < .43, p < .05.

Regarding the self-reported practices of the process WF approach, no significant differences were found in the descending order between the averages of the six subscales. Examining the significant differences in pairs, we identified two groups. On the one hand, the means of judgemental WF and effective WF modes in the writing process differed significantly from the last three subscales. This is indicated, for example, by the difference between effective WF modes and developing evaluative judgement, t(50) = 2.58, p = .01. On the other hand, there were significant differences between the mean of content-based WF related to macroaspects of writing and the means of the last two subscales, p < .05. Similarly to the perception dimension, in the case of all subscales, the sample can be considered homogeneous, 0.70 < SD < 0.78. However, there were mainly strong significant correlations between all subscales, .63 < r < .88, p < .001.

Research Question Three

Table 8 presents the results of the comparison between perceptions and self-reported practices along the subscales. The non-significant differences indicated consistencies in five subscales, namely WF modes and judgemental WF on the written text, content-based WF related to the standards of textuality, supportive and judgemental WF in the writing process. Mismatches were indicated by significant differences between the two constructs in the subscales of WCF, content-based WF related to macroaspects of writing, developing evaluative judgement, and effective WF modes in the writing process. Thus, WF modes measured by these subscales were considered more important by the respondents, while the related practices were much less frequently used. However,

the degree of difference was somewhat larger for the process-oriented WF practices compared to the WCF subscale.

DISCUSSION

This section discusses the results of the three research questions. However, no previous studies were found that were conducted among Moroccan EFL writing university instructors with which our results can be compared directly. Therefore, after a systematic literature review, 13 empirical studies were selected that were published in peer-reviewed journals and are similar in terms of their research design and content. Thus, the included studies used quantitative or mixed survey methods, focused on teachers' perceptions and/or self-reported practices of WF in EFL, ESL, or academic writing contexts, and covered one or more similar subscales as those in our study.

EFL Instructors' Perceptions of Product- and Process-Based WF

From the perspective of product-based WF, it can be stated that Moroccan university teachers involved in our study agreed on the importance of both WCF and WF modes on the written text in a similar way because there was a non-significant difference between the means of these two subscales. This result is consistent with the findings of Junqueira and Payant's (2015) study, in which participants believed in the importance of WF modes on errors related to organisation and content. In other studies (Al Kharusi & Al-Mekhlafi, 2019; Sakrak-Ekin & Balgikanli, 2019; Zaman et al., 2012), many of the respondents also agreed with the efficacy of WCF and perceived it as vital in developing students' writing. Similarly, Purnomo et al. (2021) and Sakrak-Ekin and

Table 7

Moroccan EFL Instructors' Self-Reported Practices of Product-and Process-Based WF

Scales and subscales

Minimum Maximum M SD

Product approach of WF

WF modes on the written text Written corrective feedback Judgemental WF on the written text Process approach of WF

Judgemental WF in the writing process

Effective WF modes in the writing process

Content-based WF related to macroaspects of writing

Developing evaluative judgement

Content-based WF related to the standards of textuality

Supportive WF in the writing process

1.33 1.7S 1 .DD

2.DD

1.B3

2.DD 2.DD 2.DD 1.7S

S.DD S.DD 4.SD

S.DD S.DD S.DD S.DD

4.B6

5.DD

3.BD 3.72 2.6D*

3.91 3.B9 3.77 3.71 3.64 3.63

D.7S D.B1 D.93

D.71 D.7S D.73 D.74 D.77 D.7B

Note. * Mean significantly differs from the previous subscale at p < .001.

Table 8

Moroccan EFL Instructors' Perceptions and Self-Reported Practices of WF

Scales and subscales Perceptions Practices Mean T-test

M SD M SD Diff. t(50) p

Product approach of WF

Written corrective feedback 3.91 0.61 3.72 0.81 0.19 2.48 .02

WF modes on the written text 3.76 0.68 3.80 0.75 -0.03 -0.38 .70

Judgemental WF on the written text 2.56 0.97 2.60 0.93 -0.04 -0.40 .69

Process approach of WF

Content- based WF related to the standards of 3.72 0.66 3.64 0.77 0.08 1.12 .27

textuality

Content-based WF related to macroaspects of writing 3.98 0.62 3.77 0.73 0.20 2.94 <.001

Developing evaluative judgement 3.96 0.75 3.71 0.74 0.25 3.87 <.001

Supportive WF in the writing process 3.65 0.72 3.63 0.78 0.02 0.28 .78

Effective WF modes in the writing process 4.10 0.68 3.89 0.75 0.21 2.99 <.001

Judgemental WF in the writing process 3.96 0.61 3.91 0.71 0.05 0.78 .44

Note. In the case of all subscales, the values can be ranged between 1 and

Balçikanli (2019) found that most involved teachers viewed the provisions of WCF as valuable because they were easy to follow and understand. Other researchers (Al Kharusi & Al-Mekhlafi, 2019; Alshahrani & Storch, 2014; Liu & Wu, 2019; Zaman et al., 2012) also discovered that providing feedback on form, language use, content, organisation, and mechanics based on different WF modes appears to be crucial to teachers. The reason could be related to their flexibility in giving feedback on grammar and mechanics, which can be easily and quickly identified. In our study, however, teachers perceived WCF and WF modes on the written text as more valuable than judgemental WF. This indicates that Moroccan instructors perceived the use of summative WF in the form of grades, praise, and criticism without justification as less important for assessing students' texts.

As for the process-oriented WF, the instructors who participated in this study perceived the subscales that consist of effective WF modes in the writing process, as well as content-based WF related to macroaspects, developing evaluative judgement, and judgemental WF in the writing process as the most fundamental ones, because there were no significant differences in the means of the three latter subscales. Findings from Zaman et al.'s (2012) study matched our results regarding the perceived value of judgemental WF. They concluded that the combination of both praise and criticism with explanations helps develop students' writing processes, especially if it is supported by comments and suggestions on their strengths and weaknesses. Cheng et al. (2021) also claimed that teachers involved in their study favoured the comprehensive WF approach, which focuses not only on microaspects but also on providing content-based feedback related to macroaspects of writing. Thus, teachers

maintained the responsibility to develop students' overall writing performance rather than specific areas. Concerning evaluative judgement, Purnomo et al. (2021) found that most teachers believed it was important for students to assess themselves by analysing and correcting their own writing. The other two subscales, content-based WF related to the standards of textuality and supportive WF in the writing process, compared to the previously mentioned subscales, were perceived as significantly less notable by the responding teachers. Because no study addressed teachers' perceptions of the content-based WF related to the standards of textuality, it can be claimed that the little attention given to this type of WF might be owing to teachers' lack of awareness of it and therefore the extent to which their students' writing meets these criteria. In the case of the supportive WF, Zaman et al. (2012) also claimed that 58% of teachers had negative perceptions of it, especially about the reliability of peers' feedback. Possible reasons for teachers' underestimation of the importance of supportive WF in our study are probably attributed to either their difficulties in understanding and implementing formative evaluation practices (e.g., dialogic, peer, oral, and multiple draft-focused feedback), or their concern with students' final written products rather than writing process, which is based on collaboration among teachers, students, and peers in the feedback process. These could be possible reasons why the results of our study regarding this subscale differed from that of Nguyen and Filipi (2018) who found that participants perceived the process of providing feedback on students' second and final drafts to be of great value. The majority of teachers taking part in Liu and Wu's (2019) study also perceived oral feedback, which is part of supportive WF, as potentially valuable for the development of students' writing.

EFL Instructors' Self-Reported Practices of Product- and Process-Based WF

Based on the product WF approach, Moroccan participant teachers stated they relied on the practices of both WCF and WF modes on the written text. This was justified by the non-significant difference between these two subscales. In harmony with these results, the majority of teacher respondents (69%) in the study of Purnomo et al. (2021) stated they applied direct WCF by indicating errors and correcting them. In the present study, judgemental WF on the written text was less applied in comparison to other product WF practices described in the subscales. Therefore, it seemed that the WF provided by Moroccan teachers was not used to give grades, praise, or criticism that judge students' final written texts but rather to indicate and correct errors. Similarly, Al Kharu-si and Al-Mekhlafi (2019) found that indirect WCF was one of the most highly practiced techniques. An opposite finding to our study regarding judgemental WF is that of Li and Barnard (2011), which revealed that teachers perceived the awarding of a grade and praise to be integral elements of their feedback provision. This difference may indicate that Moroccan instructors probably prefer to avoid problems related to providing grades or praising and criticising students' written text in general ways without justifications.

Regarding the process WF approach, our study revealed that Moroccan teachers stated they utilized judgemental WF and effective WF modes in the writing process as their more frequent self-reported practices compared to the subscales developing evaluative judgement, content-based WF related to the standards of textuality, and supportive WF. The focus on judgemental WF may be explained by the institutional requirements defined in the National Education Charter, which require instructors to implement continuous assessment in their practice (Jebbour, 2021) and, thus, to provide process-oriented WF by using assessment criteria, praise, and criticism formulated with justifications. The use of effective WF modes indicates teachers' orientation toward providing students with specific comments, suggestions, detailed information, and guidance during the writing process. Concurring with these results, Ma (2018) also found that teachers acknowledged the motivating role of providing strength-related feedback and positive comments. Despite this frequent emphasis on the two previous WF types, Moroccan instructors seem reluctant to overtly incorporate student-centred WF types, which are developing evaluative judgement and supportive WF, to encourage students to assess their writing and that of others, as well as to comment on students' writing based on the standards of textuality.

The Relationship between Instructors' Perceptions and Self-Reported Practices of Product- and Process-Based WF

In the case of product WF subscales, we found that teachers' perceptions of WCF did not match with their self-reported practices because there was a significant difference between the two dimensions. Thus, instructors considered WCF important, but they stated they applied its practice less frequently. This incompatibility regarding direct or indirect feedback has also been confirmed in Mao and Crosthwaite's (2019) study. Sakrak-Ekin and Balgikanli (2019) attributed the discrepancy between teachers' beliefs and their practices concerning the effectiveness of WCF to the low writing skill level of students, lack of a general common practice about error correction, fear of not providing enough input, and time constraints. In contrast to our findings regarding WCF, Purnomo et al. (2021) showed a high consistency between Indonesian EFL university teachers' perspectives and their actual practices of correcting students' writing errors. According to them, the reasons for this consistency were participants' experiences with different strategies of providing WCF, their awareness of its value, and their willingness to give feedback. Concerning the subscales, WF modes and judgemental WF on the written text, alignments were found due to the lack of significant differences between the means of the two dimensions. This result is consistent with the findings of previous studies (Mao & Crosthwaite, 2019; Said & Mouzrati, 2018) regarding WF modes on the written text because involved teachers focused more on the linguistic structure of the final written text (e.g., grammar, vocabulary) than on giving student support that would help develop meaningful ideas.

Regarding the process WF, we found mismatches in three subscales, content-based WF related to macroaspects, developing evaluative judgement and effective WF modes in the writing process. This was justified by significant differences between the two dimensions. Thus, WF modes measured by these subscales were considered more important by the respondents, while their related practices were less frequently used. These mismatches may be related to Moroccan instructors' concerns on how to guide students in developing their writing beyond microaspects, how to involve them in assessing their own and their peers' written work, and how to support them by providing detailed and specific comments and suggestions. Compared to other studies, misalignment regarding effective WF modes was also found in Said and Mou-zrati's (2018) study, where Moroccan high school teachers believed in the value of positive WF in motivating students to improve their texts. Yet, in their practices, teachers only addressed structural deficiencies in students' writing. In the case of the other three subscales, instructors' perceptions aligned with their self-reported practices as these were not significantly different. Regarding judgemental WF, the same finding was reported in Ma's (2018) study, in which teachers valued and acknowledged the efficacy of following a criterion-referenced teacher evaluation form when giving WF. Moroccan teachers' provision of criterion-referenced WF is consistent with the perceived idea that teacher feedback should be related to the assessment criteria. Previous-

ly, no study compared perceptions and self-reported practices regarding content-based WF related to the standards of textuality. Therefore, one of the main findings of our study, that teachers might perceive and give feedback based on the extent to which students' writing is coherent, cohesive, context-oriented, and informative to the readers and their intention, may merit some attention in further studies.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

The limitations of this study can be explained by five reasons. First, the limited sample size influenced the findings mainly in the case of process-based WF because it covers several subscales, and the reliability of the subscale, WF modes on the written text, needs to be improved by formulating more items. Second, the extent to which background variables related to providing WF could influence teachers' perceptions and practices was not investigated. Third, no information was given regarding instructors' behaviour in relation to the practicality of the different WF approaches. To examine these, qualitative research methods could have been employed to compare their self-reported and observed practices. Fourth, students were not involved to investigate the extent to which teachers' perceptions and practices match those of students. Finally, when discussing the results, comparison between the findings of our study and the research of others was made based on their study design and content. However, in different school systems, the contexts in which WF is provided and received may make different perceptions and/or practices viable or optimal. These limitations also indicate possible directions for further research. The developed questionnaire, which has been verified in terms of validity and reliability, can function as an appropriate instrument to investigate product and process WF. It can also be modified to account for the students' perspective: first, to analyse their WF preferences and perceived practices, and second, to compare them with teachers' perceptions and self-reported practices. Future studies from these multiple perspectives could meticulously gauge the effectiveness of WF forms in EFL writing classrooms.

CONCLUSION

In general, the findings of this study concerning Moroccan writing instructors' perceptions showed that they valued WCF and believed that it helps students solve their problems in areas related to language accuracy. The importance of providing WF on students' final products may be due to teachers' aim to help Moroccan students write accurately in areas related to grammar, vocabulary, and organisation, as argued by some Moroccan researchers (Abouabdelkad-er, 2018; Bouzenirh, 1991). Regarding process-based WF, effective WF modes were highly valued by most of the in-

structors. As for their self-reported practices concerning product-oriented WF, instructors stated that they often employed WF modes on the written text, which address students' linguistic structure when writing their drafts. Concerning process-oriented feedback, judgemental WF and effective WF modes were also frequently utilized. The mismatches between perceptions and self-reported practices found in this study may lead Moroccan instructors to gain knowledge and expertise, which can help them bridge the gap between what they believe and what should be enacted in practice. As for the theoretical and pedagogical implications, our findings can empower the body of knowledge of product and process WF in the assessment of EFL writing. This study may also contribute to teachers' awareness by highlighting the importance of incorporating follow-up WF activities into their instructional practice that promote new feedback conceptualisations such as dialogic feedback, peer feedback, content-based feedback, and evaluative judgment. Its innovation resides in proposing new scales and subscales that show different distinctions between product-and process-based WF. Owing to the limited applications of WF types, strategies, and practices, teachers are therefore required to professionally develop their WF knowledge to encourage the integration of product and process WF approaches in diverse contexts of writing. Further research on the effectiveness of WF is also required from multiple perspectives with larger sample size, different subject samples, and other research instruments.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

While working on this article, Abderrahim Mamad was the recipient of the Stipendium Hungaricum Scholarship.

DECLARATION OF COMPETING INTEREST

None declared.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION STATEMENT

Abderrahim Mamad: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Other contribution.

Tibor Vfgh: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Other contribution.

REFERENCES

Abouabdelkader, S. (2018). Moroccan EFL university students' composing skills in the balance: Assessment procedures and outcomes. In A. Ahmed, & H. Abouabdelkader (Eds.), Assessing EFL writing in the 21st century Arab world (pp. 79-109). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Al Kharusi, F. M., & Al-Mekhlafi, A. M. (2019). The practice of teachers' written corrective feedback as perceived by EFL teachers and supervisors. International Journal of Higher Education, 8(6), 120-137. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v8n6p120

Alshahrani, A., & Storch, N. (2014). Investigating teachers' written corrective feedback practices in a Saudi EFL context: How do they align with their beliefs, institutional guidelines, and students' preferences? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 37(2), 101-122. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.37.2.02als

Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-257. https://doi. org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00027-8

Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. (1981/1992). Introduction to text linguistics. Longman.

Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjslw.2010.'10.002

Bouzenirh, F. (1991). Errors of composition. In El Haddad E., & M. Najbi (Eds.), English Language Teaching in the Maghreb: Focus on the Learner (pp. 113-126). Tetouan

Bowen, N. E. J. A., Thomas, N., & Vandermeulen, N. (2022). Exploring feedback and regulation in online writing classes with keystroke logging. Computers and Composition, 63, 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/jxompcom.2022.102692

Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Brooks, C., Burton, R., van der Kleij, F., Ablaza, C., Carroll, A., Hattie, J., & Neill, S. (2021). Teachers activating learners: The effects of a student-centred feedback approach on writing achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 105, 1-10. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103387

Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315-1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354

Cheng, X., Zhang, L. J., & Yan, Q. (2021). Exploring teacher written feedback in EFL writing classrooms: Beliefs and practices in interaction. Language Teaching Research, 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211057665

Child, D. (2006). The essentials of factor analysis (3rd ed). Continuum.

Cho, S. (2015). Writing teacher views on teacher feedback: A shift from grammar corrector to motivator. Journal of Asia TEFL, 12(3), 33-59. https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2015.12.32.33

Ellis, R. (1998). Teaching and research: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 39-60. https://doi. org/10.2307/3587901

Ferguson, P. (2011). Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(1), 51-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903197883

Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(99)80110-6

Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Routledge.

Ferris, D. R. (2004). The "Grammar Correction" debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime ...?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 49-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjslw.2004.04.005

Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181-201. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263109990490

Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). SAGE.

Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.): Cognitive processes in writing: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 3-30). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gul, R. B., Tharani, A., Lakhani, A., Rizvi, N. F., & Ali, S. K. (2016). Teachers' perceptions and practices of written feedback in higher education. World Journal of Education, 6(3), 10-20. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v6n3p10

Guo, Y., Puranik, C., Dinnesen, M. S., & Hall, A. H. (2022). Exploring kindergarten teachers' classroom practices and beliefs in writing. Reading and Writing, 35(2), 457-478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10193-y

Haines, C. (2004). Assessing students' written work: Marking essays and reports. Routledge.

Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Randall (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1-27). Erlbaum.

Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication, 29(3), 369-388. https://doi. org/10.1177/0741088312451260

Henderson, M., Phillips, M., Ryan, T., Boud, D., Dawson, P., Molloy, E., & Mahoney, P. (2019). Conditions that enable effective feedback. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(7), 1401-1416. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1657807

Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. National Conference on Research in English.

Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, K. (2013). Student perceptions of hidden messages in teacher written feedback. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(3), 180-187. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.stueduc.2013.06.003

Irimiea, S. (2008). Text linguistics. Presa Universitara Clujeana.

Javadi-Safa, A. (2018). A brief overview of key issues in second language writing teaching and research. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 6(2), 15-25. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.6n.2p.15

Jebbour, M. (2021). English language teaching in Morocco: A focus on the English department. The Journal of North African Studies, 26(1), 103-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629387.2019.1681267

Jodaie, M., & Farrokhi, F. (2012). An exploration of private language institute teachers' perceptions of written grammar feedback in EFL classes. English Language Teaching, 5(2), 58-67. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n2p58

Junqueira, L., & Payant, C. (2015). "I just want to do it right, but it's so hard": A novice teacher's written feedback beliefs and practices. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 19-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjslw.2014.11.001

Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02291575

Keh, C. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation. ELTJournal, 44(4), 294-304. https:// doi.org/10.1093/elt/44.4.294

Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of secondlanguage writing skills. The Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305-313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991 .tb05359.x

Koenka, A. C., & Anderman, E. M. (2019). Personalized feedback as a strategy for improving motivation and performance among middle school students. Middle School Journal, 50(5), 15-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2019.1674768

Koenka, A. C., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Moshontz, H., Atkinson, K. M., Sanchez, C. E., & Cooper, H. (2019). A meta-analysis on the impact of grades and comments on academic motivation and achievement: A case for written feedback. Educational Psychology, 41(7), 922-947. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1659939

Lee, H. H., Leong, A. P., & Song, G. (2017). Investigating teacher perceptions of feedback. ELT Journal, 71(1), 60-68. https://doi. org/10.1093/elt/ccw047

Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers' written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjslw.2007.10.001

Lee, I. (2009). Ten mismatches between teachers' beliefs and written feedback practice. ELT Journal, 63(1), 13-22. https://doi. org/10.1093/elt/ccn010

Li, J., & Barnard, R. (2011). Academic tutors' beliefs about and practices of giving feedback on students' written assignments: A New Zealand case study. Assessing Writing, 16(2), 137-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2011.02.004

Liu, Q., & Wu, S. (2019). Same goal, varying beliefs: How students and teachers see the effectiveness of feedback on second language writing. Journal of Writing Research, 11(2), 299-330. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2019.11.02.03

MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84-99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989xA1.84

Mao, S. S., & Crosthwaite, P. (2019). Investigating written corrective feedback: (Mis)alignment of teachers' beliefs and practice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 46-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjslw.2019.05.004

Mikhchi, H.H. (2011). Standards of textuality: Rendering English and Persian texts based on a textual model. Journal of Universal Language, 12 (1), 47-74. https://doi.org/10.22425/jul.2011.12.1.47

Min, H. T. (2013). A case study of an EFL writing teacher's belief and practice about written feedback. System, 41(3), 625-638. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.system.2013.07.018

Myles, J. (2002). Second language writing and research: The writing process and error analysis in student texts. TESL-EJ, 6(2), 1-20.

Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501-517. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003786559

Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090

Nieminen, J. H., Tai, J., Boud, D., & Henderson, M. (2022). Student agency in feedback: beyond the individual. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(1), 95-108. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1887080

Nguyen, H. T., & Filipi, A. (2018). Multiple-draft/multiple-party feedback practices in an EFL tertiary writing course: Teachers' and students' perspectives. International Education Studies, 11(8), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v11n8p1

Nguyen, L. T. T. (2019). A case study of teacher feedback on Thai university students' essay writing. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 19(2), 121-138. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2019-1902-08

Ouahidi, M., & Lamkhanter, F. (2017). How do higher education students perceive feedback? International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 10(2), 609-619.

Ouahidi, M., & Lamkhanter, F. (2020). Students' perceptions about teachers' written feedback on writing in a Moroccan university context. In A. Ahmed, S. Troudi, & S. Riley (Eds.), Feedback in L2 English writing in the Arab world (pp. 35-63). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25830-6_2

Ouakrime, M. (2000). The new education reform in Morocco: The role of English. In Zaki A. (eds), Proceedings of the 20th MATE Annual Conference, An Argument for a more Formative Approach to Assessment in ELT in Morocco (pp. 60-66). Kenitra.

Pituch, K. A., & Stevens, J. P. (2016). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (6th ed.). Tyler & Francis.

Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). "If I only had more time": ESL learnters' changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 43-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90005-4

Pramila, N. (2017). Approaches to teaching English writing: A research note. Studies in Foreign Language Education, 39, 141-148.

Puengpipattrakul, W. (2014). A process approach to writing to develop Thai EFL students' socio-cognitive skills. ElectronicJour-nal of Foreign Language Teaching, 11(2), 270-284.

Purnomo, W. W., Basthomi, Y., & Prayogo, J. A. (2021). EFL university teachers' perspectives in written corrective feedback and their actual applications. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 10(3), 1089-1099. https://doi. org/10.11591/ijere.v10i3.21641

Rukmana, D. (2022). Interval scale. In B. B. Frey (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of research design (2nd ed, pp. 725-727). Sage Publications, Inc.

Said, K., & Mouzrati, A. E. (2018). Investigating teacher written corrective feedback as a formative assessment tool. Arab World English Journal, 9(4), 232-241. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol9no4.17

Sakrak-Ekin, G., & Balgikanli, C. (2019). Written corrective feedback: EFL teachers' beliefs and practices. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 19(1), 114-128.

Sia, D., & Cheung, Y. L. (2017). Written corrective feedback in writing instruction: A qualitative synthesis of recent research. Issues in Language Studies, 6(1), 61-80. https://doi.org/10.33736/ils.478.2017

Stewart, M. (2015): The language of praise and criticism in a student evaluation survey. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 45, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.01.004

Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Panadero, E. (2018). Developing evaluative judgement: Enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work. Higher Education, 76(3), 467-481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0220-3

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x

Truscott, J. (2001). Selecting errors for selective error correction. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 27(2), 93-108.

Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 337-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjslw.2004.05.002

Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners' ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjslw.2007.06.003

Tsui, A. B., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of second language writing, 9(2), 147-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(00)00022-9

Vatt0y, K., & Smith, K. (2019). Students' perceptions of teachers' feedback practice in teaching English as a foreign language. Teaching and Teacher Education, 85, 260-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.06.024

Wei, W., & Cao, Y. (2020). Written corrective feedback strategies employed by university English lecturers: A teacher cognition perspective. SAGE Open, 10(3), 1-12 https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n9p177

Wicking, D. (2022). Categorizing continuous data. In B. B. Frey (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of research design (2nd ed, pp. 170-172). Sage Publications, Inc.

Winstone, N., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Heron, M. (2022). From feedback-as-information to feedback-as-process: a linguistic analysis of the feedback literature. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(2), 213-230. https://doi.org/10.1080/02 602938.2021.1902467

Yang, H. (2022). Factor loadings. In B. B. Frey (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of research design (2nd ed, pp. 560-563). Sage Publications, Inc.

Yang, L., Zhang, L., Li, C., Wang, K., Fan, L., & Yu, R. (2021). Investigating EFL teachers' beliefs and practices about written corrective feedback: A large-scale study. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 25, 29-65. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2021.25.03

Zaman, M. M., Azad, M., & Kalam, A. (2012). Feedback in EFL writing at tertiary level: Teachers' and learners' perceptions. ASA University Review, 6(1), 139-156.

Yu, S., Zheng, Y., Jiang, L., Liu, C., & Xu, Y. (2021). "I even feel annoyed and angry": Teacher emotional experiences in giving feedback on student writing. Assessing Writing, 48, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100528

Zyad, H., & Bouziane, A. (2020). The effect of EFL correction practices on developing Moroccan students' English writing skills. In A. Ahmed, S. Troudi, & S. Riley (Eds.), Feedback in L2 English writing in the Arab world (pp. 113-138). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

APPENDIX

Questionnaire items related to EFL university teachers' perceptions and self-reported practices of written feedback

1. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following practices of written feedback to be targeted in English classrooms? Please, tick your answer.

1: Strongly Disagree 2: Disagree 3: Neutral 4: Agree 5: Strongly Agree

Written feedback should ...

1 ... be provided on the linguistic structure of the final written text (e.g., grammar, vocabulary, organiza- . tion). 234 5

2 ... support students to be better motivated during the writing process by providing them with directions. 1 234 5

3 ... comment on whether students' writing is cohesive. 1 234 5

4 ... include specific comments that encourage students to improve their own previous written texts in the 1 writing process. 1 234 5

5 ... comment on whether students' writing is related to their own intention. 1 234 5

6 ... comment on whether students' writing is related to the given purpose. 1 234 5

7 ... be based on teacher-student discussion about the development of the written text. 1 234 5

8 ... comment on whether students' new written text is related to their prior text which shares the same 1 characteristics. 234 5

9 ... indicate errors in students' writing by correcting them. 1 234 5

10 ... comment on whether students' writing is related to the given genre. 1 234 5

11 ... encourage students to self-assess their own writing by reflecting on their strengths and weaknesses. 1 234 5

12 ... comment on whether students' writing is developed in terms of meaningful ideas. 1 234 5

13 ... judge students' final writing based on scores without justifications. 1 234 5

14 ... encourage students to follow the assessment criteria when assessing writing for improvement. 1 234 5

15 ... indicate errors in students' writing by underlining them. 1 234 5

16 ... be given as explained praises with justifications that improve writing. 1 234 5

17 ... be supplemented with oral feedback during the development of writing. 1 234 5

18 ... include detailed information which can help students revise their written text effectively. 1 234 5

19 ... judge students' final writing based on general praises (e.g., "great work") without justifications. 1 234 5

20 ... comment on whether students' writing is related to a specific situation or context. 1 234 5

21 ... encourage students to assess others' writing by constructing feedback. 1 234 5

22 ... comment on whether the content of students' writing is informative for the reader. 1 234 5

23 ... be supported by peers' feedback during the development of writing. 1 234 5

24 ... be provided by the teacher when evaluating the final written text. 1 234 5

25 ... be given on different drafts during the development of writing. 1 234 5

26 ... be provided on a single-draft as a final version of writing. 1 234 5

27 ... guide students to explain their written ideas with precision during the writing process. 1 234 5

28 ... indicate the type of errors in students' writing by using codes (e.g., "S" for spelling). 1 234 5

29 ... include specific suggestions that help students identify the next steps in the writing process. 1 234 5

Written feedback should ...

30 ... comment on whether students' writing is supported by examples. 12 3 4 5

31 ... comment on whether students' writing is coherent. 12 3 4 5

32 ... judge students' final writing based on general criticism (e.g., "poor work") without justifications. 12 3 4 5

33 ... indicate whether readers' expectations are addressed in students' writing. 12 3 4 5

34 ... be given as elaborated criticism formulated with explanations that improve writing. 12 3 4 5

35 ... trigger students to notice the gaps by engaging them actively in the writing process to improve the written text. 12 3 4 5

36 ... be given as justified scores based on assessment criteria that help the improvement of writing. 12 3 4 5

37 ... judge students' final writing based on the number of errors they have made. 12 3 4 5

38 ... encourage students to accept receiving feedback from their peers. 12 3 4 5

39 ... be provided as concrete suggestions pointing forward to improve writing. 12 3 4 5

40 ... indicate errors in students' written text when targeting their language accuracy. 12 3 4 5

2. How frequently do you apply the following practices of written feedback? Please, tick your answer.

1: Never 2: Rarely 3: Sometimes 4:Often 5: Always

In my written feedback, I ....

1 ... provide students with feedback on the linguistic structure of their final written text (e.g., grammar, vocabulary, organization). 12 3 4 5

2 ... use codes (e.g., "S" for spelling) to indicate the type of errors in students' writing. 12 3 4 5

3 ... comment on whether students' writing is cohesive. 12 3 4 5

4 ... give students justified scores based on assessment criteria that help the improvement of writing. 12 3 4 5

5 ... comment on whether students' writing is related to their own intention. 12 3 4 5

6 ... support students to be better motivated during the writing process by providing them with directions. 12 3 4 5

7 ... comment on whether students' writing is related to a specific situation or context. 12 3 4 5

8 ... judge students' final writing based on general praises (e.g., "great work") without justifications. 12 3 4 5

9 ... comment on whether students' writing is related to the given purpose. 12 3 4 5

10 ... comment on whether students' writing is coherent. 12 3 4 5

11 ... comment on whether students' writing is supported by examples. 12 3 4 5

12 ... give students explained praises with justifications that improve writing. 12 3 4 5

13 ... judge students' final writing based on scores without justifications. 12 3 4 5

14 ... indicate errors in students' writing by correcting them. 12 3 4 5

15 ... encourage students to self-assess their own writing by reflecting on their strengths and weaknesses. 12 3 4 5

16 ... indicate whether readers' expectations are addressed in students' writing. 12 3 4 5

17 ... provide students with oral feedback as supplementary to written feedback during the development of writing. 12 3 4 5

18 ... comment on whether students' writing is related to the given genre. 12 3 4 5

19 ... provide students with detailed information which can help them revise their written text effectively. 12 3 4 5

20 ... indicate errors in students' writing by underlining them. 12 3 4 5

21 ... support peers' feedback during the development of writing. 12 3 4 5

22 ... encourage students to assess others' writing by constructing feedback. 12 3 4 5

In my written feedback, I ....

23 ... discuss the development of the written text with students. 1 234 5

24 ... provide students with specific suggestions that help them identify the next steps in the writing process. 1 234 5

25 ... provide students with my feedback when I evaluate their final written text. 1 234 5

26 ... give students feedback on different drafts during the development of writing. 1 234 5

27 ... respond to students' single-draft as a final version of writing. 1 234 5

28 ... guide students to explain their written ideas with precision during the writing process. 1 234 5

29 ... comment on whether the content of students' writing is informative to the reader. 1 234 5

30 ... provide students with specific comments that encourage them to improve their own previous written 1 texts in the writing process. 1 234 5

31 ... comment on whether students' writing is developed in terms of meaningful ideas. 1 234 5

32 ... judge students' final writing based on general criticism (e.g., "poor work") without justifications. 1 234 5

33 ... encourage students to follow the assessment criteria when assessing writing for improvement. 1 234 5

34 ... give students elaborated criticism formulated with explanations that improve writing. 1 234 5

35 ... trigger students to notice the gaps by engaging them actively in the writing process to improve the 1 written text. 1 234 5

36 ... comment on whether students' new written text is related to their prior text which shares the same 1 characteristics. 1 234 5

37 ... indicate errors in students' written text when targeting their language accuracy. 1 234 5

38 ... provide students with concrete suggestions pointing forward to improve writing. 1 234 5

39 ... judge students' writing based on the number of errors they have made. 1 234 5

40 ... encourage students to accept receiving feedback from their peers. 1 2 3 4 5