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 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.

There is a great body of literature that indicates that writing is the most difficult language skill in language learning. Students often find it challenging to write a coherent, well thought and well accurate piece of writing because of the various aspects (organization, content, grammar, syntax, word choice) they need to satisfy while writing. For teachers of writing, what matters is not students’ mastery of all these aspects at once, but their ability to write a good piece of writing. This aim is really disregarded once the produced paper receives little or no feedback on students’ writing. Therefore, the proposed paper aims at outlining the different strategies and types of written corrective feedback that English foreign language (EFL) teachers employ to respond to students’ writings, focusing on the definitions, characteristics, advantages and limitations of each strategy and type. Suggestive dimensions of feedback provision and useful tips on implementing good feedback are also addressed.

Feedback literacy in higher education has come as a reaction to the ineffective focus on teacher's delivery of feedback and its passive reception by students rather than on students' active participation in receiving feedback and constructing it (Nicol & Macfarlane-dick, 2006; Nicol, 2019). Therefore, the aim of this theoretical paper is to identify students' capabilities of feedback literacy. To meet this objective, three questions are targeted: 1) How is feedback literacy defined? 2) How is it characterized? 3) What are its practical dimensions from student's perspective? Based on the analysis of theoretical and empirical studies retrieved via reliable databases, a thorough description of the existing definitions of feedback literacy and its frameworks (Carless & Boud, 2018; Carless & Winstone, 2020; Molloy, Boud, & Henderson, 2020; Sutton, 2012) can be highlighted. Four dimensions of student feedback literacy and their adaptation to the writing context are also targeted: appreciating feedback, making evaluative judgments, managing affect, and acting upon feedback (Carless & Boud, 2018). This paper is relevant because it addresses the shift from feedback as a one-way process of transmitting information from instructors to feedback as a process of using diverse communication channels, through which teachers and students collaborate to improve learning outcomes.

This study aims to investigate the perceptions and self-reported practices of Moroccan EFL public high school teachers towards traditional and alternative assessment. The data were collected from 51 teachers in Northern Morocco using a self-developed online questionnaire. The questionnaire items about teachers’ perceptions and self-reported practices were valid and both their data and sampling were acceptable for factor analysis of three subscales (traditional assessment, alternative assessment related with assessment as learning, and assessment for learning), and all scales proved to be reliable. Based on the three research questions, the study yielded the following results: (1) Teachers perceived the objectives of alternative assessment to be significantly more important than those of traditional assessment. (2) Based on their self-reported practices, teachers mainly used traditional assessment methods more often than alternative assessment methods associated with assessment as and for learning. (3) When comparing teachers’ perceptions with their self-reported practices, we found that teachers’ perceptions regarding traditional assessment matched their practices; while the majority of teachers admitted that they found alternative assessment important even though they did not often use it in order to support students to be able to reflect on their own learning or to enhance their performance in the learning process. Thus, these findings are significant for researchers, teachers, and educators to help them reconsider their perceptions of alternative assessment and how they should be enacted in practice with the aim of resolving the mismatches found in this study.

No abstract