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

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.


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 & Knoch, 2010;Lee, 2008Lee, , 2009Sia & 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(Lee, , 2009Junqueira & 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 (1999Ferris's ( , 2004Ferris's ( , 2010 arguments, some researchers (e.g., Ashwell, 2000;Ellis, 1998;Ferris & Roberts, 2001) confirmed that even though error correction has only short-term ef-| Research Article fects, it is still beneficial to students struggling with writing accuracy. In the second perspective, which supports Truscott's (1996Truscott's ( , 2001Truscott's ( , 2004Truscott's ( , 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;Vattøy & 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 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- Table 1 Key Features of Product-and Process-Oriented WF

Product-oriented WF Process-oriented WF
… is provided on completed drafts or final written texts. … is provided before, during, and after writing activities.
… 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.
… 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 improve students' language accuracy in writing. … is intended to foster learner self-regulation, improve self-editing writing strategies, and make use of social processes to help students make writing improvements.

| Research Article
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, 2008Lee, , 2009Sia & 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(Lee, , 2009Junqueira & 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 andDressler (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 (informativity); (4) the involvement of the setting (situationality); 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(Hayes, , 2012Flower & 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 | Research Article 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, 2017Zyad & Bouziane, 2020). Empirical studies (Abouabdelkader, 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?

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 | Research Article 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-toface 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.

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, 1981/1992Ferguson, 2011;Ferris, 2003;Haines, 2004;Koenka & Anderman, 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 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 subscales. The first is named content-based WF related to standards of textuality because, when developing its items, the main features of cohesion, coherence, intentionality, informativity, 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

| Research Article
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;. 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 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.  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

Figure 2
Scree Plot regarding Process Approach of WF in Two Dimensions 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.

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- 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. Table 8 presents the results of the comparison between perceptions and self-reported practices along the subscales.

Research Question Three
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.   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. Note. In the case of all subscales, the values can be ranged between 1 and 5.

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 Kharusi 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 Balçikanli (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 Mouzrati'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-

| Research Article
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 (Abouabdelkader, 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 productand 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.