Educational Effectiveness Research (EER) has been approached as an umbrella concept in this study. It focused on effectiveness concerns among Tunisian EFL tertiary writing teachers in relation to their beliefs and practices concerning Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) provision to improve the learners’ written accuracy. This study addresses the paucity of cutting-edge research in addressing EFL teachers’ professional development in relation to writing instruction and feedback provision. This study is a Participatory Action Research (PAR) in nature and it has a mixed-methods sequential design. The data collection was ensured through a survey, two semi-structured interviews, focus-group discussion, reflective journals, and documents analysis. The quantitative data were analyzed statistically, while the qualitative data was analyzed through the lens of thematic analysis. The findings of the study culminated in gaining deeper insights into WCF effectiveness measures in relation to EFL teachers’ beliefs, practices, and professionalism. Also, a proposed model has been generated to illustrate the main research contributions. This study brings to the fore further implications, conclusions, and suggestions for further research.
Table of contents
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1. Introduction
1.2. Background of the study
1.3. The contribution of the study
1.4. Statement of the problem
1.5. Research Objectives
1.6. Research Questions
1.7. Research hypotheses
1.8. Structure of the thesis
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1. Introduction
2.2. Educational Effectiveness Research
2.2.1. The theoretical underpinning of EER
2.2.2. Future directions In EER
2.2.3. Establishing the thesis research niche within EER
2.3. Approaching Writing in Foreign Language Research
2.3.1. The Historical Background
2.3.2. The product Approach
2.3.2.1. Feedback in the Product Approach
2.3.2.2. Advantages and limitations of the Product Approach
2.3.3. The Process approach
2.3.3.1. Feedback in the Process Approach
2.3.3.2. Advantages and Limitations of the process Approach
2.3.4. The Genre Approach
2.3.4.1. . Feedback in the Genre Approach
2.3.4.2. Advantages and limitations of the Genre Approach
2.3.5. Summary
2.4. Written corrective Feedback in FL Writing
2.4.1. Defining Written Corrective Feedback
2.4.2. Written CF and Language Learning: Why the Debate Matters
2.4.3. Theoretical Foundations in SLA research supporting the use of WCF
2.4.3.1. The psycholinguistic Approaches
2.4.3.1.1 Focus on form
2.4.3.1.2 . Noticing Hypothesis
2.4.3.1.3 The socio-cultural strand
2.4.4. Theoretical Foundations in SLA research against the use of WCF
2.4.4.1. Krashen’s Natural Order and Affective Filter Hypothesis
2.4.4.2. Teachability and Learnability Hypotheses
2.4.5. The debate over Written Corrective Feedback Effectiveness in research
2.4.5.1. The proponents’ views
2.4.5.2. The opponents' views
2.4.6. Research on the practical Issues of WCF effectiveness
2.4.6.1. Research on whether or not WCF can facilitate L2 development
2.4.6.2. Research on WCF efficacy on different text types
2.4.6.2.1 Studies on a revisited version of a text
2.4.6.2.2 Studies on new pieces of writing
2.4.6.2.3 . Studies on Unfocused new texts
2.4.6.2.4 . Studies on focused new texts
2.4.6.3. The relative Effectiveness of different types of WCF
2.4.6.3.1 Studies comparing direct CF and less explicit types of WCF
2.4.6.3.2 Studies comparing direct CF and indirect CF with more explicit types of written CF
2.4.6.3.3 Studies comparing metalinguistic explanation and other types of WCF ...57
2.4.6.3.4 Studies comparing focused and unfocused written CF
2.4.6.3.5 The effect of feedback on different grammatical structures
2.4.6.4. Approaching WCF within error gravity research area
2.4.6.4.1 Errors that are relevant to the pedagogical focus
2.4.6.4.2 rrors that occur frequently
2.4.6.4.3 3 Errors that hinder intelligibility
2.4.6.4.4 Errors that affect teachers’ acceptability
2.4.6.4.5 Errors that cause irritation
2.4.6.5. 6 Errors that affect comprehensibility
2.4.6.6. Design flaws
2.5. Research on EFL/ESL Teachers’ beliefs and practices
2.5.1. Research of EFL/ESL teachers’ cognition
2.5.2. The sources of EFL/ESL teachers cognition
2.5.3. The impetus behind studying EFL/ESL writing teachers’ cognitions
2.5.4. Research on EFL/ESL teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding WCF
2.5.5. Alignment and misalignment in EFL/ESL teachers beliefs and practices
2.6. Research on Teachers’ Professional Development
2.6.1. Factors affecting Teachers’ PD
2.6.1.1. . The context
2.6.1.2. Time
2.6.1.3. Financial Resources
2.6.1.4. Teachers’ motivation
2.6.2. How do teachers’ learn?
2.6.2.1. Teachers’ growth as individuals
2.6.2.2. Self-development
2.6.2.3. Institutional support
2.6.2.4. Needs Analysis
2.6.3. Models of PD
2.6.3.1. Initial Teacher Education (pre-service Education)
2.6.3.2. In-service Training
2.6.3.3. Mentoring
2.6.3.4. Teachers’ Professional Learning Communities
2.6.3.5. Action Research
2.6.3.5.1 Zooming on Participatory Action Research
2.6.3.5.2 Action Research and PD
2.6.3.5.3 Action Research frameworks for EFL/ESL Teachers’ reflective practice
2.6.3.5.4 The Role of Reflective Practice in the Professional Development of Teachers
2.6.3.5.5 The impact of Reflective Practice in EFL teachers’ agency
2.7. Summary
Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1. Methodology
3.2. Research Paradigm
3.2.1. The philosophical underpinnings of action research
3.2.1.1. The ontological stance
3.2.1.2. The epistemological stance:
3.2.1.3. The methodological stance
3.2.2. PAR principles:
3.3. Research design Approach
3.3.1. The PAR Methodology
3.3.1.1. The rationale for the implementation of PAR
3.3.1.2. The current PAR framework
3.3.1.2.1. The major PAR steps: What to do?
3.3.1.2.2. The road map for the application of PAR: How to proceed?
3.3.1.3. Challenges considerations in conducting Participatory Action Research .
3.3.1.3.1. Ethical challenges
3.3.1.3.2. Practical and methodological challenges
3.3.1.3.3. Implementation challenges
3.3.2. The design type
3.3.2.1. Mixed-methods research
3.4. Research objectives
3.5. Research methods and justification
3.5.1. The Survey
3.5.2. Semi-structured interviews
3.5.3. Diary writing
3.5.4. Focus Group Discussions
3.5.5. Document Analysis (DA)
3.6. Sampling
3.7. The Researcher’s Position
3.8. Data collection procedures
3.8.1. The Quantitative tools
3.8.1.1. Dealing with the survey
3.8.1.1.1. Constructing the Survey questionnaire
3.8.1.1.3. Administering the survey questionnaire
3.8.1.1.4. Dealing with documents collection
3.8.1.1.5. Measuring Learners’ written Accuracy
3.8.1.1.6. Measuring EFL teachers’ practices
3.8.2. The qualitative tools
3.8.2.1. Dealing with the semi-structured interviews
3.8.2.1.1. Constructing the semi-structured interviews
3.8.2.1.3. The procedures of the semi-structured interviews
3.8.2.2. Constructing the diary writing
3.8.2.3. Constructing the focus group discussion
3.9. Research Process
3.9.2. The pre-intervention phase
3.9.3. The intervention phase: Diary and focused group discussion
3.9.3.1. The Intervention Process: (The Training sessions)
3.9.3.2. Intervention elements: (The proposed WCF Methodology)
3.9.4. The post-intervention phase:
3.10. Data Analysis
3.10.2. Quantitative Data Analysis
3.10.3. Qualitative Data Analysis (Thematic Analysis)
3.11. Quality criteria of the research (Rigor)
3.11.2. Dependability
3.11.3. Credibility and transferability
3.11.4. Confirmability
3.12. Ethical Considerations
3.13. Challenges and limitations
3.14. Summary
Chapter 4: Findings
4.1 The pre-intervention phase
4.1.1. The survey results
4.1.1.1 . The survey macro-level data analysis
4.1.1.2 The survey micro-level data analysis
4.1.2. The analysis of the Pre-intervention Interview:
4.1.3. The analysis of the Pre-intervention Interview:
1.1.2.1 . EFL teachers’ approaches to writing instruction
1.1.2.2 EFL teachers’ awarness of their students’ writing challenges and possible solutions to Students’ writing challenges
1.1.2.3 EFL teachers’ concerns with the WCF
1.1.2.4 . EFL teachers’ professional development about WCF
1.2 .3 EFL teachers' WCF analysis
1.3 . The post-intervention stage
1.2.1. The Qualitative analysis
1.2.1.1 The impact of the PI on EFL teachers’ perceptions about their beliefs and practices
1.2.1.2 . The impact of the PI on EFL teachers’ professional growth
1.2.1.3 The existing challenges and needs in relation to the PD training
1.2.2. The quantitative analysis of the students’ written errors during the PD Intervention
1.2.2.1 . Local errors:
1.2.2.2 Global errors:
Chapter 5: Discussion
5.1. EFL teachers’ WCF beliefs and preferences
5.2. The Impact of WCF on the EFL Learners’ L2 Writing Skills
5.3. EFL teachers’ WCF practices in the Tunisian EFL context
5.3.1 EFL teachers’ actual practices
5.3.2 EFL teachers' practices concerning the proposed WCF framework (implementation concerns)
5.4. Factors affecting EFL teacher writing instruction and WCF practices
5.5. EFL Teachers’ Challenges Related to WCF
5.6. EFL teachers’ Mismatches between their beliefs and practices about WCF
5.7. The impact of the PD training on EFL teachers’ PD about WCF
5.8. Participatory Action Research as a form of PD
5.9. Theorization
Chapter 6: Conclusion
6.1. Introduction
6.2. Summary of the main findings
6.2.1 How do EFL/ESL Tunisian Teachers think about WCF provision and what are their actual practices?
6.2.2 . What is the relation between EFL/ESL Tunisian teachers' cognitions and practices of WCF (alignments versus misalignments)?
6.2.3 . What is the impact of the intervention on EFL/ESL learners' writing development?
6.2.4 What is the impact of the intervention on EFL/ESL teachers’ cognitions and practices about WCF?
6.2.5 What is the proposed WCF methodology that should be implemented in the future in the tertiary Tunisian context?
6.3. Theoretical and pedagogical implications
6.3.1 Implications for policymakers
6.3.2 Implications for the National Curriculum and syllabi
6.3.3 From Theory to practice to praxis
6.3.4 Implications for the EFL writing teachers
6.4. The study contribution
6.4.1 Theoretical contributions
6.4.2 Pedagogical contributions
6.4.3 Methodological contributions
6.5. Suggestions for future research
6.6. The Limitations of the study
6.7. Reflecting on my Ph.D. Journey
6.8. Conclusion
Refernces
Dedication
O’Allah Almighty! All praise and gratitude be to you.
I dedicate this book to my PhD supervisor, Professor Salah Troudi and the School of
Education in Exeter University, UK
Acknowledgment
This work would not have been possible without first and before all, the blessings of Allah and then, the help, assistance, and most importantly, encouragement I received from various faculty members at the University of Sfax, Tunisia, University of Exeter, UK, various colleagues, friends, and family members.
Abstract
Educational Effectiveness Research (EER) has been approached as an umbrella concept in this study. It focused on effectiveness concerns among Tunisian EFL tertiary writing teachers in relation to their beliefs and practices concerning Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) provision to improve the learners’ written accuracy. This study addresses the paucity of cutting-edge research in addressing EFL teachers’ professional development in relation to writing instruction and feedback provision. This study is a Participatory Action Research (PAR) in nature and it has a mixed-methods sequential design. The data collection was ensured through a survey, two semi-structured interviews, focus-group discussion, reflective journals, and documents analysis. The quantitative data were analyzed statistically, while the qualitative data was analyzed through the lens of thematic analysis. The findings of the study culminated in gaining deeper insights into WCF effectiveness measures in relation to EFL teachers’ beliefs, practices, and professionalism. Also, a proposed model has been generated to illustrate the main research contributions. This study brings to the fore further implications, conclusions, and suggestions for further research.
List of abbreviations
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
In the Name of Allah the Most Merciful, the Most
Compassionate
And say: “My Lord, Increase me in knowledge” . (Sura 20: 114)
Chapter 1: Introduction
It is teachers who, in the end, will change the world of the school by understanding it
~Lawrence Stenhouse~
1.0. Introduction
This chapter introduces this piece of research in several ways. First, it provides an introduction to this study. Second, it focuses on the research background. Third, it highlights the contribution of the study. Fourth, it spotlights the research problem, objectives, questions, and hypothesis. Finally, it sketches the book structure.
1.1. Background of the study
Looking for effectiveness in education has led to the emergence of educational effectiveness research (EER). Therefore, linking it to the area of written corrective feedback (WCF) has led many scholars to write about both the theoretical and practical concerns (eg: Evans, Hartshorn, & Tuioti, 2010; and Robinson, Pope, & Holyoak, 2013). The effectiveness in this field has been approached differently. For example, a growing body of research has emerged to examine L1and L2 teachers’ feedback on students’ writings. It is important to note that studies on L2 and FL contexts have been conducted from different vantage points. Some have focused on students’ preferences and reactions to teachers’ feedback (Ferris, 1995). Others have looked at teachers’ practices (Ferris ,2014). While other researchers tend to focus on the effects of different corrective feedback strategies (Sanavi, & Nemati, 2014) or compared differenttypes of combinations of WCF forms (Kepner, 1991).
The concern with effectiveness about WCF has been extended to the area of reflective practice among Practitioners (Kumaravadivelu 2001). Due to the changes resulting from the complexities of the foreign language classroom dynamics (Akbari, 2007), reflective practice has emerged to be a new training model to engage EFL/ESL teachers in reflective practices. As it is noted by Lee (2007, p. 321), ‘reflective practice has become a paradigm that dominates teacher education around the world’. Educators’ reflective practices will ensure their professional development. Although it takes different forms, action research represents a secure and practical methodology to be adopted to ensure teachers’ professional development through transforming the present to produce a better future through recognizing and suspending their prejudices. (McNiff & Whitehead, 2002: 17).
This study focuses on writing skills in the foreign language (FL) classroom. This skill is overwhelmed with a great deal of complexity which makes both learners struggle to write accurately (Teng and Zhang 2020) and teachers to deal with their learners’ challenges effectively. In this study, WCF (WCF) is perceived under the umbrella term of Educational Effectiveness Research (EER). This orientation will set some effective conditions for what WCF should be. These conditions about WCF effectiveness measurement will go beyond the traditional boundaries of the term. By doing so, a new role of WCF will appear to foster EER. This new role is dynamic and considers effectiveness in the light of the generated outcome gains in both learners’ writing development and teachers' professional development (TPD). The latter concept seems to be neglected in the tertiary Tunisian context.
This study is anchored in the applied linguistics area of research. It is described as a real classroom research study, therefore, it is neither experimental nor quasi-experimental. Theultimate goal of this study is to understand, evaluate and improve the current WCF understanding and practice in the Tunisian tertiary context. The best way to achieve these objectives is to embark on participatory action research.
1.2. The contribution of the study
The present study focuses on the WCF in the Tunisian University Context. The EFL/ESL writing courses are required for the first five terms. In the Tunisian educational system, teaching writing at the tertiary level takes different forms. In the first year, there are two terms of the writing course. The first term is about sentence and paragraph writing skills and the second term is about writing a five-paragraph essay writing. In the second year, the writing courses are divided into two terms as well. In the first term students are introduced to argumentative essay writing, while in the second term, they are exposed to “reading-based writing skills such as summarizing and paraphrasing” (Knouzi, 2016: 130). In their third year, students are introduced to an advanced writing course for just one term for two hours a weekto develop their academic writing skills and “combine and consolidate essay writing skills, provide a framework for more practice in the writing process, and reinforce the link between reading and writing.” It is important to draw the intention to the content of the academic writing program in the Tunisian university, however, the concern of this piece of research will be beyond the specificities of the content of the courses of academic writing. It will be rather on accounting for EFL/ESL teachers’ practices and cognitions to achieve better learners’ accuracy gains in writing.
Some research attempts have been done in the Tunisian context to investigate some salientwriting issues within EFL/ESL learners. Mahfoudhi (1998), Ghrib (2001), knouzi (2016), Hamdi (2016), and Dallagi (2020). To start with, Mahfoudhi (1998) examined the writing of second-year Tunisian EFL/ESL students' argumentative essays. He came up with deficiencies such as inadequate use of mechanics, grammar, vocabulary, lack of clear thesis statements, and support for claims. Ghrib (2001) examined essays written by third- year EFL/ESL students and found that learners’ writing difficulties are mainly grammatical and organizational. She found a clear mismatch between students’ assessment of their writing abilities and difficulties and teachers’ evaluation of their abilities. Kanouzi (2016) tries to use objective measures of writing performance of Tunisian fourth-year university EFL/ESL students. She found that the participants did not form a homogeneous group” In fact, they could be subdivided into several groups ranging in EFL/ESL writing proficiency from low to intermediate or advanced, according to the measures used in this study.” These measures are fluency, linguistic accuracy, syntactic complexity, lexical richness, and metadiscourse use. Her research warrant some teaching recommendations in the Tunisian EFL/ESL context such as teaching grammar in context and help students develop a more sophisticated lexical repertoire. Hamdi (2016) has systematically analyzed the lexical written errors of twenty Tunisian students. The findings of this study showed that the participants committed more formal errors than semantic ones. Finally, Dallagi’s (2020) study has focused on “writing strategies among 147 Tunisian university students, majoring in Hard Science and Soft Science courses (English, French, Medicine, and Engineering)” (p119). She verified how academic fields, gender, and proficiency may interact within writing strategies and she called for drawing learners’ attention towards writing strategies.
However, some other researchers such as Barkaoui (2007), Ferjani (2010), Mhedhbi (2011), Zayani (2017,2018, 2020), and Athimni (2020) have focused on Tunisian tertiary EFL/ESL teachers’ in their WCF studies. Thus, Barkaoui (2007) investigated the effects of two different rating scales on four EFL Tunisian teachers concerning essay scores, rating processes, and raters’ perceptions. His study showed that raters are different in judgment scores and decision-making behaviors. This study has implications for writing assessment practices. For example, Ferjani (2010: iii), has investigated “the writing strategies and attitudes of a cohort of Tunisian first-year Arts students and composition teachers and detect areas of mismatch between the learning preferences of the students and the teaching practices of the instructors”. The findings of this study may be used by teachers to both diagnose and analyze students’ needs. Additionally, it will be used in raising students’ awareness about using different writing strategies. Moreover, Mhedhbi (2011) investigated the effect of teachers' feedback using a specific marking scheme on the quality of students' rewritings. The study showed the efficacy of teachers’ error correction in the production of well-written final drafts in terms of grammar, spelling, and organization of ideas. Besides, Zayani’s (2017) studyhas focused on Hendrickson’s (1978) third question “which error to correct?” through measuring the error judgments of two groups of tertiary EFL teachers (experienced and novice) based on irritation criterion. The study reports existing differences among both groups. The results show that “not all errors should be treated equally” (p: 76). Additionally, Zayani (2018) has shed light on a neglected area of research in the Tunisian context which is the role of error judgment criteria selection in shaping the gravity judgments of fifteen EFL Tunisian teachers. written errors in the Tunisian context. The results culminated in a huge difference between both groups of teachers in the light of the teaching experience vis- à-vis irritation and acceptability criteria. Therefore, these two above-mentioned studies have contributed to the area of “error gravity research literature which is very scarce in the Tunisian context” (Zayani, 2017: 76). Recently, Zayani (2020) has suggested a theoretical framework that links EFL/ESL TPD and Learners’ Writing Outcomes (LWOs) in relation to WCF. In crafting her framework, the researcher linked Desimone’s (2009) framework of professional development and Hattie& Timperley’s (2007) framework of power of feedback. Recently, Zayani (2020) conducted a qualitative analysis of thirty tertiary EFL teachers’ through implementing open-ended and close-ended questionnaires to investigate their cognitions. The results show that the participants lack basic knowledge about the practice of WCF in the foreign language classrooms. This study calls for more research on the instructional quality and professionalism in the Tunisian context. Additionally, Athimni (2020) has focused on three important concernsin his study: 1) the type of feedback provided by EFL university writing teachers, the feedbackfocuses, and 3) the link between beliefs and practices. His study came up with important findings and recommendations for more research at the tertiary level in linking beliefs and practices to achieve in depth findings.
However, these above-mentioned studies did not provide any alternative pedagogical intervention (PI) to adjust teaching with WCF practices. Therefore, investigating the role of WCF as a mediator in measuring teachers professional development and LWOs will enable both researchers and practitioners to look “beyond the issue of feedback by approaching it as a mediator, ... to construct a new role to the written corrective feedback which has not been investigated thoroughly yet in literature” (Zayani, 2020, p: 17, 18). Moreover, this lacuna is the impetus behind the current research because I will address the existing gaps in WCF cognitions and practices among EFL/ESL Tunisian teachers through a PI that takes the form ofPD workshops. Thus, this paper addresses the very problematic nature of WCF in the Tunisiancontext. It addresses its effects on both teachers and learners since they are the two poles ofany classroom setting. This research will address the effect of providing WCF on teachers’ cognition and practice on the one hand and its impact on learners’ improvement in overcomingtheir writing issues on the other hand.” as is highlighted by (Knouzi: 130).
Additionally, Tunisian teachers at the tertiary level do not receive any formal training about how they should evaluate and treat their learners’ pieces of writing. They rely on their experiential learning and sometimes they collaborate to exchange ideas about their instructional decisions. Research on TPD in the way they should deal with learners’ pieces of writing, the quality of the corrective feedback that they should provide, and linking their practice to learners’ achievements is still lacking in the Tertiary Context in Tunisia. Therefore, this research is conducted in response to a growing concern, voiced by both teachers and administrators, for the deterioration of EFL/ESL students’ performance in English writings, and a conspicuous lack of research into Tunisian EFL/ESL students’ writing, corrective feedback studies and TPD.
1.3. Statement of the problem
Leedy and Ormrod (2005) confirm that the research problem “is the axis around which the whole research effort revolves” (p. 49). The “heart of every research project is the problem. It is paramount to the success of the research effort” (Leedy & Ormrod, p. 49). Additionally, “to see the problem with unwavering clarity and to state it in precise and unmistakable terms is the first requirement in the research process” (Leedy & Ormrod, p. 49). Therefore, Kerlinger and Lee (2000) suggested that “if one wants to solve a problem, one must generally know what the problem is” just because an “adequate statement of the research problem is one of the most important parts of research” (p.24). By the same token, Ellis&Levy (2008: 19) proposed a conceptual Map of the Problem- Based research Cycle that schematizes the important role of the research problem in informingthe study, the goals, research questions, review of the literature, methodology, results, and conclusions.
In this study, the concern about educational effectiveness becomes more focused on research. Within the realm of EER, a bulk of research has been conducted in the literature about the effectiveness of WCF in the FL classroom. It is worth noting that Hendrickson's (1978) five questions about dealing with the corrective feedback (1) Should learner errors be corrected? (2) If so, when should learner errors be corrected? (3) Which learner errors should be corrected? (4) How should learner errors be corrected? (5) Who should correct learner errors? Pave the way to approach this research area with clearer questions and deeper orientations. These questions represent the crux of WCF effectiveness.
Dealing with students' Writing problems that cover fluency, complexity, and accuracy is not an easy task. Therefore, EFL/ESL teachers should be equipped with a special competency to deal effectively with such issues. Questioning EFL/ESL teachers' quality in the process of teaching in general and providing WCF, in particular, paves the way to rethink their pre-service training and in-service continuous professional development. Teacher quality should be highlighted in research since it was considered as a strong predictor of student achievement (Darling-Hammond 2000). Also, measuring learners' improvements in the writing skill through an informed WCF methodology is problematic as well. The established link between the quality of EFL/ESL teachers and the achievements of EFL/ESL students through the lens of WCF is the core of the current piece of research. Focusing on this link will bridge the existing gap between L2 writing research and L2 writing teaching practices that leave L2 writing practitioners with a pedagogical dilemma and unanswered questions that may affect their effectiveness.
1.4. Research Objectives
This research has a set of objectives to achieve:
1. To investigate WCF practices at the tertiary educational level in the Tunisian context.
2. To trace a new role to WCF.
3. To participate in the existing research debate about the effectiveness of WCF throughmeasuring its impact on EFL/ESL learners' writing developments.
4. To study and evaluate EFL/ESL teachers' alignments/misalignments between cognitions and practices in dealing with WCF.
5. To foster EFL/ESL Tunisian teachers' reflective practice as a form of agency throughthe PI to boost their understandings and practices of WCF.
6. To bridge the gap between the existing deficiencies of the actual practice of WCF andthe required practice as it is informed by previous research.
7. To bring practical solutions for the Tunisian Higher education system to overcomesome shortcomings of certain adopted policies.
8. To inform policymakers and curriculum designers at the tertiary level to adjust their decisions and rectify their assumptions to meet the EFL/ESL classroom needs.
9. To establish a national approach of writing instruction and WCF application that goeshand in hand with the Tunisian tertiary context needs.
1.5. Research Questions
Bryman (2012) highlights the importance of being explicit in determining the research questions before embarking on any piece of research. By doing so, researchers will be able to narrow down their focus on a particular range of issues to tackle them more rigorously. By the same token, Haynes, et al (2006) associate good research with well-formulated research questions with the purpose to reach the objectives stated above, this study tries to answer the following questions:
1. How do EFL/ESL Tunisian Teachers think about WCF provision and what are their actualpractices?
2. What is the relation between EFL/ESL Tunisian teachers' cognitions and practices of WCF(alignments versus misalignments)?
3. What is the impact of the intervention on EFL/ESL learners' writing development?
4. What is the impact of the intervention on EFL/ESL teachers’ cognitions and practices aboutWCF?
5. What is the proposed WCF methodology that should be implemented in the future in thetertiary Tunisian context?
1.6. Research hypotheses
This research is guided by the assumption that the workshops of PD are effective tools of change among EFL/ESL teachers’ cognitions and practices about WCF.
• Positive directional hypothesis: TPD intervention has a positive impact on teachers’ cognitions and practices, and learners’ accuracy improvements.
• Null hypothesis: TPD intervention has no impact on teachers’ cognitions and practices, and learners’ accuracy improvements.
1.7. Structure of the book
This piece of research is made up of five main chapters. The first chapter will be reserved for the introduction, which includes the background to the study, the study contribution, the statement of the problem, the research objectives, questions, and the hypotheses. The last point in this chapter is about the organization of this study. The second chapter will be dedicated to undertaking a review of the relevant literature dealing with EER as an umbrella term under which the focus will be on the theories of writing in FLL contexts, the WCF effectiveness research, teachers' cognition and practice concerning WCF provision and finally TPD. The third chapter will shed light on methodology. It will present the reasons for selecting the subjects, their profile, and the different methods of data collection, the procedures used in the present study, and data analysis methods and procedures. The fourth chapter will be devoted to the results and the discussion of the book. Finally, the concluding part of the study will sum up the main findings and provide some implications for teaching. The chapter ends with the limitations of the study without losing sight of certain recommendations for future research.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
“The literature review has been called the ‘‘Cinderella’’ of research”
Bolderston (2008: 86)
2.1. Introduction
This chapter reviews the SLA empirical studies which address WCF research in relation to TPD and learners’ written accuracy outcomes. This chapter is composed of five main parts 2.1.is about approaching Educational Effectiveness research, 2.2. Sheds light on approaching Writing in Foreign Language Research, 2.3. is about WCF in FL Writing, 2.4. focuses on Research on EFL/ESL Teachers’ beliefs and practices and 2.5 reviews Research on Teachers’Professional Development (PD)
2.2. Educational Effectiveness Research
EER as a field of research has been flourished “40 years” and it “addresses questions on what works in education and why” (Kyriakides et al 2009, p: 61). The main concern of EER is to investigate effectiveness in educational settings throughfocusing on educational achievement (Van de gaer et al., 2009) in relation to learners’ outcomes (Van Gasse et al 2017), and teachers’ professional effectiveness (Zee & Kooman, 2016).
Focusing on growth on student achievement has been considered as a basic criterion inassessing school effectiveness (Wolff et al, 2017). Terms such as “progress”, “growth”, and “learning gains” are synonymous in EER (Singer & Willett, 2003). Kyriakides (2005) investigated the existing correlation between effectiveness related to cognitive outcomes and effectiveness related to affective outcomes. Other researchers oriented their attention towards examining the how schools manage to achieve homogeneity among studentsthrough reducing the existing variations. This is known as ‘equity dimension’, whereas ‘quality dimension’ is about looking at the achievement of outcomes. The equity dimension plays an important role in overcoming the existing biases through creating social justice in schools. However, the link between equity and quality dimensions have not been investigated yet systematically (Creemers and Kyriakides, 2010).
2.2.1. The theoretical underpinning of EER
Historically speaking, Edmonds (1979) and Rutter et al. (1979) are pioneering researchers in the school effectiveness arena. Both of them provided evidence that schools are powerful in changing students’ lives. The early appearance of these two studies in the USA and England drew the attention to establish a research domain that focuses on educational effectiveness (Creemers and Kyriakides, 2006).
The EER field has evolved throughout four main phases (Creemers et al, 2010). The first phase debunks the claims raised about the ineffectiveness of schools on learners’ progress. Therefore, researchers have sought to answer the following legitimate question of how much schools impact learners’ outcomes and differ on that? Additionally, in answering this question, the concern about teachers’ effectiveness has been focused. For example, Zamir (2020) argued that teachers and schools deeply impact students’ outcomes. However, focusing on the existing differences between teachers and schools and evaluating them is not the ultimate objective of EER.
The second phase focused on explaining the effectiveness of school differences through researching the different related factors. The results of the conducted pieces of research under this phase produced some key effectiveness factors in relation to student achievement. Edmonds’ (1979) ‘five-factor model’ gave five correlates of school effectiveness:
• Strong educational leadership
• High expectations of student achievement
• An emphasis on basic skills
• A safe and orderly climate
• Frequent evaluation of student progress.
This model has been criticized on both methodological and conceptual grounds, Burusic et al (2016). These latter researchers have elaborated on a causal model of educational effectiveness. This framework highlighted that different levels in education may contribute to explaining student performance variations. However, it has been criticized because it does not present why these characteristics do correlate with student achievement. This question will be answered in the third phase.
The third phase of EER attempted to explain why and how certain variables contribute to educational effectiveness. This phase witnessed the emergence of three major theoretical models. The first model focused on the economic variables by showing the relationship between the ‘supply of selected purchased schooling inputs and educational outcomes controlling for the influence of various background features’ (Monk, 1992, p. 308).
The second model is base on the sociological perspective and focused on the educational and social variables. This model is based on the equity and quality dimensions of effectiveness. Additionally, Rosenshine ‘s (1983) ‘direct instruction model’ of teaching presented the different teacher’s related factors impacting educational achievement. However, recently the focus on the effects of teacher and instructional behavior has gradually decreased, and more interest in teacher cognition about their professional practice has been highlighted (Creemers, 2008). Linking teacher’s effectiveness with the classroom and learning levels are seen as the primary effectiveness factors (Creemers and Kyriakides, 2008). These theories of EER are seen as a bridge between theoretical and practical foundations.
The fourth phase embarked on the complexities of the educational effectiveness nature. In this phase, researchers sought to react to the criticism concerned with the failure of EER in addressing the link between effective factors and improving the educational quality. However, a dynamic perspective on education has gained more attention in the last fifteen years theoretically and empirically in EER (Creemers and Kyriakides, 2006). Teaching and learning are adapting to changing needs. This Dynamic orientation paves the way for the appearance ofstudies that focus on the process of change in schools, which impact modelling educational effectiveness through zooming on more complex concerns in education (Creemers and Kyriakides, 2008). Modelling effectiveness or change should not be restricted to a set of variables to measure learners’ achievements. A bulk of criticism has raised to address the lack of emphasis on measuring the short-term outcomes of the immediate teacher effect on student gains during a single school year. As well as, more longitudinal studies are needed to measure the change and improvement of learners over time Kokkinou& Kyriakides (2022).
Through highlighting the role of teachers as active agents in effectiveness research, teacher effectiveness research appears as a sub-field in EER to address both quality teachers Dewulf et al (2022). The conductedstudies in teacher effectiveness research have paved the way to address the dynamic model which associates teachers’ instructional role Antoniou et al (2011). This model of educational effectiveness is based on (Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008) and it is made up of four levels as shown in the figure below. The dynamic aspect is generated by focusing on teaching and learning and highlighting the two main actors (teachers and learners). Additionally, this model highlights school-level factors that are related to evaluating the school policy of teaching and learning environment. Finally, some other factors are associated with the national/regional level. These levels are linked to social values in relation to learning to shape both teacher and learner expectations. The interconnection between these factors have direct and indirect influences on schools Konstantinidou& Kyriakides (2022)
This model has contributed to modeling effectiveness research by explaining modeling factors and orientations in developing teachers’ metacognitive skills. The research validity of this model has been proved in some pieces of research. For example, Creemers and Kyriakides(2009) tested the validity of the school factors that have a positive impact on low classroom levels through the development and evaluation of school policies. Additionally, Kyriakides et al (2010) conducted 67 quantitative studies to explore the impact of school factors on student achievement. The results of this meta-analysis showed that effective schools can take actions and develop their instructional policies to boost teaching and learning. However, despite the important contribution of the dynamic modal to EER, criticism has been raised about its methodological applications, “...there is growing recognition of the need to advance further the methodology of the study of school effects and to investigate the absolute as well as the relative effects of schools and schooling” (Creemers et al 2010: 273). Also, there is a call for testing the generalisability of the research findings in relation to the dynamic model.
2.2.2. Future directions In EER
Findings from EER have mapped the road for future directions in this research arena. There is an increasing concern with moving beyond teachers’ behaviors to focus on cognition and teaching values (Sanchez-Cabrero et al, 2021). Additionally, teachers’ leadership and agency are perceived as a stand-alone issue. Hence, there is a need to frame this concern within an established framework of educational effectiveness that links leadership with other key school factors (Kim et al, 2019).
TPD and their instructional quality should be more focused on looking at new paths for more professionalism inside the classroom (Burns& Lawrie, 2015). Besides, outcome measures of educational achievement should cover academic, social, and affective outcomes (Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000). Many other calls focused on long term educational ineffectiveness and long-term reform impact (Stringfield, Reynolds, & Schaffer, 2012). Focusing on the school dysfunctionality will lead “to pay more attention to clearly ineffective schools as a starting point for expanding the school improvement knowledge base” (Luyten et al, 2005, p. 267).
There is a need for more pro-active change studies that focus on very low levels of students’ performance through understanding its scientific and ethical origins. Additionally, some educational action researchers raise many questions about the role of teachers in the action research cycles to achieve better professional effectiveness and learning outcomes (Kemmis& McTaggert, 2000).
2.2.3. Establishing the research niche within EER
EER is considered as an umbrella term in this scientific work since it will frame my research's main key concepts which are WCF, learners’ achievements, and TPD. The rationale behind adopting EER as a basic concept in my study stems from the growing call within educational research to focus on effectiveness and efficiency. The review of the literature in these three key concepts show a due concern in achieving effectiveness. According to Rajab et al (2016), comparing teachers‘beliefs to their practices can be essential for a comprehensive investigation of the effectiveness of WCF. Moreover, teachers beliefs and practices play an important role in writing instruction, as they have an impact on the learning and teaching processes.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 2.1.2: The study conceptual clustering with EER
More importantly, the reading of the existing literature is critical; i.e it will draw attention to the existing gaps and lacunas to achieve effectiveness in EFL/ESL teachers’ WCF provision through measuring the impact of this practice on both EFL/ESL (TPD) and EFL/ESL (LEOs). This study will provide both theoretical and practical research evidence to backbone EER. The following sections will review the related literature to WCF, learners’ achievement, and TPD about effectiveness research.
2.3. Approaching Writing in Foreign Language Research
The literature of L2 writing covers a range of research areas covering 1) comparing L1 and L2 writing, 2) comparing skilled and unskilled writers, 3) Understanding cognitive processes in writing; 4) Understanding approaches and practices in teaching L2 Writing, and 5) feedback in L2 writing. This research will focus on the effectiveness of WCF in L2 writingby focusing on the nature of WCF in the product, process and genre approach.
2.3.1. The Historical Background
It has been proved that just a few studies have looked into teaching L2 writing. However, the main concern has been on L1 writing. Zamel (1976, p. 67) pointed to this concern and he wrote that “...it is disappointing to find that, except for one pilot study (Briere,1966) almost no research has been done in the teaching of composition to learners of a second language.” However, by the early 1980s writing became an important area of research and more studies have approached L2 writing differently from L1. Despite this increasing concern,the area of L2 writing is described by Ferris and Hedgcock (2005, p. 3) as lacking “a tidy corpus of conclusive theory and research on which to base a straightforward introduction to processes of learning and teaching”. They dare even to go a step further to claim that it is still too early for a comprehensive theory of L2 writing to be established.
By the same token, Cumming and Riazi (2000) argued that a deeper understanding of L2 writing should be done since teachers are not equipped with the necessary knowledge of teaching and its implications on L2 writing processes. Moreover, Hyland (2002, p. 78) has been aware of these above-stated issues in writing and he drove to the conclusion that “unfortunately writing research provides no cut-and-dried answer to this question”. EFL/ESL teachers’ choice of one approach or a combination of some approaches is not an easy task and should be informed by a good theory of practice.
2.3.2. The product Approach
The product approach is known as the product-oriented -approach a combination of structural linguistics and behaviorist learning theory and it focuses of this approach is on the writing outcome, and it focuses on language proficiency (Kadmiry, 2021). Accordingly, writing is taught through four stages, which are familiarization, controlled writing, guided writing, and free writing. Instead of focusing on these stages, I will investigate the practice of WCF in the product approach in the next section.
2.3.2.1. Feedback in the Product Approach
In the product approach, the focus of students’ writing feedback is on structure and lexis. This CF could be oral or written and it helps in focusing on the form which has a great impact on learners’ performance (Ellis, 1994). Hence, the grammar correction method highlights structural errors either directly by giving them the correct answer or indirectly by highlighting incorrect forms for learners to reconsider.
2.3.2.2. Advantages and limitations of the Product Approach
This approach focuses on form, therefore it could be easily implemented with large classes. Also, it is easily marked because the teacher can directly address the form in their corrective feedback. Tribble (1996) claimed that this approach is a good fit for lower-level learners because it helps them correct and eliminates their errors. Although the structural approach has affected the arena of L2 writing for a long time, it has some limitations. First, it restricts the teaching of writing to syntactic and grammatical accuracy, which limits students’ understanding of good writing (Hyland, 2003). Second, Ferris and Hedgcock (2005) stated that this approach neglects learning strategies and cognitive writing processes. Third, focusing on grammar is ineffective in improving writing ability. Therefore many researchers have rejected the emphasis on grammar such as Truscott (1995). As a result, Hudson (2001) called for more research to prove the effectiveness of teaching grammar in enhancing writing. Besides, in this approach, the use of language is restricted in a pattern and learners are just learning through the imitation of other models.
2.3.3. The Process approach
The process approach came as a reaction to the product approach pedagogies (Jasrial,2019). This approach focuses on L2 writing cognitive processes rather than grammar focus. These processes become the focus of L2 instructors. Goldstein and Carr (1996) referred to the writing process as a range of strategies: pre-writing, planning, drafting, and revising. For Hedge (2005, p.51) the writing process has to go through these stages: being motivated to write, getting ideas together, planning and outlining, making notes, making the first draft, revising, re-planning, redrafting, finally editing, and getting ready for publication. Jordan (1997, p.168) argued that the process approach helps students become self- editors “by means of discussion, tasks, drafting, feedback and informed choices”.
2.3.3.1. Feedback in the Process Approach
In the Process Approach, the focus is on developing the students’ planning, writing, and reviewing. This is done through different feedback tools such as peer feedback, and reformulation (Revision is basic in the process approach because it aids students to make writing changes and Peer- feedback represents one of the main revision methods Strijbos et al, 2010). Other researchers such as (Kulasi, 2020) argue that peer-feedback boosts students’ critical thinking.
2.3.3.2. Advantages and Limitations of the process Approach
The process approach has different advantages as Freeman and Freeman (2004) identified. First, it enhances learners’ creativity in delivering their messages. Second, it involves both teachers and learners in responses to texts through collaborative feedback and discussions. Third, it focuses on a different range of errors in writing skills. Forth, it helps in making writing practice from just a demonstration of linguistic knowledge to a set of cognitiveprocesses. However, the process approach has its limitations. To start with, it is time- consuming and it is hard to apply it in large classes. Also, it demands plenty of marks. Finally,for those students who are not familiar with the process of writing, they may find revision as a failure and therefore they will be demotivated.
2.3.4. The Genre Approach
The genre approach conceives writing as multifaceted in a social context. To put it simply, this approach focuses on the purpose of writing in addition to the link between the writer and the reader. Cope and Kalantzis (1993) gave three phases of a genre approach. They are as follows: a) modeling the target genre, b) text construction and c) independent text construction. Another genre approach to teaching L2 writing is that of Dudley- Evans (1997). This approach has three phases. In the first phase, learners are familiarized with a sample of the target genre and later teachers analyze and discuss the sample. In the second phase, students get the relevant exercises to practice the language forms in the sample. Finally, learners become able to write text on their own.
2.3.4.1. . Feedback in the Genre Approach
Providing CF in this approach is different from other approaches just in drawing students’ attention to the target genre features. Therefore, the teacher’s CF should focus on all writing aspects such as structure, organization, content, and language. However, these aspects should not be tackled in each draft. Hyland (2004) drew attention to the role of group discussions in highlighting a wider range of writing aspects. He adds that the genre approach explains what needs to be done for improvement.
2.3.4.2. Advantages and limitations of the Genre Approach
The genre approach to teaching L2 writing has many advantages. It helps students understand the nature of communicative style (Swales, 2004). Besides, it draws students’ attention to the existing link between formal and functional features of writing. Moreover, Hyland (2004, pp10-16) provided a thorough discussion of these advantages as follows: 1) explicit, 2) systematic, 3) needs-based, 4) supportive, 5) empowering, 6) critical and, 7) Conscious raising. On the other hand, this approach has many criticisms. It has been argued that the genre approach underestimates the basic writing skills (Byram, 2004). Also, some critics said that this approach overemphasized the role of conventions and text features Also, it has been argued that it suppresses creativity and restricts their freedom from expressing themselves freely (Kay& Dudley- Evans, 1998).
2.3.5. Summary
In this part, I have examined various approaches to L2 writing. All of them have both advantages and limitations. It seems that no one approach could provide a clear-cut answer about how to teach L2 writing. Teachers should resort to eclecticism by linking different approaches according to the type of student and the context of L2 teaching.
2.4. Written corrective Feedback in FL Writing
This section will be devoted to shed the light on defining WCF, focusing on the relation between WCF and language learning, presenting the different theoretical orientations,understanding the existing debate in the literature about its effectiveness and considering practical issues in dealing with WCF.
2.4.1. . Defining Written Corrective Feedback
This piece of research addresses the WCF as a key concept. Therefore, it is necessary to identify what is meant by feedback in general and corrective feedback in particular. Feedback can be either positive, negative, or a combination of both (Long, 1996). Positive feedback takes the form of providing learners with the grammatical target language (TL).
Negative feedback is known as corrective feedback (CF). It involves the provision of unacceptable target language (TL) structures. Within this respect, errors and corrective feedback are core components of language learning and teaching. Also, CF can be approached as to whether it is delivered orally or in written format. These two forms of CF aredifferent in many respects and this difference may impact information processing. First, some researchers such as (Manchon; 2011) concluded that WCF can be more effective if learners have the opportunity to compare their written productions with the corrections they got. This will help learners to notice the existing gaps in their linguistic system. Some other researchers such as Sheen (2010) have focused on the oral WCF which is perceived as unclear and unnoticed comparing to WCF where the corrective feedback is clearer and more noticed. Besides, in WCF opportunities for uptake in L2 acquisition is omnipresent comparing to the oral CF.
2.4.2. Written CF and Language Learning: Why the Debate Matters
With the increasing concerns with the debate over WCF, one cannot help asking why this topic is important and therefore debatable. Thus, this section will be devoted to explainingthe reasons for paying this due attention to the WCF arena. WCF is extensively used in FL classrooms and teachers invest a lot of time and effort to correct students’ errors to enable them “revise their writing and acquire correct English” (Ellis, 2012). Since the provision of WCF is both times consuming and widely practiced, it is of paramount importance to find out answers about its effectiveness. Despite, the theoretical support of WCF in the literature there is no consensus on how if WCF abilities in helping learners achieve more written accuracy in their L2 (Ferris, 2002; Truscott, 2007).
Many studies have been conducted to show different views on the use of WCF. For example, some researchers such as (Norris and Ortega, 2000, and Lyster, 2004) have concluded that more attention should be paid to linguistic forms rather than to meaningbased approaches to achieve more proficiency in L2. The need to understand the theoretical foundation of this debate becomes a priority to gain a clear view of the debate in its ins and outs. Therefore, the following sections will investigate the theoretical genesis of the WCF debate by tackling the theoretical arguments for and against WCF practice in L2 learning and teaching.
2.4.3. Theoretical Foundations in SLA research supporting the use of WCF
This section will review the related literature about the approaches supporting the instructional dimensions of L2 learning in writing development. We can distinguish between two different stands: The first stand is psycholinguistic, while the second one is sociocultural (Manchón& Vasylets, 2019).
2.4.3.1. The psycholinguistic Approaches
Among the bulk of cognitive theories about writing, three major hypotheses should be highlighted about writing performance: Focus on Form, Noticing Hypothesis, and Output Hypothesis. Manchón (2011b) explained that these three hypotheses are commonly concerned with how L2 learners are coping with the received corrective feedback. Researchers share an interest in “Language Related Episodes” (henceforth, LREs). It refers to learners’ metalinguistic talk about either the produced language during collaborative writing tasks or theprovided feedback (Amirkhiz et al , 2013). LREs research has revealed its positive role in helping learners overcome their linguistic problems effectively through integrating new knowledge into their L2 collaboratively where LREs have been considered as evidence of language learning in progress and L2 writitng development (Garcia & Zeitler, 2017).
In the literature, LREs are classified into different categories depending on their nature and outcomeThe table below illustrates these different categories.
Table 2.3.3.1: The illustration of LREs in L2 writing Development
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
2.4.3.1.1 Focus on form
Effective L2 pedagogy should draw attention to form (Norris & Ortega, 2000). According to Long (1996) focus-on-form draws to students’ attention to linguistic elements in context as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication. The temporary shifts in focal attention are triggered by students’ problems with comprehension or production.
The role of focus-on-form intervention in the communicative context is highlighted in Lyster & Ballinger’s (2011) research which is based on Segalowitz’s (2000) notion of transfer- appropriate learning. Long’s (2009) syntactic, implicit, or “laissez-faire” approaches of learning helped students analyze the input and analyze the linguistic rules and words. His approach is based on the target language by presenting notions, structures, and functions that will be used later in communication. According to Long this type of tacit knowledge helps in organizing learners’ minds and respecting their internal syllabi. However, in immersion settings learners who receive content- based instruction in L2 often lack grammatical accuracy in the light of these implicit methods (Afitska, O. (2015)). Findings in these immersion context studies have shown the necessity of providing frequent CF to let learners notice the gap between the produced output and the TL norms. Otherwise, linguistic fossilization may occur.
By the same token, Long (2000) argued that providing learners with only implicit knowledge is not a sufficient condition for L2 learning. Therefore, he called for focusing on form in teaching and learning, especially if the focus is on achieving L2 learners’ native-like abilities. Thus, concentrating on focus-on-form interventions has been researched for a long time and it is seen beneficial to draw learners’ attention to notice their errors. While Long’s approach to focus-on-form episodes is incidental, other researchers (Ellis, Basturkmen,& Loewen, 2002) have adopted a planned perspective to focus-on-form episodes.
Recently, the focus on form in the literature is identified with negotiated interaction and corrective feedback. These two processes lead to knowledge creation and negotiation through collaborative pre-writing activities that enhance learning (Brooks & Swain, 2009; Kuiken & Vedder, 2005; Niu, 2009; Storch, 1999; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2007; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009). The concern of these researchers on negotiation is done through focusing on the noticing effect of production which aids learners to notice the gap in their written performance. They suggest that this learning aspect is associated with knowledge restructuring in focus on form. In these studies, the focus on the form has been treated as a dependent variable. For example, Niu’s (2009) study overtly compared the amount of focus on form in oral and written tasks and he concluded that writing tasks generated more language- related episodes than the oral tasks did. Similarly, Adams (2006) and Ross-Feldman (2008) found that mingling oral and written tasks may have better results in learners’ focus on form and more accurate output. The second concern is focused on form research in response to negative feedback. Focus on the form is considered as a pedagogical instrument in error correction (Ellis, 2005). Consequently, a bulk of research has focused on this area by investigating the role of WCF on language development (Ferris, 2010; Truscott, 2007; Van Beuningen, 2010). The findings of these studies pave the way to give more weight to focus on form on WCF studies about learners’ development.
2.4.3.1.2 . Noticing Hypothesis
Schmidt’s (1990, 2001) Noticing Hypothesis paved the way to the so-called focus- on- form methodology. The Noticing Hypothesis requires conscious attention to convert the input into the intake. In this sense, intake refers to “input which becomes part of the learning process” (Batstone, 1996, p.273). As far as the function of attention to form is concerned, Schmidt (2001, p. 6) explained its role in SLA as its ability to make learners aware of the existing educational “mismatch or gap between what they produce and what target language speakers produce”. This explanation is defined as noticing the gap (Schmidt and Frota, 1986) or cognitive comparison as Ellis (1995) put it. Recently, Zayani’s (2016, p. 557) FOTITO theoretical model investigates the importance of noticing this gap in EFL/ESL writing. She attempts to identify two types of noticing. First, Intake or “effective gap noticing” is when students succeed in “reconsidering their erroneous output”. Second, Off-take or “ineffective gap noticing” occurs when learners fail to reconsider “their erroneous output”. Zayani’s (2016) model contributed to SLA research since it adds a newly coined concept which is offtake. This concept needs more research to identify not only the reasons behind the absence of gap noticing but also to find educational solutions to overcome the lack of noticing through questioning pedagogical assumptions about WCF practice. Since research on WCF highlighted the importance of “...offering learners opportunities to notice the gaps in their developing L2 systems, test interlanguage hypotheses and engage in metalinguistic reflection, WCF can foster and lead to accuracy development.” As it is stated by (Van Beuningen 2010, p21).
MODERATING FACTORS COGNITIVE PROCESSES
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 2.3.3.1.3: Written corrective feedback approach integrating cognitive and moderatingfactors Hyland& Hyland (2019)
2.3.3.1.3 The socio-cultural strand
Vygotsky’s (1978) socio-cultural theory is pivotal in is the field of L2 learning.
Vygotsky (1987) proposed two different levels of development among L2 learners. The first level of development is about what the learner can do individually. While the second one is associated with the aid of an expert. The existing distance between these two levels is labeled as the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) which is narrowed down by the “scaffolding” process which is defined by Vygotsky (1978, p. 87) as the physical function which “have not yet matured but are in the process of maturation.” According to Maha (2015), the development of these functions leads to the learner’s mental function development. This process is social and affective which is provided by participants in active interactions (Ellis, 2000). This socio-cultural theory works well with collaborative writing since it is a good opportunity for L2 learners to interact with peers and teachers through using collective scaffolding to produce a text which is more appropriate than an individually written one (Donato,1994). This research claim is sustained by several researchers who highlight the role (ZPD) in L2 classroom feedback provision (Yu & Lee, 2014; Altstaedter & Doolitttle, 2014; Fithriani, 2017). Additionally, Mahn (2012) highlighted the role of conscious learning in enhancing rules internalization. The conscious realization of learners’ mental processes helps him/her to be more self-reliable in text editing and writing management. Berg (1999) also highlighted the impactful role of peer feedback activities in helping students develop critical thinking, while Miao et al, (2006) reported that the latter leads to L2 learners’ autonomy. However, despite therising role of written feedback, the literature reveals that students face some practical problemswith feedback such as the lack of specific advice to improve, and its potentially negative impact on students’ psychology and motivation (Carless, 2006). In her research overview about practitioners’ guide to dynamic assessment, Lidz (1991) proposed a range of components to assist learning via scaffolding. These components are the outcome of rethinking Wood et al. (1976) criteria of successful scaffolding. John et al (2010) have implemented Lidz’s (1991) components and they found that adopting the scaffolding techniques has led to L2 writing development among the learners.
Table 2.3.3.2: Lidz’s (1991) components of assisted learning via scaffolding
1. Influence the learner's actions through interaction, engagement of attention, and goals.
2. Highlight important aspects, mark relevant differences, and elaborate detailed information.
3. Draw on the learner's past experiences and potential future ones.
4. Visualize the learner's work through his/her eyes.
5. Share experiences that may stimulate new ideas.
6. Manipulating the task to facilitate problem-solving and induce strategic thinking.
7. Encourage the learner that he/she has done something good to boost self-esteem.
8. Challenge the learner within but not beyond his/her ZPD
9. Remember that the learning experience is the learners not the experts to avoid competition.
10. Be familiar with the learner's behavior and respond to it appropriately.
11. Give the learner a sense of caring and enjoyment in the task.
12. Find areas of improvement and communicate them to the learner.
2.3.4. Theoretical Foundations in SLA research against the use of WCF
Some researchers have argued against WCF use. For example, Truscott (1996) ignited the first fire for the debate in L2 writing research when he claimed that “grammar correction has no place in writing classes and should be abandoned” (p: 361). Truscott provided both practical and theoretical arguments to support his claim. Practically, some issues have been addressed about instructors’ willingness to provide grammar feedback. These issues include training and time and CF consistency that may affect its consistency. Theoretically, Truscott analyses a series of research works (eg: Semke, 1984 and Sheppard, 1992) and he found that EC does not consider the complex processes of acquiring the forms and structures of an L2. His case is based on Krashen’s Natural Order Hypothesis and Pienemann’s Processibility and Teachability theories. Truscott questioned learners’ readiness to process linguistic forms and structures that are outside the natural sequence of acquisition. These two theoretical argumentsare further discussed in the next two sections.
2.3.4.1. Krashen’s Natural Order and Affective Filter Hypothesis
Krashen’s Monitor Model is one of the most influential theories in second language teaching and acquisition. This model paves the way for the generation of the Natural Approach. It is made up of five hypotheses (Krashen, 1982).
First, the Acquisition- Learning hypothesis proposes two different ways for competency development among adults in SL. They are respectively acquisition and learning. Krashen distinguishes both of them. The acquisition is achieved through “implicit learning, informal learning, and natural learning”. However, learning refers to conscious knowledge of L2 which includes “knowing the rules, being aware of them, and being able to talk about them (...), known to most people as a grammar” (Krashen, 1982, p.10). Krashen’s distinction between acquisition and learning might be useful for conscious learning, although it predicts that error correction does not affect acquisition.
Second, the Monitor Hypothesis shows the link between acquisition and learning. So, the acquisition is responsible for initiating an utterance and fluency. Learning functions as an editor. The monitor acts either before or after production and it takes place only when the learner has enough time to consider correctness. This could be traced to CF research since there is a debate over the role of CF in the development of implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. In recent years, the concern in obtaining valid L2 measures of L2 learners’ implicit and explicit knowledge. The following table illustrates some of these measures.
Table 2.3.4.1: The illustration of L2 measures with L2 learners’ implicit and explicit knowledge.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Note. (Adapted from Ellis, 2005, p. 152)
Third, the Natural Order Hypothesis predicts that grammatical features of a language are acquired in a fixed order. This hypothesis dates back to early studies such as (Duly and Burt, 1974) that found that some grammatical structures are acquired beforeothers. This order is related to learners’ age, L1 background, and exposure conditions.
Forth, the Input Hypothesis suggests that “comprehensible input” is a necessary condition to move from one stage to another in L2 acquisition. This input contains structures that are “a little beyond” (Krashen, 1982, p.21) the learner’s current level of competence. Therefore, (i+1), in Krashen’s view is defined as the understanding of the content rather than the form of the message through the help of extra-linguistic information.
Finally, the Affective Filter Hypothesis suggests that SLA is influenced by affective factors. Therefore, the level of the affective filter makes the difference between learners. Thus,the lower the filter is the easier exposition to the input will be. Krashen (1982) argued that the existing flaw in error correction has to do with its effect on learners’ affective filter. Thus, EC leads to Monitor “overused”, since L2 users are consciously checking their conscious knowledge and as a result, they will not speak fluently in the TL.
2.3.4.2. Teachability and Learnability Hypotheses
Pienemann’s (1985) Model is similar to Krashen‘s Monitor Model. The Teachability Hypothesis grew out of Meisel, Clahsen & Pienemann’s (1981) studies on learners’ sequential L2 acquisition who did not receive sheltered instruction. Pienemann (1989, p. 57) argued that only features that are at the learners’ stage of development could be teachable because “the acquisition process cannot be steered or modeled just according to the requirement of formal instruction”. This hypothesis has a direct implication for grammar correction which is echoed in Krashen’s (i+1) notion about input as well. Thus, opponents of grammar correction argued that CF is ineffective because it targets a wide range of linguistic forms at the same time. Therefore, the provided input is usually beyond the learners’ level of development to enable the learner to move from “the controlled processing of declarative knowledge to the automatized production of procedural knowledge” (Bitchner and Ferris, 2012, p. 15). The controlled processing stage takes place when learners receive input and corrective feedback on their written output. However, the transition to the automatized stage would be impossible if the targeted linguistic forms lie outside the learners’ readiness stage as Pienemann (1998) explains.
2.3.5. The debate over Written Corrective Feedback Effectiveness in research
WCF has been considered as a long-standing pedagogical and educational practice that is linked to everything we learn (Evans, Hartshorn, McCollum, & Wolfersberger, 2010). For several decades, the value of feedback in second language writing has been debated in the literature. As a result, many questions were addressed in this debate. For example: Is it effective or harmful to students? (Ferris, 2007; Ferris, 2009, Truscott, 1996), Should it be given to students at a certain proficiency level? (Hyland & Hyland, 2002), Should it be direct or indirect? (Van Beuningen, 2008), Should it focus on all error categories? (Lee, 2014). These above-mentioned questions center on two broad debate orientations related to the effectiveness of WCF and the related arguments between proponentsand opponents.
2.3.5.1. The proponents’ views
Ferris (2002, 2004, 2010) is in favor of WCF and argued against Truscott’s conclusions who described them as premature. She called for more evidence-based on well- designed studies before jumping to firm conclusions about error corrective feedback effectiveness. This call has culminated in a huge body of studies investigating the effects of CF on L2 learners’ Writings. Additionally, Chandler (2003) claims that Truscott did not always consider the statistically significant evidence that should support the reported differences. In his response to Ferris, Truscott (1999) acknowledged that interesting questions,Truscott (1999), in his response to Ferris, acknowledged that many interesting questions are still open and claiming that error correction is no longer beneficial reflects prematurity in research. However, he called for more future research vis-à-vis grammar correction to gauge its potential efficacity in specific areas. Truscott (1999) is in line with Ferris’ (1999) proposed future research focus which drew the attention for more investigations on error correction methods, techniques, approaches, outcomes in short and long terms on learners and its effects on certain error types.
Other researchers tend to measure the effectiveness of WCF. They have used different CF measures on L2 development research area: 1) uptake and learner repair (Fu&Nassaji, 2016); 2) immediate post-tests (Carroll and Swain, 1993) and 3) learner (stimulated) recall (Mackey et al., 2007). This study will focus on measuring the effectiveness of WCF on EFL/ESL learners’ written output.
2.3.5.2. The opponents' views
Since Truscott’s (1996) article, the debate over the effectiveness of CF took place. He claimed that this instructional practice is harmful and even ineffective. Additionally, he repeatedly published his objections (Truscott, 1999, &2004). His arguments were based on both theoretical and practical arguments. The theoretical arguments center around the claim that CF overlooks SLA theories. The first argument has to do with interlanguage development which is perplexed in nature and therefore stands in sharp contrast with error correction. The second argument is in line with what Truscott (2007, p.258) called “integral parts of a complex system”. It has to do with CF forms which are seen to be ineffective concerning different linguistic domains such as syntax, morphology, grammar, and lexis. The third argument is related to the type of knowledge that CF can affect. It could affect the development of declarative knowledge (Ellis, 2004). However, it has no potential effect on the development of the so-called procedural knowledge which is directly related to language acquisition. The result will be that CF will engender “pseudo-learning”, self -editing and revision skills, without any effect on accuracy development. Corrective Feedback is harmful because it does not lead to any improvement in L2 learners’ competence (Bruton, 2009; and Truscott, 2010). The fourth argument is about the impracticality of CF about learners’ current level of L2 development. Pienemann (1998) claims that grounded findings in this very area are insufficient to be converted into teaching practice. In addition to the claims of the ineffectiveness of CF. Truscott (2016) goes a step further to claim that WCF might be counterproductive. He claimed that CF activities are simply a waste of time, and efforts should be allocated to additional writing practice tasks. Truscott (1996) suggested the abandonment of CF from L2 writing instruction since there are no proven empirical arguments in favor of its efficacy. In the light of the growing number of studies refuting Truscott’s claim, he proposed in (2007)a meta-analysis based on the previous studies on Written CF. He claimed that there is a possibility of an exaggeration of the positive effect of written CF.
Theoretically, merely two studies Hartshorn et al (2010) and Van Beuningen et al (2011) have addressed Truscott’s call on this issue. However, in both studies, the experimental groups perform well in improving the linguistic accuracy without showing a decline in the syntactic complexity in their written performance. However, despite their positive results, only a few of these studies addressed Truscott’s (1996, 1999) criticism about its potential to make learners employ avoidance strategy, pushing them to produce a composition with a relatively high levelof linguistic accuracy but low level of syntactic complexity. This lack of firm conclusionsabout the effectiveness of WCF makes it difficult to settle the debate.
Despite the existing debate, some other researchers seem to be rather neutral. Therefore, they attempt to strike a balance between these different clashing views by callingfor deeper analysis of the previous research (Bruton, 2009; Ferris, 2004; Guenette, 2007; Hyland & Hyland, 2002; Russell & Spada, 2006).
2.3.6. Research on the practical Issues of WCF effectiveness
Research on WCF is divided into two broad lines either L2 writing-focused or SLA- focused (Van Beuningen, 2010). The first category is linked to the revision process (Ferris andRoberts, 2001). L2 writing-focused studies have proved the effectiveness of the revision process in improving learners’ accuracy. However, this proven effectiveness is still unclear and lacks research in a new piece of writing. This scarcity in research leaves researchers in a big dilemma if these studies could solve some of the alarming questions about WCF (Truscott and Hsu, 2008).
Whereas, the second category tends to find out the proof of CF effect in assisting language acquisition (Hartshorn et al., 2010; Sheen, 2007; Van Beuningen et al., 2011). The SLA-focused studies focus on different sub-areas of written CF. Thus, some researchers shed light on the effect of different types of WCF. Others investigated the efficacy of FWCF such asEllis et al (2008). Their studies proved the effectiveness of FWCF in enhancing learners’ written ability in new pieces of writing. Unlikely, research on unfocused WCF was scarce. Truscott and Hsu’s (2008) study showed that learners become more accurate in writing when receiving unfocused WCF. However, theyfailed to show any learning effect in a new piece of writing. This finding leads Truscott and Hsu (2008) to conclude that it is not practical to consider the learning improvements taken place during revisions as a shred of learning evidence. Bruton (2009) responded to this studyto find out why there is no improvement in the post-test and he concluded that the problem has to do with the ceiling effect. Also, Van Beuningen et al (2010) measured unfocused WCF effectiveness in improving learners’ accuracy during revision and posttest. The results were positive with both grammatical error reduction and linguistic complexity improvement (Van Beuningen et al, 2011).
2.3.6.1. Research on whether or not WCF can facilitate L2 development
Questioning the efficacy of WCF in facilitating L2 development has been raised since Truscott’s (1996) claim that the provision of CF is ineffective and even harmful in L2 development. As a result, a growing body of research (Bitchener, 2008; Van Beuningen et al., 2012) has investigated the is perceived as a vehicle for learning (Mancho'n, 2011a). Researchers question the possibility of having a peculiar link between written output and L2 development. To investigate this question research output types are perceived as an indication of the occurrence of L2 development. These output types are illustrated as follows: 1) output that is related to the learners’ writing of a new piece of writing, 2) output that is the outcomeof the learners’ writings over some time, and 3) output that is produced as a revision of the learners’ original writings. These studies have focused on different measurement tests to evaluate learners’ written outcomes. Some of these studies have relied on the pre and post-test design of written CF treatment. They compared learners’ accuracy performance before and after providing written CF on linguistic errors. These tests take different forms such as pre- test, immediate post-test, and delayed post-test). Researchers find that if the experimental groups show a significant accuracy improvement than the control group, then it is understood that the provided CF is effective because it facilitates learning. If the improvement occurs afterreceiving the delayed post-tests, then improvement is consolidated. To understand the dynamics of WCF effectiveness in L2 development, a review of literature on the effectiveness of new pieces of writing should take place.
Within the learning-to-write perspective (Hyland, 2011) writing has been directed towards understanding the process of L2 development and examining the impact of writing at different developmental stages. For instance, Housen and Pierrard (2005) approached
L2 development as three macro-processes that overlap and influence each other. This figurepictures these processes.
Knowledge Internalization Knowledge Restructuring Knowledge Consolidation
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 2.3.6.1: Macro-processes and sub-processes (Wen, 2015)
1. Knowledge internalization is a basic acquisition step that allows form -meaning connections as an outcome of noticing processes
2. Knowledge modification comes after establishing the above-mentioned connections. Learners reshape knowledge after receiving input through negative feedback.
3. Knowledge consolidation comes when L2 learners improve their L2 knowledge through both deep processing and retrieval processes. Learners end up improving their linguistic accuracy and knowledge use.
A growing body of research has proved the important role of output in shaping these processes. For example, Swain and her colleagues (Swain, 2006; Swain &Lapkin, 2011, Swain, Lapkin, and Deters, 2013), showed the potential effect of output during early stages of acquisition. Besides, other studies have focused on the impact of the output tasks in measuring learners’ proficiency (Motobayashi et al, 2014). Additionally, it has been proven that repeated retrieval may lead to the automation of knowledge (DeKeyser, 2007). It is worth noting that the macro-processes have to be considered in empirical investigation as a good start to explore the effect of writing. These macro-processes were sub-divided into sub processes. The figure shows these sub-processes which overlap despite their separation. These processes « are also by no means the only sub-process that have been suggested in L2 research, but taken together, they constitute the main areas of researchthat provide insight into the impact of writing on L2 development » Williams (2012, p: 322)
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 2.3.6.1: Inherent features of written production and their effects William (2012)
It is important to apply the reported claims in favor of written production on writing instruction. The importance of this stage appears in the light of giving due attention to writers during text reconstruction and pre-writing activities rather than focusing on the act of writing and post writing. The creation of new L2 knowledge is linked to the role of writing in L2 development through input noticing and intake shaping (VanPatten, 2007). In research, newly generated knowledge is created through collaborative tasks or scaffolding. In the writing task, there is due attention to the formal language. The first step is a reflection through composing decisions and interactions that ensure the pooling of knowledge from different sources. The second step deals with the reprocessing and repackaging of the tacit knowledge (Nassaji & Tian, 2010). This phenomenon is referred to by Swain (2006) as languaging through using written production to mediate complex ideas. Therefore, learners’ use of production processes helps transform information stored in long-term memory to explicit and accessible data for frequent and systematic usage.
The existence of two different types of L2 knowledge has created a research dilemma. The latter is the result of the existing conflict between the cognitive processes of writing which are linked to explicit knowledge and those related to collaborative activities that stimulate implicit schemata. This existing debate poses a core question vis-à-vis the impact of writing on L2 development, whether the use of creation, retrieval, and explicit knowledge culminates in any change to the L2 development system. Ellis (2011), in his discussion of this interface, claimed that the majority of L2 research conclude that explicit knowledge becomes implicit through the lens of output processes. Ellis (2011, p. 44) insisted that ‘‘the learner can use explicit knowledge to consciously construct an utterance into working memory whose subsequent usage can promote implicit learning’’.
As far as WCF research is concerned, researchers have claimed that the evidence thatdevelopment took place is the ability to apply previously acquired knowledge in new writingattempts (Bruton, 2009). This type of feedback isdefined by Mancho'n (2011b) as ‘‘feedback for acquisition’’ as opposed to ‘‘feedback for accuracy’’ that occurs when learners revise their writings in the light of the received WCF. Literature has shown the possibility of corrective feedback provision for acquisition which haspositive effects on longer-terms. These studies focus on a single linguistic structure. These studies have been criticizedthat the CF was so focused that accuracy on other linguistic structures may be neglected (Ferris, 2006).
2.3.6.2. Research on WCF efficacy on different text types
This section will address the efficacy of WCF on different text types through focusing on studies on revisited version of a text, on new pieces of writing, on unfocused new texts, andon focused new texts.
2.3.6.2.1 Studies on a revisited version of a text
Drawing SL students’ attention to the CF they have received is of great importance. Shintani et al (2014) addressed this point by linking learners’ noticing of CF with their text revisions. Besides, a bulk of studies in the literature has addressed this research concern and attempted to find out not only if there is any educational gain among learners from feedback, but also if they manage to use their learning prerequisites when revising their texts. Early studies such as Ferris & Roberts (2001) have shown that ESL learners who are exposed to WCF produce more accurate linguistic forms in their revisited texts than those who are not exposed to WCF. In the same vein, Ashwell (2000) came up with similar optimizing findings. However, Truscott (1996) argued that learners’ accuracy as a result of their text revision is not evidence of L2 learning because they have to show their learning in a new piece of writing. Consequently, many studies have been conducted to investigate the revision potential in increasing accuracy in new writings.
Van Beuningen et al (2008) reported that the obvious increase in accuracy by both experimental groups is reflected in their new pieces of writings. Later, Van Beuningen et al (2012) demonstrated in their study that after four weeks all their 268 learners kept the same accuracy level in the delayed post-test as it was in the revision text. However, the findings by Truscott and Hsu (2008) contradicted those of Van Beuningen et al (2008, 2012) because they have reported that there is no increase in the level of accuracy in the new pieces of writings, although there is an improvement when the experimental group revised his previous writings. They come up with the conclusion that “the successful error reduction during revision is not a predicator... of learning” (p. 299). However, Bruton (2009) seemed to be against this claim since he found that learners commit just a few errors in the pre-test writing and therefore they have tiny rooms for improvement. The main difference between the three above-mentioned studies is the degree of explicitness of WCF which has led to these contradictory findings. This can reveal that the degree of WCF explicitness may impact its efficacy. These conflicting findings represent a call for more research to show the effectiveness of WCF in both revision and new writings. Therefore, this study will address such issues because there is a difference between revising a text and writing a new piece of writing.
In writing research, it has been agreed that revision is a good solution to ensure good writing in both form and content (Ferris, 2006). Some other experiments such as (Ashwell, 2000) measured the revision effect by asking EFL/ESL learners to revise their writing output, some with considering WCF and some others without. Feedback effectiveness was measured by the extent to which learners improve their written accuracy. Additionally, Lee’s (1997) study included identification, classification, and correction of errors. The conclusion that we can draw from Lee’s research is that the revisited manuscripts acquire more accuracy than manuscripts that do not receive revision. This declared conclusion paves the way to open the door of debate in whether error reduction during revision is a measure of learning or not.
Those who are in favor of this claim rely on the argument that revision research is part and parcel of the efforts of understanding the teachability of CF. Sheppard (1992) took the initiative in approaching this matter in his experiment which is based on a comparison between two ESL classes. The first class received WCF on their formal errors and the second class received WCF just on content and clarity. The treatment lasted 10 weeks and the nocorrection group outperformed the experimental one.
For Sheppard (1992), the findings were negative and even surprising to him to the extent that he compared his experimental findings to the positive outcome of Fathman and Whalley’s (1990) study to find out an explanation. Thus, his questions were satisfied by the argument that both studies are a measure of learning. Apart from Sheppard’s explanation, other researchers tried to dig into this research area to look for a more reasonable and updated explanation for these contrasting findings. Chandler (2004), for example, suggested that these studies contrasting results may be explained by the choice of the targeted errors. In her discussions, she held a strong positive position in favor of revision studies. Russell and Spada (2006) conducted meta-analysis research on error correction effects. To determine how it affects learning, both researchers relied on a sample of 15 studies that included three ones that tackle learners’ improvements in the accuracy during the revision process (Li, 2010). These studies have a very large effect size which givesmore credibility to the findings which show the basic role of CF in learning achievements.
In the same vein, Ferris (1990) provides evidence in favor of the effect of CF in short term learning. She went a step further to criticize Fathman and Whalley’s (1990) findings. Shestrongly argued that they are problematic for Truscott’s (1996) case against grammar correction. Ferris (2003) claims that Fathman and Whalley’s findings are significant, but limited by short-term research. However, more focus should take place in long-term studies to provide stronger evidence in favor of CF studies. Ferris (2004) concludes that much criticism is roaming around revision studies and she links this criticism to the nonlongitudinal aspects of the conducted studies. In line with Ferris’s view, Gue'nette (2007) perceived these studies as useful evidence concerning the impact of the correction on learning. This bulk of research generates arguments in favor of CF effectiveness in revision research. However, other critics claim that this research does not measure learning. Hence the second view of this debate is about error reduction during revision is not a measure of learning. Truscott (1996, 1999, 2007) had reservations about grammar correction and he suggests that it could not be used as a teaching device. As far as revision research is concerned, Truscott perceived its effectiveness in the editing tool but not as evidence for learning. For him, learning involves a comparison between two independent written works which is not the case with revision research. Therefore, the latter is not relevant to the case against grammar correction. In line with Truscott, Ashwell (2000) argued that the two fields are not related regarding the differentgoals of CF in both cases.
2.3.6.2.2 Studies on new pieces of writing
Throughout the literature on the effectiveness of WCF on new texts (Chandler, 2003) We can distinguish between two different types of studies. First, unfocused WCF studies cover a wide range of linguistic errors (punctuation, spelling, lexical and structural errors). The revision studies that I have mentioned above fall into the category of unfocused studies. Second, focused WCF studies focus on a limited range of language domains and few linguistic error types. This distinction between focused and unfocused WCF draws the attention of many researchers to focus on these two types about WCF effectiveness. As
Sheen (2007, p. 258) pointed out, ‘‘that error correction results in learning, one must examine whether the improvement in revisions carries over to a new piece of writing or if the improvement is manifested on a posttest or delayed posttest”. More recently, some other studies have investigated the value of written CF via progress measurement in new pieces of writing (Kang& Han, 2015, Diab, 2015).
2.3.6.2.3 . Studies on Unfocused new texts
The research studies that examined the unfocused WCF for L2 development are scarce and they are divided into early and recent studies. There are only four early studies that focused on the efficacy of unfocused WCF on new texts (Semke, 1984, Robb et al, 1986, Kepner, 1991, and Sheppard, 1992). These studies suffer from validity problems that are drawn from the findings due to methodological shortcomings. Semke (1984) in her study with 141 freshmen German EFL/ESL learners, has relied on three experimental groups and a control group. Her study shows no significant accuracy gains in the production of new texts between both groups. Semke concluded that WCF is not effective in improving accuracy with new pieces of writing. This study measures the experimental and control groups differently. The control group was graded on some words, whereas the treatment group was graded on the ratio of error number to the number of words. This has led to conflicting results, therefore there is no effectiveness about the WCF on new texts.
Robb et al‘s (1986) study of 134 EFL/ESL learners in the Japenese context lacks a control group. They have relied on four groups and the study results have shown that there is no difference between the study groups in the accuracy improvement. Truscott (2007) stated that the findings show the ineffectiveness of WCF. Kepner’s (1991) study focused on the WCF efficacy by comparing the written performance accuracy of intermediate Spanish FL learners in new pieces of writing. This study has three methodological flaws. Firstly, this research has only two experimental groups and no control group. Secondly, this study lacks as Ferris (2003) stated a pre-test writing task that helps in identifying the pre-treatment level of learners’ accuracy. Thus, this will impact the measurement of accuracy improvements. Thirdly, this study did not provide any detail on the participants' conditions who do their writings out of the class. These methodological lacunas weaken these research findings and therefore do not provide evidence of the effectiveness of WCF on new writings. Sheppard’s (1992) study of 26 upper-intermediate ESL learners lacks a control group. This study examined two groups. The first group received error code treatment and the second group received comments on the content. Another problem with this study is what Ferris (2004) concluded is that there is a lack of inter reliability in the coding of data. Thus, the results’ validity is questionable.
Thus, the above-stated studies about unfocused studies which focused on the effectiveness of WCF on new texts showed the ineffectiveness of WCF. However, recently some research appears to overcome these methodological flaws and has proved the effectiveness of unfocused WCF in new texts. Truscott and Hsu (2008) examined the effectiveness of unfocused WCF on L2 development by measuring the accuracy rate of 47 high- intermediate EFL/ESL learners at a university in Taiwan. This study relies on one experimental and one control group. The experimental group was provided with all the grammatical errors, while the control group was not provided with any marked errors. Both groups were asked to write a new piece of writing based on a series of eight pictures. Althoughthe findings have shown no significant difference in learners’ improved accuracy in new text, the experimental group outperformed the control one in revision. Even though this study included a real control group to avoid methodological flaws, one study is still not sufficient to draw solid conclusions upon the effectiveness of WCF on L2 development. The researchers have applied an indirect WCF type which is very implicit.
Van Beuningen et al’s (2008) research is on 62 Dutch EFL/ESL learners in a secondary school. Their study included a wider range of error categories than Truscott and Hsu’s (2008). In this study, the researchers have used two explicit WCF types (direct correction and error codes) and compared them with two control groups. The result showed that both experimental groups showed a significant improvement in accuracy in revision. However, only the group who received direct correction revealed a significant accuracy gain in the newly written texts. However, the two control groups have shown no accuracy gains neither in revision nor in new texts. The main findings of Truscott and Hsu’s (2008) and Van Beuningen et al’s (2008) studies showed that the degree of explicitness of WCF can impact its effectiveness outcomes. Van Beuningen et al (2012) conducted a study including 268 participants and focused on WCF efficacy on two language domains (grammatical and non- grammatical). This study adopted Beuningen et al’s (2008) study design but it added a delayedpost-test after four weeks to measure the long-term efficacy of WCF. The study showed that when grammatical errors were considered alone, the direct correction group showed significant improvement in accuracy of newly written texts after four weeks. Thus, this research highlighted the efficacy of WCF not only in new texts but also in its retention over time.
The above-mentioned studies have shed some light on the effectiveness of the unfocused WCF. However, the WCF may be more effective if it focuses on a limited range of error types. Thus, over the last 15 years, a growing body of research has shifted to focus on theefficacy of focused WCF on L2 development. These studies will be the focus of the following section.
2.3.6.2.4 . Studies on focused new texts
Ellis (2005) has argued the importance of attention in information processing. Thus, the WCF could be a device of learners’ noticing if it is focused on a specific range of linguistic errors. As a result, learners will notice the errors and try to understand the reason for the error and ways of their correction. Focused WCF has been used to investigate the effectiveness of WCF over time. These studies have been divided into two types as stated by (Ellis et al., 2008, p. 1) highly focused studies since they focus on just one error type and 2) less focused studies since they targeted a very limited number of error types.Bitchner and Knoch‘s( 2008) studies are based on a sound methodology and reported that WCF was effective on the functional use of articles over different periods: (Bitchner and Knoch, 2008) over two months, (Bitchner and Knoch; 2010a) over 10 months and (Bitchner and Knoch; 2010b) over 10 weeks. By the same token, some other studies have reported the effectiveness of WCF on the use of English articles over nine weeks (Sheen, 2007) and 10 weeks (Ellis et al; 2008). This section will be devoted to introducing the focused studies with sound methodology in new writing text.
Recent research studies have compared focused and unfocused WCF and they have both shown improved accuracy in the production of new texts. There are just two studies in the literature that have compared focused and unfocused WCF with a single research design toinvestigate which one is more effective in improving Learners’ accuracy in a new text. The next section will be devoted to discussing these studies.
To conclude, both WCF types with solid methodological designs have shown their effectiveness in L2 development. However, it is worth noting that the WCF types may affect L2 development differently. Therefore, researching the comparative effects of WCF types on learners’ accuracy gains concerning other studies will be the focus of the next section.
2.3.6.3. The relative Effectiveness of different types of WCF
A wide range of studies has attempted to study the relative effectiveness of different types of WCF on L2 writers’ accuracy. Ferris (2010) drew attention in research towards the sensitivity of opting for a specific CF type in language learning composition classes. Throughout the literature, the relative merits of the different CF types are grouped into three major categories; (1) direct versus indirect types of feedback; (2) different types of indirect feedback; and (3) different types of direct feedback Studies that have investigated the relative merits of different types of feedback have tended to be grouped according to those that have compared.
Some studies investigated the effectiveness of indirect CF types such as Frear and Chiu (2015). The difference between types is absent in these studies in addition to the absence of time effect on new writings. However, operationalizing the indirect CF reveals questions about defining and investigating constructs in these studies. As aresult, further research should be focused on the relative effectiveness of indirect CF types before drawing any conclusion. Whereas, some other studies examined the effectiveness of different types of direct CF on accuracy development. For example, Bitchener et al. (2005) combined and compared the effect of different direct feedback types in advanced proficiency classroom settings. They relied on direct error correction, direct error correction plus oral metalinguistic explanation and no correction. The findings show that the group who received both direct correction and meta-linguistic explanation outperformed the two other groups in simple past tense and definite articles. They suggested that the addition of oral metalinguistic explanation may have been the crucial factor in facilitating increased accuracy.
The following section explores the relative effectiveness of WCF types (metalinguistic explanation and direct CF). The previously conducted pieces of research have focused on the three different areas: 1) direct WCF and other less explicit types, 2) direct WCF and direct CF combined with more explicit types, and 3) metalinguistic WCF and other types. These three research types will be explored in-depth in the following section.
2.3.6.3.1 Studies comparing direct CF and less explicit types of WCF
This part will present the studies that have compared direct WCF and less explicit feedback types. Lalade’s (1982) study findings show that indirect CF is more effective than direct CF. However, the between-group accuracy improvement difference was not significant. Semke’s (1984) study found no significant difference among direct CF, comments, and direct CF plus comments. Also, Chandler’s (2003) study investigated the effectiveness of three typesof CF which are respectively direct CF, underlying, and error codes. The researcher found no significant difference between the first two CF types. Besides, Chandler found that the two first CF types are more effective than the third type in improving learners’ accuracy rate in newly written texts over time. This study is different from the two studies stated above because learners were provided with consecutive treatment rather than just one. It is worth noting that none of these studies have provided evidence to backbone the claim that direct CF is less or more effective than the indirect one. Lalande (1982) claimed the positive effect of indirect feedback; Robb, Ross, and Shortreed (1986) concluded that there is no difference between the two CF types; while Chandler (2003) reported positive findings for both types. The design of these studies is not strong enough to assess the value of the raised claims. The criticism targets two lacunas in these studies, first the absence of new writing pieces and second the absence of any longterm effectiveness argument (Bitchener, 2009).
Therefore, Van Beuningen et al. (2008, 2012) sought to overcome methodological flaws. They concluded that despite the significant similarity of direct and indirect groups in accuracy improvement in the short term, direct CF has led to more accuracy gains in the long- term effect than indirect WCF. Van Beuningen et al‘s (2008, 2012) studies come up with a high rate of reliability and validity. However, broad conclusions in research cannot be drawn on just two studies to highlight the superiority of direct CF over indirect CF.
2.3.6.3.2 Studies comparing direct CF and indirect CF with more explicit types ofwritten CF
Many studies focused on comparing the effectiveness of direct CF with indirect CF which is accompanied by explicit forms of WCF. In practice, it is of paramount importance to investigate this approach since many EFL/ESL and ESL teachers have opted for the combination of direct CF with more explicit forms of WCF.
Bitchener et al (2005) conducted a study involving 52 advanced ESL migrant learners over 12 weeks. This research has addressed direct WCF and direct CF with oral metalinguisticinferences. The study findings have shown the efficacy of combining these two types of CF in improving accuracy in the use of definite articles and simple past tense in new pieces of writing over 12 weeks. However, the group of learners who have just received direct WCF showed no significant improvement. It is worth noting that apart from Bitchener et al., (2005) study, scarcely any serious research has been conducted to investigate the effect of different types of direct feedback on accuracy improvement. In their study on 144 low intermediate ESL learners, Bitchner and Knoch (2008) reported no significant differences among the experimental groups. Bitchener and Knoch’s (2010a) study followed Bitchener’s (2008) CF methodology which consists of 1) direct CF and oral and written meta-linguistic explanation; 2) direct CF and written metalinguistic explanation; 3) direct CF only and 4) the control group that received no feedback. Bitchener and Knoch’s (2010a) study, which focused on 52 low- intermediate ESL students in New Zealand, examined the relative effectiveness of the different types of the same feedback on two different functional uses of the English article. The findings showed not only that the three experimental groups outperformed the control group on all post-tests, but also that there was no significant difference among the three experimental groups. Both studies, Bitchner and Knoch’s (2008) Bitchner and Knoch’s (2010a) no advantage in adding a metalinguistic explanation to direct CF to achieve effectiveness Stefanou and Revesz (2015).
Sheen’s (2007) study focused on 91 intermediate ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. In her study, Sheen investigated the relative effectiveness of direct CF and direct CF plus metalinguistic CF. The study findings showed that there is no difference between both experimental groups in the immediate post-test. However, the results were different within the delayed post-test (after two months) since it has been proved that direct CF plus written metalinguistic explanation was more effective than adopting just the direct CF. Consequently, considering the passage of time may lead to different conclusions vis-à-vis the effectiveness offeedback types on L2 development.
It is worth noting that the mixed findings of these studies showed a need for more research before jumping to conclusions. Research is oriented towards providing learners with separate feedback, either opting for direct CF or metalinguistic explanation rather than combining different feedback types to achieve more effectiveness. Thus, the following section will tackle this research concern by reviewing studies that compare the efficacy of metalinguistic explanations and other types of WCF.
2.3.6.3.3 Studies comparing metalinguistic explanation and other types of WCF
Recently, several studies have investigated the relative efficacy of metalinguistic CF and other types of WCF. The first study that has been conducted to investigate the effectiveness of different CF types was Bitchener and Knoch (2010b) study. It focused on the acquisition of the English articles (“a” and “the”) among 63 advanced L2 American University students. They were divided into three treatment groups that have received indirect underlining/ circling, written metalinguistic explanations and written and oral metalinguistic explanations, and a control group. The findings show that there are no efficacy differences among the three treatment groups in the post-test. However, the difference does exist between the metalinguistic groups and the indirect underlining/ circling group after 10 weeks. As a result, Sheen (2007) concluded that considering the time variable is critical in concluding the effectiveness of delayed post-tests.
By the same token, Rummel’s (2014) study of Laotian learners showed no significant difference between the metalinguistic explanation group, the indirect error correction group, and the direct error correction group in dealing with simple past and present perfect tenses. However, in the same study she found that among Kuwaiti learners, the group which received direct error correction gains more accuracy effectiveness than the other two treatment groups. These findings have drawn the researcher’s attention towards considering the effect of different teaching and learning approaches of WCF in different contexts on the generation of different research findings. More recently, Diab (2015) investigated the efficacy of metalinguistic explanation plus direct CF and metalinguistic explanation alone on 57 ESL learners’ accuracy on the use of pronoun agreement in a Lebanese American University. This study has led to the following conclusions. First, the rule-based nature of the pronoun agreement led to improved accuracy in the experimental groups. Second, the direct CF plus metalinguistic correction was more effective than just metalinguistic correction in the post- test. Third, there is no difference between groups in the delayed posttests.
2.3.6.3.4 . Studies comparing focused and unfocused written CF
Over the last two decades, there is a controversy over the effectiveness of unfocused orfocused WCF for L2 development (Bitchener, 2016). There are two studies Ellis et al., 2008; Sheen et al., 2009) that have compared the effectiveness of these two types of WCF. In Ellis etal.’s (2008) study the focused group was provided with direct CF on article errors, whereas theunfocused group was provided with CF on article errors and other error types. After comparing the accuracy gains in both groups, the study has shown that both focused and unfocused WCF were equally effective. Besides, in the delayed post-test there seems to be no significant difference between the focused and the unfocused groups.
The second study has been conducted by Sheen et al. (2009). It investigated 80 ESL intermediate participants who are divided into four groups. These four groups are classified as follows: 1) the focused WCF group received direct feedback on a single grammatical target structure,2) the unfocused WCF group received a direct CF on a wider range of grammatical aspects (regular and irregular past tense, articles, and prepositions).3) the writing practice group and 4) the control group. This study culminates in the result that the focused WCF was more effective than the unfocused one after nine weeks. Also, within the unfocused group, not all errors were corrected. This leads to the conclusion that WCF in the unfocused groups was unsystematic. Just a few studies have focused on the unfocused CF (Van Beuningen, De Jong,& Kuiken, 2008, 2012). It is worth noting that all these studies have shown the pedagogical effect of CF on learners’ development except one study conducted by Truscott and Hu (2008) that showed no effect.
To conclude, in spite of the efforts done to reveal the growing concern with testing the efficacy of different types of WCF differently, there are no firm conclusions. These studies have shown that there is a dearth of research supporting the use of metalinguistic explanation which can replace all other types of WCF. This claim needs more research to show its validity.
All in all, the findings show that WCF is effective by itself, i.e when it is not compared to other CF types. Regarding the existing lack of research in supporting this claim, this study willinvestigate the comparative effectiveness of direct error correction and metalinguistic explanation on L2 development. Furthermore, some studies have shown the existing link between the effectiveness of different WCF types and the error types (Wagner& Wulf ,2016). In this respect, Bitchner (2016) called for more designs and studies that show the effect of different error types on the efficacy of different WCF types. Thus, the next section will discuss this research matter.
2.3.6.3.5 The effect of feedback on different grammatical structures
This section sheds some light on the effectiveness of different WCF types concerning different linguistic error types. Spada (2010) highlighted the reason behind the difficulty of learning one linguistic item at the expense of the other. Ortega explained that the development of morphological, syntactic, and lexical items needs an understanding of meaning, form, and use. Therefore students may find linking all these items together difficult because some structures and forms may develop faster than others as a result of the provided WCF. Therefore, focusing on this research concern is valuable. The previously mentioned studies have shown that the article system has been extensively investigated as an error type in WCF studies. These studies have shown the effectiveness of WCF in improving L2 development (Ellis et al, 2008 and Sheen, 2007). However, studies addressing other linguistic error types have shown mixed findings (Bitchener et al, 2005). There are no conclusions about whether WCF is effective in addressing some specific linguistic domains and categories or not. So, this area requires further exploration as it is suggested by (Bitchner and Ferris, 2012).
Ferris (1999, p. 6) made a crystal distinction between treatable and untreatable errors. She defined treatable errors as those that take place” in a patterned, rule-governed way” and able to be corrected, whereas, untreatable errors are those where “there is no handbook or set of rules students can consult”. Bitchener et al. (2005) provided evidence to support this hypothesis and he suggests that WCF is more effective with treatable errors. They claimed that providing L2 learners with WCF helps them improve their accuracy in the use of the past tenseand definite articles which are rule-governed. However, it is not the case with the use of prepositions since they are idiosyncratic features. Several studies have addressed the simple past tense and prepositions about WCF effectiveness. For example, Bitchener et al (2005) and Rummel (2014) found that WCF helped learners improve accuracy in the use of the simple past tense. In their studies, both researchers did not highlight the difference between irregular and regular past tenses. Bitchener et al (2005) concluded that WCF is not effective in addressingPrepositions. They argued that prepositions have sub-categories and the most frequently used ones may be improved if they are targeted by WCF. Bitchener (2016) called for more research on the other subcategories of prepositions before any conclusions are drawn.
To conclude, these studies have shown the effectiveness of WCF in just one limited range of linguistic categories. Therefore, it is of paramount importance to investigate the WCFeffectiveness on wider error categories. Besides, all these studies have focused on form, whereas, the effectiveness of WCF on improved accuracy in structure is still begging more research especially with the appearance of the error gravity research that highlights the necessity of prioritizing some errors over the other in WCF provision. The next section will bedevoted to explaining this argument in breadth and depth.
2.3.6.4. Approaching WCF within error gravity research area
When an error occurs, teachers must decide whether to “treat” or to “ignore” learners' errors. (Brown, 2001, p. 292). Corder (1967, p. 167) strongly emphasized the importance of errors because they “tell the teacher how far the learner has progressed and what is left to learn; they tell the researcher how languages are learned; they provide the learner with a way of testing hypotheses about the language being learned”. Later, he reiterated this idea, explaining that errors made by second language learners are “normal and inevitable features of learning and inform the teacher about the learning process” (Corder, 1974, p. 125). This view was supported by Stark (2001, p. 19), who argued that students' errors should be seen positively and should be regarded as part and parcel of the learning process. He added that Remedial exercises could draw more attention to the trouble spots. In fact, the learner determines input. What the teacher can present is the available input that should be learned.
Richards and Sampson, (1974, p. 15) asserted that errors are important for the teacher so that he can “assesses learning and teaching and determines priorities for future effort.” Therefore, error gravity (EG) represents a criterion for error correction, indicating the categories of error that need priority attention. Depending on the seriousness of the error, correction can be decided on who corrects which 'error.' There is a consensus amongst linguists (Valdman 1975) that the degree of the seriousness of an error should be given closer attention in the corrective treatment of errors. As Ellis (2013, p. 4) noted that teachers’ guides give little advice “on which errors teachers should correct and which ones they should ignore”.
Additionally, Delisle (1982, p. 39) stated the problem in these words: “if our goal is to achieve absolute linguistic correctness, all errors are equally serious and will be rated accordingly. However, if we define our objectives in terms of communicative success, then we will probably use a different rating scale”. Therefore rethinking errors in degrees is important to address their social impact, or “the seriousness of an error” (Ellis, 2008, p. 961). So, there seems to be an order in which some errors are considered more serious than others. The main concerns of error gravity research are presented in these questions:
• Which error to prioritize based on which criterion?
• How to correct the errors?
• Who corrects the errors?
With the advent of error evaluation research, the focus on errors has shifted from the mere description and explanation stages to defining their seriousness and especially identifying which specific error to start with. Therefore, Lee (2003, p.164) seems to be aware of this concern by asking the following questions “How can teachers define the gravity of errors? Which errors should teachers mark, and which errors should they leave alone? These are important questions to explore“. In the literature, there seems to be a consensus upon the effectiveness of selective correction for written errors. For example, Hammerly (1991) claimed that error treatment becomes more effective if it is provided systematically and selectively. Also, Celce-Murcia (1985) asserted that selective correction is seen as one of the most effective teaching strategies. The following table illustrates Celce-Murcia’s comparison between more effective and less effective teacher correction strategies.
Therefore, selective correction implies that teachers have to decide which errors should be prioritized for correction. Burt (1975) pointed out that certain types of errors have higher priorities for correction than others. Moreover, Ferris (2002) has made the following statement:
Are all errors equal or some errors are more important than others? Rings the bell to focus on patterns of error, allowing teachers and students to attend to, say, two or three major error types at a time, rather than dozens of disparate errors (Ferris, 2002, p.50).
The inconsistency in evaluators’ judgment of the gravity of L2 errors pushes many scholars and practitioners to think about the criteria upon which the judgments occur. (James, 1977, p.116) seems to support this view when he says that ESL teachers probably ‘do refer consistently to criteria of degrees of erroneousness when they mark, even though they do not explicitly formulate these criteria’. For example, Hyland& Hyland (2006), employed infringement of rules as his main criterion in judging error gravity.” Ferris (1999, p. 6) similarly suggested that written CF should be directed at “treatable errors” (i.e., errors relating to features that occur in “a patterned, rule-governed way”. Other scholars, however, rely on other different criteria in error treatment. Bartram and Walton (1991) asserted that certain types of errors are more important than others. Therefore, it would be necessary for teachers to know the hierarchies of those errors. Although there are different types of available criteria, the most important errors commonly ranked in the literature of EG by the researchers and educators are linked to the following criteria: (1) those that are relevant to the pedagogical focus, (2) those that occur frequently , (3) those that hinder intelligibility (4) those that affect teachers’ acceptability (5) those that cause irritation and (6) those that affect comprehensibility. Based on these criteria, the following section will examine what types of learner errors should be treated.
2.3.6.4.1 . Errors that are relevant to the pedagogical focus
It has been noted that the seriousness of learner errors and the kind of correction strategy used to deal with those errors depends on the objectives of a lesson (Wen, 1999). In Cohen’s (1975) article, he asserted that errors related to a specific pedagogic focus deserve higher attention than other less important errors. By the same token, Walz (1982) maintained that the features of the target language that have been recently taught in a class should be one of the criteria to decide which errors to correct. Hammerly (1991) claimed that errors that learners make with what they have been taught are different from errors they make with what they have not yet been taught. Hence, (Hammerly, 1991, p. 31) labeled these two dimensions of learner errors ‘ distortion ’ and ‘ fault ’ respectively and further classifies them into four types based on who contributes to the error. Hammerly (1991, p. 90) stated that faults occur whenever the learners attempt the target language structure which is beyond what they have learned. He added that “there is not much point in correcting faults, as there is no reason why the students should be able to correctly use structures they haven’t studied”. In this respect, his perception of correction is similar to Truscott’s (1996) argument that error correction has little value unless it is consistent with the developmental sequence of second language acquisition. So, the focus of correction must be on “what is being taught or has been taught” (Hammerly, 1991, p. 90). In short, the teacher who chooses the pedagogical focus as the criteria of error correction has to modify the preference of error correction not only on the objectives of a particular lesson but also on what individual learners have learned in the target language.
2.3.6.4.2 Errors that occur frequently
High-frequency errors have been suggested for SLA evaluators when they respond to written output. Hendrickson (1980, p. 161) hypothesized that it is necessary to examine the frequently committed errors at various stages of SLA because it could bring insights to build “hierarchies of language learning features”. High-frequency errors are considered Allwright (1975) to deserve typical priority attention in error correction. Therefore, 'High frequency' indicates the repetition of the same error on the part of an individual student.
Some researchers have illustrated errors that are frequently produced by ESL learners. The following shows the most common errors made by ESL learners introduced by Dulay et al. (1982).
1) Omitting grammatical morphemes, which are items that do not contribute much to the meaning of sentences, as in He hit car.
2) Double marking, a semantic feature (e.g. past tense) when only one marker is required, as in She didn’t went back.
3) Regularizing rules, as in womans for women.
4) Using archiforms - one form in place of several - such as the use of her for both she and her, as in I see her yesterday. Her dance with my brother.
5) Using two or more forms in random alternation even though the language requires theuse of each only under certain conditions, as in the random use of he and she regardless of the gender of the person of interest.
6) Misordering items in constructions that require a reversal of word-order rules that had been previously acquired, as in What you are doing?, or misplacing items that may be correctly placed in more than one place in the sentence, as in They are all the time lately. (Dulay et al., 1982: 138-39)
2.3.6.4.3 Errors that hinder intelligibility
In the arena of SLA, intelligibility has been defined as “the impact of errors upon the interlocutor’s ability to understand the meaning of the utterance” (Khalil, 1985, p. 344).
Burt and Kisparsky (1972) build their distinction between global and local errors in the light of intelligibility or communicability. Accordingly, global errors may have a more serious impact on communication than local errors. Hicks (1983) claims that the distinction between global and local errors should be extended beyond the boundaries of the sentence to include errors in cohesion and coherence. In general, intelligibility is related to the extent to which an utterance has been understood. Thus, correctness is required to guarantee intelligibility. Therefore, incorrectness could pose problems to different degrees. Errors that affect intelligibility need priority attention otherwise communication breakdown occurs.
Many researchers have agreed with the idea that the errors which hinder communication are considered to be the most important to correct. Hammerly (1991) suggests that teachers should only correct those errors that significantly affect intelligibility and ignore those that do not. Concerning this point, Burt and Kiparsky (1972) draw a clearcut distinction between ‘ global ’ and ‘ local ’ errors based on the communicative importance of errors. In their study, global errors are errors that seriously obstruct communication and cause interlocutors tomisunderstand a message. On the other hand, local errors are termed as errors that are isolated sentence elements, such as noun and verb inflections that make a structure in a sentence awkward, yet, do not hinder the comprehension of the message. Dulay et al. (1982)introduced the following types of grammatical deviations as global errors in their study:
- Wrong order of major constituents
- Missing, wrong, or misplaced sentence connectors
- Missing cues to signal obligatory exceptions to pervasive syntactic rules
- Regularization of pervasive syntactic rules to exceptions
- Psychological predicate constructions
- Selectional restriction on certain types of verbs in sentential complements (that- clauses, infinitive, and gerunds) (Dulay et al., 1982, p 191-7)
According to Dulay et al., to communicate with others successfully, learners must learn the global aspects of grammar. Therefore, global errors must be prioritized over local errors. Olsson’s (1972) study revealed that semantic errors generally impede communication more than syntactic errors. Moreover, Politzer’s (1978) study of errors made by English speakers of German as well as Delidle’s (1982) study of written errors with native speakers of German found that vocabulary errors were considered to be the most serious errors. Interestingly, the findings from the survey carried out by Medgyes and Reves (1994) show that vocabulary was chosen to be the most frequently perceived difficulty among non-native speakers of English. The possible reason for this is due to the wrong choice of words seriously hindering comprehension and causing miscommunication with other people. Hendrickson (1977) suggested an error chart record learners’ errors for diagnostic purposes. Hendrickson (1980) asserts that these types of charts are useful not only for developing teaching materials but also for deciding a hierarchy of error treatment priorities. Furthermore, this error chart helps teachers to know more about the process of SLA.
Table 2.3.6.4.3 : Error Chart (Hendrickson, 1980, p.164)
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Apart from linguistic error categories, it is essential to raise students’ awareness about the socio-pragmatic differences between the learners’ native language and the target language since such differences may cause communication problems. Therefore, pragmatic errors should enjoy priority in corrective feedback because they affect the intelligibility of the utterance. Thus; Katayama’s (2007) study indicated that participants preferred their pragmatic errors to be corrected on all occasions, in contrast to linguistic errors such as grammatical, phonological, and lexical errors.
2.3.6.4.4. Errors that affect teachers’ acceptability
Bachman (1990) has developed a model of communicative competence that comprised and underlined our perceptions of acceptability. This figure has taken all aspects of competence into account with its subdivisions. These various aspects are taken into consideration in the evaluation practice. Knowing all these kinds of competence can make learning, teaching processes, and acceptability judgment easier.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 2.3.6.4.4: Bachman (1990, p. 87) model of communicative competence
Determining some norms to define acceptability remains a very delicate task. Therefore, Corder (1973, p. 101) is in favor of ‘a sufficient degree of determinacy to identify some norms and make some statements about what is acceptable and what is not'. In fact, without the validity of acceptability, it would be impossible to meaningfully engage in language teaching. Ludwig (1982) found considerable variation in what constitutes acceptability. The latter is defined as language use in a particular context Lyons (1967), whereas in some other studies acceptability is perceived as a criterion that denotes the degree to which a given error deviates from the linguistic norm. In another study, " respondents judged as least acceptable those errors which, for the most part, are global and/or are relativelyrare violations for native speakers, e.g., word order, it-deletion, tense, relative clause errors, and word choice" (Vann, Meyer, and Lorenz, 1984, p 432).
2.3.6.4.5. Errors that cause irritation
Ludwig (1982, p. 275) defined irritation as “a function of the speaker/writer’s erroneous use of language measured against the characteristics and expectations of the interlocutor”. Santos (1988) refers to irritation as the “bother” factor. In other words, the reader becomes irritated by the utterance if he feels frustrated by the produced utterance.
Khalil (1985, p. 336) defined irritation in his way as “the thing that causes people to stop and take notice of a textual feature”.
Irritability is defined by Ludwig (1982, p. 275) as "the result of the form of the message intruding upon the interlocutor's perception of the communication". Other studies (Santos, 1984) would regard irritation as belonging to the hearer/listener despite the communicability of the message. Thus a criterion of irritability on hearing or reading errors may be assumed to be subjective on the part of the individual. Khalil (1985: 336) asserted that irritability is the affective response to error, “native speakers’ emotional reactions to deviant utterances”. It is thething that causes people to stop and take notice of a textual feature. In general, irritating errors cause stigmatization.
Richards (1973) and Corder (1975) were in consensus that errors that may cause stigmatization should be prioritized. Recently, Ludwig (1982, p.275) described the irritation continuum as ranging from an “unconcerned, distracted awareness of a communicative trait to a conscious, constant preoccupation with form, to the point that the message is obscured or lost”. In the same vein, Santos (1987, p. 208) hypothesized “There is a directionality of error gravity involving marked and unmarked pairs of forms and structures such that errors reflecting the unmarked-to-marked direction will arouse a greater degree of irritation in native speakers than errors reflecting the marked-to-unmarked direction.” In her investigation of native speakers, respondents' reactions to errors in learner composition, Santos (1987, p. 215) claimed that this utterance "with a great effort" is seen as more irritating than "such an event" because an is a marked form in the English grammar. Indeed, Santos came up to the conclusion that professors are more irritated by errors in the unmarked-to-marked direction. Santos (1998, p. 70) added that errors could irritate professors".. .even when the message is comprehensible to them".
2.3.6.4.6 Errors that affect comprehensibility
Comprehensibility is used as a criterion of evaluation. For example, Piazza (1980, p. 422) stated that error gravity research determines errors that « interfere with comprehensibility and (which) may irritate native speakers ». Burt (1975) concluded that word order error was regarded as very serious to NS/NNS comprehensibility inEnglish. However, in other studies (eg, Olsson, 1977and Politzer, 1978), lexical errors are found to be more serious than word order errors in impairing comprehensibility. For example, Chastain (1980 a: 212) concluded that "comprehension is most severely limited by word usage, the use of the wrong word or the addition or omission of words". In examining the French tolerance of grammatical errors committed by Americans, Piazza (1980, p. 424) concluded that "incorrect word order is relatively not irritating but can be a problem for comprehension". In many studies, irritationhas been related to the lack of comprehensibility. But some errors could be irritating and comprehensible. However, Santos (1988) claimed that teachers consider double negatives the most irritating errors, but the utterance is still comprehensible. Consequently, there is no positive correlation between comprehensibility and irritation.
To sum up, the study of the different possible criteria upon which the researcher or practitioner can judge the gravity of certain errors paves the way to establish some continua or scales to prioritize learning and teaching. For example, in her taxonomical study of common lexico-grammatical ESL errors made by Hong Kong Cantonese speakers, (Chan, 2010, p.314) claims that "remedial efforts should, of course, be put on grievous errors, but prevalent errors, such as word class confusion, should also receive attention "and argues her taxonomy could beused to create "an error gravity scale and an error prevalence scale" ranging from "the most grievous or prevalent to the least grievous or prevalent". L2 instructors could use these scales to "sequence and prioritize their teaching focus according to the prevalence and gravity scales"(Chan, 2010, p. 315). Also, Sherry's research ends up with the following error gravity hierarchy (Sheory, 1986, p. 310).
Table 2.3.6.4.6 : Sheory’ s error gravity hierarchy
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Deciding upon the seriousness of error categories represents an unsettled matter in the context of EG. For example, some analysts such as Sheorey (1986), and McCretton & Rider (1993) found that according to NN teachers, lexical errors are the least serious errors. In Hughes & Lascaratou’s study (1982) NSs marked semantic errors as more serious than other types. But in McCretton & Rider’s (1993) study NS teachers marked semantic errors as leastserious in comparison to other categories. Khalil (1985) was of the view that semantically aberrant sentences were judged as less intelligible and hence, more serious than the syntactic ones. Thus, according to Khalil (1985), semantic errors are more serious, graver, and irritating.These differences among linguists in deciding upon the most irritating error category represent a piece of evidence that this point in literature deserves more research in different contexts andwith different error categories to come up with solid conclusions.
2.3.6.5. Design flaws
The reviewed studies in the literature of WCF reveal the need for more research that is tailored to understand and eliminate the design flaws of many studies. Ferris (2004), highlighted four critical focal points: (1) a control group; (2) a longitudinal measurement of accuracy improvement in new pieces and the inclusion of pre-test and post-test comparisons; (3) valid measures instruments; and (4) an intensive targeting of a few error structures.
There is a consensus among researchers that studies in WCF should contain a control group to effectively address its effectiveness. Ferris (2004, 2006) suggested two propositions to overcome the ethical question related to the implementation of a control group. The first solution is to provide the control group with ‘‘summary end notes’’ on their errors while the experimental group receives in-text corrections. The second solution, suggests a case study approach. However, it may pose other problems such as time constraints and insufficient sample size.
The second and third issues center around measuring accuracy in new pieces of writing. The administration of an immediate post-test should take place to measure WCF effectiveness in new pieces of writing. The implementation of a post-test presupposed the presence of a pre-test in the research design. Delayed post-tests were needed to measure retention over time. Thus, the current research will consider these two issues in the methodology design to ensure better accuracy measurement.
The fourth concern is related to the number of targeted error categories. Almost CF in all published research targeted 15 or more categories, except some studies such as Bitchener et al., 2005; Sheen, 2006 and some studies by Ferris who focused on five broad error categories. Schwartz, (1993) suggested that different linguistic domains are acquired differently. This is a call to focus on a few error categories instead of comparing outcomes across different grammatical structures and forms. Oral CF research has reported positive results about studies that targeted a single linguistic structure (Han, 2002). The need for more focused research on the WCF arena to overcome such methodological flaws becomes a sine- qua-non call. To do so, focusing on EFL/ESL teachers should be a priority to approach their instructional cognition and practice that underlie WCF provision.
2.4. Research on EFL/ESL Teachers’ beliefs and practices
In the special issue of the Journal of Second Language Writing on L2 Writing teacher education, Hirvela and Belcher (2007, p. 126) highlighted in their introduction the existing lack of focus on “the teacher education realm of the L2 writing field”. Despite the breadth of research on both forms and functions of L2 teacher feedback, their revisions and impact on student perceptions (Lee, 2008), fewer spaces have been devoted to beliefs and practices of WCF among practitioners (Lee, 2009). Recently,this call for more research on teacher belief and practice has been echoed in Al- Bakri’s (2016, p. 44) study. She has strongly claimed that “Research investigating teachers’ beliefs is vast as is research on the effectiveness of WCF (WCF). However, how teachers’ beliefs influence their WCF practices has received little attention. Therefore, this piece of research will address this existing lacuna in research”. It is worth to be noted that “uncovering the beliefs that underlie teachers’ practices can help identify the factors that contribute to effective feedback” (Lee, 2009. p.14). Additionally, teachers will reflect on their professional growth (Xu, 2012). Therefore, the current research will fill in the research gap in this regard.
2.4.1 Research of EFL/ESL teachers’ cognition
Borg (2006, p. 49) defined teacher cognition as “an amalgam of what teachers know, believe, and think, which has been traditionally described by constructs such as knowledge, belief, attitude, value, perception, and rationale”. His definition of, teacher’s cognition “embraces the complexity of teacher's mental lives”. Additionally, Borg (2018) research investigated a basic knowledge component and perspectives about teachers’ pedagogical decisions. Recently Borg (2015) came up with a more mature definition of teacher cognition and he puts: “... teacher cognition as an inclusive term referring to the complex, practically- orientated, personalized, and context-sensitive networks of knowledge, thoughts, and beliefs that language teachers draw on in their work”. (Borg, 2015, p. 321)
Table 2.4.1 (1): The illustration of the five major stands of inquiry incorporated by language teachers’ cognition based on Borg’ (2003) research
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
The past thirty years have witnessed the appearance of important contributions in exploring teachers’ beliefs and schemata. For example, Karimi &Norouzi (2017) researched the nature and effects of teachers’ beliefs. They highlighted the importance of teachers’ beliefs in definingand understanding the world and themselves. Accordingly, beliefs are instrumental while defining behaviors and tasks. By this token, Shinde and Karekatti (2011) claimed that “teachers’ belief systems, including their attitudes, values, expectations, theories, and assumptions about teaching and learning, are considered a primary source of teachers’ classroom practice”. Be it conscious or unconscious, “individual teachers have the power to create or break trends. They shape the curriculum according to their own beliefs, teach their values, through the implicit curriculum, and operate their classroom following their particular definitions of teaching and learning” Shinde and Karekatti (2011, p. 70).
Teachers’ beliefs have already been classified into various sets of categories by some William and Burden (1997) classified the possible discussions of teachers’ beliefs into three areas: (1) about language learning, (2) about learners, and (3) about themselves as language teachers. Some other studies have investigated ESL teachers’ beliefs via the use of questionnaires. However, other researchers such as Borg (2003); Crookes & Arakaki (1999); Johnson (1996) have focused on the contextual factors that affect teachers’ beliefs as curriculum mandates, availability of resources, and the instructional setting. The overwhelming majority of conducted research on teachers’ beliefs highlights its delicate process, in which the researcher should be aware of the different variables surrounding this construct to be clear anddeep in approaching EFL/ESL teachers' cognitions.
In researching teachers’ cognition the focus is oriented towards the mental world rather than instructional actions. Thus, some researchers such as (Conelly&Clandinin, 1985), asserted the complex nature of the teaching process. Borg (1998c) highlighted the importance of studying teachers’ cognition as a tool in understanding and enriching teachers’ education (Wang and Ryan, 2020, Wei and Cao , 2020).
Table 2.4.1 (2): The illustration of the role of EFL/ESL teachers’ cognition in their instructional practise
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Teachers have been portrayed as passive in research findings, waiting for researchers to update them with the latest recommendations (Johnson and Golombek, 2020). The need for more agency among EFL/ESL teachers found its echoes in Freeman and Johnson’s (1998) proposal for a knowledge base to reconceptualize language teacher education. In this respect, teaching should be captured as it is rather than how it should be. This knowledge base consistsof three domains. First, the teacher as a learner of teaching, this domain centers on the teacher who is in the process of learning to teach in line with a language teacher education program. Second, the social contexts of schools and schooling promote the role of sociocultural and sociocultural contexts in teaching. Finally, the pedagogical process of language teaching and learning is about the activity of teaching itself (Freeman and Johnson, 1998). This proposed knowledge-base creates the embryo of teacher cognition research.
Table 2.4.1 (3): Inquiry-based research on Language teachers’ cognition
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Borg (2003) illustrates five main inquiry stands related to the arena of language teacher cognition. By doing so, he takes the initiative in teachers’ cognition research by overtly raisingkey questions to make this implicit side of language teaching explicit. They are as follows:
- What do teachers have cognitions about?
- How do these cognitions develop?
- How do they interact with teacher learning?
- How do they interact with classroom practice? (Borg, 2003; p. 81)
These above-mentioned questions represent a practical guide for researchers in the field of teachers’ cognition. This guide takes the form of some methodological tools that should be used such as self-report, verbal commentaries, observation, and reflective inquiry (Borg, 2006). Recently, Borg& Sanchez (2020) highlight the importance of reflecting on the “unobservable dimension of teaching” (p: 16) to shape better practitioners.
Additionally, teacher cognition has been perceived as an impactful gatekeeper that is responsible for the change in the classroom. For example, Olson (1981, p. 212) has proved that the implementation of the innovative curriculum in Canada has failed just because the curriculum developers did not pay due attention to the “complex, stable systems in which the teachers operated”. By the same token, Basturkmen (2007) concluded that teachers’ conceptual changes have seldom materialized because teachers’ cognition was not considered in examining the impact of changing student assessment systems on teachers’ beliefs and practice. These two studies have shown the priority of considering teachers’ cognition as a component in CF research that boosts practitioners’ reflective practice.
It is worth noting that Schon’s (1983) notion of reflective practice was a reaction against an instrumental approach of teaching that excluded teachers’ roles in implementing ready-made knowledge in their instruction. This notion finds its roots in critical thinking. Reflective practice is defined by Johnston & Badley (1996, p. 4) as the ‘acquisition of a critical stance or attitude towards one’s practice and that of one’s peers’. Critical theorists go astep further beyond Schon’s categories to focus on ‘reflection about action’ in social, economic, and political dimensions of teaching. The latter notion paves the way to address issues related to the development of effective reflective practitioners in both thinking and acting, or as Shulman (1987) named ‘the wisdom of teaching’.
Reflection is a process that is related to developing practices (Dewey 1933, 1938; Loughran, 1996).
... the way of teaching demands a long journey that does not haveany easily identifiable destination ... It is a journey that I believe must include a backward step into the self and it is a journey thatis its destination. (Tremmel, 1993, p. 456).
In the literature, reflection is associated with acts of cognition that are related to learning ‘how’. Dewey (1933) approached reflective thinking as thinking phases, which are followed by an inquiry act to reach a state of relief after resolving the mental doubt. Similarly, Loughran (1996) defines reflection as ‘the deliberate and purposeful act of thinking which centers on ways of responding to problem situations’ (p. 14). Reflection is strongly associated with cognitive psychology research (Arlin, 1990; Csikszentmihalyi & Sawyers, 1995). It is only in the mid-1980s that the image of the ‘reflective practitioner’ by Schön has been popularised.
2.4.2. The sources of EFL/ESL teachers cognition
Understanding the sources of EFL/ESL teachers’ cognition is important to know what makes EFL/ESLpractitioners different from others in the way they think and behave. This concern has been rising in the literature, as a result, many sources have been identified and classified. Abdi and Asadi (2015) identified four sources which are as follows: 1) Teachers’ experience as language learners. Thus, teachers’ previous learning helped them shape their teaching beliefs.2) Teaching experience is the main source of teachers’ beliefs. 3) Teachers’ personality depends on their character which will affect their instructional beliefs and pedagogical choices. 4) Research-based principles. Teachers can rely on research findings from second language acquisition research to shape their beliefs and teaching philosophies. Li’s (2012) research showed that EFL/ESL teachers’ beliefs are shaped during their teaching processes and their sources are related to social history and culture.
It has been proved that EFL/ESL Teachers’ beliefs affect not only the theoretical constituents of teacher training, but also the teaching behaviors during the experience (Johnson, 2021). Focusing on EFL/ESL Teachers’ beliefs as a research topic is of paramount importance especially with the co-existence of beliefs and practices in the teaching practice. Therefore, there are two different views about the relationship between Teachers’ beliefs and practices. Some researchers have highlighted the strong agreement between teachers’ beliefs and their instructional practices (Johnson, 2021 & Soleimani, 2020) while others have identified some inconsistencies (Zembylas, 2005).
To conclude, the review of the literature vis-à-vis teachers’ cognition shows that the latter construct is complexed, and linking it to teachers’ practice creates some controversies. Therefore, it is important to question the assumptions about teachers’ beliefs and practices to achieve better educational effectiveness.
2.4.3. The impetus behind studying EFL/ESL writing teachers’ cognitions
Despite the abundance of research on the use of L2 writing (Bitchener, 2008, Storch, 2010), some questions remain unanswered related to EFL/ESL teachers’ cognitions. It is worthnoting that practitioners’ beliefs and perceptions are absent in the existing published literature.Thus, this piece of research will be an attempt to delve into Tunisian EFL/ESL teachers’ beliefs and practices in the provision of WCF at the tertiary level as an attempt to address this lacuna in the literature. Zamel (1985, p. 84) highlighted this lack by noting that “current research tells us very little about ESL teachers’ responses to student writing. We know that teachers respond imprecisely and inconsistently to errors”. Yet, even after decades of research and debate in this arena, “we are virtually at Square One, as the existing research base is incomplete and inconsistent, and it would certainly be premature to formulate any conclusions about this topic” (Ferris2004, p. 49) puts it.
2.4.4. Research on EFL/ESL teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding WCF
Understanding the way teachers think about WCF has led many researchers to reconsider this construct of teachers’ knowledge base in the understanding and explaining of their WCF practice in the sheltered environment (Lyster and Mori, 2006). Consequently, theseefforts will lead to deeper analysis and more grounded explanations in approaching teachers’ WCF practice. I strongly agree with Phipps and Borg's (2009, p. 381) argument that “beliefs influence practices and practices can also lead to changes in beliefs”. Borg (2003) highlighted the role of contextual factors in addition to the roles of schooling, professional coursework, and the classroom ones in linking EFL/ESL teachers’ beliefs and practice in teaching writing skills. The figure below illustrates these four impactful factors on EFL/ESL teachers’ beliefs about teaching writing skill
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Contextual Factors
Teachers’ time, students’ motivation, teachers’ motivation, salary, expectations, materials, prior experiences in and outside school, with standardized tests, school and curriculum mandates, and society
Figure 2.4.4: A Model of teachers’ writing instruction beliefs and practices Borg (2003)
A growing body of research has addressed teacher cognition as a variable in WCF research. By doing so, teachers’ cognition becomes part of the puzzle to set-up the research program, interpret the findings, and draw possible conclusions. Within these research findings,more efforts were made to reposition the EFL/ESL teacher within the realm of WCF as an active participant whose practice is informed by a well-established stream of thinking (Phipps, & Borg (2007). This has been proven by Evans et al (2010b, p. 47) who argue that “understanding teacher perspectives on corrective feedback is integral to our understanding the place of WCF in L2 writing pedagogy”.
Some researchers have shown the importance of examining EFL/ESL writing teachers’ beliefs and practices of WCF by highlighting the possibility of having them as active thinkers willing to generate a theory “with a small t” based on their actual practice (Engin & Atkinson, 2015, p. 13). The constructed theory is based on EFL/ESL teachers’ beliefs and conceptions about the WCF. Thus their local theories may inform EFL/ESL writing researchers and teachers’ practice. It will fasten the connection between teachers’ cognitions and practices (Atherton, 2005), shape students’ self-perceived writing efficacy and writing quality (Bolton, 2005).
Kumaravadivelu (1994, p. 30) claimed that in a “post method condition” it is impossible for any theory in WCF particularly and teaching generally to account for every single detail that language teachers face in their foreign language classrooms. His claim gives more freedom to EFL/ESL teachers to make instructional choices and develop their language teaching approaches or as he labeled “principled pragmatism”. This pragmatism is based on teachers’ learning experiences, professional training, classroom observations, and teachers’ intuitions. Additionally, Rishards (1998, p. 65) supported these claims by focusing on “the mastery of general principles and theories that have been determined by others,” but rather as “the acquisition of teaching expertise [in a] process that involves the teacher in actively constructing a personal and workable theory of teaching”.
By the same token, Nation and Macalister (2010, p. 176) have posited that teachers practice must “be determined by what they believe,” and that “the old-fashioned notion that a teacher’s role is to transmit knowledge from the curriculum to the learners has been replaced by the recognition that teachers have complex mental lives that determine what and how teachers teach”. Truscott (1999, p. 121) noted that “these decisions are necessarily made underconditions of uncertainty: research never puts an end to doubt. But the choices still must be made, and made constantly” to understand the role of WCF in L2 writing.
Table 2.4.4: The illustration of research about the link between EFL/ESL teachers’ beliefs and practice with WCF provision
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
In line with Lee's (2008) study that shows the misalignment between beliefs and practices. I will zoom in the next section about what does the literature illustrates about EFL/ESL teachers’ beliefs, practices, and alignment/misalignment dichotomy between the two.
2.4.5. Alignment and misalignment in EFL/ESL teachers beliefs and practices
The research in EFL/ESL teachers’ beliefs and practices has shown the presence of a lot of differences between these two constructs. To explain the reasons lying behind the existing tension between EFL/ESL teachers’ beliefs and practices Borg (2006) claims that such misalignment is the outcome of the constant interaction between teachers’ pedagogical choices and their perceptions of the instructional context. Additionally, Phipps and Borg (2009: 388) maintain that this phenomenon should be approached positively as natural life forces that are “firmly grounded in experience”. Accordingly, teachers’ awareness of their students’ preferences may explain the divergence between how they think and what they do? Teachers should “make sense of several interacting and competing influences on their work” (Phipps and Borg, 2009:387) to better adjust their teaching strategy to create better learning opportunities.
It is important to highlight the empirical scarcity of EFL/ESL teachers’ alignment/misalignment between beliefs and practices about WCF. Hence, studies on this concern can be classified into two groups (Alkhatib, 2015). The first group of studies aims at comparing teachers‘actual practices and their self-reported practices (Lee, 2008), teachers‘beliefs and their self-reported practices (Lee, 2003), and teachers‘ beliefs and their actual practices (Lee, 2009). The second group of studies examines beliefs (Jodaie and Farrokhi, 2012), practices (Ferris et al., 1997), and teachers‘self-reported practices and their actual practices (Ferris et al., 2011).
Table 2.4.5 Studies comparing between teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding WCF (Alkhatib, 2015: 57-58)
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
However, these studies have a number of limitations. For example, Lee (2003) presents how teachers think and behave in their classrooms in providing WCF. But, their self- reported practices do not mirror the reality of how teachers respond to their learners’ errors. Lee (2009) did not explain the procedures she followed to analyze the teachers’ comments. The following table will illustrate studies about EFL/ESL teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding WCF.
Table 2.4.5 Studies comparing between teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding WCF(Alkhatib, 2015: 56-57-58)
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
These studies contain some limitations. For instance, focusing on teachers’ beliefs or practices in isolation may distort the real situation (Borg, 2006). Additionally, Ferris et al.‘s (1997) study lack generalizability, because it is based on the practices of just one teacher which makes it impossible to generalize it in a broader context. Researching EFL/ESL teachers’ beliefs and practices paves the road to tackle the concept of professional development, which is a core construct in this study. Therefore, the next part will shed light on this concern.
2.4.6. Critique of studies on EFL/ESL teachers’ beliefs and practices in WCF provision
Many scholars have raised critical claims about the shortage of research on some areas in EFL/ESL teachers’ WCF beliefs and practices. One of the major issues related to this topic is that most of WCF research “ has relied too heavily on either student reports or researchers descriptions and judgments without adequately consulting teachers themselves as informants about what they do with feedback and why” (Ferris et al., 2011: 19). Additionally, except for Lee’s (2009) study, other studies have failed to discuss the existing link between beliefs and practices in WCF provision. Consequently, literature does not show much about whether or not teachers’ beliefs are mirrored in their actual practices (Lee, 2009, 2013).
It is worth noting that despite the huge bulk of research in the area of WCF, studies that address not only alignments but also misalignments between EFL/ESL/ESL teachers’ beliefs and practices are still lacking. In the Tunisian context, Athimni, (2018, 2019) highlights the shortage of research investigating writing feedback practices. Additionlly, Athimni (2020) has focused only on Tunisian university teachers’ practices. In his three pieces of research, he does not focus on teachers' beliefs, and he restricts himself to the practices only. Additionally, Mhedhbi (2011) focused on the effect of Tunisian teachers' feedback on the quality of students' rewritings. Therefore, the current piece of research will address the lack of research on aligning teachers’ beliefs and practices. Moreover, linking these two constructs to TPD in WCF provision represents another lacuna that should be addressed to boost effectiveness in theory and practice. The lack of research on this area in the Tunisian context will allow this study to gain a certain degree of originality and uniqueness.
2.5. Research on Teachers’ Professional Development
The word genesis profession’ dates back to the Latin word ‘ profiteor’ and means to progress through acquiring expert knowledge and making a formal commitment (Lester& Costley, 2010). There has been an increasing body of literature that questions teachers’ required professional competencies (Celik 2011, Imron et al, 2019; Apriliyanti, 2020). They state that professional development takes place when educators are engaged in formal and informal activities. They will gain professional expertise that enables them to make changes and achieve better outcomes. In this study, the elements of EFL/ESL TPD concept will be in line with Gueskey ‘s (2002) definition of PD which is understood in the light of those processes and activities which are designed to enhance teachers’ professional knowledge and practices.
2.5.1. Factors affecting Teachers’ PD
Understanding TPD is governed by a range of different factors such as context, time, financial resources, and teachers’ motivation. These factors should be scrutinized to finetune the understanding of TPD.
2.5.1.1 . The context
Considering the context where professional development takes place is of high importance because it helps teachers to reflect deeply on their instructional practice rather than simply transmit learning (Kennedy, 2005). Also, considering teachers’ experience within a certain instructional context, helps them teach more effectively. Fraser, Kennedy, Reid &Mckinney (2007) suggest that before designing any professional development activity some factors should be understood such as learners’ background, the curriculum, the learning culture, and local policies. Moreover, the learning environment where PD activities formal or informal take place is fundamental in teachers’ learning process. To sum up, focusing on the related factors that determine the context of designing and operating TPD.
2.5.1.2 Time
Time is strongly associated with the intensity of PD, culture, and context claimed that in certain institutions, time is perceived as a basic factor in PD. Hong et al (2013) suggested that the allocation of appropriate time allows trainers to reflect and teachers to link newly acquired knowledge with prior experience. Besides, Day, Sammons, &Stobart, (2007) explained that heavy workloads inhibit teachers’ engagement with PD. To sum up, choosing the time of providing PD is crucial to boost teachers’ development.
2.5.1.3 Financial Resources
Accounting for the financial resources in TPD is very important such as attending symposiums, forums, and research. Policymakers should ensure that the institutional budgets match opportunities for PD to meet teachers’ needs (Day, 1999).
2.5.1.4 Teachers’ motivation
Motivation is defined by Blanchard and Thacker (2013, p. 79) as “the direction, persistence, and amount of effort expended by an individual to achieve a specified outcome”. Focusing on teachers’ motivation in shaping professional development is fundamental). Teachers' motivation stems from external stimuli. For example, Styslinger, et al (2014) suggested that administrators need to provide incentives to enhance discussions and learning. However, McMillan, McConnell, and O’Sullivan (2016) have argued that it is more important to focus on internal motivation rather than the external one to promote TPD in terms of ‘career advancement.
2.5.2. How do teachers’ learn?
EFL/ESL teachers are “lifelong learners by nature” (Troudi, 2009, p. 64). Thus, teachers do not stop learning. Some scholars havesuggested that teacher learning should proceed through stages. For example, Hargreaves(2000, p. 153) proposed four different stages. First, ‘the pre-professional age’ in whichteachers rely on a prescribed syllabus to learn without others’ support. Second, ‘the autonomous professional age’ in which teachers’ status has been improved, and more focus isgiven to pre and in-service education. Third, ‘the collegial professional age’ in which teachersstart to share knowledge and collaborate. Forth, ‘the post-professional or postmodernprofessional age’ in which economics has a deep impact on teaching approaches and learning. Other researchers suggest that there is several conditions to promote teachers’ learning (Franchi, 2016). Desimone (2009) argued that the same conditions should be present in dealing with student teachers. Recently, more attention has been paid to the sourcesthat could support teacher learning both formally and informally.
2.5.2.1 Teachers’ growth as individuals
Teachers are active agents in both learning and teaching processes (Villegas-Reimers, 2003). Therefore, focusing on their growth as individuals plays an important role in their PD. Teachers’ growth as individuals takes many forms that will be tackled in this section.
2.5.2.2 Self-development
Teachers’ self-development refers to their learning opportunities inside or outside their teaching institutions. Teachers will develop a range of skills and competencies to increase their knowledge base. These activities could be reading academic books, enrollment in online courses, reflection on their actual teaching practice. This reflection couldbe enhanced if it is supported by peers and through systematic inquiry. The role of teachers’ intrinsic motivation to learn is very important to create self- driven opportunities for self-development (Day & Sachs, 2004).
2.5.2.3 Institutional support
Institutional support plays a vital role in boosting teachers’ PD. In addition to the role of culture, several other factors could influence teachers’ growth in cognition, skills, and beliefs. It is the role of institutional leaders to engage teachers through collective learning, creating discussion groups, allotting chances for professional development through creating real opportunities for teachers’ PD which should be approached as an ongoing process. Hence,Kelly (2013) highlighted the importance of colleagues in shaping teachers’ PD. For instance, non-experienced teachers need support and mentoring from more experienced teachers. Institutional support is very beneficial for teachers’ growth. Besides, external support can be beneficial as well.
2.5.2.4 Needs Analysis
Conducting a needs analysis is important to identify the gap between the actual performance and the potential requirements of the classroom. For example,Mcardle (1998) described the existing gap as a series of processes through which issues can be targeted in training. Also, Hargreaves & Fink (2004). approached needs analysis as the cornerstone of a healthy continuous PD. Hence, it is perceived as a benchmarking evaluation strategy for teachers’ PD not only in setting the priorities for teachers’ needs but also in aligning teachers’ development with the organizational strategic plan.
2.5.3. Models of PD
Through reviewing the literature about teachers’ models of learning and professional development, a different range of models appears to define models of PD. For example, Cochrane-Smith and Lytle in Day and Sachs (2004) defined four types of knowledge about teachers’ PD: 1) Knowledge generated by research outside the institution, 2) knowledge generated from teachers’ practice, 3) knowledge generated from teaching needs and selfinquiries, 4) Knowledge generated by experience. Day and Sachs (2004) have labeled this fourth category as reflection. There is a different range of categorization of PD models. The general orientations for PD such as (Desimone, 2009; Guskey, 2002; Shulman & Shulman, 2004) and school reform (Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008)which tackle the complexities of PD and school reform about the roles of teacher agency. These published models have paved the way to the appearance of models of professional growth (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002) and models of school improvement by Louis et al. (2010).
There isa lack of research on establishing a PD framework that addresses issues of WCF provision among EFL/ESL teachers in the Tunisian context except for an attempt made by Zayani (2020) in her framework she approached EFL/ESL teachers professional development concerning WCF. Her framework is made up of five main steps: 1) core features of professional development, 2) Feed-up, 3) Feed-back, 4) Feed-forward, and 5) Back-ward quality professional development. This last step in this framework is a reflective inquiry that EFL/ESL teachers are involved in to reshape their cognitive and practical orientations in the present and for the future. She ascertains that “After acquiring certain degrees of maturity; i.e being aware of the three questions 1) Where am I going, 2) How am I going? 3) Where to next? Teachers should ask the following questions in this Backward stage: 1) From where did I come? 2) How Did I move? And 3) Why did I think and behave in this certain way? This Backward movement is a Professional Development reflection on the whole framework stages. The teacher becomes more involved to achieve self-efficacy and agency. Besides, EFL/ESL teachers become empowered to dig into the past learning and teaching experiences to think critically and to implement critical thinking to WCF” (Zayani, 2020, p. 10).
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 2.5.3: Towards a hybrid approach to Quality Professional
Development (Zayani 2020,p. 13)
However, Zayani (2020) did not show a practical guide for practitioners in dealing with the different steps of the framework in their day-to-day basis practices. Therefore, it is overwhelmed with vagueness and unclarity. Thus, this study will present a PD intervention forEFL/ESL University teachers through the lens of PAR.
Also, Klapper (2001, p. 21) illustrated opportunities where teachers may learn through PD. These opportunities are learning through actual teaching; formal training; workshops and seminars; postgraduate qualifications; teaching methodology books; the implementation, development, and evaluation of teaching materials, collaboratively with colleagues; peer observation; group discussion; mentoring of less experienced teachers; observation of novice teachers; conducting workshops and presentations about your own teaching experience; materials development; and dissemination of good practice. The following section will focus on a set of the most frequent models of PD.
2.5.3.1 Initial Teacher Education (pre-service Education)
Valencic&Vogrinc (2007) conceived that pre-service education has a strong influence on teachers’ professional journey. The focus of initial teacher training is shaped by political agendas that are echoed in different approaches. Pre-service education cannot cover all teaching aspects, therefore, the knowledge gap should beaddressed through PD.
2.5.3.2 In-service Trainingmlm
In-service training means training offered during the employment process to increase skills and to improve performance. This training can address the needs of both new and experienced teachers (Malone, Straka, & Logan, 2000). This training is tailored in a topdown way by policy imperatives. In-service training has been considered as the main model of PD and it has many advantages (Craft, 2002). However, it also has some pitfalls. For example, Eraut (1972) highlighted that there are no rooms for trainees to analyze problems for themselves. As a result, teachers’ learning may be limited since there is no evidence of change in teachers’ instructional practice. Besides, in-service training in the form of workshops and short-term training has a limited effect on teachers’ PD and it has been perceived as a waste of time and effort (Fullen& Stiegelbauer, 1991). To overcome these drawbacks, various suggestions have beenproposed to highlight the role of the follow up (O’Sullivan, 2011) and the course evaluation which should focus on long - term effectiveness. Lee (1997) focuses on the training process and he recommends involving trainees in the decision-making process or what Harris (2000) called it ‘a participantcentered approach’ or what Kennedy (2005) referred to as ‘transformative stage’.
2.5.3.3 Mentoring
Mentoring means the use of more knowledgeable practitioners to support trainee teachers. Mentors will learn from their mentoring process (Marsha, 2017). To achieve effective mentoring, several conditions should be considered such as the “willingness, openness and readiness” of mentees and mentors during the mentoring process (Bland et al, 2009). Maynard and Furlong (1993) provided three different mentor roles. The first is the ‘apprenticeship’ model where the mentor focuses on a particular approach. Second, is the ‘competency-based model’ where the mentor takes the role of a coach. Finally, it is the ‘reflective practitioner’ model, where the mentor trains mentee to reflect on their teaching experience. Mentors play these roles interchangeably during the mentoring process until the mentee achieves self- autonomy. Mentors should be well trained to play these roles effectively in the process of PD.
2.5.3.4 Teachers’ Professional Learning Communities
Approaching the concept of community of practice from an educational viewpoint is understood in terms of the professional learning community. For example, Maha et al, (2022) claim that learning communities play critical leadershiproles in the formation of professional learning communities. In the literature of PD, community learning has been considered as one of the most effective approaches to teachers’ learning and professional development (Effrat, 2022). The community of learning needs collaboration and supportive commitment. Teachers meet to talkabout their needs, strengths, and weaknesses. Their objectives are informed by their discussions (Kennedy, 2005). Also, Pignatelli (2011) referred to the concept of ‘vulnerability’ as the ability to share and support challenges within the group. She shows a link between this construct and TPD in the sense that the more vulnerability, teachers show, the more gain they can get from the community learning. Moreover, Rebecca et al (2016) pointed out that thelearning community refers to the similarity between teachers’ instructional contexts, needs, teaching level, learners’ age, and curricula. Thus, having a heterogeneous group of communitylearning may pose a problem for the unity of the group and may prevent them from setting clear needs and objectives.
2.5.3.5 Action Research
Action research is another form of PD, where teachers can be introduced by a cycle of planning, performing, observing, analyzing,and reflecting on their practice (Kemmis and McTaggart. 1988). Action research has been perceived as an effective model of PD. It empowers teachers to be critical and make changes in their instructional practice, and the curricula. It is through action research that teachers may create a professional learning community that enables them to reflect more on their practice (Elliott, 1991). Also, action research effectiveness may be extended to the extent that enhances teachers’ feeling of assuming responsibilities and boosting their pedagogical knowledge (Furlong & Salisbury, 2005). However, the lack of action research practice may hinder teachers’ continuous PD (Godfrey, 2009). Teachers’ motivation to participate in action research projects is of high importance. Margulies and Raia (1978) defined action research as an integrated process of research, action,and education. Action research is defined as “ systematic and orientated around analysis and data whose answers require the gathering and analysis of data and the generation of interpretations directly tested in the field of action” (Greenwood & Lewin, 1988,p.122) .
Accordingly, action research focuses on the agenda that embodies the beliefs to identify the problem that should be resolved. According to Carr and Kemmis (1986), action research is defined as “a critical revival of practice which can transform it into praxis, bringing it under-considered critical control, and enlivening it with a commitment to educational and social values”. (p. 190). Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) defined action research as a form of collective self-reflective inquiry undertaken by participants in social situations to improve the rationality and justice of their own social or educational practices, as well as their understanding of these practices and the situations in which these practices are carried out. (p.1). Kurt Lewin (1952) views action research as the collective participation of agents in taking decisions to ensure social change. Lewin’s approach of action research is in line with the definition of PAR which is approached by (Morris, 2002) as a cyclic, collaborative, and dynamic educative process which addresses a problem. The existing similarities between AR and PAR create key elements that make PAR as a subset of AR is the nature of participation. Some researchers seem to be critical in this respect and they assume that adding the quantifier participatory is not of great importance since participation is always included in AR (Whitehead & McNiff, 2006). Despite this criticism, I will embark on the existing differences between AR and PAR frameworks because this distinction will draw the boundaries of PAR tapestry (Selener, 1997) to enlighten some methodological points in this study.
2.5.3.5.1. Zooming on Participatory Action Research
Participatory Action Research (PAR) is “a subset of action research” (MacDonald, 2012: 35) which is “the systematic collection and analysis of data for the purpose of taking action and make change” to generate practical knowledge. Participatory action research dated back to the 1970 s in the Latin American symposium on Critical Social Science Research. In addition to the impactful influence of Paulo Freire’s (1970) revolutionary pedagogy which aimed at engaging ordinary and marginalized people to develop critical literacy and skills that would empower them to integrate into the society. Freire (1970) “developed community-based research processes to support people’s participation in knowledge production and social transformation” (Kindon et al., 2007, p. 10). In his seminal work, Pedagogy of the Opressed (1970), he coined the concept of conscientization and critical reflection, among others. By the term conscientization, he means identifying and analyzing critically the social, political, and economic contradictions, leading to organized action to solve immediate problems and to challenge the oppressive aspects of life.
PAR is a collective model of research that contains three guiding principles: (a) A problem is jointly investigated; (b) “indigenous” knowledge is used to better understand aproblem; and (c) there is a desire to take action to address the problem (McIntyre, 2000, p. 128). In engaging in PAR, “[p]articipants . . . become researchers about their daily lives in hopes of developing realistic solutions for dealing with the problems that they believe need to be addressed” (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008, p. 109). By bringing new “voices into the academy” (Pain, 2004, p. 654). PAR will affirm “people’s right and ability to have a say in decisions which affect them” (Reason&Bradbury, 2006, p. 10). Many definitions have been proposed by many scholars. For example, the definition proposed by Reason &
Bradbury (2001) resonates with the current research understanding of PAR: [Participatory Action Research] seeks to bring together action and reflection, theory and practice in participation with others in the pursuit of practical solutions to issues of pressing concern to people, and more generally the flourishing of individual persons and their communities. (p.1)
PAR represents a radical shift from traditional research because of what it investigates and who does the investigating. Kurt Lewin’s works paved the way for action research to take significant strides to enter the domain of educational research. First, action research was adopted in the United States. Freire’s participatory action research helped American researchers to use it as an approach l to challenge dominant education. PAR examines a range of issues such as “educational justice; access to quality health care; the criminalization of youth; gang violence; police brutality; oppression based on race, gender, and sexuality; gentrification; and environmental issues” (Torre & Fine, 2006, p. 271). Thus thefollowing section will explore the existing differences between conventional and participatory types of research. Kemmis & McTaggart (2008, p. 273) provide three different attributes that differentiate PAR from conventional research. They are as follows:
- shared ownership of research projects,
- community-based analysis of social problems, and
- an orientation toward community action.
Conventional research relies on other people's views to gather the data. However, the PAR focuses on the very process of knowledge production. Additionally, Lilja & Bellon (2008, p. 479) tackle the notion of intervention methods in the conventional research and criticize it for packaging intervention programs “into one-size-fits-all, off-the-shelf approaches, based on the notion of universal best practices”. While PAR tries to overcome this issue by actively involving participants in the research process. Moreover, PAR is differentiated from conventional research in the alignment of power (Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995, p. 1668). PAR focuses on “knowledge for action” (Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995, p. 1667). To summarize, the following table illustrates the two -ideal type representations of PAR and conventional research.
Table 2.5.3.8.1 (1) : Comparing PAR and Conventional Research Adapted from “What isParticipatory Research?” (Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995, p. 1669).
ParticipatoryAction Research
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Table 2.5.3.8.1 (2): Copmaring the traditional and the participatory researchParadigms, excerpted from Rogers & Palmer (1994).
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
PAR has specific guiding principles that guide the researchers and practitioners.
2.5.3.5.2. Action Research and PD
Integrating Action research in professional development activities is based on the philosophy of student-teachers’ professional practice which is important to the teachers’ professional practice and evaluation, (Darling- Hammond 2000). Research shows the importance of introducing action research not only to improve educational practices and TPD but also to provide solutions for various educational and pedagogical problems (McNiff and Whitehead 2009).
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 2.5.3.8.2: The cycle of action research (McNiff and Whitehead, 2009).
Fullan (2001) defined professional development as learning habits. In this respect, professional development can be cognized in terms of scaffolding procedures. To achieve better scaffolding results professional development and action research should be tailored on teachers’ needs effectively through focusing on their beliefs and students’ learning as well (Whitcomb, Borko and Liston 2009). This is a real challenge because understanding these needs is a need in itself. To do so, teachers’ participation in research help them understand their needs and push them to be more open on new ideas. More importantly, action research made by teachers themselves have been investigated in literature and yet needsmore research in future pieces of research (Cain & Milovic 2010). This piece of research will focus on this dimension through focusing on teachers’ action research asa tool for them to teachers act as researchers, the research then becomes part of their role.
2.5.3.5.3. Action Research frameworks for EFL/ESL Teachers’ reflective practice
Reflective practice research literature reveals that its goals are similar to those of action research which are change and improvement (Carr& Kemmis, 1988). Reflective practice is approached as an essential activity for teacher educators by several researchers such as (Dinkelman, 2003). Through the literature, each model of action research corresponds to a certain type of reflective processes. Grundy’s (1982) typology illustrated three different action research models which are technical, practical, and emancipatory. Technical action research sheds light on “the practical skills of the participants” as (Grundy, 1982, p. 357) put it to achieve practice effectiveness. However, this model has limited teachers’ development opportunities since it has fewer reflection opportunities in and on practice.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 2.5.3.8.3: Grundy’s (1982) Three Modes of Action Research
By the same token, Altrichter & Posch (1989, p. 91) warn that this can generate subordinate practitioners without “developing reflective features of professional action”. In this model, reflection is restricted to coping strategies, skills, and tactics with an immediate problem related to the curricula. On the other hand, with the practical action research model, reflective processes are tailored around scaffolding teachers’ self-evaluation capacities to foster practitioners’ practical judgment. These reflective processes go hand in hand with the very nature of this action research model in which teachers' capacities to identify moral and practical issues related to their professional arena are highlighted and valorized.
Elliott’s (1991) ‘self-reflective spiral of cycles’, entails the following steps: observe- reflect-plan-act-evaluate. These steps determine the framework of practical action research.
Within this frame, the theory is no longer independently applied, it is rather generated through practitioners’ reflective practice. Elliott (1991) emphasized the importance of action in initiating reflection. He foregrounds the recurrent aspect of ‘reconnaissance’ in practical actionresearch cycles. For example, Elliot (1991: 71) proposed reconnaissance - fact-finding and analysis - within each stage. While O’Leary’s (2004: 140-141) model is made up of, ‘cycles converge towards better situation understanding and improved action implementation; and are based in evaluative practice that alters between action and critical reflection.’ (p.140). ’Leary’sframework of action research was seen by Koshy (2015:5) “as an experiential learning approach to change the goal of which is to continually refine the methods, data, and interpretation in the light of the understanding developed in the earlier cycles”.
However, some critical voices were raised to warn against the omnipresent self in the action research model that may distract the practitioner’s focus from the study. For example, Bridget Somekh (1995, p. 348) asserts that “This may be an effective form of therapy, but it is difficult to call it research. Additionally, others seem to be critical of the reflective practice that is linked to the practical action research. Elliott (1978) criticized the limited scope of individuals’ reflective practice since it is limited to a narrow professional domain. Emancipatory action research is identified by Grundy (1982) as ‘the emancipation of participants in the action from the dictates of compulsions of tradition, precedent, habit, coercion as well as from self- deception’ (Grundy, 1982, p. 358). There are two different but complementary approaches to emancipatory action research.
The first approach is based on Carr & Kemmis’s (1986) view. It focuses on the construct of collaborative activity self-critical community of practitioners who are engaged ina collaborative activity to transform the educational system in line with the democratic principles. Within this approach, reflection takes the form of social re-constructionist as a reaction to the oppression witnessed by the practitioners in their social and historical ideologies. This reflective practice is framed around the previously mentioned model of planning, acting, observing, reflecting, and criticizing the teaching and learning milieu. Under this approach, it is possible to illustrate a range of AR cycles.
The second approach is based on Whitehead (1993) who has coined a concept of ‘living educational theory’ in which every one of us is a ‘living contradiction of ourselves’. Whitehead (1993, p. 2) raised a fundamental question ‘How do I improve my practice?’ He explains that the answer necessitates an engagement in the process of explaining the present in terms of evaluation of the past to improve the future practice. Evans (1994) explains a range of means used in the action inquiry. They are as follows: autobiography, dialogical conversations, fictional stories. Reflective writing and journals. These means aid practitioners to build their personal ‘living educational theory’ (Whitehead, 2018). Additionally, Mezirow (2000) argued that reflection may engender learning only if it leads to learning transformation. For him learning is not the outcome of the individual’s experience, it is rather the offspring of the individual’s self-awareness and critical reflection. Merizow links reflection with the presence of a dilemma that should be addressed to “criticize assumptions, explore new roles, plan a course of action” (Mezirow, 2000, p. 22). To wrap up, both theories of emancipatory action research aim to challenge ‘deep structures’ (Holly, 1987). However, a slight difference remains in the starting points. While the first theory focuses on the system, the second’s concern is the individual.
Schön (1983) coined reflection-on-action and reflection-in-action. These two reflective thinking forms pave the way to establish his model of the ‘epistemology of practice’ (p. 49) which has a positive effect on further research studies in teacher education.
Schön (1983) reflection- in- action addresses the hidden thinking processes which are related to doing, and which interact with ongoing practice to ensure learning. On the other hand, reflection-on- action is defined as teachers’ retrospective analysis of their practice and experience. Russell & Munby (1992, p 3) defined it as ‘systematic and deliberate thinking back over one’s actions’. These two terms in Schön’s model shape the core professional framework of the reflective practitioner. This piece of research will tackle these two terms in investigating EFL/ESL teachers' WCF cognition and practices as major components of the professional development intervention workshops.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 2.5.3.8.3: Reflection in action and on action Schön model (1991)
This wisdom is related to teaching principles or moral. Approaching teachers’ moral base as one facet of reflective practice through treating professional actions as experimental is proposed by (Dewey,1933). Establishing a relationship between effectiveness and morals in teaching remains a source of debate on TPD research (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996). In addition to Schon’s (1983) reflection on action, in action and for action; Brookfield’s (1998) reflection focused on four dimensions which are autobiography, student feedback, professional conversation, and reading. Additionally, Smyth’s (1992: 295-300) four-step model of ‘describing (What do I do?), informing (What does this mean?), confronting (How did I come to be like this?) and reconstructing (How might I do things differently?)’ is considered among the most influential frameworks of reflective practice. The importance of such approaches seem to be important in action research contexts through implementing a ‘social reconstructionist approach’ that politicizes reflective abilities ‘while we are interested in reflection about teaching practices... and student teachers’ practical theories ... we are also concerned with encouraging action research that contributes towards the elimination of the social conditions that distort self- understandings of teachers and undermine the educative potential and moral base of schooling and teacher education‘ (Zeichner & Gore 1995, p.19).
In their review of the literature related to teacher reflection, Atkins and Murphy (1993) reflect on the criticism addressed in the previous studies and they come up with a cyclical modal that focuses on deep level reflection peppered with critical reflection orientations. The ultimate goal of this framework is to orient the reflective practitioner in his action plan.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 2.5.3.8.3: Atkins and Murphy’s (1993) critical reflection model
Reflection is the backbone of action research because it helps teachers to “develop meaningful research questions, design effective methods for answering the questions, collect information relevant to the questions, and analyze the data collected to determine appropriate instructional techniques and strategies” (Slobodzian, 2014, p. 44). Reflection pushes EFL teachers to boost self-learning opportunities by examining their previous knowledge and relating them with current ones and “accepting to develop various teaching strategies” to meet their learners needs. (Sowa, 2009, p. 1027). In line with Sowa’s (2009) view, Ellstrom (2006) calls for collaborative inquiry between a university researcher with theoretical expertise and an action researcher with practical knowledge to foster action research validity. This approach helps to maintain a dependence to share research findings in academic spheres. Ellstrom’s (2006) model presents how action researchers might interact with other participants in their action research. Therefore, it conceptualizes how action learning and action research may work handin hand.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 2.5.3.8.3: Relationship between action research and action learning process (Ellstrom2006)
The review of the related literature on reflective thinking levels in teachers’ action research reports seem to be unsatisfactory (Val Madin, Lee, & Suyansah, 2016). A close examination of the possible causes of this result may date back to the lack of cognitive encouragement and the limited understanding of the purpose of reflective intervention (Roberts, 2016). Additionally, the absence of guidance on reflection performance for the learners and students and the inadequate guidance on performing reflections for both the educators and learners (Ryan & Ryan, 2012). As a result, there is a need to overcome these deficiencies in future research and practice.
2.5.3.5.4. The Role of Reflective Practice in the Professional Development of Teachers
According to Schon (1983: 69) reflection leads to “a legitimate form of professional knowing”. Reflective practice is essential in teaching practice because it has a central role in the learning life’ of teachers’ effectiveness (Day, 1993, p. 83). There are three major concerns about this increasing role of reflective practice among EFL/ESL teachers. The first concern is driven by the raised assumptions about the nature of teaching. It is worthy to assume that both teaching and learning are perplexed processes and there is no one direct approach to follow. Therefore, reflecting on previous understandings in the light of current practices wouldlead to improvements.
Teachers should be equipped with adequate reflective tools to challenge assumptions in order not to be prisoners of their educational programs. Increasing self-challenge and selfknowledge construct the second concern in reflective practice. Johnston & Badley (1996, p.
5)draw to the importance of reflective practice and they describe it as a useful way of achieving personal development’ through focusing on personal values and teaching theories. The third concern is about teachers’ growth as inquirers through the active engagement in collaborative research rather than being passive objects whose role is restricted to implement the existing theory in practice. Additionally, research has revealed the existence of a continuum of reflective practice among teachers. It is important to highlight the impact of the teaching profession on TPD and growth which should be maximized (Day, 1993).
Dewey (1933, p 16) defined reflective inquiry as an "active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it". He associated development in teachers' awareness with the "reconstruction of experience" (p. 87), which is based on reflecting on teaching experiences, with 'responsibility','directness', and 'wholeheartedness'. Reflective inquiry plays an important role in raising EFL/ESL teachers’ awareness and transforming their instructional assumptions. A good reflective inquiry should involve systematic, and evidence-based practices about teaching experiences. Burton (2009) highlighted the role of reviewing the collected data from teachers’ pedagogical practices in reexamining their concerns and shaping their reflective practice. Accordingly, this reflective practice should room around three main questions: 1) what to do? how to do it? and what is the importance of these actions for them and the communities? According to Burton (2009), these three questions are governed by three-stage transition moves: technical, practical, and critical reflection.
In the literature, reflective inquiry receives due attention about the language teacher development research in general, and pre-service teachers in particular. A bulk of related research about the facilitative role of reflective inquiry in shaping TPD has been accentuated in the last decade (Vermunt, 2014).Under the umbrella of the sociocultural theory, Engin (2013) highlights the concepts of scaffolding and feedback provided to pre-service language teachers to help them reconceptualize their teaching philosophies. The findings of this research show that knowledge construction contributed to shaping trainees’ pedagogical decision making competence through considered self-reflection as an important element for the professional development of preservice teachers.
Benade (2015: 118) maintains that “teachers as inquirers’ is preferable shorthand for the active, collaborative effort of a community of professionals whose members seek to better understand themselves to better understand the work they do”. Therefore, it is important to highlight Earl &Ussher‘s (2016:48) concern with the inquiry for professional development which is approached as a form of reflective practice. They illustrate five basic inquiry channels :
1. Self-study, for examining one’s practice to gain self-knowledge and professional growthwith consequential expected improvement in practice.
2. Autoethnography, for attention on social, cultural, and political issues through a personallens.
3. Action research, for identifying ‘new’ actions, individually, as a team, or in an organization, to implement and evaluate for shifts in the consequences of our changes.
4. Teaching as inquiry, for focusing directly on greater levels of student achievement asdefined by centralized standards.
5. Spiral of inquiry, for the exploration of hunches, the involvement of students, and development of innovative practices to change how things have been done previously for learners by teachers. Timperley et al.,’s (2014) framework offers “a structure of action starting with scanning (What’s going on for the learners?) then moving through focusing (Where will concentrating our energies make the most difference?), developing a hunch (How are WE contributing to the situation?), new learning (How and where will we learn more about what to do?), taking action (What can we do differently to make enough of a difference?) and checking (Have we made enough of a difference?).” (Earl & Ussher‘s 2016: 51)
> These five basic inquiries are tightly linked to action research which will be the focus of the current study.
2.5.3.5.5. The impact of Reflective Practice in EFL teachers’ agency
As an area of research, “teacher agency” (TA) has always been addressed as reflective teaching (Boody, 2008), teacher action with constraints (Baker, 2006), and pedagogical reasoning (Monte-Sano, 2011). Anderson (2010, p. 542) reviewed the existing literature on teacher agency and identifies that this construct has been approached as something “special”. What is special about approaching teacher agency is its focus on “offering narrative accounts of teachers’ against-the-grain practices and rooting those practicesin teachers’ principled critiques of the material, pedagogical, professional, and/or ideological realities they encounter in the workplace”.
At least three reasons can be identified for this focus on teacher agency. Firstly, there is the awareness of the active and agentic role of teachers as change agents in professional development, school reform, and school improvement. Secondly, the specific problem of sustained change in professional and school development urges for the illumination of the agentic role of teachers in professional development and school reform, as agentic action is related to important topics like professional identity and change capacity of schools (Biesta et al., 2015). Finally, attention is growing for the role of teachers’ work environment in professional development and school reform (Imants, Wubbels, & Vermunt, 2013). Teacher learning for professional and school development is embedded within teachers’ daily work environments. For this reason, recently developed insights into the role of agency in work environments can help to understand the processes and outcomes of professional development and school reform (Evans, 2017). Two approaches of agency can be distinguished in the literature (Goller & Harteis, 2017). In one approach agency is understood as an individual characteristic (‘capacity’). Bandura (2001, p.1) defines agency as ‘the capacity to exercise control over the nature and quality of one’s life’. Another approach to agency is directly associated with action, that is things that individuals or collectives do while affecting their work and professional identity.
According to Etelapelto et al. (2013), ‘professional agency is practiced when teachers and/or communities in schools influence, make choices and take stances in ways that affect their work and their professional identity’ (p. 61). In both meanings, the agency is associated with individuals who, alone or in groups, in a given situation, make decisions, take initiatives, act proactively rather than reactively, and deliberately strive and function to reach a certain end. This implies that agency is about individuals or collectives who are interacting with and within specific contexts. In this article, the specific contexts that will be explored are professional development and school reform. Additionally, Priestley et al. (2012, p. 192) drew the attention that the concern with the agency in the literature is associated with “positive” contexts. Therefore, they criticized the policy that associates teacher agency with educational reform arguing that “ such policy can tend to construe agency as solely a positive capacity. as a factor in the ‘successful’ implementation of policy... whereas one might legitimately take the view that agency could equally well be exercised for ‘non-beneficial’ purposes”. Hence, Priestley et al (2012) have oriented the question in teacher agency studies towards “agency forwhat? This question will be approached in this research as “agency for WCF provision”.
Orientations in teacher agency research have been directed towards professional agency whichis defined by Etelapelto et al. (2013, p. 61) ‘professional agency is practiced when teachers and/or communities in schools influence, make choices and take stances in ways that affect their work and their professional identity’. The latter may lead to professional growth (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002). In this research, I will approach EFL/ESL teacher agency in the way how they impact their students’ written output through the WCF provision.
Table 2.5.3.8.5: Linking teacher agency and professional development (Imants& Wal, 2020)
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
2.6. Summary
This part of the literature review has focused not only on the different models of teachers’ PD but also on the different factors that may affect teachers’ cognition and practice vis-à-vis WCF. This section clarifies the constract of TPD in relation to Action Reseach. Hence, it foreshadows the methodology part where EFL/ESL teachers reflection and agency inaction reseach will be considered as a form of professional development.
Chapter 3: Methodology
“A recipe is nothing without its ingredients, and just as the quality of what is cooked reflects the quality of its ingredients, so too does the quality of usability work reflect the quality of resources as configured and combined. Methodology, like a recipe, is at best a guide to action for those adopting approaches to usability that are new to them”. Woolrych (2011: 940)
3.1 . Methodology
This chapter deals with the philosophical and methodological underpinnings of the current research framework. Additionally, it introduces and justifies the adopted research design. Next, the research questions are presented and the research methods are explained and justified. Then the sampling process is outlined before managing both data collection and analysis procedures. Finally, the quality of the research is guaranteed before the challenges and limitations of the study are outlined.
3.2 . Research Paradigm
It aims at underpinning the research components during the research process. Lincoln (1994:116) concludes “A paradigm is thus the intellectual foundation of a research stance”. Weaver and Olson (2006, p. 460) define paradigms as the “patterns of beliefs and practices that guide theway we do things, or more formally establishes a set of practices”. Cohen, et al (2011, p.23) assert that paradigm is the “philosophical intent or motivation for undertaking a study”, while Mackenzie and Knipe (2006, p.193) explain that the intent, motivation, and expectations of the research project is governed by the choice of the paradigm. Therefore, paradigm selection must be a priority stage in the study because it will direct the methodological preferences of the inquiry.
The literature refers to three basic paradigms which are the positivist, interpretive and critical paradigms. Cohen et al. (2011) explain these paradigms. Positivism focuses on measurability and objectivity through constructing rules of behavior. The interpretive paradigm interprets the world in terms of the participants. Finally, the critical paradigm focuses on change, empowerment, transformation, and emancipation. According to Robson (2011, p.39), the critical paradigm “is not only to explore, describe or explain but also to facilitate action, to help change or make improvements, to influence policy or practices”.
The 'Deakin' school of action research is located at Deakin University, Australia. This school gave birth to the model of critical educational research by a range of researchers such as (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988). Their model criticizes both the positivist and interpretive theories. Carr and Kemmis's (1986) definition of action research is frequently used:
“Action research is a form of self-reflective inquiry undertaken by participants in social (including educational) situations to improve the rationality and justice of (a) their own social or educational practices, (b) their understanding of these practices, and (c) the situations in which the practices are carried out. It is most rationally empowering when undertaken by participants collaboratively, thoughit is often undertaken by individuals, and sometimes in cooperation with 'outsiders'. In education, action research has been employed in school-based curriculum development, professional development, school improvement programs, and systems planning and policy development.”
Cunningham (1999: 325) claims that “The critical theory of the ‘Deakin School’ of educational research prioritizes teachers' critiques of their practice rather than rational goal achievement. It stresses equipping teacher-researchers with discursive, analytical, and conceptual skills so that they may remain free of the control of positivism and interpretive theory. And this is to happen in communities of self-reflective group understanding.” This understanding is shaped by raising the following questions: “What is happening now? In what sense is it problematic? What canI do about it?” This statement goes hand in hand with the objectives of my research. Therefore, this study will implement the critical paradigm through the adoption of PAR.
3.2.1. The philosophical underpinnings of action research
Action research is informed by critical paradigms that have their specific orientations aboutontology, epistemology and methodology.
3.2.1.1. The ontological stance
Carr and Kemmis (1993:235) mention that AR rejects the positivist notions of Rationality and objectivity. They draw attention to the existing differences between thepositivist researcher and the action researcher. The major difference culminates in theresearchers’ intentions. For the action researcher, the desire is to improve on current practice, whereas for the positivist researcher ‘.. problems are posed by theories and the incompletenessor incoherence of theories’(ibid).
Additionally, they note another difference in the adoptedmethod. “...action research requires a dialectical method, while the positivist researcherchooses the hypothetico- deductive method for thedevelopment of theory.” (ibid).
Constructivism has been approached as the best workable paradigm for social scientists in general and action researchers in particular. Constructivism is based on the notion of constructing knowledge and reality through participation and social collaboration. In this study, the reality will be constructed through the active participation of EFL teachers in the PAR process. Hence, their active participation in the research process is a form of professional development that will help them improve their teaching practice in terms of
WCF perception and provision.
3.2.1.2. The epistemological stance:
The epistemological assumption underpinning AR embrace knowledge creation as a process and the core objective is the “I” (McNiff & Whitehead, 2006 p.26). Action research is based on two different philosophical orientations The first is in line with the traditional action research (Corey, 1953) maintain a logical positivist position, while "emancipatory" action research is guided by a critical social science paradigm promote a mix of Aristotelian praxis, hermeneutics, existentialism, pragmatism, and phenomenology” as it is claimed by Sendall et al’s (2016:72)
French and Bell (1978) perceive action research as a scientific method of inquiry rooted in logical positivism which influences the research process to be logical, empirical, and objective. According to the positivist paradigm, the scientific method adopted in action research comprises the following steps:
1. Realizing the presence of a problem that should be solved
2. Identification and thinking about the problem
3. Formulating a hypothesis to solve the problem
4. Implementing the action plan and evaluating the results
Traditional action research is based on a scientific problem-solving approach. In other words, action researchers aimed at improving the situation rather than changing the system. Toput it simply, it works with the system rather than against it (McKernan, 1988). However, Susman and Evered (1978) promote a mix of Aristotelian praxis, hermeneutics, existentialism, pragmatism, and phenomenology which are a far cry from the positivist orientations. The following table will illustrate an explanation of all these different orientations to better understand Susman and Evered’s (1978) line of thought.
Table 3.1.2.2: The illustration of the epistimilogical orientations of AR
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Emancipatory-critical action research emerged from new- Marxist philosophy, European critical theory, and Freire's philosophy of "conscientization”. According to Carr and Kemmis (1986:179), the major characteristics of emancipatory-critical action research include:
a) rejection of positivist notions of rationality, objectivity, and truth in favor of a dialectical view of rationality;
b) the use of interpretive categories developed by teachers as the basis for language frameworks which practitioners explore and develop in the course of theorizing;
c) efforts by teachers to overcome distorted self-understandings through analysis of the way broader ideological conditions shape their practices and understandings;
d) simultaneous reflection and action as a way to develop teachers' awareness of how they might overcome those aspects of the social order which frustrate rational change;
e) a return to the question of theory and practice, to demonstrate how self-critical communitiesof action researchers might create forms of social organization in which the determination of truth is related to practice.
The epistemology that accommodates the reflexive capacities of human beings within the research process represents a challenge to scientific positivism; it suggests that it is not enough to understand the world, but that one has to change it for the better (Kindon et al., 2007, p. 13). In the education domain, Creswell (1998) refers to action research in the light of postmodernism. This frame focuses on the socially constructed nature of truth. According to Stringer (1996) postmodernism, is based on deconstructing knowledge to create transformative elements. This understanding enables action researchers to explore the social dimensions of their practices and to reflect on possible transformations. Habermas’ (1973) notion of critical endeavors create a conceptual framework within the epistemology of human interactions and practice. However, Carr & Kemmis (1986) criticized Habermas because he failed to produce “standards of rationality” in terms of successful practical applications. Kemmis (1993) asks how to best frame action research theoretically for educators: should it be part of a larger field that we know as the social theory or should the focus be more narrow and limited to the development of educational theory? He is in favor of the educational approach and he explains that “Our task as educational researchers involves us in taking concrete and explicit steps towards changing the theory, policy and practice of educational research, as well as participating in the work of changing educational theory, educational policy and educational practice...” (Kemmis, 1993,p.15). The educational theory should unify theory and practice with rigorous standards of practice to explore “How do I improve my practice to enhance the teaching of literacy?” To answer this question action-reflection cycles should be adopted. In the current piece research, the epistemological underpinnings of PAR goes hand inhand with “postmodern tradition that embraces a dialectic of shifting understandings”, “objectivity is impossible” and “ multiple or shared realities exist” (Kelly, 2005, p.66).
PAR’s philosophy is about the concept that people have a right to determine their development and recognizes the need for local people to participate meaningfully in the process of analyzing their solutions, over which they have power and control, To lead to sustainable development. According to the SAGE Handbook of Action Research ‘a participatory process concerned with developing practical knowing in the pursuit of worthwhile human purposes’ (Reason and Bradbury, 2008: 4). Therefore, knowledge will be constructed within the PAR framework and the participants will be active participants in the research inquiry. However, PAR presents an “epistemological challenge” about whose knowledge to consider (Cammarota & Fine, 2008). “PAR ... assumes that those who have been most systematically excluded, oppressed, or denied carryspecifically revealing wisdom about the history, structure, consequences, and the fracture points in unjust social arrangements” (Cammarota&Fine, 2008, p. 215).
3.1.1.3. The methodological stance
In this study, I adopted a mixed-method approach through triangulating qualitative and quantitative research methods. It is referred to as the ‘third methodological orientation’ by (Teddlie and Tashakkori 2009). Since this study adopted a mixed-method approach, I focused on this dimension in the research design section. My choice is informed by the claim raised by Marti (2015:4) “contributions that address mixed methods designs in AR are still scarce anddo not systematize how qualitative and quantitative methods are integrated with participatory dynamics.” (Marti, 2015:4). Marti (2015) integrates both qualitative and quantitative approaches with action research as it is illustrated in this framework.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 3.1.2.3: Methodological approaches, methods and aims. Baseline (and simple) model (Marti, 2015:3)
3.1.2. PAR principles:
Balcazar et al (2004) summarized the general principles of PAR. The following tableillustrateshis summary.
Table 3.1.3(1): Implementation principles of PAR adapted from (Balcazar et al., 2004, pp.22-2
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
McIntyre (2000) distinguished three guiding principles for PAR projects: 1) the collective investigation of a problem; 2) the reliance on indigenous knowledge to better understand that problem; and 3) the desire to take individual and/or collective action to deal with the stated problem. Participants reflect on their targeted problems and try to develop realistic solutions. Additionally, some other researchers have focused on the characteristics of PAR as other types of principles. For example, Kemmis & McTaggart, (2008) present a range of characteristics as they are presented in thetable below.
Table 3.1.3 (2): The characteristics of PAR adapted from (Kemmis &
McTaggart, 2008, pp.280-283).
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
In line with Baacazar's (2004) principles, Kemmis & McTaggart, (2008) show the importance of community participation. The participants become able to examine their knowledge, develop their strategies, and engage in change. It is so, because “people would be more motivated about their work if they were involved in the decision-making about how the workplace was run” (McNiff & Whitehead, 2006,p: 36).
Focusing on PAR principles is of high importance in guiding the research design process of this study.
3.2. Research design Approach
Some key principles should be considered in designing a study. According to ( Creswell &Plano Clark, 2011, p.54) there are four principles which are as follows: a) deciding on the type of the design, b) identifying the design approach to use, c) matching the design to the study’s problem, purpose, and questions, and d) being clear about the reason for using mixed methods. The research design should be clear because it is the blueprint of the whole research and it outlines the procedures that govern its operationalization. Therefore, in this section, I will be clear about these details by presenting them and giving the rationale for their use.
3.2.1. The PAR Methodology
Stephen Corey is a pioneer in applying AR methodology to educational issues in the USA in the sixties. Hansen et al (2006, p. 65) rejected the claim that PAR is a theory. He rather regarded it asa methodology that is implemented in academic spheres. Rice & Ezzy (1999: 178) are in favor of this notion “PAR is not a method per se but, rather, a methodology”. Since this research adopts the PAR methodology, it is important to explain its guiding principles, the rationale for its usage, the different models and the adopted framework for this research, and some limitations of this type of methodology.
3.2.1.1. The rationale for the implementation of PAR
My rationale for choosing PAR methodology is guided by the writings of Paulo Freire (1970, 1973, 1994) who is a leading educational researcher in combining research, education, and action in the hopes of generating individual and social change (Fine, 1992). So, when ‘teachers act as researchers, the research then becomes part of their role’ (Bogdan and Biklin, 2007: 244). Kemmis and McTaggart (2005) revealed that PAR can also transform practitioners’ knowledge and practices. By this token, Participants will be involved in both action and change and this creates a ‘double burden’ of both finding new knowledge and creating positive change (Argyris & Schon, 1991). This double burden will be approached in my PAR project as generating new knowledge about how EFL teachers perceive WCF provision. In addition to the positive change which is the professional development of the participants and how it will affect the learning outcomes to achieve educational effectiveness.
Participatory action research is based on the assumption that teachers’ participation in the action plan will culminate in practical improvement (McNiff, 1988). This involvement is defined as the ‘grassroots efforts of teachers to improve their practices’.(Somekh and Zeichner, 2009: 19) which leads “to personal and professional development” (Koshy, 2005:3). More importantly, in their seminal work Becoming Critical Carr and Kemmis (1986) approach action research as part and parcel of critical professional development. Carr and Kemmis’s (1986: 162) definition of action research reflects these sentiments: “A form of inquiry undertaken by participants in social situations to improve rationality and justice of their own social or educational practices, as well as their understanding of these practices and situations in which these practices are carried out”. Thus, Schon’s (1991) concept of the ‘reflective practitioner’ is highly useful in my research because it only through participatory action research that practitioners will “be engaged in educational theorizing” through “reflecting systematically and critically on practice” (Hopkins, 2002: 66).
PAR is developmental as it is discussed by Nunan (1993:41) who makes the difference between ‘inside out’ and ‘inside-in’ approaches to professional development and he explains that PAR represents an ‘inside out’ approach which is based on placing the participants in the core of the inquiry process rather than involving an expert instructor as in the ‘outsidein’ approach. Thus, Megwan (2010) approached teachers’ experience with AR as challenging to their teaching and learning knowledge base. Nunan (1993:42) comments that although the benefits of professional development are justification enough for the implementation of AR, ‘further rationale comes from the research process itself (1993:41). PAR is an empowering process that increases the participants’ critical awareness to be involved in the decision making process (Zimmerman, 2000; McNiff and Whitehead 2006). The Collaboration among participants to identify the problems and elucidate solutions represent empowering features of PAR that will be used in my research to foster EFL teachers’ research involvement to take action as a form of professional development. Participatory Action research has often been linked to notions of professional development and the reflective practitioner (O’Connor & Diggins, 2002).
“[PAR] combines aspects of popular education, community-based research, and action for social change. Emphasizing collaboration within marginalized or oppressed communities, participatory action research works to address the underlying causes of inequality while at the same time focusing on finding solutions to specific community concerns.” (Williams and Brydon-Miller 2004, 245)
Since my adoption of PAR in my research will be a form of EFL TPD in dealing with WCF. I am secure among the above-mentioned scholars who give a clear reason for the implementation of PAR in line with TPD about educational outcomes which are approached in this study as the improvement of LWOs.
3.2.1.2. The current PAR framework
This section will clarify the implemented PAR framework in this study through presenting its main steps and its road map for its application without losing sight of the surrounding challenges related to the implementation of PAR framework.
3.2.1.2.1. The major PAR steps: What to do?
Stephen Kemmis and Robert McTaggart are the founding fathers of the participatory research movement at Deakin University in Australia, as reported by Hopkins (2002). Action research is approached by Kemmis and McTaggart (2000: 595) as participatory and they have used an acronym to remember PAR spiral process as follows:
P lanning a change,
A cting and observing the process and consequence of change,
R eflecting on these processes and consequences, and then replanning, acting and observing,reflecting, and so on ...
This image of spirals becomes a dominant trait of the PAR approach with its two cycles (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2008, p. 280). I will adopt this framework in my methodology and it is illustrated in the figure below.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 3.2.1.2.1: Model of Participatory Action Research (Kemmis and
McTaggart, 2008,p.278)
3.2.1.2.2. The road map for the application of PAR: How to proceed?
Kemmis and McTaggart’s (2008, p.278) framework has presented the backbone of the PAR methodology that is adopted in this study. The major steps are presented, however, this frameworks lacks the proceduralization of the different steps. Therefore, I resorted to another PAR framework that is capable of presenting a road map to answer the question that almost every Participatory action researcher is facing: How to proceed?
In fact, it is a challenging question to answer because each step in the PAR process necessitates a specific range of activities to deal with. Therefore, the PAR framework proposed by Sendall et al (2016: p:4) is a good fit to my research PAR steps in the sense thatit provides a recipe for the participants and the researcher to inform them how to move and what to do in each step.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 3.2.1.2.2: The participatory Action Research Framework (Sendall et al, 2016: 4)
Sendall et al’s (2016) framework procecces where presented thouroughly in the
ActionResearchInduction Kit (2008) and they are as follows.
Table 3.2.1.2.2: The explanation of Sendall et al’s (2016) PAR framework
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
The following explanation of observing, reflecting, planning, and acting is extracted from the Action Research Induction Kit (2008, p.8-11). The above-mentioned table describes each step and thefocus questions that will guide the process of action. Therefore, the researcher adopted Kemmis and McTaggart’s (2008, p.278) framework to illustrate the Participatory action steps, while Sendall’s (2016) framework is adopted as a guidance tool thatpresents how actions took place.
3.2.1.3. Challenges considerations in conducting Participatory Action Research
It is basic to be aware of the possible challenges related to the process of implementing PAR before embarking on this research. These challenges are well documented (Buchanan et al., 2007).
3.2.1.3.1. Ethical challenges
Buchanan et al (2007) approach the existing tension between scientific rigor and community participation. Wallerstein & Duran (2006, p. 315) explain this issue by asking who represents the community and how to choose well-defined criteria to assess the community intervention. Some PAR researchers have called for more work toward institutional changes in research ethics (Manzo & Brightbill, 2007). There are three ethical considerations for the principle of respect for persons in the application of research projects which may cause a challenge for the researcher.
1) Informed consent of participants
2) Protecting the confidentiality of participants
3) Autonomy of participants
3.2.1.3.2. Practical and methodological challenges
The issues of power relations are widely discussed in the literature “Even outsiders who pride themselves on being community allies and trusted friends frequentlyfail to realize the extent of the power imbued by their own, often multiple, sources of privilege and how it can adversely affect interactions and outcomes” (Fadem et al., 2003, p. 254). Israel et al., (1998, p183) have highlighted the concern about the distribution of data, time, class, gender, participants’ selection criteria, i.e whose opinion is considered valid and reliable in the research process.
Another problem related to PAR is related to the development of partnerships between participants and the researchers out of lack of trust. Fadem et al., 2003, p.251) draw attentionto the issue of community division. They focus on the emerged challenge caused by the mismatch between the researchers’ research design and methods and the participating population in the PAR study. Additionally, other sorts of dilemmas may affect the scientific quality of the research such as reliability, validity, and objectivity (Israel et al, 1998, p.187). The lack of rigor and the difficulty of generalizing the findings are other additional issues in conducting action research.
3.2.1.3.3. Implementation challenges
Rifkin (1996b, p. 517) exemplifies the following issues related to the use of PAR: the need to find credibility for qualitative information in a field in which quantitative information dominates; the need to establish a basis for belief by professionals in the information provided by laymen; the value of working in multi-sectoral (multidisciplinary) teams; the necessity of finding mechanisms to translate the information into action to gain credibility with those who provided information; and the necessity of developing realistic expectations, particularly in developing a common framework and training a team.
Defining and assessing the needs is a complex task to accomplish within the PAR framework.Twelvetrees (2008, p. 19) claims that assessing needs should be a continual process to enable the researcher and the participants to reflect and address the needs.
3.2.2. The design type
This study adopts a mixed-methods research design which combines both quantitative and qualitative research during data collection and/or data analysis (Dornyei and Ushioda, 2011). To better understand this design I will zoom on mixed- research design by presenting their benefits and rationale for use in the current study.
3.2.2.1. Mixed-methods research
Mixed methods research is approached as a practical solution to address research problems in theory and practice. The focus is on mixed methods in this research design section. Mixed-methods research has many advantages that represent a strong reason for its adoption and implementation. For example, WISNIEWSKA (2011: 61) illustrates the reasons behind mixing methods in one study. They are presented as follows:
(a) triangulation, that is investigating the issue from different positions and then converging the results
(b) the fundamental principle of mixed research, which says that the strengths of one method may overcome the weaknesses of another method if they are both applied in one study
(c) complementarity of data: qualitative data are used to illuminate numbers, and quantitative data add more precision to data presented in words or pictures
(d) mixed methods research allows for investigating more complex problems from different perspectives, asking more questions, finding more complex answers
(e) the results of one method may provide an impetus for designing a further step in the research with the use of another method, or may trigger questions for another method study
(f) the mixed-methods study allows reaching a larger audience the research claims become stronger if the data come from a variety of methods, the resultsmay be more persuasive and convincing for policy-makers, and it ensures less waste of potentially useful information
(g) mixed methods research allows for a presentation of more divergent views, it allows to simultaneously answer exploratory and confirmatory questions.
(h) some research questions can be answered only by combining the two approaches within one study.
MMR enables the researcher to explore different viewpoints on the same problem through providing contextual understandings (Creswell et al., 2011). Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods is the core of MMR. This integration has been referred to as the ‘strategic relationship among the methods’ (Lingard et al., 2008: 460) to provide a bird-view about the researched issue. These reasons resonate with my research requirements since I choose a PAR framework that is compatible with a mixed-methods approach (Crane &O’Regan 2010). Through combining mixed methods and action research the researcher produces more rigorous inferences about the studied issues. Despite Mills’s (2011) claim that qualitative methods fit action research more appropriately, research questions may oblige action researchers to use mixed-methods data sources to generate numeric data.
There is a debate within the mixed methods literature. It focuses on the use of quantitative and qualitative methods. An important issue is related to the dominance of one paradigm over the other. The existing polarity has been criticized by Ackroyd and Hughes (1992, p. 30) who argue that “Neither one is markedly superior to the other in all respects”. This debate becomes more conspicuous in approaching AR studies within the mixed- methods approach regarding the existing misconception of associating AR with quantitative methods and the raising claims that “action- oriented work cannot be scientific (precisely because it involves action) and the additional assumption (erroneous in our view) that quantitative research must be more scientific than qualitativeresearch" (Greenwood and Levin, 1998: 6-7).
The contribution that addresses mixed methods designs in AR is scarce (Ivankova, 2014). Marti (2015) calls for systematizing the integration of qualitative and quantitative methods within participatory dynamics. Therefore, Marti (2015:5) makes the difference between the two types of integration. The first is sequential integration or joined whereas the second is embedded integration or inseparable. However, I think that before delving into the implementation of the mixed methods approach within the PAR framework, it is important to understand their common features. These common features are both conceptual and methodological (Ivankova, 2018) and justify the integration of these two approaches (Ivankova, 2015). The table below illustrates the conceptual, philosophical, and (procedural common traits between MMR and AR.
Table 3.2.2.1(1) Illustrating common traits between MMR and AR adapted from Ivankova (2015)
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Note. Adapted from Ivankova (2015).
These existing similarities enable the researchers to combine them differently to take profit from this synergistic combination. There are two broad advantages: (1) Addressing practical issues systematically and dialectically (Ivankova, 2015, 2017), and (2) translating research findings into practice through engaging participants and creating outcomes for those affected by the raised problem (Ivankova et al., 2018). More specifically, this combination will affect the scientificity of the research. For example, it will lead to a comprehensive diagnosis of the problem from different angles through integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches to shape an adequate intervention/action plan. The following table illustrates these advantages.
Table 3.2.2.1 (2): Advantages of combining Mixed Methods and Action
Research (IvankovaandWingo, 2018: 986)
Addressing a practical issue in a systematic and dialectic way through
• comprehensive assessment of a problem from different perspectives
• development of a reliable and valid action/intervention plan tailored to diverse needs
• rigorous evaluation of the action/intervention
• credible and valid conclusions about action/intervention outcomes
• an evidence-based approach to action/intervention monitoring
• enhanced action/intervention sustainability
Enhancing translation of research into practice by
• enhancing stakeholder engagement at every phase in an action research cycle
• creating a sense of ownership and empowerment among stakeholders
• optimizing action/intervention outcomes
• illuminating and assessing change over time
• enhancing transferability of action/intervention results to other contexts and community settings
• supporting effectiveness of change action
• promoting sustainability of meaningful change
It is worth noting that both MMR and PAR “follow the principles of systematic inquiry and have common methodological and procedural characteristics related to the use of quantitative and qualitative data sources” (Ivankova, 2017, 286). This approach creates the embryo for the mixed methods methodological framework (Ivankova, 2015) which is implemented in this study because it shows a harmony in approaching PAR dimension with the mixed methods methodology in each step. Ivankova’s (2015) framework follows Lewin’s (1948) action research four steps: reflecting, planning, acting, and observing which are guided by action research methodological steps (Ivankova, 2015) which are namely: diagnosing by identifying a practical issue and reflecting on some solutions, reconnaissance, planning, acting, evaluation, monitoring. During these steps conceptual and procedural aspects of MMR will inform and enhance each step. The following figure pictures the PAR framework within MMR dimensions. The solid arrows between the boxes show the cyclical process, whereas dashed arrows show other relations within the research activities.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 3.2.2.1. Mixed methods action research framework (Ivankova and Wingo, 2018)
To apply mixed-methods principles, the role of the researcher should be focused as presented byCreswell and Plano Clark (2011:5) as follows:
1) Collect and analyse persuasively and rigorously both qualitative and quantitative data (based onresearch questions)
2) Mixed (or integratesor links) the two forms of data concurrently by combining them (or mergingtheme), by having one build on the other sequentially, or by embedding one within the other.
3) Gives priority to one or to both forms of data (in terms of what the research emphasizes).
4) Uses these procedures in a single study or in multiple phases of a program of study
5) Frames these procedures within philosophical worldviews and theoretical lenses
6) Combines the procedures into specific research designs that direct the plan forconducting the study.
The role of the researcher is basic in conducting a mixed method research. Thus, the researcher should balance insider and outsider perspectives in the approached problem. For example, the researcher should take an outsider observer role while dealing with the quantitative study. This position is known as etic data (Currall & Towler, 2003). However, in dealing with the quantitative data, researchers gather data about the participants who are insiders. This stance is called emic data. Within action research framework, the researcher has the freedom to sway between the emic and the etic data collection methods. This openness as referred to by (Herr & Anderson, 2005) helps preserve both insider and outsider perspectives during the inquiry procedures.
The following table illustrates these study research design components.
Table 3.2.2.1: Illustrating the study research design
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
• Thus, this research design helps the researcher to achieve the research objectiveswhich will be thefocus of the next section.
3.3. Research objectives
As it is indicated in chapter 1, the focus of this study rooms around measuring the impact of EFL TPD in shaping their (1) beliefs, (2) practices vis-à-vis WCF, and their (3) learners’ proficiency improvements in the Tunisian tertiary context. This study adopts a PAR framework to investigate the impact of EFL TPD, which takes the form of treatment intervention workshops. To measure EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices the researcher will gather data before and after the intervention to study the impact of the intervention in shaping both beliefs and practices through focusing on alignments/misalignment existing dichotomy. Additionally, the researcher will get some students writing samples pre/ and postintervention to measure the proficiency rate. The intervention will be made of successive workshops that address the existing lacunas in the Tunisian EFL TPD training about the pedagogy of WCF that the researcher will collect during the pre-intervention stage.
Objective 1: To unveil the actual WCF literacy through covering EFL/ESL university teachers'cognitions and practices.
Objective 2: To focus on EFL/ESL teachers’ alignment in beliefs and practices about WCFduringthe pre-intervention phase.
Objective 3: To focus on the role of the professional development intervention in shaping EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices through comparing pre/post-intervention phases.
Objective 4: To measure the impact of the PDI in helping students gain proficiency in writing.
Objective 5: To build a framework that translates the practical problems faced by tertiary Tunisian EFL teachers in WCF provision to boost learners’ written proficiency. This framework will inform, instructors, mentors, and policymakers to be more active agents in the academicarena.
3.4. Research methods and justification
Providing a clear account of the research methods is a basic component of the evidence's credibility (Ritchie et al, 2013). The adoption of a mixed-method approach will lead to the triangulation of methods which will culminate in the credibility and consistency of the data (Woolfall, 2010). Additionally, focusing on data gathering is a cornerstone in PAR ‘to inform the planning and to provide a picture of the implementation’ (Richards 2003:25), and to ‘provide an accurate record of the outcomes of your teaching (the intervention in our context)’ (Zwozdiak-Myers 2012:58). The sections below will sketch the description, justification, and limitations of each employed method in this research.
3.4.1. The Survey
The survey provides a scientific “ring of confidence” (Robson, 2002, p.230). Soden (2013) claims that the majority of feedback studies in recent years employed surveys as their methods of data collection. Such studies aimed at investigating large populations in individual programs (Walker, 2009). Recently, surveys gained popularity in researching beliefs and practices. For example, Irwin (2017) deployed a survey for learners to gauge their opinions about the quality of corrective feedback that they receive.
Additionally, Lee (2008b) investigate teachers’ beliefs and practices preferences vis- à-vis WCF through the lens of a survey. Recently, Athimni (2020) found the implementation of survey highly useful in collecting information about EFL writing Tunisian teachers in relation to their cognitions and practices.
In my study, I will opt for the survey in the form of a questionnaire to understand the whole picture about 1) EFL university teachers' cognition and practices about WCF and 2) their professionaldevelopment training at the tertiary level about WCF pedagogy. The survey helps the researcher fix the parameters of the PAR process. Despite the various benefits of the survey, it has several limitations to be aware of. First, its design is inflexible because it is fixed and cannot be changed throughout the process of data gathering. Second, the questions may be inappropriate for all the respondents. Third, there is no room to answer the controversial issues because of the difficulty of recalling the related information. Therefore, there is an urgent need to use some alternative data gathering methods such as interviews to tackle some controversies.
3.4.2. Semi-structured interviews
The interview is considered a highly prominent research method in qualitative research (Punch& Oancea, 2014). Interviews are adopted in this piece of research to explore the participants’ views of how they construct their reality and make meaning of their experiences (Punch & Oancea, 2014). Miller & Glassner (2011) conceive of interviews as an ideal instrument for collecting deep investigations about research issues. The advantages of the semi-structured interviews are numerous. For example, semi-structured interviews are designed to yield rich data (Kvale, 1983), in-depth analysis (Denscombe, 2007), and more flexibility in data collection (Robson, 2003. In this study, I opted for a semi structured Interview which is described by Berg (1989) as “a conversation with a purpose.” I am in line with Borg (2006) who has used semi-structured interviews because of their flexibility in researching teachers’ beliefs and he describes how he has explored teachers’ cognition through background interviews and stimulated recall interviews (Borg, 2006, p. 204). Similarly, Mangubhai et al, (2004) agreed that semi-structured interviews have “a long and successful tradition in teacher thinking research” (p. 294). Their open-ended questions “allow the respondents' opportunities to develop their responses in ways which the interviewer might not have foreseen” (Campbell, McNamara, & Gilroy, 2004, p. 99).
I opted for one-to-one interviewing because it is an effective means of uncovering the participants’ beliefs about WCF. The open-ended questions helped teachers exteriorize the latent beliefs and dormant pedagogical strategies about WCF thinking and provision in their FL classrooms‘through tapping “the knowledge, opinions, ideas and Experiences” of the interviewee (Wallace 1998:192). These extracted beliefs have been compared to their WCF practicesto gauge convergence and divergence in WCF. The participants of the PAR have been interviewed twice before the intervention and after the intervention. Another reason for the useof semi-structured interview is its efficacy in dealing with PD issues. For example, Al Ghatrifi (2016) applied a semi- structured interview to investigate the professional development of higher university teachers in an Omani context. Additionally, Sepulveda- Escobar (2020) relied on the semi-structured interview in investigating Chilean teachers’ assessment of their professional development needs. Many pieces of research investigating teachers’ beliefs opt for semi-structured interviews such as (Alkhatib, 2015, Al-bakri, 2015, Ahmed et al 2020). This data collection method is triangulated with other data collection tools to achieve the objectives of this study.
However, it is of great importance to notice the presence of some limitations. To illustrate, itis difficult to find adequate interviewers to conduct the interviews properly, the process of dealing with open-ended questions of the semi-structured interviews is timeconsuming and tiring, the design of the interviews requires extensive resources and the analysis requires a certain degree of scientific awareness to avoid bias in dealing with data.
3.4.3. Diary writing
Diaries have been approached as tools for reflection in learning languages and teaching (Gomez, 2009). Additionally, a bulk of research has investigated the role of diary writing in scaffolding teacher learning because they foster reflection and inner dialogue (Marcos, Sanchez, & Tilleman, 2008). For example, Engin (2011: 295) described diary writing in his research paper entitled Research Diary: A Tool for Scaffolding as “The articulation of thoughts becomes the catalyst for change in beliefsand practice, thus the narrative inquiry of diary writing is a tool which mediates TPD.” More importantly, Altrichter et al. (1993:12) discuss the fundamental role of a diary in an action research project as “it makes visible both the successful and (apparently) unsuccessful routes of learning and discovery so that they can be revisited and subject to analysis”.
My choice of diary in my current piece of research is motivated by both Engin (2011) and Altrichter et al. (1993) statements because via diaries that I will be able to detect the change in the participants' beliefs and practices in dealing with WCF and in progressing with the different stages of the PAR process to foster reflection which is ensured through the use of journals which represent a catalyst for discussion that leads to “epistemological awareness” (Gerstl-Pepin & Patrizio, 2009, p.300). In spite of the abundance of prons in using diary writing, there are some cons to consider. For example, researchers don’t get to observe the participants. As a result, the researcher has no record of the proficiency and relevance of the noted data. Besides, diary writing may be a boring task to do for the participants especially when the researcher exercises pressure by asking them to be detailed in their responses. Consequently, some participants may drop out of the study or provide poor quality ofresponses.
3.4.4. Focus Group Discussions
Focus group discussions (FGD) is defined as “a way of collecting qualitative data, which essentially involves engaging a small number of people in an informal group discussion ‘focused’ around a particular topic or set of issues” (Wilkinson, 2004, p. 177). FGD as a data collection methodhas many advantages which are illustrated by Onwuegbuzie et al. (2009) as “less threatening to participants, as this environment is helpful for the participants to discuss perceptions, ideas, opinions, and thoughts” (p.2). Additionally, a “Review of the related literature revealed that the educational studies conducted by using focus groups heavily depend on the development, evaluation, and/or assessment of an educational program, project, reform initiatives, policy, tool, model” GiZiR (2014:5). In the current study, FGD are usedto elicit teachers’ management in each PAR stage. This method fosters collaboration among participants by offering in-depth insights into their moves from theory to practice and vise versa (Bryman, 2012). The researcher collects a wide range of views in a short time and collect unexpected information. By the same token, Kumer& Urbanc (2019) in their book they discussed the importance of FGD by considering it a basic tool in doing a PAR. Chiu (2003:166) asserts that “Focus groups are used by action researchers alongside other ‘orthodox’ methods such as surveys, questionnaires and individual interviewing”. Therefore, I will adopt FGD alongside other data collection tools to achieve the study objectives.
However, focus group discussion holds some limitations of implementation. First, time constraints may represent a challenge for the researcher since it is impossible to discuss any questionsin an hour (Bryman, 2012). To mitigate this challenge, the researcher should zoomin on his focus in advance. Second, the researcher needs to be very experienced to gather the required data. This difficulty becomes more serious while conducting a PAR because the researcher should engage the different participants in the research process. Third, the group size is another issue to consider. For example, scholars such as Bryman (2012), David and Sutton (2011) argue that the ideal group number is between six and ten. Apart from the number, the group member familiarity represents another challenge for the homogeneity of thegroup. However, like questionnaires, FGD also has some limitations. Some participants spoke verylittle, while others may “hijack” and dominate a discussion and it was sometimes hard to stay on topic as some participants diverged from the main topic. It is worth noting that the facilitation of the discussion is critical and the researcher should minimize these obstacles through probing questions e.g. do you mean this work for teaching English writing? Additionally, all data should be transcribed verbatim which makes the task of analysis a bit complex. Another weakness lies in the difficulty of generalizing the results of the discussions to larger populations.
3.4.5. Document Analysis (DA)
Document analysis is a qualitative data collection method in which documents are interpreted by the researcher to assess a given topic (Bowen, 2009). There are many advantages to the use of DA. For example, efficiency, availability, and stability (Yin, 1994). DA has been considered as an importantdata collection tool in action research studies and it includes students’ written assignments, students’ products, and other materials (Bowen, 2009). DA as a data collection tool should be triangulated with other tools to achieve credibility. In my study, DA will have a double role. First, it will inform the researcher about teachers’ WCF practices. Second, it will unveil the writing progress among learners as an outcome of the PAR intervention. However, document analysis may be criticized for its “biased selectivity” and “low retrievability” as proposed by (Yin, 1994:80). Additionally, they could not provide sufficient details to answer the research questions.
3.5. Sampling
Sampling is defined as “a process of selecting a subject or sample unit from a large group or population of interest” to answer the research questions, as defined by Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010, p. 356). Additionally, Gay, Mills & Airasian (2009, p.113) focused on the sampling process which is defined as the selection of “a small number of individuals for a study in such a way that individuals are good key informants who contribute to the researcher’s understanding of a given phenomenon”. This research adopted a non-random selection of data sources. This is called purposeful sampling. Therefore, the participants areselected because “they have the potential to yield the most information about the topic (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005:145). Researchers should “hand-pick the cases to be included in the sample based on their judgment of their typicality or possession of the particular characteristics being sought” (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2009, p.156). Therefore,
McMillanand Schumacher (2010, p.138) claim that in purposive sampling researchers should select “particular elements from the population that would be representative or informative about the topic of interest” “to ensure that the sample was as diverse as possible to be able to identify a full range of perceptions and behaviors” Albakri& Troudi (2020). In this work, the criterion for the participants’ selection is the teaching of EFL writing to English major students at the Tunisian tertiary level. Theseparticipants collaborated in a PAR process to participate in shaping new practices of WCF at the tertiary level in Tunisia to forge an established pedagogy of WCF that would help EFL/ESL university teachers to reflect on their beliefs and practices for better educational outcomes among learners. As far as the purposive sampling size is concerned, Saunders et al. (2007:226) stated that “... the issue of sample size is ambiguous ... there are no rules.” It has been claimed that the sizes of sampling are correlated with the research questions and aims. Additionally,” the validity and understanding that you will gain fromyour data will be more to do with your data collection and analysis skills than with the size of your sample.” (Patton in Saunders et al. 2007:227).
In my research, the participants will be EFL/ESL university teachers who are concerned with teaching English academic writing to English major students from ten different Tunisian higher education institutions which are: University of Carthage, University of Beja, University of Sfax, University of Sousse, University of Gabes, university of jandouba, University of Sbitla, university of Kairaoun, University of Gafsa and university of Mednine. To start with, we will make the difference between macro-scale and micro-scale participants. The macro-scale label is related to the triangulation of different participants (University teachers, trainers, and mentors). There are about three hundred and seventeen (317) responds to the survey that took place at the beginning of thestudy. The adoption of the macro-scale participants enabled the researcher to better understand the issue that should be addressed. The micro-scale participants are the participants in the PAR process. About 10 male and female university teachers are concerned with this process. These participants pertain to different universities in Tunisia to be representative and to impact the generalisability of the study. The participants will be described in depth in the data collection section.
3.6. The Researcher’s Position
Positioning the researcher in the research as either a participant or non-participant is of paramount importance. The first issue to raise is gaining the trust of the participants (McDonough and McDonough, 1997). The researcher clarified his role to the participants inthe PAR that took placevirtually through Microsoft Team. The nature of the research necessitates that the researcher work collaboratively with the participants to deal with the different steps of the PAR. It is worth noting thatthe researcher’s role in the research process has been restricted to organizing the PD workshops and preparing their foci through linking theory into practice about the previously collected data from the participants. The participants' role is of a high importance because of the participatory nature of the current research. The researcher did not attend the participants’ classrooms. However,s h e collected teachers’ diaries and journals about how they managed to apply the assisted worshops in their practices in their classrooms. Additionally, the researcher asked the participants to gather some samples of their students’ writings to evaluate how the teacher participants provide WCF in the light of the PI which is done through the PD workshops. Therefore, the researcher is a non- participatory observer in the sense that he is not applying the PD workshops in his teaching and WCF pedagogy in this study. She researched others’ practices. Being a non-participatory observer has different benefits. For example, there are no rooms for unrealistic teaching, the absence of the double role of the teacher will culminate in the absence of frustration and stress, and less time- consuming comparing to participatory observer. To conclude, being aware of the researchers’ role affected the whole process of the research.
3.7. Data collection procedures
The data collection procedure lasted 8 months starting from November 2020 till July 2021. Quantitative data were collected through 1) an online survey questionnaire which was administered to tertiary Tunisian EFL teachers in December 2020, 2) Documents analysis which focused on the analysis of students written essays and the quantification of error patterns. Qualitative data were collected through the lens of 1) two semi-structured interviews (pre and post) which were held to the PAR participants before and after the intervention 2) diary writing took the form of reflective journals were meant to illustrate the PAR workshops implementation in the FL classroom and after each TPD session to ensure that the participants understand well what should be done next 3) Focus group discussions took place during TPD workshops. 4) documents in a form of students’ exam papers were analyzed qualitatively as well. The following section will depict a detailed account of the data collection procedures to sustain the trustworthiness of data collection.
3.7.1. The Quantitative tools
The quantitative tools adopted in this research are the survey and the document analysis.
3.7.1.1.1. Dealing with the survey
In dealing with the survey, I will focus on its construction, piloting, and administration in this section.
3.7.1.1.1. Constructing the Survey questionnaire
The survey questionnaire was conducted in the pre-intervention phase of the study. The survey questionnaire was distributed to EFL university teachers to gauge ideas and knowledge about the theoretical and practical concerns of WCF at the tertiary level in the Tunisian context. The survey has a great impact on the research future orientations since it informs the researcher about the EFL Tunisian university teachers’ beliefs, concerns, and challenges in dealing with the WCF. The survey was distributed to a large number of EFL Tunisian university teachers from different universities in the whole country, from November 2020 till February 2021. The survey was constructed in light of the literature and the research objectives. This survey was inspired by the surveys and questionnaires administered in the studies about WCF research. It was made up of two sections. The first is demographic, it addresses the participants’ age, gender, academic level, and teaching experience, and the professional development training on WCF. While, the second part focuses on their beliefs about WCF practices. The survey took a maximum of 20 minutes to be answered.
To design a 5-point Likert-scale closed-ended questionnaire, I followed the guidelines of Dornyei (2007) and Wellington (2015) which helped me to establish construct and content validity. Thus, the survey questionnaire items should be formulated according to the research questions, the relevant literature on WCF, and my knowledge and experience of teaching and evaluating the written output of university students. This helped me to establish the content and construct validity of my research tools. The preliminary version of the survey questionnaire consistedof three parts. The first part included (9) items that are designed to address the demographic and background information about the participants. The second part consisted of (58) items which are classified into (11) concerns and arranged on the Likert scale. The table below illustrates these items in relation to the stated concerns. The participants were asked to circle anumber from 1-5 that reflectsthe extent they agree with the following variants: strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), undecided (3), agree (4), strongly agree (5). These items are designed to focus on EFL/ESL teachers’ actual beliefs and practices about WCF. I concluded it by thanking the participants. To ensure the comprehensibility of the survey, I asked my two supervisors to review it (Wellington, 2015).
Table 3.7.1.1.1 : Illustrating the second part of the survey concerns
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
3.7.1.1.2. Piloting the survey questionnaire
I piloted the survey questionnaire to four EFL/ESL university teachers from two different English departments, two teachers from each. It is of paramount importance to pilot the suitability of the survey items to get constructive feedback that would inform the possible amendments. The piloting stage culminates in deleting two items from the second part which has 60 items. The four teachers strongly agree that these two items are redundant and shouldbe omitted from the survey. Additionally, they proposed some reformulations on the wording of some items to ensure more clarity in responding to the survey. In the second step, the obtained data were entered into the SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) software version 24. to calculate the internal consistency of the 58 items. It is calculated through Cronbach's alpha coefficient. This value is sensitive to both the number and negative wording of the items (Pallant, 2016). I took into consideration the latter variables before testing the internal reliability. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient value of a scale should ideally be above 0 .7 (DeVellis, 2012). The scores of all the survey items are equal to 0.8. Therefore, the survey-questionnaire questions are valid, reliable, and ready for administration.
3.7.1.1.3. Administering the survey questionnaire
However, before distributing it, the survey was administered to two colleagues who didthink- aloud protocols while taking the survey. This led to some minor rectifications before the final distribution of the survey. Dornyei (2007: 113) claims that “questionnaire administration procedures play a significant role in affecting the quality of the elicited responses”. To ensure that, the distribution of the survey was online for security and safety reasons regarding the pandemic situation.I informed the participants about the purpose of the study and assured confidentiality and anonymity. Besides, I made sure that the participation is voluntary. While, I mentioned the importance of their participation in my study. The administration of the survey questionnaire started in November 2021 and took about 20-25 minutes. It is important to highlight that the survey was administered on 1) the macro-level to about (307) respondents from the whole Tunisia, and 2) the micro-level to the study PAR participants who are (10) in total. By the end, I thanked all the participants for their cooperation.
3.7.1.1.2. Dealing with documents collection
The researcher collected the students’exams writing and writing outcome measures reports. The researcher relied on the literature of WCF provision to provide a grid of corrective feedback to the participants to implement in their everyday practices. Additionally, the researcher should rely on established theories and frameworks of WCF provision that showed its effectiveness in previous studies in helping the learners deal effectively with their errors and manage to improve the quality of their writings. The collected exam papers will reflect the participants’ practices of WCF and the quality of learners’ written output. It mirrored the participants' practices and the researcher detected and compared alignments/misalignments between their pre-intervention and postintervention practices on the one hand and between their beliefs as extracted from the survey and their practices on the pre-intervention phase practices on the second hand. Besides, the researcher collected some samples of the students’ written classroom assignments to observe the extent to which the PAR participants manage to implement the alternative WCF pedagogy in their students’ assignments. Additionally, the researcher observed the improvements in the students’ written proficiency through comparing the attached Writing outcome episodes (WOE) files which were done by the students and took the form of a table that included the nature of the occurred errors, their frequencies and the teachers’ WCF focus. This technique is used to increase students’ noticing of their written proficiency and to facilitate the task for the researcher in accounting for the proficiency of the students’ writings in the different assignments during the whole semester and across the ten English departments. It is important to highlight the facilitating role of theWOE in this research work. The table below illustrates the WOE sheet that the students were required to fill after receiving their WCF.
Table 3.7.1.2: The components of the learners’ Writing Outcome Measures sheet
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Regarding the pandemic situation, the document collection took two different forms. The first is face to face classroom phase and it took place in the second half of March and during April while the second is the online phase and took place during May (9 weeks in general). It is worth noting thatall Participants managed to assist both phases except three ones who pertain to Sfax, Gabes and Kairaoun departments. For the Sfax department, the participant faced challenges in using online teaching. For the Gabes department, the participant was infected by a coronavirus and she could not proceed with the online teaching. Finally, for the Kairouan department, the participant found a serious challenge with his students to access the online platform.
The WOE measured both learners’ written accuracy and teachers’ WCF practices. Thus, the following section presents these two measurement dimensions.
3.7.1.1.3. Measuring Learners’ written Accuracy
Accuracy has been defined by Wolf-Quintero et al. (1998:33), “the ability to be free from errors while using language to communicate in either writing or speech.” Thus, the violation of the target language’s system will distort accuracy. Analyzing writing accuracy is ensured by “counting the errors in a text in some fashion” Wolf-Quintero et al. (1998:33). Many researchers such as (Henry, 1996) counted for writing accuracy differently. So either, they counted for "the number of Error-free T-units per T-unit (EFT/T) "(Wolf-Quintero et al., 1998:35). However, studies adopting the error-free T unit has been criticised for not following a clear error rubric. I opted for a measuring approach that is based on counting "how many errors occur in relation to production units such as words, clauses, or T-units" (Wolf-Quintero et al., 1998:36). Some researchers such as (Homburg, 1984) have developed a more practical approach that requires counting either string of error-free language products or the number of errors in a text. In this approach errors are classified according to their types and seriousness which is a good fit to my research concern and proposed PI. This approach is the easiest especially with the students who dealt with the counting and classification task in the intervention process to facilitate the process of gathering data.
3.7.1.1.4. Measuring EFL teachers’ practices
In the proposed rubric, the teachers’ practices were reported by the students through focusing on two dimensions. The first had to do with measuring the explicitness of WCF, while the second dealt with error patterns or seriousness. The WOE reported in-depth details about the teachers’ implementation of the PI. This facilitated the task of gathering data from the ten different English departments. The researcher checked with some writing assignments and evaluated the data in the WOE.
3.7.2. The qualitative tools
The quantitative tools adopted in this study are as follows: two semi structures interviews,diary writing, focus group discussions, and documents analysis.
3.7.2.1. Dealing with the semi-structured interviews
In dealing with the semi-structured interviews, I focused on their construction, piloting, and finally procedures. These three sections will be the focus of this methodology part.
3.7.2.1.1. Constructing the semi-structured interviews
In my study, I adopted two semi-structured interviews. The first took place before the intervention, while the second took place after the intervention. Both interviews were chosen to elicit data about the teacher participants’ beliefs about WCF practices. It is through the use of the semi-structured interviews that I managed to compare the pre and postintervention status of the participants’ cognitions. In other words, interviews are good methodological tool to test the impact ofmy intervention on teachers’ cognitions. The semistructured interviews were administered at the micro-scale study level (the PAR participants). To specify, the pre-intervention semi-structured interview was informed in its construction by both the survey questionnaire and the implemented interviews in some related previous studies from the literature. The table below illustrates the outlineof the preintervention interview.
Table 3.7.2.1.1(1): Illustrating the Pre- Intervention Interview
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
As far as the post-intervention interview is concerned, it focused on getting insights about the PI and the PDT. The post intervention interview contains (10) questions which are divided into three main concerns as it is sketched in the following table.
Table 3.7.2.1.1 (2): The Post intervention Interview
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
3.7.2.1.2. Piloting the semi-structured interviews
The interviews were piloted with two in-service teachers to identify ambiguous or confusing questions to check them before implementation takes place. I focused on the length of the interview so that I checked if I need to delete some extra questions or add some missing ones. I got some insights from my supervisors which helped me refine my interview questions in line with my study objectives. The open-ended nature of the interview questions led to the emergence of some follow-up questions that the researcher used to clarify some vagueness in the participants' responses. Therefore, some examples of these follow up questions were piloted as well so that the researcher felt comfortable while conducting the interview. Apart from piloting, I carried out a trial run, as suggested by (Dornyei, 2007), with one university teacher who is currently teaching writing in the Sfax English department. I saw if she could suggest any specific probes to add. Also, I checked the wording of the interview in addition to the organization, cohesion, and coherence of the interviews questions.
3.7.2.1.3. The procedures of the semi-structured interviews
Focusing on the semi-structured interviews procedures were informed by the research questions, the survey, and document analysis. In my formulation of the interview questions, I followed Wellington's (2015) and Ritchie et al. (2014) guidelines to achieve both, the coverage of breadth of WCF issues and the depth of content. The semi-structured nature ofthe interview questions serves as a good fit to the research requirements since the participants had the chance to focus on emerging issues during the interviews. Before embarking on the pre-intervention interview, the participants signed the informed consent. Regarding the pandemic situation, all the interviews were hold online via facebook messanger. Before taking part in the interview, the 10 participants were invited by e-mails which contained a brief description of the duration of the interview its purpose and its appointment. During the interviews, I will focus on the meaning of each utterance to be able to ask relevant follow-up questions (Ritchie et al., 2014). It is important to be calm, neutral, and down to earth during the interviewing process. Before ending the interview, I asked the participants to add any further comments or recommendations. Each interview lasted between 20-30 minutes. Finally, I thanked the participants for their valuable contribution and I informed them about the next step in the study.
As far as the post-intervention interview is concerned, the same ten participants held it. Again,they were invited and informed about the duration of the interview and its purposes by e-mails. It is worth noting that this interview is of special importance to the researcher and the participants becauseit will inform the researcher about the effect of the intervention on the participants' cognitions and practices. Additionally, the participants were informed about their professional development gains. It is worth noting that interviewing the teacher participants before and after the intervention contributed to an in-depth investigation of the increase in knowledge and the changes in their cognitions about WCF practices in their contexts. This enabled an analysis of the catalytic validity of this participatoryaction research to capture the achieved improvements after the intervention workshops. Therefore, catalytic validity occurs when the “.. .researchers engage in research not only to produce knowledge but also to make a positive change in the lives of those who participate in research, change that the participants' desire and articulate for themselves” (Moje, 2007: 25). This is in line with Freire (1973) terms "conscientization," which is about knowing the reality to better transform it. To conclude, Moje’s (2007) and Freire’s (1973) concerns are at the heart of the requirements of this current study.
3.7.2.2. Constructing the diary writing
Research diaries are important in this research because they describe the progress of and changes in the research plan, data collection, analyzing and reflection (Richardson, 2005). Diaries serve four main purposes as Richardson (2005) specifies. They are as follows observational, methodological, theoretical, and personal. My diaries in this research will integrate these above- mentioned types. For example, the observational notes are about gathering information that helps in the creation of the research time-line (McNiff, et al., 2003). Methodological notes put forward the evaluation of the data collection process and therefore, they crystallize the future research steps. As far as the theoretical notes are concerned, their aim is to provide materials for data analysis in the research process where the researcher keeps asking “What is the significance of my learning?” (McNiff & Whitehead, 2006, p. 113). Finally, Personal notes enable the researcher to cater tofeelings, beliefs, expectations, practices, and experiences. Journals were kept to illustrate the observations during the PAR process, notes, comments, and personal reflections. Throughout the research, a journal was kept for observation notes, reliable documentation of what happened, descriptions of events, notes, comments, and personal reflections; additionally, a portfolio of evidence (folder) was kept, including documentation relevant to the study, such as copies of materials used in class the (Kemmis, McTaggart, & Nixon, 2014, p. 98). However, it is acknowledged that observational data is prone to bias (Cohen et al., 2011, p. 459).
Apart from the four main purposes mentioned earlier, I added two other purposes. The fifth objective is pedagogical. For example, the diaries gathered data for the PI. Thus, they reported the actual day to day treatment of learners’ writings through collecting the students’ WOE that contain a record of their proficiency progress in every session. Additionally, a sixth purpose is PD. Since, they mirrored the explanation of the participants' reports of their PAR project participation (Cohen, et al., 2007). In writing the diaries and journals the participants were independent from the researcher’s presence so they were free to express their feelings and views (Silverman, 2000). These diaries informed the researcher’s decision about the different PAR steps. The participants’ recommendations and criticism were taken into consideration in the research process. By empowering the participants to have a voice in the research decision making, they were motivated to be more engaged in the research process and to work collaboratively.
3.7.2.3. Constructing the focus group discussion
Focus group discussion is defined as “a way of collecting qualitative data, which essentially involves engaging a small number of people in an informal group discussion (or discussions), ‘focused’ around a particular topic or set of issues” (Wilkinson, 2004, p. 177). This data gathering tool has a range of advantages. For example, Onwuegbuzie et al. (2009) drew the attention to implement focus group discussion since they are “less threatening to participants, as this environment is helpful for the participants to discuss perceptions, ideas, opinions, and thoughts” (p. 2). In this study, focus group discussion played a canonical role during the intervention phase. The teachers participating in the workshops shared their beliefs, practices and experiences in implementing the proposed intervention. During the four workshops, the researcher relied on the FGD to get in- depth insights about the intervention and the training process. However, FGD has a range of limitations. For example, it may be time consuming when all participants want to take part and talk. Additionally, some participants may speak much than others and they may diverge from the main topic. To overcome this issue the researcher resorted to probing questions. The FGDs were audiorecorded and transcribed.
3.8. Research Process
This study is made up of three main phases as follows :
3.8.1. The pre-intervention phase
This phase dealt with observing what is happening in the current context, reflecting on how to interpret this and planning for how to improve the situation.
It is about understanding and diagnosing the actual beliefs and practices of EFL/ESL writing teachers at the Tunisian tertiary level. This is a critical phase because it unveiled the existing gaps in dealing with WCF literacy. First, I Collected data about the EFL tertiary teachers through the survey questions and the pre-intervention semi-structured interview. Second, I managed to collect the relevant data about the actual practices of the EFL teachers’ participants through analyzing samples of their WCF provision on the first semester exams. I created a portfolio in which I collected some preliminary collected set of data. This data represents the genesis of the next phase.
3.8.2. The intervention phase: Diary and focused group discussion
This section is divided into two parts. The first part presents the four workshops that include thePD workshops which were done in the fieldwork. The second part sketches the intervention elements, i.e the alternative pedagogy which is presented after deciding on the lacunas that should be addressed in the Tunisian WCF literacy.
3.8.2.1. The Intervention Process: (The Training sessions)
The training was made up of three workshops that were inspired by the literature and the gathered data in the pre-intervention stage. This training was given to ten participants from ten English departments from Tunisia. These participants contributed actively to the theoretical levelof the training. Therefore, before the training (on the 25 th of February 2021) the participants and the researcher met to discuss the current situation of WCF provision, the challenges of the FL classroom and the learners’ hardships of writing and the idiosyncrasy of the Tunisian learners in writing proficiency. This pre-training session paved the way for the participants to introduce themselves and totalk about their teaching background, their WCF beliefs, routines and practices. Some participants showed their great happiness of meeting some colleagues who they knew from other departments. For example, the participants from the department of sfax and Kairouan. Additionally, the researcher askedthe participants some follow- up questions informed by both the related literature and the previously gathered data. Collaboratively, the researcher and the participants managed to diagnose and evaluate the areas that should be targeted by the upcoming PI. Accordingly the first workshop took place on the 4 th of March 2021 and lasted one hour and 30 minutes. The participants were informed before a week about this meeting via facebook messanger Training Group. Additionally, two members of the group requested that I send the file containing the outline of the PI so that they get familiar with it and gain time in the workshop. All participants were present and showed their motivation to be involved in this training which represented a unique experience for them since they had no previous PD teaching training in the area of WCF. The researcher has presented a list of theoretical and practical problems of WCF considerations related to the Tunisian higher education. The participants agreed upon all the presented points. Later, the researcher presented them with the theoretical part of the intervention on the basis of the DWCF framework. The researcher showed the rationale behind opting for this framework and its relatedness to the above mentioned lacunas and needs in the Tunisian context. After, presenting the theoretical background the researcher moved to the practical side. In fact, many questions have been raised by the participants since they are not familiar with these two frameworks. The researcher explained in depth what is expected from them in their classrooms and in relation to their students especially in presenting the framework in the classroom and asking the students to collaboratively apply it. The participants were informed that they will have another workshop in a month to evaluate the outcomes of the first workshop. Additionally, the researcher asks the participantsto feel free to e-mail her in case they need any help.
The second workshop took place on the 5 th of April 2021 and it lasted one hour. The participants are more motivated and they showed their fascination with the proposed pedagogical intervention. Each participant took the floor to share his experience with the other group members. Exchanging experiences added a pedagogical flavor to the workshop and unveiled some implementation challenges faced by some participants. To overcome these challenges I asked the participants to exchange their reflective journals so they could manage to implement the intervention properly. By the end of the second workshop I asked all participants to send me via e-mail their reflective journals, some samples of their students’ writings and their students’ outcome measures reports. These files were very helpful for the researcher who got practical insights about the fieldwork of the intervention.
The third workshop took place on the 2 nd of May. It was expected that the researcher and the participants would draw conclusions about the two previous workshops. However, due to the covid-19 pandemic situation, the ministry of higher education extended thedates of the year ending till the end of the month of May through using online teaching. Therefore, I got profit from this decision and I asked the participants to continue the training. However, this time appeared new challenges related to the participants’ coping strategies with the pandemic situation. In fact, the third workshop was divided into two parts. The first was about reflecting on the previous practices and the second presenting the possible challenges of online teaching in relation to the PI implementation. One important elements that we had addressed is how to motivate the students to send their writings electronically. Thus, we have decided to assign a bonus for every student who sent his writing assignment and continue to cooperate in this process.
The fourth workshop took place by the end of the month of May and it lasted about 30 minutes. Just seven participants took part in this last workshop, while the three others faced serious challenges that they could not manage to take part in this last phase. The most common challenge is the lack of motivation among the students to study online. Additionally, the researcher had noticed that the participants seem to be unmotivated in using online feedback.Before ending the workshop, I asked the participants to send me as usual the required files. I ended up the training by thanking them all warmly and I promised them to send their certificates.
3.8.2.2. Intervention elements: (The proposed WCF Methodology)
The PI represented an important phase in this study. The intervention introduced and implemented the WCF proposed methodology that is connected to the existing WCF Instructional Tunisian context. The intervention process took place for 9 weeks (from March till May 2021). The participating teachers from different 10 English departments gather once per month to share their experiences of implementing the proposed pedagogy. Before embarking on the intervention, focused on the different problematic areas that should be addressed and I reflected on possible an alternativeto each area.
The intervention is based on an alternative WCF pedagogy that addressed the existing challenges,lacunas and teachers’ recommendations.
In fact, deciding on the elements of intervention is not an easy task. The hardships stemmed from deciding upon the appropriate selection of an appropriate pedagogical solution that could solve practical issues.
The alternative WCF methodology was informed by the DWCF instructional framework model as proposed by (Hartshorn, et al, 2010) to overcome the theoretical and practical challenges. This framework fitted well my research objectives and recommendations. Additionally, I am convinced that implementing it could bring many advantages and practical solutions. The following figure illustrates the different steps of the DWCF framework.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 3.8.2.2: Illustrating the Dynamic Written Corrective Feedback Instructional Framework(Evans et al 2011, p. 31)
The tally sheet and edit logs were presented in the appendix section. In this study, I referred to them under another rubric namely WOE, in an attempt to de-restrict the focus on linguistic accuracy to focus on the impact of the intervention. The impact of the training and the intervention in this study is positive and the participants showed satisfaction and improvement in comparing pre and post- intervention phases. (see chapter 4 for more details).
The intervention was informed by the pre-intervention stage findings from the survey, the interview, and the teachers’ feedback analysis. The researcher relied on these three sources to know the existing gaps and needs among teachers theoretically and practically. These major points may be illustrated in this table as follows.
Table 3.8.2.2: The collected inferences about the actual WCF literacy
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
This table illustrates the needs and recommendations as illustrated in the pre-intervention stage by the teachers who took part in the training sessions. These highlighted needs and recommendations were used to design the pedagogical intervention training sessions.
There are different needs to address. First, teachers provide direct and indirect WCF interchangeably, therefore errors should be addressed in line with Ferris’s (2001) diachotomy of treatable and untreatable errors. Treatable errors such as tenses and subject verb agreement should receive indirect WCF, whearas untreatable errors such as tenses and subject verb agreement should receive direct WCF. Second, teachers WCF is unfocused, therefore deciding on which error to be targeted and how? Should be addressed. Third, there is a lack of alignment between the students’ written errors and the teachers’ WCF strategy. To overcome this problem Al-Jarrah’s (2016) diachotomy which differentiates between error feedback and error correction seems to be helpful. Error feedback addresses global errors that are about organization and meaning, while error correction targets local errors such as improving grammar, spelling and vocabulary. Differentiating between local versus global errors, and treatable versus untreatable errors may be a good solution for the teachers to prioritize the errors in their treatment. Fourth, defining learners’ written proficiency citeria seems to be a problematic area of concern among teachers. Therefore, cristalizing the view about evaluating learners’ level of proficiency in writing should be a priority. Fifth, the participants have different issues in relation to their training and professional development. Some points have been raised such as the limited institutional PD training in writing and feedback provision, the lack of communication between colleagues within the same department and among different departments, misalignment between their beliefs and practices, the lack of coping strategies in WCF provision during the pandemic crisis in elearning and the unfamiliarity with the WCF pedagogy in Tunisia. Some teachers associate this unfamiliarity with the lack of this pedagogy all together. These raised gaps have been addressed in the PI through teachers’ participation in the PAR that took the form of teachers’ professional development training sessions.
Apart from the needs, there are different recommendations raised by the teachers during the pre-intervention stage. First focusing on teaching writing through integrating process with product writing concerns and was recommended by the teachers in both the survey and the interview. Reflecting of EFL teaching writing and focusing on the process of writing through having different drafts may be a good solution to help the students in improving their writing skills. Second, reflective practices were highly recommended as a solution to enhance teachers’ agency and autonomy. Teachers’ pedagogical and practical knowledge should be questioned and addressed properly. Third, Teachers recommend matching the existing research literature to the existing gaps in the Tunisian context to find some practical solutions. Establishing a clear scheme of WCF provision which fits the requirement of the tertiary Tunisian context was highly recommended by the teachers not only to enhance their professionalism and effectiveness, but also to help students enhance their writing proficiency. The literature proved the effectiveness of the dynamic WCF framework in meeting students’ writing problems in multiple drafts through overcoming the time problems in the writing class. Most importantly, the students were integrated in the WCF process not only in writing. In fact, the intervention was designed in line with these above stated recommendations. Evaluating the impact of the intervention on students and teachers will be investigated via the post intervention analysis stage which will shed light on the intervention outcomes.
3.8.3. The post-intervention phase:
This phase drew attention to observing the process of change and reflecting on its consequences. In this phase, there were more room for reflection on the pedagogical intervention. First, through the implementation of the post-intervention semi- structured interview the researcher managed to collect data about the participants’ beliefs after attending the PD workshops to cater to their PD gains. Additionally, the researcher compared the pre and post-intervention phases to draw conclusions about the participants’ alignments in beliefs and practices within the same phase and between the two phases to measure the impacts of the intervention. Besides, the researcher measured the impact of the intervention of the students’ written proficiency through accounting for their drafts and the writing outcome episodes to cater to the effectiveness of the PI on their written proficiency gains.
3.9. Data Analysis
As Miles and Huberman (1994) report, data analysis as a process is made up of three major stages (data reduction, data display, and drawing conclusions). First, data reduction isdone the production of summaries, coding,etc. Second, data display is carried out through the use of matrices and thematic charts. Finally, drawing conclusions is related to the researcher’s attempt to answers the research questions. Data analysis is perceived by Ahmed (2011:130) as “one of the most complex processes of qualitative educational research... the process is tedious and time-consuming but has the potential to yield insightful views”.
In the current study, five research instruments will be used to collect data: Survey, semi- structured interviews, focused group discussions, diary writings, and document analysis. Data analysis covered both quantitative and qualitative data since this study adopted a mixed methodapproach.
3.9.1. Quantitative Data Analysis
The process of collecting and analyzing the quantitative data adds breadth to the research inquiry (Creswell and Clark, 2017). The quantitative analysis was ensured via SPSS software version 24. First,the close-ended items of the survey questionnaire were analysed to diagnose EFL writing teachers’ beliefs about WCF provision. This diagnosis played a pivotal role not only in familiarising the researcher with the existing lacunas in the Tertiary Tunisian context but also in informing the construction of the pre-intervention interview questions. Second, the document analysis helped in accounting for the students’ written error patterns statistical quantification to detect proficiency rate improvement among the learners in the multiple assignments. By doing so, the researcher measured the impact of the PI on the students’ written proficiency.
3.9.2. Qualitative Data Analysis (Thematic Analysis)
As far as the qualitative data is concerned, I will analyze the generated data from the two semi- structured interviews, the diary writings, the documents analysis, and the focused groups discussions through adopting the thematic analysis approach as described by Braun and Clarke (2006: 97) who define it as an “insightful analysis that answers particular research questions”. The rationale for the adoption of this analysis framework is that it allows for rich, detailed, and complex descriptions of the data ( ibid: 81). I followed the six phases of thematic analysis as suggested by Braun and Clarke (2006) that consisted of 1) familiarizing oneself with the data, 2) generating initial codes, 3) searching for themes, 4) reviewing themes, 5) defining and naming these themes, and 6) finally reporting the results.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 3.9.2: Thematic Analysis framework Braun and Clarke (2006) Phase One: Familiarising Myself with the Data
This stage is both time consuming and effort demanding since I invested a lot of time to get acquainted withthe knowledge, interests, and thoughts about the data. Thus, I listened very carefully to the recordingsbefore transcribing them. To store and share the recordings of the interviews and the focus groupdiscussions via iCloud and e-mail accounts I resorted to two digital recording apps on two separate deviceswhich are Voice Record Pro and Recording Memos. Additionally, for the sake of reliability and credibility of the transcriptions, I transcribed the data myself after checking the content against the original recordingsto ensure their validity. Transcribing the recordings is not an easy task to do since it is defined by Brinkmann and Kvale (2018) as the “translation from an oral language to a written language, where theconstructions on the way involve a series of judgments and decisions” (p. 106). To avoid any personaljudgement that may distort the intended meaning, I resorted to some interviewees to check with them someambiguious statements in the interviews transcriptions to avoid any possible bias. I transcribed the interviews into a formal style which enabled me to the some extracts in my final report. (see appendix).
Undertaking a thematic analysis necessitates focusing on the generation of the meaning rather than the manner by the participants. It is important to highlight the pivotal role of this analysis stage in paving the way to the next stage of ‘generating the initial codes’.
Phase Two: Generating Initial Codes
Generating the initial list of codes represented an interesting step in this research.
Saldana (2016) defined a code as a corner stone of the qualitative inquiry “the word or short phrase that symbolically assigns a summative, salient, essence-capturing, and/or evocative attribute for a portion of language-based or visual data” (p. 25). In generating my list of codes, I classified them to reach broader themes. Since these codes are data-driven, I paid due attention to all qualitative data sources to avoid redundant patterns across the whole data.
Phase Three: Searching for Themes
During this phase, I broadened the scope of my analysis by grouping the initial codes under their potential themes. To do this I considered the related codes in different lists to generate broader themes, sub-themes, categories, and sub-categories. I managed this classification by creating different files for each generated theme including all the relevant codes. I managed to identify sub-themes, categories, and subcategories through analyzing carefully the existing relationship between codes. I used different techniques in this phase such as mind maps and tables (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p. 19). This helped me in developing a clear thematic outline for each theme content.
I created sections and sub-sections in NVivo for the organised themes, categories, and sub-categories, respectively. This step allowed me to group relevant codes of each subcategory into an NVivo sub-section under a specific section and main section. Through using NVivo, I became able to organise the coded data in a way that each theme matched its categories, and each category matched its sub-categories.
Phase Four: Reviewing Themes
In this phase, I refined the themes from the previous phase. I managed to check the list of themes to create athematic map to decide upon the actual themes and the derived subthemes. I managed to link some separatethemes and break others into sub-themes, categories and sub-categories through understanding and identifying the similarities and differences between them.
In the process of constructing themes I related each one of them to :(1) the results of the survey, 2) theresearch questions and 3) the existing literature.
This analysis was undertaken on two different levels namely: the micro- level of each theme and the macro-level of the whole themes. For the micro- level analysis, I checked all the extracts of the main themes to see their relevance and coherence. Consequently, I excluded all odd and unrelated features and created new categories which were attached to other relevant themes. Concerning the macro level analysis, I focused on the relationship between the theme and organized them in the light of the research questions. I paid due attention to striking a balance between the content of each theme and ensuring that all themes and sub- themes are supported by relevant extracts from my data.
Phase Five: Defining and Naming Themes
The generation of a thematic map allowed me to refine the produced themes. I analysed the titles of all thethemes and the sub-themes to guarantee that they were representative of the whole data set. I described thepurpose of each theme in relation to the research questions to relate my generated themes to the whole picture of my research.
Phase Six: Producing the Report
I drew up the final list of themes, sub-themes, categories and subcategories. This stage enabled me to write up the final report in a logical manner without losing sight of resorting to evidence from the data. Braun and Clarke (2006) stated that producing the thematic analysis report should be supported with coherent accounts to convince the reader with its validity. Therefore, I focused on writing coherent and concise accounts to support each theme while avoiding repetition.
3.10. Quality criteria of the research (Rigor)
The Implementation of the mixed methods approach in this research raised a number of issues over reliability and validity between quantitative and qualitative study parts. Additionally, I measured the construct and face validity of the survey. Jacques (2020) defines face validity as the extent to which the questions measure what they are intended to measure from the respondents’ viewpoint. Additionally, Torkian et al (2020) defines content validity as the potential of the questions to cover the measured construct from an expert view. In this study, both face and content validities were checked through the piloting stage when the survey was revised, piloted, and initially analyzed before its implementation. Additionally, validity may be ensured through careful sampling (Cohen et al., 2011).
For this study, I tried to choose a representative sample of the targeted population in the Tunisian higher education institutions. Regarding the epistemological and ontological differences in the assumptions underlying qualitative and quantitative approaches, researchers agree that the evaluation quality criteria differ from one approach to another. The quality of quantitative research is judged against its validity and reliability. However, a range of alternative criteria was developed to assess the qualitative research (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). Therefore, trustworthiness represents the main criterion for assessing qualitative research. It is defined as “a set of criteria advocated by some writers for assessing the quality of qualitative research.” (Bryman, 2008:700. There are four criteria which are as follows: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Given, 2008). The following sections will zoom on these fourcriteria in relation to the current research.
3.10.1. Dependability
In the pursuit of rigor, dependability is related to the changing context and how these changes may affect the researchers’ future decisions in the research pursuit. Therefore, this requires focusing on the research design by ensuring that the study participants have fair opportunities to express themselves (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). In relation to my study, a number of measures were taken into consideration to ensure dependability. Apart from the carefully selected samples, several methods of data collection were employed such as (Survey, interviews, focus group discussions, and documentary analysis) to ensure the triangulation of data sources and methods (Bryman, 2012). Additionally, the researcher should be open to any altering or change in the date collection schedule.
3.10.2. Credibility and transferability
The credibility criterion has to do with the findings which should be believable from the angle of participants. Since the present study is based on the PAR framework, so this entails thatparticipants are active will be agents in the research process in collaboration with the researcher. Therefore, more trustworthiness is ensured in data collection procedures. Additionally, as recommended by Lincoln and Guba (1985), member checking or respondent validation should be used as a means to enhance rigor by “ensuring that the participants’ own meanings and perspectives are represented and not curtailed by the researchers’ own agenda and knowledge” (Tong et al., 2007, p. 356). It is worth noting that “Member checking covers a range of activities including returning the interview transcript to participants, a member check interview using the interview transcript data or interpreted data, a member checks focus group orreturning analyzed synthesized data”(Birt et al, 2016: 1803). I used a member check interview in this study by presenting the interpreted data to the participants.
While, transferability is related to the research context description and the research process (Denscombe, 2010). Since the present study is a PAR, it is impossible to introduce the concept of generalizability, however, we would rather talk about particularity or particular disability (Larsen-Freeman, 1996). In the present study,I gave a full description of how I collected and analyzed my data. Although the findings are specific to the Tunisian context, other researchers may judge the possibility of transferring the findings to other contexts under different circumstances.
3.10.3. Confirmability
Qualitative researchers strive for confirmability by bringing their viewpoints to the topic under investigation. Confirmability refers to other researchers’ confirmation of the research findings through a detailed description of data collection procedures, data categories, and data analysis. In my present study, I have scheduled the research procedures. Additionally, I attached samples of the different data collection tools in the appendix section.
3.11. Ethical Considerations
Ethics are “at the heart of research from the early design stages right through to reporting and beyond” (Ritchie et al., 2014: 78). Additionally, Singleton and Straits (2005: 113) reveal theimportance of research ethics throughout the whole research process. There aredifferent ethical considerations. In my research, I relied on the most famous ethical considerations (Wellington; 2015) which are: accessing the research site, anonymity, and harm to participants, confidentiality, informed consent, and the invasion of privacy. The table belowillustrates these five categories.
Table 3.11: Illustration of Wellington’s (2015) ethical considerations
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
In my research, I applied these five ethical research principles. Therefore, before conducting the research I asked for permission from the University of Sfax to conduct the research and to gather data from other universities in Tunisia. Before the study, each participant in the PAR signed an informed consent. All participants signed two consent forms where one copy will be kept with the participant and the other with the researcher. Additionally, an information sheet was distributed with the consent to let them know about the aim and procedures of the PAR. I informed them that their participation is voluntary and in case they participate they have the right to withdraw when they like. In addition, to protect their privacy, I explained to them the procedures of revealing their beliefs and practices which were conditioned by the research commitments and obligations.
To ensure Confidentiality, I informed the participants that the data will be used only for scientific reasons. For Anonymity reasons, I assigned the participants' pseudonyms. It is of paramount importance to respect the participants through using face-saving strategies and respect expressions to gain their confidence to participate. At the end of the PAR, I appreciated their participation and I distributed certificates of professional development workshops in WCF signed by the researcher, the supervisor, and the dean of the faculty of Arts and Humanities in Sfax Tunisia.
Additionally, the PAR nature of this study endorses the implementation of Member checking to protect the participants during the research process. Therefore, some ethical questions arised within member checking. First, questioning whose voice is heard is a basic ethical issue. In other words, it is important to draw a clear-cut line between “the participants’ quotes from the data or that of the researcher through their interpretations of data” as highlightedby Birt et al (2016: 1805). Thus, it is important to provide the participants with theopportunity toliaise with the researchers during the research process. To achieve this link, I provided my participants with my own interpretations of the collected data of the interviews and I will give them the chance to reflect on my voice and theirs and to confirm if this is exactly what they intended to say to avoid any bias that may affect both the relationship between the researcher and the participants on the one hand and the study reliability and trustworthiness on the other hand as it has been proposed by (Girden, 2001, p. 24).
3.12. Challenges and limitations
Despite the significant contribution of the current study, it has a number of challenges and limitations. The collection of data from five different sources and from different faculty departments could not be fulfilled without some challenges. The process of PAR was challenging for both the researcher and the participants. First, the researcher faced some challenges in finding an adequate number of participants who are in-service writing teachers to participate in the PAR study. Additionally, deciding upon the content of the intervention workshops is highly challenging and deserved a lot of time and effort. Another challenge stems from the transcription of the two interviews and the focus group discussions. This task is challenging because the researcher should be neutral in separating his voice from the participants’ voices. Second, the participants found it challenging to cooperate on the different components of the action research plan since they are not familiar with such practices. In addition, the lockdown and curfew periods as the result of the covid-19 pandemic situation affected not only the motivation of the participants to practice the theoretical side of the intervention workshops in their classes effectively but also the research planning of the PAR frame. For example, the implementation of the PI took place in two different instructional settings. The first is one to one classroom setting, while the second is an online setting. Apart from these challenges, it is important to be aware of the potential study limitations. The study is limited to English writing University teachers, while it could be applied to English university teachers in general. Additionally, the study is limited to teachers, while integrating students as active agents in the research process may generate deeper results. Nevertheless, the limited number of teachers limits the findings of this study to be transferred beyond this particular Tunisian group in other different contexts.
3.13. Summary
This chapter has illustrated the adopted methodology in this study. The choice of PAR methodology and the mixed-method design have been illustrated and justified. Additionally, both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis methods were reported. To ensure the quality of this study, I expressed my awareness of its rigor and the ethical dimension of the work. However, the methodology outlined in this chapter was not the best for this study since there is no perfect work. Therefore, I did my best to acknowledge the existence of some challenges and limitations in the current study. The next chapter will shed light on the quantitative and qualitative findings of the current research.
Chapter 4: Findings
“The goal is to turn data into information, and information into insight. ” -
Carly Fiorina,
The analysis of this study data will be organized in line with the adopted action research methodology. In other words, the analysis will be divided into two phases: 1) the pre-intervention phase, and the post-intervention phase. Each phase will focus on specific data analysis tools as they were dictated by the requirement of the research objectives and needs. It is worth noting that the researcher is aware at this stage of the research of the requirements of the mixed methods and the adopted interpretive research paradigm. This highlighted awareness is basic at this stage of research since it will inform the interpretation process.
4.1 The pre-intervention phase
In this stage, I will focus on the analysis and interpretation of the collected data related to the pre-intervention phase. The focus will be on the analysis of 1) the survey, 2) the preintervention interview, and 3) the text analysis. This phase will address the two first research questions namely: How do EFL/ESL Tunisian Teachers think about WCF provision and what are their actual practices? And What is the relation between EFL/ESL Tunisian teachers' cognitions and practices of WCF (alignments versus misalignments)?
4.1.1. The survey results
The survey was administered at two broad levels. I labeled them macro and micro survey-level. By the macro-level, I mean the administration of the survey at the broad national level. In this study, the survey was administered to (319) EFL tertiary level English teachers. The macro-level is of paramount importance since it supported the researcher to have an idea about the different WCF orientations and philosophies adhered by different EFL university teachers in the Tunisian context. Being acknowledged by their orientations and theories of practice, the researcher will be able to set the intervention elements in the next stage of the analysis. However, the macro-level denotes the administration of the survey to the ten participants who will take part in the professional development workshops during the intervention phase. This macro-level stage is vital to show their beliefs about the WCF pedagogy that they adopt in their teaching. The results of the micro-level survey analysis will be compared to the text analysis results to measure the alignment between beliefs and practices.
The survey is made up of two parts. The first part is about the biodata of the respondents which is made up of six items. While the second part is made up of 59 items which are organized under eleven substances which are presented as follows: 1) Questioning General assumptions about WCF effectiveness, 2) Focusing on different text types, 3) Error treatment, 4) The effect of WCF on different grammatical structures, 5) Error priority, 6) Focusing on different WCF strategies, 7) The policy of WCF, 8) Description of Reasons Behind the Selection of WCF, 9) The perceptions of the effectiveness of the WCF on the students written output, 10) The perceptions of the effectiveness of the WCF on the teachers' cognitions, 11) The readiness for professional development and change. The survey took the form of a Likert scale ranging from (1: disagree to 5: totally agree).
4.1.1.1 . The survey macro-level data analysis
The analysis of the biodata reveals information about the respondents of the survey in different ways. To start with, 92,13% of the respondents pertain to the public university sector while only 7,86% pertain to the private university sector. Additionally, the participants pertain to different work positions. 55,97% of the survey participants are PES Détaché. This category of English teachers represents an overwhelming majority in the Tunisian tertiary level. Additionally, 31,44% are part-time teachers. Assistants represent only 6,28%, maitre assistant 3,14%, professeur 1,57% and agrégé 1,57%. As it is clear, the distribution of the participants about their profession is not homogenous since the PES Détaché and part-time position categories represent about 87% of the whole positions.
Table 4.1.1.1 (1). Illustrating the participants’ profile
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
As far as gender is concerned, 72,32% of the respondents are female, while 27,67% are male.
Regarding teaching experience, 76,2% of the respondents have less than ten years of teaching experience, while 23,6% are experienced with more than ten years. In answering the following survey item «As an EFL teacher, have you ever had a training course in EFL writing? »about 30,50 % of the participants answered with ‘yes’, and 69,49% answered with ‘No’. The lack of training in EFL writing is obvious among the respondents and It will be addressed thoroughly in this piece of research as an attempt to fill in this gap in the Tunisian
University system. Furthermore, the professional development about WCF may take different forms and it is depicted as follows hierarchically: Conferences, 53,45%, meetings 5,97%, seminars 17,92%, Study days 15,09%, and workshops 9, 43%. This reflects the presence of some attempts to provide professional development differently which is a good sign of an inherent awareness that should be more focused in a nationally organized program about WCF.
In responding to the survey items the respondents reacted differently which reflects their different agendas and philosophical orientations in approaching the WCF concern in the EFL tertiary context. The first survey construct focuses on “Questioning General assumptions about WCF effectiveness” and it is made up of six items as sketched in the table below.
Table 4.1.1.1 (2) Illustrating the first construct of the teachers’ survey
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
In responding to both questions one and three which are respectively: “I provide written corrective feedback (WCF) on the essays/paragraphs that my students produce for the writing course” and I believe in the effectiveness of WCF to my students writing accuracy” all the respondents show high rate of agreements. Their agreement reflects their involvement and motivation regarding WCF provision. Whereas with the remaining four items 2,4,5, and 6 the respondents show uncertainty in responding to the familiarity with the WCF pedagogy (47,8%) are undecided. While with the remaining three last statements the respondents show a high rate of disagreement vis-a -vis their satisfaction with quality of the WCF that they provide to their students (74,8%), their awarness of the students’ writing problems (68,1%) and the faced challenges in providing an effective WCF to address their students’ writing problems (41,2%). To sum up, the respondents do agree on the importance of providing WCF and highlight its effectiveness in boosting their students’ writing accuracy, however, they are hesitant and uncertain about the practical side such as familiarity with WCF pedagogy, and their awarness with students’ writing problems. The second survey substance focuses on different text types.
4.1.1.1 (3) Illustrating the second construct of the teachers’ survey
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
This second survey construct is made up of three items which are about the way how EFL teachers react to their students’ writings. In responding to these items, 60,9% of the respondents show their agreement about focusing on their learners’ writing processes. However, they show strong disagreement in focusing on correction over some time 59,9% and making revisions of the original written works 64,5%. Their agreement may be explained by their familiarity with the writing processes in assisting their students before, during, and after the writing process. While their disagreement may be explained by the shortage of time and therefore the lack of the pedagogical concern to correct their students' errors over some time and make revisions and edits. The third survey construct is made up of five items as follows.
4.1.1.1 (4) Illustrating the third construct of the teachers’ survey
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
In responding to the third survey construct, the participants have different views regarding marking all the errors in the written texts of their students. For example, 20,4% strongly disagree, 23,3% disagree, 10,1% are undecided, 26,7% agree and 19,5% strongly disagree. This variation may be explained by the lack of clear pedagogy that informs EFL teachers to opt for a clear choice in marking the written errors. Additionally, in responding to the eleventh item 51,8% of the participants agree on marking all major errors rather than focusing on all the errors. Their response shows the presence of a priority scheme in dealing with the errors. This scheme becomes clearer when answering the eleventh survey item. The majority of the respondents 59,7% disagree about marking a limited range of errors. In other words, they prefer covering a wide range of major errors. However, the overwhelming majority of the respondents about 76,98% disagreed about restricting their marking focus on errors that interfere with the communication of ideas. This may be explained by the possible presence of a wide range of preferences in working their students’ errors apart from the communicative aspect. While 56% of the respondents agree on responding to the message rather than the form errors. This agreement may be explained by the EFL teachers’ concern with the importance of conveying the message which is tightly linked to the communicative concern rather than the literal level of marking the form errors.
Table 4.1.1.1 (5) Illustrating the fourth construct of the teachers’ survey
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
This fourth construct is made up of four items about the effect of WCF on different grammatical structures. In responding to focusing on the grammatical, morphological, lexical, and syntactic error structures in WCF provision, the respondents prioritized focusing on the lexical errors 85,5%, then the syntactic errors 69, 8%, and the grammatical errors 60%. Concerning the morphological errors, the respondents disagree on focusing on this error category in their WCF provision 64,10%. Their preferences about prioritizing lexical and syntactic errors may be informed by their philosophical orientations about focusing on the communicative dimension which is governed by the choice of lexis and the syntax of the utterance.
Table 4.1.1.1 (6) Illustrating the fifth construct of the teachers’ survey
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
In responding to the fifth survey substance which is about error priority concern, the respondents held different opinions about this concern. In addition, they are different in responding to the criteria to adopt in evaluating the seriousness of the written errors. 37% of the respondents disagreed, 44,6% agreed, while 17,3% are undecided about the adoption of evaluation criteria. These different views reflect the absence of a conclusive view about this concern in WCF provision among the Tunisian EFL teachers at the tertiary level context.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 4.1.1.1 (6): Illustrating EFL teachers’ error gravity preferences in WCF provision
In responding to the error criteria preferences 58,2% of the respondents agreed on the priority of dealing with the errors that are more frequent than others. This agreement may be explained by the inherent concern among EFL teachers to look at the repeated errors to remediate. Additionally, they highlighted the importance of dealing with the errors that cause comprehensibility and then those that affect acceptability. This concern is tightly linked with the communicative competence concern since EFL teachers tend to focus on errors that affect the understanding of the utterance. While the concern with prioritizing the pedagogical focus seems to be weak compared to the other criteria since only 15,16% agreed on its priority in their WCF preferences. The lack of focus on the pedagogical concern may be explained by the lack of EFL teachers’ knowledge in linking the pedagogical focus with their students’ errors. Irritation criterion was marginalized in the responses of the survey participants’ 8% have agreed that irritation should be adopted in the WCF evaluation criterion. This may be explained by the relatedness of this criterion to the native speaker competence since the teachers are dealing with EFL/ESL learners so, this criterion may be overlooked in their judgments.
About 51% of the participants disagree about considering the students’ level in judging the seriousness of the written errors. This disagreement may be explained by the lack of concern with defining the level of students about their written errors. Additionally, this lack of concern may be the outcome of a clear lack of professional knowledge among the EFL teachers due to the lack of professional development in the WCF area at the tertiary level in the Tunisian context.
Table 4.1.1.1 (7): Illustrating the fifth construct of the teachers’ survey
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
The sixth survey construct is made up of seven items that focus on different WCF strategies. In responding to the item related to the use of direct WCF strategy the majority about 72,3% of the respondents show their agreement. This may be explained by the tendency of the EFL teachers to provide direct written feedback that makes the students notice the errors and therefore notice the gap in their written production to improve it.
While in responding to the indirect WCF strategy only 47,8% agree about its use which may be explained by their preference of overtness rather than covertness in WCF strategy use. The EFL teachers’ task as facilitators in the learning process makes them opt for the direct strategy rather than the indirect one. Additionally, many students may feel bewildered while provided with indirect feedback since they do not know how to proceed with their errors in the future. The risk of not addressing the errors clearly may lead to fossilization breakdowns among the students. As far as recast is concerned 41,8% disagree about its implementation while 47,8% agree about its use. There are different contrasting views concerning the reformulation of the right answer among EFL teachers. These differences are informed by the absence of a clear scheme of WCF provision in the University pedagogical system. EFL writing teachers hesitate in taking a succinct and pungent decision in their WCF practices. This hesitation should be addressed in the professional development training. Additionally, 83,6% of the respondents show their agreement vis-à-vis the use of the metalinguistic inferences on their students’ written utterances. Their agreement extends to the use of different strategies in the same piece of writing 56,12% of the respondents. However, there is a sharp disagreement in the use of a certain strategy with a certain error type 85,18%. This point may not be addressed before as a pedagogical concern among EFL university teachers since establishing a link between the students’ error type and the teachers’ remedial strategy. This is explained by the lack of concern and research in this particular area which begs more future focus in the Tunisian context. While 56,9% of the respondents have disagreed about the use of online feedback. This may be explained by the lack of the online tradition of teaching in Tunisia. This lack was depicted during the pandemic situation. The hardships faced at the tertiary level were numerous and not easy to handle due to the lack of experience and organization about the online mode of learning. This shortage affects both teaching and learning dialogically which should be revisited seriously to achieve better educational effectiveness.
Table 4.1.1.1 (8) Illustrating the seventh construct of the teachers’ survey
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
The seventh construct in the survey is made up of five items and it focuses on the policy of WCF at The tertiary Tunisian level. The overwhelming majority of the respondents about 93,10% disagree on the item related to the presence of a national WCF policy that informs EFL writing tertiary teachers. This percentage is quite interesting since these EFL teachers suffer from the marginalization of WCF at the tertiary level and they do not share a strong pedagogical background that enables them to be informed properly and to act according to an established policy. This lack has serious implications for the teachers’ knowledge and practices. Additionally, it affects badly the students’ writing outcomes. Therefore the quality of the educational output is endangered due to this obvious lack of a national policy. In responding to EFL teachers’ threshold knowledge 53,8% agree that they have the minimum knowledge that allows them to deal with the WCF provision. This is normal since they received this knowledge in their pre-service learning stage and their inservice professional stage. However, in dealing with the next item “ As a Tunisian EFL tertiary teacher, I am informed by the recent theoretical and practical innovations about WCF”. 94,10 % of the survey respondents disagree about this construct. This is tightly linked to the lack of a WCF policy that informs teachers. One more reason for this is the lack of teachers’ professional development training which is the first source of their knowledge about such innovations. However, what is surprising is that the respondents of the survey showed their total disagreement with the need for professional development in the WCF area except for 2,5% who are undecided. This may be explained by the fear feeling of undertaking a new experience since there is no tradition in providing professional development in this particular area. Additionally, this disagreement is tightly linked to the absence of a WCF policy and the lack of knowledge among EFL teachers. However, in responding to the last item about the possibility of the initiation of reform in the area of WCF, there is no disagreement, whereas the rate of the agreed respondents is 78,10%. This agreement may be explained by the democratic side of the pedagogical coin. In other words, when the word ministry appeared about attempts to find ways of reform, the respondents showed their obedience to the system by which they are governed. However, this latter response seems to be in sharp contrast to the previous responses about the previous items. To put it simply, there is a contradiction between their agreement about the presence of the attempts towards reform on the one hand and their agreement about the absence of a national and the lack of professional development and knowledge among EFL writing teachers. These contrasting views are value-laden and show the consistency among the survey participants.
Table 4.1.1.1 (9) Illustrating the eigth construct of the teachers’ survey
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
There are nine items in the eighth survey construct. They focus on the description of the reasons behind the selection of WCF. There is no agreement upon the item related to the selection of WCF based on personal teaching experiences. While 62,6% disagree about this statement. This disagreement is informed by the nature of the EFL teachers’ knowledge and its source. This particular knowledge is a sophisticated system of pedagogical knowledge, content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and contextual knowledge which are bound by not only the in-service teaching experiences but also the pre-service ones. 95,9% of the respondents disagree about selecting the WCF on the students’ weaknesses. Their disagreement may be explained by their lack of knowledge about their students' needs and lacks writing. This seems in strong relation with the survey next item which is about the selection of WCF about the training experience. In responding to this item only 7,6% of the respondents show their agreement. So they overlook the training experience in thinking about their WCF. Therefore, this is tightly linked to an obvious lack of professional development training among EFL teachers in the tertiary Tunisian context. The same lack may explain the lack of knowledge about their students’ errors and needs for improvement. While 86,8% agree that the selection of WCF depends on their beliefs. This is an important point to highlight since the role of EFL teachers’ beliefs about WCF provision is pivotal. Their agreement shows that they are aware of the underlying cognitive structures that govern the provision of WCF. It is not surprising that they largely agree with this item since the role of EFL teachers’ beliefs in the provision of WCF is in value in the literature. Concerning the item related to the impact of teachers’ prior learning as a language student 59,10 % of the respondents disagree about this item. Despite the assumed role of the pre-service learning experience in shaping EFL teachers’ knowledge, the respondents seem to be unaware of the impact of this very specific type of knowledge in shaping their pedagogical orientations. Their unawareness does not entail that their WCF selection does not depend on the pre- experiential learning stage. This stage is embedded subconsciously in different practices. The next item is related to the influence of assessment. The respondents seem to have different views concerning this item. For example, 44,3% of the respondents disagree while 47,14% agree. This may be explained by the different views that they adopt vis-à-vis assessment. The latter represents a strong source of debate among EFL teachers since the policy is still begging a clear view to inform the practitioners how to act and react. As far as the dependence of the selection of WCF on the available resources, only 1,6% agreed on its feasibility. This may be explained by the shortage of suitable resources that teachers may rely on to decide upon the choice of the WCF decisions. In responding to the dependence of WCF selection on the organization regulations, 0,9% have agreed which reflects the absence of concern with these regulations. This is legitimate since they cannot agree upon something that is not there. It is important to highlight the absence of strict organizational regulations at the Tunisian tertiary level. And even if some institutions do include some regulations, the teachers are not able to establish a link between these regulations and the WCF practices. About 67,9% of the respondents agree that the selection of the WCF depends on the pressure from their colleagues. This is because they collaborate in the course and exam designs. They collaborate in fixing the scheme of corrective feedback. The exercised pressure leads the EFL teachers to improve their practices through the lens of communication. To sum up, in responding to the different reasons behind the selection of the WCF, the survey respondents adopt different views in responding to this construct.
Table 4.1.1.1 (10) Illustrating the ninth construct of the teachers’ survey
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
The ninth construct of the survey is about the perceptions of the effectiveness of the WCF on the students' written output. This construct is made up of four items. A total agreement rate of 100% on measuring the effectiveness of the WCF on the students’ writings via the increase in the written accuracy. The quality of the written accuracy is considered as a criterion in evaluating the effectiveness of the WCF. The increase in the written accuracy is measured differently and therefore it is problematic. Additionally, the ability to measure both the improvement of the students' accuracy and the effectiveness of WCF in relation to it is a fertile area of investigation in the arena of SLA. In fact, this concern is omnipresent in the current study since it focuses on the effectiveness of WCF in line with the students’ errors in writing. While 90,15% disagree about measuring the effectiveness of the WCF on the students’ writings via the increase in written fluency. This disagreement may be explained by the lack of concern with fluency in writing since it is associated most with speaking. This may be a good reason behind the disagreement with this construct. Additionally, focusing on fluency in the writing skill should be focused in the programs of EFL teachers’ education and training to be familiarized. The third item of this construct focuses on measuring the effectiveness of the WCF via the decrease in the errors number in their writing. 83,9% of the respondents agree on the importance of considering these written errors as a measurement tool of the effectiveness of their WCF. This agreement is informed by EFL teachers’ concern with correctness through getting rid of the errors. Approaching these errors varies from one EFL teacher to another, some reject errors because they are viewed negatively while others look at them as good and positive milestones in the learning process. What is most important in this context is that these errors are highly considered in evaluating the effectiveness of the WCF provision process and content. However, 81,4% of the respondents disagree about relying on the ability of the students to self-edit their texts in measuring the effectiveness of the WCF on the writings. This may be explained by the lack of focus on the students’ selfconcern with their students’ self-editing of their writings.
Additionally, the pedagogical orientations of the EFL writing teachers may affect the involvement of their students in the editing process. This lack of focus may engender serious repercussions on the students self-editing processes which should be highly focused on and considered in the EFL classroom.
Table 4.1.1.1 (11) Illustrating the tenth construct of the teachers’ survey
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
This construct is made up of four items which are about the perceptions of the effectiveness of the WCF on the teachers’ cognitions. In responding to the first item which is “To provide an effective WCF, I should become more sensitive to my students’ needs”, 89,16% of the respondents agree while 8,14% disagree about it. This agreement reflects the participants’ awareness of providing WCF in line with their students’ needs. This sense of empathy is basic in the teaching process and it boosts the concern with not only students’ needs but also expectations. Additionally, 87,10% of the respondents agree on the item related to “developing new teaching skills in relation to WCF concerns”. This concern is natural and is part and parcel of the teaching pedagogical orientations. EFL teachers are inherently haunted by the desire of developing new skills to meet the increasing pedagogical innovations in the area of EFL teaching. About 62,5% of the respondents do agree on the importance of boosting their reflective practices to meet their students’ needs while only 33,6% have disagreed about it. This agreement is explained by the EFL teachers’ awareness of forging some reflective techniques to meet the learning needs of the students. This has deep implications on teachers’ cognition about the WCF pedagogy area of research. In spite of the raised awareness, a lot of efforts should be done in teachers’ training programs and professional development sessions to meet some lack of understanding and knowledge vis- à-vis this particular area. Additionally, 89,16% of the respondents have agreed on the importance of matching their beliefs with their practices as a condition of an effective WCF provision. Theoretically speaking, the majority of EFL teachers tend to establish a link between theory and practice as a pedagogical orientation in their classroom. However, there is a practical dilemma which is originated from how to establish this link and which theoretical framework should be used to guide this practice. To go a step further, how to measure the success of this established link and how to evaluate its effectiveness practically. In fact, answering these questions in relation to the WCF provision area is not an easy task to do and therefore, it needs more focus theoretically and practically. To sum up, the analysis of this survey construct has led to the understanding of the respondents’ perceptions about the effectiveness of the WCF. For them, the provision of an effective WCF should be conditioned by understanding the students’ needs and developing reflective practices to meet them, developing new teaching skills in relation to WCF practices, and linking theory to practice.
Table 4.1.1.1 (12) Illustrating the eleventh construct of the teachers’ survey
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
The eleventh construct is about the readiness for professional development and change and it is made up of three items. 82,10% of the respondents are not satisfied with the quality of their WCF provision. This dissatisfaction implies the need for more concern in the WCF area. Additionally, 94,9% of the respondents recommend some professional development workshops to achieve agency. This agreement reflects their readiness for professional development. This need has been overtly articulated when 100% of the respondents agreed on their readiness for any change in the pedagogy of WCF through looking for an alternative that could overcome the shortage of the actual practices in the Tunisian Tertiary context. This huge agreement is explained by the real lack of an established WCF pedagogy at the tertiary level in Tunisia. The clear lack has motivated EFL teachers to be ready for change through hailing the idea of finding out an alternative. To sum up, this final survey construct informs this research about the necessity of introducing professional development sessions to help teachers change towards effectiveness.
This macro-level survey analysis helps in investigating EFL teachers’ perceptions and beliefs about WCF concerns at the tertiary Tunisian level. The same survey was distributed to the ten teachers who took part in the PAR in this study. This will be the focus of the next analysis section.
4.1.1.2 The survey micro-level data analysis
This micro-level survey focuses on the ten participants of the participatory action research. This schedule illustrates the biodata information of these participants. As it is shown all the ten EFL teachers pertain to the public university sector and they hold different title positions. To illustrate, 30% are PES Détaché, 20% are part-time, 10% are assistant, 10% are maitre assistant, 10% are professor and 20% are agrégé. This variety is important for the action research intervention stage because it impacted the way WCF concerns are approached by different EFL teachers holding different positions and having different views. In addition, 70% of the participants are male and 30% are female. As far as the teaching experience is concerned as an EFL writing teacher, 80% of the participants are under 10 years of teaching experience and 20 % of them are more than 10 years. It may be fortunate that 80 % of the participants did not have the chance to have a training course in EFL writing since they will take part in the professional development training sessions during the intervention stage. This professional development was scarcely addressed by their institutions in relation to WCF. 60% highlighted the role of conferences, 30% opted for study days, while 10% are in favor of seminars. However, none of them went to meetings or workshops.
Table 4.1.1.2 (1): Illustrating the profile of the PD training participants
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
In responding to the survey items the respondents reacted differently which reflects their different agendas and philosophical orientations in approaching the WCF concern in the EFL tertiary context. The first survey construct focuses on “Questioning General assumptions about WCF effectiveness” and it is made up of six items as sketched in the table below.
Table 4.1.1.2 (2): Illustrating the first construct of the teachers’ survey
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
To start with, in responding to the first research item all the respondents agreed on providing WCF on the essays produced by their students for the writing course. However, in showing their familiarity with the WCF pedagogy, 50% of the respondents disagree, 30% are undecided, and 20% agree. These different views reflect their indecision and lack of familiarity with the WCF pedagogy. This reflects the absence of an established pedagogy that guides EFL teachers’ in their WCF provision at the tertiary level in the Tunisian context. In responding to the third item concerning teachers’ opinion about the effectiveness of WCF to students’ writing accuracy, 100% do agree on this item which reveals their awareness and concern with the effectiveness of WCF provision in improving students’ written accuracy. As far as the fourth survey item is concerned 80% of the respondents are not satisfied with the quality of WCF that they provide to their students. Their dissatisfaction is explained by the obvious lack of good practice and their awareness that the feedback that they provide should be bettered to meet their students’ needs. While 80% of the participants are aware of their students’ writing problems. This awareness is linked to the practical issues of writing among students. Therefore, EFL writing teachers should adopt certain strategies to address these problems. Finally, in responding to the last item in this construct, 70% of the respondents disagree that they face any challenges in providing an effective WCF while dealing with their students' writing problems. This disagreement reveals their degree of success in coping with WCF issues in their classrooms. This may be explained by their familiarity with their students’ problems and the pedagogical needs of their classrooms.
Table 4.1.1.2 (3): Illustrating the second construct of the teachers’ survey
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
The second survey construct is about focusing on different text types. The respondents have different preferences in responding to the three items. For example, in responding to focusing on the learners’ different writing processes 40% of the respondents disagree while 60% of them agree. These different views reveal their different pedagogical orientations in focusing on the writing processes. Focusing on pre-writing, planning, drafting, and revisiting processes inbound with different sorts of difficulties and challenges such as the lack of knowledge among EFL teachers, the lack of pedagogical focus about these processes, and the lack of time to deal with them properly. In responding to the item related to dealing with new pieces of writing among learners, only 30% of the participants agree, 20% are undecided, and 50% do not agree. It seems that focusing on new pieces of writing is not a topic of agreement among the participants. This reveals that there is no established pedagogical tradition in dealing with the new pieces of writing in the foreign language classroom in the Tunisian tertiary educational context. In responding to the third construct item 80% of the respondents disagreed about focusing on correction over some time. This shows explicitly the lack of concern with focusing on different drafts over time. This may be due to the lack of time to focus on multi drafts over some time. In addition to the time factor, some other factors may be taken into consideration such as the lack of professional development and training in how to provide multiple drafts over time and possible lack of pedagogical raised concerns due to the lack of awareness of EFL teachers with their students writing needs.
Table 4.1.1.2 (4): Illustrating the third construct of the teachers’ survey
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
In responding to the third construct which is about error treatment, all the participants agreed on marking all the errors in their students' written texts. This concern matches the participants’ focus on all their students’ written errors in writing. More specifically, 70% of the respondents opt for marking all the major errors but not necessarily all the errors. This shows that there is a preference for prioritization which is based on the major error category. This sounds logical since EFL teachers cannot mark every single error that they come across. All these participants disagreed with marking most of the major errors or just a few. They prefer marking them all. This may be explained by the concern with correctness and the concern with accuracy. In answering the last item, all the participants disagree with marking only the errors that interfere with communicating the ideas. This implies that there are other latent preferences to consider while providing WCF apart from communicating the message or the ideas which will be investigated in depth while analyzing the fifth construct.
Table 4.1.1.2 (5): Illustrating the fourth construct of the teachers’ survey
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
The fourth substance is about the effect of WCF on different grammatical structures. In responding to the focus on grammatical and syntactic errors in WCF provision. 60% of the respondents do agree with the concern of focusing on grammatical errors and syntactic ones. This concern may be explained by EFL teachers’ concern with grammar and syntax in WCF provision. This shows that the students have serious issues with these two types of errors. However, in responding to the focus on the morphological errors 60% disagreed on focusing on this error category in WCF provision. This shows that this error category is not addressed in the WCF orientations or maybe the students do not have morphological issues in their written texts. While 100% of the respondents agreed on focusing on lexical errors on WCF provision. This conscience on focusing on the lexical errors is informed by the high concern with the lexical errors which has been highlighted in many studies in the Tunisian higher education contexts such as Zayani (2017, 2018) and Hamdi (2016). Lexical errors are committed frequently in the Tunisian tertiary level and should be therefore should be valorized in EFL teachers’ provision and the research area as well.
Table 4.1.1.2 (6): Illustrating the fifth construct of the teachers’ survey
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
In analyzing the fifth survey construct which is about error priority. The ten respondents respond differently to the different eight items. To start with, 70% of the respondents prioritize some errors over other ones. This is important and shows that the respondents have a cognitive priority scheme in approaching their students’ errors. While 30% of these participants are still undecided. This indecision implies their inability to decide on the priority condition of dealing with their students’ errors. This may reflect their lack of awareness or knowledge about which error to prioritize. Around 60% of the respondents do not adopt any criteria to evaluate the seriousness of the written errors. This may be explained by the lack of knowledge about the adopted criteria to evaluate the gravity of the errors. 50% of the respondents seem to be less severe with frequent errors. Focusing on frequency is highlighted and it shows the respondents' preference to approach errors that occur frequently which may have different implications on the teachers while providing WCF. While all the respondents massively agreed on prioritizing errors that impact pedagogical focus. The respondents hail focusing on pedagogy about WCF provision. However, they may not have got a clear understanding of the link between the pedagogical focus and prioritizing WCF. About 90% of the respondents are concerned with errors that affect their comprehensibility. This criterion has to do with the understanding of the message. Thus, it is prioritized because understanding the message is basic in dealing with written texts. Therefore, errors that hinder comprehensibility are prioritized in WCF among these respondents. 90% are in a sharp disagreement with prioritizing errors that irritate. This may be explained by their unfamiliarity with these criteria or maybe they are knowledgeable and they do not consider it practically as a criterion for consideration. However, in dealing with the acceptability criteria all the respondents agree on prioritizing errors that affect acceptability. This may be explained by the rationale behind writing itself which should be based on accepted norms and messages to be clearly understood. 60% consider the students’ level in judging the seriousness of the written errors. This is explained by the EFL teachers’ tendency to be fair in treating their students’ errors. In a sense, the seriousness of the written errors depends on the students’ level of proficiency. This allows EFL teachers to be more focused on their WCF in breadth and depth.
Table 4.1.1.2 (7): Illustrating the sixth construct of the teachers’ survey
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
In analyzing the sixth survey construct which focuses on seven different items, the respondents seem to be different in focusing on different WCF strategies. To start with, 90% of the respondents agree on using direct WCF strategies, while 60% disagree on using indirect WCF as a strategy. Opting for the direct strategy reveals EFL teachers’ preference to provide direct WCF rather than an indirect one. While in providing recast 50% of the respondents agreed and 50% disagreed. Providing reformulation by providing correct answers could be a source of debate among the respondents. However, all the respondents agreed on providing metalinguistic inferences in their students’ written utterances. This is explained by the respondents’ willingness to provide comments or pose questions about their students’ writings which could help the learners notice the gap between their actual productions and the correct form that they should produce. 70% of the respondents disagreed on using more than one WCF strategy in the same copy. This may be explained by their tendency to be consistent in their WCF strategies. Additionally, 90% of the respondents have disagreed with providing a certain strategy with a certain error type. They are not concerned with matching the WCF strategy with the nature of errors. This lack may explain the absence of harmony between the remedial efforts that they are doing and the source of the problem. This concern should be addressed in the WCF research area in the Tunisian tertiary level context to boost effectiveness. As far as electronic feedback is concerned, all the respondents disagreed on its implementation. This may be explained by the lack of tradition about using electronic feedback mode. This lack appeared obviously during the pandemic era when teaching and learning becomes nearly impossible in the Tunisian context .
Table 4.1.1.2 (8): Illustrating the seventh construct of the teachers’ survey
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
The seventh survey construct is about WCF policy. All the respondents agreed that there is no national policy that informs EFL writing tertiary teachers. This shows that they are aware of the lack of a national policy that informs their practices. Despite this lack, the participants agreed that they have a threshold knowledge about the basics of WCF provision. This knowledge originates mainly from the pre-service and in-service teaching stages. Additionally, all the respondents agree that they are not informed by recent theoretical and practical innovations about WCF. There are not informed because there is a clear lack of training and mentoring programs in Tunisia. EFL teachers make personal efforts to cater to innovation in the educational field. Additionally, they are lacking professional development in the WCF area. Therefore they all agree on their need for professional development in the WCF area. It is highly important to agree upon this need since it will inform the pedagogical intervention which is based on some professional development sessions. Additionally, all the respondents agree that there are some efforts from the ministry and educational institutions to initiate reform in the area of WCF. This is in sharp contrast with the previous answers provided by the bulk of respondents when they showed that they are not informed by the recent innovations and they lack professional development in the area of WCF.
Table 4.1.1.2 (9): Illustrating the eighth construct of the teachers’ survey
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Focusing on the eighth survey construct leads the analysis to shed light on the reasons behind WCF selection. 80% of the respondents agree on selecting WCF based on personal teaching experiences. This agreement is explained by the importance of considering the teaching experience in the instructional decisions of the EFL instructors. All the respondents disagree about considering the students’ weaknesses in selecting WCF. Not considering the students’ needs and weaknesses in WCF provision is a pedagogical weakness in itself and represents a counterproductive element in WCF pedagogy since students’ level of proficiency along with their needs should be highly taken into consideration. 80% of the participants disagree on the selection of WCF about the training experience. This may be explained by their lack of training in the area of WCF that could inform them about the WCF selection. As far as selecting the feedback based on teachers' beliefs, all the participants seem to agree on this item. Their agreement shows the importance of teachers’ beliefs in determining their decisions and practices. Their awareness of the importance of their beliefs represents an important meta-cognitive stance that makes it clear that these EFL teachers can reflect on their cognitions and beliefs. However, 80% of the respondents disagree with the impact of teachers’ prior learning as a language student on the WCF provision. The lack of concern with the role of the pre-learning impact shows the lack of knowledge about this stage. This pre-service stage represents the genesis of the cognitive structure and construction of the EFL teachers. 90% of the respondents agree on the influence of assessment on WCF provision. Assessment is valorized and hailed in approaching the way teachers react to the students’ written output. Additionally, in considering the available resources in the selection of WCF, 50% agreed and 50% disagreed. This reflects teachers’ indecision about the availability of sufficient resources to support their decisions about WCF provision. In responding to the dependence of WCF selection on the organization regulations, all the participants disagree on this item. The participants do not show concern with these regulations. This may be explained by its absence which may have serious implications on the instructional context. Finally, 70% of the respondents disagree on the impact of the pressure from their colleagues on the WCF provision. This disagreement may be explained by the teachers' lack of collaboration with their colleagues. Additionally, it may be explained by the lack of communication between the colleagues since there is no local or national scheme to apply in providing WCF.
Table 4.1.1.2 (10): Illustrating the ninth construct of the teachers’ survey
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
The ninth survey construct is made up of four items. The first item is concerned with measuring the effectiveness of the WCF on the students’ writings via the increase in written accuracy. In responding to it the participants showed their total agreement. The written accuracy is considered as an evaluation measurement of the WCF provided by the teachers. The increase in accuracy is related to the decrease in the number of errors in the written output of the students. All the respondents agreed on this point. Considering errors and focusing on them reflects a good sign of awareness and maturity in dealing with the students’ written errors. Additionally, all the participants agree on measuring WCF effectiveness about the ability of the students to self-edit their texts in measuring WCF effectiveness. Generating the ability of the students to self-edit their texts is not an easy task to do and therefore it requires a high instructional concern on the part of the EFL teachers.
Table 4.1.1.2 (11): Illustrating the tenth construct of the teachers’ survey
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
The tenth survey construct is made up of four items related to the perceptions of the effectiveness of the WCF on the teachers’ cognitions. In responding to the first item which is “To provide an effective WCF, I should become more sensitive to my students’ needs”, 60% disagreed, while 40% agreed upon this item. Approaching students’ needs deserves a deep understanding and strategic planning to approach them properly. However, the disagreement reveals the lack of this understanding among the EFL teachers who responded to this item. Additionally, 100% of the respondents agree on the item related to “developing new teaching skills about WCF concerns”. The development of new teaching skills is a natural need for the EFL instructor especially when it comes to forging their teaching skills towards a specific skill such as writing. As far as reflective thinking is concerned, 50% of the respondents agreed, while 50% disagreed about the importance of boosting their reflective practices to meet their students’ needs. These differences in responses are due to the differences in the respondents’ knowledge about being reflective in their practices. Reflective practices among EFL teachers in WCF provision should be focused on linking theories with practices. This could not be possible without informing teachers about how to link their beliefs with their practices. It is not surprising that all the respondents agreed on the item related to matching beliefs with practices as a condition of an effective WCF provision. This obvious awareness on the part of the respondents with the necessity of linking the beliefs to the practices is value-laden pedagogically and informs the researcher that these participants are practising in the light of thinking.
Table 4.1.1.2 (12): Illustrating the eleventh construct of the teachers’ survey
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
The eleventh construct is about the readiness for professional development and change and it is made up of three items. 60% of the respondents are not satisfied with the quality of their WCF provision. This disagreement implies their need to achieve more effectiveness in their future WCF practices. This sought effectiveness seems to be highly linked to professional development workshops to achieve better agency, as all the participants recommended. The raised concern with the professional development about effectiveness is explained by the participants' desire to be involved in PD training sessions to enhance their professional practices.
To conclude, the analysis of the micro-level survey led to a deeper understanding of EFL teachers’ beliefs vis-à-vis WCF. Additionally, the findings of this survey will be used along with the findings of the pre-intervention interview to investigate EFL teachers’ philosophies and approaches to WCF.
4.1.2. The analysis of the Pre-intervention Interview:
In the analysis of the pre-intervention interview, four major themes have emerged following the thematic analysis framework. These themes are as follows:
EFL teachers’ approaches to writing, EFL teachers’ awareness of their students’ writing challenges, EFL teachers’ concerns with the WCF, and EFL teachers’ professional development about WCF. These themes are explained and detailed into subthemes, categories, and subcategories as presented in the table below.
The first theme centers on EFL teachers’ approaches to writing. It is made up of two subthemes namely, writing instruction and meta-cognitive reflection of writing instruction. Each subtheme is divided into categories, subcategories, and codes (see appendix for codes illustration).
The table below illustrates the four themes related to the pre-intervention interview. Each theme will be analyzed in this analysis section.
4.1.3. The analysis of the Pre-intervention Interview:
In the analysis of the pre-intervention interview, four major themes have emerged following the thematic analysis framework. These themes are as follows:
EFL teachers’ approaches to writing, EFL teachers’ awareness of their students’ writing challenges, EFL teachers’ concerns with the WCF, and EFL teachers’ professional development about WCF. These themes are explained and detailed into subthemes, categories, and subcategories as presented in the table below.
The first theme centers on EFL teachers’ approaches to writing. It is made up of two subthemes namely, writing instruction and meta-cognitive reflection of writing instruction. Each subtheme is divided into categories, subcategories, and codes (see appendix for codes illustration).
The table below illustrates the four themes related to the pre-intervention interview. Each theme will be analyzed in this analysis section.
Table 4.1.2: The thematic mapping of the pre-intervention interview.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
4.1.2.1. EFL teachers’ approaches to writing instruction
4.1.2.1.1. Writing instruction
This subtheme is divided into two categories namely teaching pedagogy to write and planning for writing strategy.
4.1.2.1.1.1. Teaching pedagogy to writing
The interview participants hold different sets of pedagogical orientations about teaching writing. First, there are differences in the understanding of writing instruction. For example, Salim reports that « writing as a skill is a highly demanding instructional concern among English teachers. Thus, it is important to select precise tasks that fit this skill ». Additionally, Khalid highlighted the role of lecturing in the writing class.
« Lecturing in the writing class should be based on the interaction between the teacher and the learner because motivation is required in the teaching process. Students should be the center of the writing class ».
Apart from lecturing, differentiating instruction was reported by Tijani as « a highly appreciated instructional technique that might help the teacher meet the different learning styles in the classroom ». Second, teaching readiness to write should be part and parcel of the teaching process. For instance, Salma calls for « more efforts should be done on the part of the teachers to make their students feel ready to write, this is not easy I confess but feasible I guess. » Brainstorming as a pre-writing strategy was mentioned by many participants. For example, Khalida said « brainstorming is very basic. Students in the writing class cannot be ready for the writing process without helping them understand how planning for writing should be. It is psychological rather than pedagogical, ». Additionally, Ahmed approached brainstorming as « a strategy that is meant to organize the cognitive parameters before embarking on the writing process, it is just a matter of drawing the road map of the plan ». Hence, brainstorming was approached as a cornerstone in writing instruction.
All the interviewers seem to be highly critical of the over-emphasis on the product writing teaching approaches to writing because they think that focusing on them in teaching and pedagogy will lead to the marginalization of the process writing teaching approaches. As it has been stated by Salma:
« regarding the increasing need to focus on the results and outcomes, both teachers and students become more and more motivated by the product rather than the process of writing. This concern is reflected in the teaching approaches and instructional preferences».
In the same vein, Ahmed draws the attention to consider both process and product approaches to writing instruction as a means to foster students’ readiness to improve their writing abilities:
« At the tertiary level, EFL teachers are more concerned with the product rather than the process of writing. This is due to many factors in this particular instructional context. However, a critical stance should be taken in a way that teachers should find a compromise between these two approaches. It is stupid to valorize the product without considering the process. Therefore teachers are responsible for establishing an equilibrium in the teaching of writing so that students become equipped with the writing tools to be better achievers. »
4.1.2.1.1.2 Planning for writing:
The planning for the writing skill has been approached differently by the interviewers. They have agreed that instructional planning may take two different forms namely time management and topic choice. To start with, the interviewers have problematized time management about writing. Nessrine has declared that:
« It is really challenging to have a clear time frame for the writing class. Time is directly related to planning and organization, but regarding the shortage of time in a class dedicated to writing EFL teachers face time constraints in their classrooms. »
Others have associated time management with the difficulty of the writing skill itself which is described as highly demanding. Additionally, Ahmed called for framing the writing skill with the other three skills so that « planning for it won’t be an instructional burden ».
Additionally, planning for writing could be ensured through topic selection. This is addressed by Khalida who said that « the choice of the writing topic helps loads in tracing a psychological and cognitive plan for future writing activities. »
4.1.2.1.2 Meta-cognitive reflection on their writing instruction
This second subtheme is divided into two categories namely focusing on students’ written errors and managing these errors.
4.1.2.1.2.1. Focusing on students’ written errors
The interview respondents hailed the role of students’ written errors. They approached them as cornerstones in the learning process. Valorizing the role of errors and being aware of this represents a good pedagogical sign. It is important to perceive these errors as part and parcel of the learning process. As stated by Ahmed:
« With the advent of the communicative teaching approach, errors are no longer considered bad and should be voided, they are rather appreciated and welcomed because they tell a lot about the learners’ progress in the learning process ».
The concern with the errors has been extended to the focus on the nature of these errors. Some interviewers managed to draw the difference between errors and mistakes. This difference has been uttered by Hossin as follows:
« ... errors are different in the way that if the error is repeatedfrequently and then it becomes established, however when it occurs out od fatigue or stress, it is considered as a mistake ».
Being aware of the difference between errors and mistakes on the part of the teachers is a good sign of being acquainted with the students’ errors. This awareness should be reflected in their treatment of these errors.
Apart from error nature, error sources were highly considered by all the interviewers. As it was reported by Khalid:
« Every error has a source and these sources are basically psycholinguistic such as the interference from other languages ».
While Ahmed reported that « the cultural interference can be stronger than the linguistic one ». It is important to diagnose the sources of the written errors because it is not possible to understand the nature of the errors and help the students go beyond their (i+1) without a deep understanding of the causes of these errors.
4.1.2.1.2.2 anaging students’ written errors
The pre-intervention interview has revealed some information about teachers’ beliefs about the different aspects of writing that should be the focus of instruction. The focus was on different aspects such as language form (i.e. grammar, spelling, and punctuation), organization (i.e. the presentation of the different essay parts, topic sentence, supporting details, and the conclusion), and content (i.e. coherence and clarity).
These foci represented a source of debate among the interviewers. Consequently, some have focused on language while others are in favor of organization and content. To illustrate the focus on form Khalida explained that « There is no doubt that language is the most important focus in the writing class ». While Ahmed raised the concern with the content by saying that « my focus in writing centers on familiarizing the students about the techniques and requirements of writing an argumentative essay for example. »
These obvious differences in the views stem from the teachers’ differences in approaching the role of grammar in writing instruction. Some teachers put it clearly that grammar should be taught through teaching writing. While others such as Sami suggested « mini grammar lessons should be delivered through focusing on the most common errors ». Sana explained that « focusing on grammar will marginalize main issues about writing. » There is a fear of changing the class into a grammar lesson which may affect teachers’ and learners’ concerns with main writing issues. All teachers agreed upon the importance of focusing on the content of the writing in terms of the organization of the ideas, generation of arguments, the connection between sentences and paragraphs.
The concern with prioritizing concerns in writing instruction has been highlighted by two interviewers who seem to hold a high degree of cognitive reflection. For example, Samir said
« Instruction should be associated with teachers’ choices and choices are directly linked with the priority matter. What I mean by priority is the superiority of some concerns over others. In writing classes, teachers should be fully aware of what to prioritize. Many factors determine their choices such as the writing task, the time, and the students’ level ».
To conclude the interviewers have different beliefs concerning writing instruction. This concern is the focus of the first theme in the pre-intervention interview.
4.1.2.2 EFL teachers’ awarness of their students’ writing challenges and possible solutions to Students’ writing challenges
The second theme focuses on EFL teachers’ awarness of their students’ writing challenges and possible solutions. The three subthemes are the challenges, the nature of these challenges and the solutions.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 4.1.2.2.1: Internal Reasons that Cause Difficulties in Writing from the
Perspective of Tunisian EFL teachers.
According to the responses of the pre-intervention interview, have confirmed that the lack of writing practices in L1 and L2 was one of the reasons for the difficulties in students’ writing. Three teachers stated that students are very lazy in practicing writing. For example, Ahmed stated that
« Students are very reluctant with the writing skill. Most Tunisian students hate writing either in the first language or second language ».
The reason behind this lack of writing may be explained by the lack of encouragement to write. Additionally, most of the writing tasks are based on systematic memorization of knowledge. The exam system at the university level discourages students to write regarding the huge content and a large number of students.
Another factor was the lack of confidence and motivation among the students. All the teachers agreed that the students lack confidence when they are asked to write. This affects their motivation negatively. Khalid said
« Most students lack self-confidence in writing because they fear the failure of achievement and the lack of success ».
This feeling of fear is demotivating for the learners and affects their psychological affective filter negatively. For example, Houssin says that
« generally students keep saying that their level in writing is very bad and they cannot produce a good piece of writing ».
Additionally, the lack of reading habits in L1 and L2 may be another important factor that inhibits learners’ writing abilities. For example, Serrah said, « Most of the students do not read because they are not encouraged to do so ». Consequently, they grow unaware of the importance of reading. This may be explained by the students’ laziness to read especially with the widespread invasion of technology. Reading is a basic skill and should be reconsidered in the learning process and valorized as a writing booster. Reading has been declared to be considered as a pre-requisite to writing skill development. Two of the teachers highlighted the importance of developing a habit of reading in L1 that may be transferred to the field of L2 reading.
Apart from the internal causes, there are some external issues to consider. These factors are related to previous learning experiences in public schools and at the university.
First, the interview unveils the teachers’ perceptions about the secondary educational system in Tunisia. Some of them claimed that « the educational system does not encourage students to be autonomous and active agents ». Others go a step further and said that « before the exam, most of the teachers ask their students to memorize some pre-selected questions to be answered in the exam ». This habit affected the students’ creative competence to be autonomous and independent. Additionally, Ibrahim highlighted « the lack of a national instructional framework that builds upon the students natural order of their skills ». Therefore, it is important to focus on listening to speak and reading to write. Writing as a skill should not be perceived separately in the learning process.
Second, other reasons cause difficulties with writing which are related to the past learning experience in higher education. The teachers highlighted the challenges facing the students during the first two years at the university. These challenges differ from one English department to another. For example, Sawsan illustrated these challenges as «Absenteeism represents a major problem among students at the university level. The absence leads to the discontinuity of the processing of the input. Despite the efforts of the teachers, students are not motivated to attend the writing classes ».
Additionally, Hichem criticizes the absence of a writing program in the second year for English students for about six years in his department by saying « English major students study academic writing in their first year and then they skip writing in the second year, so there is no curriculum about writing and then they studied writing in the third year. This is highly problematic since there is no continuum of the writing process. Although the students write in different subjects such as literature, civilization, history, etc ; they have to write essays but they are not taught writing in particular and this is the point that had to be discussed why is there such an interruption. This may be explained by the shortage of time since the second year students are introduced to many subjects to study and this undermines the status of writing and I guess it should be taught again and one of the important things to rely on his writing and with such interruption students come back to the third year as if they did not study writing before ».
Students become the victim of the imposed policy dictated by the institution. Therefore, writing should be more focused and addressed in the syllabus. Different departments have different sorts of issues concerning writing and it is important to investigate them systematically to understand them and think about solutions.
4.1.2.2.2 The nature of essay writing problems
The analysis of the interview unveils three major essay writing issues which are: Academic vocabulary, difficulty with clarity and with developing an argument, and problems with cohesion and coherence.
First, the problems with the academic vocabulary are defined by Ahmed as «difficulty with finding the appropriate vocabulary that expresses or conveys the intended meaning to the reader ». Students face this issue of having a problem with finding out the appropriate vocabulary while writing. This may be explained by the lack of reading and therefore the limited knowledge of the students. Khalida says that « students do not know the difference between spoken and written languages ».
This is explained by Karim as « the approach to vocabulary instruction is haphazard and lacks precision and good planning ». This is exactly what Al-Akloby (2001) said about the lack of effective strategies that may lead to the absence of good command of advanced vocabulary that helps students construct their arguments. The teacher must make sure that students understand how to learn and how to use the academic vocabulary in the writing process properly.
The second difficulty with language represents another challenge in students’ writing. When asking teachers about the most prominent types of language issues in their students ‘ writing the majority have opted for grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Salma « students are struggling with their language when they write in English. They do not know the grammar rules. » This may be explained by different reasons. First, most of the methods of teaching grammar focus mainly on theoretical knowledge rather than the ability to implement it. Second, writing needs to be practiced and cannot be just remembered.
Fawzi highlighted the students' issue with punctuation by saying critically: « Apart from knowing that the full stop and the question mark are at the end of the sentence, the students generally do not know how to use comma, colon, and semi-colon correctly when writing” Punctuation-related difficulties may be caused by two reasons. First, punctuation is not an important part of writing assessment. Second, the focus of writing instruction does not focus on punctuation rules.
Developing an argument when writing in English was considered as a third difficulty. « Arguing your position in the writing text represents a hardship for the students » as stated by Khalida. Additionally, some other teachers consider the justification of the argument is highly problematic because the use of rhetorical devices about logic and thinking is almost ignored. For example, Ahmed explains « students lack the explicit instruction to understand the argumentative conceit of the text and lack the cultural and rhetorical structures that allow them to write accurately». Additionally, writing an effective argument was reported by Ali to be another issue to consider « managing to opt for the adequate argument about other arguments in the essay writing deserves a certain degree of critical thinking skills. The inability of thinking critically is problematic in building a solid and logical argument in writing ».
This may be explained by the inadequacies of the Tunisian educational system that encourages the memorization of information and having high grades while ignoring the role of critical thinking as a basic component in learning. Additionally, the students’ voices are bearly heard in the university educational system. In other words, students are passive receivers of knowledge and have no say.
To overcome these different challenges, some solutions should be found. These possible solutions will be the focus of the next analysis part of these two.
The teachers reported the coherence writing problems that they encounter in their students’ writings such as writing the introduction, the topic sentences, relating the topic sentences writing about one main idea only in each paragraph, developing paragraphs, writing concluding sentences, and writing the conclusion.
For example, Hassen said:
« writing coherently is a problematic area in students’ writing since they cannot write smoothly ».
Additionally, Khalid said:
« most of the time there is no matching between the topic sentence and the supporting details. »
This lack of coherence may be explained by the quantitative tendency of writing many lines and paragraphs rather than concise and precise texts. Moreover, some teachers complained about the sudden transition between ideas because the arguments are loose and not organized. Safa presented some reasons for this by saying:
« The problem with coherence dates back to the lack of planning, the ignorance of a strategy for producing unified writing, and the absence of instruction about writing coherently. »
Writing cohesively is another difficulty in essay writing. Teachers have identified different areas of concern such as substitution, ellipsis, and reference ties. For example, Mohammed attributed these writing problems to the student's proficiency level and he said « our students cannot write cohesively because they do not know what cohesion means. »
Additionally, Mohssen draws attention to two other different problems in his students’ use of cohesive ties:
« There are two main problems namely the overuse of some cohesive devices and the existing gap between theory and practice. »
There is some recommendation of teaching cohesion as a separate course in the writing class.
This issue with cohesion may be explained by the cultural difference between the Arabic language and the English language. These two different linguistic systems have different cohesion systems therefore the Tunisian students face challenges in writing in English. Therefore, teaching with a reference to the last acquired languages may be a good solution to avoid any writing problems.
4.1.2.2.3 . Possible solutions
The analysis of the pre-intervention interview has revealed three different areas of solutions as illustrated in the figure below.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 4.1.2.2.3.: Illustrating the solutions to overcome the writing challenges.
First, the students’ related solutions are illustrated in Hedi’s quote as follows “Collaboration among students should be fostered and they have to be more concerned with the nature of their writing issues and accuracy shackles. Their intrinsic concern will ignite their motivation to think positively about their future writing success.”
So, by raising students’ motivation and involvement they will be empowered to solve the writing problems. Furthermore, communication among students and exchanging their writing was highlighted by two teachers as a solution to raise their noticing to the writing problems through peer-correction and cooperative efforts. Additionally, all the teachers agreed on the importance of fostering reading among the students as a solution to enrich their lexical and critical thinking skills. For instance, Khalid highlighted this point by saying:
“before talking about any practical solutions, students should read first of all. Reading is the best solution for their writing problems”.
Second, Teachers mentioned different activities to implement as a solution to the writing problems. These activities are outlining, redrafting, and discussing students’ errors. Although there is a consensus about the effectiveness of these teaching activities, the teachers’ implemented techniques are different. For outlining Amel said:
« it is very useful not only for the students but also for me. It helps in organizing the ideas, focusing on the main themes and avoiding confusion ». Khalid highlighted the importance of focusing on common errors by saying « students’ common writing errors are essential in helping students remember their errors, especially for those who do not read teachers’ feedback. »
Other teachers have highlighted the pivotal role of multiple drafts in improving students’ written proficiency Fatma reported « writing the thing many times is the only way to do it well ». Eight teachers have agreed upon multiple -drafts as a good solution for the learners to be more accurate and well structured. They see that by re-drafting the students will have more room for editing and refining the pieces of writing. However, one teacher called for combining process and product approaches to writing.
The third solution is related to the curriculum. There are different views in this respect. To start with, two teachers seem to be highly critical of the poor content of the curriculum for English major students and the lack of sufficient time dedicated for the writing class. Additionally, some other teachers raised the issue of the absence of matching between students’ needs and the content of the course. Therefore there is a call to rethink the curriculum in line with the actual needs. Another voice was heard calling for “the integration of the recently published works in the world of academia within the foreign language classroom becomes a necessity in the 21st century”. Thus, linking theory to practice is an important focal point and it deserves a lot of effort, awareness, and commitment.
4.1.2.3 EFL teachers’ concerns with the WCF
The third theme is about EFL teachers’ concerns with the WCF. It is made up of three subthemes namely the importance of providing WCF, the nature of EFL teachers’ WCF, and the effectiveness of WCF.
4.1.2.3.1 The importance of providing WCF
The analysis of the pre-intervention interview highlighted two dimensions to consider in approaching the importance of the WCF.
4.1.2.3.1.1. For the learner
The first dimension is related to the learners. This category is subdivided into three subcategories. First, three teachers highlighted the importance of WCF in increasing students’ written accuracy. For example, Achraf said, « My students’ correctness increases when they receive my WCF. I can see its impact on their progress ».
Second, Ahmed highlighted the impact of writing on the students’ written fluency:
« It is not common to speak about written fluency because fluency is linked most of the time with speaking. However, if I would explain fluency in writing I would say the ability of the students to write smoothly and without any hesitations. In my personal view, this would not happen without a good quality of WCF. »
Fluency in writing is approached within accuracy as a measurement of WCF effectiveness. This consideration foregrounds its importance for the EFL learners from the perspective of the EFL teachers. Apart from this, the importance of feedback is mirrored in the ability of the students to notice the gap between their actual written productions and the target form that they should produce. This is reported in Kalida’s quote:
« I think that the importance of the feedback should be approached in the way it helps students notice the difference between what they write and what they should write. ».
Raising the students' attention to the correct target forms is an important role played by the WCF in the educational system. Therefore, focusing on the teachers as WCF providers is of paramount importance. This concern will be the focus of the next analysis section.
4.1.2.3.1.2 For the teacher
The second dimension is related to the importance of WCF to the EFL teachers. It is subdivided into three sub-categories. First, WCF helps teachers manage their students’ errors. As it was reported by Kalthoum:
« I provide WCF because I want to learn more about how to approach my students’ mistakes in writing. It is thanks to this feedback that I become closer to my students’ challenges ».
Additionally, some other teachers highlighted the importance of providing WCF to be more empathetic and to understand their students’ writing problems to find better instructional solutions. There is a general agreement on the importance of providing WCF that helps students to self-edit their works.
For example, Mohssen said:
« I give WCF only to those students who ask for my feedback. In other words, I give my concern to those who are concerned with the feedback, I do not want to lose my time and effort so that the students do not care about it. This is how I approach the importance of my feedback because there should be a mutual concern from both sides, I mean the teacher and the students »
Additionally, Kalthoum has a different view from Mohssen since she perceives WCF as « a mirror that reflects what is going on in the teachers’ heads. The teachers’ feedback is very important in the sense that it tells the students about their teachers’ preferences about evaluating their written assignments. »
It was reported by Mohamed that:
« looking beyond WCF is highly recommended because our duty as English teachers in the Tunisian university is to help our students be able to self-correct their mistakes. I know that this is challenging but we have to be aware of this. Our students should be empowered to reflect on their assignments ».
This awareness encapsulates the teacher’s concern with the role of the WCF in their classrooms. Teachers’ concern reflects their knowledge about WCF purposes and importance. Also investigating the nature of EFL teachers' WCF can unveil more about their knowledge. Therefore the next subtheme will focus on the nature of teachers’ WCF.
4.1.2.3.2 The nature of EFL teachers’ WCF
This subtheme is subdivided into two categories mainly focusing on errors in WCF and EFL teachers' WCF preferences.
4.1.2.3.2.1 . Focusing on errors in WCF
The first category is subdivided into four different subthemes (error types, error treatment, error classification, and error gravity). To start with, teachers have different foci on the written error types while providing WCF. For example, Mohammed opted for mechanics and he explains as follows:
« Mechanics may include paragraphing for example, how to introduce a topic in the introductory part, how to set your position if you are writing an argumentative essay, that is you should include a statement where you can introduce your color, that is
whether you are in favor or you are against. Secondly, the paragraphing, how will you support that opinion, are you going to use for example arguments in favor or to refute some views. If you have an idea to write an outline for an introduction or a cental paragraph or a concluding paragraph this is what I mean by mechanics, that is you know beforehand what type of product to finish at the end .”
Others have shown interest in form errors which have been described as « the crisis of the Tunisian students » by Salwa. The majority of the teachers approach this type of error in their WCF and it was explained by Karim that « most of the writing teachers use writing as a pretext to test their students’ language proficiency ».
Teachers’ differences in highlighting these different error types reflect their different preferences in the treatment of these errors. This is the focus of the second subtheme.
It is important to look for the errors in the writings of the students. However, it is much more important is how to treat these errors effectively.
All teachers agreed that the treatment of their students’ errors is conditioned by the errors types. Ahmed highlighted a problematic area in treating the written errors as follows:
« I think that the problem is not with which error to treat but with how to treat it? I do believe that the dilemma stems from teachers’ bewilderment while deciding about this kind of treatment ».
The teachers showed a great deal of engagement and awareness in responding to the interview questions about error treatment to the extent that Khalida perceived herself as « a doctor rather than simply an instructor ».
Highlighting EFL teachers’ perceptions of their roles as feedback providers along with their self-image is a good point to raise to understand their cognition properly.
The third subcategory is about error classification. The concern of this part of the analysis is not on just classifying errors but also on linking error classification to WCF provision. It seems that not all students are concerned with classifying errors such as Howwin who claimed that « for me errors are all equal and they should be treated in the same way. I give due attention to language errors ».
However, some other teachers managed to provide a clear distinction between different error types such as mistakes versus errors, mistakes versus errors, treatable versus untreatable, local versus global. These dichotomies highlighted teachers’ concern with classifying their students’ errors before any WCF intervention. For example, Ali said:
« it is not fair to judge student’s errors as sin while some errors are simply out of their hands and should not be considered ».
In this respect, Ali is pointing at the difference between errors and mistakes, since the latter is not a competence problem but it is rather a performance one.
By the same token, Hossin highlighted the difference between treatable and non- treatable errors. He said:
« It is tricky to know where to draw the red line because some errors are part of the learners’ linguistic system and they should not be treated or corrected ».
Additionally, Kalthoum shed light on the difference between local and global errors by saying:
« Some errors affect the surface level of the sentence while other ones affect deeper structures, I reflect most of the time on the deep level ».
This quote goes with the existing local and global dichotomy. Local errors are related to language errors while global errors refer to the content. Therefore, Kalthoum prefers to focus on content rather than language form in her WCF provision.
This focus on error classification paves the way to approach error gravity concerns in teachers’ interviews. This is the focus of the fourth subcategory. Hence, EFL teachers had different approaches and conceptions about error gravity. Some questioned the seriousness of the errors, while others criticized the criteria to be implemented in opting for which error to consider as serious. However, other teachers seem to be indifferent vis-à-vis this concern. To illustrate:
Ahmed said: “ which error to highlight is the core of the whole matter ”. Additionally, Kalthoum said, “the problem is beyond highlighting errors, but it is tightly linked to the criteria of these errors choice”. These criteria were highlighted in the literature and they are frequency, irritation, comprehensibility, acceptability, and pedagogical focus.
All teachers highlighted only frequency and comprehensibility, while there is no reference to the other criteria. However, the other teachers showed their indifference in considering any criterion.
This showed the lack of concern and knowledge about the existing criteria of error gravity selection. This pedagogical gap in teachers’ knowledge should be focused on and addressed in the Tunisian context.
4.1.2.3.2.2 EFL teachers' WCF preferences
The second category is about EFL teachers' WCF preferences and is subdivided into five subcategories namely WCF (type, method, depth, frequency, and choices). These five areas will be analyzed in this section.
First, teachers’ talked about two main types of WCF namely direct and indirect. Two of them are in favor of indirect while the eight others are in favor of the direct type.
For example, Houssin said that” it is better to just highlight the errors through circling the errors or just write the symbol of the error”. The indirect modality of WCF is easier for the teachers and it is more practical since the errors will be just highlighted to the student. However, the proponents of the direct WCF consider the indirect WCF as insufficient and called for overtness and directness in WCF that may help students know their corrected errors properly. In this respect, Mohammed said:
” The direct WCF is the most helpful method to adopt because the students’ get easily the corrected form and manage to not repeat it.”
Second, as far as the WCF method is concerned the majority of the teachers do not have a specific and clear method to implement except for one teacher who highlighted the importance of “following a strategy in WCF. My strategy focuses on asking students to reflect on each others’ writings before I can make any sort of intervention. I like to treat different errors with different WCF strategies. It is so because there should be compatibility between the inequality of the errors and the WCF strategy to be used for remediation”.
The obvious lack of knowledge of the WCF methodology reflects the existing gap in teachers’ pedagogical focus. It seems that EFL teachers are not familiar or informed with implementing WCF methods in their practices. Some of them think that WCF is simply putting some red ink on the students’ writing assignments.
Third, in approaching the depth of the WCF teachers seem to be aware of the process of moving from the surface level of the errors to their deep level. This is expressed as follows:
“There are different levels in the WCF. EFL teachers should move smoothly from the surface level to the deep level”.
However, some critical voices were heard asking about the methodology of this move, how to move to this deep level and how to measure this depth?
Fourth, the WCF frequency represents another dimension to consider in analyzing the teachers’ responses. Teachers' WCF is not very frequent and it seems that they are challenging to provide it. This is articulated by Mohammed as follows :
“Due to the classroom time constraints, I cannot provide WCF in every session.” Therefore, the shortage of time is problematic and hinders the abundance of WCF in class.
The fifth point to consider is WCF choices. These choices are informed by the teachers’ philosophical orientations, past learning experiences, and past teaching experiences. This is uttered by Hossin when he says:
“I think that the teacher is conditioned by many factors while choosing WCF.”
EFL teachers’ choices unveil their cognition and it is a fertile area of investigation in research that is tightly linked to the effectiveness research area. This will be the focus of the next analysis section.
4.1.2.3.3 EFL teachers’ WCF effectiveness
The third subtheme is subdivided into two categories namely: variables affecting EFL teachers' WCF decisions and measuring the quality of EFL teachers’ WCF.
There are different variables affecting teachers’ WCF decisions. According to the interview participants, there are three subcategories namely pedagogical factors, learners’ proficiency level, and teachers’ teaching experience. As far as the pedagogical factors are concerned, the teachers highlighted the role of the instructional requirements in their WCF decisions. For example, Ahmed said:
“When I teach essay genre my WCF focus will be directed to the focus of my classroom teaching”.
Additionally, learners’ proficiency level was highlighted as another factor that affects teachers’ WCF decisions. There is a concern with fairness measures in dealing with students’ writings. Students make different errors according to their proficiency level. Also, teachers’ past learning experience can affect their decisions since resorting to an experiential learning experience is highly important because teachers’ decisions are greatly shaped by their past experiences. For example, Hedi said:
“ I am deeply affected by my teachers when I was a student and they are a good example to follow in my teaching and corrective feedback.”
So EFL teachers' decisions are affected differently and by different sources. To understand teachers’ effectiveness, it is not enough to focus on these factors but it is also very important to measure the quality of EFL teachers’ WCF which is the focus of the next category which is subdivided into three subcategories namely measuring its impact on the learners’ proficiency, the learners’ motivation and the teachers’ self-motivation to provide future WCF.
First, measuring EFL teachers’ quality through looking at its impact on students’ written proficiency was mentioned by seven teachers in responding to the interview. These teachers linked the quality of EFL teachers’ feedback to the students’ outcomes as it was said by Kalthoum that:
“students’ improvement in the writing proficiency is the only way to know about the quality of the teachers’ feedback”.
However, it seems that it is not the only way since the teachers drew attention to learners’ motivation as another measure of teachers’ good quality. For example, Sami claimed sarcastically that:
“We are not dealing with robots our students can be good writers but without motivation, which does not make any sense.”
Motivating students to love writing and to write confidently is a good sign of effective teaching and therefore the WCF should be tailored to achieve these goals without neglecting the importance of motivating students in motivating the teachers themselves. This has been focused on by Sami who said: “When I see my students motivated to receive my WCF on their writings, I feel myself motivated to provide more feedback in the future”.
Therefore, measuring the effectiveness of the EFL teachers’ feedback was approached differently by the interview teachers. This showed that effectiveness could be seen on different levels and it affects not only the learners but also the teachers.
4.1.2.4. EFL teachers’ professional development about WCF
This theme is subdivided into two subthemes namely 1) EFL teachers’ PD needs and challenges and 2) PD activities and implications.
4.1.2.4.1 EFL teachers’ PD needs and challenges
The first subtheme focuses on the need for PD and the challenges. The teachers expressed their needs differently and they can be classified into personal and academic needs. To illustrate Khalida said: “I need PD because I want to improve myself as a tutor”. Additionally, Mohammed said: “I believe that PD should be considered as an academic need and the institutions should encourage and organize PD properly to enhance professionalism”. While other teachers criticized the clear absence of PD at the university level in Tunisia which makes the need for it stronger. This lack of institutional support represents a real challenge. Other challenges are illustrated by the teachers such as the lack of policy support, the lack of motivation, and the lack of time. The teachers seem to be aware of these challenges which are intertwined together to make a big challenge against the implementation of PD at the tertiary level in Tunisia.
4.1.2.4.2 PD activities and implications
The second subtheme is about the TPD activities and implications. To start with There are two different types of TPD activities. The individual activities such as reading and doing research while the collaborative activities are linked to attending seminars, conferences, attending talks and discussions, and participating in action research. The teachers in the interview manage to mention all these different types of activities except for action research. This reflects their lack of knowledge about it and the lack of opportunities for action research in general and participatory action research in particular. When asking them about their willingness to take part in a PAR, they all agreed without a single hesitation.
TPD impacts teachers’ beliefs, practices, and students’ educational effectiveness. First, as is reported by Kalthoum ,
” The first dimension that is affected by any TPD program is teachers’ views and perceptions about the world ”.
It is not surprising that teachers’ beliefs are colored by any PD that they take part in. Additionally, teachers’ beliefs inform their practices. Therefore, the lack of a clear set of mind will lead to a clear set of practices. This equation has been proved by Khalid:
“I want to be engaged in PD activities because my practice could not be forged if my understanding is limited. PD plays a pivotal role in shaping teachers’ cognition and practices.”
Apart from TPD's impact on EFL teachers, it may impact students’ educational effectiveness. Sami said:
“I think that PD is meant to target both teachers and students. I ask this question: it is a PD for what and whom? Its purpose is to improve teachers’ practices to enhance learning and help learners be better achievers”.
To conclude, the analysis of the four themes related to the pre-intervention interview has led to a deeper understanding of the teachers’ beliefs and approaches about teaching writing, their knowledge about the challenges faced by their learners in writing, the approaches in WCF, and their professional development needs and benefits. This collected information will be of good use in helping the researcher understand the existing gaps that should be addressed in the pedagogical intervention. It is worth noting that the analysis of both the survey and the interview has led to unveiling the nature of EFL teachers’ knowledge and beliefs. So, investigating how they provide WCF on their students’ assignments will lead to a deeper focus and will help in investigating the relationship between their beliefs and practices.
4.1.3 EFL teachers' WCF analysis
Analyzing third-year students’ first term written exams was done in the preintervention stage. This is meant to investigate EFL teachers’ practices and to understand the nature of the relationship between their beliefs and practices.
I collected 30 copies from the ten participants with an average of three papers from each one. These papers are the exams of their third-year student in the first semester. I analyzed 112 WCF actions in these papers, the frequencies, and percentages of the categories of WCF actions are presented in the table below.
Table 4.1.3 (1): Illustrating EFL techers WCF practices
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
This Table illustrates teachers’ WCF practices. The focus was on two main concerns, first, the focus of WCF is about language form, vocabulary, mechanics, organization, and content and the second is about the type of WCF which is about direct and indirect types.
Generally speaking, EFL teachers focus mostly on language form which represents 73%, then organization 15%, and vocabulary 9%. Mechanics 1% and content 2% are bearly focused in their WCF provision. The chart below illustrates the distribution of error focus by EFL teachers in WCF provision.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 4.1.3 (1): Illustrating EFL teachers’ WCF focus
In an attempt to zero on in the language form errors which take the lion’s share in teachers’ WCF focus, we can find the following distribution of focus as it is depicted in the following chart.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 4.1.3 (2): Illustrating the distribution of WCF focus on language form errors
Therefore, the grammatical errors are highly considered 89%, the morphological errors take 10% of focus, and the lexical errors 1% while the syntactic errors are not considered. There seems to be a lack of correspondence between teachers ‘beliefs and actual practices. Thus, in responding to the survey item related to WCF focus 60% of the ten teachers agreed on focusing on grammatical and syntactic errors, and 100% focused on lexical errors in their WCF provision. There is a misalignment in approaching Lexical and syntactic error types in teachers’ beliefs and practices. This reflects that there is an inconsistency in linking theory to practice in WCF among EFL teachers. The absence of focus on syntactic errors despite the high concern with it in the survey response highlights the existence of the contrast between what is said and what is done.
Additionally, the excessive focus on grammar at the expense of the other language forms reflects the teachers’ concern with grammatical correctness since grammar is problematic in students’ writing and it deserves attention in teachers’ WCF.
Additionally, concerning the type of WCF 12.5% of the errors are corrected through using the direct WCF type, and 87.5% are in the indirect type.
To be more focused on the analysis of the EFL teachers’ WCF actions, I will focus on every teacher to come up with more accurate findings of the existing relationship between their beliefs and practices. This is illustrated in the table below.
Table 4.1.3 (2): The distribution of WCF actions for each teacher
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
First, the table showed that not all the teachers managed to provide WCF on the students’ papers. Only seven teachers did while the three others have just given the mark without pouring a single drop of ink on their students’ written output. However, these three teachers showed their motivation to highlight their students’ written errors in both the interview and the survey and they hailed the use of direct WCF type. This is a clear example of misalignment between teachers’ beliefs and practices. Second, the errors which are focused on by the teachers may be classified into local and global errors. The local errors cover organization and content and they represent 17% of the total highlighted errors, while global errors are about language forms, vocabulary, and mechanics and they represent 83%. However, all ten teachers expressed their total agreement in the survey for providing WCF on local aspects and they were less positive about the global aspect.
For example, Kalthoum insisted in the interview on dealing with the local errors and she described them as “deep level of the errors” while she disregarded global errors. In practice, she neither focused on local nor on global error types. Additionally, Khalida and Ahmed showed their motivation to focus mainly on vocabulary and mechanics in the interview, while in their practices Khalida’s WCF contains 6.66% of the focus on these above-mentioned errors and for Ahmed, the focus is 11.11%. While Mohamed focused on local aspects rather than global ones in the interview, he showed his concern with the global errors in his practice by 40.2%.
Moreover, as far as the type of WCF is concerned, the teachers used indirect WCF more frequently (87,5%) than the direct one (14%). This seems to be in sharp contrast with the survey findings since teachers opt for the direct WCF strategy (72,3%) rather than the indirect one. The dichotomy exists in the interview data as well since the majority of teachers preferred the direct WCF strategy. For example, Mohamed said in the interview response:
” The direct WCF is the most helpful method to adopt because the students’ get easily the corrected form and manage to not repeat it.” While in his practice (16%) of his WCF is indirect while the direct WCF is only (2%). However, alignment is obvious in some teachers’ practices concerning the use of different strategies in the same piece of writing. In responding to the survey (56,12%) of the respondents agreed on this point. In practice, Ahmed, Mohamed, Khalid, Sami, Khalida, and Safa linked direct and indirect types in their WCF provision.
In practice, teachers used different types of indirect WCF as it is presented in the chart below.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
EFL teachers' Indirect WCF types
Figure 4.1.3 (3): EFL teachers’ Indirect WCF types
The EFL teachers’ WCF performance unveiled three different indirect types namely underlining or circling errors without correcting them, providing indirect comments without correcting 8%, and indicating the errors’ types with the help of codes 21%. These highlighted indirect WCF types align with what is mentioned by the teachers’ in the interview that they use different indirect strategies.
It is worth noting that both types of WCF were used by the seven teachers in all five error categories. However, their practices did not correlate with the research literature recommendations. Ferris (2006) suggested that direct feedback should target untreatable errors such as lexical ones, whereas indirect feedback should be given to treatable errors such as tenses and subject-verb agreement. In the current research, grammatical errors, which were considered to be treatable, were given direct WCF. In contrast, lexical errors, which are considered untreatable, were given indirect WCF by three teachers.
This reflects that teachers are not aware of the required type of WCF for each error category. Additionally, the misalignment between teachers’ beliefs and practices reflects the incongruity between thinking and doing, and therefore beliefs and practices.
This may be attributed to the teachers’ lack of training about WCF which was confirmed in both the survey and the interview conducted with them. Therefore, they are so motivated to take part in this study as participants in the action research which took the form of professional development training. The next analysis section will focus on the intervention stage.
4.2. The post-intervention stage
In this stage of analysis I focused on the focused group discussion of the four training sessions, the EFL teachers’ reflective journals and the post intervention interview qualitatively. While, I approached the students’ edit logs quantitatively. This section of analysis is supposed to answer the following three research questions. What is the impact of the intervention on EFL/ESL teachers’ cognitions and practices aboutWCF? , What is the impact of the intervention on EFL/ESL learners' writing development? And, What is the proposed WCF methodology that should be implemented in the future in the tertiary Tunisian context?
4.2.1. The Qualitative analysis
I applied the thematic analysis on the data driven from the focused group discussion, the EFL teachers’ reflective journals and the post intervention interview.
The generated themes are as follow:
4.2.1.1 The impact of the PI on EFL teachers’ perceptions about their beliefs and practices
To start with, the first theme which is about the impact of PI on EFL teachers’ cognition is subdivided into three subthemes namely their cognition about the instructional approaches to writing, their cognition about approaches to WCF provision and their cognition about learners’ roles in the corrective feedback process. Each subtheme is subdivided into categories and subcategories. As it is shown in the table below.
Table 4.3.1: The thematic mapping of the first theme
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
The first subtheme is about the impact of teachers’ cognition about the approaches to writing instruction. The shift in the participants’ cognition was depicted differently during and after the intervention. For example, all the teachers raised this concern in the reflective journals and they expressed it diffrently. Ahmed said that “I changed in my perceptions and conceptions. Things become different to me after the training and I can say that I am glad that I can notice this change”.while for Khalida”: I have a bird view about writitng instruction, my classroom is more organized and I can deal easily with my students writing”. Moreover, during the focus group discussions the participants showed their satisfaction about the development that they witnessed in their approaches to writitng instruction. Kalthoum expressed that in the second training session as follows:
“I am more concerned with the purpose of feedback and its benefits on my students’ writitng. I am focusing on writitng in my teaching class and I changed my approaches. I highlighted the errors of my students and classified them into local and global, now my students are familiar with the difference after introducing the dynamic framework”.
In the same vein, Sami highlighted the following:
“My understanding of the instructional tools of writitng has been changed. My knowledge as a teacher has evolved and this is thanks to the integration of the principles of the training sessions. I am more motivated and acknowledged to teach writing with a clear pedagogical frame in my mind. I am able now to overcome some issues related to time and multiple drafts.”
Additionally, in the post-intervention interview, in responding to the third question related to How does the PD training affect teachers’cognition and understanding of WCF approaches and pedagogy?
Nine participants have agreed on the positive impact of the intervention on their cognition, for example, Hedi confessed that: “
“These sessions helped me as a practitioner to shape new approached and to sharpen my vision vis-à-vis the way how to provide feedback in my class. I understand well now how to think about my students’ errors and my classroom management. My beliefs has changed vis-à-vis WCF pedgogy, I admitt that.”
Exect of one participant namely khalida who seems to be unsatified by the training sessions and she does not show any concern with the impact of the intervention of her cognition since she could not be able to attend all the sessions regarding her contamination with covid-19 virus.
The differences in EFL teachers’ views about the impact of the PI on their writing instruction is extended to cover the second subtheme which is about teachers’ cognition about the approaches to WCF provision which is subdivided into two categories namely the feasibility of the intervention implementation and the new pedagogical orientations.
Concerning the feasibility of the intervention implementation, the participants shared different views showing their concern with the alternative framework presented during the PD sessions.
Following the presentation of the four seminars , reports from all 10 participants indicated that there was an increase of their knowledge and that their beliefs regarding the provision of WCF. Additionally, their concerns with the new methodology of WCF represents a great source of motivation among them. In the first workshop Samir showed his appreciation with the new proposed WCF framework saying:
“I cannot agree more with the dynamic model of WCF just because it reminded me with the proposed national reform framework presented by the British Counsil when I used to work in the EU ten years ago. This framework was very sussessful and helped the teachers understand their students”.
During the workshops I attempted to explain the main points related to WCF as they were scketched in the literature which included: 1) the underpinning theories of WCF, 2) requirements and measures to consider, 3) the power of WCF as a mediator between teacers and learners, 4) The role of new pedagogies in shaping new orientations in educational growth, 5) The importance of contunual development among teachers to cope with novelties in WCF field. Before presenting the elements of my framework, I reminded the participants of the existing theoretical and practical challenges as they were depicted in the preintervention phase. This phase is important to raise the participants’ engagement and motivation to take part in the study and to implement the new pedagogical alternative in theeir classes.
This is confirmed by the majority of the participants in answering the fourth question in the post intervention interview:” Do you think that this proposed framework manages well to address the practical lacunas of the WCF provision at the tertiary Tunisian level such as (timing, focus, target errors, strategy...)?”
Inspite of the assessibility of the implementation of the proposed framework by many participants, others find it challenging such as Mohammed who said:
“Theoretically, yes . However practically, I faced many challenges in its classroom implementation. But, I see that one of the most problematic issue addressed by this framewok is the WCF strategy that should be used in relation to the students’ error category. It is good to address the gaps that our students and teachers suffer from at the tertiary Tunisian level.”
Additionally, the feasibility of the implementation was sketched throught the decrease in a number of pre-existing issues in the pre-intervention stage such as time constraints. For example in the reflective journals many participants have highlighted the role of the new alternative framework in dealing with the time issue because one of the pedagogical principles in this instructional framework is providing timely feedback. This is expressed by khouloud as follows:
“the application of the framework helps me organize my class timing so that I dedicate 15 minutes every session to ask my students to write a short essay which will be corrected for the next session and in every session my students record their written errors in an edit log. This facilitated the task for me so that they can observe their improvements in every session. Therefore, I think that the new framework is beneficial and has deep impact on my perception of the new WCF orientations”.
These new orientations in WCF pedagogy represent the core of the second category.Teachers seem to shift in their focus of WCF provision in the choice of the strategy to use, the error to highlight and establishing a link between the error type and remedial strategy. These three concerns were expressed diffrently. For instance, in the post intervention interview, Ahmed compared his preferences of WCF strategy before and after the PD training through saying:
“The difference is clear and I can evaluate my knowledge now, before the training I did not give importance to the type of feedback strategy that should be used because I do not know what to use with which sort of error. After the training I learned the difference between direct and indirect error strategies in relation to local and global errors. I learned and I want to learn more.”
Ahmed showed a high degree of cognitive awarness through self assessing his knowledge. Indeed, this awarness is traced in the focus group discussions between the ten participants. They exchanged their approaches and shared their experiences about the implementation of the new framework. One problematic area to focus on is which error to highlight?
Hatem said: “Being selective in one’s feedback requires a high degree of knowledge and confidence”.
Khalid said:” my approaches to errors and feedback has been changed and I am more empowered to be a writing teacher”.
The third subtheme is related to Teachers’ cognition about learners’ roles and achievements in the corrective feedback process. In other words, this section will focus on the impact of the PI on the learners’ learning and engagement. The participants showed a certain degree of concern with integrating their students in the process of WCF. However, they are different in their approaches about how to do it. In the focus group discussions Kalthoum raised this concern by saying:
“I am aware of the importance on integrating my students in the process of feedback provision. However, I find myself most of the time excluding them and considering them as passive recipients of my corrctive feedback”.
Additionally, Mohammed said:
“the problem is with perception because it is hard to motivate the students without being convinced as an english teacher by its importance and benefits”.
Some participants showed the role of the proposed intervention on their approaches about integrating the students. For example Sami reported:
” I engaged my students during applying the proposed intervention through asking them to choose the topic of writing and sometimes I ask their opinion about the quality of the feedback that they received”.
In the same vein, Hedi highlighted the importance of focusing on the students’ weeknesses and stengths differently as a way to foster students’ noticing of what they achieved and what they should still do to reach the required level of proficiency. The professional training helped me think differently in this respect. Additionally, in the reflective journal, the teachers seem to be aware of their students’ needs and progress. The majority of the teachers highlighted the importance of the motivation of their students and they mentioned that in all the reflectice journals that I collected from them. This represents a positive point to consider. Moreover, in responding to the fifth post interview question related to the impact of the intervention on the students’ accuracy. All the participants showed positive views about the improvement of their students in the writitng proficiency. For example Hedi reported:
“I confirm that my students’ level of proficiency has improved in the second and third drafts. Some students do not go to the third dradt. The number of errors decreased in an obvious way. This affected my students deeply. I asked them in every session about their writing improvement as they can perceive it from their edit logs. They showed a great deal of motivation and satisfaction. “
To sum up, the analysis of this theme showed the positive impact of the PD training on the teachers’ cognition about writing instruction, WCF pedagogy and their learners’ engagement and achievements. The impact of the training went beyond teachers’ cognition to affect their practices. This will be the focus of the second theme.
4.2.1.2. The impact of the PI on EFL teachers’ professional growth
The second theme is about the impact of the PI on EFL teachers’ professional growth.
This theme is subdivided into two subthemes as it is presented in the table below.
4.3.1.2. Illustrating the second theme
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
The teachers' participants have a good degree of engagement in the professional training. This subtheme is subdivided into two categories namely the different levels of engagement and the group dynamics. During the training, the participants highlighted two different sets of engagement which are the individual and the collective. First, the individual engagement took the form of personal commitment to be a member of the community of practice. Mohammed said in the first focused group discussion: “Despite my long teaching experience, this is my first experience in professional development; this is a good reason that makes me highly involved in this training”. Other members showed their commitment but in a different way from Mohammed. For example, Hedi liked the idea of getting a certificate of participation which will add value to his qualifications. Moreover, Khalid said
“I am motivated to participate because I am curious to meet new teachers and to talk about feedback.”
Another dimension of personal engagement to highlight is the increased awareness among the teachers' participants to boost their skills, capacities, and pedagogical knowledge about WCF. To illustrate, Ahmed pointed at the importance of being a “professionally developed practitioner” and he drew to the conditions of being so such as “ forging new teaching skills and thinking about the instructional ego about the teaching environment”. In the same vein, Kalthoum reported: “I think that increasing one’s knowledge about teaching writing and WCF provision pedagogy should be a good reason to be among this group of teachers”. Teachers have different views about their engagement in the training sessions. This concern with engagement is extended to the collective level.
Second, the collective level is related to the engagement of the individuals collectively in the training sessions. The participants showed their engagement with the other staff members. This is reflected in their discussions during the four training sessions. The participants while talking tend to use the pronouns “we”, “us”, “our”. This linguistic involvement reflects their engagement within the group. This is uttered clearly in Sami’s words” our participation in this training shows that we are concerned with the improvement of our teaching practices”. Apart from this, the participants' level of communication and the used language in discussing the moves during the training is highly telling and reflects that engagement as a construct goes beyond the individual level to cover the collective one. For example, the participants used face-saving strategies. For instance:
When Kalida wanted to draw Mohammed’s attention that the strategy that he is describing to the group contradicts with the proposed framework, she said: “I may be mistaken Mr. Mohammed, but I am afraid that what you have mentioned seems to be lacking some elements. Could you please check with the other colleagues about this particular point?”
The politeness in addressing each other during communication can only reflect the motivation and engagement in processing with the training within the teachers’ group. This paves the way to tackle the second category which is group dynamics.
This second category is subdivided into three subcategories namely Understanding the “others’” previous professional learning, views of writing instruction, views of WCF practices. These three subcategories are the outcome of the participants' collaboration during the intervention stage of this study.
The concept of “Otherness” is addressed in this study within the realm of collaborating with other participants in the community of practice. The members of the training group shared some features of their previous training or professional learning. They have different experiences concerning training in writing feedback. For example, Hedi highlighted his past learning experience in writing and feedback training during his secondary school teaching experience when the inspector used to provide him with a sort of mentoring from time to time. He seems to be critical about the absence of the inspector at the tertiary level.
“The role of the inspector in the primary and secondary school training is pivotal and many English teachers got their basics through the instruction that they received from the training provided by the inspector. I wonder how come there is no follow-up pedagogical mentoring at the tertiary level.”
Other participants showed their participation in national and international seminars and conferences and they highlighted their roles in helping them shape their approaches and preferences. These teachers had no secondary school teaching experiences, they are researchers and they embarked on teaching at the university without having any previous pedagogical training. Khalid highlighted the role of his pre-service learning experience in helping him provide WCF to his students. He said:
“Yeah... It is too challenging to practice teaching by relying only on your own past learning experience. I retrospected how my teachers used to teach me and provide me with feedback. I can say that I managed well to deal properly with my class and I dedicate this success to my brave teachers”.
These are two different experiences that depicted previous experiential learning in the Tunisian context. However, the majority of the participants showed no past training experience and they showed their interest in learning from the other members of the participants. They considered the current professional training sessions as a good occasion for professional development in their professional career. Therefore, the others represent a source of learning and inspiration to those who have no training experience.
The collaboration among the participants helped them in sharing their views about writing instruction. In implementing the proposed instructional framework, the participants resorted to different techniques and strategies to engage the students in the writing process. It is not surprising that the participants have different practical approaches. This appeared clearly in the reflective journal where they described the procedure of their classroom management. For example, Sana described her process of implementing the framework as follows:
“I informed my students about the principles of the new approach that will be implemented in the future sessions. I drew their attention to the importance of having multiple drafts and I gave them the freedom to choose the topic of their writings. I helped them self edit their writings through explaining the technique of the edit logs and their importance in the process of evaluating the writing proficiency over time”.
Additionally, Ahmed seems to have a different instructional approach since his teaching is more student-focused. He put in his reflective journal:
“When it comes to the implementation of this framework, I keep asking myself what is the most practical and suitable approach to adopt to make my students more involved in writing. So I asked them not only to write down their errors according to their types but also, asked them to peer evaluate their edit logs and writing assignments. Students become more autonomous and motivated to notice the gap in their written output”.
Apart from the reflective journals, the participants shared their instructional practices during the PD sessions. For example, Kalthoum expressed her enthusiasm in sharing her experience with other colleagues:
“ I am glad about presenting my classroom practices with you, please feel free to express yourselves. Just I wanted to share with you how. I managed to implement the instructional framework in my writing class. The first step is to orient my students' focus to the different error types and the user codes, later on, I presented them with the difference between process and product writing. After, I presented them with three importance of improving their writing proficiency through multiple drafts. This is how I paved the way for them to understand what they have to do”. Therefore, the participants shared their instructional practices with other members and this reflects their willingness to collaborate and to learn from other experiences.
In addition to sharing perceptions and views about the writing instruction, the group of teachers tried to understand others’ views of WCF practices while applying the proposed framework. The focused group discussions during the four sessions revealed their hesitations and decisions about the efficacy of their implementations of the DWCF framework. This hesitation is explained by their unfamiliarity with a clear modal of WCF provision to apply. Additionally, sharing the experiences with others may be stressful to some teachers, especially those who are not familiar with teamwork or with those who are self-arrogant and do not accept criticism. Teaching experience may be a problematic factor to consider since those who have long teaching experiences seem to be most self-confident and in a way resistant to change. To illustrate this point, Khalid who has about 25 years of teaching experience said” this framework seems to be exactly the way how I teach and provide feedback, I do not see any novelty in applying it. Additionally, from my teaching experience, this is how writing teachers should respond to their students”.
In approaching the teachers’ views of WCF practices, I focused on the different characteristics of the DWCF framework. For the WCF to be dynamic it should be manageable, timely, meaningful, and consistent. Teachers highlighted these three characteristics about their practices. For example, Ahmed said in the reflective journal about manageability:
“I make sure that I provide enough time to provide feedback on all my students’ assignments”.
Thus time management is very important in helping teachers focus on their WCF provision. Additionally, some other teachers such as Khouloud and Hedi have highlighted the importance of giving feedback on every session about new drafts. This is uttered by Hedi as follows:
“I liked the way how my students interact with me and they liked the delivery of feedback in every session. They are no longer afraid of the feedback results. However, they encourage me to scrutinize their assignments”.
Additionally, Sami described his WCF as meaningful in the sense that it is based on coding each error that helps the students categorize them in the edit log later. He said: “My feedback is meaningful because it makes sense to me and my students, this is very simple”.
Sami seems to reflect on his practices and this is a good sign that shows the impact of the PD sessions on shaping some critical thinking skills among some teachers. This concern emerged as a subtheme in this study. Therefore, it will be the focus of the next section.
This subtheme is subdivided into two categories namely teachers’ professional skills and professional development. The findings of the study have led to different subcategories about teachers’ professional skills as presented in the figure below.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 4.3.1.2 (1): Illustrating the the second category in theme2
Reflective practice dates back to Donald Schön in (1983) and it cannot be separated from critical thinking. Whereas critical thinking has been widely researched, it has been scarcely considered a professional asset for EFL teachers. Critical thinking and reflective practice were touched up by different participants. For example, Samir stated:
“I think that a good teacher should be a reflective and critical thinker who is begging logical changes in his teaching”.
While Khalida connected with critical self -evaluation which is defined as decision making and planning for action. She put forward:
“the reflective journal is a good example of self-assessment because it is an effective tool to monitor my work in class and to evaluate the quality of the WCF specifically”. Additionally, Mohammed stated that:
“The training represented a good occasion for me to revisit my established thinking, being involved in the action is a formidable task of critical involvement”.
It is worth noting that such reflective thinking is not well established among EFL teachers in the Tunisian context. Therefore teachers need professional training that ignites their critical thinking skills.
The participants linked their reflections to the outcomes of their students. Thus, they reflected on the occurred changes in the writing accuracy rates of their students. During the focused group discussions, the teachers highlighted this concern. For example, Kalthoum stated:
“It is hard to measure the improvement of my students’ writing without the edit logs that can illustrate the outcomes... I can see which category they are improved in and which errors remain uncorrected. Additionally, it is feasible to count them statistically.”
Teachers’ concern with improving the students’ writing is omnipresent in the teachers’ discussions and interview responses. For instance, all the teachers showed their positive views about the impact of the intervention on students’ written accuracy. It is worth noting that this is seen as a target by all English teachers. However, not all teachers succeed in improving their students ‘written accuracy. Some students pass from one level to another without improving their levels or sometimes they get worse. Khalid had an oblique reference to this point stating:
“I cannot sometimes understand how some students pass to the third year. These students are awful and they cannot sometimes write a correct sentence. What is worse, some of these students may be teachers in the coming years”. This is critical and shows a certain awareness. This awareness has been expressed differently by Safa who has considered learners’ achievement as an indicator of teachers’ effectiveness. She put it as follows:
“Teaching is associated with learning and when we talk about teaching, learning comes as a legitimate offspring. Well, what I can say here is that teachers’ roles are highly impactful, so the difference between good and bad students’ written accuracy is related to the teachers’ effectiveness”.
However, Hedi viewed the issue from a different vantage point and contends:
“It is important to understand and define what is meant by teaching effectiveness. This concept is influenced by educational and psychological frameworks. If we approach it from a behaviouristic school of thought teachers’ effectiveness is approached in the light of teachers’ predefined behaviors and students’ achievements. While within the cognitivist school of thought, effective instructors are evaluated based on the process of teaching and learning rather than the product”.
This latter quote reflected the complexity of claiming a clear-cut definition of teachers’ effectiveness. Many cognitive, social, and affective characteristics should be taken into consideration in measuring effectiveness among teachers. The teachers’ participants held different conceptions about improving learners’ written performance. Consequently, teachers' effectiveness has been highlighted about learners’ outcomes.
Freire, C., Ferradás, M., Regueiro, B., Rodríguez, S., Valle, A., & Núñez, J. C. (2020). Coping Strategies and Self-Efficacy in University Students: A Person-Centered Approach. Frontiers in psychology, 11, 841. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00841
One important skill to consider among teachers is coping. Freire et al (2020) explained “coping would come to be defined by cognitive and behavioral efforts employed in response to external or internal demands that the individual deems to be threats to their well-being”. About this study, coping strategies are approached about the teachers' participants’ struggle to provide electronic feedback in the last month of the training. This struggle emanated from the outbreak of covid-19. Teaching online is problematic to the majority of the participants. Consequently, three teachers found it challenging to continue participating in the training. While the other seven participants struggled to communicate with their students and to give them WCF on their assignments. In this respect, Kalthoum said:
“ It is hard to teach online and it is harder to assist learners in writing and to provide them WCF. It is not an easy task to do. Many students cannot attend due to the low connection. This impacted their motivation negatively, I worked well on encouraging them to keep editing their drafts and send them to me via e-mail”. Motivation is tightly associated with the learners’ affective filter. They faced challenges in the virtual classroom created anxiety and represented a real psychological and affective shackle to boost learning. This anxiety becomes more dangerous when it is related to writing skills. This is pronounced by Fawzi:
“Writing is a highly demanding skill and the surrounding challenges in the educational milieu add fuel to the fire in the sense that students are no longer motivated to write and to receive feedback as well. It is the role of the teacher to make an effort to overcome these challenges through creating a Facebook group where I can discuss with my students about their problems if they could not attend the main sessions and this strategy worked well.” The coping skills that the teachers presented broke the psychological and cognitive barriers. Teachers are prone to face challenges in instructional moments, but they have to cope with these challenges to be more effective.
The second category is sudivided into three sucategories namely intradepartmental networking, teachers’ empowerment and teachers’ continuous learning as it is depicted in the figure below.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 4.3.1.2 (2): Illustrating the second category in theme two
To start with, the participants illustrated different existing pedagogical challenges. During the first focused group discussion in the first training session, the participants showed their bewilderment and relative indecision about their students’ problems in writing. The wide debate was about focusing on which writing concern, either content or form. For example, Kalthom said:
- “ I think that the focus of the remedial teaching should be on the grammatical structures and spelling since these are the most problematic aspects of writing for my students.”
- While Samir highlighted the importance of focusing on “the ideas and organization” instead of focusing on the form. This debate between the participants was addressed by focusing on both aspects of the proposed framework.
The implementation of this framework represented another challenge to consider. In answering the following post-intervention interview question:” What are the challenges that you have faced while applying the proposed framework in your classroom?” the participants seem to have different implementation challenges. Some participants highlighted the hardships in reporting the data related to the classroom implementation such as Sawsan who found it problematic to match theory to practice. She reported the following:
“I managed well to understand the framework and to ask the researcher and the colleagues about its feasibility of implementation. However, I found it challenging to concretize it in the classroom”. This problem related to the framework implementation was highlighted by many other participants during the focus group discussions and in the reflective journals. This may be explained by their unfamiliarity with providing written feedback systematically. In other words, the writing teachers are lacking organization and pre-planned pedagogical stages to follow. Another challenge appeared which is evaluating teachers’ performance about the proposed framework. For instance, Ahmed said: “I do not know whether my practice is good or not. I am not sure if this is exactly what should be done”. This inability of self-evaluation reflects the absence of self-confidence which is due to the lack of knowledge. Therefore, teachers should be more acknowledged and empowered to be more confident and empowered in their instructional practices.
Moreover, online teaching represented another issue to consider in this section of analysis. Hence, the shift from the face to face teaching to the online modality made teachers think twice about the framework implementation and the procedure that they should follow. Apart from this, they are not familiar with the online WCF, therefore they faced such challenges. Additionally, the students lacked the motivation to attend online and most of them withdrew from the writing class.
The next category is about two concerns, challenges about the time of the training and challenges about collecting monthly data from the participants.
Regarding the time workloads, the current study participants found challenges in attending the PD training sessions. Consequently, many participants could not attend as Hedi puts it:
“Well... one of the challenges that I faced during this training is how to reconcile between my teaching hours and deciding upon the timing of the meeting and focus with the other nine participants and the researcher.”
Although it is a monthly meeting, the participants face it as a challenge to gather at a definite time. This may be explained by the lack of collaboration between teachers from different departments. Additionally, it may be due to the lack of professional development at the institutional level.
Second, the participants faced another challenge related to the collection of their students’ edited writings every week. Some teachers encouraged their learners to write and edit their writing by giving them extra marks in their exams. Others made a competition in their classes about the title of the best writer in the class. These efforts were made to help the learners engage and apply the proposed framework.
Social networking appeared to be problematic for the participants. First, some issues are linked to the lack of communication between the participants. The researcher used different communication strategies to push the participants to communicate during the PD training. Another issue stems from the lack of collaboration with the researcher after the PD sessions. The researcher expected more interaction with the participants through e-mails and the Facebook group.
4.3.2.3 The existing challenges and needs in relation to the PD training.
The data analysis revealed three different types of needs in relation to the third theme in the past-intervention phase as it is shown in the table below.
Table 4.3.2.3 : Illustrating the third theme
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
The first need has to do with the professional development concern. All the participants call for more opportunities for PD concerning WCF provision. This need stems from their awareness of the existing lack of institutional concern. This point was highlighted by sawsan who seems highly critical of the absence of “the minimum of training to writing teachers”.
This need was articulated in the teachers’ willingness to participate in the current PD training. As noted by Samir:
“It is my pleasure to be a participant in this study. At least I will receive training in writing. This is a peculiar feeling”.
The lack of PD training as reported by the participants reflects a real professional shortage at the Tunisian Tertiary level. Therefore, focusing on teachers’ professionalism is tightly linked to educational reform and effectiveness.
Second, the institutional needs, are associated with the lack of collaboration between the different institutions and departments. This is highlighted by Ahmed when he said:
“There is no communication between the English departments. I have never asked, how teachers in other departments use to teach writing or how to provide written feedback to their students.”
Another example of an institutional need is the lack of financial support by the institutions. This was thoroughly reported by Hedi as follows:
“There are many opportunities for professional development nationally and internationally, as teachers we need money from our institutions to travel to conferences and workshops. And this is exactly what we are lacking in our institutions”.
This lack of financial support represented a major issue that hinder teachers’ participation in the existing professional development opportunities. This view was shared by the majority of the participants.
Third, the instructional needs are linked to both the learners and the teachers. The learning needs were reported differently by the participants. For example, the learning needs were illustrated in two points mainly the need to motivate learners in writing and the need to improve their written output. To illustrate, Samir said: “My students need to be more motivated while writing. It is known that writing is a very boring task for them. I think they need to be more engaged in the writing activities”. This view was backboned by other participants who linked the importance of students’ motivation with the increase in their written proficiency. This is mentioned by Khalida:
“The most vital need for our students is to be good writers, this is what matters first and foremost.” Concerning the teachers’ needs, the participants showed the importance of having good networking and gaining more knowledge about their work practices. The need for professional improvement is very clear in their responses. Additionally, they showed concern with increasing the number of writing hours in their teaching schedules. Fawzi reported:
“It is ridiculous, the writing hours do not exceed two hours per week, I think that it is a priority to think about the number of hours twice”.
Highlighting these instructional needs reflect teachers' awareness and readiness for change and improvement. Their understanding of the classroom dynamic is important.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 4.3.1.3 (1): Illustration of the first category in theme three
To start with, the participants illustrated different existing pedagogical challenges. During the first focused group discussion in the first training session, the participants showed their bewilderment and relative indecision about their students’ problems in writing. The wide debate was about focusing on which writing concern, either content or form. For example, Kalthom said:
“I think that the focus of the remedial teaching should be on the grammatical structures and spelling since these are the most problematic aspects of writing for my students.”
While Samir highlighted the importance of focusing on “the ideas and organization” instead of focusing on the form. This debate between the participants was addressed by focusing on both aspects of the proposed framework.
The implementation of this framework represented another challenge to consider. In answering the following post-intervention interview question:” What are the challenges that you have faced while applying the proposed framework in your classroom?” the participants seem to have different implementation challenges. Some participants highlighted the hardships in reporting the data related to the classroom implementation such as Sawsan who found it problematic to match theory to practice. She reported the following:
“I managed well to understand the framework and to ask the researcher and the colleagues about its feasibility of implementation. However, I found it challenging to concretize it in the classroom”. This problem related to the framework implementation was highlighted by many other participants during the focus group discussions and in the reflective journals. This may be explained by their unfamiliarity with providing written feedback systematically. In other words, the writing teachers are lacking organization and pre-planned pedagogical stages to follow. Another challenge appeared which is evaluating teachers’ performance about the proposed framework. For instance, Ahmed said: “I do not know whether my practice is good or not. I am not sure if this is exactly what should be done”. This inability of self-evaluation reflects the absence of self-confidence which is due to the lack of knowledge. Therefore, teachers should be more acknowledged and empowered to be more confident and empowered in their instructional practices.
Moreover, online teaching represented another issue to consider in this section of analysis. Hence, the shift from the face to face teaching to the online modality made teachers think twice about the framework implementation and the procedure that they should follow. Apart from this, they are not familiar with the online WCF, therefore they faced such challenges. Additionally, the students lacked the motivation to attend online and most of them withdrew from the writing class.
The next category is about two concerns, challenges about the time of the training and challenges about collecting monthly data from the participants.
Regarding the time workloads, the current study participants found challenges in attending the PD training sessions. Consequently, many participants could not attend as Hedi puts it:
“Well... one of the challenges that I faced during this training is how to reconcile between my teaching hours and deciding upon the timing of the meeting and focus with the other nine participants and the researcher.”
Although it is a monthly meeting, the participants face it as a challenge to gather at a definite time. This may be explained by the lack of collaboration between teachers from different departments. Additionally, it may be due to the lack of professional development at the institutional level.
Second, the participants faced another challenge related to the collection of their students’ edited writings every week. Some teachers encouraged their learners to write and edit their writing by giving them extra marks in their exams. Others made a competition in their classes about the title of the best writer in the class. These efforts were made to help the learners engage and apply the proposed framework.
Social networking appeared to be problematic for the participants. First, some issues are linked to the lack of communication between the participants. The researcher used different communication strategies to push the participants to communicate during the PD training. Another issue stems from the lack of collaboration with the researcher after the PD sessions. The researcher expected more interaction with the participants through e-mails and the Facebook group.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 4.3.1.3 (2) Illustrating the second ctegory in theme three
The data analysis revealed three different types of needs. The first need has to do with the professional development concern. All the participants call for more opportunities for PD about WCF provision. This need stems from their awareness of the existing lack of institutional concern. This point was highlighted by sawsan who seems highly critical of the absence of “the minimum of training to writing teachers”.
This need was articulated in the teachers’ willingness to participate in the current PD training. As noted by Samir:
“It is my pleasure to be a participant in this study. At least I will receive training in writing. This is a peculiar feeling”.
The lack of PD training as reported by the participants reflects a real professional shortage at the Tunisian Tertiary level. Therefore, focusing on teachers’ professionalism is tightly linked to educational reform and effectiveness.
Second, the institutional needs, are associated with the lack of collaboration between the different institutions and departments. This is highlighted by Ahmed when he said:
“There is no communication between the English departments. I have never asked, how teachers in other departments use to teach writing or how to provide written feedback to their students.”
Another example of an institutional need is the lack of financial support by the institutions. This was thoroughly reported by Hedi as follows:
“There are many opportunities for professional development nationally and internationally, as teachers we need money from our institutions to travel to conferences and workshops. And this is exactly what we are lacking in our institutions”.
This lack of financial support represented a major issue that hinder teachers’ participation in the existing professional development opportunities. This view was shared by the majority of the participants.
Third, the instructional needs are linked to both the learners and the teachers. The learning needs were reported differently by the participants. For example, the learning needs were illustrated in two points mainly the need to motivate learners in writing and the need to improve their written output. To illustrate, Samir said: “My students need to be more motivated while writing. It is known that writing is a very boring task for them. I think they need to be more engaged in the writing activities”. This view was backboned by other participants who linked the importance of students’ motivation with the increase in their written proficiency. This is mentioned by Khalida:
“The most vital need for our students is to be good writers, this is what matters first and foremost.”
Concerning the teachers’ needs, the participants showed the importance of having good networking and gaining more knowledge about their work practices. The need for professional improvement is very clear in their responses. Additionally, they showed concern with increasing the number of writing hours in their teaching schedules. Fawzi reported:
“It is ridiculous, the writing hours do not exceed two hours per week, I think that it is a priority to think about the number of hours twice”.
Highlighting these instructional needs reflect teachers' awareness and readiness for change and improvement. Their understanding of the classroom dynamic is important.
4.2.2. The quantitative analysis of the students’ written errors during the PD Intervention
The analysis of the students’ errors will be made about the different departments vis- à-vis the two broad error categories namely local and global errors.
4.3.2.1. Local errors:
In this study, local errors are subdivided into two broad categories namely grammatical and lexical errors.
4.3.2.1.1 The grammatical errors
The grammatical errors in this study are classified into two subcategories namely syntactic and morphological error types. To depict the impact of the intervention on the students’ performance in different departments, I opted for the following diagram to show the evolution of accuracy rate between departments during three months. The accuracy is approached in this study in light of the decrease in the number of errors.
4.3.2.1.1.1. The syntactic error types
The syntactic errors that are the focus of this research are Copula, concord, tense/aspect, adjective-word order, prepositions, and articles. These errors were statistically represented by accounting for the mean of the syntactic errors in every month for each department as it is presented in the figure below.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 4.3.2.1.1.1: the mean differences between departments concerning the syntactic errors
The results above indicate a statistically significant difference between first month, the second and the third. All the departments winessed a significant increase of the written accuracy in month 2 comparing to month 1, except for Kairaoun and Jandouba departments which have the same scores of accuracy in the two months. This may be explained by the lack of students’ involvement in editing their errors and accounting for their teachers’ feedback. In accounting for month 3There is a slight improvement in written accuracy among the students exept of sousse department that witnessed an obvious decrease in accuracy comparing to the second month. While for both Kairouan and sfax departments there are no scores for month 3 regarding the difficulty of assisting WCF electronically.
To conclude, concerning the syntactic errors, the means of the different departments showed a slight increase in the accuracy rate from one month to another. This may be explained by the difficulty of achieving accuracy in the syntactic error types over a short period of time.
4.3.2.1.1.2 The morphological error types:
They are classified into four categories verb, adverb, noun and adjective error types according to James (1998) taxonomy. The shart below illustrates the distribution of the mean scores for each department during the three months of intervention.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 4.3.2.1.1.2: Means differences between the departments in relation to the morphological errors.
Sbitla department recorded the highest mean score of morphological errors in month 1 (M=4,55). While the lowest mean score was associated with Mednine department (M=2.38). There are many differences between the ten departments in the accuracy evolution during the three months. For example, the students’ written accuracy of Tunis, Gafsa, Jandouba, and Gabes departments has positively improved from one month to another. This has been considered as a good sign of improvement among students and it reflects the positive impact of the intervention on the accuracy gain of the students. While other departments such as Kairaoun and Sfax the accuracy has decreased in month 2 compared to month 1. While, some other departments such as Mednine, Sbitla, Beja, and Sousse, the accuracy decreased in the third month compared to month 2. These differences between the ten departments in accounting for the accuracy rate reflect the differential effects of the pedagogical intervention on different departments. These differences reflect how teachers approach WCF in the light of the proposed framework of implementation. In other words, EFL teachers’ differences in motivation and readiness to implement the new framework play an important role in tracing the different scores that we came up within this analysis.
Additionally, Students may play a role in tracing these differences in accuracy since they are active agents in the process of filling the edits logs and editing their writings in new drafts.
4.3.2.1.2 Lexical Errors
The lexical errors are divided into two subtypes namely semantic error and formal error as proposed by James’ (1998) taxonomy.
Semantic errors James (1998) classifies semantic error into two types: confusion of sense relations and collocational errors. The chart below illustrates the mean scores of the semantic error accuracy of the ten departments during the three months.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
4.3.2.1.2 (1) Accuracy Means differences between departments in relation to the semantic errors
The distribution of the mean scores differs from one department to another. Some departments showed a significant improvement in the written accuracy such as Gafsa, Gabes, and Jandouba departments. However, not all departments witnessed an improvement in the semantic accuracy gains. For example, with Sfax department, there was a significant decrease in accuracy compared to month 2.
With Beja department the accuracy means in Month 2 decreased compared to month 1. As far as Sousse and Sbitla departments, the means scores of month 3 have decreased compared to month 2. While, for Mednine, Beja, and Tunis, the scores of month 3 showed a decrease in the accuracy rate compared to the two previous months.
Formal errors James (1998) classifies formal errors into three types: formal misselection, formal misformations and distortions. The figure below illustrates these errors
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 4.3.2.1.2 (2) Accuracy Means differences between departments in relation to the formal errors
Exept of Gabes and jendouba departments which showed a clear increase of accuracy over the three months, the other eight departments suffered from a huge flactuation of the means scores between the three months. For example for kairaoun,Sfax and Gafsa the accuracy scores decreased in month 2 comparing to month 1. For Tunis, Sbitla, Sousse, and Mednine, the accuracy in month 3decreased comparing to month2. While, for Beja department the accuracy in month 3 decreased dramatically comparing to the first two months.
4.3.2.2 Global errors:
As it is shown in the figure below the scores of the global errors are very limited comparing to the local errors. This reflects either the lack of focus on WCF among the teachers or the lack of problems among students in this area of writing.
4.3.2.2.1 Organization errors
Concerning the organization errors, there are variations and differences between the ten departments in accuracy records as it is illustrated in the figure below.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 4.3.2.2.1: Accuracy Means differences between departments in relation to the organization errors
Jendouba department seems to be different in accuracy records compared to the nine other departments.
Additionally, for Gabes department the accuracy decreased in months 2 and3, For the Tunis department, the accuracy increased in month 2 and decreased in month 3. By the same token, Sousse and Gafsa departments witnessed the same accuracy scheme which is a slight increase in month 2 and then a decrease in month 3. Kairouan recorded an improvement in accuracy in month 2 while the Sfax department does not.
Organization errors are scarcely addressed in the written corrective feedback focus among teachers, this is declared by the majority of them in the pre-intervention phase. The lack of concern and focus may be the main reason for the difficulty of accuracy gains. Consequently, the students paid more attention to the local errors rather than the global ones because there is more emphasis on the form rather than the organization.
4.3.2.2.2 Content errors
As far as the content erros are concerned, they are not frequent comparing to the priouviously stated error types. The accuracy distribution between the ten departments is presented in the figure below.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 4.3.2.2.2: Accuracy Means differences between departments in relation to the organization errors
The content errors in the ten departments are slightly depicted since there are not many content errors reported. However, Gabesand Mednine departments have shown a positive record of accuracy in the content errors. It is obvious that the focus on the content in WCF about the students’ writing is not that focused and the low scores of the recorded errors can infer this lack of concern. Mednine department revealed the concern with the content since the students have major issues in expressing their ideas, this is expressed by the EFL teacher during the PD workshops.
Chapter 5: Discussion
« No opinion that cannot stand discussion or criticism is worth holding. »» James E. Talmage
This chapter focuses on analyzing the key research findings by linking them to the relevant literature. This chapter is divided into eight sections as follows, 1) EFL teachers’ WCF beliefs and preferences, 2) The impact of WCF on the EFL learners’ L2 writing skill, 3) EFL teachers’ WCF practices in the Tunisian EFL context, 4) Factors affecting EFL teachers writing instruction and WCF practices, 5) EFL teachers’ challenges related to WCF, 6) EFL teachers’ Mismatches between their beliefs and practices concerning WCF, 7) The impact of the PD training on EFL teachers’ PD about WCF 8) Participatory Action Research as a form of PD, 9) Theorization.
5.1. EFL teachers’ WCF beliefs and preferences
This study presented the Tunisian EFL teachers' beliefs and preferences on WCF. At the first glance, this study seems to resemble other studies such as the two recent ones conducted in the Tunisian context namely Zayani (2020) and Athimni (2020). However, these studies involved only a limited number of participants and lack the element of intervention which is not the case of the current study which focused on different departments all over the country and focused on (317) respondents on the survey. Moreover, it depicted the WCF literacy in the Tunisian context to understand EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices and to diagnose the lacks and problems to find a possible pedagogical solution. This was conducted through a pedagogical intervention that tried to bridge the gap between the lacks and the requirements.
The participants were highly motivated to talk about their approaches and practices in WCF. They were driven by the fact that they will make a difference by their contribution to this study. This concern has been shared by many scholars in the field (Norouzian, Farahani, & Akbar, 2012, Bitchener & Ferris, 2012, and Ferris, 2014). Examining EFL teachers’ beliefs has been highly valorized in the research area not “merely in a behavior term but rather as thoughtful behavior as teachers are active, thinking decision-makers” (Mulati et al., 2020, p. 1). The teachers in this study highlighted some factors that might affect their beliefs such as the prior learning experience as highlighted by (Lee, 2013), past educational experience as mentioned by (Ferris, 2014), personal values and educational contexts as highlighted by (Lee, 2008&2009).
The findings from the pre-intervention interview reveal teachers’ concern with the process writing approach such as drafting, redrafting, and outlining. This concern resonates with the findings of Alhosani‘s (2008) study that showed teachers' concern with the process approach in writing. As far as the amount of WCF is concerned the majority of the teachers believe that a comprehensive approach is the best to implement to prevent fossilization problems. Jodaie and Farrokhi’s (2012) study is in line with the current study findings and they explain that EFL teachers focus on comprehensive feedback because they believe that it decreases the stress among students. However, the findings do not fit other studies (Lee, 2003, 2008b; 2009; Ellis, 2009 Bitchener and Ferris, 2012) which prioritize the value of selective feedback since it is more manageable to overcome the « more is better maxime » as stated by Lee (2013). In line with this, Banan (2003) explained the reason for correcting all errors by the fossilization theory.
Teachers think that focusing on all students’ errors reflects their competence and excellence in correcting their students’ errors. Additionally, teachers are not sure about how to apply the selective approach. Therefore, I explained this concern with the comprehensive approach over the selective one as the « comprehensive WCF legacy » in an attempt to criticize the systematicity of treating the majority if not all the students’ errors without reflecting on some specific errors. Teachers are influenced by the institutional context. This is confirmed by Hyland and Hyland (2006) who strongly claim that EFL teachers’ practices are impacted by their beliefs and these beliefs are influenced by the context where they work. This concern has been focused on in the current study since the teachers from the different English departments reported differences in their departments about valorizing WCF. This may explain the existing differences between the departments in Teachers’ beliefs, practices, and their students’ accuracy gain results. It is worth noting that the influence of the institutional context imposes on the teachers to play a subservient role which prevents them to self-actualize a new and more autonomous, responsible role for themselves” (Hamp- Lyons, 2007, p. 495).
Additionally, teachers think differently about the the focus of WCF, some think that it is better to focus on form while others prioritize focusing on content. These differences are reported in many other studies such as (Gharib, 2009). For example, Lockhart (2008) explained that academic qualification may be a good reason behind these differences between teachers' views. For example, in the current study, teachers who have « aggregation », Master’s degree, or Ph.D. think beyond the form-oriented feedback. Besides, students’ levels affect teachers’ beliefs in this study because the targeted students are all third-year students so they are considered as advanced students. So some teachers think and believe that focus on form and content should be considered equally with third-year students and especially English majors or « tomorrow’s English teachers as it is described by one of the participants in the pre-intervention interview. Moreover, teaching experience has been highlighted as an important factor that affects teachers’ decisions about the focus of feedback. In this study, teachers who opt for organization and content have been teaching literary subjects (fiction and drama) while those who focused on language form are acquainted with language subjects.
There is a raised awareness among the participants to concentrate on focused feedback. This is in line with Lee’s (2019) suggestion about economizing EFL teachers’ efforts about highlighting every single error. Most recently, McLellan (2021) raised EFL teachers’ awareness about treading when thinking about limiting the amount of feedback they provide. Teachers in the pre-intervention interview tended to talk about errors in general without making a distinction between errors versus mistakes or global versus local errors. This has been criticized by Van Beuningen (2010) as a major lack in teachers’ cognition about WCF focus.
5.2. The Impact of WCF on the EFL Learners’ L2 Writing Skills
Despite the provoking claim stated by Truscott (1996) “researchers have paid insufficient attention to the side effects of grammar correction, such as its effect on students” (p. 328). Many research attempts in this field have sought to debunk this claim by showing the positive impact of the WCF on students’ written accuracy. The findings of this study have shown that when WCF is strategically implemented can engender improvement in writing proficiency among learners. In the literature, there is a shred of strong evidence that WCF is an effective way of improving learners’ writing skills (Hartshorn et al., 2010; Nassaji & Fotos, 2011).
The EFL teachers in this study believe that WCF is an aspect of language teaching and learning which contributes to the development of the students’ L2 proficiency. This is in line with other researchers’ findings that hailed the powerful impact of WCF on students' L2 proficiency gains such as Hattie & Timperley, 2007;Benson& Dekeyser, 2019). The findings of the study do not rightly support the sociocultural theory since there is no interaction between the students in the classroom. However, the students interacted with their teachers during the implementation of the DWCF and this is considered as a sociocultural practice in which the learners are interacting with a more knowledgeable person. This is not considered as an inter-dependent, but rather independent learning where learners reflect on their multiple drafts and edit their errors according to the WCF of their teachers and fill in the edit logs. The students’ personal efforts to improve their writings could be considered as an effective way of intrinsic motivation to effectively acquire a foreign language. Students’ autonomy and self-achievement are the outcomes of escaping the spoon-feedbacking strategies (Bitchener et al., 2005; Lee, 2008).
Therefore, neither interaction nor scaffolding is a condition for one’s ZPD about developing the writing skill. As reported by Devrim (2014) and Pawlak (2013) that the interaction between the teachers and the students is based on the learners’ ZPD in a specific skill which is writing in this study context. Additionally, this interaction helps the students notice the gap in their written output to understand their errors and know how to deal with them properly to increase accuracy. This is in line with Barnawi’s (2010) study which focused on WCF as a tool to enhance learners’ noticing in EFL classrooms. Some researchers explained the lack of noticing and paying attention by the trade-off hypothesis initiated by Skehan, (1998) and criticized the over-focus on language that would be at the expense of other aspects and stymie noticing. By the same token, Robinson’s (2003) cognition Hypothesis « promotes more vigilant monitoring of output » (Robinson et al., 2012, p. 255) to increase learners’ intake. Additionally, Gass’s (1997) comprehensive cognitive processing model foregrounded the relationship between input and output. Recently, Bitchener (2019) illustrated the different stages responsible for the processing of any given feedback, which is noticing, comprehension, intake, integration, and output. When noticing failure to occur off-take comes as a failure of intake opportunity as proposed by Zayani (2016) in her framework.
It has been mentioned in the literature of WCF that the identification of the students’ errors helps them increase their motivation and awareness (Durkin & Rittle-Johnson, 2012). The findings of the current study supported this view and showed a positive impact of WCF on EFL students’ writing accuracy. The students in the study showed an interest in dealing with their errors through editing and putting them in an edit log for consideration. They are comfortable with the new methodology since it focused on detailed feedback on the students’ multiple drafts (Bitchener & Knoch, 2015b). This seems to be in line with Krashen’s (1985) Input Hypothesis stating that if the learners receive comprehensible input, they will be more proficient. However, the findings of this study are in sharp contrast with Krashen’s (1985) claim that WCF hinders the natural process of learning.The students’ written accuracy gains varied from one department to another across the different error categories. This is legitimate as postulated by Hartshorn and Evans (2015) “gains in one aspect of writing come at the cost of another” (p. 14).
Concerning the local error category, the findings showed that the students gained accuracy in grammatical errors is higher than the lexical ones. While concerning the global error category Students gained accuracy gains on content over the organization. The findings showed the positive impact of the DWCF approach on local errors rather than global ones and this seems in harmony with the findings of previous studies such as (Bates, Lane, & Lange, 1993). DWCF has been proved to be an effective pedagogical intervention to improve linguistic accuracy (Kurzer, 2017).
The teachers in this study have voiced their concern about their students’ lack of knowledge, cohesion, coherence, vocabulary, and punctuation. There is a correlation between reading and writing as Zamel (1992) concluded. It has been highlighted that reading is effective in increasing students’ prior knowledge according to Troudi & Zayani (2020).
Therefore, encouraging students to read should be a priority at the Tunisian University level through finding a solution to the lack of financial resources and well-equipped libraries and integrating reading with the field study.
5.3. EFL teachers’ WCF practices in the Tunisian EFL context
The discussion of this section will be divided into two main parts. First the EFL teachers’ actual practices and second their practices concerning the proposed WCF framework.
5.3.1 EFL teachers’ actual practices
The EFL teachers’ performance in the current study has been approached through two different foci. First, focusing on which errors to address represents the main concern in teachers’ WCF practices. Hendrikson’s third question « which error to address? » helps practitioners and teachers to focus on the nature of the errors to treat. Two studies addressed this concern about WCF which are Zayani (2017& 2018). These two studies contextualized the concern with error types in corrective feedback within the Tunisian tertiary context and highlighted that lexical errors are highly problematic and should be prioritized. While this contradicts the current study findings since the majority of the teachers in this study focused on the grammatical and morphological error types while providing WCF while lexical errors are marginalized. Grammar correction has been focused in several studies as a priority in teachers’ WCF such as Hart (2011) who showed the important role of grammar correction in learners’ accuracy gains. Recently, Lim and Renandya, (2020) have shown the impact of WCF on both short and long-term learning. While some researchers such as (Kepner, 1991; Ferris, 2004, Sheen Truscott & Hsu, 2008, 2007; Van Beuningen et al., 2008, 2012) have strongly argued that feedback on grammatical errors can be harmful to L2 learners. The reason behind this rejection finds its roots in Truscott's (1996) claim about the drawbacks of corrective feedback describing it as ineffective and atheoretical. Since then an existing debate has taken place between opponents and proponents of CF. This current study positions itself as evidence to backbone the proponents’ claim about the WCF matter. This will be discussed in the second part.
Second, focusing on how the errors are approached represented an important concern among EFL teachers in this study. The performance of the teacher participants showed a mixture of focused and unfocused approaches to WCF practices. According to Liu and Brown’s (2015) categorization of focus scope the teachers‘ WCF can be described as midfocused since some of them focused on two to six errors, while others focused on all errors, and their practices are described as highly unfocused. Hence, their practices are described as both selective and comprehensive (Mao and Lee, 2020).
Most errors are corrected indirectly by indicating or circling the error without correcting it. This WCF strategy raises students noticing abilities and it has been focused in the literature by (Sheen, 2010 and Bitchner &Storch, 2016) as highly effective to promote writing development among EFL learners. Additionally, noticing mediates learners’ awareness and L2 learning as confirmed by (Loschky & Harrington, 2013). Learners’ cognitive awareness and abilities are developed by consciously accounting for their errors and trying to correct them. In WCF provision, awareness cannot be reached without noticing and understanding as stressed by Schmidt (1995). However, it seems that there is a lack of evidence in the data about valorizing awareness and understanding especially when it comes to raising the students’ awareness towards error codes. Concerning this focus, drawing EFL students’ awareness of their errors has a positive impact on their writing accuracy and L2 proficiency.
5.3.2 EFL teachers' practices concerning the proposed WCF framework (implementation concerns)
The proposed WCF framework is labeled the DWCF and it is required to be meaningful, timely, constant, and manageable (Evans et al., 2010b; Hartshorn et al., 2010). The teachers in this study managed to meet these principles. The meaningfulness of feedback finds its roots in sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978). Therefore, the WCF is meaningful since teachers collaborated with the students to familiarize them with the procedures of the DWCF. This helped them understand the provided feedback and know how to manage their edit their multiple drafts and write up the edit logs. As reported by Sachs and Polio (2007) that focuses on subsequent revisions students’ drafts during corrective feedback increased noticing among them.
The EFL teachers managed to make the WCF timely because it occurs after writing on a weekly basis and over three months. The participants worked on making the WCF constant by helping their students reach a certain degree of automatization in producing L2 writing accurately. This has been confirmed by (DeKeyser, 2007a, 2007b) that DWCF is an application of skill acquisition theory in the sense that knowledge develops from declarative to procedural to automatic. It is worth noting that not all teachers succeeded in this respect since some departments did not show positive accuracy gains in subsequent drafts. In line with constant feedback Kurzer (2018) highlighted how important constant feedback is as a feature of DWCF. Additionally, students should receive feedback regularly and shortly after writing production (Hartshorn & Evans, 2015). However, the teacher participants faced a real challenge in making WCF manageable regarding time constraints for the teachers to provide quality feedback and for the students to process the feedback that they received. Manageability is linked to cognitive load theory (Paas et al. , 2004) which focuses on memory processing. This may explain the challenges faced by teachers in their manageability practices and applications. Some criticized the unfocused approach to WCF such as Ellis (2009) who questioned the manageability of students’ errors since they suffer from a limited L2 processing capacity.
The DWCF methodology focuses on providing feedback on multiple drafts. The teachers managed to provide indirect feedback to global errors affecting meaning and organization. While, they provided direct feedback to local errors affecting grammar, spelling, and vocabulary. This is similar to the studies by Ellis et al. (2008) and Ferris and Roberts (2001) who showed the importance of implementing direct WCF to enhance the grammatical accuracy among learners. The adopted dichotomy between global and local errors is in line with AL-Jarrah's (2016) proposed framework of error correction that depicted this dichotomy. Teachers struggled in implementing the proposed framework in the first drafts since they used to use direct and indirect feedback interchangeably without a clear rationale for implementation. The proposed WCF framework mingles both direct and indirect WCF strategies because they are perceived as the most effective way to boost learning as proposed by Bitchener and Ferris (2012). Additionally, their WCF becomes focused since the range of errors that should be focused on are illustrated in the edit log that students should accomplish. The effectiveness of selective feedback to students’ accuracy gains has been highlighted in the literature by (Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener and Knoch, 2009; and Bitchener and Knoch, 2010). However, Van Beuningen et al. (2011) showed a clashing view in favor of the impact of the comprehensive corrective feedback on students’ written accuracy in new pieces of writing.
5.4. Factors affecting EFL teacher writing instruction and WCF practices
The findings revealed that the EFL teachers’ Writing instruction and WCF practices are the outcomes of different interrelated factors as has been confirmed by Brock (1995). Some constraints are typically contextual and many studies have pointed out this concern either about WCF practices research (Hyland and Hyland, 2006; Bailey and Garner, 2012) or about teachers’ beliefs and practices Borg, 2003, 2006). Teachers in the study complained about the bad effect of « washback » in their writing classes because the due focus on exams and tests distorts the instructional goals. Teachers do not implement multiple-drafts writing because they want to introduce different writing topics to their students to prepare them for the exam. Also, this over-focus on the final exams affects EFL teachers’ WCF practices through focusing on the language form rather than the content as is stated by Lee (2009). Additionally, this concern with the exams in the writing classes and its impact on teachers’ beliefs and practices in the Arab world has been highlighted by Issa (2011). Additionally, teachers do not implement peer feedback because the students are negatively impacted by the Arab culture where criticism is approached personally. This has been confirmed by Kennedy‘s (1988) study that showed the impact of the cultural codes on teachers’ practices. Therefore, any change in the teachers’ practices may not simply show a change in their beliefs, but also in their cultural system that governs their practices (Ferguson, 1993). In addition, students’ needs may influence teachers’ practices as has been stated in literature (Montgomery and Baker, 2007; Norouzian and Farahani, 2012). Also, the lack of teachers’ knowledge due to the lack of professional training may be one of the constraints of teachers’ practices. This is in line with Wu and Badger’s (2009) findings. While Alghamdi (2013) found a link between teachers’ beliefs and practices and their past learning experiences.
5.5. EFL Teachers’ Challenges Related to WCF
EFL teachers in the current study articulated different obstacles concerning the provision of an effective WCF. They think that some learners could not understand the WCF provided to them and they are not concerned with the feedback because their concern is limited to having the mark. This is in line with Boud’s (2000) findings that the inability of the students to understand and re-use the feedback can spoil the core purpose of the feedback. Additionally, the teachers’ in this study highlighted the importance of considering students’ motivation and learning needs. Their concerns resonate with some previous studies which recommended the importance of considering learners’ needs as a priority in the foreign language classroom (Boekaerts & Corno, 2005; Kohn, 2011). Teachers are unable to decide in their WCF practices without being familiar with the complexities of the different components of the classroom as pointed out by Ellis et al., (2008). The teachers in this study expressed the challenge of approaching WCF to students with different proficiency levels flexibly. This flexibility has been highlighted in the literature as a ‘one size fits all approach (Ammar, 2006). However, there is no final word about which strategy to be more successful than others. Hence, researchers in the field recommend combining different strategies through being eclectic so that the teachers benefit from different strategies and learners enhance writing accuracy (Ferris, 2011; Lee et al., 2015). Teachers in this study highlighted the issue of time about WCF provision. The latter has been considered a time-consuming and tiring task. This correlates with some studies conducted by Truscott (1996); Guenette and Lyster (2013) and Ghani and Ahmad (2016). Another challenge stems from the WCF load that some students receive without elaboration from the teacher. This concern should be addressed by the teachers in instructional sessions to explain their WCF to the students. This is in agreement with Al Shahrani (2013) and Alkhatib (2015). The EFL teachers in this study expressed their challenges in deciding upon the errors to deal with in their WCF. This is in harmony with the study conducted by Zayani (2017) entitled « Provide your feedback with a priority in mind: Weighing errors before drawing the red line ».
Another challenge stems from the difficulty of coping with the online sessions during the last month of the training. Teachers were overwhelmed with negative feelings and stress during using the online facility. This has been highlighted in several studies recently after the pandemic situation reporting the lack of EFL teachers’ coping strategies during the COVID-19 conversion such as Maclntyre et al (2020), Herman, Reinke, & Eddy (2020) and Guzdial, (2020).
5.6. EFL teachers’ Mismatches between their beliefs and practices about WCF
There is an obvious inconsistency between teachers’ beliefs and practices. This has been confirmed in lee’s (2003, 2009) studies and Icy's (2003) study in Hong Kong that showed this discrepancy between theory and practices about WCF. While in the Iranian context Rafiei and Salehi’s (2016) study has put forward the existence of this gap between teachers’ perceptions and practices. Like in the current study, the EFL teachers believe that it is highly important to give feedback to content, organization, and language, while in their practices they have largely focused on language errors. However, Katia’s (2011) study in Iran showed no misalignment between beliefs and practices among teachers. As far as I knew from the literature, in the Tunisian context there is just one study that addressed the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices about WCF which is that of Trabelsi (2021) who studied the misalignment of the Tunisian EFL university teachers in the amount the explicitness and the focus of feedback. These three above-mentioned concerns are addressed in lee’s (2008) study.
There are some related factors as shown in the findings that prevent the teachers align their beliefs to their practices regarding the WCF matter. Dating back to the experiential learning experience as previous learners and pre-service teachers may be a good start to explain the teachers' source of misalignment as it has been highlighted by Ferris et al. (2011b) who have focused on the negative effects of the lack of teachers ‘ preparation on their beliefs and practices. The lack of institutional support may be another factor to consider regarding the lack of support and the shortage of collegial collaboration within the same institution and across different institutions. The findings of the current study contradict those of other studies such as Lee (2008) and Al-Shahrani (2013), where the teacher participants are familiar with a clear institutional policy on how to provide feedback.
Also, the syllabus plays an important role in shaping the relationship between beliefs and practices because sometimes teachers are not convinced with the elements of the syllabus that should be taught but they find themselves obliges to abide by the imposed instructions. This is a policy-related issue that represents a real challenge in the higher education contexts where the syllabus does not meet the teachers’ intentions and instructional goals. Apart from these above-mentioned factors, the lack of teachers’ knowledge about their students' needs and preferences or as they have been addressed by Hutchinson and Waters (1987) as the ’subjective needs may be considered as another reason behind the lack of congruence between their beliefs and practices. This is in line with many previous studies such as (Hyland, 2003; Diab, 2005; Jeon and Kang, 2005). By the same token, establishing this link between students’ preferences and teachers’ practices has been deeply focused on and recommended in many studies such as (Leki, 1991; Hyland, 1998; Saito, 1994). There is no concrete evidence as to whether teachers manage to provide adequate explanations of their WCF practices or not. Consequently, ethnographical research should be required to shed some light on this problem.
However, devalorizing the role of PAR as an important form of PD among teachers generally and within the WCF area of research specifically may lead to a failure in catering for good opportunities for professional engagement and growth. Additionally, the failure of the policies supporting PD in the tertiary Tunisian context is an important factor to consider in approaching the condition of PD in this specific context. This has been highlighted in Zayani's (2020) study which established a link between Tertiary Tunisian teachers’ PD in approaching WCF and she drew to the poor level of teachers’ PD in the Tunisian university.
5.7. The impact of the PD training on EFL teachers’ PD about WCF
The findings showed that the teachers are highly motivated to receive professional development about WCF. This is recurrent throughout the whole study (in the survey, interviews, and group discussions). They highly recommend training sessions. Their recommendations are echoed in other studies that call for training about WCF practices (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Chen, Nassaji, & Liu, 2016). The manifestations of this lack of training and professional development are obvious in the misalignment between their beliefs and practices about some WCF foci. The professional training that the teachers underwent was highly appreciated and satisfied the teachers’ needs about having professional development training. There are different reasons explaining teachers’ satisfaction with the training. First, they confess that they have changed in their approaches to WCF concerns.
Staff development refers to the opportunities given to teachers to reflect on knowledge, learners, and pedagogy as highlighted by (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995). This reflection has been fostered among the participants who have highlighted different types of reflection namely reflection-on-action, reflection-in-action and reflection-for- action. Teachers’ reflection-on-action appeared when they retrospect their past practices in applying the proposed framework during the study. While reflection-on-action is a more conscious process and it occurs after the teaching session through focusing on students’ lacks and learning problems. These two types of reflections are similar to the ones identified by Griffiths and Tann (1992) who said that reflection can alter and improve plans of instruction in EFL classrooms. This will lead to focusing on reflection-for-action where teachers are ‘proactive in committing to improving their teaching’ (Kwan and Simpson 2010:418). This is in line with Thorsen and DeVore (2013) who state that reflection on and for action is used for evaluation to achieve better educational processes. Interestingly, the importance of focusing on reflection is tightly linked to Schön (1983) who confirmed that when teachers reflect, they draw on their knowledge, skills, and context so that they can make changes.
Additionally, the teachers in this study have shown their concern with being critical thinkers after having the sessions of the professional development. This has been addressed by Larrive (2008) concerning the different levels of reflection. The current study showed that EFL teachers have benefited from the intervention and consequently, they have improved their reflective skills ranging from non-reflective to descriptive, comparative, and finally critical/transformative as addressed by Walsh (2012). Many studies have shown the positive impact of the intervention on teachers’ reflection such as Jay and Johnson (2002) and Ward and McCotter (2004) who have focused on the process of inquiry to define the reflection level. This study did not address this vocal point, but it is considered as a good opportunity to think about it in some future research.
Wallace (1991:12) says that ‘experiential knowledge’ relates to ‘the professional ongoing experience’ in which the trainees develop knowledge-in-action (Schön 1983) by making judgments of and reflecting on what they live in day-to-day practice. Another aspect of professional development among the teachers in this study is their increase of knowledge concerning the WCF practices and policy in the Tunisian context. This knowledge has been shaped through the role of the Collaborative action research engagement among the participants. This goes hand in hand with Calderhead and Gates’s (1993:5) statement that foregrounds reflection within the supportive environment that ‘may only be within a culture of collaboration’. Thus, it is very difficult for the teachers to discover what they do not know about the pedagogy of WCF without engagement. This engagement has been ensured via the role of focus group discussions which are referred to as « verbal interaction » by Collin and Karsenti (2011:571). These interactions have been approached in the literature as a strong vehicle for engagement with others to improve their practices. By the same token, Walsh and Mann (2015) argue for encouraging teachers to engage in a collaborative discussion to help them shape better experiential knowledge to best articulate their practicum for deeper understanding. As in this study, the teachers implement reflective journals as a tool for reflection and collaboration with the researcher. This important role of reflective journals has been highlighted in the literature by Lee (2008) and Bolton (2010). Also, teachers can question their practices through the lens of critical reflection. However, reflection may not systematically lead to change and improvement.
The participants in this study could be considered as a community of practice, a community that shares common concerns and participates in common activities. This community of teachers has been established thanks to the PAR activities. This resonates with Haggarty & Postlethwaite’s (2002) concern about the importance of developing specific strategies to unify the teaching community in a workplace. Additionally, collaboration among teachers should be approached as a learning opportunity rather than an obligation to maintain healthy communication between the different members of the same department and the different departments as it has been found in this study and in other studies such as (Sheridan-Thomas, 2006). In an attempt to evaluate the Professional development of the EFL teachers in this study, we can resort to Gueskey’s (2002) framework of evaluating teachers’ changes which are made up of changes in teachers’ classroom practices, beliefs, and attitudes and changes in students' learning outcomes. I can conclude that the professional development of teachers in the current study matches well Gueskey’s proposed framework. This is in line with Gamlem (2015) who investigated the importance of teachers’ change about WCF concerns.
5.8. Participatory Action Research as a form of PD
EFL teachers’ participation in the Participatory action research is in itself a form of professional development. This section will discuss how PAR is perceived not only as a methodological tool in this study but also as an empowering device that engaged teachers in the PD asset. Kennedy (2005) classified PD models into three groups: transmissive, transitional, and transformative models. This classification highlighted the nature of PD theories that were developed from merely instrumental perspectives that marginalize teachers’ roles to democratic ones that sustain autonomy and agency (Kennedy, 2014). Since the PAR model falls within the transitional and transformative approaches, it has been approached as an empowering tool for teachers’ development and growth. Therefore, teachers become able to enhance effectiveness in their instructional practices without asking the support of external agencies. This concern has been highlighted in Norton (2018) who highlighted the importance of action research in boosting teachers’ awareness of their problems and helping them find practical solutions. However, lack of time hinders the teachers in this study to achieve better engagement with the PD sessions. This problem has been reported in some other studies such as (Black, 2005 and Clayton, et al., 2008).
The current study is therefore an attempt to highlight the importance of PAR in engaging the Tunisian EFL teachers in PD, which is still an under-explored area of research, and teachers themselves showed their need for more PD interventions in the future.
5.9. Theorization
The process of theorization is about reflecting crititcally on the used theories in the study. In this study many frameworks have been adopted and I will reflect on them in this section of the discussion. They are presented in the figure as follows.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 5.9: Illustrating the frameworks implemented in this research for discussion
First, the methodological frameworks adopted in this study are related to the participatory action research and the mixed method frameworks used in the methodology section. The Mixed methods action research framework was adopted by Ivankova and Wingo (2018), and the two participatory action research frameworks were adopted by Kemmis and McTaggart (2008) and Sendall et al (2016). These three frameworks were used to highlight the dynamic relationship between the action, participatory and research dimensions because each framework focuses on one dimension. Mingling them together in this study creates a space to revisit these different frameworks to fit the current study requirements and needs. It has been confirmed in this study that the teachers have changed in their beliefs and practices and they are more empowered to take decisions about WCF. This is in line with the concept of « transformation » that addresses the lack of knowledge as illustrated by Leglar and Collay (2002: 856) « Missing from the knowledge base of teaching were the voices of teachers themselves, the questions teachers ask, the ways teachers use writing and intentional talk in their work lives, and the interpretive frames teachers use to understand and improve their classroom practices. » To sustain teachers ‘knowledge, the spiraling aspect of action research itself reflects that knowledge is an ongoing process that is derived from the practice and practice is informed by knowledge as it is confirmed by Henry and Sutton (2003) “this give and take of question, implementation, reflection, change practice, question, implementation, reflection, change practice is representative of the spiraling nature of the action research process”. The choice of PAR as a methodological framework in this study has shown its effectiveness since it has led to the improvement in teachers’ practices and beliefs, but it is important to be aware that action research cannot generate generalizable knowledge. This is exactly what Evans et al (2000) have pointed to by opting for its transferability rather than generalizability. However, the absence of some contextual and institutional support may affect negatively the implication of the action research framework since it has been described as a complex system to consider by Ulvik and Riese (2015).
Second, the instructional framework is related to the DWCF initiated by Hartshorn, et al, (2010). This used instructional framework is based on four principles. So the WCF should be 1) meaningful in the sense that learners understand it and know how to utilize it. 2) Timely when learners receive it soon after writing. 3) constant, when the learners reach automatization in L2 production and 4,) manageable when teachers need time to provide good feedback and students to process the received feedback. In this study, the two first principles worked well, while with the last two ones there is a lack in implementing them because there is a shortage of time devoted to the WCF, and not all the students manage to automatize their productions in writing.
Additionally, it is worthy to mention that the DWCF has led to the increase in the lexical written complexity among students just like it has been confirmed by Hartshorn and Evans (2015). Additionally, the DWCF has shown its effectiveness in increasing written accuracy in local and global errors as shown in Kurzer’s (2017) study. Additionally, this instructional framework helped the students become more autonomous and able to self-edit their writings. To overcome the ineffectiveness of the DWCF framework, many attempts have been made to overcome some lacks in this framework such as Altamimi (2014) and Eckstein et al (2020). It is worth noting that opting for direct and indirect WCF techniques does not undermine other forms of WCF provision techniques such as recast and metalinguistic feedback which have been their effectiveness in a range of studies (Mohammadi, 2009).
As far as the practical frameworks are concerned, the PI is based on some frameworks that helped in the implementation process. The first framework is based on Al-Jarrah’s (2016) dichotomy between Error feedback which focuses on global issues and error correction that deals with local errors. With error feedback, indirect WCF was implemented, while with error correction, direct WCF is required. This framework has shown relative effectiveness with the different error types throughout the ten departments since there is a slight improvement in the global issues. This may be explained by the implementation of the indirect technique since students got benefit from the direct more than the direct modality of WCF provision as confirmed by (Shintani & Ellis, 2013). The second WCF framework is related to Hattie and Timperley (2007) which highlighted in its first part three different stages namely feeding up; feeding back, and feeding forward. These three stages were implemented in the reflective journals for the teachers so that they reflect on three different questions that fit the three different stages mentioned earlier: Where am I going? How am I going? and where to next?
These three questions guided the teachers in their process of reflection on the process of the intervention during three months and they were highly motivated to give detailed answers about their WCF practices according to these three questions. However, some teachers find it challenging to reflect and evaluate their practices in the light of the third question which is about feeding forward. The latter is an important principle of effective feedback to close the feedback loop as is highlighted by Boud & Molloy (2012). Teachers should receive training on how to increase the writing task challenge to maximize feedforward opportunities to help learners be more accurate.
Chapter 6: Conclusion
“All is well that ends well” William Shakespeare
6.1 . Introduction
In this final chapter, I summarized the main findings of the research questions. Then I described the implications of this study. This is followed by presenting the contributions and suggestions for future research. Finally, I presented some limitations and I reflected on my research journey by focusing on my learning experiences.
6.2 . Summary of the main findings
The main research findings are tightly linked to the research questions guiding this study which are as follows:
1. How do EFL/ESL Tunisian Teachers think about WCF provision and what are their actual practices?
2. What is the relation between EFL/ESL Tunisian teachers' cognitions and practices of WCF (alignments versus misalignments)?
3. What is the impact of the intervention on EFL/ESL learners' writing development?
4. What is the impact of the intervention on EFL/ESL teachers’ cognitions and practices about WCF?
5. What is the proposed WCF methodology that should be implemented in the future in the tertiary Tunisian context?
I will now summarize these findings which answer these questions.
6.1.1 How do EFL/ESL Tunisian Teachers think about WCF provision and what are their actual practices?
In this section, I will summarize the findings related to EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices vis-à-vis WCF provision.
6.1.1.1. EFL teachers’ beliefs about WCF provision
The teachers’ beliefs have been investigated via the survey and the pre-intervention interview.
The teachers are unfamiliar with the WCF pedagogy and they are not satisfied with the quality of the WCF that they used to give to their students. In addition, they faced major theoretical and practical challenges in being effective in their WCF provision. They are fully aware of the importance of providing WCF to their students to boost their written accuracy. However, they disagree about focusing on correction over time and making revisions on multiple drafts.
They showed the presence of a priority scheme in dealing with the written errors and they focused on a wide range of errors. In considering the different error types, they prioritized lexical and syntactic errors over the grammatical and morphological ones. In focusing on the WCF strategy to use, they are in favor of using the direct WCF strategy rather than the indirect one. The teachers disagreed about the presence of a clear national policy about WCF at the Tunisian tertiary level. Additionally, they highlighted the absence of training and their ignorance of the recent innovations in theory and practice. The teachers reported different reasons behind their selection of WCF such as their beliefs and teaching experience and pre-service training that shaped their knowledge and therefore preferences and choices. There is a strong disagreement about considering students’ ability of selfediting as a measurement of effectiveness in writing. Teachers’ concerns with their students’ needs are obvious in this study. Additionally, they are concerned with developing new teaching skills about WCF concerns to become able to link their beliefs and practices better to establish a bridge between theory and practice. The willingness for change and looking for more effective alternatives in WCF pedagogy is clear among participants who showed a high motivation of engagement in PD training sessions.
The writing teachers showed different approaches to writing instruction in terms of writing pedagogy adopted in their classrooms, orientations about writing instruction, approaching their students’ errors, and prioritization preferences. Additionally, they showed a high concern with their students’ writing challenges and they provided some practical solutions. Nevertheless, they focused on how to improve WCF effectiveness to boost the quality of the writing instruction. This effectiveness is highly linked to their concern with PD as they showed their needs and challenges about PD training and activities.
6.1.1.2. EFL teachers’ WCF practices
The WCF analysis of the EFL teachers’ provision samples has shown the features of their practices concerning WCF focus and type. Teachers focused on error forms especially the grammatical and the morphological error types. Which are corrected indirectly.
6.2.2. What is the relation between EFL/ESL Tunisian teachers' cognitions and practices of WCF (alignments versus misalignments)?
The findings highlighted both alignment and misalignment between EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices about WCF provision. The alignment is obvious in implementing different strategies in the same piece of writing and focusing on the indirect error strategy. While misalignment is clear in the emphasis on the grammatical and morphological error types in practice while they are the least prioritized error types in teachers’ responses on the survey and the interview. Another instance of misalignment is in the absence of focus on the syntactic error types which are highly focused on the theoretical side.
6.1.3 . What is the impact of the intervention on EFL/ESL learners' writing development?
This concern has been highlighted in this study about the learners’ accuracy development which has been detected through the multiple drafts.
Through comparing the ten English departments, I can deduce that the accuracy rate depends from one department to another and the intervention has a positive impact on the majority of the students. As far as the local errors are concerned, the students’ written accuracy has improved about the grammatical errors and specifically the syntactic and the morphological error types, while the rate of accuracy development is lower with the lexical error types namely the semantic and formal errors. Concerning the global errors, they are fewer than the local ones and they are not affected widely by the intervention since the accuracy gains in both the organization and content errors are restricted to two or three departments. I can conclude that the intervention has a positive impact on the locally written errors more than the global ones. Additionally, the students developed self-editing techniques during this study which enabled them to be more autonomous and empowered in the process of WCF self- evaluation.
6.1.4 What is the impact of the intervention on EFL/ESL teachers’ cognitions and practices about WCF?
There is a change in teachers’ beliefs and practices after the implementation of the pedagogical intervention.
6.1.4.1. The impact of the intervention on EFL teachers’ beliefs
The intervention has a positive impact on the teachers’ cognition about WCF instruction and provision. They have reconsidered their assumptions through reconceptualizing the pedagogy of WCF in the EFL classroom. The implementation of the alternative pedagogy has participated in reshaping teachers’ focus and concerns about their WCF approaches and practices. Additionally, they have revisited their understanding of the needs and roles of the learners in the process of WCF provision. Moreover, the intervention helps the teachers engage in PD training and establish group engagement. They shaped new professional skills about coping strategies and better effectiveness measures. They become empowered to be active agents in the process of thinking, reflecting, and acting professionally in the EFL writing classes.
6.1.4.2. The impact of the intervention on EFL teachers’ practices
The teachers are no longer acting haphazardly in the WCF provision. Thus, their practices are informed by their needs and recommendations and they act according to a well- established WCF scheme that matches the existing lacks. The findings revealed that the teachers become able to use direct and indirect WCF techniques with local and global error types strategically. In other words, their practices are informed by a good theory of practice. In addition, they become motivated to use multiple drafts and to engage their students in the process of the WCF construction and provision. Finally, the teachers have learned how to prioritize some errors for consideration instead of pouring the red ink everywhere.
6.1.5 What is the proposed WCF methodology that should be implemented in the future in the tertiary Tunisian context?
The current research has focused on investigating the existing gaps and the needs in the Tunisian tertiary level context in an attempt to overcome the lacks through tracing the features of a possible alternative WCF framework. This proposed framework represents the core of the so-called pedagogical intervention which is based on the following principles.
The dynamic relationship between students and teachers in WCF.
- Focusing on WCF techniques in the light of error types
- Strategically opting for some linguistic structures.
- Focusing on multiple drafts instead of one draft.
- framing teachers' practices with a well-defined blueprint that guides their practices.
- Valorizing and prioritizing learners’ errors.
- Managing the time allocated to the WCF provision.
6.2. Theoretical and pedagogical implications
The findings of this study raised the concern with some theoretical and practical implications.
6.2.1 Implications for policymakers
It has been highlighted that there is no clear WCF policy at the Tunisian tertiary level. There is a miscommunication problem between the different English departments and no harmony as a result. In some departments writing is overlooked in the second-year program for about six years. Consequently, students study writing in the first and the third year. This discontinuity will evoke many negative consequences. Additionally, with some other departments writing has been omitted from the program of the third year and substituted by reading. This lack of concern with the writing skill from the ministry of higher education is obvious and in the light of this, it needs to revisit its current policies through realigning the practices and policies with the actual contextual and educational needs of the teachers and the learners in each institution.
Rethinking the policy concerning WCF concerns and priorities at the tertiary Tunisian context has been considered as a priority to fix the parameters for educational effectiveness. This is in line with Ahmed and Sayed’s (2009, p. 213) notion of “the policy-implementation nexus”, thus the quality of a good policy depends to a large extent on its utility and feasibility of implementation. To do so, the ministry should establish standards for teaching effectiveness and develop a well-established program for professional development that will empower EFL teachers generally and writing teachers specifically.
6.2.2 Implications for the National Curriculum and syllabi
This study did not probe into the effectiveness of the WCF curriculum, but the participants highlighted its centrality as an element of effectiveness. It has been highlighted that the national curriculum lacks basic aspects and the institutions implement different syllabi structures and forms which may leave teachers with different opportunities of maneuver. Therefore, one of the implications of this study is to highlight the concern with planning for better curricula and syllabi based on the theoretical and practical advancements in the area of Applied Linguistics and other related domains. Having an enriched curriculum will help teachers feel more secure pedagogically that their needs and concerns have been met.
6.2.3 From Theory to practice to praxis
The findings of this study highlighted the dissatisfaction of the participants with their professional development training during the pre-service and the in-service stages (Dixon et al., 2011). In the Tunisian context, just like any other English program in different other countries, English teachers receive pre-service training that allows them to meet the future requirements of the EFL/ESL classroom. This program contributes to a large extent to promoting PD of language teachers (Richards & Farrell, 2005, p. 1). This understanding fits well the global understanding of teachers' education programs that have been accused of discriminating theory from practice as argued by Johnson & Arshavskaya (2011, p. 168). Apart from the pre-service concerns, EFL writing teachers in this study are not satisfied with the in-service professional development training. As they reported there is a scarcity of training that stems from the policy marginalization of the continuous professional development interests. Therefore, revisiting the theories framing EFL teachers’ pre-service and in-service training and linking them to the Tunisian context in line with its needs and requirements seem to be of high significance to achieve a better practicum. The latter is tightly linked to the EFL teachers' skills and knowledge, therefore it is traced in almost all teacher education programs. It is important to raise the following concern about language teacher training program that should not only benefit from education training but also incorporate the practical training concerning the call of Pennington (1990, p.134) ‘tools of the teaching profession: in methods, materials, curriculum and evaluation” who warns from the drawbacks of separating the two previously mentioned aspects of teacher education programs on the theoretical and practical dimensions of educational effectiveness. Swaying between’ what is’ and ‘what should be’ (Witkin & Altschuld, 1995, p. 9), the teachers’ needs should be addressed as a prerequisite. Moving strategically from theory to practice to achieve better praxis is a complex process of trial, engagement, and awareness, a Stoney road that should be taken carefully (Arnold& Mundy, 2020). Therefore, Praxis pedagogy in teacher education should be considered in the light of WCF pedagogy to engender transformation and agency among practitioners.
6.2.4 Implications for the EFL writing teachers
This study represented an opportunity to reflect on EFL teachers’ effectiveness which is approached in a clear cut with the ‘prescriptive approach’ of teacher education. EFL teachers need new strategies to meet professional standards such as reflective practices collegial networking. Reflective practice is a process of professional ego- development as I coined it. Through reflecting on their practices, EFL teachers broaden and deepen their understanding of what constitutes effectiveness in teaching.
Another important dimension of self-development is teachers’ active engagement in collaborative engagement within the same department and among different departments. This networking has been ensured through participation in the PAR and contributes to updating different aspects of knowledge and practices. Teachers discovered the practices of WCF in the different other English departments and they learned from this experience over three months of PI. This is confirmed by Loughran (2002, p. 33) who drew attention to the role of ‘time, experience and expectations of learning’ as milestones in shaping professionalism and development. Teachers revisited their assumptions about WCF provision pedagogy and they received a PDtraining that enlightened them to be active agents in their classrooms through shaping new orientations and beliefs.
6.3. The study contribution
There are different types of contributions in this study and they are classified into three major types as follows: theoretical, pedagogical, and methodological.
6.3.1 Theoretical contributions
The mixed-methods design and the PAR methodology adopted in the current study have resulted in a significant contribution to the knowledge of teachers’ professional development about the area of WCF. This study approached the complexity of the teacher's professional development about WCF and learners’ accuracy improvement through focusing on the micro context (individual teachers), meso (institutional), and macro (university system). This is in line with the Tunisian Ministry’s plans about having a better vision to find out future educational opportunities for teachers’ PD. This inherent awareness may be pronounced through sensitizing EFL teachers about the importance of being integrated with PD programs and working more collaboratively.
Theoretically speaking, the current study revealed the importance of teachers’ engagement in PAR sessions as a form of PD in enhancing their professionalism. This foregrounded the basicness of teachers’ professional development in increasing their knowledge (Wagner, 2018). Through introducing them to the PD training EFL teachers are no longer passive recipients, but they are rather responsible and fully aware of their roles as active agents who should contribute to the process of knowledge creation” (Govender, 2015, p. 490). At the theorization level, it has been argued by Kennedy (2014) that literature on teachers’ CPD is fragmented and under-theorized” (p.689). Concerning the Tunisian context, Zayani (2020) criticized the obvious lack of EFL tertiary teachers’ PD about WCF instruction and provision and she put forward a theoretical framework that could be implemented to create PD opportunities. In line with these raised concerns, this study contributes to the conceptualization and theorization of both PD through the active engagement in PAR activities and an alternative WCF model that could fit the needs of the Tunisian tertiary level.
The current research presented a theoretical framework that has been tailored to answer the existing gaps in the Tunisian context. This framework is depicted as follows.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
My proposed framework showed the pivotal role of the pedagogical intervention for both the learners and the teachers during the process of its implementation.
This proposed framework contributes to the field of WCF research and EFL teachers' professional development in different ways:
1) Thinking about an alternative practice about WCF in the Tunisian context which is informed by the actual needs is considered as an innovation. This study adopts and revisits the DWCF framework as an important element in the PI. The rationale behind the choice of this framework lies in its four principles about WCF which should be (timely, manageable, meaningful, and constant). The application of these principles contributes to solving some practical problems. Additionally, drawing conceptual and practical boundaries between error correction and error feedback has been considered in this study. By focusing on local and global errors, the researcher tried to overcome the literature debate about grammar correction. Thus, the intervention focused on form and content not only on grammatical correctness. Also, this study contributes to drawing EFL teachers’ awareness about prioritizing their error foci. This has been ensured by selecting a specific range of errors that are most frequent in the different English departments participating in this study. Hence achieving WCF effectiveness has been mentioned in Perpignan’s (2003) conclusions that an empathetic approach to dialogue around feedback is a key condition for its effectiveness.
2) The Pedagogical intervention affects both students and teachers. I referred to this by initiating the ZPD construct as holding a double effect. I refer to it as the zone of proximal development when I approach learners. I borrowed Vygotsky’s concept that he used in his socio-cultural theory to highlight the role of collaboration between the teachers and the students in the process of implementing the intervention. It is so because the learners took part in the process of writing the edit logs which helped them notice the gap in their practices thanks to the aid of their teachers. Focusing on schaffolding in the writitng EFL classroom is in line with Shkri’s (2014, p. 202) call to « scaffold the learner in all stages of writing through drafting, revising, and redrafting. »
Additionally, I referred to the intervention's impact on teachers by highlighting the ZPD which denotes the zone of professional development. I borrowed the Vygotskian acronym to coin a new frame that translates my concern with teachers’ development in this study. Therefore, I valorized the effect of the intervention on EFL teachers since it helped them establish good departmental networking through raising their awareness in line with their PD needs towards WCF concerns. In my conception teachers reach the zone of professional development after passing through two important zones namely the discomfort zone and the experiential growth zones. The former characterizes the state of insecurity and unfamiliarity with the newly presented output. The teachers in this study at the beginning start thinking about their assumptions and reflect critically on what they know about what they do. They noticed that they are unfamiliar with many approaches and practices in the WCF area. Gradually, the feeling of discomfort changed into a learning development when the participants recognized that they are going to take part in a new learning experience that will empower them to grow. The newly coined ZPD zone will contribute to the field of EFL teachers’ PD engagement and growth.
3) This framework will contribute to EFL writing research area in different EFL/ESL contexts to foster the links between the teachers and the learners dynamically. The contribution of this new framework resonates with Ahmed's (2016) call for more research on teacher professional development concerning feedback practices in Egypt. Hammad (2016) explained that the lack of time is the major cause of the lack of teachers’ feedback in the Palestinian context. This study may be an attempt to address some EFL writing teachers’ problems with the scarcity of time and work burnout to provide effective feedback. Matching beliefs and practices among EFL teachers is a major issue that has been raised in many studies and different contexts such as Alshahrani and Storch (2014) and Alkhatib (2015) in the Saudi context. One of the practical solutions that this study provides is to encourage researchers to embark on intervention-based research that could contextualize and better diagnose the problem of misalignment. In the Tunisian context, Athimni (2019) found that the EFL teachers have theoretical guiding knowledge, but they do not know how to translate it into practice. While in Yamen, EFL teachers approach giving WCF as a heavy burden (al- Hammadi&Sidek, 2015). Morocco, Bouziane& Zayad (2018) investigated the effect of technology-mediated self-review and peer feedback. This focus on technology should be fostered in future studies, especially after the failure of many teaching policies in coping with online feedback during the pandemic era. All in all, this proposed framework goes hand in hand with the statement of Ahmed et al (2020, 2) “English writing and pedagogy need to be explored continuously in the Middle East and North Africa contexts”.
6.3.2 Pedagogical contributions
The findings of this study contribute to the field of writing instruction and WCF pedagogy improvement through revisiting the role of WCF as a mediating tool between EFL teachers’ professional development and learners’ writing accuracy. English teachers at the tertiary level in Tunisia have different backgrounds in terms of education, training, specialties, and experiences. Some teachers lack the threshold knowledge about WCF concerns and applications in the EFL classroom. The participants in this study reported their unfamiliarity with the WCF pedagogy and the lack of engagement with other colleagues from the same English department and between the different departments in other institutions. Thus, this study represents a practical attempt through tracing the components of the WCF pedagogy that should be implemented in the future at the Tunisian tertiary level. In addition, the inter and intradepartmental established networks between the EFL teachers are considered as an important practical contribution because the teachers exchanged experiences about writing instruction. Most importantly, the students become more empowered to reflect on their errors and to self-edit their writings and the teachers’ problem with the time challenges has been overcome thanks to the implementation of the DWCF model which has been approached as a systematic instructional tool in WCF (Bitchener, 2008; Sheen, 2007). One of the most salient contributions is the integration of different related factors and working on scaffolding in WCF to feed-forward in the future, rather than being limited to present occasions of correctness which may not be persistent over time as it has been highlighted by (STEFANOU & REVESZ, 2015). Additionally, in the writing classroom, adopting multiple drafts and creating a timely and consistent pattern of feedback in collaboration with the teachers and the students will contribute to better management of written errors and boost accuracy. In writing instruction, EFL teachers become aware of the implementation of different WCF techniques about local and global error types. Also, through this study, we can account for the nature of the EFL Tunisian students’ written errors and locate the seriousness of these errors accordingly. This knowledge in itself will serve as a good pedagogical impetus to deeper instructional practices in the writing FL classroom.
6.3.3 Methodological contributions
The current study adopted a mixed-method design and a PAR methodology to investigate the EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices and to provide an alternative to the current WCFpedagogies if they exist. The methodological contribution stems not only from the use of PAR in investigating WCF concerns but also from the creation of a new methodological framework that illustrates the Participatory Action Research dynamics in a well-patterned way via the amalgam of three frameworks to come up with the PAR mixed -methods framework that could be adopted in future studies. This created framework contributes to the critical endeavors about human interaction and practices of the educational theory as Kemmis (1993, p15) puts it “Our task as educational researchers involves us in taking concrete and explicit steps towards changing the theory, policy and practice of educational research, as well as participating in the work of changing educational theory, educational policy and educational practice...”.
6.4. Suggestions for future research
This study represents one of the very scarce attempts to investigate in-depth EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices concerning WCF provision theories and approaches at the university level in Tunisia. It is an attempt to raise the concern of policy-makers and teachers’ trainers towards the importance of planning and establishing a strong PD program to support pre-service and in-service professional growth and agency which are not well established in the Tunisian context. Despite the ministerial trials to find out opportunities for teachers to express their voices, several prerequisite steps and actions should be taken at the national level to boost the movement of innovation and development to achieve effective results in the future.
Another future suggestion is related to enhancing collaboration and collegial relationships between EFL writing teachers through sustaining opportunities for continuous PD. Thus, teachers’ future PD programs should prioritize focusing on WCF concerns. Fostering mentoring programmes to contribute to in-service teachers’ continuous learning is in line with Feiman-Nemser (2001) conception of « educative mentoring ». Thus, mentors are made and not born with their knowledge, therefore this study will contribute to raising mentors’ knowledge EFLteachers’ needs and lacks that should be addressed in the future.
Encouraging more future research that focuses on intervention studies that are based on action and praxis will be a good idea to create new opportunities for investigating the real issues and lacunas that surround the Tunisian EFL educational context. Additionally, Students should be more familiar with their errors to notice the existing gap and they should understand the feedback that they receive from their teachers to maximize its benefits. The power of feedback culminates in its potential to feedforward for future learning opportunities. This is an under-explored area of research about writing and many voices have been hearing recently to find out the conditions, opportunities, and methodologies to boost the feedback for better future occasions of uptake and success.
Most importantly, linking the local Tunisian context with the international global context would lead to better pedagogical insights and improvements to get benefit from other studies in the national and international areas about WCF research. Raising this awareness will help, teachers, students, trainers, and researchers to pay more attention to what is there? And what should it be? Raising cognitive awareness about practical transformations will give better pedagogical fruits that will be implemented in the future. Trabelsi (2020) and Zayani (2020) drew to the importance of focusing on more research on aligning EFL teachers ‘beliefs and practices about WCF and they highlighted it as an under-explored research area in the Tunisian context. Also, more future research should target the effectiveness of WCF's different techniques about the different range of errors to see if some error feedback techniques are meant to be more effective in raising the accuracy of some specific error types.
Additionally, this study may contribute to sustainable development in the area of assessment (Brindley, 2001). This seems in strong relation with formative assessment approaches about students’ accuracy gains in the EFL classroom. Also, it is linked to EFL teachers' understanding of the assessment rubrics that should be used in the evaluation process.
6.5. The Limitations of the study
Despite the gains in this study, we cannot deny the presence of many limitations and they are as follows:
1- The study lasted 12 weeks, which is a relatively short period to test the effectiveness of the PI on students’ written accuracy. This time factor may explain the failure of many students across different departments to achieve accuracy.
2- Resorting to the online facility represented a nightmare to many teachers in this study. Three departments did not continue with the last month of the training regarding the imposed challenges by the online teaching. The lack of coping strategies among teachers and the lack of the tradition of implementing online instruction represented an obvious issue in this study.
3- The findings of this study could not be generalizable because it is an action research study. It is considered as fieldwork research and what can be found in a specific context with some specific participants and under specific conditions could not be transferred to other contexts easily.
4- Another challenge stems from having the consent of the participants to take part in the study. It is challenging to find out ten EFL writing teachers from ten different English departments.
5- Deciding upon the elements of intervention with the participants, since it is a PAR, all the teachers should be involved in the process of decision-making with the researcher. Additionally, another challenge is about deciding on the focus of each session.
6- The implementation feasibility of the proposed framework seemed to be challenging for the majority of the teachers at the beginning of the training since they are not familiar with it.
7- Not all the students managed to write and edit their essays during all periods of training. Regarding the problem of absenteeism, many students cannot attend weekly and therefore they missed the opportunity of correcting and editing their errors and get benefit from the new approach.
8- The researcher found a slight challenge in positioning herself as the source of the training especially she dealt with some of her teachers. Therefore, taking the position of the researcher and the moderator of the training required a heavy responsibility and awareness in terms of how to be neutral and to be socially adequate in terms of using politeness strategies and hedging devices. However, this challenge contributes to the learning process of the researcher while embarking on this study. This will be the focus of the next section.
6.6. Reflecting on my Ph.D. Journey
Before embarking on this PAR study as a researcher, I expected that the Tunisian tertiary EFL writing teachers might need more WCF literacy to meet the threshold standards and the requirements. The findings of the study confirmed my expectations, especially after the intervention. I felt satisfied that I have managed to diagnose and investigate the WCF assumptions, approaches, and practices among the teachers in different English departments in Tunisia. Also, I was happy that I managed to introduce them to an intervention that would help them to sharpen their understanding of WCF in theory and practice. My satisfaction is more obvious when I noticed the emerged shift in the participants’ beliefs and practices before and after the PI. Engaging with the participants during this study was highly fruitful in terms of collaboration, understanding, and reflection on the proposed PI. The participants were motivated to take part in the PD training because it matched well their professional needs about the existing lack of PD opportunities in their institutions. This is in line with my previous call in Zayani (2020)” for more research ... in evaluating EFL teachers’ WCF practices as a measure of professional maturity. It is worth noting that research addressing the depth of EFL teachers’ professional development is still lacking theoretical and practical evidence”. (pp 18,19).
By conducting this study I knew more about EFL writing instruction and WCF practices in the higher education Tunisian context. Contacting the teachers before, during, and after the intervention helped me gain a deeper understanding of the topic. I appreciated what I did especially when many participants showed their satisfaction and learning from this PD experience and they expressed their willingness to take part in more future opportunities of PD training in the future. Since knowledge is power, I confess that this study empowered me as a researcher, and as a future practitioner in the EFL writing field.
6.7. Conclusion
The current study depicted the current theoretical and practical orientations about WCF in the Tunisian tertiary context level and tried to find out an attempt to meet the existing lacks via integrating some elements of intervention in the EFL writing classroom. The proposed WCF instructional framework is based on the teachers’ needs and experiences with teaching writing and WCF. The current study has different theoretical, methodological, and practical contributions within the Tunisian context and the Arab world. However, there are some limitations to this study that raised the awareness that relativity is very important in research.
To conclude, this study represents an opportunity to valorize and reward writing as an important skill in the area of SLA. Most importantly, rethinking WCF provision about EFL teachers’ PD and learners’ written accuracy represents the strongest reason for conducting this study as an attempt to open up new avenues for the feedback to feed-forward.
Refernces
Abdi, H., & Asadi, B. (2015). A Synopsis of Researches on Teachers’ and Students’ Beliefs about Language Learning. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL), 3(4), 104-114.
Anderson, L. (2010). Embedded, emboldened, and (net)working for change: Supportseeking and teacher agency in urban, high-needs schools. Harvard Educational Review, 80(4), 541-573. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.80.4.f2v8251 444581105 HydePublications
Afitska, O. (2015) Role of focus-on-form instruction, corrective feedback and uptake in second language classrooms: some insights from recent second language acquisition research. Language Learning Journal, 43 (1). 57 - 73. ISSN 0957 1736 https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2012.701320
Al-Bakri, S. (2016). Written corrective feedback: Teachers’ beliefs, practices and challenges in an Omani context. Arab Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 4473. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1207970.pdf al-Bakri, S., & Troudi, S. (2020). EFL teachers’ beliefs about professionalism and professional development: A case study from Oman. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 15(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1558/jalpp.34885
Al-Ghatrifi, Y. (2016). The professional development of teachers in Higher Education in Oman: a case study of English teachers in the Colleges of Applied Sciences.
Alhosani, M.N. (2008). Utilizing the writing process approach with English as a second language writers: A case study of five fifth grade ESL Arab students. PhD thesis, Kansas State University
Aljasir, N. (2021). Matches or mismatches? Exploring shifts in individuals’ beliefs about written corrective feedback as students and teachers-to-be. Journal of Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(1). http://journal.uob.edu.bh/handle/123456789/4116
Alkhatib, N. (2015). Written corrective feedback at a Saudi university: English language teachers’ beliefs, students’ preferences, and teachers’ practices. (Unpublished Al-Jarrah, R. (2016). A suggested model of corrective feedback provision. Ampersand, 3, 98-107.doctoral thesis). University of Essex, Colchester, UK.
Allwright, R. L. (1975). Problems in the study of the language teachers' treatment of learner error. In M. K. Burt & H. Dulay (Eds.), New directions in second language learning, teaching and bilingual education: 9th TESOL convention (pp. 96-106). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Altrichter, H., Posch, P., & Somekh, B. (1993). Teachers investigate their work: An introduction to the methods of action research. London: Routledge.
Altrichter, H., & Posch, P. (1989). Does the "grounded theory" approach offer a guiding paradigm for teacher research? Cambridge Journal of Education, 19(1), 2131. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764890190104
Argyris, C. & Schön, D.A. (1974) Theory in Practice: increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Ackroyd, S. and Hughes, J., 1992. Data collection in context. 1st ed. London: Longman.
Atherton, J. (2005) 'Learning and Teaching: Reflection and Reflective Practice'
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? Aust. Rev. Appl. Linguist. 37 101-122. 10.1075/aral.37.2.02als
Amrhein, H. R. & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers prefer and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 13.2, 95-127.
Amirkhiz, S.Y., Bakar, K.A., Samad, A.A., Baki, R., & Mahmoudi, L. (2013). EFL/ESL Learners’ Language Related Episodes (LREs) during Performing Collaborative Writing Tasks. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4, 473-479.
Anderson, L. (2010). Embedded, emboldened, and (net)working for change: Supportseeking and teacher agency in urban, high-needs schools. Harvard Educational Review, 80(4), 541-573. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.80.4.f2v8251 444581105
Antoniou, P., Kyriakides, L., & Creemers, B. P. M. (2011). Investigating the effectiveness of a dynamic integrated approach to teacher professional development. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 1(1), 13-41.
Apriliyanti, D. L. (2020). Enhancing teachers’ competencies through professional development program: Challenges and benefits. Acuity: Journal of English Language Pedagogy, Literature and Culture, 5(1), 28-38. https://doi.org/10.35974/acuity.v5i1.2042
Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of Teacher Response to Student Writing in a Multiple-Draft Composition Classroom: Is the Content Feedback Followed by Form Feedback the Best Method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00027-8
Atkins, S. & Murphy, K. (1993) Reflection; a review of the literature, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18, pp. 1188-1192
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental Consideration in Language Testing. Oxford: OUP.
Batstone, R. (1996). Key Concepts in ELT: Noticing. ELT Journal 50 (3) 273-273.
Balcazar, F. E., Taylor, R. R., Kielhofner, G. W., Tamley, K., Benziger, T., Carlin, N., & Johnson, S. (2004). Participatory action research: General principles and a study with a chronic health condition. In L. A. Jason, C. B. Keys,
Bartram, M., & Walton, R. (1991). Correction. Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications
Banan. Q. (2003). Teacher lI'rillen Feedhock (lnd students' Writing: focus and nature
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Bogdan, R.C. and Biklen, S.K. (2007) Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. 5th Edition, Allyn & Bacon, Boston. Practices. International Review of Qualitative Research, 13(2), 103 111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940844720933225
Bolderston A. (2008). Writing an Effective Literature Review. Journal of medical imaging and radiation sciences, 39(2),
Brookfield, S. (1998). Critically reflective practice. Journal of Continuing Education in The Health Professions, 18, 197-205.
Buchanan, D. A., Addicott, R., Fitzgerald, L., Ferlie, E., & Baeza, J. I. (2007). Nobody in charge: Distributed change agency in healthcare. Human Relations, 60(7), 10651090. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726707081158
Brydon-Miller, M., Kral, M., & Ortiz Aragón, A. (2020). Participatory Action Research: International Perspectives and
Bland C, Taylor A, Shollen S. (2009). Faculty success through mentoring: A guide for mentors, mentees, and leaders (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.).
Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burusic, J., Babarovic, T., & Velic, M.S. (2016). School Effectiveness: An Overview of Conceptual, Methodological and Empirical Foundations.
Burns, M, Lawrie, J (eds) (2015) Where it’s needed most: Quality professional development for all teachers. Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies. New York: INEE.
Bruton, A. (2009). The Vocabulary Knowledge Scale: A Critical Analysis. Language Assessment Quarterly, 6, 288-297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15434300902801909
Bolton, G. (2005) Reflective Practice: Writing and Professional Development Second edition London: Paul Chapman.
Borg, S., & Sanchez, H. S. (2020). Cognition and good language teachers. In C. Griffiths & Z. Tajeddin (Eds.), Lessons from good language teachers (pp. 16-27). Cambridge University Press
Basturkmen, H. (2007). Teacher beliefs and teacher training. The Teacher Trainer, 21(1), 810.
Borg, S. (1998c). Teachers’ pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: A qualitative study. TESOL Quarterly, 32 (1), 9-38.
Burt, M. & Kiparsky, C. (1972). 'Global and local mistake', in J.H. Schuman & N. Stenson(eds). New Frontiers in Second Language Learning, 71-80. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
Brown, J.D. (2001). Using Surveys in Language Programs. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bitchener, J. (2009). Measuring the Effectiveness of Written Corrective Feedback: A response to “Overgeneralization from a Narrow Focus: A Response to Bitchener (2008).” Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 276-279. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/jjslw.2009.06.001
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008).The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409-431.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010a). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193-214.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010b). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207-217.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36 (2), 81-109. doi:10.1017/S0261444803001903
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London: Continuum.
Borg S (2018) Teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices. In: Garrett P, Cots JM (eds) The Routledge handbook of language awareness. Routledge, London, pp 75-91
Byram, M. (2004). Genre and genre-based teaching. The Routledge
Barnard, R., & Li, J. (Eds.). (2016). Language learner autonomy: Teachers’ beliefs and practices in Asian contexts. Phnom Penh: IDP Education.
Bland C, Taylor A, Shollen S. (2009). Faculty success through mentoring: A guide for mentors, mentees, and leaders (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.).
Blanchard, P.N. and Thacker, J.W. 2013. Effective training systems, strategies, and practices. England: Pearson.
Borko, H., Whitcomb, J., & Liston, D. (2009). Wicked Problems and Other Thoughts on Issues of Technology and Teacher Learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487108328488
Berg, B. L. (1989). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London: Continuum.
Benson, S., & DeKeyser, R. (2019). Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy. Language Teaching Research, 23(6), 702726. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818770921
Bowen, G.A. (2009), "Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method", Qualitative Research Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bryman, A. (2015). Social Research Methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Bruton, Anthony. (2009). Designing research into the effects of grammar correction: Not so straightforward. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 136-140.
Bryman, A., Bell, E., & Teevan, J. J. (2012). Social research methods. Don Mills, Ont: Oxford University Press.
Brookfield, S. (1998). Critically reflective practice. Journal of Continuing Education in The Health Professions, 18, 197-205
Borko, H., Whitcomb, J., & Liston, D. (2009). Wicked Problems and Other Thoughts on Issues of Technology and Teacher Learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487108328488
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1988). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. Routledge/Falmer.
Cain, T., & Milovic, S. (2010). Action research as a tool of professional development of advisers and teachers in Croatia. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 1930. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619760903457768
Cornwall, A. and Jewkes, R. (1995) What Is Participatory Research? Social Science and Medicine, 41, 1667-1676. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00127-S
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Chiu, R. (2003). Ethical Judgment & Whistle-Blowing Intention: Examining the Moderating role of Locus of Control. Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 65-74. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022911215204
Corey, S. M. (1953). Action research to improve school practices. Bureau of Publications, Teachers Co. Sendall, M.C., Mccosker, L., Brodie, A., Hill, M., & Crane, P.R. (2018). Participatory action research, mixed methods, and research teams: learning from philosophically juxtaposed methodologies for optimal research outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education (7th ed.). London: Routledge.
Cunningham, M. (1999). A Review of “Dewey, Peirce, and the Learning Paradox.” American Educational Research Journal, 36(1), 97 100. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312036001097
Craft, A. (2002).Creativity and Early Years Education: A Lifewide Foundation. Continuum Studies in Lifelong Learning, London: Continuum.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Falmer
Craft, A. (2002).Creativity and Early Years Education: A Lifewide Foundation. Continuum Studies in Lifelong Learning, London: Continuum.
Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947-967.
Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2010). Explaining stability and changes in school effectiveness by looking at changes in the functioning of school factors. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(4), 409 427. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2010.512795
Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2006). Critical Analysis of the Current Approaches to Modelling Educational Effectiveness: The importance of establishing a dynamic model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(3), 347366. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450600697242
Cope, Bill and Mary Kalantzis (1993) (eds), The Powers of Literacy: A Genre Approach to Teaching Writing, Falmer Press, London, and University of Pittsburgh Press, Pennsylvania, 286pp
Chandler, Jean. (2003). De efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for the improvement in accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 266-296.
Christopher Day (1999) Professional Development and Reflective Practice: purposes, processes and partnerships, Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 7:2, 221-233, DOI: 10.1080/14681366.1999.11090864
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and Implicit Negative Feedback: An Empirical Study of the Learning of Linguistic Generalization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357-386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100012158
Qelik, S. (2011). Characteristics and competencies or teacher educators: Addressing the need for improved professional standards in Turkey. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(4), 73
Cameron, M. (2009). Review Essays: Donald A. Schön, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books, 1983. ISBN 0—465—06874—X (hbk); ISBN 0—465—06878—2 (pbk). Qualitative Social Work, 8(1), 124129. https://doi.org/10.1177/14733250090080010802
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1985). Chapter X: Personal Practical Knowledge and the Modes of Knowing: Relevance for Teaching and Learning. Teachers College Record, 86(6), 174-198. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146818508600610
Chan, A. Y. (2010). Toward a taxonomy of written errors: Investigation into the written errors of Hong Kong Cantonese ESL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 44(2), 295-319.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1985). Making informed decisions about the role of grammar in language teaching. Foreign Language Annals, 18, 297-301.
Corder, S. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5(4), 161-169.
Corder, S. (1974). Error Analysis, In Allen, J.L.P. and Corder, S.P. (1974). Techniques in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cope, Bill and Mary Kalantzis (1993) (eds), The Powers of Literacy: A Genre Approach to Teaching Writing, Falmer Press, London, and University of Pittsburgh Press, Pennsylvania, 286pp
Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947-967.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Falmer.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Sage Publications, Inc.
Cornwall, A. and Jewkes, R. (1995) What Is Participatory Research? Social Science and Medicine, 41, 1667-1676. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00127
Cain, T., & Milovic, S. (2010). Action research as a tool of professional development of advisers and teachers in Croatia. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 1930. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619760903457768
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1988). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. Routledge/Falmer.
Cammarota, J., & Fine, M. (2008). Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion. New York, NY: Routledge
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Sage Publications.
Crane, Phil & O'Regan, Maureen (2010) On PAR: Using Participatory Action Research to Improve Early Intervention. Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Australian Government, Australia.
Cumming, A., & Riazi, A. M. (2000). Building models of second-language writing instruction and achievement. Learning and Instruction, 10(3), 55-71.
Currall, S.C., & Towler, A. (2003). Research Methods in Management and Organizational Research: Toward Integration of Qualitative and Quantitative Techniques.
Chen, S., Nassaji, H., & Liu, Q. (2016). EFL learners’ perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback: a case study of university students from Mainland China. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1:5.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education (7th ed.). London: Routledge.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6th ed.). London and New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.
Corder, S. (1973). Introducing Applied Linguistics. Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin Books.
Dudley-Evans, T., 1997. "An overview of ESP in the 1990’s", The Japan Conference on English for Specific Purposes Proceedings, Aizuwakamatsu. November 8, 1997. (Thomas, O),ed: pp. 1-9. http://ericfacility.org (ERIC: Educational Resources Information Center, USdepartment of education: Indiana University, Bloomington.): ED 424 774
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill Acquisition Theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97-113). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Diab, N. M. (2015). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: does type of error and type of correction matter? Assess. Writ. 24, 16-34. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2015.02.001 Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1974). Natural sequences in child language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 37-53. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1974.tb00234.x
Ellstrom, P.-E. (2006), “Two Logics of Learning”, in Antonacopoulou, E., Jarvis, P., Andersen, V., Elkj^r, B. and H0yrup, S. (Eds), Learning, Working and Living: Mapping the Terrain of Working Life Learning, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Elliott, J. (1991). Action Research for Educational Change, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Elliott, J. (1991) Action Research for Educational Change. Open University Press, Buckingham.
Effrat Akiri, Yehudit Judy Dori. (2022) Professional Growth of Novice and Experienced STEM Teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology 31:1, pages 129-142
Engin, M. and Atkinson, F. (2015) Faculty Learning Communities: A Model for Supporting Curriculum Changes in Higher Education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 27, 164-174.
Eraut, M. (1972). Book Review: The school curriculum. Research in Education, 7(1), 8384. https://doi.org/10.1177/003452377200700109
Eraut, M. (1972). Book Review: The school curriculum. Research in Education, 7(1), 83 84. https://doi.org/10.1177/003452377200700109
Ellis, A. (1995). Thinking processes involved in irrational beliefs and their disturbed consequences. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 9 (2), 105-116.
Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., & Allen Tuioti, E. (2010). Written Corrective Feedback: The Practitioners’ Perspective. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 4777. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119191
Ellis, N. (1994). Introduction: Implicit and explicit language learning: an overview. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages. San Diego, CA: Academic Press
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus on form. System, 30, 419-432.
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring Implicit and Explicit Knowledge of a Second Language: A Psychometric Study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141 172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050096
Ellis, T.J., & Levy, Y. (2008). Towards a framework of problem-based research: A guide for novice researchers.
Ellis, R. (2011). Editorial. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 133 135. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810388691
Ellis, R. (2012). Language Teaching Research and Language Pedagogy. Malden, MA: John Wiley and Sons. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118271643
Ellis, R. (2013). Corrective feedback in teacher guides and SLA. IJLTR, 1 (3), 1-18.
Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective Schools for the Urban Poor. Educational Leadership, 37, 15-24.
Elena Kokkinou, Leonidas Kyriakides. (2022) Investigating differential teacher effectiveness: searching for the impact of classroom context factors. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 0:0, pages 1-28.
Evi Konstantinidou, Leonidas Kyriakides. (2022) Instructional engagement and student learning outcomes: Direct and indirect effects based on country-specific contingencies. Studies in Educational Evaluation 73, pages 101144.
Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., McCollum, R. M., & Wolfersberger, M. (2010). Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 445-463. doi:10.1177/1362168810375367 Grundy, S. (1982). Three Modes of Action Research, Curriculum Perspectives, 2(3), 23-34.
Fullan, M. (2001). The New Meaning of Educational Change. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203986561
Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reaction to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29.1, 33-53.
Ferris, D.R . & Hedgcock, J.S . (2005) . Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process and practice. 2nd edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Freeman, D. E., & Freeman, Y. S. (2004). Essential Linguistics: What You Need to Know to Teach Reading, ESL, Spelling, Phonics, and Grammar. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Kay, H., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1998). Genre: what teachers think. Elt Journal, 52, 308-314.
Ferris, D. R. (2007). Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 165-193. doi:10.1016/j. jslw.2007.07.003
Ferris, D. R. (2009). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. New York, NY: Routledge.
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.
Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language writing. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D. (2004). The “Grammar Correction” Debate in L2 Writing: Where are, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the mean time...?) . Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49-62.
Ferris Dana, and Roberts, Barrie. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184.
Ferris, Dana. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and Practical Applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181-201.
Ferris, Dana R.; Liu, Hsiang; Sinha, Aparna, and Senna, Manuel. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Assessing Writing, 22, 307-329.
Fu, T. & Nassaji, H. (2016). Corrective feedback, learner uptake, and feedback perception in a Chinese as a foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 159-181.
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
Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher Response to Student Writing: Focus on Form versus Content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom (pp. 178-190). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524551.016
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error Feedback in the L2 Writing Classes: How Explicit Does It Need to Be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X
Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 397-417. doi:10.2307/3588114
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
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, 49-62.
Frear, D., & Chiu, Y. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24-34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.06.006
Fernández Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 40-58.
Fernández Dobao, A., & Blum, A. (2013). Collaborative writing in pairs and small groups: Leaners' attitudes and perceptions. System, 41, 365-378.
Ferris, D. R. (2014). Responding to student writing: teachers' philosophies and practices. Assess. Writ. 19, 6-23. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2013.09.004
Freeman, D. E., & Freeman, Y. S. (2004). Essential Linguistics: What You Need to Know to Teach Reading, ESL, Spelling, Phonics, and Grammar. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fithriani, R. (2017). Indonesian students’ perceptions of written feedback in second language writing (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from https://digitalrepository. unm.edu/educ_llss_etds/87/
Fathi, J. & Khodabakhsh, M. R. (2019). The Role of Self-Assessment and Peer-Assessment in Improving Writing Performance of Iranian EFL Students. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 7(3). 1-10.
Fullan, M. (2001). The New Meaning of Educational Change. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203986561
French, W.L. and Bell, C.H. (1973) Organization development: Behavioral Science Interventions for Organization Improvement. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Friedlander, F. (1976). OD Reaches Adolescence: An Exploration of Its Underlying Values. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 12(1), 7 21. https://doi.org/10.1177/002188637601200103
Fenstermacher, G. D., & Richardson, V. (2005). On Making Determinations of Quality Teaching. Teacher College Record, 107, 186-213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111Zj.1467- 9620.2005.00462.x
Fullan, M.G. (1993). Why Teachers Must Become Change Agents. Educational Leadership, 50, 12-17.
Fullan, M. (2001). The New Meaning of Educational Change. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203986561
Furlong, J. and Salisbury, J. (2005). 'Best practice research scholarships: An evaluation'. Research Papers in Education, 20 (1), 45-83.
Garcia Mayo, M. del P., & Zeitler, N. (2017). Lexical language-related episodes in pair and small group work. International Journal of English Studies, 17(1), 61-82. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2017/1/25501
Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (1998). Introduction to action research: Social research for social change. Sage Publications, Inc.
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2005). The Action Research Dissertation: A Guide for Students and Faculty. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Hargreaves, A. (2000). Mixed emotions: Teachers' perceptions of their interactions with students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16 (8), 811-826. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742- 051X(00)00028-7
HELLIN, J., BELLON, M., BADSTUE, L., DIXON, J., & LA ROVERE, R. (2008). INCREASING THE IMPACTS OF PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH. Experimental Agriculture, 44(1), 81-95. doi:10.1017/S0014479707005935
Hicks, R.B. (1983 ). A Study of the Classroom Language of Tanzanian Primary School Teachers of English with Special Reference to their Interactive Discourse Ability and Linguistic Errors. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of London, Institute of Education.
Hendrickson, J. M. (1984). The treatment of error in writing work. In S. McKay (Ed.), Composing in a second language (pp. 145-159). Rowley MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2004). The seven principles of sustainable leadership. Educational Leadership, 61(7), 2004.
Habermas, J. (1973). La technique et la science comme idéologie. Paris: Gallimard.
Hammerly, H. (1991). Fluency and accuracy: Toward balance in language teaching and learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters LTD.
Hirvela, A., and Belcher, D. (2007). Writing Scholars as Teacher Educators: ExploringWriting Teacher Education. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3),125-128.
Hedge, T. (2005). Writing (Resource books for teachers). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. (2004). Perspectives on Genre. In K. Hyland (Ed.), Genre and Second Language Writing (pp. 24-50). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2019) Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing. In Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (eds.) Feedback in second language writing (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp: 1-22.
Hyand, K. (2021). Second Language Writing Instruction. In H. Mohebbi & C. Coombe (Eds.), Research Questions in Language Education and Applied Linguistics (pp. 129-132). Cham: Springer
Henry, H. (1996). Thoughts on Readership Research. Market Research Society. Journal., 38(4), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/147078539603800403
Henry J. Perkinson.(1995). How Things Got Better: Speech, Writing, Printing, and Cultural Change. Westport, Conn., and London: Bergin and Garvey, 172 pp. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., &
Imants, J., Wubbels, T., & Vermunt, J. (2013). Teachers’ enactments of workplace conditions and their beliefs and attitudes toward reform. Vocations and Learning, 6(3), 323346.
James, C. (1998) Errors in Language Learning and Use. Exploring Error Analysis. Longman, Essex.
Jamoom, O.A. (2016). Teachers’ beliefs and practices of feedback and preferences of students for feedback in university level EFL writing classrooms.
Johnston, R., & Bradley, G. (1996). The competent reflective practitioner. Innovation and Learning in Education, 2, 4-10.
Jordan, R. (1997). English for Academic Purposes: A Guide and Resource Book for Teachers (Cambridge Language Teaching Library). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511733062
Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (2020). Informing and transforming language teacher education pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 24(1), 116—127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818777539
Johnson, K. E. (2021). Li, L. (2020). Language Teacher Cognition: A Sociocultural Perspective. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 7(2), 224-229. https://doi.org/10.155 8/lst.42530
Kuyyogsuy, S. (2019). Promoting Peer Feedback in Developing Students' English Writing Ability in L2 Writing Class. International Education Studies, 12(9), 76-90. Accessed: 10.5539/ies.v12n9p76
Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2020). The effects of written corrective feedback: a critical synthesis of past and present research. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3(1), 2852. https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.37949
Kindon, S., Pain, R., & Kesby, M. (Eds). (2007) Participatory action research approaches and methods: Connecting people, participation and place. London: Routledge
Kulasi, Y., (2020) “Using peer feedback to help develop critical thinking skills”, New Vistas 6(1), p.20-24. doi: https://doi.org/10.36828/newvistas.108
Lee, I. (2008a). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 69-85.
Lee, I. (2008b). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 144-164. Lee, I. (2009). Ten mismatches between teachers’beliefs and written feedback practice. ELT Journal, 63, 1322.
Lee, I. (2011). Feedback revolution: What gets in the way? ELT Journal, 65, 1-12.
Lee, I. (2013). Research into practice: Written corrective feedback. Language Teaching, 46(01), 108-119.
Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66-81.
Leon Benade (2015) Teachers’ Critical Reflective Practice in the Context of Twenty-first Century Learning, Open Review of Educational Research, 2:1, 42 54, DOI: 10.1080/23265507.2014.998159
Louis, K.S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. and Anderson, S. (2010), "Learn nig from leadership: investigating the links to improved student learning”, final report of Research Findings, University of Toronto and University of Minnesota, Toronto and St. Paul, MN, available at: www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/Investigating-the- Links-to-Improved-Student-Learning.pdf
Liu, N.-F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer Feedback: The Learning Element of Peer Assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11, 279-290.
Luyten, P., Blatt, S. J., & Corveleyn, J. (2005). The convergence among psychodynamic and cognitive-behavioral theories of depression: Theoretical overview. In J. Corveleyn, P. Luyten, & S. J. Blatt (Eds.), The theory and treatment of depression: Towards a dynamic interactionism model (pp. 67-94). Leuven University Press; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioner’s guide to dynamic assessment. New York: Guilford.
Long, M. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, ed. W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia, 413-468. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Lyster, R., & Ballinger, S. (2011). Content-based language teaching: Convergent concerns across divergent contexts. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 279-288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811401150
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399-432. doi: 10.1017/S0272263104263021
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413468). New York: Academic Press.
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, 13-22. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccn010
Long, M. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, ed. W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia, 413-468. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Lyster, R., & Ballinger, S. (2011). Content-based language teaching: Convergent concerns across divergent contexts. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 279288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811401150
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399-432. doi: 10.1017/S0272263104263021
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413468). New York: Academic Press.
Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms.
Lalande, J. (1982). Reducing Composition Errors: An Experiment. The Modern Language Journal, 66(2), 140-149.
Li, S. F. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309-365. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x
Lester, S., Costley, C. (2010). Work-based learning at higher education level: Value, practice and critique. Studies in Higher Education, 35(5), 561-575.
Ludwig, J. (1982). Native-speaker judgments of second-language learners‘efforts at Communi cation: A review. The Modern Language Journal, 66(3), 274-283.
Lee, I. 1997. ‘Peer reviews in a Hong Kong tertiary classroom’. TESL Canada Journal 15 /1: 58-69.
Lee, Icy. (2014). Feedback in writing: Issues and challenges. Assessing Writing, 19, 1-5.
Lisa Dewulf, Johan van Braak, Mieke Van Houtte. (2022) Quality of Teaching in Segregated Low SES Classes: A Mixed-Methods Study. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR) 27:2, pages 103-126.
Leedy, P.D. and Ormrod, J.E. (2005) Practical Research: Planning and Design. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. http://www.worldcat.org/title/practical-research-planning-and-design/oclc/53831701
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). INTERACTIONAL FEEDBACK AND INSTRUCTIONAL COUNTERBALANCE. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269-300. doi:10.1017/S0272263106060128
Louis, K.S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. and Anderson, S. (2010), “L earning from leadership: investigating the links to improved student learning”, final report of Research Findings, University of Toronto and University of Minnesota, Toronto and St. Paul, MN, available at: www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/Investigating-the- Links-to-Improved-Student-Learning.pdf
Leon Benade (2015) Teachers’ Critical Reflective Practice in the Context of Twenty-first Century Learning, Open Review of Educational Research, 2:1, 4254, DOI: 10.1080/23265507.2014.998159
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). INTERACTIONAL FEEDBACK AND INSTRUCTIONAL COUNTERBALANCE. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269-300. doi:10.1017/S0272263106060128
Marcos, J.J.M., Sanchez, E., & Tilleman, H. (2008). Teachers reflecting on their work: Articulating what is said about what is done. Teachers and Teaching, Theory and Practice, 14, 95-114.
Margulies, N., & Raia, A.P. (1978). Conceptual foundations of organizational development.
Mangubhai, F., Marland, P., Dashwood, A., & Son, J. B. (2004). Teaching a foreign language: One teacher’s practical theory. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 291-311.
Manzo, L.C., & Brightbill, N. (2007). Toward a participatory ethics. Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to Think like an Adult. Core Concepts of Transformation Theory. In J. Mezirow, & Associates (Eds.), Learning as Transformation. Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress (pp. 3-33). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass : Publications
Melero, R. M. ., & García Mayo, M. del P. (2022). The impact of models and reformulations on EFL primary school children’s noticing and written output. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 6(1), 29-56. https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.19670
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc. Saldaña, J. (2016 ). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). London, England: SAGE.
Moje, E. B. (2007). Chapter 1 Developing Socially Just Subject-Matter Instruction: A Review of the Literature on Disciplinary Literacy Teaching. Review of Research in Education, 31(1), 1-44. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07300046001
McDonough, J., & McDonough, S. (1997). Research Methods for English Language Teachers. Great Britain: Arnold.
Miller, J., & Glassner, B. (2011). The “inside” and the “outside”: Finding realities in interviews. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 131-148). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Megowan, C. (2010). Inside out: Action research from teacher-researcher perspective . Journal of Scientific Teacher Education, 21, 993 -1011.
Margulies, N., & Raia, A.P. (1978). Conceptual foundations of organizational development.
Macdonald, C. (2012). UNDERSTANDING PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH: A QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY OPTION. The Canadian Journal of Action Research, 13, 34-50.
McKernan, J. (1988). The Countenance of Curriculum Action Research: Traditional, Collaborative, and Emancipatory-Critical Conceptions. Journal of curriculum and supervision, 3, 173-200.
Monte-Sano, C., & De La Paz, S. (2012). Using Writing Tasks to Elicit Adolescents’ Historical Reasoning. Journal of Literacy Research, 44(3), 273299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X12450445
McNiff, J. and Whitehead, J. (2005) All You Need To Know About Action Research. London: SAGE.
Marsha Sowell. (2017) Effective Practices for Mentoring Beginning Middle School Teachers: Mentor's Perspectives. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas 90:4, pages 129-134.
Maynard, T., & Furlong, J. (1993). Learning to teach and models of mentoring. In: D. McIntyre, H. Hagger, & M. Wilkin (Eds.), Mentoring: Perspectives on school-based teacher education. London: Kogan Page.
Maha M. Elkomy, Nevien H. Elkhaial. (2022) The lesson study approach to professional development: Promoting teachers' peer mentoring and communities of practice and students' learning in Egypt. Teaching and Teacher Education 109, pages 103538.
Malone, M. D., Straka, E., & Logan, K. R. (2000). Professional development in early intervention: Creating effective inservice training opportunities. Infants & Young Children, 12(4), 53-62.
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.
McNiff, J. and Whitehead, J. (2005 ) All You Need To Know About Action Research. London: SAGE.
Macdonald, C. (2012). UNDERSTANDING PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH: A QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY OPTION . The Canadian Journal of Action Resea rch, 13, 34-50.
Marsha Sowell. (2017) Effective Practices for Mentoring Beginning Middle School Teachers: Mentor's Perspectives. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas 90:4, pages 129-134.
Malone, M. D., Straka, E., & Logan, K. R. (2000). Professional development in early intervention: Creating effective inservice training opportunities. Infants & Young Children, 12(4), 53-62.
Maynard, T., & Furlong, J. (1993). Learning to teach and models of mentoring. In: D. McIntyre, H. Hagger, & M. Wilkin (Eds.), Mentoring: Perspectives on school-based teacher education. London: Kogan Page.
Maha M. Elkomy, Nevien H. Elkhaial. (2022) The lesson study approach to professional development: Promoting teachers' peer mentoring and communities of practice and students' learning in Egypt. Teaching and Teacher Education 109, pages 103538.
McMillan, D.J., McConnell, B., & O’ Sullivan, H. (2016). Continuing professional development - why bother? Perceptions and motivations of teachers in Ireland. Professional Development in Education, 41 (1), 150-167. Retrieved from doi: 10.1080/19415257.2014.952044
Manchón, R., & Vasylets, O. (2019). Language Learning Through Writing: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Evidence. In J. Schwieter & A. Benati (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning (Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics, pp. 341-362). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108333603.015
Manchon, Rosa M. (2011). Learning to Write and Writing to Learn in an Additional Language . Amsterdam: John Benjamins publishing company.
Mahfoodh, O.H. (2017). “I feel disappointed”: EFL university students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback. Assessing Writing, 31, 53-72.
Montgomery, J., and Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. J. Second Lang. Writ. 16, 82-99. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.04.002
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
McMartin-Miller, C. (2014). How much feedback is enough? Instructor practices and student attitudes toward error treatment in second language writing. Assessing Writing, 19, 24-35.
Melero, R. M. ., & García Mayo, M. del P. (2022). The impact of models and reformulations on EFL primary school children’s noticing and written output. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 6(1), 29-56. https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.19670
Motobayashi, K., Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2014). Autobiographic episodes as languaging: Affective and cognitive changes in an older adult. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 1(1), 75-99. https://doi.org/10.1558/lst.v1i1.75
Mackey, Alison , Al-Khalil, Maymona , Atanassova, Gergana , Hama, Mika , Logan-Terry, Aubrey andNakatsukasa, Kimi(2007) 'Teachers' Intentions and Learners' Perceptions about Corrective Feedback in the L2Classroom', Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1: 1, 129 — 152
Macfarlane, Gaele Morag (2020) Teachers’ engagement in professional development: a study of the influences that affect groups of national and international English language teachers. PhD thesis.
Messenger, R., Evans, N., & Hartshorn, K. (2020). Managing dynamic written corrective feedback: Perspectives of experienced teachers. Journal of Response to Writing, 6(1), 108138.
Meisel, J., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3(2), 109135. doi:10.1017/S0272263100004137
Monk, D.H. (1992). Microeconomics of school productions. Paper for the Economics of Education Section of the International Encyclopedia of Education.
Monte-Sano, C., & De La Paz, S. (2012). Using Writing Tasks to Elicit Adolescents’ Historical Reasoning. Journal of Literacy Research, 44(3), 273 299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X12450445
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to Think like an Adult. Core Concepts of Transformation Theory. In J. Mezirow, & Associates (Eds.), Learning as Transformation. Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress (pp. 3-33). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Nassaji, H., & Tian, J. (2010). Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 397419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810375364
Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (Eds.). (2017). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (Vol. 66). New York: Routledge
Nunan, D. (1993). Introducing Discourse Analysis. London: Penguin English.
McNiff, J. (1997). Action research for professional development: Concise advice for new action researchers. Retrieved from www.jeanmcniff.com/booklet1.html.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A Research Synthesis and Quantitative Meta-Analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A Research Synthesis and Quantitative Meta-Analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136
Niu, R. Y. (2009). WffiWföWAtfrwWfflMÄWA study on the effect of collaborative output on second language vocabulary acquisition in comparison with reading input]. Modern Foreign Languages, 32 (3), 266-275.
O’Connor, A. & Diggins, C. (2002). On Reflection: Reflective Practice for Early Childhood Educators. Lower Hutt, Aotearoa New Zealand: Open Mind Publishing
O'Sullivan, G. (2011). The relationship between hope, stress, self-efficacy, and life satisfaction among undergraduates. Social Indicators Research, 101(1), 155172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9662-z
Pain, R., 2004. Social geography: participatory research. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 28, 652-663. doi:10.1191/0309132504ph511pr
Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs and practices. System, 37(3), 380-390. Richards, J. C. (1998). Beyond training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2007). Exploring the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and their classroom practice. Teacher Trainer, 21(3), 17-19.
Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs and practices. System, 37(3), 380-390.
Punch, K. F., & Oancea, A. (2014). Introduction to Research Methods in Education. Thousand
Pallant, J. (2016) SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS Program. 6th Edition, McGraw-Hill Education, London, UK.
Priestley, M., Edwards, R., Priestley, A., & Miller, K. (2012). Teacher agency in curriculum making: Agents of change and spaces for manoeuvre. Curriculum Inquiry, 42, 191-214.
Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs and practices. System, 37(3), 380-390. Richards, J. C. (1998). Beyond training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2007). Exploring the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and their classroom practice. Teacher Trainer, 21(3), 17-19.
Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs and practices. System, 37(3), 380-390.
Pourdana, N., Nour, P. & Yousefi, F. Investigating metalinguistic written corrective feedback focused on EFL learners’ discourse markers accuracy in mobile-mediated context. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. 6, 7 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862- 021-00111-8
Politzer, R. L. (1978). Error of English speakers of German as perceived and evaluated by German natives. Modern Language Jounnal, 62,253-261.
Priestley, M., Edwards, R., Priestley, A., & Miller, K. (2012). Teacher agency in curriculum making: Agents of change and spaces for manoeuvre. Curriculum Inquiry, 42, 191-214.
Peter Johannesson. (2020) Development of professional learning communities through action research: understanding professional learning in practice. Educational Action Research 0:0, pages 1-16
Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(2), 186-214
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 1, 52-79. Processability theory. Studies in Bilingualism, □ Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development 15. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rummel, S. (2014). Student and Teacher Beliefs about Written Corrective Feedback and Effects of those Beliefs have on uptake: A Multiple case of Laos and Kuwait. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org
Rogers, E. S., & Palmer-Erbs, V. (1994). Participatory Action Research: Implications for research and evaluation in psychiatric rehabilitation. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, 18(2), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0095520
Reason, P., Bradbury, H. (Eds.), 2001. Handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice. SAGE, London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif.
Robson, C. (2011). Real world research: A resource for social-scientists and practitionerresearchers. 3rd edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Riding the waves of reforms. In: B. Fraster, & K. Tobin (Eds.), International book of science education (pp. 471-485). London: Kluwer.
Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative Research Practice—A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. London, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C.M., & Ormston, R. (2013). Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2008). The SAGE handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. Los Angeles, Calif: SAGE.
Ryan, M., & Ryan, M. (2012). Theorising a Model for Teaching and Assessing Reflective Learning in Higher Education. Higher Education Research & Development, 32, 244-257. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.661704
Rebecca Turner, Rong Huang, Oxana Poverjuc, Lynne Wyness. (2016) What role do teaching mentors play in supporting new university lecturers to develop their teaching practices?. Professional Development in Education 42:4, pages 647-665.
Robin McTaggart (1994) Participatory Action Research: issues in theory and practice, Educational Action Research, 2:3, 313-337, DOI: 10.1080/0965079940020302
Richards, K. (2003) Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230505056
Rice, P. L., & Ezzy, D. (1999). Qualitative Research Methods: A Health Focus. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and PractitionerResearchers (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Selener, D. (1997). Participatory action research and social change.
Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.
Schon, D. A. (1991). Educating the reflective practitioner towards a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 3-32). New York: Cambridge University Press
Soleimani, N. (2020) ELT teachers’ epistemological beliefs and dominant teaching style: a mixed method research. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. 5, 12 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-020-00094-y
Styslinger, M. E., Walker, N. L., Lenker, T. K., and Fink, L. (2014). Beyond the sticky note and venn diagram: Comprehension strategies for 21st-century schools. Voices from the Middle, 22(2), 13-20. Retrieved from http://cupdx.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.cupdx.idm.oclc.org/docvie w/1635286410?acc ountid=10248
Smyth, J. (1992). Teachers’ Work and the Politics of Reflection. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 267 300. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312029002268
Sowa, J.E. (2009). The Collaboration Decision in Nonprofit Organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 1003 - 1025.
Susman, G.I., & Evered, R.D. (1978). An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 582-603.
Stringer, E. T. (1996). Action research: A handbook for practitioners. Sage Publications, Inc
Soden, W.H. (2013). The role of written feedback in the development of critical academic writing : a study of the feedback experience of international students in taught Master's programmes.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2007) Research Methods for Business Students. 4th Edition, Financial Times Prentice Hall, Edinburgh Gate, Harlow
Suzuki, W., Nassaji, H. and Sato, K. (2019) The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System 81: 13545. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.system.2018.12.017
Segalowitz, N., & Hulstijn, J. (2005). Automaticity in Bilingualism and Second Language Learning. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 371-388). Oxford University Press
Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, G. (2007). Writing tasks: Comparing individual and collaborative writing. In M. P. G. Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 157-177). London, UK: Multilingual Matters
Silverman (2000). Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.Torkian S, Shahesmaeili A, Malekmohammadi N, Khosravi V. Content validity and test-retest reliability of a questionnaire to measure virtual social network addiction among students. Int J High Risk Behav Addict. (2020) 9:1-5. 10.5812/ijhrba.92353
Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Torre,, M. E. and Fine,, M. (2006), ‘Participatory Action Research (PAR) by Youth’, in L. Sherrod (ed.), Youth Activism: An International Encyclopedia, Westport, CT: Greenwood
Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2000). International handbook of school effectiveness. London: Falmer
Tribble, C. (1996). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Truscott, J. (1999). The Case for “the Case for Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes”: A Response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80124-6
Truscott, J. (2010). Some thoughts on Anthony Bruton’s critique of the correction debate. System, 38(2), 329-335.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255-272.
Truscott, J. (2016). The effectiveness of error correction: Why do meta-analytic reviews produce such different answers? In Y.-n. Leung (Ed.), Epoch making in English teaching and learning: A special monograph for celebration of ETA-ROC’s 25th anniversary, (pp. 129-141). Taipei: Crane.
Truscott, J., & Hsu, Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292-305. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
Truscott, J. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111-122. Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255-272.
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292-305
Tong, A., Sainsbury, P. and Craig, J. (2007) Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ): A 32-Item Checklist for Interviews and Focus Groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19, 349-357.
Teddlie, C., Tashakkori, A. (2009). The foundations of mixed methods research integrating quantitative and qualitative techniques in the social and behavioral Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Trabelsi, S. (2021). (Mis) Alignment in relation to written corrective feedback: the teachers’ beliefs and practices vs the students’ preferences in an EFL context. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 9(1), 6-16.
Truscott, J. (1996) The Case against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
Tong, A., Sainsbury, P. and Craig, J. (2007) Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ): A 32-Item Checklist for Interviews and Focus Groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19, 349-357.
Troudi S (eds)(2009). Finding Your Voice: Critical Issues in ELT. Dubai, TESOL Arabia Publications.
Teddlie, C., Tashakkori, A. (2009). The foundations of mixed methods research integrating quantitative and qualitative techniques in the social and behavioral Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Torre,, M. E. and Fine,, M. (2006), ‘Participatory Action Research (PAR) by Youth’, in L. Sherrod (ed.), Youth Activism: An International Encyclopedia, Westport, CT: Greenwood
Truscott, J. (1996) The Case against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
Vermunt, J. D. (2014). Teacher Learning and Professional Development. In S. Krolak- Schwerdt, S. Glock, & M. Böhmer (Eds.), Teachers’ Professional Development: Assesment, Training, and Learning (pp. 79-95). Rotterdam, Boston, Taipei: Sense Publishers.
Val Madin, C., Lee Kean Wah & Suyansah Swanto. (2016, May-June). An evaluation of student-teachers’ reflective practice in action research: A preliminary study on studentteachers in Institute of Teacher Education Malaysia. Paper presented at the 25th MELTA International Conference, Ipoh Perak, Malaysia
Valencic, M., & Vogrinc, J. (2007). A mentor’s aid in developing the competences of teacher trainees. Educational Studies, 33(4), 373-384. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690701423473
Van Beuningen, Catherine G.; De Jong, Nivja H. and Kuiken, Folkert. (2008). De Effect of Direct and Indirect Corrective Feedback on L2 Learner's Written Accuracy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279-296.
Van Patten, B. (2007). Input Processing in Adult Second Language Acquisition. In B.
Van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 115-135). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Valdman, A. 1975. 'Learner Systems and Error Analysis' . In Jarvis, Gilbert A. (ed), Perspective : A New Freedom. Skokie IL: National Textbook Co.
Villegas-Reimers, E. (2003). Teacher Professional Development: An International Review of the Literature. Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning.
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62, 1 - 41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x
Van Beuningen, C. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 127.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and Speech. In R. W. Rieber, & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 1), Problems of General Psychology (pp. 39-285). New York: Plenum Press
Valencic, M., & Vogrinc, J. (2007). A mentor’s aid in developing the competences of teacher trainees. Educational Studies, 33(4), 373-384. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690701423473
Van de gaer, Eva; Pustjens, Heidi; Van Damme, Jan; and De Munter, Agnes (2009) "School Engagement and Language Achievement: A Longitudinal Study of Gender Differences across Secondary School,"Merrill-Palmer Quarterly: Vol. 55: Iss. 4, Article 2. Available at: https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/mpq/vol55/iss4/2https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/mpq/about.html journal
Val Madin, C., Lee Kean Wah & Suyansah Swanto. (2016, May-June). An evaluation of student-teachers’ reflective practice in action research: A preliminary study on studentteachers in Institute of Teacher Education Malaysia. Paper presented at the 25th MELTA International Conference, Ipoh Perak, Malaysia
Vermunt, J. D. (2014). Teacher Learning and Professional Development. In S. Krolak- Schwerdt, S. Glock, & M. Böhmer (Eds.), Teachers’ Professional Development: Assesment, Training, and Learning (pp. 79-95). Rotterdam, Boston, Taipei: Sense Publishers
Vasquez, C., & Harvey, J. (2010). Raising teachers’ awareness about corrective feedback through research replication. Language Teaching Research, 14, 421 - 443.
Whitehead, J. (1989). Creating a living educational theory from questions of the kind ‘How do I improve my practice?’ Cambridge Journal of Education, 19 (1), 41-52.
Whitehead, J. (1993). The Growth of Educational Knowledge: creating your own living educational theories. Bournemouth:
Woolrych, A. H., & Frokjur, K. E. and Cockton, G. 2011. Ingredients and Meals Rather Than Recipes: a Proposal for Research that Does Not Treat Usability Evaluation Methods as Indivisible Wholes, to appear in. Int. J of HCI.
Whitehead, Jack (2018) Living theory research as a way of life. Brown Dog Books, Bath, UK. Downloaded from: http://insight.cumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/3893/
Whitehead, J., & McNiff, J. (2006). Action research. SAGE Publications, Ltd https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781849208536
Wen, Z. (2015). 3. Working Memory in Second Language Acquisition and Processing: The Phonological/ Executive Model. In Z. Wen, M. Borges Mota & A. McNeill (Ed.), Working Memory in Second Language Acquisition and Processing (pp. 41-62). Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783093595-007
Wang, Y., and Ryan, J. (2020). The complexity of control shift for learner autonomy: A mixed-method case study of Chinese EFL teachers’ practice and cognition. Lang. Teach. Res. :136216882095792. doi: 10.1177/1362168820957922
Wei, W., and Cao, Y. (2020). Written corrective feedback strategies employed by university English lecturers: A teacher cognition perspective. SAGE Open 10:215824402093488. doi: 10.1177/2158244020934886
Williams, M. and Burden, R. (1997) Psychology for Language Teachers: A Social Constructivist Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wen, X. (1999). Error and corrective feedback. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 34(3), 1-22.
Walz, J. C. (1982). Error correction techniques for the foreign language classroom. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Wagner, J. & Wulf, D. (2016). Understanding Written Corrective Feedback in SecondLanguage Grammar Acquisition. Journal of Education and Learning, 5(4), 259- 277.
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012a). What role for collaboration in writing and writingfeedback.Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 364- 374.
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445 466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209104670
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012a). What role for collaboration in writing and writingfeedback.Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 364- 374.
Whitehead, J. (1989). Creating a living educational theory from questions of the kind ‘How do I improve my practice?’ Cambridge Journal of Education, 19 (1), 41-52.
Whitehead, J. (1993). The Growth of Educational Knowledge: creating your own living educational theories. Bournemouth
Woolrych, A. H., & frokjur, K. E. and Cockton, G. 2011. Ingredients and Meals Rather Than Recipes: a Proposal for Research that Does Not Treat Usability Evaluation Methods as Indivisible Wholes, to appear in. Int. J of HCI.
Williams, B., Brydon-Miller, M. (2004). Changing directions: Participatory action research, agency, and representation. In Brown, S. G., Dobrin, S. L. (Eds.), Ethnography unbound: From theory short to critical praxis (pp. 241-257). State University of New York Press
Walker, A. , & Leary, H. (2009). A Problem Based Learning Meta Analysis: Differences Across Problem Types, Implementation Types, Disciplines, and Assessment Levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1)
Wallace, J., & Louden, W. (1998). Curriculum change in science: Yin, R. K. (1994). Discovering the Future of the Case Study. Method in Evaluation Research. Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 283-290. https://doi.org/10.1177/109821409401500309
Wallerstein, N. B., & Duran, B. (2006). Using Community-Based Participatory Research to Address Health Disparities. Health Promotion Practice, 7(3), 312 323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839906289376
Wisniewska, D. (2011). Mixed Methods and Action Research: Similar or different? Glottodi-dactica-An International Journal of Applied Linguistics, XXXVII, Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz University Press.
Wolf-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
Wei, W., & Cao, Y. (2020). Written Corrective Feedback Strategies Employed by University English Lecturers: A Teacher Cognition Perspective. SAGE Open 1-12 DOI: 10.1177/2158244020934886, 1-12.
Woolfall, K. (2010). Book review: CAROL GRBICH, Qualitative Data Analysis: An Introduction. London: Sage, 2007. 258 pp. (Including index) ISBN 9781412921435 (pbk) £19.99. Qualitative Research, 10(1), 129-130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794109351457
Whitehead, Jack (2018) Living theory research as a way of life. Brown Dog Books, Bath, UK. Downloaded from: http://insight.cumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/3893/
Wolff, C. E., Jarodzka, H., & Boshuizen, H. P. (2017). See and tell: Differences between expert and novice teachers’ interpretations of problematic classroom management events. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 295 308. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.tate.2017.04.015
Whitehead, J., & McNiff, J. (2006). Action research. SAGE Publications, Ltd https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781849208536
Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1802 1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870
Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 321-331.
Xu, Li. (2012). The role of teachers’ beliefs in the language teaching-learning process. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2 (7), 1397-1402). doi:10.4304/tpls.2.7.1397- 1402
Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2015). Understanding EFL students’ participation in group peer feedback of L2 writing: A case study from an activity theory perspective. Language Teaching Research, 19, 572 - 593.
Zabihi, R., & Erfanitabar, D. (2021). The Revision Effects of Varying Degrees of Written Corrective Feedback Explicitness on L2 Learners’ Writings. RELC Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882211054649
Zayani, E.M. (2017). Provide your feedback with a priority in mind: Weighing errors before drawing the red line? IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 22, 59-71.
Zeichner, K. M. , & Gore, J. M. (1995). Using action research as a vehicle for student teacher reflection: A social reconstructionist approach. In S. E. Noffke & R. B. Stevenson (Eds.), Educational action research: Becoming practically critical(pp. 13-30). New York: Teachers College Press.
Zembylas M (2005) Teaching with emotion: a postmodern enactment. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT
Zamel, V. (1976) 'Teaching Composition in the ESL Classroom: What We Can Learn from Research in the Teaching of English'. TESOL Quarterly 10 (1), 67-76
Zhang L. J. (2018). “Appraising the role of written corrective feedback in EFL writing,” in Reconceptualizing English Language Teaching and Learning in the 21st Century, eds Leung Y.-N., Katchen J., Hwang S.-Y., Chen Y. (Taipei: Crane; ), 134-146.
Zee, M., & Kooman, H. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustments, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 981 1015. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626801
Zayani, E. M,(2016) Towards a Theoretical Model of Output in Relation to Learners’ Written Errors, Journal of Teaching and Education.05(02):541-550 http://www.universitypublications.net/jte/0502/pdf/P6RS367.pdf
Zayani, E. M,(2017) Provide your feedback with a priority in mind: Weighing errors before drawing the red line? ISORS Journal s22(03) : 59-71http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr- jhss/papers/Vol.%2022%20Issue3/Version-1/I2203015971.pdf
Zayani, E (2018). In Response to Hendrickson’s (1978) Third Question: Which LearnerErrors Should Be Corrected? TAYR Quarterly Journal 5(2), 76-94 https://www .tayrquarterly.com/tq-archive
Zayani, E (2020). A Proposed Model of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) in Relation to EFL Teachers’ Professional Development (PD). TAYR Quarterly Journal May volume. https://doi.org/10.31561/2014tq
Zamir, N. A. (2020). A Review of School Effectiveness Theory for School Improvement. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 10(3), 113101.
Zeichner, K. M., & Gore, J. M. (1995). Using action research as a vehicle for student teacher reflection: A social reconstructionist approach. In S. E. Noffke & R. B. Stevenson (Eds.), Educational action research: Becoming practically critical(pp. 13-30). New York: Teachers College Press.
Zwozdiak-Myers, P. (2012). The teacher’s reflective practice handbook: Becoming an extended professional through capturing evidence-informed practice. London and New York: Roudledge.
[...]
Jetzt kaufen
- Arbeit zitieren
- Emna Maazoun (Autor:in), 2026, The Road That Should Be Taken in Teachers’ Professional Development in Providing Written Corrective Feedback in Tunisia, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1695766
