Dyanne Escorcia
email: dyanne.escorcia@univ-poitiers.fr

Christine Ros

What variables interact with metacognitive processes related to writing in university students: the role of demographic and education factors

Keywords: metacognition, academic writing, planning, sex, high school diploma track

Introduction.

Although metacognition is considered to be a key component of academic success, few studies have explored the interactions between the development of metacognitive processes beyond adolescence and variables such as sex and education. In particular, there is a gap in the literature about how these variables determine differences in the metacognitive processes that are self-reported by university students. The present study aimed to ascertain how metacognitive processes related to planning of writing in higher education interact with sex and education (i.e., learning domain, high school diploma track). Our specific research questions was: Is the sex of university students a predictor for the levels of metacognition related to planning of writing? Additionally, we examined to what extent educational background and learning domain factors determine differences in the metacognitive processes self-reported by university students.

Method. A questionnaire that investigated three specific metacognitive dimensions was administered to 1051 students enrolled in different learning domains (Human and Social sciences, Language and Literature, Law and Economy and Sciences). Factor analysis (exploratory and confirmatory) showed three components measured by this instrument: conditional metacognitive knowledge (six items), covert or personal self-regulation (four items) and environmental self-regulation (five items). Participants were asked to identify the extent (using a Likert-like scale) to which a given strategy or type of knowledge reflected their planning of writing processes. This questionnaire also elicited information about respondents' sex, level of study, high-school diploma track and learning domain.

Results. The results showed that 1) female students self-reported the highest level of metacognition in planning of writing, particularly related to two metacognitive processes: conditional metacognitive knowledge and environmental self-regulation. Additionally, regression analyses showed that sex was a predictor for student's self-reported conditional metacognitive knowledge. 2) The technical and vocational French high school tracks induced statistically significant differences in the metacognitive processes. There were negative predictors for certain latter processes. There were also statistically significant differences in the self-reported scores of metacognition in the function of the learning domain.

Discussion and Conclusion.

The first result is consistent with findings about the superiority of women in the communication domain, while the second finding highlights the contribution of skills acquired at secondary school towards learning at university.

Resumen

Introducción. A pesar de que la metacognición es considerada cómo un aspecto clave para el éxito académico, pocos estudios han comprobado las interacciones entre el desarrollo de los procesos metacognitivos mas alla de la adolescencia y variables tales como el sexo y la educación de los individuos. En particular, existe una vacio en la literatura respecto a cómo estas variables determinan diferencias en los procesos metacognitivos declarados por estudiantes universitarios. El presente estudio tuvo como objetivo indagagar las interacciones entre la planeación de producción de textos universitarios y tanto el sexo como factores educativos (ej. dominio de aprendizaje, diploma de secundaria). Nuestra pregunta específica fue: ¿en qué medida el sexo de los estudiantes predice los niveles de metacognición en processos de planeación de textos? Adicionalmente, buscamos examinar hasta que punto la trayectoria educativa y el dominio de aprendizaje de los estudiantes universitarios determina diferencias en sus procesos metacognitivos auto-declarados.

Métodología. Un cuestionario que mide tres components metacognitivos fue administrado a 1051 estudiantes inscritos en diferentes campos de estudio (Ciencias humanas y sociales, Lenguaje y literatura, Derecho y economía). Los analisis factorialess (exploratorio y confirmatorio) mostraron tres componentes medidos por este instrumento: conocimientos metacognitivos condicionales (seis items), autoregulación personal (cuatro items) y autoregulación del contexto (cinco items). Los participantes debian indicar la frecuencia (escala de Likert) en la cual cada estrategia o tipo de conocimiento forma parte de las actividades de planeación en la producción de textos académicos realizados por los estudiantes. Este cuestionario pedia igualmente información sobre los participantes: sexo, nivel de estudio, tipo de diploma de secundaria obtenido y dominio de aprendizaje en la Universidad.

Resultados. Los resultados mostraron que 1) las estudiantes declarararon niveles significativamente mas altos de metacognición en sus procesos de planeación de la escritura, en particular teniendo en cuenta dos procesos metacognitivos: los conocimientos metacognitivos condicionales y la autoregulacion del contexto.

Adicionalmente, los análisis de regresión mostraron que el sexo fue un predictor de los conocimientos metacogninitivos condicionales auto-declarados. 2) Los diplomas del nivel secundario de tipo tecnológico y professional inducen diferencias estadísticas significativas en los procesus metacognitivos. Estos tipos de diploma fueron predictores negativos de ciertos procesos. Tambien encontramos diferencias significativas en los niveles declarados de metacognición según los dominios de aprendizaje en la Universidad.

Discusión y Conclusion:

El primer resultado es coherente con otras investigaciones que muestran una cierta superiodad del sexo femenido en dominions relacionados con la comunicación; mientras que el segundo hallazgo muestra la contribución de las habilidades adquiridas en la escuela secundaria al aprendizaje en la universidad.

Palabras clave: metacognición; alfabetización; planeación; sexo; diploma de secundaria

Introduction

Metacognition, an essential component of learning, refers to knowing about cognition and the regulation of cognitive processes (Veenman, Hout-Wolters, & Afflerbach, 2006).

Metacognitive processes have been shown to affect academic performance (Bakracevic Vukman & Licardo, 2009;Kistner et al., 2010), particularly at university [START_REF] Casillas | Predicting early academic failure in high school from prior academic achievement, psychosocial characteristics, and behavior[END_REF][START_REF] Costabile | Metacognitive components of students' difficulties in the first year of university[END_REF]Ibabe & Jauregizar, 2010). However, few studies have explored the factors that contribute to the development of metacognition in higher education (HE) [START_REF] Hsu | Factors affecting metacognition of undergraduate nursing students in a blended learning environment[END_REF][START_REF] Magno | Investigating the effect of school ability on self-efficacy, learning approaches, and metacognition[END_REF]. In particular, there is a gap in the literature concerning the individual factors and education variables (i.e. level of education, age, sex, choice of study programme, etc.) that predict learners' self-reported learning self-regulation [START_REF] Kizilcec | Self-regulated learning strategies predict learner behavior and goal attainment in massive open online courses[END_REF]. Given that metacognitive processes continue to develop beyond adolescence [START_REF] Weil | The development of metacognitive ability in adolescence[END_REF], and age is known to affect metacognition [START_REF] Paulus | Metacognitive monitoring of oneself and others: Developmental changes during childhood and adolescence[END_REF][START_REF] Veenman | Assessing developmental differences in metacognitive skills with computer logfiles: Gender by age interactions[END_REF], it would be interesting to elucidate the interactions between the metacognitive processes of university students and variables such as sex and education factors. The present research focused on the metacognitive processes of writing, as this is an essential skill required by students across all disciplines.

Overview of Metacognitive Processes

Since the seminal contributions by Flavell and colleagues during the early 1980s, metacognition has been traditionally considered to be "cognition about cognition" or "thinking about thinking" [START_REF] Dinsmore | Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning[END_REF]. This primary definition emphasises the distinction between, on the one hand, knowledge about cognition (i.e., metacognitive knowledge) and, on the other hand, regulation and control of cognitive activity [START_REF] Harris | Metacognition and children's writing[END_REF]. More recently, authors have supported this distinction, for example, relative to the writing domain [START_REF] Tobias | The importance of knowing what you know: a knowledge monitoring framework for studying metacognition in education[END_REF].

Metacognitive knowledge concerns personal knowledge about different variablespersonal factors or aspects related to the task and one's own cognitive functioning-that participate in various stages of the activity [START_REF] Schoonen | First language and second language writing: the role of linguistic knowledge, speed of processing, and metacognitive knowledge[END_REF][START_REF] Trapman | Writing proficiency level and writing development of low-achieving adolescents: the roles of linguistic knowledge, fluency, and metacognitive knowledge[END_REF].

Self-regulation strategies relate to behaviours employed by individuals to achieve the objectives of the activity [START_REF] Zimmerman | Investigating self-regulation and motivation: historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects[END_REF]. Researchers have primarily identified three kinds of self-regulation processes: planning (anticipation and choice of strategies), monitoring (organisation and correction of actions) and evaluation [START_REF] Harris | Metacognition and children's writing[END_REF][START_REF] Mason | Writing instruction for adolescents with learning disabilities: programs of intervention research[END_REF][START_REF] Zimmerman | Self-Regulation: Where Metacognition and Motivation Intersect[END_REF].

Writing and Metacognition

Writing is a complex cognitive activity that comprises both cognitive and metacognitive processes. Among the cognitive processes that have been identified (i.e. planning, translating, and reviewing; [START_REF] Hayes | Modeling and remodeling writing[END_REF][START_REF] Kellogg | Improving the writing skills of college students[END_REF], planning plays an important role, especially in HE, where students are asked to produce a variable quantity of written texts. Research has shown that writers who undertake detailed organization and preparation of their writing activity produce texts of a better quality (Authors et al., 2017;[START_REF] Beauvais | Why are some texts good and others not? Relationship between text quality and management of the writing processes[END_REF][START_REF] Galbraith | Revision in the context of different drafting strategies[END_REF].

From a cognitive point of view, the planning of writing includes two key subprocesses (generating content and organizing ideas) that each perform specific functions [START_REF] Hayes | On the nature of planning in writing[END_REF].When generating content, the writer tries to identify and select ideas that are relevant to the topic and to readers' expectations. Once the writer has selected the content, he/she can organize it according to a specific hierarchy in order to consolidate the information [START_REF] Limpo | Effects of planning strategies on writing dynamics and final texts[END_REF]. Decisions have to be made about the order of the content, resulting in the production of diagrams, schemas, notes, or outlines.

Concerning the metacognitive processes of writing, Metacognitive knowledge about writing concerns personal considerations about audience expectations, type of text, writing strategies, and the adaptation of these strategies according to the writing situation [START_REF] Graham | Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: the effects of self-regulated strategy development[END_REF][START_REF] Schoonen | First language and second language writing: the role of linguistic knowledge, speed of processing, and metacognitive knowledge[END_REF]. There seems to be a consensus on dividing metacognitive knowledge into three main categories [START_REF] Harris | Metacognition and children's writing[END_REF][START_REF] Pintrich | The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing[END_REF][START_REF] Sperling | Measures of Children's Knowledge and Regulation of Cognition[END_REF]. Declarative knowledge pertains to personal characteristics (e.g. the writers strengths and weaknesses) and task specificities. Strategic knowledge includes knowledge about the strategies that individuals can use to perform a set of common activities. Conditional knowledge reflects knowledge related to occasions where it is convenient to use specific strategies according to task requirements.

According to [START_REF] Harris | Metacognition and children's writing[END_REF][START_REF] Schunk | Influencing Children's Self-Efficacy and Self-Regulation of Reading and Writing through Modeling[END_REF], the self-regulation strategies of writing comprise a set of cognitive, affective-motivational, behavioural and environmental processes that writers implement in order to readjust their writing activity as they write. These authors identified several specific self-regulation writing strategies that we explore in the present study: seeking help (asking peers, tutors, or teachers to help solve problems); structuring the environment (organizing the writing context to write effectively); and mental imagery (creating a mental image while writing to simplify written production). Following the categorisation of self-regulation strategies proposed by [START_REF] Zimmerman | Investigating self-regulation and motivation: historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects[END_REF], the first two strategies correspond to contextual self-regulation and the third one reflects personal self-regulation. Indeed, it is important to differentiate self-regulation from external selfregulation, a distinction that conforms to de la Fuentes's contributions (2017). According to this author, self-regulation refers to active self-management to which an individual engages during a task. External self-regulation concerns the extent to which the context promotes selfregulation, for example, through teachers' encouragements. The present research focus only on self-regulation processes.

What Variables Interact with the Metacognitive Processes of University Students?

Sex and cognitive and metacognitive processes. There is some evidence to show that the development of metacognitive processes differs according to sex. [START_REF] Veenman | Assessing developmental differences in metacognitive skills with computer logfiles: Gender by age interactions[END_REF] revealed that there is a pause in metacognitive growth at the age of 14-16 years, with a sex-age interaction. This pause occurs earlier in girls (13-14 years) than in boys (14-15 years), but girls subsequently overtake boys at around 16 years. The sex difference seems to persist beyond adolescence. In the case of university students, Downing Chan, [START_REF] Downing | Measuring gender differences in cognitive functioning[END_REF] found that female participants perceived themselves to be better at strategies such as concentration, time management and study aids. However, there were no sex-related differences for self-testing. Moreover, [START_REF] Kizilcec | Self-regulated learning strategies predict learner behavior and goal attainment in massive open online courses[END_REF] found that female students reported lower levels of planning, self-evaluation and elaboration, but scored higher than male students on seeking help, setting goals and task strategies.

Differences between female and male individuals can also be found in the writing domain. [START_REF] Mau | Gender differences on the Scholastic Aptitude Test, the American College Test and college grades[END_REF] found that female college students scored higher than male students on tasks requiring writing skills. They also developed their reasoning abilities more, despite lower results at college entrance. This superiority of the female sex could be a consequence of personality traits, such as conscientiousness [START_REF] Duckworth | Self-discipline gives girls the edge: Gender in self-discipline, grades, and achievement test scores[END_REF][START_REF] Mau | Gender differences on the Scholastic Aptitude Test, the American College Test and college grades[END_REF], and motivational variables, such as a greater interest in academic work and better effort regulation [START_REF] Fryer | Reciprocal modelling of Japanese university students' regulation strategies and motivational deficits for studying[END_REF][START_REF] Mau | Gender differences on the Scholastic Aptitude Test, the American College Test and college grades[END_REF][START_REF] Meece | Gender and motivation[END_REF].

Interactions between education variables and metacognition. As we mentioned above, there is a dearth of information about the interactions of education variables (e.g. educational background, learning domain, level of study) with metacognition. Nevertheless, if we adopt a sociocognitive approach, we can assume that education variables predict the development of metacognition in higher education. In particular, according to Bandura's socialcognitive learning theory ( 2002), environmental, personal and behavioural variables contribute to individuals' learning. Within this framework, [START_REF] Zimmerman | Investigating self-regulation and motivation: historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects[END_REF] explained that self-regulation results from the interaction between these three variables. Environmental factors could comprise specific and contextualized elements, such as task constraints and specificities, as well as more general factors, such as the learners' culture and school trajectory.

Previous findings have indeed highlighted variations in the metacognitive processes of individuals from different cultures [START_REF] Broyon | Métacognition et cultures [Metacognitin and cultures[END_REF]Marambe, Vermunt, & Boshuizen, 2012), with authors arguing that parental education and the nature of communication between parents and children could explain these differences. In the present study, we were interested in specific education variables related to the learners' experiences in higher education and in previous levels of education.

Even though there is not sufficient evidence about the contribution of education variables toward the development of metacognition in higher education, findings have mainly linked education factors to academic achievement. For example, [START_REF] Jia | Using predictive modelling to identify students at risk of poor university outcomes[END_REF] found that learning domain plays an important role in course non-completion outcomes. Specifically, students enrolled on Bachelor of Health Sciences, Bachelor of Design, or Bachelor of Education courses were less likely to succeed in their first year than students enrolled on Bachelor of Computer Information Science or Bachelor of Engineering Technology courses.

The authors explained these differences by arguing that some first-year programmes may be more difficult than others. Similarly, [START_REF] Beekhoven | Different courses, different students, same results? An examination of differences in study progress of students in different courses[END_REF] demonstrated that the different effects of learning domain on academic performance are a consequence of the number of scheduled hours during the academic year, the number of exams and the self-reported number of hours spent studying per week. Students who followed courses with a higher mean number of hours achieved better academic performances.

Another education variable explored in the present study was the level of performance at secondary school. There has been no research on how this factor might interact with metacognition in writing at university, although several studies have demonstrated that it is a factor for academic success at university. [START_REF] Cyrenne | High school grades and university performance: A case study[END_REF] sought to determine the predictive power of college students' high school average, based on data collected over a fiveyear period. The authors tracked the students' performances, as reflected by their grade point average at university. Findings showed that high school average was a strong predictor of grade point average.

The clear and persistent effect of prior academic performance on success at university has also been demonstrated by [START_REF] Diseth | Academic achievement among first semester undergraduate psychology students: The role of course experience, effort, motives and learning strategies[END_REF] and [START_REF] Jia | Using predictive modelling to identify students at risk of poor university outcomes[END_REF]. In particular, [START_REF] Jia | Using predictive modelling to identify students at risk of poor university outcomes[END_REF] found that the risk of not completing their first year at university was lower among students who scored higher on their National Certificate of Educational Achievement, a national secondary-school qualification in New Zealand. This effect was especially striking among students with potential problems in literacy (reading and writing) and mathematics. In brief, prior academic performance is a variable that directly affects academic results at university, and this predictive effect is just as important as students' effort and their approaches to learning [START_REF] Diseth | Academic achievement among first semester undergraduate psychology students: The role of course experience, effort, motives and learning strategies[END_REF]).

In France, there is also evidence that academic experiences in secondary school determine academic success at university [START_REF] Morlaix | Analyse de la réussite en première année universitaire: Effets des facteurs sociaux, scolaires et cognitifs[END_REF][START_REF] Perret | Essai de mesure de l'efficacité différenciée d'un plan "Réussite en licence " selon les acquis initiaux des étudiants [Trying to measure the « Academic Succes in Licence level » Programme' efficacy regarding the prior learning of university students[END_REF]. The high-school diploma track followed in high school appears to be the strongest determinant of grade point average at the end of the first semester at university. In particular, the authors found that pupils with a science high-school diploma achieved the best academic performances. To gain a better understanding of the peculiarities of these education variables in the context of the present study, we briefly describe some relevant features of the French education system.

Objectives and Hypotheses

Based on these empirical data and theoretical considerations, we aimed to conduct a correlational study in order to analyse the interactions between metacognition in writing and variables such as individuals' sex and education background. In particular, we set ourselves the following research aims. As we mentioned earlier, the factors that interact with the meta-cognition in university students have so far received very little attention from researchers.

Furthermore, the contribution of individual factors (e.g. sex) and education variables (e.g. educational background, learning domain and level of study) on self-reported levels of metacognitive processes in writing has yet to be studied. We therefore set out to answer the following research questions:

-Is the sex of university students a predictor of the levels of self-reported metacognitive processes involved in the planning of writing? (RQ1) -Is educational background (type of high-school diploma) a factor determining differences on the the metacognitive processes self-reported by university students? (RQ2) -Are learning domains a factor determining differences in the self-reported metacognitive processes related to the planning of writing in a university context? (RQ3)

The questions relating to education variables seem particularly relevant in a French context of highly specialized secondary studies that determine essential aspects of learning in HE, such as the choice of learning domain and students' academic performances. On the strength of our literature review, we formulated the following three general hypotheses:

-Sex is a relevant predictor of the metacognitive processes engaged in the writing of university students. More specifically, being female positively affects self-reported levels of metacognitive processes (H1); -Type of high-school diploma determines differences on the metacognitive processes engaged in writing at university. French students' scores therefore differ according to their high-school diploma track, with the general track being linked to the highest self-reported metacognition scores (H2); -At university, learning domain (the course in which the student is enrolled), and level of study (first year vs. third year) determines differences in the students' selfreported level of metacognition in writing. In particular, the students enrolled in domains where the learners are supposed to engage in more intense writing practices (i.e. Literature and Language or Social and Human Sciences) will self-report the highest scores on metacognition (H3).

Method

Participants

Participants were 1501 first-year and third-year students enrolled in different learning domains. Initially, 1519 students filled in the questionnaire, but we removed 13 participants because they failed to provide essential information (e.g. age, sex or high-school track) and 5 other participants because they had a foreign high-school diploma that was not comparable to the French high-school diploma. Table 1 sets out the sample's characteristics. The students were contacted in their classrooms, which were randomly selected, and they filled in the questionnaire on a voluntary basis. The researchers briefly explained the aims of the study and informed them that their participation would not affect their course results or grades. The participants were reassured that the data would be anonymized and their identities would not be revealed in any publications resulting from the research. The sample was overwhelmingly female (71%), reflecting the statistically significant increase in the number of women attending French universities in recent years. Women make up 58% of the university student population and constitute a large majority (70-74%) in domains such as Language and Literature and Human and Social Sciences (MENSR, 2016).

Furthermore, our students were mostly enrolled in Human and Social Sciences or Law and Economics programmes. In all, 86% of participants had a general high-school diploma, and 62% were in their first year of study at university.

Instruments

We measured the students' metacognitive processes by means of a questionnaire constructed by authors of the present study. This consisted of 15 items probing three dimensions:

conditional metacognitive knowledge (MCK; 6 items), covert or personal self-regulation (CSF; 4 items), and environmental self-regulation (ESR; 5 items). Participants were asked to identify the extent to which a given strategy or type of knowledge reflected their planning writing processes. More specifically, they had to rate the frequency of each situation that was described on a 7-point Likert-like scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 7 (Always). For the purposes of data processing, we summed the raw item scores for each dimension to obtain three factor scores.

Before analysing the data, we examined the validity and reliability of the instrument following two steps. First, we ran an exploratory factor analysis (common factor approach)

with an oblique rotation method (an interrelationship between the metacognitive components was assumed). One part of the participants (497 students) was randomly selected in order to run this exploratory factor analysis. This analysis indicated the existence of three factors, each of which had item loadings from -.81 to.79: MCK had an eigenvalue of 3.95 (corresponding to 23.27% of the explained variance); CSF had an eigenvalue of 2.51 (corresponding to 14.81% of the explained variance); and ESR had an eigenvalue of 1.58 (corresponding to 9.33% of the explained variance). MCK comprised items pertaining to personal knowledge about the use of specific writing methods, taking account of task requirements and the genre of the text to be produced. CSF contained items relating to strategies used by the writer to regulate his/her cognitions or emotions during the planning of writing. ESF measured the use of social resources (peers, tutors, teachers, etc.). Second, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the factor structure found in the first step. The rest of the participants in the study (498 students) constituted the data for the CFA. The model had a good fit with the data. We selected the following absolute fit indexes: comparative fit index (CFI), normed fit index (NFI; also known as the Tucker-Lewis index, TLI), root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), and parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI). A value of at least .90 is held to be acceptable for CFI and NFI [START_REF] Bentler | On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the Bulletin[END_REF], and a value below or equal to .06 is acceptable for RMSEA [START_REF] Hu | Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives[END_REF]. Moreover, values greater than .50 and .90 are acceptable for GFI and PGFI, respectively [START_REF] Byrne | Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications and programming[END_REF][START_REF] Gefen | Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice[END_REF]. Taking into account the values we obtained (CFI = .897, NFI = .854, RMSEA = .063, GFI = .935, PGFI =

.678), we can consider that the model presents a good fit to the data in relation to the aforementioned accepted value. Moreover, the Cronbach's alphas were .80, .65 and .70, respectively. Following Nunnaly (1978), an alpha coefficient between .62 and .92 is considered as an acceptable level of reliability.

The questionnaire also elicited information about respondents' demographic and education variables: sex; high-school diploma track; level of study; and learning domain.

Procedure

The students completed the questionnaire in their classrooms. They were invited to participate in the present study on a voluntary basis and signed a consent form. This form presented the research's general aim and asked for the students' consent to obtain personal information (high-school diploma track, years of study in higher education) registered through the Statistical and Inquiry Office of the university. Prior to this procedure, a declaration form was submitted by the researches to the data protection officer of the institution. It specified the various modalities for ensuring the ethical treatment of personal data. In particular, the manner by which the data would be anonymised was explained.

The questionnaire was administered collectively, and students spent 10-20 minutes answering all the questions. The period between September and October was selected for the administration of the questionnaire.

Data Analysis

We adopted three approaches to analyse the data. In the first stage, descriptive statistics were used to a) illustrate the participants' characteristics in relation to the demographic and education variables, and b) look for differences on each of the metacognitive dimensions in terms of demographic and education variables. In the second stage, we ran an analysis of variance (ANOVA) to identify the variables (education and demographic factors) that determined differences between the students' metacognitive processes of planning for writing. In the third and last stage, regression analyses allowed us to precisely establish whether students' demographic and educational traits predicted the metacognitive characteristics of their plan-ning. For the all-of-data analysis, we used the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences -SPSS.

Results

First Stage: Descriptive Data and ANOVA Results

Table 3 sets out the mean metacognition scores according to the individual and education variables we considered. Because the data relative to metacognition scores were not normally distributed (Shapiro-Wilk for MCK W = .89, p < .05, CSF W = .89, p < .05, and ESR W = .89, p < .05) they were log-transformed beforehand in order to ensure normal distribution. We found that women's self-reported scores were higher than the men's for all three metacognitive dimensions. An independent t test showed that this difference was statistically 4, the Science students had statistically significantly higher self-reported scores than the other three groups, [F(3, 1497) = 4.11, p = 0.01, η2 = 0.01]. Turkey's HSD tests showed that Science students' and Language students' scores differed significantly. As for the CSF component, all the learning domains we considered had comparable self-reported scores (Table 3).

Second Stage: What Variables Interact with the Metacognitive Components?

We performed three separate, univariate ANOVAs for the whole sample (N = 1501), with the education and demographic factors as independent variable, and each one of the metacognitive dimensions as the dependent variable.

For the MCK component, this approach revealed a main effect of sex, [F(1, 1499) = 12.31, p= 0.00], with women scoring higher. We also found a main effect of learning domain,

F

Third Stage: Identifying the Determinants of Metacognitive Dimensions

We ran regression analyses to determine exactly how far the factors were determinants for the score obtained relative to the metacognitive dimensions (MCK, CSF, and ESR). In each case, the independent variables we entered into the regression were those for which the ANOVAs had revealed group-based differences on the metacognitive dimensions.

As shown in Table 4, sex continued to be a significant predictor of students' selfreported MCK scores. Being female was predictive of higher scores on this metacognitive variable. Moreover, two kinds of high-school diplomas, technical and vocational, were revealed to be statistically significant factors that determine variations of MCK, taking all other statistically significant predictors into account. It should, however, be noted that they appeared to be negative predictors, in that students with a technical or vocational diploma had lower MCK scores. This was more striking for the vocational high-school diploma (β = -0.142) than for the technical one (β = -0.066). Note, however, that the regression model (R2) indicated a weak contribution of these factors to self-reported level of MCK. Regarding the CSF dimension, Table 5 shows that the technical high-school diploma was a (negative) predictor of this metacognitive variable. Students with a technical diploma had lower self-reported CSF scores than those who followed a different track at secondary school. However, the regression model (R2) showed a small contribution of the technical high-school diploma to the self-reported score of CSF. Finally, Table 6 shows that sex continued to be a statistically significant predictor of students' self-reported ESR scores. Being female was thus predictive of higher scores on this metacognitive component. Additionally, being enrolled on a Science programme was a statistically significant predictor of ESR when all other significant predictors were taken into account. These results should be minimized, taking into account that the contribution of factors to the self-reported ESR scores was very low. Table 7 summarizes these results, indicating the education and demographic factors that determined statistically significant differences on the self-reported metacognitive processes.

Discussion

A central result of the present study concerns the identification of sex as an important predictive variable of the metacognitive components of planning in writing (RQ1). The data revealed that the women students self-reported the highest scores on two dimensions: MCK and ESR. Female superiority in metacognition has already been demonstrated in the case of children and adolescents [START_REF] Downing | Measuring gender differences in cognitive functioning[END_REF][START_REF] Kizilcec | Self-regulated learning strategies predict learner behavior and goal attainment in massive open online courses[END_REF][START_REF] Veenman | Assessing developmental differences in metacognitive skills with computer logfiles: Gender by age interactions[END_REF].

Our findings confirm that metacognition continues to be determined by individuals' sex beyond adolescence, particularly for writing. We can explain the interaction between sex and metacognition in the light of [START_REF] Duckworth | Self-discipline gives girls the edge: Gender in self-discipline, grades, and achievement test scores[END_REF], [START_REF] Mau | Gender differences on the Scholastic Aptitude Test, the American College Test and college grades[END_REF], and [START_REF] Meece | Gender and motivation[END_REF] findings, by considering motivational and personality variables that characterize the female sex, such as greater interest in academic tasks, especially those involving written communication [START_REF] Fryer | Reciprocal modelling of Japanese university students' regulation strategies and motivational deficits for studying[END_REF], and the conscientiousness trait. As they there-fore found the practice of writing in a learning context easier, our female participants may have acquired further and more varied knowledge about the conditions for successfully performing writing tasks. They may have been able to anticipate their writing processes by searching for information about the reader's expectations and by asking their peers to critique their plan of the text.

Lastly, the present findings are coherent with previous research results [START_REF] Downing | Measuring gender differences in cognitive functioning[END_REF][START_REF] Kizilcec | Self-regulated learning strategies predict learner behavior and goal attainment in massive open online courses[END_REF], showing that women and men may differ with regard to certain self-regulation strategies, but be quite similar for others. In our study, no female superiority was found for the CSR component, probably because in France teachers and tutors strongly encourage pupils, girls and boys, to engage in brainstorming and actively search for ideas before they start writing [START_REF] Gicquel | L'explication de textes et la dissertation[END_REF]. This environmental factor may explain the absence of a difference between the two groups in relation to covert self-regulation strategy.

Another relevant finding concerned the interactions between school background and the metacognitive components of writing (RQ2). The three metacognitive variables differed according to the kind of high-school diploma. In particular, students with a technical or vocational diploma self-reported the lowest levels of both MCK and ECR. In France, these highschool diploma tracks feature a more practical training, related to work in the real world.

Their courses are less theoretical and abstract than those included in the general track, and there are far fewer writing activities. A pupil following a general track receives more hours of French teaching (4 hr per week) than a pupil enrolled in either a technical (3 hr) or a vocational (2.5 hr) track (French Ministry of Education website). In other words, the learning and teaching processes involved in technical and vocational training are less based on reflective practices, language skills and general culture than those in the general track.

Considering that writing activities and theoretical learning are less of a priority in the technical and vocational tracks, we can assume that our students had had fewer opportunities to construct knowledge about strategies and different writing tasks in an academic context.

Their limited writing practice meant that they had not been able to test enough strategies to monitor their cognitions when planning their writing tasks. Managing problem-solving situations and taking decisions is a precondition for developing metacognition (Bryce & Whitebread, 2012), particularly during writing. Thereby, the individual becomes awares of his/her knowledge and strategies needed to regulate the writing processes. However, we did not find any difference between the vocational and general tracks for scores on the ESR dimension, which may be in contradiction to what we have just argued. We can assume that this selfregulation strategy, which consisted here mainly of asking for help from peers or teachers in order to plan, is practised similarly across the different high-school tracks. Thus, the development of ESR seems to be less specific to a domain or learning task than the other metacognitive components considered.

The final education factor considered was learning domain (RQ3), our finding showing interactions between the Law and Economics and Science programmes and the metacognitive components. Students enrolled in one of the latter obtained the highest MCK scores. It is important to point out that this domain mainly attracts students who followed a general track at secondary school, particularly the social sciences and economics stream. The fact that academic writing is extensively practised in the general track may explain the superiority of the students enrolled on a Law and Economics programme. The present results are consistent with [START_REF] Jia | Using predictive modelling to identify students at risk of poor university outcomes[END_REF] and [START_REF] Beekhoven | Different courses, different students, same results? An examination of differences in study progress of students in different courses[END_REF] findings. These authors explained the interactions between learning domain and academic performance by arguing that certain programmes require considerable involvement from students (in terms of hours) in academic work per day and per week.

Finally, the Science domain was a factor inducing statistically significant differences on the ESR component. In the sciences, teachers probably encourage students to work together more during the learning process through pedagogic activities that have been traditionally named in France 'travaux dirigés' (tutorials) and 'travaux pratiques' (practicals) (Author, 2015). Both kinds of teaching practices are intended to promote the development of student autonomy through practical exercises or group projects.

Conclusions

The present study was intended to determine the interactions between sex and education variables (i.e. type of high-school diploma, learning domain, and level of study) with the self-reported metacognitive processes related to writing in HE. The data confirmed most of our hypotheses. First, participants' sex was a predictor of metacognition in writing (H1). The women students self-reported greater use of MCK and ESR strategies than the male students did, probably because women are generally more interested in academic writing than men.

They could also encouraged by the cultural environment to practise writing in a more intensive and conscientious manner. Second, in accordance with our hypothesis, high-school diploma track determined statistically significant differences on the metacognitive dimensions (H2). However, further analysis showed that students having followed a vocational or technical track self-reported the lowest scores. We can surmise that the low priority given to reflective learning, writing practices, and theoretical content that characterizes these two tracks in French secondary schools, prevents students from developing metacognitive processes.

Third, concerning the interactions between the metacognition and the learning domain, we can confirm that this education variable induces specific variations in metacognition (H3).

However, results differed slightly from our hypothesis, given that the two learning domains where we assumed that students write more (Language and Literature and social and human sciences) did not have a positive effect on the self-reported level of metacognition in writing.

By contrast, the Law and Economics domain determined variations in the MCK scores, doubtless owing to the students' secondary-school background. Similarly, the students enrolled in the Science domain obtained the highest self-reported levels of ESR strategies, doubtless because of all the collaborative learning these university students had engaged in since secondary school.

Limitations

Despite the contributions set out above, the present study had several limitations. For example, it only explored planning, thus neglecting other writing processes, such as revising.

Future research should also adopt a broader approach to writing, in order to enhance current understanding of the different cognitive constraints of this complex cognitive activity.

Other limitations concern the methodology. Although metacognition is generally studied through questionnaires, it would be interesting to compare the data yielded by self-report inventories with online data. The latter would make it possible to explore the processes that are actually engaged, and not just those reported by participants.

In order to explore the question in relation to the factors that contribute to the development of metacognition among university students in greater depth, it seems necessary to consider family and personal characteristics, which we did not scrutinize in the present study.

For example, parental education, family income and household composition may play an im-portant role in the development of reflective processes. These factors certainly contribute to metacognitive development before students reach university.

  significant for both MCK, [t(1, 1499) = -2.44, p = 0.015, d = -0,14], and ESR, [t(1;1499) = -5.72, p = 0.000, d = 0.33].

  (3, 1497) = 3.15, p = 0.02, with Law and Economics students scoring the highest, and Human and Social Sciences students scoring the lowest. Finally, there was a main effect of type of high-school diploma, [F(2, 1498) = 15.60, p = 0.00], in that students with a technical or vocational high-school diploma scored the lowest. For the CSF component, we only detected a statistically significant main effect for high-school diploma track, [F(2, 1498) = 3.05, p = 0.04]. In particular, having a technical high-school diploma negatively affected CSF scores, with this group of students scoring the lowest. By contrast, we observed several main effects with respect to the ESR component. Specifically, there was a main effect of sex, [F(1, 1499) = 18.76, p = 0.00], with female students scoring the highest. Analysis also revealed a main effect of learning domain, [F(3, 1497) = 5.45, p= 0.00], with Science students having the highest self-reported scores.

Table 1 .

 1 Demographic and educational characteristics of the sample(N = 1501)

	Variables

Table 2 .

 2 Table 2 sets out the items of the questionnaire with the results of the exploratory factor analysis. Questionnaire: metacognitive components, item loadings, factor eigenvalues, % of variance and alpha coefficients

	Metacognitive component	Items		Eigenvalues	% var	α
	Metacognitive conditio-nal knowledge (MCK)	I know how to find ideas to write about	.67
		Before writing, I know the formal character-istics of the text I have to construct	.60
		I know which writing strategies to employ depending on the kind of writing assignment	.76	3.29	23.68 .80
		I know how to adapt my writing strategies to the requirements of the writing task	.79
		I know how to decide if it is necessary to
		change my writing strategies to meet task	.78
		demands
		I repeat in my head the ideas to write about
		while I am reflecting about how to organize	-.55
		my text
	Covert self-regulation (CSF)	I connect my ideas with keywords that flow into my head before writing	-.77	2.42	16.20 .65
		I make a mental checklist of all my ideas before starting to write	-.81
		I let my knowledge about the topic flow before starting to write	-.60
		I ask someone to read the plan of my text in order to make sure it is clear	.75
	Environmental self-regulation (ESR)	I use a text plan that someone recommended to me	.63
		I discuss with my peers in order to identify the ideas I will write about	.68	2.34	10.49 .70
		I question the prof./evaluator of my text to find out his/her expectations	.57
		I show my prof./evaluator a draft of my text to get his/her advice	.70

Table 3 .

 3 Mean scores for self-reported metacognitive components according to sex and edu-track groups on each of the metacognitive dimensions, we found that the self-reported MCK [F(2, 1498) = 24.20, p = 0.00, η2 = 0.03] and CSF [F(2, 1498) = 3.83, p = 0.02, η2 = 0.00] scores of students with a general high-school diploma were statistically significantly higher than those of students with a vocational or technical diploma (Table3). It should be noted that students with a vocational or technical diploma had the same self-reported CSF scores, while students with a vocational or general diploma had very similar ESR scores.

	cation
			MCK		CSF		ESR
		M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
	Sex
	Male	27.89 (5.31) 19.82 (3.78) 15.84 (5.11)
	Female	28.55 (4.56) 20.21 (3.76) 17.52 (5.18)
	High-school diploma
	track
	Vocational	24.71 (4.55) 19.45 (3.58) 17.29 (7.10)
	Technical	26.83 (5.12) 19.43 (3.76) 16.09 (5.31)
	General	28.68 (4.68) 20.21 (3.77) 17.15 (5.12)
	Learning domains
	Human and Social Sciences	27.76 (4.70) 19.85 (3.77) 16.88 (5.19)
	Language and Lit-erature	28.07 (4.70) 20.19 (3.84) 16.41 (5.30)
	Law and Econom-ics	29.10 (4.73) 20.39 (3.73) 17.11 (4.93)
	Science	28.53 (5.02) 19.96 (3.74) 17.86 (5.49)

Students with a general high-school diploma scored the highest on the MCK and CSF dimensions. When we carried out one-way ANOVAs to compare the three high-school di-ploma however, be noted that the Language and Literature and the Science students' results were very similar. Tukey's Honest Significant Difference test tests revealed a statistically significant difference in scores between Law and Economics students and Human and Social Sciences students. There was also a statistically significant difference between Law and Economics students and Language and Literature students. Another difference concerned the ESR dimension where, as indicated in Table

Table 4 .

 4 Predicting students' MCK: relative contributions of previously established signifi-

	cant predictors
	Overall equation	Adjusted	F**	Sig***	Partial
		R²*			correlation
		0.04	11.70	0.00
	Predictor	Beta	t	Sig
	Sex	0.07	2.82	0.07	0.072
	High school diploma track
	Vocational	-0.12	-5.02	0.00	_-0.127

Table 5 .

 5 Predicting students' CSF: relative contributions of previously established significant predictors statistically significant differences on the self-reported metacognitive processes

	Overall equation	Adjusted	F	Sig	Partial
		R²			correlation
		0.00	3.34	0.03
	Predictor	Beta	t	Sig
	High-school diploma track
	Technical	-0.06	-2.39	0.01	-0.062
	Vocational	-0.02	-1.11	0.26	-0.029

Table 6 .

 6 Predicting students' ESR: relative contributions of previously established significant

	predictors
	Overall equation	Adjusted	F	Sig	Partial
		R²			correlation
		0.02	11.91	0.00
	Predictor	Beta	t	Sig
	Sex	0.15	6.03	0.00	0.019
	Learning domain
	Language and Literature	-0.03	-1.05	0.29	-0.027
	Law and Economics	0.03	1.22	0.22	0.031
	Sciences	0.09	3.08	0.00	0.079

Table 7 .

 7 Summary of the significant predictors of the metacognitive components

		MCK	CSF	ESR
	Sex	+		+
	High school diploma
	track
	Vocational	-	-
	Technical	-
	Learning domain
	Law and Economics	+
	Science			+


Dyanne Escorcia

Mayilin Moreno

Teaching and assessment practices for academic writing: an analysis of teacher profiles

Keywords: academic writing, university teacher profiles, teaching practices, assessing practices, self-reported teacher practices

The present research study aimed to determine what teachers do to promote the learning of academic writing. In particular, we studied how teachers teach and assess writing in higher education based on their self-reported teaching practices. We asked 64 teachers working in a Colombian university to fill in a questionnaire that we constructed for the purposes of the present study. The participants were teachers in the field of Health Sciences, the majority of whom were female (58%), with a mean age of 44 years. Data analysis consisted of cluster analysis based on items relative to teaching and assessing academic writing in order to determine teacher profiles. A Kruskal-Wallis H-test was then conducted to distinguish the found profiles as a function of teacher age. The results revealed three significantly different profiles: transmitting, assessing and no-adherence profiles. These profiles also varied as a function of age. These results will be discussed, taking into account a generational effect hypothesis, with regard to the tendency/lack of tendency for teachers to stimulate the learning of different components of academic writing (norms, methods and reflexive practices).

Introduction

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Issue 16: December 2019 2

Writing is a key activity in higher education. It seems inherent to all disciplines, since university students use writing to assimilate the concepts and notions of their particular disciplinary field (Delcambre et al., 2012). However, the practices of academic writing vary in function by discipline areas. [START_REF] Castelló | Las representaciones de profesores y estudiantes sobre la escritura académica en las universidades españolas[END_REF] found that the approaches to teaching writing self-reported by teachers in Social Sciences, Law and Health Sciences gave more importance to discursive norms and the writing processes than the practices described by Engineering or Architecture teachers.

Adopting a cognitive perspective, [START_REF] Bereiter | Development in writing[END_REF] emphasised the contribution of writing to knowledge construction. More than just a product of learning or a mechanical act serving to collect information, writing is a form of learning through which students can structure and build knowledge. Writing is a very demanding cognitive activity [START_REF] Kellogg | Improving the writing skills of college students[END_REF] in that individuals can plan their content and think about what is to be written, how it is to be written and for what purpose. They can also review what they have written, correcting or changing the content as many times as necessary without the recipient being aware of this process of elaboration [START_REF] Hayes | Modeling and remodeling writing[END_REF].

Writing would thus appear to be key to the mission of universities to contribute to the social and economic performance of countries by producing knowledge and promoting lifelong learning (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1996). In this sense, teachers play a pivotal role, as it mainly falls to them to teach students how to write. This is a particularly complex task, as it involves encouraging students to develop the intellectual abilities of planning, correcting and constructing written language so that they can build new knowledge in their disciplinary field (Reuter, 1996). In other words, teachers must teach their students the epistemic value of writing.

The present research considers that teacher practices to promote this essential component of learning in higher education constitute an illustration of the social dimension of academic writing. According to [START_REF] Lea | Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approach[END_REF], the interactions between writing and social practices, such as the institutional and cultural norms in learning contexts, could cause contradictions that students have to face at different stages of their progression in higher

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Issue 16: December 2019 3

education. The present study will explore some characteristics of teaching practices, considering them as part of the learning context of academic writing.

Studying self-reported teaching practices related to writing in higher education

Teaching practices in higher education have been studied in the literature [START_REF] Eley | Teachers' conceptions of teaching, and the making of specific decisions in planning to teach[END_REF][START_REF] Huu Nghia | What hinders teachers from translating their beliefs into teaching behaviors: the case of teaching generic skills in Vietnamese universities[END_REF], emphasising teacher beliefs, teaching approaches and the relationship between these variables and student learning. We chose the term teaching approaches in order to study the teaching and assessment of academic writing practices in higher education. [START_REF] Eley | Teachers' conceptions of teaching, and the making of specific decisions in planning to teach[END_REF] insisted on the necessity of considering this term separately from that of teacher conceptions, given that the former is somewhat related to what teachers say about their teaching practices. In contrast, studies of teaching approaches in higher education have, above all, highlighted teacher-reported teaching practices [START_REF] Eley | Teachers' conceptions of teaching, and the making of specific decisions in planning to teach[END_REF].

Previous studies have identified categories of teaching approaches, and their findings have been highly consistent given that two supra-categories are in evidence [START_REF] Gow | Conceptions of teaching and their relationship to student learning[END_REF]Trigwell and Prosser, 1996). In one category, some teachers view teaching as a transmission process where teachers play a key role in communicating knowledge that students then have to learn. In the other category, teaching is considered to be a process in which the students play the central role by participating in their own knowledge construction.

Between these two typologies exist various other categories that differ in their degree of emphasis on either a teacher-focused or a student-focused approach.

In relation to teaching writing in higher education, [START_REF] Graham | Primary grade teachers' theoretical orientations concerning writing instruction: construct validation and a Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Issue 16: December 2019 19 nationwide survey[END_REF] observed three approaches: a focus on good writing; on explicit and direct instruction; or on ecological learning. In the first category, teachers tended to emphasise the correction of their students' written material with regard to linguistic norms. In the second case, it was important to the teachers to develop and train the cognitive skills of students. The final approach to teaching writing focused on the interactive and social dimensions of learning, which allowed students to learn through cooperation between pairs. However, these studies in the domain of teaching writing have concentrated on educational practices in primary and secondary education.

Fewer studies have explored teacher self-reported approaches in higher education.

Studying the implicit beliefs of students and teachers about writing in higher education, [START_REF] Lea | Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approach[END_REF] observed three categories, some of which were similar to the teaching of writing practices distinguished by [START_REF] Graham | Primary grade teachers' theoretical orientations concerning writing instruction: construct validation and a Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Issue 16: December 2019 19 nationwide survey[END_REF]. The first category emphasised language skills; the second described the social learning of discursive norms that constitute academic culture; and the third category was concerned not only with how students and teachers integrated institutional norms and practices but also the power relationships that impacted a writer's academic practices. [START_REF] Escorcia | Enseñanza y evaluación de la escritura en la universidad: análisis de prácticas declaradas de docentes franceses y colombianos[END_REF] found that Colombian and

French teachers implemented various pedagogic means, such as teaching writing methods, recalling the importance of respecting linguistic rules, or the display of reflective thinking.

However, the most common self-reported practices have been related to communicating disciplinary norms for constructing academic texts.

Teaching and assessing writing in higher education: educational practices in Colombia [START_REF] Grijalva | Reflexiones sobre pedagogía universitaria[END_REF] and [START_REF] López | La pedagogía crítica en el Iesalc/Unesco y La Universidad Colombiana en el marco de la revolución educativa entre el 2005-2010[END_REF] observed that higher education institutions in Colombia exhibited a distinct lack of interest in improving their teaching practices. For many decades, the development of reading and writing skills have been restricted to those taught in Spanish language courses focusing on linguistics, grammar and pragmatics [START_REF] González | Prácticas de Lectura y Escritura en la universidad. El caso de cinco asignaturas de la Universidad Sergio Arboleda[END_REF]. This is partly the consequence of a lack of teacher training based on contextualised research with regard to the problems in schools and universities [START_REF] Carlino | Escribir, leer y aprender en la universidad: una introducción a la alfabetización. Edición reimpresa[END_REF]. However, some changes in recent years have helped to focus conceptions of writing on the specific characteristics of each genre, and the role of the writer in constructing writing and knowledge [START_REF] Arévalo | Lineamientos generales para los cursos de lectura y escritura[END_REF].

Owing to the lack of interest reported by [START_REF] Grijalva | Reflexiones sobre pedagogía universitaria[END_REF] and [START_REF] López | La pedagogía crítica en el Iesalc/Unesco y La Universidad Colombiana en el marco de la revolución educativa entre el 2005-2010[END_REF] and emphasised the importance of writing as a pleasurable activity. However, this study revealed few clues as to how the practice of writing contributes to learning and the development of thinking skills, and how these processes can be efficiently assessed.

According to [START_REF] González | Prácticas de Lectura y Escritura en la universidad. El caso de cinco asignaturas de la Universidad Sergio Arboleda[END_REF], the traditional view that the teaching of writing should be restricted to Spanish courses still prevails in Colombian universities. These authors found that although teachers believe it is important to develop writing skills at university, they do not see this as being an essential role of university teachers.

Other research that described Colombian teacher practices for teaching and assessment of writing has confirmed that teachers do not consider ways to help students construct their texts in their courses (Vargas, 2007;[START_REF] Escorcia | Teaching and assessing writing skills at university level: A comparison of practices in French and Colombian universities[END_REF][START_REF] Escorcia | Enseñanza y evaluación de la escritura en la universidad: análisis de prácticas declaradas de docentes franceses y colombianos[END_REF]. Teachers concentrate on assessing students' final written productions and do not provide any feedback during the intermediate phases of writing. Writing is regarded merely as a product that learners generate in response to teacher orders [START_REF] Escorcia | Conceptions de l'écriture à l'université: analyse des représentations d'enseignants français et colombiens[END_REF]. [START_REF] Escorcia | Teaching and assessing writing skills at university level: A comparison of practices in French and Colombian universities[END_REF] found that Colombian university teachers in the Psychology domain concentrated on communicating disciplinary norms for academic texts (APA reference style, expected text structure, etc.) and upholding the linguistic standards of the Spanish language, clearly viewing writing solely as a product.

Consistent with this result, [START_REF] Cadena | Comprensión de textos escritos académicos y tareas escritas en las asignaturas del área profesional: concepciones de maestros universitarios[END_REF] observed that writing is also viewed as a product-and not a process-in the fields of Economics and Engineering.

Research questions

Considering that writing plays an essential role for learning in higher education, and that this activity presents challenges to university teachers in terms of their educational practices, the objective of the present study was to discover the extent to which teachers actually implement actions to facilitate their students to achieve mastery of diverse facets of academic writing, especially the reflective dimension of writing. In particular, we looked at how teachers teach and assess writing in higher education. We analysed teaching practices via the advice teachers said they gave to their students when setting a written assignment, and their assessment practices via the criteria they declare to use when they judge these written products. Based on these analyses, we sought to typify the teaching and assessment of

Methods

Context of the study

This study was developed in a private university on the Colombian Caribbean coast. This Therapy. The pedagogy model prescribed by this university is centred on a dialogical model which points to the complexity of the human being and to the importance of social interaction in the construction of knowledge.

Participants

Our sample comprised 64 teachers. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the sample.

Participants were mainly female (58%) and their mean age was 44 years (range: 26-70 years). The participants were mainly novice and moderately experienced university teachers with between 1-10 years of experience (81% of the sample). The most experienced participants (five teachers) had 28-38 years of teaching in higher education.

The majority of our participants (59%) taught students in a specific year of study: third year (17%), fifth year (16%), second year (12%), first year (8%) or fourth year (6%). The remainder (41%) taught students from several different years. In other words, our participants were mainly teachers in a specific year of study, and most taught in the upper levels of study. The participants taught 97 different courses in the Health Sciences domain. Among the courses taught, a majority concerned specialist health topics (63%). The data shows that the teachers in our sample were not specialised in the teaching of language (oral or written skills).

Survey instrument

The data were obtained through a three-part questionnaire that was specially constructed for the present study. The three sections were:

 Practices for teaching writing: teachers had to indicate how often they implemented specific pedagogical actions to help their students produce texts in their courses. This section of the questionnaire comprised 12 items that illustrated these pedagogical actions (see Table 2).

 Writing assessment practices: six items probed the criteria used by teachers to assess their students' written production (see Table 3).

 Text genre: the purpose of this section was to identify all the types of texts that the teachers asked their students to produce in their courses. The teachers had to 1) indicate how often they asked students to write each text genre from a predefined list of genres, and 2) list any other text genres they requested. These sections of the questionnaire will not be presented in the present paper.

To indicate the frequency of each item (see Tables 2 and3), the participants were asked to choose one option amongst never, almost never, a few times, sometimes, frequently, very frequently, and always.

Table 2. Items on the questionnaire: practices for teaching writing.

When you ask students to produce a written text, what advice do you give them?

Item n° Sentence Q1

In the case of an essay, I say to them that the written text must contain a critical personal analysis. Q2

In the case of a research project, I say to them that the written text must be founded on strong arguments and theoretical bases.

Q3

I advise them to use the grammar rules in a convenient manner. Q4 I recommend that they write the introduction of a text at the end of the writing activity. Q5

I advise them to use the norms for producing scientific texts with regard to our disciplinary context. Q6 I explain genre characteristics (for example, to know that it is expected to produce a critical point of view for a synthesis). Q7 I recommend that they respect linguistic norms (spelling, punctuation, use of upper-and lower-case letters). Q8

I communicate to them how many pages they have to write. Q9 I recommend that they make a plan or draft before they start writing. Q10 I advise them to reread their text before submitting it to their teacher. Q11

I propose that they construct the text progressively by making corrections in a successive manner. Q12

I propose to them a methodology guide explaining the parts of the text to write. The critical thinking and distance learning skills of the students.

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Issue 16: December 2019 9

Q14

Clarity of ideas, coherence and logical flow of ideas.

Q15

The mastery of theoretical and disciplinary knowledge provided in the course.

Q16

The students' motivation for making the text. Q17

Respecting norms for producing scientific texts with regard to our disciplinary domain.

Q18

The use of grammar and spelling rules (punctuation, lexical choices, writing style, fluency).

Data analysis

We ran cluster analyses to identity the teacher profiles by including the items in the questionnaire related to the teaching and assessment of writing as variables. We then used the Minimum variance method (Ward, 1963) to find the similarities between the participants whilst the differences between the profiles were established (we used an indicator named the squared Euclidean distance similarity measure). Next, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of categories found based on a graphic representation of the clustering of the items resulting from the Ward's method. Finally, we made a new analysis by using the k-means clustering method to verify the suitability of the initial cluster solution. This process was completed using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by a posthoc test that allowed a more precise comparison of the clusters ranged by pairs.

In addition to cluster analysis, we performed a Kruskal-Wallis H-test to determine whether teacher profiles differed according to the variable we considered in this study, the age of participants.

Results

Using Ward's (1963) method allowed us to obtain a visual representation of the clustering of the items, which revealed three clusters. After careful inspection, we concluded that these three clusters made sense concerning the categories of teaching approaches we mentioned (see Introduction). The results of the cluster analysis are presented in Table 4.

Cluster 1, which included the majority of the participants (n = 46), was characterised by the highest scores on items related to teaching linguistic norms (Q3, Q7) and the constraints relative to the structure (Q8, Q6) and organisation (Q3, Q4) of written texts. These teachers scored the highest on items related to the teaching of writing methods, such as counselling students to review (Q10) or re-read (Q11) their texts. Two items probing assessment practices contributed to this profile, emphasising the importance of assessing student spelling abilities (Q18) and motivation (Q16). Taken together, the majority of items characterising

Cluster 1 concerned teaching practices, with only a few probing assessment practices. This group of participants, therefore, seemed to focus on communicating the norms and constraints of writing, along with some of the strategies students can use to check that they have respected these norms. We named this profile transmitting, which means transmitting written production norms and methods for writing.

Cluster 2, which contained the fewest participants (n = 5), was more focused on items related to writing assessment, whether the criteria were based on linguistic aspects (Q5), disciplinary norms (Q17), students' theoretical knowledge (Q15), text organisation (Q12, Q14) or student reflexive abilities (Q13). One particular feature of this typology is that it considered disciplinary norms in relation to both teaching and assessment practices. Also, these participants scored the highest on teaching practices that emphasised the importance of exhibiting reflexive skills through written texts (Q1, Q2). Participants in this cluster clearly took account of the context in which the writing was to take place, the disciplinary norms and the epistemic function of writing. Cluster 2 revealed a teacher profile that emphasised the assessment of writing practices, which is why we named this profile assessing, which means assessing academic writing in context.

The teachers in Cluster 3 (n = 13) scored the lowest on all of the items. Their mean scores were particularly low on questions related to writers' knowledge and thinking qualities (Q1, Q2), as well as on items concerning teaching practices, such as giving advice on how to write, i.e., make a plan, etc. (Q4 and Q8). These participants would not teach or assess the written productions of their students according to a defined approach, or would simply not adhere to the different characteristics described in the questionnaire. We named this profile no adherence, which means no adherence to specific teaching and assessment approaches.

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Issue 16: December 2019 11

Results of the post-hoc test (Table 4) provide a more detailed view of the differences between the profiles. The no adherence profile mainly differed from the other profiles on items related to teaching practices: encouraging reflexivity practices through writing (Q1, Q2); transmitting disciplinary norms (Q5); considering the number of pages to produce while planning (Q8); and communicating the structure a written text should have (Q12). It also differed significantly from the other two profiles on three assessment items: text coherence, theoretical knowledge and acquisition of disciplinary norms. The transmitting profile scored higher than the assessing and no adherence profiles for the consideration of linguistic aspects for both teaching (Q3, Q7) and assessment (Q18)

practices. Cluster 1 differed significantly from Cluster 3 solely on specific items, such as teaching practices where the characteristics of the text genre to be produced were explained to students (Q6) and they were advised to reread their texts (Q11). Finally, teachers with the transmitting profile were significantly more focused than those with the no adherence profile on assessing student motivation to write (Q16) and their spelling abilities (Q7).

Finally, the three profiles differed significantly on two specific items concerning teaching practices: recommending that their students plan their text before writing (Q9); and rereading their texts before handing them in (Q10). On these two items, Cluster 1 scored significantly higher than the other two groups of teachers.

Differences between the teacher profiles

A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference between the teacher profiles relating to their age (χ 2 (2, N = 64) = 6.80, p = 0.03). Teachers with the assessing profile were significantly younger than those with the no adherence profile (p = 0.01). In addition, the differences in age between the transmitting and no adherence profiles tended toward significance (p = 0.06). In contrast, no differences between the three profiles were found relative to the various years of experience.

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Issue 16: December 2019 13

Discussion

The main aim of the present research was to characterise teacher profiles according to their teaching and assessment practices. We found three very different profiles, indicating that teaching approaches of teachers vary in the extent to which they integrate the epistemic role of writing in their self-reported practices.

The first profile corresponded to teaching practices based on the transmission of knowledge in specific linguistic and disciplinary domains. Teachers with this profile seemed to espouse the traditional conceptions of teaching focused on the teacher figure and the acquisition of knowledge. Findings on teaching approaches in higher education [START_REF] Gow | Conceptions of teaching and their relationship to student learning[END_REF]Trigwell and Prosser, 1996;[START_REF] Eley | Teachers' conceptions of teaching, and the making of specific decisions in planning to teach[END_REF] consistently show that some teachers view teaching above all as a means of communicating the ideas and knowledge that students need to learn in order to succeed. Under this approach, academic writing corresponds to mastering a set of norms, such as grammar and syntax, as well as other norms relating to the disciplinary content students learn.

The second profile (assessing) corresponded to a very different view of education and assessment practices, with an emphasis on the cultural characteristics of the disciplinary field in which the students produced their texts. Teachers belonging to this group acknowledged the need to encourage their students to think about where and why they write. In this sense, they gave priority to learning and adhering to disciplinary norms, in addition to practising highlevel reflective thinking skills through writing. This second profile appears to be related to a teaching approach, supported by evidence in the scientific literature [START_REF] Gow | Conceptions of teaching and their relationship to student learning[END_REF], that focuses on student processes of knowledge construction.

One particular feature of this second profile is that the cognitive function of writing relates to assessment practices, rather than teaching practices. This means that, as in the case of our sample, teaching practices tending to encourage or train students to think reflectively through writing seem relegated to a secondary position. This finding is consistent with [START_REF] Escorcia | Teaching and assessing writing skills at university level: A comparison of practices in French and Colombian universities[END_REF] in that some teachers emphasised the importance of the epistemic role of writing when they

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Issue 16: December 2019 14

described their assessment criteria, but not when they described the advice they gave to their students.

The third (no adherence) profile is particularly interesting, as this group of teachers did not seem to be concerned with either teaching or assessing writing. Studies of the teaching practices of Colombian university teachers [START_REF] Grijalva | Reflexiones sobre pedagogía universitaria[END_REF][START_REF] González | Prácticas de Lectura y Escritura en la universidad. El caso de cinco asignaturas de la Universidad Sergio Arboleda[END_REF][START_REF] López | La pedagogía crítica en el Iesalc/Unesco y La Universidad Colombiana en el marco de la revolución educativa entre el 2005-2010[END_REF] have shown that some teachers assume that their students already know how to write, managing all the norms and skills they need to be efficient in this domain. We can surmise that for the third profile teachers, the mission of higher education institutions is not to make up for the deficiencies of secondary school, but to train experts in a given discipline, ensuring that they master specific scientific and technical knowledge. However, in order to confirm this hypothesis, it would seem necessary to know these teachers' perceptions with regard to teaching academic writing compared with the importance that they ascribe to other aspects of teaching and learning in higher education.

These three profiles show some coherence with the findings of [START_REF] Graham | Primary grade teachers' theoretical orientations concerning writing instruction: construct validation and a Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Issue 16: December 2019 19 nationwide survey[END_REF]. Our first profile is close to the good writing profile identified by [START_REF] Graham | Primary grade teachers' theoretical orientations concerning writing instruction: construct validation and a Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Issue 16: December 2019 19 nationwide survey[END_REF], in that it gives priority to learning the norms of writing (mainly linguistic rules) and to judging in what ways the pupils respect these norms. This profile is also similar to a category of practices for teaching writing that, according to [START_REF] Lea | Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approach[END_REF], gives importance to language skills.

Our second profile is quite similar to the explicit and direct instruction profile revealed by [START_REF] Graham | Primary grade teachers' theoretical orientations concerning writing instruction: construct validation and a Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Issue 16: December 2019 19 nationwide survey[END_REF], given that in both cases the cognitive dimension is considered essential. We observed, however, that our second profile takes into consideration a sociocultural perspective of writing that is not emphasised in the explicit and direct instruction profile identified by [START_REF] Graham | Primary grade teachers' theoretical orientations concerning writing instruction: construct validation and a Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Issue 16: December 2019 19 nationwide survey[END_REF]. Consequently, our second profile seems to correspond more closely with a category of teaching writing that, following [START_REF] Lea | Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approach[END_REF], considers the discursive norms and sociocultural traits that influence the writing activities of students and teachers in higher education.

In relation to the interactions between teacher profiles and individual's age, we found that teacher age was significantly related to the profiles, with the oldest participants exhibiting a no adherence profile and the youngest revealing an assessing profile. This finding is consistent with that of [START_REF] Norton | Teachers' beliefs and intentions concerning teaching in higher education[END_REF]. We can compare the influence of an individual's age with that of their years of teaching experience. Some studies demonstrating the influence of this latter variable [START_REF] Gobat | Les croyances pédagogiques et identitaires des enseignants de la formation professionnelle: le rôle de l'expérience d'enseignement et de la formation pédagogique[END_REF] The third profile illustrates a more traditional vision of teaching at the post-secondary level, where teachers seem not to be actively involved in university student learning processes.

Conversely, teachers with the second profile were the youngest, probably indicating that their teaching and assessment practices have been more influenced by the aforementioned contemporary questions about practices in higher education in this country.

Our findings also show coherence with Feixas' (2010) results, which revealed a correspondence between a university teacher's age and their teaching profile. The oldest tended to focus on the knowledge they communicated, implementing, above all, an expositive education style. In contrast, the youngest teachers were more centred on interactions and knowledge exchanges with and between learners. [START_REF] Feixas | Enfoques y concepciones docentes en la universidad[END_REF] argued that this latter group had probably experienced professional development influenced by education theories and pedagogic models that focused more on students.

Conclusion

The present study aimed to typify the profiles of university teachers with regard to their teaching and assessment of academic writing, and to identify to what extent the teacher profiles varied as a function of their age. We sought to understand whether teachers promoted the epistemic function of writing.

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Issue 16: December 2019 16

We observed that the majority of teachers corresponded to profiles unlikely to consider an active role for teachers in the promotion of student learning of academic writing. Only the youngest teachers considered the cognitive dimension of writing and the sociocultural variables that contributed to the mastery of academic writing. The profiles we found confirm the traditional categorisation of teaching approaches in higher education as constituted two poles, teacher-focused and student-focused.

Our research has some limitations. The instrument used was not exhaustive in that it certainly

does not consider all of the diversity of practices for teaching writing. For example, no item questioned factors around identity or how students and teachers experience the appropriation of disciplinary contextual norms. This factor illustrates a category that, according to [START_REF] Lea | Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approach[END_REF], plays an essential role in the practice of academic writing. Another limitation is that the profiles identified are only valid for teachers in the Health domain. If we are taking a sociocultural approach to writing, it would seem necessary to test these categories against teachers from other disciplines.

The present research was based on an exploratory and qualitative method that we implemented previously [START_REF] Escorcia | Teaching and assessing writing skills at university level: A comparison of practices in French and Colombian universities[END_REF]. This new quantitative stage of the research could facilitate a comparative approach that would seem to be necessary if we are to understand the variations among university teacher approaches related to academic writing in different disciplinary and cultural contexts.

  university was founded 45 years ago and currently has 4,321 students. It offers 11 academic programmes in the field of Health: Bacteriology, Nursing, Medicine, Physiotherapy, Psychology, Social Work, Optometry, Nutrition and Dietetics, Dentistry and Occupational

  have argued that more experienced teachers declare a more traditional vision of teaching for either of the following reasons: a) generational effects, or b) the tendency of older persons to be more closely aligned with traditional values. Based on a generational effects hypothesis, we might suggest that the oldest teachers in our study have been less affected by changes in education practices in Colombian universities, which have only recently started giving university teachers a greater role in the learning and overall success of their students.

Table 1 .

 1 Sample characteristics.

	Variables	n (%)
	Age (years)
	Range	26-70
	Mean (SD)	44.26(10.97)

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Issue 16: December 2019 7

Table 3 . Items on the questionnaire: practices for assessing writing

 3

	When you ask students to produce a written text, what criteria do you take into account to
	assess it?
	Item n°	Sentence
	Q13

Table 4 . Cluster analysis results.

 4

		Cluster	Cluster	Cluster	F		Post-hoc
		1	2	3	(N = 64)		test
		(n= 46)	(n= 5)	(n= 13)		p
	Teaching items
	Q1 Critical	5,61	6	3,38	25,59	0.00 1>3**; 2>3**
	analysis
	Q2 Arguments
	and theoretical	5,57	6	3,31	18,85	0.00 1>3**; 2>3**
	bases
	Q3 Grammar rules	5,33	3,6	4,08	8,82	0.00 1>2*; 1>3**
	Q4 Introduction	5,15	3,8	3,31	12,33	0.00	1>3**
	Q5 Scientific norms	5,78	6	3,92	39,11	0.00 1>3**; 2>3**
	Q6 Genre characteristics	5,52	4,8	4	20,31	0.00	1>3**
	Q7 Linguistic norms	5,76	4,4	4,69	11,98	0.00 1>2*; 1>3**
	Q8 number of pages	5,24	5	3	17,64	0.00 1>3**; 2>3**
	Q9 Plan of text	5	1,8	3,54	33,77	0.00	1>2**;2<3**; 1>3**
	Q10 Rereading	5,72	1,8	4,46	59,73	0.00	1>2**;2<3*; 1>3**
	Q11
	Constructing	5,04	4	3,15	15,33	0.00	1>3**
	progressively
	Q12 The parts of the text	5,65	5,8	3,54	33,77	0.00	1>3**
	Assessing items
		5,67	5,8	4,85	6,91	0.02 1>3**;1>3*

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Issue 16: December 2019 12

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Issue 16: December 2019

Acknowledgements

We thank Action-Research-Training's programme of the School of Teaching Training (ESPé) of the University of Poitiers, and the Research and Projects department (DPI) of the Universidad del Norte (Colombia), for having contributed to the partial funding of the present work.

Author details

Dyanne Escorcia is assistant professor at Université de Poitiers, France. She teaches subjects about learning theories and pedagogical practices, the writing learning processes, and teaching and learning in the university context. Her research focuses on the cognitive and metacognitive aspects of writing and the teaching practices relative to writing in postsecondary education.

Mayilin Moreno is professor of the psychology department of the Universidad del Norte de Barranquilla, Colombia. In 2014, she received a PhD in psychology from Toulouse Jean Jaures University. She currently researches in the line of psychology of cognitive processes and early language development.