## 6 Discussion  
### Faculty and Learner Perceptions  
In Construct 1, feed-up strategies, including weekly summaries, exemplars, rubrics, and techniques for addressing misconceptions and organizing online work, aligned in faculty and learner positive perceptions, thus corroborating the literature. Weekly overviews helped learners connect to the learning intention of each week [2; 11; 15; 20; 24; 60]. From the learner perspectives, clear elicitation of learning objectives is one of the indicators of \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Item** & **Spearman’s** & **\(p\)-Value** & **Item** & **Spearman’s** & **P-Value** \\  & **Rho** & & & **Rho** & **P-Value** \\ \hline B1 & \(-\)0.0011 & 0.9896 & D3 & \(-\)0.1396 & 0.1063 \\ B2 & 0.1392 & 0.1074 & D4 & \(-\)0.0252 & 0.7716 \\ B3 & 0.105 & 0.2255 & D5 & \(-\)0.1553 & 0.0721 \\ B4 & 0.0215 & 0.8044 & D6 & \(-\)0.11 & 0.2039 \\ B5 & \(-\)0.0181 & 0.835 & D7 & \(-\)0.0584 & 0.5011 \\ C1 & \(-\)0.1199 & 0.166 & D8 & 0.0164 & 0.8504 \\ C2 & \(-\)0.0968 & 0.264 & D9 & \(-\)0.0267 & 0.7586 \\ C3 & \(-\)0.0518 & 0.5506 & E1 & 0.0411 & 0.6361 \\ C4 & \(-\)0.0128 & 0.8831 & E2 & \(-\)0.0721 & 0.406 \\ C5 & 0.0543 & 0.5319 & E3 & 0.0196 & 0.8211 \\ D1 & \(-\)0.1177 & 0.1739 & E4 & 0.0106 & 0.9029 \\ D2 & \(-\)0.1329 & 0.1245 & E5 & 0.0544 & 0.5306 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Spearman correlation test: Learner perceptions and scores. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Grades** & **Construct 1** & **Construct 2** & **Construct 3** & **Construct 4** \\  & **Feed-Up** & **Feed-Back** & **Feed-Forward** & **Feedback Process** \\ \hline  & **Mean** & **Mean** & **Mean** & **Mean** \\ \hline A & 1.90 & 1.70 & 1.59 & 1.80 \\ A\(-\) & 1.87 & 1.79 & 1.78 & 1.81 \\ B+ & 1.69 & 1.55 & 1.41 & 1.59 \\ B & 1.50 & 1.48 & 1.53 & 1.50 \\ C+ & 1.46 & 1.38 & 1.38 & 1.46 \\ C & 1.85 & 1.85 & 1.71 & 1.82 \\ F & 1.74 & 1.71 & 1.70 & 1.66 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \(N\) = 135.  
\end{table} 
Table 8: Letter grades and mean average score per construct. quality in online learning [61]. The use of exemplars is beneficial in assisting learners with new and challenging writing tasks and demonstrating the expected standards and what constitutes high-quality work [2; 11; 13; 15; 20; 24; 27; 28; 62; 63]. A wide body of literature [2; 11; 15; 20; 24; 62; 64] confirms that rubrics support learner understandings of the task. In [PERSON] et al. [63], in the context of providing feed-up information in English writing contexts, assessment criteria (rubrics) emerge as the most utilized and positively perceived tool for learners. In addition, learners perceive rubrics positively as scaffolding and guidance in the completion of an assignment, and as a tool to identify strengths and weaknesses in one's work [65; 66; 67]. [PERSON]'s [68] systematic review points out learner positive perceptions of rubrics, especially when they are available before assignments, suggesting that early access to rubrics can significantly enhance students' understanding and approach to their work. Consistent with [PERSON] et al. [63], ongoing academic writing instruction helps learners improve gradually, addressing common misunderstandings and language errors [1; 2; 15; 19; 20; 44]. Faculty and student perceptions diverged on the use of deadlines, questions for writing support, and plagiarism instructions. Faculty found deadlines beneficial for organizing study time and fostering regular study habits, a view supported by [PERSON] et al. [69], who note that structured schedules lead to better study distribution. However, students may view these deadlines as restrictive, preferring regular assignment reminders for better time management [69]. Faculty also saw targeted questions as aiding writing development [9; 15], but such strategies can confuse freshmen due to their inexperience [2; 15].