Redirecting to http://dergipark.org.tr/_fragment?_hash=Txml5dts4WkRlgUoyFyGSBZ1F4E3k9UnBTa4dJNLaR4&_path=id%3D1247177%26_format%3Dhtml%26_locale%3Den%26_controller%3DApp%255CController%255CSite%255CArticleController%253A%253AesiArticleStats.
Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Türkiye'de Yazma Müdahalelerinin Etkililiğini İnceleyen Lisansüstü Tezlere Yönelik Bir İçerik Analizi

Year 2023, Volume: 11 Issue: 3, 600 - 638, 23.07.2023

Hasan Basri Kansızoğlu

https://doi.org/10.16916/aded.1247177

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de yazma müdahalelerinin etkililiğinin araştırıldığı lisansüstü tezlerin çok boyutlu olarak incelenmesini amaçlamaktadır. Bu kapsamda, eylem araştırması veya deneysel/yarı deneysel yöntemlerle desenlenen 157 tez içerik analizine tâbi tutulmuştur. Tezlerin tür, yıl, sınıf düzeyi, araştırma yöntemi gibi betimsel karakteristikleri açık; öneriler gibi yoruma ve sentezlemeye uygun bölümleri ise örtük yaklaşımla analiz edilmiştir. Tezlerdeki yazma müdahaleleri, yazma çıktıları, anahtar kelimeler ve uygulama süreçlerinin analizinde ise iki yaklaşımdan da yararlanılmıştır. Veriler MAXQDA 2022 yazılımı ile analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmanın sonuçlarına göre ortaokul düzeyi en fazla uygulamanın yapıldığı öğretim kademesi, ön-test son test kontrol gruplu desen ise tezlerde en fazla tercih edilen desendir. Yaratıcı yazma, web tabanlı teknojiler, metin türü/yapısına dayalı öğretim ve süreç odaklı yaklaşım etkisi en fazla araştırılan yazma müdahaleleridir. En fazla bulgunun rapor edildiği yazma unsurları ise “iç yapı/içerik, dış yapı/biçim ve yazma aşamaları”dır. Çalışma öğretmenlerin, araştırmacıların ve eğitim yöneticilerinin yazma öğretimine ilişkin kuramsal ve pedagojik çıkarımlar yapabilmelerine imkân verecek bulgular içermektedir.

Keywords

Türkçe öğretimi yazma eğitimi yazma müdahalesi etkili yazma öğretimi içerik analizi

References

  • Biggam, J. (2021). Succeeding with your master’s dissertation: A step-by-step handbook (5th ed.). London, UK: Open University Press.
  • Bennett Durkin, D. (2020). Writing strategies for the education dissertation. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Boyacı, S. ve Demirkol, S. (2018). An examination of doctoral dissertations in the field of teaching Turkish. Journal of Mother Tongue Education 6(2), 512-531.
  • Brindle, M., Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Hebert, M. (2016). Third and fourth-grade teacher’s classroom practices in writing: A national survey. Reading and Writing, 29(5), 929–954.
  • Coelho, R. (2020). Teaching writing in Brazilian public high schools. Reading and Writing, 33(6), 1477–1529.
  • Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46.
  • Coşkun, E., Balcı, A., & Özçakmak, H. (2013). Trends in writing education: An analysis of postgraduate theses written in Turkey. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1526- 1530.
  • Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 907–919.
  • Fidalgo, R., Harris, K. R., & Braaksma, M. (2017). Design principles for teaching effective writing: An introduction. In R. Fidalgo & T. Olive (Series Eds.) & R. Fidalgo, K. R. Harris, & M. Braaksma (Vol. Eds.), Studies in Writing Series: Vol. 34. Design Principles for Teaching Effective Writing (pp. 3–12). Brill.
  • Fleiss, J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5), 378.
  • Flores-Ferrés, M., Van Weijen, D. & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2022). Understanding writing curriculum innovation in Grades 7-12 in Chile: Linking teachers ́ beliefs and practices. Journal of Writing Research, 13(3), 367-414.
  • Göksu, E. (2016). Reviewing articles and postgraduate theses related to writing skills at primary level in terms of different aspects (Unpublished master thesis). Gazi University Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara.
  • Graham, S. (2019). Changing how writing is taught. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 277–303.
  • Graham, S., & Alves, R. A. (2021). Research and teaching writing. Reading and Writing, 34, 1613–1621.
  • Graham, S., Tavşanlı, O. F., & Kaldırım, A. (2022). Improving writing skills of students in Turkey: A meta-analysis of writing interventions. Educational Psychology Review, 34, 889–934.
  • Güneş, F. (2020). Yazmanın temel bileşenleri. In B. Bağcı Ayrancı & A. Başkan (Ed.), Kuram ve uygulamada yazma eğitimi (s. 1-14). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  • Julien, H. (2008). Content analysis. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (Volumes 1-2, pp. 120–121.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Kornuta, H. M., & Germaine, R. W. (2019). A concise guide to writing a thesis or dissertation educational research and beyond (2nd. ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Lune, H., & Berg, B. L. (2017). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (9th ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
  • McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282.
  • Mete, F., & Esendemir, N. (2020). Türkçe öğretmenlerinin yazma stratejilerine dair görüşleri. YYU Journal of Education Faculty, 17(1), 579-602.
  • Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2019). Türkçe dersi öğretim programı: İlkokul ve ortaokul 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar. Ankara: MEB.
  • National Council of Teachers of English [NCTE]. (2016). Professional knowledge for the teaching of writing. https://ncte.org/statement/teaching-writing/print/" https://ncte.org/statement/teaching-writing/print/
  • Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (M. Bütün & S. B. Demir, Trans.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  • Petelin, R. (2022). How writing works: A field guide to effective writing (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Ryan, M., Khosronejad, M., Barton, G., Kervin, L., & Myhill, D. (2021). A reflexive approach to teaching writing: Enablements and constraints in primary school classrooms. Written Communication, 38(3), 417–446.
  • Schultz, K., & Fecho, B. (2000). Society's child: Social context and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 51-62.
  • Sertoğlu, G. (2020). Methods and techniques in writing education: A meta-synthesis study. Journal of Language Education and Research, 6(2), 410–427.
  • Sevim, O, & İşcan, A. (2012). A content analysis of keyword of theses in the field of Turkish education and teaching. Journal of Turkish Studies, 7(1), 1863-1873.
  • Şentürk, C., & Yazar, İ. (2021). Postgraduate studies analysis on Turkish teaching. International Journal of New Trends in Arts, Sports & Science Education (IJTASE), 10(4), 258-276.
  • Singer, B. D., & Bashir, A. S. (2004). Developmental variations in writing composition skills. In K. Apel, B. J. Ehren, E. R. Silliman, C. A. Stone (Series Ed.) & C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders, challenges in language and literacy (pp. 559–582). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
  • Tağa, T., & Ünlü, S. (2013). A review on the problems faced in the writing instruction. Turkish Studies, 8(8), 1285-1299.
  • Tok, M., & Potur, Ö. (2015). Trends of the academic studies in writing education area (2010-2014 years). Journal of Mother Tongue Education, 3(4), 1-25.
  • Uyar, Y. (2016). Research on the development of writing skills: Review of a quarter century. Journal of Turkish Studies, 11(3), 2273–2294.
  • VERBI Software. (2021). MAXQDA 2022 [computer software]. VERBI Software. Available from maxqda.com.
  • Yağmur Şahin, E., Kana, F., & Varışoğlu, B. (2013). The research trends of postgraduate dissertations in Turkish education departments. International Journal of Human Sciences, 10(2), 356-378.

A Content Analysis of Postgraduate Theses Examining the Effectiveness of Writing Interventions in Türkiye

Year 2023, Volume: 11 Issue: 3, 600 - 638, 23.07.2023

Hasan Basri Kansızoğlu

https://doi.org/10.16916/aded.1247177

Abstract

This study aimed to examine postgraduate theses in Türkiye in which the effectiveness of writing interventions was investigated in a multidimensional way. In this context, 157 theses designed with action research or experimental/quasi-experimental methods were subjected to content analysis. Descriptive characteristics of the theses such as type, year, educational/grade level and research method were analyzed using the manifest approach, whereas the sections suitable for interpretation and synthesis such as recommendations were analyzed using the latent approach. Both approaches were used to analyze writing interventions, writing outcomes, keywords, and the implementation processes in the theses. The data were analyzed with MAXQDA 2022 software. According to the study results, lower secondary school was the level of education in which the most applications were made, and the pre-test/post-test control group design was the most preferred in theses. Creative writing, web-based technology, text type/structure-based instruction and the process writing approach were the writing interventions, the effects of which were most frequently researched. The elements of writing with the most reported findings were internal structure/content, external structure/form, and the stages of writing. The study included results that would enable teachers, researchers, and educational administrators to make theoretical and pedagogical inferences about writing instruction.

Keywords

Turkish language teaching writing instruction writing intervention effective writing instruction content analysis

References

  • Biggam, J. (2021). Succeeding with your master’s dissertation: A step-by-step handbook (5th ed.). London, UK: Open University Press.
  • Bennett Durkin, D. (2020). Writing strategies for the education dissertation. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Boyacı, S. ve Demirkol, S. (2018). An examination of doctoral dissertations in the field of teaching Turkish. Journal of Mother Tongue Education 6(2), 512-531.
  • Brindle, M., Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Hebert, M. (2016). Third and fourth-grade teacher’s classroom practices in writing: A national survey. Reading and Writing, 29(5), 929–954.
  • Coelho, R. (2020). Teaching writing in Brazilian public high schools. Reading and Writing, 33(6), 1477–1529.
  • Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46.
  • Coşkun, E., Balcı, A., & Özçakmak, H. (2013). Trends in writing education: An analysis of postgraduate theses written in Turkey. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1526- 1530.
  • Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 907–919.
  • Fidalgo, R., Harris, K. R., & Braaksma, M. (2017). Design principles for teaching effective writing: An introduction. In R. Fidalgo & T. Olive (Series Eds.) & R. Fidalgo, K. R. Harris, & M. Braaksma (Vol. Eds.), Studies in Writing Series: Vol. 34. Design Principles for Teaching Effective Writing (pp. 3–12). Brill.
  • Fleiss, J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5), 378.
  • Flores-Ferrés, M., Van Weijen, D. & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2022). Understanding writing curriculum innovation in Grades 7-12 in Chile: Linking teachers ́ beliefs and practices. Journal of Writing Research, 13(3), 367-414.
  • Göksu, E. (2016). Reviewing articles and postgraduate theses related to writing skills at primary level in terms of different aspects (Unpublished master thesis). Gazi University Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara.
  • Graham, S. (2019). Changing how writing is taught. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 277–303.
  • Graham, S., & Alves, R. A. (2021). Research and teaching writing. Reading and Writing, 34, 1613–1621.
  • Graham, S., Tavşanlı, O. F., & Kaldırım, A. (2022). Improving writing skills of students in Turkey: A meta-analysis of writing interventions. Educational Psychology Review, 34, 889–934.
  • Güneş, F. (2020). Yazmanın temel bileşenleri. In B. Bağcı Ayrancı & A. Başkan (Ed.), Kuram ve uygulamada yazma eğitimi (s. 1-14). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  • Julien, H. (2008). Content analysis. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (Volumes 1-2, pp. 120–121.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Kornuta, H. M., & Germaine, R. W. (2019). A concise guide to writing a thesis or dissertation educational research and beyond (2nd. ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Lune, H., & Berg, B. L. (2017). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (9th ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
  • McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282.
  • Mete, F., & Esendemir, N. (2020). Türkçe öğretmenlerinin yazma stratejilerine dair görüşleri. YYU Journal of Education Faculty, 17(1), 579-602.
  • Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2019). Türkçe dersi öğretim programı: İlkokul ve ortaokul 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar. Ankara: MEB.
  • National Council of Teachers of English [NCTE]. (2016). Professional knowledge for the teaching of writing. https://ncte.org/statement/teaching-writing/print/" https://ncte.org/statement/teaching-writing/print/
  • Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (M. Bütün & S. B. Demir, Trans.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  • Petelin, R. (2022). How writing works: A field guide to effective writing (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Ryan, M., Khosronejad, M., Barton, G., Kervin, L., & Myhill, D. (2021). A reflexive approach to teaching writing: Enablements and constraints in primary school classrooms. Written Communication, 38(3), 417–446.
  • Schultz, K., & Fecho, B. (2000). Society's child: Social context and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 51-62.
  • Sertoğlu, G. (2020). Methods and techniques in writing education: A meta-synthesis study. Journal of Language Education and Research, 6(2), 410–427.
  • Sevim, O, & İşcan, A. (2012). A content analysis of keyword of theses in the field of Turkish education and teaching. Journal of Turkish Studies, 7(1), 1863-1873.
  • Şentürk, C., & Yazar, İ. (2021). Postgraduate studies analysis on Turkish teaching. International Journal of New Trends in Arts, Sports & Science Education (IJTASE), 10(4), 258-276.
  • Singer, B. D., & Bashir, A. S. (2004). Developmental variations in writing composition skills. In K. Apel, B. J. Ehren, E. R. Silliman, C. A. Stone (Series Ed.) & C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders, challenges in language and literacy (pp. 559–582). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
  • Tağa, T., & Ünlü, S. (2013). A review on the problems faced in the writing instruction. Turkish Studies, 8(8), 1285-1299.
  • Tok, M., & Potur, Ö. (2015). Trends of the academic studies in writing education area (2010-2014 years). Journal of Mother Tongue Education, 3(4), 1-25.
  • Uyar, Y. (2016). Research on the development of writing skills: Review of a quarter century. Journal of Turkish Studies, 11(3), 2273–2294.
  • VERBI Software. (2021). MAXQDA 2022 [computer software]. VERBI Software. Available from maxqda.com.
  • Yağmur Şahin, E., Kana, F., & Varışoğlu, B. (2013). The research trends of postgraduate dissertations in Turkish education departments. International Journal of Human Sciences, 10(2), 356-378.
There are 37 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Studies on Education
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Hasan Basri Kansızoğlu 0000-0002-2150-4668

Publication Date July 23, 2023
Published in Issue Year 2023 Volume: 11 Issue: 3

Cite

APA Kansızoğlu, H. B. (2023). A Content Analysis of Postgraduate Theses Examining the Effectiveness of Writing Interventions in Türkiye. Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi, 11(3), 600-638. https://doi.org/10.16916/aded.1247177

88x31.png

Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International