Redirecting to http://dergipark.org.tr/_fragment?_hash=kYNN2KOvL1QYKmdqXyAdL_yltIOMmaBxJjfLtJW1aYk&_path=id%3D1100288%26_format%3Dhtml%26_locale%3Dtr%26_controller%3DApp%255CController%255CSite%255CArticleController%253A%253AesiArticleStats.
Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Teacher and Student Approaches to Diagnosing Review Practices on Writing Skill

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 3, 547 - 558, 21.07.2022

Gıyasettin Aytaş , Rahime Şentürk

https://doi.org/10.16916/aded.1100288

Öz

Writing, besides being one of the most important means of telling, is the process of expressing feelings and thoughts in a planned way. In this process, the arrangement that constitutes the lower step of the planning phase; the steps of reformatting the text, classifying the thoughts, adding new thoughts and redesigning are carried out. In this study, it was aimed to determine the use cases of the students' requirements for reviewing the texts in the teaching process, and then to increase the awareness levels of the teachers about the practices they do in the text editing phase. The field research method was used in the research and the data were collected with the 'Review Applications Diagnosis Form'. Descriptive statistics were used in the analysis of the data and the data were evaluated in the IBM SPSS Statistics 22 statistical program. For this purpose, 120 teachers who graduated from Turkish language teaching undergraduate program and 110 Turkish language teachers who graduated from Turkish language literature undergraduate program were reached. In the study, it was concluded that the students applied the strategies related to the revision and re-adjustment phase of the writing process in a limited and superficial manner. In addition, it was concluded that the students preferred the way of changing words, adding or removing words more in the process of reviewing the text. On the other hand, it was concluded that while the students frequently applied word replacement in their practice of reviewing their texts regarding the editing phase of the writing process, they applied the addition and removing less frequently in phrases, sentences and thoughts, however, they almost never applied replacement and reordering. While there was a statistically significant difference between Turkish and Turkish language literature teachers in terms of awareness of revision and correction procedures, there was no statistically significant difference in terms of evaluation status.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Turkish education teaching process measurement and evaluation review writing skills

Kaynakça

  • Asikcan, M., & Pilten, G. (2016). Evaluation of primary school teachers' written expression studies with a focus on process-based writing model. International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 11(3), 255-276. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.9515
  • Butterfield, E.C., Hacker, D.J., & Albertson, L.R. (1996). Environmental, cognitive and metacognitive influences on text revision: Assessing the evidence. Educational Psychology Rewiev, 8(3), 239-297. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23359417
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Publishing.
  • Cavkaytar, S. (2010). Utilizing the writing process model in the development of written expression skills in primary education. International Journal of Social Studies, 3(10), 134-139.
  • Çetinkaya, G., Bayat, N., & Alaca, S. (2016). Written corrective feedback and students’ uptake in teaching Turkish as a foreign language. Mediterranean Journal of Humanities, 6(1), 85-98. DOI: 10.13114/MJH.2016119291
  • Çetinkaya, G. (2019). Gözden geçirme ve düzeltme. In Bayat, N. (Edt.) Yazma ve eğitimi (pp. 136-158). Ankara: Anı Publishing.
  • Çetinkaya, G. (2020). A comparative evaluation on silent and read-aloud revisions of written drafts. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 12(2), 560-572.
  • Göçer, A., & Şentürk, R. (2019). A research on the types of feedback Turkish teachers use in the text processing process. Adıyaman University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 11(31), 41-91. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14520/adyusbd.461313
  • Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 400-414. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/356602
  • Ferris D. R., & Roberts B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184.
  • Karatay, H. (2011). The effect of the 4+1 planned writing and evaluation model on improving the written expression attitudes and writing skills of pre-service teachers. International Periodical for the Languages, Terature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 6(3), 1029-1047. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.2622
  • Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers' written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69-85.
  • Mariana, L., & Nurhajati, D. (2017). Corrective feedback to improve students' writing ability. Journal of Development Research, 1(2), 59-62.
  • Michaud, M., & Perks, B. (2015). Corrective feedback clarifications in second language acquisition. Kwansei Gakuin University Humanities Review, 20, 117-124.
  • Parsons, L. (2001). Revising and editing. Canada: Pembroke Publishers Limited.
  • Schader, B., & Maloku, N. (2005). Developing written expression skills in the mother tongue. Zurich: Ph-Zurih Center for International Educational Projects.
  • Temizkan, M. (2008). Correction and evaluation of Turkish and primary school teacher candidates' written expression studies. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty (KEFAD), 9(3), 49-61.
  • Temizyürek, F., & Çelik, A. (2017). The ability of 5th grade students to use the writing model based on mental design in the text creation process. Bartın University Journal of Education Faculty, 6(1), 114-138.
  • Ülper, H. (2008). The effect of the writing teaching program prepared according to the cognitive process model on student success. (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). Ankara University/Institute of Social Sciences, Ankara.
  • Ülper, H. (2019). Measuring and evaluating written texts. In Bayat, N. (Edt.) Writing and education (pp.160-174). Ankara: Anı Publishing.
  • Yılmaz, M. (2012). The importance of the planned writing model in developing composition writing skills of primary school students. Journal of Mustafa Kemal University Institute of Social Sciences, 9(19), 321-330.
  • Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2013). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences (9th Edition). Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.

Yazma Becerisine İlişkin Gözden Geçirme Uygulamalarını Tanılamada Öğretmen ve Öğrenci Yaklaşımları

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 3, 547 - 558, 21.07.2022

Gıyasettin Aytaş , Rahime Şentürk

https://doi.org/10.16916/aded.1100288

Öz

Yazma, düşüncelerin gelişigüzel biçimde anlatılmasından çok belirlenen amaç ve izlemler doğrultusunda oluşturulan planlamanın takibi sonucunda geliştirilen süreç temelli bir edimdir. Yazma becerisinde planlama basamağının alt sürecini oluşturan düzenleme; metnin yeniden biçimlendirilmesi, düşüncelerin sınıflandırılması, yeni düşüncelerin eklemlenmesi ve yeniden tasarlanması aşamalarından oluşur. Bu araştırmada öğretim sürecinde yazma becerisine yönelik uygulamalarda öğrencilerin kullandığı gözden geçirme stratejilerini tanılama ve öğretmenlerin metni düzenleme aşamasına yönelik stratejilere ilişkin farkındalık düzeylerini artırma amaçlanmıştır. Alan araştırması yöntemi kullanılan çalışmada veriler ‘Gözden Geçirme Uygulamalarını Tanılama Formu’ ile toplanmıştır. Verilerin çözümlenmesinde tanımlayıcı istatistik kullanılmış ve veriler IBM SPSS Statistics 22 istatistik programında değerlendirilmiştir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda çalışmada 120 Türkçe öğretmeni ve 110 Türk dili edebiyatı bölümünden mezun Türkçe öğretmenine ulaşılmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda metinlerin gözden geçirilerek yeniden düzenleme aşamasına ilişkin öğrenci metinlerinin sınırlı düzeyde kontrol edildiği belirtilmiştir. Bununla birlikte öğrencilerin metni gözden geçirme sürecinde daha çok sözcük değiştirme stratejisi ile sözcükleri ekleme ya da çıkarma stratejilerinden yararlandıkları sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Öte yandan öğrencilerin metni düzenleme aşamasında gözden geçirme yaparken sözcük değiştirmeyi sıklıkla; öbek, tümce, düşüncelerde ekleme ve çıkarma işlemlerini daha az sıklıkla uyguladıkları; ancak değiştirme ve yeniden sıralamayı hemen hemen hiç uygulamadıkları sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Türkçe ve Türk dili öğretmenleri arasında gözden geçirme ve düzeltme işlemlerine ilişkin farkındalık durumu açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farkındalık bulunurken; değerlendirme durumu açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık bulunmamıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Türkçe eğitimi öğretim süreci ölçme ve değerlendirme gözden geçirme yazma becerisi

Kaynakça

  • Asikcan, M., & Pilten, G. (2016). Evaluation of primary school teachers' written expression studies with a focus on process-based writing model. International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 11(3), 255-276. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.9515
  • Butterfield, E.C., Hacker, D.J., & Albertson, L.R. (1996). Environmental, cognitive and metacognitive influences on text revision: Assessing the evidence. Educational Psychology Rewiev, 8(3), 239-297. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23359417
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Publishing.
  • Cavkaytar, S. (2010). Utilizing the writing process model in the development of written expression skills in primary education. International Journal of Social Studies, 3(10), 134-139.
  • Çetinkaya, G., Bayat, N., & Alaca, S. (2016). Written corrective feedback and students’ uptake in teaching Turkish as a foreign language. Mediterranean Journal of Humanities, 6(1), 85-98. DOI: 10.13114/MJH.2016119291
  • Çetinkaya, G. (2019). Gözden geçirme ve düzeltme. In Bayat, N. (Edt.) Yazma ve eğitimi (pp. 136-158). Ankara: Anı Publishing.
  • Çetinkaya, G. (2020). A comparative evaluation on silent and read-aloud revisions of written drafts. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 12(2), 560-572.
  • Göçer, A., & Şentürk, R. (2019). A research on the types of feedback Turkish teachers use in the text processing process. Adıyaman University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 11(31), 41-91. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14520/adyusbd.461313
  • Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 400-414. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/356602
  • Ferris D. R., & Roberts B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184.
  • Karatay, H. (2011). The effect of the 4+1 planned writing and evaluation model on improving the written expression attitudes and writing skills of pre-service teachers. International Periodical for the Languages, Terature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 6(3), 1029-1047. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.2622
  • Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers' written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69-85.
  • Mariana, L., & Nurhajati, D. (2017). Corrective feedback to improve students' writing ability. Journal of Development Research, 1(2), 59-62.
  • Michaud, M., & Perks, B. (2015). Corrective feedback clarifications in second language acquisition. Kwansei Gakuin University Humanities Review, 20, 117-124.
  • Parsons, L. (2001). Revising and editing. Canada: Pembroke Publishers Limited.
  • Schader, B., & Maloku, N. (2005). Developing written expression skills in the mother tongue. Zurich: Ph-Zurih Center for International Educational Projects.
  • Temizkan, M. (2008). Correction and evaluation of Turkish and primary school teacher candidates' written expression studies. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty (KEFAD), 9(3), 49-61.
  • Temizyürek, F., & Çelik, A. (2017). The ability of 5th grade students to use the writing model based on mental design in the text creation process. Bartın University Journal of Education Faculty, 6(1), 114-138.
  • Ülper, H. (2008). The effect of the writing teaching program prepared according to the cognitive process model on student success. (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). Ankara University/Institute of Social Sciences, Ankara.
  • Ülper, H. (2019). Measuring and evaluating written texts. In Bayat, N. (Edt.) Writing and education (pp.160-174). Ankara: Anı Publishing.
  • Yılmaz, M. (2012). The importance of the planned writing model in developing composition writing skills of primary school students. Journal of Mustafa Kemal University Institute of Social Sciences, 9(19), 321-330.
  • Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2013). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences (9th Edition). Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.
Toplam 22 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Alan Eğitimleri
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Gıyasettin Aytaş 0000-0002-1381-1094

Rahime Şentürk 0000-0003-3426-3629

Yayımlanma Tarihi 21 Temmuz 2022
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2022 Cilt: 10 Sayı: 3

Kaynak Göster

APA Aytaş, G., & Şentürk, R. (2022). Teacher and Student Approaches to Diagnosing Review Practices on Writing Skill. Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi, 10(3), 547-558. https://doi.org/10.16916/aded.1100288

88x31.png

Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi Creative Commons Alıntı-Gayriticari 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.