Araştırma Makalesi
PDF EndNote BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

İlkokul Öğrencileri Ne Yazar? : İlkokul Öğrencilerinin Yazılı Anlatımlarında Metin Türü, Konu ve İçerik Tercihlerinin İncelenmesi

Yıl 2018, Cilt 6, Sayı 1, 32 - 47, 30.01.2018
https://doi.org/10.16916/aded.346402

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı ilkokul öğrencilerinin yazılı anlatımlarında tercih ettikleri metin türü ve yazma konularını/içeriklerini incelemek ve bu tercihlerinin altında yatan sebepleri ortaya çıkarmaktır. Araştırmada nitel araştırma desenlerinden biri olan betimleyici fenomenoloji deseni kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu ilkokul 2. sınıfta öğrenim görmekte olan 20 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Bu çalışmada veriler yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme soruları ile toplanmış ve verilerin analizinde içerik analizi yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın sonuçlarına göre, öğrencilerin daha çok ikna edici bilgilendirici metin yazmayı tercih ettikleri görülmüştür. Öğrencilerin hiçbiri gerçek yaşamdan öyküleyici metin ve şiir yazma türlerini tercihleri içerisinde ifade etmemiştir. Öğrencilerin yazma konusu olarak daha çok sosyal aktivite, aile, zararlı alışkanlıklardan korunma, arkadaş, gezi, hayvanlar, oyuncak ve öğretmen ile ilgili metinler yazmayı tercih ettiklerini ifade ettikleri görülmüştür. Öğrenciler yazının içeriğini ise genel olarak komik olayların ve macera olaylarının şekillendirdiğini ifade etmiştir. 

Kaynakça

  • Aram, D. (2005). Continuity in children’s literacy achievements: Alongitudinal perspective from kindergarten to school. First Language, 25, 259–289.
  • Arıcı A. F. & Ungan S. (2008). “Konu Seçiminin Yazma Becerisine Etkisi”. Çağdaş Eğitim Dergisi, 33(357), 19-24.
  • Arici, A. F., & Kaldirim, A. (2015). The Effect of the Process-based Writing Approach on Writing Success and Anxiety of Pre-service Teachers. The Anthropologist, 22(2), 318-327.
  • Beach, S. A., & Ward, A. (2013). Insights into Engaged Literacy Learning: Stories of Literate Identity. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 27(2) 239–255.
  • Blair, R., & Savage, R. (2006). Name writing but not environmentalprint recognition is related to letter-sound knowledge and phonological awareness in 308 pre-readers. Reading and Writing,19, 991–1016.
  • Bloodgood, J. W. (1999). What’s in a name? Children’s name writing and literacy acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 342–367.
  • Calkins, L. M. (1986). The Art of Teaching Writing. Portsmouth, NH; Heinemann.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research. Boston: Pearson.
  • Christensen, L. B.; Johnson, R. B. & Turner, L. A. (2015). Araştırma Yöntemleri: Desen ve Analiz. (Çev. Ed: Ahmet Aypay). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Collier, D. R. (2010). Journey to becoming a writer: Review of research about children’s identities as writers. Language and Literacy, 12(1), 147-164.
  • Dyson A. H. (1995). “The Courage to Write: Child Meaning Making in a Contested World”. Language Arts, (72), 324-333.
  • Emig J. (1971). The Composing Processes of Twelfth-Graders. Urbana, IL 1971.
  • Ersoy, A. F. (2016). Fenomenoloji. Ahmet Saban ve Ali Ersoy (Ed.), Eğitimde Nitel Araştırma Desenleri, Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Fleming S. (1995). “Whose Stories are Validated?”. Language Arts, 72 (8) 590-596.
  • Flower L. & Hayes J. R. (1981). “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing”. College Composition and Communication, 32 (4), 365-387.
  • Flowerday T., Schraw G. & Stevens J. (2004). “The Role of Choice and Interest in Reader Engagement”. Journal of Experimental Education, 72, 93-114.
  • Freedman R. (1995). “The Mr. and Mrs. Club: The Value of Collaboration in Writer’s Workshop”. Language Arts 72, 97-104.
  • Gerde, H.K., Bingham, G.R., & Wasik, B.A. (2012). Writing in Childhood Classrooms: Guidance for Best Practices. Early Chıldhood Educatıon Journal, 40 (6), 351-359.
  • Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Heinemann Educational Books, 4 Front St., Exeter, NH 03833.
  • Jones S. (2011). “Mapping the Landscape: Gender and the Writing Classroom”. Journal of Writing Research, 3 (3),163-179.
  • Kamler B. (1993). “The Construction of Gender in Process Writing Classrooms”. Ed. P. Gilbert. Gender Stories and the Language Classroom, 41-54. Victoria.
  • Karatay, H. (2011). Süreç temelli yazma modelleri: Planlı yazma ve değerlendirme. Yazma eğitimi. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
  • Keenan J., Solsken J. & Willett J. (1999). “‘Only Boys can Jump High’: Reconstructing Gender Relations in a First/Second-Grade Classroom”. Ed. B. Kamler. Constructing Gender and Difference (1999) 33-70. Cresskill, NJ.
  • Kıbrıs, İ. (2008). Okuma ve Yazma Çalışmalarında Şiir Etkinliklerinden Nasıl Yararlanılır? Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8 (1), 53-66.
  • Kızıltepe, Z. (2015). İçerik Analizi. Nitel Araştırma Yöntem, Teknik, Analiz ve Yaklaşımlar. (Ed: Fatma Nevra Seggie ve Yasemin Bayyurt). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Kurudayıoğlu M. & Karadağ Ö. (2010). “İlköğretim Öğrencilerinin Yazılı Anlatımlarının Konu Seçimleri Açısından İncelenmesi”. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7 (13), 192-207.
  • Lee J. W. (1987). “Topic Selection in Writing: Aprecarious but Practical Balancing Act”. The Reading Teacher, 41 (2), 180-184.
  • McCutchen D. (1986). “Domain Knowledge and Linguistic Knowledge in the Development of Writing Ability”. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 431-444.
  • Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Fransisko: Jossey- Bass.
  • Murray D. (1984). “Teaching Writing as a Process not Product”. Ed. R. L. Graves. Rhetoric and Composition: A Sourcebook for Teachers and Writers, 89-94. UpperMontclair, NJ.
  • Peterson S. (2000). “Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Graders’ Preferred Writing Topics and Identification of Gender Markers in Stories”. Elementary School Journal, 101(1), 79-100.
  • Peterson S. (2006). “Influence of Gender on Writing Development”. Eds. C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald. Handbook of Writing Research (2006) 311-323. New York.
  • Reiners, G. M. (2012). “Understanding the Differences Between Husserl’s (Descriptive) and Heidegger’s (Interpretive) Phenomenological Research”, Journal of Nursing & Care, 1 (119).
  • Ruddell, R. B. (2006). Teaching children to read and write: Becoming an effective literacy teacher (4th ed.).Boston: Pearson.
  • Sart, G. (2015). Fenomenoloji ve Yorumlayıcı Fenomenolojik Analiz. Nitel Araştırma Yöntem, Teknik, Analiz ve Yaklaşımlar. (Ed: Fatma Nevra Seggie ve Yasemin Bayyurt). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Seban, D. (2016). The Role of Gender and Grade Level on Topic Selection in Writing. Mediterranean Journal of Humanities, 6 (1), 275-285.
  • Seban, D., & Tavşanlı, Ö.F. (2015). Children’s sense of being a writer: identity construction in second grade writers workshop. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 7(2), 217-234.
  • Smith, F. C. (2008). Literacy identity development. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 16(1), 47-51.
  • Shatil, E., Share, D. L., & Levin, I. (2000). On the contribution ofkindergarten spelling to Grade 1 literacy: A longitudinal study in Hebrew. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 1–21.
  • Simmons J. (1997). “Attack of the Killer Baby Faces: Gender Similarities in Third Grade Writing”. Language Arts, 74, 116-123.
  • Tabak G. & Göçer A. (2013). “6-8. Sınıflar Türkçe Dersi Öğretim Programının Ürün ve Süreç Odaklı Yazma Yaklaşımları Çerçevesinde Değerlendirilmesi”. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD), 14 (2), 147-169.
  • Tavşanlı, Ö.F. (2017). Evaluation Of The Instructional Program In Turkey Based On The Process-Based Writing Approach. International Journal of Language Academy, 5(2), 79-97.
  • Willis, S. (2001). Teaching Young Writers Feedback and Coaching Help Students Hone Skills. In C. Jago (Ed.), Language Arts: A Chapter of the Cirriculum Handbook (pp. 125-129). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

What do Primary School Students Write about? : Investigation of Text Types, Subjects and Content Preferences in the Written Works of Primary School Students

Yıl 2018, Cilt 6, Sayı 1, 32 - 47, 30.01.2018
https://doi.org/10.16916/aded.346402

Öz

The purpose of this research was to examine the types of texts and topics/content that primary school students prefer in their written works and to reveal the underlying causes for those preferences. Descriptive phenomenology which is one of the qualitative research methods was used in the study. The study group consisted of 20 second-grade students. The data were collected, using semi-structured interview questions and the content analysis method was used for data analysis. According to the results of the study, the students preferred to write  persuasive and expository texts more. None of the students expressed narrative texts or poetry as their preferences. It was observed that students preferred to write texts about social activities, family, bad habits, friends, trips, animals, toys and teachers. Students also stated that in general funny events and adventures formed the essence of their writings. 

Kaynakça

  • Aram, D. (2005). Continuity in children’s literacy achievements: Alongitudinal perspective from kindergarten to school. First Language, 25, 259–289.
  • Arıcı A. F. & Ungan S. (2008). “Konu Seçiminin Yazma Becerisine Etkisi”. Çağdaş Eğitim Dergisi, 33(357), 19-24.
  • Arici, A. F., & Kaldirim, A. (2015). The Effect of the Process-based Writing Approach on Writing Success and Anxiety of Pre-service Teachers. The Anthropologist, 22(2), 318-327.
  • Beach, S. A., & Ward, A. (2013). Insights into Engaged Literacy Learning: Stories of Literate Identity. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 27(2) 239–255.
  • Blair, R., & Savage, R. (2006). Name writing but not environmentalprint recognition is related to letter-sound knowledge and phonological awareness in 308 pre-readers. Reading and Writing,19, 991–1016.
  • Bloodgood, J. W. (1999). What’s in a name? Children’s name writing and literacy acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 342–367.
  • Calkins, L. M. (1986). The Art of Teaching Writing. Portsmouth, NH; Heinemann.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research. Boston: Pearson.
  • Christensen, L. B.; Johnson, R. B. & Turner, L. A. (2015). Araştırma Yöntemleri: Desen ve Analiz. (Çev. Ed: Ahmet Aypay). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Collier, D. R. (2010). Journey to becoming a writer: Review of research about children’s identities as writers. Language and Literacy, 12(1), 147-164.
  • Dyson A. H. (1995). “The Courage to Write: Child Meaning Making in a Contested World”. Language Arts, (72), 324-333.
  • Emig J. (1971). The Composing Processes of Twelfth-Graders. Urbana, IL 1971.
  • Ersoy, A. F. (2016). Fenomenoloji. Ahmet Saban ve Ali Ersoy (Ed.), Eğitimde Nitel Araştırma Desenleri, Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Fleming S. (1995). “Whose Stories are Validated?”. Language Arts, 72 (8) 590-596.
  • Flower L. & Hayes J. R. (1981). “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing”. College Composition and Communication, 32 (4), 365-387.
  • Flowerday T., Schraw G. & Stevens J. (2004). “The Role of Choice and Interest in Reader Engagement”. Journal of Experimental Education, 72, 93-114.
  • Freedman R. (1995). “The Mr. and Mrs. Club: The Value of Collaboration in Writer’s Workshop”. Language Arts 72, 97-104.
  • Gerde, H.K., Bingham, G.R., & Wasik, B.A. (2012). Writing in Childhood Classrooms: Guidance for Best Practices. Early Chıldhood Educatıon Journal, 40 (6), 351-359.
  • Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Heinemann Educational Books, 4 Front St., Exeter, NH 03833.
  • Jones S. (2011). “Mapping the Landscape: Gender and the Writing Classroom”. Journal of Writing Research, 3 (3),163-179.
  • Kamler B. (1993). “The Construction of Gender in Process Writing Classrooms”. Ed. P. Gilbert. Gender Stories and the Language Classroom, 41-54. Victoria.
  • Karatay, H. (2011). Süreç temelli yazma modelleri: Planlı yazma ve değerlendirme. Yazma eğitimi. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
  • Keenan J., Solsken J. & Willett J. (1999). “‘Only Boys can Jump High’: Reconstructing Gender Relations in a First/Second-Grade Classroom”. Ed. B. Kamler. Constructing Gender and Difference (1999) 33-70. Cresskill, NJ.
  • Kıbrıs, İ. (2008). Okuma ve Yazma Çalışmalarında Şiir Etkinliklerinden Nasıl Yararlanılır? Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8 (1), 53-66.
  • Kızıltepe, Z. (2015). İçerik Analizi. Nitel Araştırma Yöntem, Teknik, Analiz ve Yaklaşımlar. (Ed: Fatma Nevra Seggie ve Yasemin Bayyurt). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Kurudayıoğlu M. & Karadağ Ö. (2010). “İlköğretim Öğrencilerinin Yazılı Anlatımlarının Konu Seçimleri Açısından İncelenmesi”. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7 (13), 192-207.
  • Lee J. W. (1987). “Topic Selection in Writing: Aprecarious but Practical Balancing Act”. The Reading Teacher, 41 (2), 180-184.
  • McCutchen D. (1986). “Domain Knowledge and Linguistic Knowledge in the Development of Writing Ability”. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 431-444.
  • Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Fransisko: Jossey- Bass.
  • Murray D. (1984). “Teaching Writing as a Process not Product”. Ed. R. L. Graves. Rhetoric and Composition: A Sourcebook for Teachers and Writers, 89-94. UpperMontclair, NJ.
  • Peterson S. (2000). “Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Graders’ Preferred Writing Topics and Identification of Gender Markers in Stories”. Elementary School Journal, 101(1), 79-100.
  • Peterson S. (2006). “Influence of Gender on Writing Development”. Eds. C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald. Handbook of Writing Research (2006) 311-323. New York.
  • Reiners, G. M. (2012). “Understanding the Differences Between Husserl’s (Descriptive) and Heidegger’s (Interpretive) Phenomenological Research”, Journal of Nursing & Care, 1 (119).
  • Ruddell, R. B. (2006). Teaching children to read and write: Becoming an effective literacy teacher (4th ed.).Boston: Pearson.
  • Sart, G. (2015). Fenomenoloji ve Yorumlayıcı Fenomenolojik Analiz. Nitel Araştırma Yöntem, Teknik, Analiz ve Yaklaşımlar. (Ed: Fatma Nevra Seggie ve Yasemin Bayyurt). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Seban, D. (2016). The Role of Gender and Grade Level on Topic Selection in Writing. Mediterranean Journal of Humanities, 6 (1), 275-285.
  • Seban, D., & Tavşanlı, Ö.F. (2015). Children’s sense of being a writer: identity construction in second grade writers workshop. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 7(2), 217-234.
  • Smith, F. C. (2008). Literacy identity development. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 16(1), 47-51.
  • Shatil, E., Share, D. L., & Levin, I. (2000). On the contribution ofkindergarten spelling to Grade 1 literacy: A longitudinal study in Hebrew. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 1–21.
  • Simmons J. (1997). “Attack of the Killer Baby Faces: Gender Similarities in Third Grade Writing”. Language Arts, 74, 116-123.
  • Tabak G. & Göçer A. (2013). “6-8. Sınıflar Türkçe Dersi Öğretim Programının Ürün ve Süreç Odaklı Yazma Yaklaşımları Çerçevesinde Değerlendirilmesi”. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD), 14 (2), 147-169.
  • Tavşanlı, Ö.F. (2017). Evaluation Of The Instructional Program In Turkey Based On The Process-Based Writing Approach. International Journal of Language Academy, 5(2), 79-97.
  • Willis, S. (2001). Teaching Young Writers Feedback and Coaching Help Students Hone Skills. In C. Jago (Ed.), Language Arts: A Chapter of the Cirriculum Handbook (pp. 125-129). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Ayrıntılar

Konular Sosyal
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Ömer Faruk TAVŞANLI>
ULUDAĞ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ
Türkiye

Yayımlanma Tarihi 30 Ocak 2018
Yayınlandığı Sayı Yıl 2018, Cilt 6, Sayı 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Tavşanlı, Ö. F. (2018). İlkokul Öğrencileri Ne Yazar? : İlkokul Öğrencilerinin Yazılı Anlatımlarında Metin Türü, Konu ve İçerik Tercihlerinin İncelenmesi . Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi , 6 (1) , 32-47 . DOI: 10.16916/aded.346402

88x31.png

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