INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WRITING SENSITIVITY AND WRITING ACHIEVEMENT // YAZMA DUYARLILIĞI İLE YAZMA BAŞARISI ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİNİN İNCELENMESİ

Year 2021, Volume: 3 Issue: 2, 222 - 243, 31.12.2021

Ozge Akkaya , Ayşe Nur Kutluca Canbulat

https://doi.org/10.35452/caless.2021.12

Abstract

This study aimed to reveal the relationship between primary school teacher candidates’ writing sensitivity and writing achievement. This quantitative study conducted with the relational survey model consisted of 575 teacher candidates of two public universities. The data about primary school teacher candidates’ writing achievement were collected via Rubric for Written Texts (RWT) with the help of written texts produced by them and the Writing Sensitivity Scale (WSS). According to the findings obtained, primary school teacher candidates had moderate writing sensitivity and writing achievement and there was a statistically significant relationship between writing sensitivity and writing achievement. It can be argued that writing sensitivity and writing achievement significantly differ according to gender, while writing sensitivity does not significantly differ based on year, writing achievement does.

Keywords

writing sensitivity, writing achievement, primary school teacher candidates

References

• Bayat, N., & Şekercioğlu, G. (2014). Defining the psychometric properties of the writing sensitivity scale and analysing writing sensitivity with regard to different variables. International Journal of Language Academy, 2 (3), 283-301. https://bit.ly/3z52L9A
• Baysal, Z. N., Ayvaz, A., Çekirdekçi, S., & Malbeleği, F. (2013). An analysis of metacognitive awareness of pre-service elementary classroom teachers in terms of various variables. MÜ Atatürk Faculty of Education Journal of Educational Sciences, 37, 68-81. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/maruaebd/issue/386/2556
• Büyüköztürk, Ş (2006). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, Araştırma Deseni, SPSS Uygulamaları ve Yorum. Pegem Yayıncılık.
• Cavkaytar, S. (2010). Benefitting from writing process method to improve written expressıon skills in primary education. Journal of International Social Research, 3(10), 133-139. https://bit.ly/3ep78ma
• Ceran, D. (2013). Turkish teachers’ attitudes towards the evaluation of writing training course. Electronic Turkish Studies, 8(1), 1151-1169. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.4187
• Dunsmuir, S., Kyriacou, M., Batuwitage, S., Hinson, E., Ingram, V., & O'Sullivan, S. (2015). An evaluation of the Writing Assessment Measure (WAM) for children's narrative writing. Assessing Writing, 23, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2014.08.001
• Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600
• Güneş, F. (2014). Türkçe öğretimi yaklaşımlar ve modeller. Ankara: Pegem Academy Publishing.
• Huot, B. (2003). Rearticulating writing assessment for teaching and learning. University Press of Colorado.
• Karasar, N. (2011). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Nobel Yayınları.
• Kaya, B., & Ateş, S. (2016). The effect of process-based writing focused on metacognitive skills-oriented to fourth grade students’ narrative writing skill. Education and Science, 41(187), 137-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2016.6752
• Kellog, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective journal of writing research. Department of Psychology, Saint Louis University.
• Kutlu, Ö., Doğan, C.D., & Karakaya, İ. (2010). Determining student success. (3rd Ed.). Ankara: Pegem Academy Publishing.
• Kutluca Canbulat, A.N. (2020). Adaptation of writing feedback scale to Turkish. International Journal of Languages’ Education and Teaching. 8(1), 20-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/ijlet.41766
• Lovorn, M. G., & Rezaei, A. R. (2011). Assessing the assessment: Rubrics training for pre-service and new in-service teachers. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 16(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.7275/sjt6-5k13
• Özdamar, K. (1999). Paket programlarla istatistiksel veri analizi-1 (Statistical data analysis by custom softwares-1). Kaan Kitabevi.
• Özsoy, G. (2008). Üstbiliş. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi. 6(4), 713-740. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/tebd/issue/26110/275094
• Özsoy, G., Ataman, A. (2009). The effect of metacognitive strategy training on mathematical problem- solving achievement. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 1(2), 67-82. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED508334.pdf
• Özsoy, G., Memiş, A., & Temur, T. (2017). Metacognition, study habits and attitudes. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2(1), 154-166. https://www.iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE/article/view/263
• Özsoy, G., & Günindi, Y. (2011). Prospective preschool teachers’ metacognitive awareness. Primary Education Online, 10(2), 430-440. https://www.ilkogretim-online.org/fulltext/218-1596869645.pdf?1640594505
• Penner-Williams, J., Smith, T. E., & Gartin, B. C. (2009). Written language expression: Assessment instruments and teacher tools. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34(3), 162-169. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1534508408318805
• Pressley, M., Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2006). The state of educational intervention research as viewed through the lens of literacy intervention. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X66035
• Raykov, T., & Grayson, D. (2003) A test for change of composite reliability in scale development. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 38(2), 143-159. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3802_1
• Raykov, T. (1998). Coefficient alpha and composite reliability with interrelated nonhomogeneous items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22(4), 375-385. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/014662169802200407
• Ross-Fisher, R.L. (2005). Developing effective success rubrics. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 41 (3), 131-135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2005.10518823
• Schraw, G. (1994). The effect of knowledge on local and global monitoring. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 143-154. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1013
• Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational psychology review, 7(4), 351-371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02212307 Tomkins, M. (2003). Trouble comes in threes. Times Educational Supplement, 4547 (2003), 23-23.
• Uyumaz, G., & Çokluk, Ö. (2016). An investigation of item order and rating differences in likert-type scales in terms of psychometric properties and attitudes of respondents. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 9(3), 400-425. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/akukeg/issue/29363/314180
• Ülper, H., & Uzun, L. (2009). Effect of writing education programs prepared according to cognitive process model on success of students. Primary Education Online, 8(3), 651-665.
• Ülper, H. (2008). The effects of teaching writing program prepared in accordance with cognitive process model on student achievement. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Ankara University.
• Young, A., & Fry, J. D. (2008). Metacognitive awareness and academic achievement in college students. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 1-10. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ854832
• Zorbaz, K. Z. (2010). The relationship between middle school student’s writing apprehension and blocking with their written expression skills [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Gazi University.