Synectics as a prewriting technique: Its effects on writing fluency and lexical complexity

Year 2017, , 325 - 347, 25.09.2017

Nalan Bayraktar Balkır , Ece Zehir Topkaya

https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.461038

Abstract

This study aimed to explore the effects of synectics as a prewriting technique on writing fluency and
lexical complexity in the written texts of 20 tertiary level Turkish EFL learners. To this end, a mixed
research design was adopted combining both quantitative and qualitative techniques. Repeated
measures design was employed to examine the differences in participants’ writing fluency and lexical
complexity over time, and to gain a deeper understanding of learners’ experiences, semi-structured
interviews were conducted. The learner-written texts were analyzed using VocabProfile (VP), an online
text analysis program, with respect to fluency and lexical complexity. Descriptive statistics, Friedman
test for repeated measures, and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test were carried out as data analysis
procedures. As for the analysis of the qualitative data, inductive content analysis was performed. The
findings revealed that the participants’ writing fluency increased significantly at the end of the program.
On the other hand, their lexical complexity remained the same during the study. In terms of the results
of the qualitative analysis, the participants had mostly positive perceptions about their synectics
experience in terms of vocabulary learning, improvement of writing skills, and attitudes to writing. 

Keywords

Attitudes to writing, lexical complexity, prewriting techniques, synectics, writing fluency

References

• Açıkgöz Karakaş, Ö. (2011). Yaratıcı yazma tekniklerinin İngilizce yazma becerisini geliştirmeye etkisi [The effect of the creative writing techniques to writing skills in English]. Unpublished master’s thesis, Osmangazi University, Eskişehir, Turkey.
• Asmalı, M., & Dilbaz Sayın, S. S. (2016). The effects of the Synectics Model on vocabulary learning, attitude, and desire to learn English. Asian EFL Journal, 18(3), 41-60.
• Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles. New York, NY: Longman.
• Brown, T. K. (1980). Effect of Synectics Education Systems’ connection making skills on learning of Title I sixth graders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.
• Burks, C. G. (2005). Combating the Bartleby Syndrome with synectics: Examining teacher attitudes and the influences on student writing(Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). University of Houston, Texas.
• Cormack, R. (1980). Creative drama in the writing process: The impact on elementary students’ short stories. Unpublished master’s thesis, The University of Northern British Columbia, British Columbia, Canada.
• Cumming, A. (2001). The difficulty of standards: For example in L2 writing. In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 209-229). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Diaw, P. W. (2009). Case study: The influence of storytelling as a prewriting activity (in the writing process) on narrative writing in the No Child Left behind Learning Environment. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Saint Joseph’s University, Philadelphia.
• Ercan, S. (2010). Fen Öğretiminde Yaratıcı Düşünme Tekniklerinden Sinektik Kullanımına Yönelik Bir Eylem Araştırması [An action research related to use of synectics technique in science education]. Unpublished master’s thesis, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey.
• Estes, T. H., Mintz, S. L. & Gunter, M. A. (2010). Instruction: A models approach. London: Pearson.
• Fatemipour, H. & Kordnaeej, M. (2014). The effect of synectics and journal creative writing techniques on EFL students’ creativity. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 7 (3), 412-424. Retrieved from http://www.ijllalw.org/finalversion7331.pdf.
• Fellner, T. & Apple, M. (2006). Developing writing fluency and lexical complexity with blogs. The JALT CALL Journal, 2(1), 15-26.
• Gordon, W. J. J. (1961). Synectics: The development of creative capacity. New York: Harper and Row.
• Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching. Essex: Longman.
• Hashempour, Z., Rostampour, M. & Behjat, F. (2015). The effect of brainstorming as a pre- writing strategy on EFL advanced learners’ writing ability. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(1), 86-99.
• Heavilin, B. A. (1982). The use of synectics as an aid to invention in college composition. (Report No. 143) Muncie, IN: Ball State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 246426).
• Johnson, M. D., Mercado, L. & Acevedo, A. (2012). The effect of planning sub-processes on L2 writing fluency, grammatical complexity, and lexical complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 264-282. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.05.011
• Keyes, D. K. (2006). Metaphorical voices: Secondary students’ exploration into multidimensional perspectives in literature and creative writing using the Synectics Model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Houston, Texas.
• Kleiner, C. S. (1991). The effects of synectics training on students’ creativity and Achievement. Unpublished doctor of education dissertation, United States International University, San Diego.
• Laufer, B. & Nation, P. (1994). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307-322.
• Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston, Massachusetts: Heinle&Heinle Publishers.
• Oshima, A. & Hogue, A. (2007). Introduction to academic writing. NY: Pearson Longman.
• Öncü, F. (1999). Using video as a pre-writing activity in writing. Unpublished master’s thesis. Anadolu University, Eskişehir, Turkey.
• Özbek, A. (2006). The effect of a creative thinking programme on EFL students’ attitudes towards their own creativity. Unpublished master’s thesis, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
• Özçelik, M. (1996). A study of teaching writing through reading to low-level prep- school students. Unpublished master’s thesis, Anadolu University, Eskişehir, Turkey.
• Paltasingh, S. (2008). Impact of Synectics Model of teaching in life science to develop creativity among pupils. EJAIAER, 20(3-4), 66-69. Retrieved from http://www.ejournal. aiaer.net/vol20208/9.htm.
• Pany, S. (2008). Effectiveness of Synectics Model of teaching in enhancing creativity,academic achievement and achievement motivation of learners. EJAIAER, 20(1&2), 63-65. Retrieved from http://www.aiaer.net/ejournal/vol20108/11.htm.
• Patil, R. (2012). Effectiveness of Synectics Model (SM), ISRJ, 2(5). Retrieved from www.isrj.net/PublishArticles/966.aspx.
• Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in teaching writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Raimes, A. (1991).
• Raimes, A. (1991).Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 407-430.
• Seligmann, E. R. (2007). Reaching students through synectics: A creative solution. Retrieved from http://www.ellieseligmann.com/essays/synectics_seligmann.pdf.
• Silva, T. & Matsuda, P. K. (Eds.) (2001). On second language writing. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
• Silva, T. & Matsuda, P. K. (2002). Writing. In Schmitt, N. (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 251-266). London: Arnold.
• Walker, D. E. (2009). Promoting metaphorical thinking through synectics: Developing Deep thinking utilizing abstractions. Retrieved from http://facstaff.bloomu.edu/dwalker/ ConferenceInformation/IUT/Synectics.pdf.
• Weaver, W. T. & Prince, G. M. (1990). Synectics: Its potential for education. The Phi Delta Kappan, 71 (5), 378-388.
• Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S. & Kim, H. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy and complexity. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.