Effects of Using Writing to Learn Activities on Learning Force Unit in the Primary Education Level

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine the impact of diverse writing to learn activities on 6th grade students\' academic achievement of mechanic topics. A quasi-experimental pre-test, post-test treatments group design was used with three, preexisting classes of 6th grade students from a rural Eastern school district in Turkey. There were total of 101 students and a teacher participated in this study. The 3 participant classes were randomly assigned to the two treatment conditions as the treatment group1 (U1, 2 classes) summary writing for the 5th graders and the treatment group 2 (U2, one class) letter writing for the 5th graders. The participating science teacher thought force unit to all 3 classes by using same instructional material and pedagogical approaches. Equal time on task was provided for both groups. While the U1 group students composed summary report writing at the end of the unit,Öğrenme amaçlı yazma, kavram değişimi, bilimsel okuryazarlıkWriting to learn, conceptual change, elementary science, scientific literacy Tam Metin Arşiv Yıl :2014 Cilt :34 No:2Yıl :2014 Cilt :34 No:1Yıl :2013 Cilt :33 No:3Yıl :2013 Cilt :33 No:2Yıl :2013 Cilt :33 No:1Yıl :2012 Cilt :32 No:3Yıl :2012 Cilt :32 No:2Yıl :2012 Cilt :32 No:1Yıl :2011 Cilt :31 No:3Yıl :2011 Cilt :31 No:2Yıl :2011 Cilt :31 No:1Yıl :2010 Cilt :30 No:3Yıl :2010 Cilt :30 No:2Yıl :2010 Cilt :30 No:1Yıl :2009 Cilt :29 No:3Yıl :2009 Cilt :29 No:2Yıl :2009 Cilt :29 No:1Yıl :2008 Cilt :28 No:3Yıl :2008 Cilt :28 No:2Yıl :2008 Cilt :28 No:1Yıl :2007 Cilt :27 No:3Yıl :2007 Cilt :27 No:2Yıl :2007 Cilt :27 No:1Yıl :2006 Cilt :26 No:3Yıl :2006 Cilt :26 No:2Yıl :2006 Cilt :26 No:1Yıl :2005 Cilt :25 No:3Yıl :2005 Cilt :25 No:2Yıl :2005 Cilt :25 No:1Yıl :2004 Cilt :24 No:3Yıl :2004 Cilt :24 No:2Yıl :2004 Cilt :24 No:1Yıl :2003 Cilt :23 No:3Yıl :2003 Cilt :23 No:2Yıl :2003 Cilt :23 No:1Yıl :2002 Cilt :22 No:3Yıl :2002 Cilt :22 No:2Yıl :2002 Cilt :22 No:1Yıl :2001 Cilt :21 No:3Yıl :2001 Cilt :21 No:2Yıl :2001 Cilt :21 No:1

Keywords

• Writing to learn, conceptual change, elementary science, scientific literacy

Öğrenme Amaçlı Yazma Aktivitelerinin Kullanımının İlköğretim Seviyesinde Kuvvet Konusunu Öğrenmeye Etkisi

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, farklı öğrenme amaçlı yazma aktiviteleri hazırlamanın öğrenci başarısı üzerine etkisini araştırmaktır. Araştırma, yarı deneysel bir araştırma olup, Türkiye\'nin doğusunda yer alan bir ilköğretim okulundan 3 ayrı sınıftan toplam 101 altıncı sınıf öğrencisi ve bir öğretmen ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Örneklemi oluşturan öğrenciler, tesadüfî olarak iki ayrı uygulama grubunu oluşturacak şekilde belirlenmiştir. Uygulama grubunun ilki-U1(iki sınıf) kuvvet ünitesinde özet yazma aktivitesini, diğer uygulama grubu-U2 (bir sınıf) ise 5. sınıf öğrencilerine kuvvet ünitesini anlatan bir mektup yazma aktivitesini gerçekleştirmişlerdir. 5. sınıf öğrencileri yazılan mektupları değerlendirerek, yazan bireylere yazılı geri dönüt vermişlerdir. MThe aim of this study is to examine the impact of diverse writing to learn activities on 6th grade students\' academic achievement of mechanic topics. A quasi-experimental pre-test, post-test treatments group design was used with three, preexisting classes of 6th grade students from a rural Eastern school district in Turkey. There were total of 101 students and a teacher participated in this study. The 3 participant classes were randomly assigned to the two treatment conditions as the treatment group1 (U1, 2 classes) summary writing for the 5th graders and the treatment group 2 (U2, one class) letter writing for the 5th graders. The participating science teacher thought force unit to all 3 classes by using same instructional material and pedagogical approaches. Equal time on task was provided for both groups. While the U1 group students composed summary report writing at the end of the unit,Öğrenme amaçlı yazma, kavram değişimi, bilimsel okuryazarlıkWriting to learn, conceptual change, elementary science, scientific literacy Tam Metin Arşiv Yıl :2014 Cilt :34 No:2Yıl :2014 Cilt :34 No:1Yıl :2013 Cilt :33 No:3Yıl :2013 Cilt :33 No:2Yıl :2013 Cilt :33 No:1Yıl :2012 Cilt :32 No:3Yıl :2012 Cilt :32 No:2Yıl :2012 Cilt :32 No:1Yıl :2011 Cilt :31 No:3Yıl :2011 Cilt :31 No:2Yıl :2011 Cilt :31 No:1Yıl :2010 Cilt :30 No:3Yıl :2010 Cilt :30 No:2Yıl :2010 Cilt :30 No:1Yıl :2009 Cilt :29 No:3Yıl :2009 Cilt :29 No:2Yıl :2009 Cilt :29 No:1Yıl :2008 Cilt :28 No:3Yıl :2008 Cilt :28 No:2Yıl :2008 Cilt :28 No:1Yıl :2007 Cilt :27 No:3Yıl :2007 Cilt :27 No:2Yıl :2007 Cilt :27 No:1Yıl :2006 Cilt :26 No:3Yıl :2006 Cilt :26 No:2Yıl :2006 Cilt :26 No:1Yıl :2005 Cilt :25 No:3Yıl :2005 Cilt :25 No:2Yıl :2005 Cilt :25 No:1Yıl :2004 Cilt :24 No:3Yıl :2004 Cilt :24 No:2Yıl :2004 Cilt :24 No:1Yıl :2003 Cilt :23 No:3Yıl :2003 Cilt :23 No:2Yıl :2003 Cilt :23 No:1Yıl :2002 Cilt :22 No:3Yıl :2002 Cilt :22 No:2Yıl :2002 Cilt :22 No:1Yıl :2001 Cilt :21 No:3Yıl :2001 Cilt :21 No:2Yıl :2001 Cilt :21 No:1

Keywords

• Öğrenme amaçlı yazma, kavram değişimi, bilimsel okuryazarlık

References

1. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The Psychology of Written Composition. The Psychology of Education and Instruction Series. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers, Suite 102, 365 Broadway, Hillsdale, NJ 07642.
2. Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A Constructivist Approach to Curriculum Development In Science. Studies in Science Education, 13, 105-122.
3. Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a Mode of Learning. College Composition and Communication, 28, 122-128.
4. Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In D. Galbraith & M. Torrance (Eds.), Knowing what to write: conceptual processes in text production. Studies in writing ; v. 4 (pp. 139-160). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
5. Günel, M., Hand, B., & Gündüz, Ş. (2006). Comparing Student Understanding of Quantum Physics When Embedding Multimodal Representations into Two Different Writing Formats: Presentation Format Versus Summary Report Format. Inc. Sci Ed, 90, 1092– 1112.
6. Günel, M., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2007). Writing For Learning In Science: A Secondary Analysis of Six Studies International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 615–637.
7. Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). Teachers Implementing Writing-to-Learn Strategies in Junior Secondary Science: A Case Study. Instructional. Science Education, 86, 737–755.
8. Hand, B., Yang, O.E.M., & Bruxvoort, C. (2007). Using Writing-To-Learn Science Strategies to Improve Year 11 Students’ Understandings Of Stoichiometry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 125-143.

9. Hewson,P.W., Beeth, M.E., & Thorley,N.R.(1998).Teaching for Conceptual Change. International Handbook of Science Education 199-218.
10. Hohenshell, L., Hand; B., & Staker, J. (2004). Promoting Conceptual Understanding of Biotechnology: Writing to a Younger Audince. The American Biology Teacher, 66(5) 333-338.
11. Holliday, W., Yore, L., & Alvermann, D. (1994). The reading-science learning-writing connection: breakthroughs, barriers, and promises. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 877-893.
12. Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Bergh, H.B. (2006). Writing as a learning tool: Testing the role of students' writing strategies. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 11(1) 17-34
13. Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Bergh, H.B. (2007). An Aptitude Treatment Interaction Approach to Writing-to-Learn. Learning and Instruction, 1-12.
14. Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., Galbraith, D., & Bergh, H.B. (2007). The Effects of Adapting a writing Course to Students’ writing strategies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 565–578.
15. Klein, P. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11, 203-270.
16. ---------------------. Elementary students’ strategies for writing-to-learn science. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 317–348.
17. ----------------------. Constructing Scientific Explanations Through Writing. Instructional Science, 32, 191–231.
18. Levin, T., & Wagner, T. (2006). In their own words: Understanding student conceptions of writing through their spontaneous metaphors in the science classroom. Instructional Science, 34, 227–278
19. Mason,L., & Boscolo, P.(2000).Writing and conceptual change.What changes?. Instructional Science, 28(3) 199 –226.
20. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (2006). İlköğretim Fen Ve Teknolji Dersi 6. Sınıf Öğretim Programı Talim Ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı Ankara.
21. Musatti, T. (1993). Meaning between Peers: The Meaning of the Peer. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 241-250.
22. Özdamar, K., (2004). Paket Programlar ile İstatistiksel Veri Analizi 2. Kaan Kitabevi, Eskişehir.
23. Özkan, Ö., Tekkaya, C., & Geban, Ö. (2004). Facilitating Conceptual Change in Students’ Understanding of Ecological Concepts. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13, 95-105.
24. Posner,G.J., Strike, K.A., Hewson, P.W., & Gertzog,W.A. (1982). Accommodation of a Scientific Conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227.
25. Rijlaarsdam, G., & Galbraith, D. (1999). Effective strategies for the teaching and learning of writing. Learning and Instruction, 9, 93–108
26. Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S.B. (2000). The Effect of Talk and Writing on Learning Science: An Exploratory Study. Science Education, 84, 566–593.
27. Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative Writing: Product, Process, and Students’ Reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153–173.
28. Torrance, M., Thomas, G.V., & Robinson, E.J, (1994).The Writing Strategies of Graduate Research Students in the Social Sciences. Higher Education, (27) 3, 379–392.
29. Tynjala, P, (1998). Writing as a tool for constructive learning: Students’ learning experiences during an experiment. Higher Education, 36, 209–23
30. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.