KALEM VEYA TUŞLA YAZMA DURUMLARININ OKUMA-YAZMA BECERİLERİ ÜZERİNE ETKİSİNİN META-ANALİZ ÇALIŞMASI

Abstract

Bu araştırmada kalem veya tuşla yazma durumlarının öğrencilerin okuma-yazma becerileri üzerine etkisinin incelendiği deneysel çalışmalar bir araya getirilerek kalem veya tuşla yazma durumlarının öğrencilerin okuma-yazma becerileri üzerine etkisinin belirlenmesi ve bulguların sentezlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırma kapsamındaki çalışmalara, kalem veya tuşla yazma, kalem veya klavye ile yazma, typing and writing, writing with pencil, writing with keyboard ve literacy skills gibi anahtar sözcükler kullanılarak “ Google akademik, ERIC, Web of Science ve YÖK Ulusal Tez Tarama Sistemi” bilimsel veri tabanlarından ulaşılmıştır. Veri tabanlarından sistematik olarak, kalem veya tuşla yazma durumlarının öğrencilerin okuma-yazma becerileri üzerine etkisinin incelendiği 10 makaleye ulaşılmıştır. Çalışmalardan elde edilen veriler “Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA)” programına aktarılarak analiz edilmiştir. Araştırmada meta analiz kapsamına alınan çalışmaların heterojenliği sebebiyle rastgele etkiler modeliyle etki büyüklüğü hesaplanmıştır. Araştırmanın bulgularına göre, ortalama etki büyüklüğünün değeri anlamlı bulunmamıştır. (Z=-0,281, p<.05). Ortalama etki büyüklüğü değeri ise -0,047 ve negatif bulunmuştur. Bu durumda işlem etkisinin deney grubu lehine olmadığı söylenebilir. Kalem ve tuş ile yazma durularının okuma-yazma becerilerini artırmada tuşla yazmanın etkisinin olmadığı söylenebilir.

Keywords

• Kalemle Yazma
• Tuşla Yazma
• Klavyeyle Yazma
• Okuma-Yazma Becerileri
• Meta-Analiz

META-ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF WRITTING SITUATIONS WITH PEN OR KEY ON READING AND WRITING SKILLS

Abstract

In this research, it is aimed to determine the effect of pen or key writing situations on students' reading and writing skills by bringing together experimental studies examining the effects of pen or key writing situations on students' reading and writing skills, and to synthesize research findings. In the studies within the scope of the research, "Google academic, ERIC, Web of Science and YÖK National Thesis Scanning System" scientific studies were conducted by using keywords such as writing with a pen or key, typing and writing, writing with pencil, writing with keyboard and literacy skills. obtained from databases. From the databases, 9 articles were systematically accessed, examining the effects of pen or key writing on students' reading and writing skills. The data obtained from the studies were analyzed by transferring them to the "Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA)" program. Due to the heterogeneity of the studies included in the meta-analysis, the effect size was calculated with the random effects model. According to the findings of the study, the value of the mean effect size was not found significant. (Z=-0.281, p<.05). The mean effect size value was found to be -0.047 and negative. In this case, it can be said that the effect of the procedure is not in favor of the experimental group. It can be said that typing with a pen and keystroke has no effect on increasing reading and writing skills.

Keywords

• Pen Typing
• Key Typing
• Typing
• Reading-Writing Skills
• Meta-Analysis

References

1. Alsubaie, M. A. (2022). Distance education and the social literacy of elementary school students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Heliyon, 8(7), e09811.
2. Aram, D., & Bar-Am, O. C. (2016). Mothers helping their preschool children to spell words: A comparison between interactions using the computer vs. pencil and paper. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 7, 15-21.
3. Backes, B., & Cowan, J. (2019). Is the pen mightier than the keyboard? The effect of online testing on measured student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 68, 89-103.
4. Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Augsburger, A., & Garcia, N. (2009). Comparison of pen and keyboard transcription modes in children with and without learning disabilities. Learning disability quarterly, 32(3), 123-141.
5. Bertoletti, A., Biagi, F., Di Pietro, G., & Karpiński, Z. (2023). The effect of the COVID-19 disruption on the gender gap in students’ performance: a cross-country analysis. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 11(1), 6. Beschorner, B., & Hutchison, A. (2013). iPads as a literacy teaching tool in early childhood. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(1), 16-24.
6. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta- analysis. UK: Wiley
7. Boté-Vericad, J. J. (2021). Challenges for the educational system during lockdowns: A possible new framework for teaching and learning for the near future. Education for Information, 37(1), 149-153.
8. Bromley, K. (2006). Technology and writing. International Handbook of Literacy and Technology: Volume II, 349.

9. Brown, J., Bryan, J., & Brown, T. (2005). Twenty-first century literacy and technology in k-8 classrooms. Innovate Journal of Online Education, 1(3), 5. Retrieved from http://www.innovateonline.info/pdf/vol1_issue3/Twenty-first_Century_Literacy_and_Technology_in_K-8_Classrooms.pdf.
10. Burnett, C. (2010). Technology and literacy in early childhood educational settings: A review of research. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 10(3), 247–270. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1468798410372154.
11. Clark, C., & Dugdale, G. (2009). Young people’s writing: Attitudes, behavior and the role of technology. London: National Literacy Trust.
12. Cleophas, T. J., & Zwinderman, A. H. (2017). Modern meta-analysis: Review and update of methodologies. Switzerland: Springer
13. Cohen, L.,Manion, L.&Morrison, K. (2007).Research Methods in Education. Taylor& Francis Group. Six Edition
14. Connelly, V., Gee, D., & Walsh, E. (2007). A comparison of keyboarded and handwritten compositions and the relationship with transcription speed. British journal of educational psychology, 77(2), 479-492.
15. Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (Eds.). (2019). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. Russell Sage Foundation.
16. Dinçer, S. (2014). Eğitim Bilimlerinde Uygulamalı Meta-Analiz.Pegem Akademi. Ankara.
17. Genlott, A. A., & Grönlund, Å. (2013). Improving literacy skills through learning reading by writing: The iWTR method presented and tested. Computers & education, 67, 98-104.
18. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 235–246). New York: Guilford Press.
19. Güneş, F. (2016). Eğitimde Kalem ve Tuşlarla Yazma Tartışmaları (The Discussion on Writing with Pencil and Typing on Keyboard in Education. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 5(1), 19-33.
20. Hartman, D. K., Morsink, P. M., & Zheng, J. (2010). From print to pixels: The evolution of cognitive conceptions of reading comprehension. In E. A. Baker (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on new literacies research and instruction (pp. 131–164). New York: Guilford.
21. Hoomanfard, M. H., & Meshkat, M. (2015). Writing on a Computer and Using Paper and Pencil: Is there any Difference in the Internal Cognitive Processes?. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 15(2). Hsu, H. Y., Wang, S. K., & Runco, L. (2013). Middle school science teachers’ confidence and pedagogical practice of new literacies. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22, 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9395-7.
22. Hudson, J. A. (2007). Writing, technology and writing technologies: Developing multiple literacies in first-year college composition students. International Journal of Learning, 13(12), 93–100.
23. Indrisano, R., & Paratore, J. (Eds.). (2005). Learning to write and writing to learn: Theory and research in practice. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. International Reading Association. (2009). New literacies and 21st-century technologies (Position statement) Accessed on 6th May 2019 http://www. literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/new-literacies-21st-century-position-statement.pdf?sfvrsn¼6.
24. Jiménez, J. E., & Hernández-Cabrera, J. A. (2019). Transcription skills and written composition in Spanish beginning writers: Pen and keyboard modes. Reading and Writing, 32(7), 1847-1879.
25. Laurie, R., Bridglall, B. L., & Arseneault, P. (2015). Investigating the effect of computer-administered versus traditional paper and pencil assessments on student writing achievement. SAGE Open, 5(2), 2158244015584616.
26. Lavoie N. et Boudreau M. (2014). Le crayon et le clavier pour écrire au préscolaire et en première anneée. Da Investigação às práticas, 4(II), 47 -61.
27. Le Nouvel Observateur (2014). Fin de l'écriture cursive à l'école en Finlande ? Des effets négatifs sur le cerveau, 28 Novembre 2014
28. Liu, Y. C., Lee, W. C., Huang, T. H., & Hsieh, H. M. (2012). Improving Students' Chinese Writing Abilities in Taiwan with the" Conditioned Writing System". Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 11(3), 189-201.
29. Mangen, A., & Balsvik, L. (2016). Pen or keyboard in beginning writing instruction? Some perspectives from embodied cognition. Trends in neuroscience and education, 5(3), 99-106.
30. Mayer, C., Wallner, S., Budde-Spengler, N., Braunert, S., Arndt, P. A., & Kiefer, M. (2020). Literacy training of kindergarten children with pencil, keyboard or tablet stylus: The influence of the writing tool on reading and writing performance at the letter and word level. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 3054.
31. National Commission on Writing. (2003). The neglected R: The need for a writing revolution. New York: College Entrance Examination Board Accessed on 6th May 2019 from http://www.vantagelearning.com/docs/myaccess/neglectedr.pdf
32. Neumann, M. M. (2018). Maternal scaffolding of preschoolers’ writing using tablet and paper-pencil tasks: Relations with emergent literacy skills. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 32(1), 67-80.
33. Newell, G. E., MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (2006). Writing to learn: How alternative theories of school writing account for student performance. In C. A. MacArthur, S.
34. Peterson-Karlan, G. R. (2011). Technology to support writing by students with learning and academic disabilities: Recent research trends and findings. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 7(1), 39-62.
35. Richards, T. L., Berninger, V. W., & Fayol, M. (2009). fMRI activation differences between 11-year- old good and poor spellers' access in working memory to temporary and long-term orthographic representations. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22(4), 327-353.
36. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Thousands Oak, California: Sage
37. Smolin, L. I., & Lawless, K.a. (2003). Becoming literate in the technological age: New responsibilities and tools for teachers. The Reading Teacher, 56(6), 570–577.
38. Sze, J. L., & Southcott, J. (2020). Pencil or Keyboard? Boys' Preferences in Writing. The Qualitative Report, 25(7), 1946A-1959.
39. Teke, G. (2022). Covid-19 pandemisi nedeniyle uzaktan eğitim ile devam eden ilk okuma yazma sürecine ilişkin sınıf öğretmenlerinin görüşleri (Master's thesis, Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi).
40. Tompkins, G. E. (2007-8). Teaching writing: Balancing process and product . Saddle River.
41. Velay, J. L., Longcamp, M., & Zerbato-Poudou, M. T. (2004). De la plume au clavier: est-il toujours utile d’enseigner l’écriture manuscrite. Comprendre les apprentissages: Sciences cognitives et éducation, 69-82.
42. Wollscheid, S., Sjaastad, J., & Tømte, C. (2016). The impact of digital devices vs. Pen (cil) and paper on primary school students' writing skills–A research review. Computers & education, 95, 19-35.
43. Yamaç, A., Öztürk, E., & Mutlu, N. (2020). Effect of digital writing instruction with tablets on primary school students’ writing performance and writing knowledge. Computers & Education, 157, 103981.