Teacher Beliefs on Teaching and Evaluating Writing

Year 2018, Volume: 6 Issue: 1, 101 - 108, 30.06.2018

Nuray Okumuş Ceylan

Abstract

in foreign language education, reliable and consistent measurement of writing abilities has quite often been challenging. As Hamp-Lyons (2002) explains assessment is not value-free and it cannot be separated from who the writer is and from the undeniable effects of "washback" (p. 182) on teaching and learning. Therefore, scoring procedures will always be subject to human judgment; therefore, making fair and accurate assessment of student writing is difficult to actually reach (Pearson, 2004). This study aims to define attitudes of the teachers in Bülent Ecevit University Prep School in teaching and evaluating writing. The results ofthe frequency analysis ofthe questionnaire based on teachers' writing practices and their views on their students' abilities suggest that textual coherence is more important than grammar and vocabulary in writing, writing instruction, and writing assessment. However, in their own practice, the teachers mostly focus on grammar while they are helping students to write. Besides, they are mostly concerned with grammar in their evaluation of students' paragraphs and essays.

Keywords

Writing Assessment, Writing lnstruction

Yazma Öğretme ve Değerlendirmede Öğretmen Tutumları

Abstract

Yabancı dil eğitiminde yazma becerisini güvenilir ve tutarlı bir biçimde değerlendirmek oldukça zordur. Hamp-Lyons'un (2002) dediği gibi, değerlendirme yazarın kişisel değerlerinden ayrı tutulamayacağı gibi öğretme ve öğrenme üzerindeki kaçınılmaz olumsuz etkileri de yadsınamaz. Dolayısıyla, not verme süreci her zaman kişisel yargılara maruz kalacaktır; bu da öğrencinin yazdıklarının adil ve doğru değerlendirilmesini zorlaştırmaktadır (Pearson, 2004). Bu çalışmanın amacı Bülent Ecevit Üniversitesi Hazırlık Okulu öğretmenlerinin yazma becerisinin öğretilmesi ve değerlendirilmesiyle ilgili tutumlarını belirlemektedir. Çalışmanın sonucu öğretmenlerin metin bütünlüğünü dilbilgisi, yazıda kelime, yazma eğitimi ve yazmanın değerlendirilmesinden daha fazla önemsediklerini göstermiştir. Bununla birlikte, öğretmenler ders uygulamalarında çoğunlukla öğrencilere yazma süreçlerinde yardım ederlerken dilbilgisine odaklanmaktadırlar. Dahası, değerlendirme süreçlerinde dilbilgisine önem vermektedirler.

Keywords

Yazma Değerlendirmesi, Yazma Öğretimi, Yazma Değerlendirmesi, Yazma Öğretimi

References

• Barkaoui, K. (2010). Variability in ESL essay rating processes: The role of rating scale and rater experience. Language Assessment Quarterly, 7(1 ), 54-7 4.
• Brown, J. D. (1991). Do English and ESL faculties rate writing samples differently? TESOL Quarterly, 25(4), 569-581.
• Conlan, G. (1980). Comparison of analytic and holistic scoring techniques. Educational Testing Service: Princeton, NJ.
• Cumming, A. (2001). The difficulty ofstandards,for example in L2 writing. in Silva, T. O. & P. K. Matsuda (Eds), On second language writing (pp. 191-199). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ.
• Ersen, A. (2000). Implicit priorities in the holistic grading of EFL writing and their potential impact. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Ghanbari, N. & Barati, H. (2014). lranian EFL Writing Assessment: The Agency of Rater or Rating Scale? Tabaran lnstitute of Higher Education. Iranianjournal of Language Testing, 4(2), 204-228.
• Halliday, M.A. K. & Hasan, R. (1985). An introduction to Functional Grammar. Edward Arnold: Landon.
• Hamp-Lyons, L. (1989). Raters respond to rhetoric in writing. in H. Dechert & C.Raupach (Eds.), lnterlingual processes (pp.229-244). Gunter Narr Verlag: Tubingen.
• Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). The scope of writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 8, 5-16.
• Johns, A. M. (1986). Coherence and Academic Writing: Some definitions and suggestions for teaching. TESOL Quarterly,20(2), 247-266.
• Lee, I. (1998). Writing in the Hong Kong Secondary Classroom: Teachers' Beliefs and Practices. HKJAL, 3 (1), 61-76.
• Lee, I. (2002). Teaching Coherence to ESL students: A classroom inquiry. journal of Second Language Writing,l, 135- 159.
• Leki, I. (2001). Good writing: I know it when I see it. in D. Belcher & Braine, G. (Eds). Academic writing in Second Language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 23-46). Ablex Publishing Corporation: Norwood, NJ.
• Leki, I. (2002). Second Language Writing. in R. Kaplan (Ed.). Oxford handbook of Applied Lingustics. (pp. 61-69). Oxford University Press: Landon.
• Lukmani, Y. (1989). Linguistic accuracy versus coherence in assessing examination answers in content subjects. in M. Milanovic, & Saville, N. (Eds.), Studies in language testing 3: Performance testing, cognition and assessment (pp. 130-145). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
• Noyes, E.S. (1963). Essays and objective tests in English. College Board Review, 49, 7-10.
• Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching and Learning. Heinle & Heinle: Bostan.
• Pearson, P.C. (2004). Controversies in second language writing: Dilemmas and decisions in research and instruction. The University of Michigan Press: Michigan, USA.
• Polat, M. (2003). A Study on developing a writing assessment profile far English preparatory program of Anadolu University School of Foreign Languages. Doktora Tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir.
• Quintero, E. F. G. & Rodriguez, R. R. (2013) Exploring the variability of Mexican EFL teachers' ratings of high school students' writing ability. Argentinian journal of Applied Linguistics, l (2), 61-78.
• Saxton,E., Belanger,S. & Becker, W. (2012). The Critical Thinking Analytic Rubric (CTAR): lnvestigating intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of a scoring mechanism for critical thinking performance assessments. Assessing Writing, 17(4), 251-270.
• Santos, T. (1988). Professors' reactions to the academic writing of nonnative-speaking students. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 69-90.
• Shi, L. (2001). Native and non-native speaking EFL teachers' evaluation of Chinese students' English writing. Language Testing, 18(3), 303-325.
• Shi, L., Wan, W. & Wen, Q. (2003). Teaching experience and evaluation of second language students' writing. The Canadianjournal of Applied Linguistics, 6, 219-236.
• Sil va, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657-677.
• Vann, R., Lorenz, F., & Meyer, D. (1991). Error gravity: Faculty response to errorsin the written discourse of nonnative speakersofEnglish. in L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 181- 195). Ablex: Norwood, NJ.
• Weigle, S. C. (1994). Effects of training on raters ofESL compositions. Language Testing, 11, 197-223.