The Relationship between Prospective Teachers’ Belief Systems and Writing-to-Learn

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between prospective teachers’ belief systems and writing-to-learn. The participants comprised eight freshmen from the Department of Elementary Science Education at a public university in Turkey. The data were collected using semi-structured interviews.The results indicated that epistemological and pedagogical beliefs, attitudes and pre-experience were the main factors that affected the participants’ writing processes. These prospective teachers also used a set of cognitive, meta-cognitive and affective strategies in their writing such as self-assessment, awareness, revising and empathising. Overall, writing provided the participants with benefits that helped them perform research, construct knowledge, understand conceptual change and acquire permanent learning. Therefore, this study concludes that the development of prospective teachers’ belief systems can increase the quality of writingto-learn and the strategies used for such activities

Keywords

• Belief systems,prospective teachers,writing-to-learn

ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ İNANÇ SİSTEMLERİ İLE ÖĞRENME AMAÇLI YAZMA ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİ

Öz

Bu araştırmada fen bilimleri öğretmen adaylarının inanç sistemleri ile öğrenme amaçlı yazma pratikleri arasındaki ilişki incelenmiştir.Araştırmaya üniversite düzeyinde 1. sınıfta öğrenim gören sekiz fen bilimleri öğretmen adayı katılmıştır. Öğretmen adayları ısı ve sıcaklık konusu ile ilgili öğrenme amaçlı yazma aktivitlerini gerçekleştirdikten sonra öğretmen adayları ile öğrenme amaçlı yazma ve inanç sistemlerini içeren görüşme formları aracalığıyla veriler toplanmıştır. Araştırmanın sonuçlarına göre öğretmen adaylarının inanç sistemlerinin öğrenme amaçlı yazma pratikleri üzerinde etkili olduğu görülmüştür.Bu sonuca göre öğretmen adaylarının inanç sistemlerininde ki olası değişim ve gelişimin, üst düzey stratejilerin ve muhakeme süreçlerinin kullanıldığı yüksek kalitede ki öğrenme amaçlı yazma pratiklerini olumlu yönde etkilemesi beklenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İnanç sistemi,öğretmen adayları,öğrenme amaçlı yazma

References

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.
2. Abelson, R. P. (1979). Differences between belief and knowledge systems. Cognitive Science, 3, 355–366.
3. Australian Academy of Science. (2013). Science literacy in Australia, Retrieved 2 October 2014 from https://www.science.org.au/publications/science-literacy- report.
4. Balgopal, M., & Wallace, A. (2013). Writing-to-learn, writing-to-communicate, & scientific literacy. The American Biology Teacher, 75(3), 170-175.
5. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Bendixen, L. D. (2002). A process model of epistemic belief change. In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp.191-207). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
7. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8. Boscolo, P., & Mason, L. (2001). Writing to learn, writing to transfer. In L. M. Tynjala, & K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 83–104). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

9. Boz, Y., & Uzuntiryaki, E. (2006). Turkish prospective chemistry teachers’ beliefs about chemistry teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1647– 1667.
10. Chan, K.W. & Elliot, R.G. (2004). Relational analysis of personal epistemology and conceptions about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 817–831.
11. Collins, A. (1998). National science education standards: A political document. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(7), 711–727.
12. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. New Jersey: Pearson.
13. De Vries, S., Jansen, E.P.W.A., & Van de Grift, W.J.C.M. (2013). Profiling teachers’ continuing professional development and the relation with their beliefs about learning and teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 33, 77–89.
14. DeBoer, G.E. (2000). Scientific literacy, another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601.
15. Demirbag, M., & Gunel, M. (2014). Integrating argument-based science inquiry with modal representations: Impact on science achievement, argumentation, and writing skills. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(1), 386–392. doi:10.12738/estp.2014.1.1632.
16. Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28(2), 122–128.
17. Ferrari, M., Bouffard, T., & Rainville, L. (1998). What makes a good writer? Differences in good and poor writers' self-regulation of writing. Instructional Science, 26, 473–48.
18. Fives, H., & Buehl, M.M. (2012). Spring cleaning for the ‘messy’ construct of teachers’ beliefs: What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us? In K.R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, S. Graham, J.M. Royer, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Vol. 2: Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors (pp. 471–499). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
19. Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31, 21–32.
20. Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92, 404–423.
21. Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In M. Torrance, & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production (Vol. 4 in Studies in Writing) (pp. 139–164). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
22. Gere, A.R. (1985). Roots in the Sawdust: Writing to learn across the disciplines. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
23. Gunel, M., Hand, B., & Gunduz, S. (2006). Comparing student understanding of quantum physics when embedding multimodal representations into two different writing formats: Presentation format vs. summary report format. Science Education, 90(6), 1092–1112.
24. Gunel, M. (2009). Writing as a cognitive process and learning tool in elementary science education. Elementary Education Online, 8(1), 201–213
25. Gunel, M., Hand, B., & McDermott, M. (2009). Writing for different audiences: Effects on high-school students’conceptual understanding of biology. Learning and Instruction, 19(4), 354–367.
26. Günel, M., Uzoğlu, M. & Büyükkasap, E. (2009). Öğrenme amaçlı yazma aktivitelerinin kullanımının ilköğretim seviyesinde kuvvet konusunu öğrenmeye etkisi. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 29(1) 379-399.
27. Günel, M., Kabatas-Memis, E., & Büyükkasap, E. (2010). Effects of the science writing Heuristic approach on primary school students’ science achievement and attitude towards science course. Education and Science, 35(155), 49–62.
28. Hand, B., & Choi, A. (2010). Examining the impact of student use of multiple modal representations in constructing arguments in organic chemistry laboratory classes. Research in Science Education, 40, 29–44.
29. Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., Staker, J., & Bintz, J. (2009). Negotiating science: The critical role of argument in student inquiry, grades 5–10. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
30. Hand, B., Wallace, C., & Yang, E. (2004). Using the science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh grade science: quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 131–149.
31. Hofer, B.K. & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88–140.
32. Hübner, S., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2010). Writing learning journals: Instructional support to overcome learning-strategy deficits. Learning and Instruction, 20(1), 18–29.
33. Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 65–90.
34. Kılınç, A., Kartal, T., Eroglu, B., Demiral, U., Afacan, Ö, Polat, D., Demirci Güler, M.P., & Görgülü, Ö. (2013). Preservice science teachers’ efficacy about a socioscientific issue: A belief system approach. Research in Science Education. 43(6), 2455–2475.
35. Kingir, S. (2013). Using Non-traditional Writing as a Tool in Learning Chemistry. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 9(2), 101-114
36. Klein, P. D. (2000). Elementary students' strategies for writing-to-learn in science, Cognition and Instruction, 18(3), 317-348.
37. Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15, 309–328.
38. Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and learning. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
39. Lemke, J. (2004). The literacies of science. In W. Saul (Ed.), Border crossing: Essays on literacy and science. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
40. McDermott, M., & Hand, B. (2013). The impact of embedding multiple modes of representation within writing tasks on high school students’ chemistry understanding. Instructional Science, 41, 217–246.
41. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.) (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future (the report of a seminar series funded by the Nuffield Foundation). London: King’s College London.
42. Mines, R. A., King, P. M., Hood, A., & Wood, P. K. (1990). Stages of intellectual development and associated critical thinking skills in college students. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 537–547.
43. Ministry of National Education. (2013). Elementary science and technology curriculum. Ankara, Turkey: Author.
44. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
45. Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317–328.
46. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.
47. Nückles, M., Hübner, S & Renkl, A. (2009). Enhancing self-regulated learning by writing learning protocols. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 259–271.
48. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. London: The Nuffield Foundation.
49. Özdemir, N. (2011) Minstrel tradition and the media. Proceedings of the Living in Minstrel with Art Symposium. Turkish Folklore Research and Application Center, Ankara.
50. Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.
51. Pantaleo, S. (2012). Middle-school students reading and creating multimodal texts: A case study. Education 3-13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 40(3), 295–314.
52. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996). Writing and learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teacher and Teacher Education, 12, 609–626.
53. Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes and values: a theory of organization and change. San Francisco: Jossey.
54. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA and socioscientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 909–921.
55. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
56. Tolppanen, S., Rantaniitty, T., McDermott, M., Aksela, M., & Hand, B. (2013). Effectiveness of a Lesson on Multimodal Writing in Science Education. LUMAT, 1(5), 503-522.
57. Tsai, C. C. (2002). Nested epistemologies: Science teachers’ beliefs of teaching, learning and science. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 771–783.
58. Uzoğlu, M. (2014). Determining The Effects Of Using Different Writing Activities On The Academic Achievements Secondary School 7th Grade Students And Their Attitudes Towards The Course. Educational Research and Rewievs, 9(20), 1065- 1070.
59. Wolfe, D., & Reising, R. (1983). Writing for learning in the content areas. Portland, ME: J. Weston Walch, Publisher.
60. Yore, L. D. (2000). Enhancing science literacy for all students with embedded reading instruction and writing-to-learn activities. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(1), 105–122.
61. Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689–725.
62. Yore, L. D., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 291–314.