Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarının Okuryazar Pratiklerinin Sosyal Bağlamda İncelenmesi

Öz

Bireylerin okuryazarlıkları sosyal bir bağlam içerisinde doğar, gelişir ve kendi okuryazar kimliğini oluşturur. Bu okuryazar kimliğin ise günlük yaşama yansımaları olur. Bu durum öğretmenler için daha önemlidir. Çünkü öğretmenler okuryazarlıklarını sınıf içinde kullanır ve bu durum öğrencilerin okuryazarlıkları ve akademik başarıları başta olmak üzere pek çok becerinin gelişimini etkiler. Bu sebeple öğretmenlerin ve öğretmen adaylarının okuryazarlıklarının sosyal bağlamda incelenmesi gerekli görülmektedir. Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının okuryazar pratiklerinin sosyal bağlamda incelenmesini amaçlayan bu araştırma fenomenolojik bir araştırmadır. Araştırmada veriler yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler, yansıtmacı yazılar ve okuryazarlığı günlük yaşantılarında kullandıklarına yönelik örnek deliller aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Elde edilen veriler içerik analizi tekniğiyle analiz edilmiştir. Araştırmadan elde edilen bulgulara göre sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının okuryazar pratiklerini günlük yaşamda kullanmaları beş farklı şekilde gerçekleşmektedir. Bunlar; akademik, dijital platformlar, günlük pratikler, psikolojik ve sosyal etkileşim.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Okuryazar pratikler
• sınıf öğretmeni adayları
• fenomenoloji

Examining Literacy Practices of Primary School Prospective Teachers in a Social Context

Öz

Individuals' literacy arises and develops in a social context and creates their own literacy identity. This literate identity has reflections on daily life. This situation is more critical for teachers. Because teachers use their literacy in the classroom, and this affects the development of many skills, especially students' literacy and academic achievement. For this reason, it is necessary to examine the literacy of teachers’ and prospective teachers’ in a social context. This research, which aims to examine primary school prospective teachers' literacy practices in a social context, is a phenomenological research. The study data were collected through semi-structured interviews, reflective writings, and sample evidence that they use literacy in their daily lives. The datas were analyzed by content analysis technique. According to the research findings, there are five different ways for primary school prospective teachers’ to use their literacy practices in daily life. These; academic, digital platforms, daily practices, psychological and social interaction. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Literacy practices
• primary school prospective teachers
• phenomenology

Kaynakça

1. Arıcı, A. F. ve Kaldırım, A. (2015). The effect of the process-based writing approach on writing success and anxiety of pre-service teachers. The Anthropologist, 22(2), 318-327.
2. Baines, L. (2009). Reading & happiness. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(9), 686-688.
3. Baki, Y. ve Feyzioğlu, N. (2017). The effects of digital stories on the writing skills of 6th grade students. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 9(3), 686-704.
4. Balcı, A. (2015). Karşılaştırmalı eğitim sistemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
5. Barriball, K. L. ve While, A. (1994). Collecting data using a semi-structured interview: A discussion paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing-Institutional Subscription, 19(2), 328-335.
6. Barton, D. ve Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy practices. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivanič (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 7–15). Routledge.
7. Basma, B. ve Savage, R. (2018). Teacher professional development and student literacy growth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(2), 457-481.
8. Baynham, M. (2004). Ethnographies of literacy: Introduction. Language and education, 18(4), 285-290.

9. Baynham, M. ve Prinsloo, M. (2009). Introduction: The future of literacy studies. In The future of literacy studies (pp. 1-20). London: Palgrave MacMillan.
10. Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. Illinois: The Free Press, Glencoe.
11. Berg, B. L. (2000). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.
12. Bhola, H. S. (1991). Literacy as a social process; Literacy as a social intervention. ASBAE Courier, 47, 6-14.
13. Brandt, D. ve Clinton, K. (2002). Limits of the local: Expanding perspectives on literacy as a social practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 34(3), 337-356.
14. Briesemeister, B. B., Kuchinke, L., Jacobs, A. M. & Braun, M. (2015). Emotions in reading: Dissociation of happiness and positivity. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 15(2), 287-298.
15. Cavanagh, S. (1997). Content analysis: Concepts, methods and applications. Nurse Researcher, 4(3), 5-16.
16. Christensen, Larry B., Burke Johnson, R. ve Turner, L. A. (2015). Araştırma yöntemleri: Desen ve analiz. (A. Alpay, Çev.). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
17. Ciampa, K. ve Gallagher, T. L. (2018). A comparative examination of Canadian and American pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for literacy instruction. Reading and Writing, 31(2), 457-481.
18. Cooper, B. R., Moore, J. E., Powers, C. J., Cleveland, M. & Greenberg, M. T. (2014). Patterns of early reading and social skills associated with academic success in elementary school. Early Education and Development, 25(8), 1248-1264.
19. Craswell, G. ve Poore, M. (2011). Writing for academic success. Sage.
20. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston: Pearson.
21. Digital in 2017: Global Overview. (2017). Erişim Adresi: https://wearesocial.com/special-reports/digital-in-2017-global-overview. Erişim tarihi: 09.02.2021
22. Doğan, Y. ve Müldür, M. (2014). 7. sınıf öğrencilerine verilen yazma eğitiminin öğrencilerin hikâye yazma becerisine etkisi. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 10(1), 49-65.
23. Downe-Wamboldt, B. (1992). Content analysis: Method, applications and issues. Health Care for Women International, 13, 313-321.
24. ERG (2017). Eğitim izleme raporu 2016-17. İstanbul: ERG.
25. Ersoy, A. F. (2016). Fenomenoloji. A. Saban ve A. Ersoy (Ed.). Eğitimde nitel araştırma desenleri içinde. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
26. Fitzgerald, J., Spiegel, D. L., & Cunningham, J. W. (1991). The relationship between parental literacy level and perceptions of emergent literacy. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23(2), 191-213.
27. Flower, L., Stein, V., Ackerman, J., Kantz, M. J., McCormick, K., & Peck, W. C. (1990). Reading-to-write: Exploring a cognitive and social process. Oxford University Press on Demand.
28. Graham, S., Liu, X., Bartlett, B., Ng, C., Harris, K. R., Aitken, A. ve ark. (2018). Reading for writing: A meta-analysis of the impact of reading interventions on writing. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 243-284.
29. Guo, Y., Piasta, S. B., Justice, L. M. & Kaderavek, J. N. (2010). Relations among preschool teachers' self-efficacy, classroom quality, and children's language and literacy gains. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1094-1103.
30. Guo, Y., Connor, C. M., Yang, Y., Roehrig, A. D. & Morrison, F. J. (2012). The effects of teacher qualification, teacher self-efficacy, and classroom practices on fifth graders' literacy outcomes. The Elementary School Journal, 113(1), 3-24.
31. Huberman, M. A. ve Miles, M. B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32. Jones-Diaz, C. ve Harvey, N. (2007). Other words, other worlds: bilingual identities and literacy. In L. Makin, C. Jones-Diaz, & C. McLachlan (Eds.), Literacies in childhood: Changing views, challenging practice. Elsevier Australia.
33. Kamler, B. (2001). Relocating the personal: A critical writing pedagogy. SUNY Press.
34. Karatay, H., Külah, E., & Kaya, S. (2020). Okuma alışkanlığını geliştirme yöntem, teknik ve modelleri. Okuma yazma eğitimi araştırmaları, 8(1), 89-107.
35. Koltay, T. (2011). The media and the literacies: Media literacy, information literacy, digital literacy. Media, Culture & Society, 33(2), 211-221.
36. Lincoln, Y. S. ve Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
37. Lupton, D. (2016). The use and value of digital media for information about pregnancy and early motherhood: A focus group study. BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 16(1), 1-10.
38. MacCleod, F. (2004) Literacy identity and agency: Linking classrooms to communities. Early Child Development and Care, 174(3), 243-252.
39. Magnifico, A. M. (2010). Writing for whom? Cognition, motivation, and a writer's audience. Educational Psychologist, 45(3), 167-184.
40. Matsumura, L. C., Patthey-Chavez, G. G., Valdés, R. & Garnier, H. (2002). Teacher feedback, writing assignment quality, and third-grade students' revision in lower-and higher-achieving urban schools. The Elementary School Journal, 103(1), 3-25.
41. Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
42. Miles, M. ve Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage.
43. Motallebzadeh, K., Ahmadi, F. & Hosseinnia, M. (2018). Relationship between 21st century skills, speaking and writing skills: A structural equation modelling approach. International Journal of Instruction, 11(3), 265-276.
44. Nelson, J. (1990). This was an easy assignment: Examining how students interpret academic writing tasks. Research in the Teaching of English, 24(4), 362-396.
45. Pantaleo, S. (2015). Language, literacy and visual texts. English in Education, 49(2), 113-129.
46. Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
47. Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. London: Sage Publications.
48. Preiss, D. D., Castillo, J. C., Grigorenko, E. L., & Manzi, J. (2013). Argumentative writing and academic achievement: A longitudinal study. Learning and Individual Differences, 28, 204-211.
49. Reiners, G. M. (2012). Understanding the differences between Husserl’s (descriptive) and Heidegger’s (interpretive) phenomenological research. Journal of Nursing Care, 1(5), 1-3.
50. Rice, J. K. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes. Economic Policy Institute.
51. Rosenthal, S. ve McKeown, K. (2011). Age prediction in blogs: A study of style, content, and online behavior in pre-and post-social media generations. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (pp. 763-772).
52. Rubin, H.J. ve Rubin, I.S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thosand Oaks: Sage.
53. Schachter, R. E. (2017). Early childhood teachers’ pedagogical reasoning about how children learn during language and literacy instruction. International Journal of Early Childhood, 49(1), 95-111.
54. Selçuk, Z. (2020). Hayatın içindeki müfredat. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları.
55. Springer, S. E., Harris, S. & Dole, J. A. (2017). From surviving to thriving: Four research‐based principles to build dtudents’ reading interest. The Reading Teacher, 71(1), 43-50.
56. Starkey, L. (2010). Teachers’ pedagogical reasoning and action in the digital age. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 16(2), 233-244.
57. Strong, R. W., Silver, H. F., Perini, M. J. & Tuculescu, G. M. (2002). Reading for academic success: Powerful strategies for struggling, average, and advanced readers, Grades 7-12. Corwin Press.
58. Tavşanlı, Ö. F. ve Kaldırım, A. (2018). İlkokul 2. sınıf öğrencilerinin süreç temelli yazma uygulamalarına ilişkin görüşlerinin incelenmesi. Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi, 6(3), 859-876.
59. Tavşanlı, Ö.F., Yıldırım, K., Bilgin, A., Rasinski, T. & Tschantz, B. (Baskıda). The effect of a PBWMIP on writing success and attitude toward writing. In Reading & writing quarterly. (Baskıda).
60. Tavşanlı, Ö.F., Sadioğlu, Ö., Onur Sezer, G. & Kaldırım, A. (2020). An investigation into how parental literacy experiences are reflected in literacy tendencies and experiences of preservice teachers. International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(5), 138-159.
61. Tavşanlı, Ö.F. ve Kaldırım, A. (2020). Critical discourse analysis of elementary school teachers’ writership identities. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 13(1), 77-88.
62. Temizkan, M. ve Sallabaş, M. E. (2011). Okuduğunu anlama becerisinin değerlendirilmesinde çoktan seçmeli testlerle açık uçlu yazılı yoklamaların karşılaştırılması. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 30, 207-220.
63. Toptaş, V. (2011). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin matematik dersinde alternatif ölçme ve değerlendirme yöntemlerinin kullanımı ile ilgili algıları. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36(159), 205-219.
64. Turner, J. ve Paris, S. G. (1995). How literacy tasks influence children's motivation for literacy. The reading teacher, 48(8), 662-673.
65. Van Bergen, E., De Jong, P. F., Plakas, A., Maassen, B. & Van Der Leij, A. (2012). Child and parental literacy levels within families with a history of dyslexia. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53(1), 28-36.
66. Varghese, C., Garwood, J. D., Bratsch-Hines, M. & Vernon-Feagans, L. (2016). Exploring magnitude of change in teacher efficacy and implications for students' literacy growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 228-239.
67. Whitten, C., Labby, S. & Sullivan, S. L. (2016). The impact of pleasure reading on academic success. Journal of Multidisciplinary Graduate Research, 2(4), 48-64.
68. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
69. Yıldız, M. ve Akyol, H. (2011). İlköğretim 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin okuduğunu anlama, okuma motivasyonu ve okuma alışkanlıkları arasındaki ilişki. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(3), 793-815.
70. Yılmaz, M. ve Kadan, Ö. F. (2019). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin süreç temelli yazmaya yönelik görüşlerinin incelenmesi. Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(57), 559-572.