INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WRITING SENSITIVITY AND WRITING ACHIEVEMENT // YAZMA DUYARLILIĞI İLE YAZMA BAŞARISI ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİNİN İNCELENMESİ

Öz

This study aimed to reveal the relationship between primary school teacher candidates’ writing sensitivity and writing achievement. This quantitative study conducted with the relational survey model consisted of 575 teacher candidates of two public universities. The data about primary school teacher candidates’ writing achievement were collected via Rubric for Written Texts (RWT) with the help of written texts produced by them and the Writing Sensitivity Scale (WSS). According to the findings obtained, primary school teacher candidates had moderate writing sensitivity and writing achievement and there was a statistically significant relationship between writing sensitivity and writing achievement. It can be argued that writing sensitivity and writing achievement significantly differ according to gender, while writing sensitivity does not significantly differ based on year, writing achievement does.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• writing sensitivity
• writing achievement
• primary school teacher candidates

Kaynakça

1. Bayat, N., & Şekercioğlu, G. (2014). Defining the psychometric properties of the writing sensitivity scale and analysing writing sensitivity with regard to different variables. International Journal of Language Academy, 2 (3), 283-301. https://bit.ly/3z52L9A
2. Baysal, Z. N., Ayvaz, A., Çekirdekçi, S., & Malbeleği, F. (2013). An analysis of metacognitive awareness of pre-service elementary classroom teachers in terms of various variables. MÜ Atatürk Faculty of Education Journal of Educational Sciences, 37, 68-81. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/maruaebd/issue/386/2556
3. Büyüköztürk, Ş (2006). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, Araştırma Deseni, SPSS Uygulamaları ve Yorum. Pegem Yayıncılık.
4. Cavkaytar, S. (2010). Benefitting from writing process method to improve written expressıon skills in primary education. Journal of International Social Research, 3(10), 133-139. https://bit.ly/3ep78ma
5. Ceran, D. (2013). Turkish teachers’ attitudes towards the evaluation of writing training course. Electronic Turkish Studies, 8(1), 1151-1169. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.4187
6. Dunsmuir, S., Kyriacou, M., Batuwitage, S., Hinson, E., Ingram, V., & O'Sullivan, S. (2015). An evaluation of the Writing Assessment Measure (WAM) for children's narrative writing. Assessing Writing, 23, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2014.08.001
7. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600
8. Güneş, F. (2014). Türkçe öğretimi yaklaşımlar ve modeller. Ankara: Pegem Academy Publishing.

9. Huot, B. (2003). Rearticulating writing assessment for teaching and learning. University Press of Colorado.
10. Karasar, N. (2011). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Nobel Yayınları.
11. Kaya, B., & Ateş, S. (2016). The effect of process-based writing focused on metacognitive skills-oriented to fourth grade students’ narrative writing skill. Education and Science, 41(187), 137-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2016.6752
12. Kellog, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective journal of writing research. Department of Psychology, Saint Louis University.
13. Kutlu, Ö., Doğan, C.D., & Karakaya, İ. (2010). Determining student success. (3rd Ed.). Ankara: Pegem Academy Publishing.
14. Kutluca Canbulat, A.N. (2020). Adaptation of writing feedback scale to Turkish. International Journal of Languages’ Education and Teaching. 8(1), 20-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/ijlet.41766
15. Lovorn, M. G., & Rezaei, A. R. (2011). Assessing the assessment: Rubrics training for pre-service and new in-service teachers. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 16(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.7275/sjt6-5k13
16. Özdamar, K. (1999). Paket programlarla istatistiksel veri analizi-1 (Statistical data analysis by custom softwares-1). Kaan Kitabevi.
17. Özsoy, G. (2008). Üstbiliş. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi. 6(4), 713-740. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/tebd/issue/26110/275094
18. Özsoy, G., Ataman, A. (2009). The effect of metacognitive strategy training on mathematical problem- solving achievement. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 1(2), 67-82. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED508334.pdf
19. Özsoy, G., Memiş, A., & Temur, T. (2017). Metacognition, study habits and attitudes. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2(1), 154-166. https://www.iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE/article/view/263
20. Özsoy, G., & Günindi, Y. (2011). Prospective preschool teachers’ metacognitive awareness. Primary Education Online, 10(2), 430-440. https://www.ilkogretim-online.org/fulltext/218-1596869645.pdf?1640594505
21. Penner-Williams, J., Smith, T. E., & Gartin, B. C. (2009). Written language expression: Assessment instruments and teacher tools. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34(3), 162-169. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1534508408318805
22. Pressley, M., Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2006). The state of educational intervention research as viewed through the lens of literacy intervention. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X66035
23. Raykov, T., & Grayson, D. (2003) A test for change of composite reliability in scale development. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 38(2), 143-159. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3802_1
24. Raykov, T. (1998). Coefficient alpha and composite reliability with interrelated nonhomogeneous items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22(4), 375-385. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/014662169802200407
25. Ross-Fisher, R.L. (2005). Developing effective success rubrics. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 41 (3), 131-135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2005.10518823
26. Schraw, G. (1994). The effect of knowledge on local and global monitoring. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 143-154. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1013
27. Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational psychology review, 7(4), 351-371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02212307 Tomkins, M. (2003). Trouble comes in threes. Times Educational Supplement, 4547 (2003), 23-23.
28. Uyumaz, G., & Çokluk, Ö. (2016). An investigation of item order and rating differences in likert-type scales in terms of psychometric properties and attitudes of respondents. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 9(3), 400-425. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/akukeg/issue/29363/314180
29. Ülper, H., & Uzun, L. (2009). Effect of writing education programs prepared according to cognitive process model on success of students. Primary Education Online, 8(3), 651-665.
30. Ülper, H. (2008). The effects of teaching writing program prepared in accordance with cognitive process model on student achievement. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Ankara University.
31. Young, A., & Fry, J. D. (2008). Metacognitive awareness and academic achievement in college students. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 1-10. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ854832
32. Zorbaz, K. Z. (2010). The relationship between middle school student’s writing apprehension and blocking with their written expression skills [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Gazi University.