Dijital Yazma Uygulamalarında Dijital Çeviri ve İncelemeye Yönelik Bakış Açıları: Öğretmen Adaylarının Görüşleri

Year 2025, Issue: 58, 12 - 28, 08.09.2025

Erman Uzun

https://doi.org/10.33418/education.1599817

Abstract

Dijital dönüşüm, öğretmen eğitimindeki yazma uygulamalarını temelden yeniden şekillendirmiştir. Dijital yazma, eğitim ortamlarında etkili iletişim için gerekli temel bir yeterlilik haline gelmiştir. Dijital yazma becerilerine hakim olmak, öğretmen adaylarına dijital araçları kullanabilme ve bunlardan faydalanabilme yetkinliği kazandırarak öğretim kalitesini ve öğrenci katılımını artırmaktadır. Bununla birlikte, öğretmen adayları temel dijital yazma becerilerini geliştirmede önemli zorluklarla karşılaşmaktadır. Dijital Yazma Ölçeği ve yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yoluyla elde edilen verilere dayanan bu karma yöntemli araştırma, dijital yazmanın bileşenleri olan dijital çeviri (digital translating) ve dijital inceleme (digital reviewing) süreçlerini kapsayacak şekilde, Mersin Üniversitesi öğretmen adaylarının dijital yazma becerilerine yönelik bakış açılarını incelemektedir. Açımlayıcı Karma Yöntem yaklaşımıyla gerçekleştirilen çalışma, 118 katılımcıdan elde edilen nicel veriler ile 10 öğretmen adayıyla yapılan görüşmelerden sağlanan nitel verileri birleştirerek demografik faktörler, akademik çalışma alanları ve sistematik eksikliklerin öğretmenlerin dijital yazma becerilerini nasıl etkilediğini ortaya koymaktadır. Araştırmada demografik karşılaştırmalar için Mann-Whitney U ve Kruskal-Wallis H testleriyle nicel analizler; görüşme verilerinin bağlamsal analizi ile ise nitel analizler uygulanmıştır. Bulgular, dijital yazmaya yönelik bakış açılarının akademik bölümler arasında anlamlı farklılık gösterdiğini, ancak diğer demografik değişkenlerin anlamlı bir etkisinin olmadığını ortaya çıkarmıştır. Nitel analiz sonuçları ise branşa özgü atölye çalışmaları, uygulamaya yönelik görevlerin entegrasyonu, kaynaklara erişimin iyileştirilmesi, akran iş birliğinin ve öğretim elemanı rehberliğinin desteklenmesi ile sürekli mesleki gelişimin teşvik edilmesi gibi ihtiyaçları vurgulamaktadır. Bu bulgular, öğretmen eğitimi programlarının geleceğin sınıflarında dijital yazma konusunda öğretmen adaylarını daha etkin biçimde hazırlamasına yönelik dijital dönüşümün daha iyi anlaşılmasına katkı sağlamaktadır.

Keywords

Dijital yazma , Dijital çeviri , Dijital inceleme , Öğretmen adayı eğitimi , Dijital dönüşüm

Perspectives on Digital Translating and Reviewing in Digital Writing Practices: Insights from Pre-Service Teachers

Abstract

Digital transformation has fundamentally reshaped writing practices in teacher education. Digital writing turns to be a core competency necessary for effective communication in educational settings. Mastery of digital writing practices empowers pre-service teachers to navigate and leverage digital tools, enhancing both teaching quality and student engagement. However, pre-service teachers face significant challenges in developing essential digital writing skills. Based on data collected through digital writing scale and semi-structured interviews, this mixed method study examines the perspectives of pre-service teachers in Mersin University regarding digital writing including its components, namely digital translating and digital reviewing. Through an Explanatory Mixed Method approach, this study integrates quantitative data from 118 participants and qualitative insights from 10 interviews with representatives, showing how demographic factors, academic fields of study, and systemic gaps impact teachers’ digital writing skills. The study employed both quantitative analyses using Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis H tests for demographic comparisons, and qualitative contextual analysis of interview data. The findings revealed significant differences in digital writing perspectives across academic departments, while other demographic variables showed no significant impact. Qualitative analysis identified the need for discipline-specific workshops, integration of practical tasks, improved access to resources, supporting peer collaboration and faculty mentorship, and supporting continuous professional development to support teacher educator programs. These findings contribute to digital transformation by understanding how teacher education programs can better prepare pre-service teachers for digital writing in their future classrooms.

Keywords

Digital writing , Digital translating , Digital reviewing , Pre-service teacher education , Digital transformation

Ethical Statement

Ethics committee approval was obtained from Mersin University, Social and Human Sciences Ethics Committee (Date: 11.06.2024, Number: 188)

References

• Akoto, M. (2021). Collaborative multimodal writing via Google docs: perceptions of french FL learners. Languages, 6(3), 140. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages6030140
• Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2013). Writing instruction that works: Proven methods for middle and high school classrooms. Teachers College Press.
• Atabek, O. (2020). Development and validation of digital writing scale for preservice teachers. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 14(2), 119-139.
• Baker, S., & Lastrapes, R. (2019). The writing performance of elementary students using a digital writing application. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 16(4), 343-362. https://doi.org/10.1108/itse-08-2018-0057
• Bawden, D. (2008). Origins and concepts of digital literacy. In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (Eds.), Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices (pp. 17-32). Peter Lang.
• Bazerman, C., Applebee, A. N., Berninger, V., Brandt, D., Graham, S., Matsuda, P. K., Murphy, S., Rowe, D. W., Schleppegrell, M. J., & K. W. Wilcox (2018). The lifespan development of writing. National Council of Teachers of English. https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/books/lifespan-writing/development.pdf
• Boettger, R. (2014). Explicitly teaching five technical genres to English first-language adults in a multi-major technical writing course. Journal of Writing Research, 6(1), 29-59.
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
• Brandt, D. (2015). The rise of writing: Redefining mass literacy. Cambridge University Press.
• Bywater, M. E. (2013). The impact of writing: ancient and modern views on the role of early writing systems within society and as a part of 'civilisation'. [Master’s thesis, UCL University College London].
• Castillo-Martinez, I., & Ramirez-Montoya, M. (2021). Research competencies to develop academic reading and writing: a systematic literature review. Frontiers in Education, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.576961
• Ching, K. (2018). Tools matter: Mediated writing activity in alternative digital environments. Written Communication, 35(3), 344-375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088318773741
• Cochran-Smith, M., Villegas, A. M., Abrams, L. W., Chavez-Moreno, L. C., Mills, T., & Stern, R. (2016). Research on teacher preparation: Charting the landscape of a sprawling field. In D. Gitomer & C. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 439–546). AERA. https://doi.org/10.3102/978-0-935302-48-6_7
• Crego, J., Xu, J., & Yvon, F. (2023). Bisync: a bilingual editor for synchronized monolingual texts. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3, 369–376, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-demo.35
• Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Davies, J., & Merchant, G. (2014). New literacies around the globe: Policy and pedagogy. Routledge.
• De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (2002). Explicitly teaching strategies, skills, and knowledge: Writing instruction in middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 687-698. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.687
• Deiniatur, M. (2024). Digital literacy practices of novice english as a foreign language teacher in writing research articles for publication. Journal of Education and Learning, 18(1), 165-172. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v18i1.20899
• Driscoll, A., Holland, B., Gelmon, S., & Kerrigan, S. (1996). An assessment model for service-learning: Comprehensive case studies of impact on faculty, students, community, and institutions. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 3, 66-71.
• Etikan, İ., Musa, S., & Alkassim, R. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
• Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
• 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
• Graham, S. (2019). Changing how writing is taught. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 277-303. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821125
• Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445-476. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445
• Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2019). Evidence-based practices in writing. In Graham, Steve, C. A. MacArthur, & M. Hebert (Eds.). Best practices in writing instruction (pp. 3-28). Guildford Press.
• Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling writing and writing processes. Written Communication, 29(3), 369-388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312451260
• Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Jenkins, H., Ito, M., & Boyd, D. (2016). Participatory culture in a networked era: A conversation on youth, learning, commerce, and politics. Polity Press.
• Kalir, J., & Garcia, A. (2019). Civic writing on digital walls. Journal of Literacy Research, 51(4), 420-443. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296x19877208
• Kallio, H., Pietilä, A.-M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954-2965. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031
• Kellogg, R. T., & Whiteford, A. P. (2012). The development of writing expertise. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(2), 74-83. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266
• Kempenaar, L., & Murray, R. (2018). Widening access to writing support: beliefs about the writing process are key. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(8), 1109-1119. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877x.2018.1450964
• Kessler, G. (2018). Technology and the future of language teaching. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 205-218. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12318
• Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., & Graham, C. R. (2013). The technological pedagogical content knowledge framework. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 101-111). Springer.
• Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies: Everyday practices and social learning (3rd ed.). Open University Press.
• Lee, I. (2014). Teachers’ reflection on implementation of innovative feedback approaches in efl writing. English Teaching, 69(1), 23-40. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.69.1.201403.23
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
• Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821125
• Nabhan, S. (2021). Pre-service teachers’ conceptions and competences on digital literacy in an efl academic writing setting. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v11i1.34628
• Ng, W. (2012) Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives’ digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065-1078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.016
• Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
• Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Pigg, S., Grabill, J., Brunk-Chavez, B., Moore, J., Rosinski, P., & Curran, P. (2013). Ubiquitous writing, technologies, and the social practice of literacies of coordination. Written Communication, 31(1), 91-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313514023
• Rahim, F., Kher, D., & Harisman, Y. (2023). Professional competence enhancement of high school teachers through scientific paper writing training. Lectura Jurnal Pendidikan, 14(2), 432-443. https://doi.org/10.31849/lectura.v14i2.15176
• Ramadhanti, R. (2023). Challenges, strategies, and digital media use in writing research articles: a study of efl postgraduate students. Scope Journal of English Language Teaching, 8(1), 167. https://doi.org/10.30998/scope.v8i1.17385
• Richardson, W., & Mancabelli, R. (2011). Personal learning networks: Using the power of connections to transform education. Solution Tree Press.
• Rowsell, J., & Walsh, M. (2011). Rethinking Literacy Education in New Times: Multimodality, Multiliteracies, & New Literacies. Brock Education Journal, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.26522/brocked.v21i1.236
• Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Saleh, A., & Bista, K. (2017). Examining factors impacting online survey response rates in educational research: perceptions of graduate students. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 13(29), 63-74. https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v13i29.487
• Samoylenko, N. (2019). Foreign language educational platforms for foreign language professional communication teaching. Naukovì Zapiski Nacìonalʹnogo Unìversitetu, 8(76), 137-140. https://doi.org/10.25264/2519-2558-2019-8(76)-137-140
• Selwyn, N. (2011). Education and technology: Key issues and debates. Bloomsbury Academic.
• Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. SAGE Publications.
• Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Baran, E. (2017). Enhancing pre-service teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A mixed-method study. Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 110-122.