A Measurement Tool for Repeated Measurement of Assessment of University Students’ Writing Skill: Development and Evaluation

Abstract

This study summarizes the development and the application of a four-week repeated assessment scale that was designed to measure the advanced writing skills of college students. The storyline was written by the first author and required respondents to write one or more sentences to the given developing storyline of the week. Each week’s narrative was written to tell a part of a story that integrates into a single storyline over the weeks. For the application, each week, the respondents from a volunteered sample of 74 were asked 1) to write to a continuation to the developing storyline of the week (the instruction stated that this was the first or the second or the third or the last part of the storyline) and 2) to rate their overall mood that week (1 to 5, 5 indicating a great mood). Writings of the students (responses) were then coded by multiple raters with respect to three subskill components; namely expression, aesthetics, and creativity. The hypothesized tie between the fluctuations observed in the sense of well-being and the writing performance of the students over the weeks and whether and to what extent the creativity subcomponent was more subject to the influence of student’s mood changes when compared to the clarity of expression or the aesthetics subskill. However, the results show that when the changes in writing performances of the whole group were examined instead of that of individuals over time, there were no significant differences to be found. It is recommended that it might be more useful than the classical one-shot assessment design.

Keywords

• longitudinal study,longitudinal measurement tool,expression skill,perception of aesthetics,creativity skill

References

1. Akyüz, E., & Doğan, Ö. (2017). Ev okuryazarlık ortamı: Tanımları, boyutları ve kendiliğinden ortaya çıkan okuryazarlık becerilerinin gelişimindeki rolü. H.Ü. Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(3), 38-57. Retrieved from http://static.dergipark.org.tr/article-download/f05d/90fc/2b9b/5a44d125671b5.pdf?
2. Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Mhatre, K. H. (2008). A call for longitudinal research in positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 29(5), 705-711. doi: 10.1002/job.517
3. Borgonovi, F., & Pál, J. (2016). A framework for the analysis of student well-being in the PISA 2015 study. Paris: OECD Publishing.
4. Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
5. Butler, D. L., & Schnellert, L. (2012). Collaborative inquiry in teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(8), 1206-1220. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2012.07.009
6. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2010). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: PegemA Akademi.
7. Carini, P. F. (2001). Starting strong: A different look at children, schools, and standards. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
8. Çıralı, H. (2014). Dijital hikâye anlatımının görsel bellek ve yazma becerisi üzerine etkisi (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara). Erişim adresi: http://tez2.yok.gov.tr/

9. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2005). Research methods in education. (5th ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.
10. Comber, B., & Barnett, J. (Eds.). (2003). Look again: Longitudinal studies of children’s literacy learning. Newtown, Australia: Primary English Teaching Association.
11. Compton-Lilly, C. (2003). Reading families: The literate lives of urban children. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
12. Coşkun, E. (2013). Yazma becerisi. A. Kırkkılıç ve H. Akyol (Ed.), İlköğretimde Türkçe öğretimi içinde (ss. 49-91). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
13. Ekwall, E. E., & Shanker, J. L. (1993). Ekwall/Shanker reading inventory. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
14. European Commission. (2006). Report promoting cultural education in Europe: A contribution to participation, innovation and quality. Austrian Presidency.
15. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education. (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill International Edition.
16. Funder, D. C. (2006). Towards a resolution of the personality triad: Persons, situations, and behaviors. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 21-34. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.003
17. Horng, J. S., Hong, J. C., & Chanlin, L. J. (2005). Creative teachers and creative teaching strategies. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29(4), 352-358. doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005.00445.x
18. İlker, Ö., & Melekoğlu, M. A. (2017). İlköğretim döneminde özel öğrenme güçlüğü olan öğrencilerin yazma becerilerine ilişkin çalışmaların incelenmesi. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 18(3), 443-469. doi: 10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.318602
19. Kahraman, N., Akbaş, D., & Sözer, E. (2019). Bilişsel olmayan öğrenme durum ve süreçlerini ölçme ve değerlendirmede boylamsal yaklaşimlar: Duygu cetveli uygulamasi örneği. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(1), 257-269. doi: 10.17240/aibuefd.2019.19.43815-459831
20. Karadüz, A. (2010). Dil becerileri ve eleştirel düşünme. Turkish Studies 5(3), 1566-1593. doi: 10.7827/TurkishStudies.1572
21. Karasar, N. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. İstanbul: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
22. Kayri, M. (2009). Araştırmalarda gruplar arası farkın belirlenmesine yönelik çoklu karşılaştırma (post-hoc) teknikleri. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19(1), 51-64, http://web.firat.edu.tr/sosyalbil/dergi/arsiv/cilt19/sayi1/051-064.pdf adresinden edinilmiştir.
23. Kolcu, A. İ. (2013). Öykü sanatı. Erzurum: Salkımsöğüt Yayınları.
24. Lemke, J. (2005). Place, pace, and meaning: Multimedia chronotopes. In S. Norris & R. H. Jones (Eds.), Discourse in action: Introducing mediated discourse analysis (pp. 110-122). New York, NY: Routledge
25. Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2006). Qualitative reading inventory. Reading, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
26. Muthén, B. O., & Curran, P. J. (1997). General longitudinal modeling of individual differences in experimental designs: A latent variable framework for analysis and power estimation. Psychological Methods, 2(4), 371-402. Retrieved from https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-prevention-and-early-intervention/Publications/muthen.curran.1997.pdf
27. Mesleki Yeterlik Kurumundan; Türkiye Yeterlilikler Çerçevesine Dair Tebliğ. (Tebliğ No: 2015/1). Türkiye Yeterlilikler Çerçevesi. Resmî Gazete, 29581, 02.01.2016
28. Norris, F. H., Tracy, M., & Galea, S. (2009). Looking for resilience: Understanding the longitudinal trajectories of responses to stress. Social Science & Medicine, 68(12), 2190-2198. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.03.043
29. Oral, G. (2014). Yine yazı yazıyoruz. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
30. Richardson, G. M., & Liang, L. L. (2008). The use of inquiry in the development of preservice teacher efficacy in mathematics and science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20(1), 1-16. doi: 10.1007/BF03174699
31. Ülper, H. (2008). Bilişsel süreç modeline göre hazırlanan yazma öğretimi programının öğrenci başarısına etkisi (Doktora tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara). Erişim adresi: http://tez2.yok.gov.tr/
32. Werner, E. E. (2013). What can we learn about resilience from large-scale longitudinal studies? In S. Goldstein & R. B. Brooks (Eds.), Handbook of resilience in children (pp. 91-105). Boston, MA: Springer US
33. Wittgenstein L. (2004). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
34. Wittgenstein, L. (2005). Philosophical grammar. USA: University of California Press.
35. Wittgenstein, L. (2012). Philosophical investigations. UK: Blackwell Publishing.
36. Wittgenstein, L. (2014). Recherches philosophiques. Paris: Editions Gallimard.
37. Yakıcı, A., Yücel, M., Doğan, M., & Yelok, S. (2016). Yazılı anlatım üniversiteler için Türkçe-1. Ankara: Yargı Yayınevi.