Opinions of 5th Grade Students about Writing to Learn Activity and Use of Multi-Modal Representations Embedded Writing to Learn Activities

Yıl 2020, , 590 - 605, 31.12.2020

Esra Kabataş Memiş , Muhittin Öz

https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.641249

Öz

The aim of this study is to present the views of 5th-grade students who participated in the study about writing to learn (WL) activities, and the use of multi-modal representations (MMR) embedded WL activities. Quasi-experimental design as the quantitative research method and semi-structured interviews as the qualitative method were adopted in the study. Experimental and control groups were randomly selected. Instructions were distributed to help students for WL activities. The most basic discrepancy between the distributed instructions was the request of using MMR for the students in the experimental group. Except for this difference, all criteria in instructions are the same for both groups. End of the units, students explained units to their peers with WL activity. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 volunteer students from six experimental, six control groups about writing activities. In these interviews, statements were coded, themes were identified. These themes; “use of representation,” “writing activity”, “benefits to the student,” and “desire to do homework again.” The students who participated interview stated that they were learning by doing WL and planning before writing. Unlike the control group, experimental group students stated that using MMR was embedded in WL activities to help them define representations and provide clarity and meaning.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Writing to learn, Multi-Modal representations, 5th-grade students

Öğrenme Amaçlı Yazma Aktivitesi ve Öğrenme Amaçlı Yazma Aktivitelerinde Çoklu Modsal Betimleme Kullanımına Yönelik 5. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Görüşleri

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, çalışmaya katılan
beşinci sınıf öğrencilerinin öğrenme amaçlı yazma (ÖAY)  aktivitelerine ve öğrenme amaçlı yazma
(ÖAY)  aktivitelerinde çoklu modsal
betimleme (ÇMB) kullanımına yönelik görüşlerini ortaya koymaktır. Bu amaç için
nicel araştırma yöntemi olarak yarı deneysel, nitel araştırma yöntemi olarak
yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yapılmıştır. Deney ve kontrol grubu rastgele
seçilmiştir. Her iki grup için iki farklı üniteye
yönelik ÖAY aktivitesi gerçekleştirmişleri hedeflenmiştir. Öğrencilere
yardımcı olması amacıyla onlara yazma aktivitesine dair yönergeler
dağıtılmıştır. Deney ve kontrol grubuna dağıtılan yönergeler arasındaki en
temel farklılık deney grubundaki öğrencilerden ÇMB kullanımının talep edilmesi
olmuştur. Bu farklılık dışında yönergelerdeki bütün ölçütler her iki grup için
aynıdır. Ünitelerin tamamlanmasıyla öğrenciler özet yazma tipini kullanarak
ünitede yer alan konuları akranlarına anlatmışlardır. Yapılan yazma
aktivitelerine dair 6’ sı deney ve 6’ sı kontrol grubundan 12 gönüllü
öğrenciyle yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yapılmıştır. Bu görüşmelerdeki
ifadeler kodlanmış ve temalar belirlenmiştir. Bu temalar; “betimleme
kullanımı”, “yazma aktivitesi”, “öğrenciye faydaları” ve “ödevi yeniden yapma
isteği” olmuştur. Görüşme yapılan öğrenciler ÖAY yaparak öğrenme
gerçekleştirdiklerini, yazma yapmadan önce planlama yaptıklarını
belirtmişlerdir. Deney grubundaki öğrenciler kontrol grubundan farklı olarak
yazma aktivitelerinde ÇMB kullanmanın onların betimlemeleri ayırt etmelerini,
betimleme kullanmanın açıklık ve anlam bütünlüğü sağladığını belirtmişlerdir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

çoklu modsal betimlemeler, Öğrenme amaçlı yazma,, 5. sınıf öğrenciler

Kaynakça

• Bennett, W. D. (2011). Multimodal representation contributes to the complex development of science literacy in a college biology class. The University of Iowa.
• Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
• Blown, E., & Bryce, T. G. (2010). Conceptual coherence revealed in multi‐modal representations of astronomy knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 32(1), 31-67.
• 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), 386-391.
• Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. Sage Open,4(1), 2158244014522633.
• Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28, 122-128.
• Flower, L. & Hayes, J.R. (1980) The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem, College Composition and Communication, 31, 21–32.
• Flower, L. & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College composition and communication, 365-387.
• Fry, S. W., & Villagomez, A. (2012). Writing to learn: Benefits and limitations.College Teaching, 60(4), 170-175.
• Galbraith, D. (2009). Cognitive models of writing. German as a foreign language, (2-3), 7-22.
• Galbraith,D.,Rijlaarsdam,G.(1999). Effective strategies fort he teaching and learning of writing. Learning and Instruction 9,93-108.
• Galbraith, D., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1999). Effective strategies for the teaching and learning of writing. Learning and instruction, 9(2), 93-108.
• Grimberg, B. I., & Hand, B. (2009). Cognitive pathways: Analysis of students' written texts for science understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 503-521.
• Günel ,M., Uzoğlu, M., ve Büyükkasap, E. (2009a). Öğrenme amaçlı yazma aktivitelerinin kullanımının ilköğretim seviyesinde kuvvet konusunu öğrenmeye etkisi. GÜ, Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 29 (1), 379-399.
• Hand, B., & Prain, V. (1996). Writing for Learning in Science: A Model for Use within Classrooms. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 42(3), 23-27.
• Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). Teachers implementing writing‐to‐learn strategies in junior secondary science: A case study. Science Education, 86(6), 737-755.
• Hand, B., Hohenshell, L., & Prain, V. (2004). Exploring students' responses to conceptual questions when engaged with planned writing experiences: A study with year 10 science students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(2), 186-210.
• Hand, B., Alvermann, D., Gee, J., Guzzetti, B., Norris, S., Phillips, L., Prain, V. & Yore, L. (2003). Message from the “Island Group”: What is literacy in science literacy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 607–615
• Hohenshell, M. L. & Hand, B., 2006. Writing-to-learn strategies in secondary school cell biology: A mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), 261-289.
• Jagger, S. L., & Yore, L. D. (2012). Mind the gap: Looking for evidence-based practice of science literacy for all in science teaching journals. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(6), 559-577.
• Kabataş Memiş, E. (2015). İlköğretim 7. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin “Kuvvet Ve Hareket” Ünitesini Öğrenmelerine Betimleme Modlarını Kullanmalarının Etkisi. Çukurova üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 44(1)
• Klein, P. D. (1999a). Learning science through writing: The role of rhetorical structures. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 45, 132–153.
• Klein, P. D. (1999b). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11, 203–270
• Klein, P. D. (2000). Elementary students' strategies for writing-to-learn in science. Cognition and Instruction, 18(3), 317-348.
• MEB (2013). İlköğretim kurumları fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı. Ankara: Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
• MEB (2013a). İlköğretim kurumları (ilkokullar ve ortaokullar) fen bilimleri dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı.
• MEB (2017). İlköğretim kurumları fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı taslağı. Ankara: Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
• Norris, S.P. & Phillips, L.M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.
• Okçu, B. (2011). İlköğretim 2. kademe öğrencilerinin modsal betimlemeleri algılayabilme ve kullanabilme yeterliliklerini ölçebilmek amacıyla ölçek geliştirme ve bu ölçek ile öğrencilerin modsal betimlemelere dair düzeylerini belirleme. Yayınlanmış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Erzurum.
• Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1999). Students’ perceptions of writing for learning in secondary school science. Science Education, 83(2), 151-162.
• Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2006). An exploratory study of teachers’ and students’ use of multi‐modal representations of concepts in primary science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1843-1866.
• Robertson, I. J. (2004). Assessing the quality of undergraduate education students' writing about learning and teaching science. International Journal of Science Education, 26(9), 1131-1149.
• Sohn, K., Shang, W., & Lee, H. (2014). Improved multimodal deep learning with variation of information. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems(pp. 2141-2149).
• Taylor, J. A., & McDonald, C. (2007). Writing in groups as a tool for non-routine problem solving in first year university mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 38(5), 639-655.
• 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.
• Van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G., Janssen, T., Braaksma, M., Van Weijen, D., & Tillema, M. (2009). Process Execution of Writing and Reading: Considering text quality, learner and task characteristics. Quality research in literacy and science education, 399-425.
• Waldrip, B., Prain, V., & Carolan, J. (2006). Learning junior secondary science through multi-modal representations. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 11(1).
• 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, 105–122.
• Yore, L. D., Florence, M. K., Pearson, T. W., & Weaver, A. J. (2006). Written discourse in scientific communities: A conversation with two scientists about their views of science, use of language, role of writing in doing science, and compatibility between their epistemic views and language. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 109-141.