Writing approaches of student teachers of English

Öz

 

Complex and multifaceted nature of writing has led the study of writing to fall into wider frameworks of analysis. "The approaches to writing framework" (Biggs, 1988; Lavelle, 1993) presents a different perspective based on the notion that strategies used by the writers are determined by deep or surface level approaches The aim of this study is to investigate students’ conception of writing within the writing approach framework as deep and surface processes. The research was conducted in a Turkish university with 78 final-year student teachers enrolled in English language teaching department. Students’ deep and surface level writing approaches were measured through the Inventory of Processes in College Composition (IPIC) developed by Lavelle (1993, 1997). 13 participants were interviewed to further investigate their experiences of writing and thus to check whether qualitative data would provide support for the deep and surface approach measured by the inventory. The study provided support for the cross cultural validity of the IPIC applied to a sample of Turkish learner population.The results of the study indicated that majority of the student teachers had deep writing approaches in English language. It was also found out that more female learners tended to have deep approach in their writing compared to male learners. The results of the study may help teachers and curriculum planners in the design of writing environment and development of writing practices. Diagnosing surface approach among learners as a weakness may help teachers to direct their learners’ attention to deep processes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Keywords: Writing approaches; academic writing; deep approach; surface approach, student teachers of English

Kaynakça

1. Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
2. Biggs, J. B. (1988). Approaches to learning and essay writing. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 185-228). New York: Plenum.
3. Biggs, J. B. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Balmoor Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
4. Biggs, J.B., Lai, P., Tang, C., & Lavelle, E. (1999). The effect of graduate workshop on graduate students writing in English as a second language. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69,
5. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6. Dyson, A. H. (1987). Individual differences I beginning composing. Written Communication, 4, 414- 442.
7. Christina, J. E., Kirby, J. R. & Fabrina, L. R. (2003). Approaches to learning, need for cognition, and strategic flexibility among university students. British Educational Psychology, 73, 507-528.
8. Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

9. Entwistle, N. J. (1988). Motivational factors in students’ approaches to learning. In R.R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 21–51). New York: Plenum Press.
10. Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. New York: Nichols Publishing.
11. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1979). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 37, 365-377.
12. Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 39-50.
13. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1997). Self regulation and writing: Where do we go from here? Contemprory Educational Psychology, 22, 102-114.
14. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2000). The role of self regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 3-12.
15. Graves, D. (1973). An examination of the writing processes of seven year-old children. Research in the Teaching of English, 9, 227-241.
16. Hounsell, D. (1997). Learning and essay writing. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (pp. 103-123). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
17. Howie, P. & Bagnall, R. (2013). A critique of the deep and surface approaches to learning model. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(4), 389-400.
18. Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching writing. London: Pearson Education Limited.
19. Kırkgöz , Y. (2013). Students’ approaches to learning in an English-medium higher education. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 2, 30-39.
20. Lavelle, E. (1993). Development and validation of an inventory to assess processes in college composition. British journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 489-499.
21. Lavelle, E. (1997). Writing style and narrative essay. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 475-482.
22. Lavelle, E., & Bushrow, K. (2007). Writing approaches of graduate students. Educational Psychology, 27(6), 807-822.
23. Lavelle, E., & Guarino, A. J. (2003). A multidimensional approach to understanding college writing processes. Educational Psychology, 23(3), 295-305.
24. Lavelle, E., Smith, J., & O’Ryan, L. (2002). The writing approaches of secondary students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 399-418.
25. Lavelle, E., & Zuercher, N. (2001). Writing approaches of university students. Higher Education, 40,
26. Marton, F. & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning. II: Outcome as a function of the learners’ conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115-127.
27. McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 299-325.
28. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.T., & Kong, C. K. (2002). Multilevel causal ordering of academic self-concept and achievement: Influence of language and instruction (English compared with Chinese) for Hong Kong students. American Educational Research Journal, 39(3), 727-763.
29. Meier, S., McCarthy, P., & Schmeck, R. R. (1984). Validity of self efficacy as a predictor of writing performance, Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8, 107-120.
30. Nystrand, M., Greene, S. & Wiemelt, J. (1993). Where did composition studies come from? An intellectual history. Written Communication, 10, 267-333.
31. Pajares, F., & Johnson, M. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs and the writing performance of entering high school students. Psychology in the Schools, 33, 163-175.
32. Prat-Sala, M., & Redford, P. (2010). The interplay between motivation, self-efficacy, and approaches to studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 283-305.
33. Ramsden P., Entwistle, N. J. (1981). Effects of academic departments on students’ approaches to studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 383-386.
34. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1982). Assimilated process in composition planning. Educational Psychologist, 17, 10-24.
35. Schmeck, R. R. (1988). Learning strategies and learning styles. New York: Plenum.
36. Schmeck, R. R., Geisler-Brenstein, E., & Cercy, S. P. (1991). Self-concept and learning: The revised inventory of learning processses. Educational Psychology, 11, 343-362.
37. Senemoğlu, N. (2011). College of education students’ approaches to learning and study skills. Education and Science, 36(160), 65-80.
38. Smith, D., Campbell, J., & Brooker, R. (1999). The impact of students’ approaches to essay writing on the quality of their essays. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(3), 327-338.
39. Torrence, M., Thomas, G. V., & Robinson, E., J. (1994). The writing strategies of graduate research students in the social sciences. Higher Education, 27, 379-392.
40. Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845-862.
41. Zimmerman, B., & Kitsantas, S. (1999). Acquiring writing revision skills: Shifting from process to outcome self-regulatory goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 241-250.
42. İngilizce öğretmen adaylarının yazma ile ilgili yaklaşımları