Yıl 2021, Cilt 22 , Sayı 1, Sayfalar 276 - 298 2021-04-30

The Effects of Revising with Feedback on Second and Third Grade Students’ Story Writing Performances
Gözden Geçirme ve Dönütün 2. ve 3. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Öykü Yazma Başarılarına Etkisi

Demet SEBAN [1]


According to process-based writing education, writing consists of sequential steps such as planning, drafting, and revising. Although all stages in the process based writing contribute raising the quality of writing the revision step is seen crucial. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of revision with feedback on the writing quality of small moment stories written by elementary students who were educated using process oriented writing approach. 29 students’ first and final drafts written in their second and third year of schooling were analyzed in terms of ideas, organization, voice, word choice, sentence fluency and conventions. The analysis indicated that there were statistically significant differences in students’ pre and post-scores in both second and third grade. The pre and post scores of students also indicated that students showed significant progress in six-trait of writing. According to the results of this study, effective use of evaluative feedback to improve students' written expression skills is important. In addition, this process will provide students with the ability to evaluate texts they have written at an early age. This will contribute to their success in conveying their thoughts through text when they are at upper grades.
Süreç temelli yazma eğitimine göre yazma; planlama, taslak oluşturma ve gözden geçirme gibi sıralı adımlardan oluşur. Başarılı bir metin oluşturmaya süreç içerisindeki tüm aşamaların etkisi olmasına karşın gözden geçirme basamağı önemli bir değişken olarak görülmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, süreç temelli yazma eğitiminin gözden geçirme basamağında kullanın dönütün öğrencilerin öykü yazma başarılarına etkisini araştırmaktır. Süreç temelli yazma eğitimi esaslarına göre planlanmış bir yazma programı ile öğretim yapılan 29 öğrencinin hem 2. sınıfta hem de 3. sınıfta yazdıkları taslak ve bitmiş öyküler fikir, organizasyon, ses, kelime seçimi, cümlelerin akıcılığı ve dilbilgisi alanlarında istatistiksel yöntemler kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Öğrencilerin hem 2. hem de 3. sınıfta ilk yazdıkları taslak metinlerden ve değerlendirici dönüt aldıktan sonra düzelttikleri metinlerden aldıkları toplam puanlar arasında anlamlı farklılık bulgulanmıştır. Öğrencilerin her bir kategoride de başarı gösterdikleri belirlenmiştir. Bu çalışmanın sonuçlarına göre, değerlendirici dönütün öğrencilerin yazılı anlatım becerilerini geliştirmek için etkin kullanımı önemlidir. Ayrıca, bu süreç erken yaşta öğrencilere yazdıkları metinleri değerlendirebilme becerisi kazandıracaktır. Bu durum sonraki sınıflarda metin aracılığı ile düşüncelerini aktarma konusundaki başarılarına katkıda bulunacaktır.
  • Andrade, H., Wang, X., Du, Y. & Akawi, R. (2009). Rubric-referenced self-assessment and self-efficacy for writing. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(4), 287-302. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.102.4.287-302
  • Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: New understandings about writing, reading, and learning (2. baskı). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
  • Bayraktar, A. (2012). Teaching writing through teacher-student writing conferences. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51, 709-713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.229
  • Boscolo, P. & Ascorti, K. (2004). Effects of collaborative revision on children’s ability to write understandable narrative text. L. Allal, L. Chanquoy & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (ss. 157–170). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Pub.
  • Calkins, L. (1994). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
  • Calkins, L. (2011). A curricular plan for the writing workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4. baskı). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
  • Cunningham, P. M. & Cunnigham, J. W. (2010). What really matters in writing. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth-graders. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
  • Flower, L. & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.
  • Gunning, T. G. (2012). Creating literacy instruction for all students. New Jersey, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
  • Graham, S., Harris, K. & Hebert, M. A. (2011). Informing writing: The benefits of formative assessment. A Carnegie Corporation Time to Act report. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
  • Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmounth, NH: Heinemann.
  • Kaya, B. & Ateş, S. (2016). Üstbilişsel beceri odaklı yazma süreçlerinin dördüncü sınıf öğrencilerinin hikâye yazma becerisine etkisi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 41(187), 137-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2016.6752
  • Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing Process: A model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal, 44(4), 294-304. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/44.4.294
  • Konold, H. E., Miller, S. P. & Konold, K. B. (2004). Using teacher feedback to enhance student learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(6), 64–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990403600608
  • Koster, M., Tribushinina, E., de Jong, P. F. & van den Bergh, H. (2015). Teaching children to write: A meta-analysis of writing intervention research. Journal of Writing Research 7(2), 249-274. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2015.07.02.2
  • Limpo, T., Alves, R. A. & Fidalgo, R. (2014). Children’s high-level writing skills: Development of planning and revising and their contribution to writing quality. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12020
  • Macarthur, C. A., Graham, S. & Fitzgerald, J. ( 2006). Handbook of writing research. New York: The Guilford Press.
  • Matsumura, L. C., Patthey-Chavez, G. G., Valdes, R. & Garnier, H. (2002). Teacher feedback, writing assignment quality, and third-grade students' revision in lower-and higher-achieving urban schools. The Elementary School Journal, 103(1), 3-25. https://doi.org/10.1086/499713
  • M.E.B. (2015). Türkçe dersi (1-8. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
  • Nickel, J. (2001). When writing conferences don't work: Students' retreat from teacher agenda. Language Arts, 79(2), 136-147.
  • Olson, V. L. B. (1990). The revising processes of sixth-grade writers with and without peer feedback. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 22–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1990.10885987
  • Paquette, K. R. (2009). Integrating the 6+1 writing traits model with cross-age tutoring: An investigation of elementary students’ writing development. Literacy Research and Instruction, 48, 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070802226261
  • Peterson, S. S. (2010). Improving student writing: Using feedback as a teaching tool. Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat Monograph, 29, 1-4.
  • Peterson, S. S. & Portier, C. (2014). Grade one peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Education 3-13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 42(3), 237-257. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2012.670256
  • Rosenthall, B. D. (2006). Improving elementary-age children’s writing fluency: A comparison of improvement based on performance feedback frequency. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.
  • Silver, R. & Lee, S. (2007). What does it take to make a change? Teacher feedback and student revisions. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 6 (1), 25-49.
  • Smith, C. B. (2003). Successful use of the six traits in writing (Rapor No. TBC-03005). ERIC Topical Bibliography and Commentary. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED481235).
  • Smith, S. (1997). The genre of the end comment: Conventions in teacher responses to student writing. College Composition and Communication, 48 (2), 249-268. https://doi.org/10.2307/358669
  • Spandel, V. (1996). Seeing with New Eyes: A Guidebook on Teaching and Assessing Beginning Writers. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
  • Stern, L. A. & Solomon, A. (2006). Effective faculty feedback: The road less traveled. Assessing Writing,11, 22-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2005.12.001
  • Straub, R. (1996). The concept of control in teacher response: Defining the varieties of “directive” and “facilitative” commentary. College Composition and Communication,47(2), 223-251. https://doi.org/10.2307/358794
  • Tompkins, G. E. & Collom, S. (2004). Sharing the pen: Interactive writing with young children. New Jersey: Pearson.
  • Tompkins, G. E. (2005). Language arts: Pattern of practice. New Jersey, NJ: Pearson.
  • Tompkins, G. E. (2007). Literacy for the 21st century: Teaching reading and writing in prekindergarten through grade 4. New Jersey: Pearson.
  • Willis, S. (2001). Teaching young writers feedback and coaching helps students hone skills. C. Jago (Ed.), Language arts: A chapter of the curriculum handbook (pp. 125-129). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Birincil Dil tr
Konular Eğitim, Eğitim Araştırmaları
Bölüm Araştırma Makaleleri
Yazarlar

Orcid: 0000-0002-9319-0530
Yazar: Demet SEBAN (Sorumlu Yazar)
Kurum: ALANYA ALAADDİN KEYKUBAT ÜNİVERSİTESİ
Ülke: Turkey


Tarihler

Başvuru Tarihi : 2 Aralık 2020
Kabul Tarihi : 23 Mart 2021
Yayımlanma Tarihi : 30 Nisan 2021

APA Seban, D . (2021). Gözden Geçirme ve Dönütün 2. ve 3. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Öykü Yazma Başarılarına Etkisi . Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi , 22 (1) , 276-298 . Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kefad/issue/60452/834391