The Role of Model Text Use in Writing Instruction

Öz

Writing is undoubtedly one of the most difficult skills to acquire in second language learning settings. Frequently, it is seen as an individual-based skill and considered to be a redundant and time-consuming skill, especially among state schools in Turkey. Most of the writing sections in course books are either totally left out or not studied enough. The purpose of this study is to share the findings of a classroom research study which aims to help students of a state university to overcome their problems in writing via model text use under the umbrella of cooperative learning. The study uses the mixed method and the sampling method benefitted is convenience-sampling. Students’ actual written works and their reflections on the process were used as main sources of data to capture the perceptions and thoughts of 22 students on whether model text use in writing instruction aids them to produce better writing. In addition, by processing the collected data, it was also measured whether there was a relationship between writing performance and gender. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data revealed that subjects of the study do better when they deal with the task by analyzing a model text of the same genre prior to actual writing. As for the relationship between gender and writing performance, no correlation was found between the two. Since the integration of model text use and cooperative learning approach during writing instruction remain largely unexplored in the field, this study will hopefully assist the ones interested in the issue.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Model Text Use
• Cooperative Learning
• L2 Writing

Kaynakça

1. Ahangari, S., &Samadian, Z. (2014). The effect of Cooperative Learning activities on writing skills of Iranian EFL learners. Linguistics and Literature Studies, 2(4), 121-130.
2. Anderson, R., Hiebert, E., Scott, J., & Wilkinson, I. (1985).Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the commission on reading. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education and the Center for the Study of Reading.
3. Artz, A. F., & Newman, C. M. (1990). Cooperative learning. Mathematics Teacher, 83, 448-449.
4. Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT journal, 54(2), 153-160.
5. Bastian, H. (2010). The genre effect: exploring the unfamiliar. Composition Studies, 38(1), 29-51.
6. Bawarshi, A. S., & Reiff, M. J. (2010). Genre: An introduction to history, theory, research, and pedagogy. Parlor Press LLC.
7. Brown, H. D. (1987). Principles of LanguageLearning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs: PrenticeHall.
8. Chen, R., & Hird, B. (2006). Codeswitching in EFL group work in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19(2), 208-219.

9. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
10. Doff, A. 1990. Teach English.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
11. Hammond, J. (1992). English for social purposes: A handbook for teachers of adult literacy. National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie Univ.
12. Hao, X., & Sivell, J. (2002). Integrating Reading and Writing in EFL Composition in China.Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 17-29.
13. Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. University of Michigan Press.
14. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2000). Cooperative Learning Methods: A Meta-analysis. Minneapolis: Cooperative Learning Center at the University of Minnesota.
15. Krashen, S. D. (1993). The case for free voluntary reading. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(1), 72-82.
16. Macbeth, K. P. (2010). Deliberate false provisions: The use and usefulness of models in learning academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(1), 33-48.Mandal, R. R. (2009).
17. Cooperative Learning strategies to enhance writing skills. The Modern Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 93-102.
18. Moon, J. A. (2013). A handbook of reflective and experiential learning: Theory and practice. Routledge.
19. Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching & Learning. Heinle & Heinle Publishers, 7625 Empire Dr., Florence, KY 41042-2978.
20. Pica, T. (1987). Second-language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied linguistics, 8(1), 3-21.
21. Rao, Z. (2007). Training in brainstorming and developing writing skills. ELT journal, 61(2), 100-106.
22. Richards, J. C., &Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Richards, J. C. (2002). Schmidt. R. (2002. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (3rd ed). London: Pearson Education Limited.
24. Silvestri, L., & Oescher, J. (2006). Using rubrics to increase the reliability of assessment in health classes. International Electronic Journal of Health Education, 9, 25-30.
25. Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of educational research, 50(2), 315-342.
26. Smagorinsky, P. (1992). How reading model essays affects writers. Reading/writing connections: Learning from research, 160-176.
27. Soori, A., & Zamani, A. A. (2012). Language features in the writing of male and female students in English and Persian. European Journal of Social Sciences, 33(2), 324-329.
28. Swales, J. M., & Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge university press.
29. Yakıcı, A., Yücel, M., Doğan, M., & Yelok, V. S. (2006).Üniversiteler için Türkçe-1: Yazılı anlatım. (BirinciBaskı).Gazi Kitabevi.