The Evaluation of Rewriting Skills of Turkish Teacher Candidates Within the Scope of Text Transformation

Yıl 2023, , 306 - 332, 01.01.2023

Arzu Atasoy , Mehmet Temizkan

https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.1112451

Öz

This study aims at evaluating Turkish teacher candidates’ rewriting skills within the text transformation scope. The research participants included 223 teacher candidates from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th years of a public university, the department of Turkish and Social Sciences Education. The participants were asked to rewrite two texts: “Text 1” (weak) and “Text 2” (good). Data obtained from students’ texts were analyzed. Within this scope, researchers developed two forms to determine the type and level of used rewriting techniques. The researchers developed two different rubrics to assess the quality of rewritten texts and to determine the changes made in terms of lexicon, sentence, and text. According to the results obtained from the present research, Turkish teacher candidates made more changes to Text 1. When students rewrote Text 1, they usually got (1), (2), and (3) points in terms of accuracy, clarity, consistency, and planning, and when they wrote Text 2, they basically got (4) and (5) points. This situation was interpreted in a way that students were mostly faithful to the original texts in the texts they rewrote.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Rewriting, Rewriting Strategies, Paraphrasing, Revision, Text Transformation

Metin Değiştirimi Bağlamında Türkçe Öğretmeni Adaylarının Yeniden Yazma Becerilerinin Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı Türkçe öğretmeni adaylarının metin değiştirimi bağlamında yeniden yazma becerilerini değerlendirmektir. Araştırmanın katılımcılarını, bir devlet üniversitesinin Eğitim Fakültesi Türkçe ve Sosyal Bilimler Eğitimi Bölümü Türkçe Eğitimi Ana Bilim Dalında 1, 2, 3 ve 4. sınıf düzeylerinde öğrenim görmekte olan 223 öğretmen adayı oluşturmaktadır. Adaylardan “Metin 1” (zayıf) ve “Metin 2” (iyi) olmak üzere iki farklı nitelikteki metni yeniden yazmaları istenmiştir. Öğrenci metinlerinden elde edilen veriler analiz edilmiştir. Bu bağlamda hangi yeniden yazma tekniğinin ne kadar ve ne düzeyde kullanıldığını belirlemek için araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen 2 farklı form; yeniden yazılan metinlerin niteliğini ve kelime, cümle, paragraf, metin düzeylerinde hangi değişikliklerin yapıldığını tespit etmek amacıyla da yine araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen 2 farklı dereceli puanlama anahtarı kullanılmıştır. Araştırmadan elde edilen bazı sonuçlara göre Türkçe öğretmeni adayları Metin 1 üzerinde daha çok değişiklik yapmışlardır. Öğrenciler Metin 1’i yeniden yazdıklarında Doğruluk, Açıklık, Tutarlılık ve Planlılık boyutlarının tümünde genellikle (1), (2) ve (3) puan; Metin 2’yi yeniden yazdıklarında ise genellikle (4) ve (5) puan almışlardır. Bu durum, öğrencilerin yeniden yazdıkları metinlerde, orijinal metinlere çok büyük oranda bağlı kaldıkları şeklinde yorumlanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yeniden yazma, yeniden yazma stratejileri, açımlama, düzenleme, metin değitirim

Kaynakça

• Aktulum, K. (2000a). Metinlerarası ilişkiler. Ankara: Öteki Yayınevi.
• Aktulum, K. (2000b). Yenidenyazılmış bir Robinson Crusoe: Michel Tournier’nin Cuma ya da Pasifik Arafı. Frankofoni. No 12.
• Aktulum, K. (2006). Yenidenyazmak, Frankofoni. No 18.
• Alamargot, F. D. ve Chanquoy, L. (2001). Through the models of writing. Dordrecht-Boston-London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Allal, L. (1993). Text transformations as an indicator of self-regulation in writing. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Atlanta, GA, April 12-12, 1993)
• Ash, B. H. (1983). Selected effects of elapsed time and grade level on the revisions in 8th, 10th and 12th graders writing. Doctor Of Philosphy Thesis, The Florida State University.
• Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Bhagat, R. ve Hovy, E. (2013). What is a paraphrase? Association for Computational Linguistics. (39) 3, 463-472.
• Bridwell, L. S. (1980). Revising strategies in twelfth grade students' transactional writing. Research In The Teaching Of English, 14, 197-222.
• Brown, A. L. ve Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Center for the Study of Reading. Technical Reports.
• Butterfield, E. C., Hacker, D. J. ve Albertson, L. R. (1996). Environmental, cognitive and metacognitive influences on text revision: assessing the evidence. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 239-297.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö.E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2014). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (17. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Yayınları.
• Campbell, C. (1987). Writing with others’ words: Native and non-native university students’ use of information from a background reading text in academic compositions. Los Angeles, California Center for Language Education and Research, University of California, Los Angeles.
• Campbell, C. (1998). Teaching second language writing: Interacting with text. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
• Choi, Y. H. (2012). Paraphrase practices for using sources in L2 academic writing. English Teaching, 67 (2), 51-79.
• Choy, C. ve Lee, M. Y. (2012). Effects of teaching paraphrasing skills to students learning summary writing in ESL. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 8 (2), 78-89.
• Comeau-Kirschner, C. (2013). Summary and paraphrase strategies. Practical Ideas, 22 (4), 31-33.
• Crawford, L., Lloyd, S. ve Knoth, K. (2008). Analysis of student revisions on a state writing test. Assessment For Effective Intervention, 33 (2), 108-119.
• Crowhurst, M. (1983). Revision strategies of students at three grade levels. Final Report.
• Dix, S. (2006a). What did i change and why did i do it? Young writers’ revision practices. Literacy, 40 (1), 3-10.
• Dix, S. (2006b). I’ll do it my way: Three writers and their revision practices. The Reading Teacher, 59 (6), 566-573.
• Durmuş, M. (2013). Metin değiştirimin dilbilimsel süreçleri üzerine. International Journal of Social Science 6 (4), 391-408.
• Faigley, L. ve Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 400-414.
• Fisk, C. ve Hurst, B. (2003). Paraphrasing for comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 57 (2), 182-185.
• Fitzgerald, J. ve Markham, L. R. (1987). Teaching children about revision in writing. Conference Papers. Spencer Foundation, Chicago.
• Flower, L. (1989). Cognition, context and theory building. College Composition a Communication, 40 (3), 282-311.
• Galbraith, D. ve Torrance, M. (2004). Revision in the context of different drafting strategies. (Linda, Allal, Lucile, Chanquoy, ve Pierre, Largy (Edt.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes s. 63-85. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
• Gariper, C. ve Küçükcoşkun, Y. (2007). Nazım Hikmet’in Ferhad ile Şirin ve Yusuf İle Menofis adlı tiyatro eserlerinde yeniden yazma ve edebi dönüştürme. Nevin Önberk Yeni Türk Edebiyatı Araştırmaları Sempozyumu Bildirileri I. Ankara.
• Harris, J. (1993). Introducing writing. Penguin English. England.
• Hayes, J. R., Flower, L., Schriver, K. A., Stratman, J. F. ve Carey, L. (1987). In S. Rosenberg (Ed.) Reading, Writing, and Language Processes. s.176-24.Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
• Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication, 29 (3), 369-388.
• Hirvela, A. ve Du, Q. (2013). Why am i paraphrasing ? Undergraduate ESL writers’ engagement with source based academic writing and reading. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12 (2), 87-98.
• Humphris, R. (2010). Developing students as writers through collaboration. Changing English: Studies in Culture and Education, 17 (2), 201-214.
• John, A. M. ve Mayes, P. (1990). An analysis of summary protocols of university EFL students. Applied Linguistics, 11 (3), 254-271.
• Karasu, H. P. (2014). İşitme yetersizliği olan öğrencilerin yazılı ürünleri gözden geçirme ve düzeltme evresine duydukları ihtiyacın belirlenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 14 (3), 1089-1109.
• Keck, C. (2006). The use of paraphrase in summary writing: A comparison of L1 and L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 261–278.
• Keck, C. (2010). How do university students attempt to avoid plagiarism? A grammatical analysis of undergraduate paraphrasing strategies. Writing & Pedagogy, 2, 193–222.
• Keck, C. (2014). Copying, paraphrasing and academic writing development: A reexamination of L1 and L2 summarization practices. Journal of Second Language Writing, 25, 4-22.
• Ko, M. H. (2009). Summary writing instruction and student learning outcomes. English Teaching, 64 (2), 125-149.
• Köktürk, Ş. (2007). Mustafa Necati Sepetçioğlu’nun Yaratılış ve Türeyiş destanında yeniden yazma ve edebi dönüştürüm (Metinlerarası ilişkiler). Erdem Dergisi. Mustafa Necati Sepetçioğlu Özel Sayısı, 17 (49), 268-288.
• MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S. & Schwartz, S. (1991). Knowledge of revision and revising behavior among students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14 (1), 61-73. https://doi.org/10.2307/1510373.
• McCarthy, P. M., Guess, R. H., ve McNamara, D. S. (2009). The components of paraphrase evaluations. Behavior Research Methods, 41 (3), 682-690.
• MEB (2018). Türkçe dersi öğretim programı. (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar). Ankara: Millî Eğitim.
• Monahan, B. D. (1982). Revision strategies of basic and competent writers as they write for different audiences. Doctor Of Philosophy In The School Of Education Of Fordham University. New York.
• Murray, D. M. (1978). "Internal revision: A process of discovery. " In Charles R . Cooper and Lee Odell (Ed.), Research on Composing: Points of Departure, Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
• Myhill, D. ve Jones, S. (2007). More than just error correction. Students perspectives on their revision processes during writing. Written Communication, 24 (4), 323- 343.
• Pagel, M. M. (2013). Rewriting revision: A case study of first year composition students. Doctor Of Philosoph. The University of Texas at El Paso.
• Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 317-345.
• Perl, S. (1979). The composing processes of unskilled college writers. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, California.
• Roig, M. (1999). When college students’ attempts at paraphrasing become instances of potential plagiarism. Psychological Reports, 84, 973-982.
• Roig, M. (2001). Plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria of college and university professors. Ethics & Behavior, 11 (3), 307-323.
• Rooney, Paul. A. (1998). Improving rewriting through direct instruction: An integrated process-orianted approach. Doctor Of Philosophy Thesis. University Of California.
• Scott, K. F. (1985). Childrens’ revision abilities: Reading and rewriting as component processes. Doctor Of Philosophy Thesis. State University Of New York At Albany.
• Sengupta, S. (1998). From text revision to text improvement: A story of secondary school composition. RELC Journal, 19 (1), 110-137.
• Setoodeh, K. (2015). The effect of proficiency and task type on the use of paraphrase type in writing among Iranian EFL university students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5 (12), 2480-2489.
• Sharples, M. (1999). How we write: Writing as creative design. London: Routledge.
• Sommers, N. (1980) Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication. 31, 378-387.
• Stallard, C. K. (1974). An analysis of the writing behavior of good students writers. Research In The Teaching Of English, 8 (2), 206-218.
• Teruggi, L. A. ve Gutierrez Caceres, R. (2016), Text revision in deaf and hearing bilingual students. Deafness & Education International, 18 (4), 206-216.
• Van Gelderen, A. (1997). Elementary students’ skills in revising: Integrating quantitative and qualitative analysis. Written Communication, 14, 360–397.
• Yagelski, R. P. (1995). The role of classroom context in the revision strategies of students writers. Research In The Teaching Of English, 29 (2), 216-23.
• Yamada, K. (2003). What prevents ESL/EFL writers from avoiding plagiarism? Analysis of 10 North-American college websites. System, 31, 247-258.
• Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Wallace, D. L. ve Hayes, J. R. (1990). Redefining revision for freshmen. Research In The Teaching Of English, 25 (1), 54-66.
• Winograd, P. N. (1983). Strategic difficulties in summarizing texts. Center fort he Study of Reading. Technical Report.