İngiliz dili programlarında lisans düzeyinde disipliner yazma eğitimi üzerine: Tür odaklı yaklaşım

Yıl 2022, Sayı: 26, 1024 - 1038, 21.02.2022

Aysel Sarıcaoğlu

https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.1074517

Öz

Öğrencilere disipliner yazma becerilerinin kazandırılması, disiplin kimliklerini oluşturmalarını, bilimsel toplulukların bir üyesi olmalarını, akademik ve mesleki açıdan daha başarılı olmalarını desteklemek açısından önemlidir. Disipliner yazma uygulamaları genellikle lisansüstü düzeyinde bilgi üretme ve yazılı ürünlere dönüştürme şeklinde uygulanmaktadır. Ancak, lisans düzeyinde, disipliner yazma eğitimi Türkiye'deki çoğu yükseköğretim kurumunda yaygın bir uygulama değildir. Bu çalışma, İngiliz Dili ve Edebiyatı ile İngilizce Öğretmenliği programlarındaki lisans öğrencilerinin disipliner yazma ihtiyaçlarını ele almaktadır ve öğrencilerin disipliner yazma becerilerini lisans eğitimlerinin erken bir aşamasında nasıl geliştirebileceğine dair onlara nasıl destek olabileceğimizi anlamamıza katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu çalışmada İngiliz Dili ve Edebiyatı ile İngilizce Öğretmenliği programlarındaki lisans öğrencilerini, bölüm derslerinde yaptıkları yazma ödevlerinin gereklilikleri doğrultusunda, disiplin bilgisi ve disipliner yazma becerileri ile donatmayı amaçlayan, tür odaklı bir disipliner yazma dersi tanıtılmaktadır. Ders ile ilgili, öğrenme hedefleri, üniteler, haftalık plan, örnek öğretim materyalleri ve etkinlikleri ve değerlendirme çerçevesinde bilgi verilir. Bu dersi geliştirilmesinde ve uygulanmasında yaşanılan ya da yaşanılabilecek zorluklar ele alınır ve öğretmenlerin dersi uygularken ve değerlendirirken düşünmesi gereken bazı hususlara yer verilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Disipliner yazma, tür odaklı yaklaşım, lisans öğrencileri, İngiliz Dili ve Edebiyatı, İngilizce Öğretmenliği

Towards teaching undergraduate-level disciplinary writing in English majors: A genre-based approach

Öz

Teaching students disciplinary writing skills is important in supporting them to develop a disciplinary identity, to become a member of their scientific communities, and to be academically and professionally more successful. Disciplinary writing practices are often implemented at the graduate level where students are familiarized with the processes of creating knowledge and the forms of written products within their disciplines. However, at the undergraduate level, disciplinary writing instruction is not a common practice in most higher education institutions in Turkey. This study addresses disciplinary writing needs of junior-level students in English Language and Literature (ELL) and English Language Teaching (ELT) and seeks to contribute to our understanding of how we can assist students' disciplinary writing skills at an early stage in their undergraduate studies. It describes an undergraduate-level research-informed and genre-based disciplinary writing course for the ELL and ELT disciplines. The course aims to equip students with disciplinary knowledge and writing skills in line with the requirements of their departmental writing tasks. The course is described with a focus on learning objectives, teaching units, weekly structure, sample teaching materials and activities, and assessment of students' written work. The challenges associated with developing and teaching this course are addressed, and some considerations that teachers must think about when implementing and evaluating the course are given.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Disciplinary writing, genre-based approach, undergraduate students, English language and Literature, English Language Teaching

Kaynakça

• Altınmakas, D., & Bayyurt, Y. (2019). An exploratory study on factors influencing undergraduate students’ academic writing practices in Turkey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 37, 88–103.
• Andrews, R. (2010). Argumentation in higher education: Improving practice through theory and research. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Andrews, R. (2015). Critical thinking and/or argumentation in higher education. In M. Davies & R. Barnett (Eds.)., The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education (pp. 49–62). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Baik, C., & Greig, J. (2009). Improving the academic outcomes of undergraduate ESL students: The case for discipline-based academic skills programs. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(4), 401–416.
• Bressler, C.E. (2010). Literary criticism: An introduction to theory and practice (5th ed.). New York: Longman.
• Cargill, M., Xin, G., Xiaoqing, W., & O’Connor, P. (2018). Preparing Chinese graduate students of science facing an international publication requirement for graduation: Adapting an intensive workshop approach for early-candidature use. English for Specific Purposes, 52, 13–26.
• Chen, Y-S., & Su, S-W. (2011). A genre-based approach to teaching EFL summary writing. ELT Journal, 66(2), 184–192.
• Cheng, A. (2008). Analyzing genre exemplars in preparation for writing: The case of an L2 graduate Student in the ESP genre-based instructional framework of academic literacy. Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 50–71.
• Cheng, G. (2017). The impact of online automated feedback on students' reflective journal writing in an EFL course. The Internet and Higher Education, 34, 18–27.
• Cumming, A., Lai, C., & Cho, H. (2016). Students' writing from sources for academic purposes: A synthesis of recent research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 47–58.
• Derewianka, B., M. (2003). Trends and issues in genre-based approaches. RELC Journal, 34, 133–154.
• Fernsten, L. A., & Reda, M. (2011). Helping students meet the challenges of academic writing. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(2), 171–182.
• Flowerdew, J. (2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the nonnative-English-speaking scholar. TESOL QUARTERLY, 34(1), 127–150.
• Geiser, S., & Studley, R. (2002). UC and the SAT: Predictive validity and differential impact of the SAT I and SAT II at the University of California. Educational Assessment, 8(1), 1–26.
• Gimenez, J. (2008). Beyond the academic essay: Discipline-specific writing in nursing and midwifery. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(3), 151–164.
• Johns, A. M., & Swales, J. M. (2002). Literacy and disciplinary practices: Opening and closing perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1, 13–28.
• Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33–49.
• Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Harlow: Longman.
• Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 148–64.
• Kamasak, R., Sahan, K., & Rose, H. (2021). Academic language-related challenges at an English-medium university. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 49, 100945.
• Kutevaa, M. (2013). Graduate learners’ approaches to genre-analysis tasks: Variations across and within four disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 32, 84–96.
• Lai, G., & Calandra, B. (2010). Examining the effects of computer-based scaffolds on novice teachers' reflective journal writing. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 421–437.
• Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Lewis, W. E., & Ferretti, R. P. (2011). Topoi and literary interpretation: The effects of a critical reading and writing intervention on high school students’ analytic literary essays. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 334–354.
• Li, Y. (2006). Negotiating knowledge contribution to multiple discourse communities: A doctoral student of computer science writing for publication. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 159–178.
• Marshall, J. (2000). Research on response to literature. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. III (pp. 381–402). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
• Mei, W. S. (2006). Creating a contrastive rhetorical stance: Investigating the strategy of problematization in students’ argumentation. RELC Journal, 37, 329–353.
• Mitchell, S., & Riddle, M. (2000). Improving the quality of argument in higher education: Final Report. School of Lifelong Learning and Education: Middlesex University.
• Ong, W. A. (2016). Using genre-based writing instruction to teach the writing of literary criticism. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 16(1), 35–48.
• Pasternak, D. L., & Rigoni, K. K. (2015). Teaching reflective writing: Thoughts on developing a reflective writing framework to support teacher candidates. Teaching/Writing: The Journal of Writing Teacher Education, 4(1), 93–108.
• Penso, S., Shoham, E., & Shiloah, N. (2001). First steps in novice teachers' reflective activity. Teacher Development, 5(3), 323–338.
• Persky, H. R., Daane, M. C., & Jin, Y. (2003). The nation’s report card: Writing 2002, NCES 2003. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
• Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Uzun, K., & Topkaya, E. Z. (2020). The effects of genre-based instruction and genre-focused feedback on L2 writing performance. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 36(5), 438–461.
• Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Wette, R. (2019). Embedded provision to develop source-based writing skills in a Year 1 health sciences course: How can the academic literacy developer contribute? English for Specific Purposes, 56, 35–49.
• Wingate, U. (2012). ‘Argument!’ helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 145–154.