Türkçe ve İngilizce Öğretmeni Adaylarının Özetleme Başarısı, Özetlemeye Yönelik Öz Yeterlik Algıları ve Tutumları

Year 2024, , 162 - 180, 17.01.2024

Çağla Atmaca , Gökhan Çetinkaya , Betül Polat

https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.1267032

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı Türkçe ve İngilizce öğretmeni adaylarının özetleme başarısını, özetlemeye yönelik özyeterlik algılarını ve tutumlarını karşılaştırmalı olarak incelemektir. Sıralı karma yöntem kullanılan çalışmanın katılımcılarını uygun örnekleme yoluyla seçilen toplam 265 Türkçe ve İngilizce öğretmeni adayı oluşturmuştur. Veriler öykü özeti dereceli puanlama anahtarı, özetleme yönelik tutum ölçeği, özetlemeye yönelik özyeterlik ölçeği ve yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formuyla elde edilmiştir. Nicel veriler istatistiksel yöntemlerle çözümlenirken, nitel veriler için özetleyici içerik çözümlemesine tabi tutulmuştur. Yapılan çözümlemeye göre, katılımcı öğretmen adaylarının özetleme başarıları iyi düzeydedir. Ayrıca katılımcıların özetlemenin önemine inanma düzeylerinin yüksek olduğu, özetleme yapmaktan orta düzeyde hoşlandıkları ve özetlemeye yönelik tutum puanlarının yüksek olduğu saptanmıştır. Katılımcıların özetleme amaçlı okuma, özet yazma ve özetleme özyeterlik algılarının yüksek olduğu bulunmuştur. Öte yandan İngilizce ve Türkçe öğretmeni adaylarının özetleme başarısı, özetlemenin önemine inanma, özetleme amaçlı okuma, özet yazma ve özetleme özyeterlik algısı puanları arasında anlamlı fark olmadığı görülmüştür. Son olarak, özetleme yapmaktan hoşlanma boyutunda ve özetlemeye yönelik tutum ölçeğinin genelinde Türkçe öğretmeni adaylarından yana anlamlı fark çıkmıştır.

Keywords

özetleme becerisi, özetlemeye yönelik tutum, özetlemeye yönelik özyeterlik

Supporting Institution

Herhangi kurum desteklememiştir.

Project Number

Herhangi proje kapsamında değildir.

Thanks

Herhangi kurumdan ya da kişiden destek alınmamıştır.

Pre-Service Turkish and English Teachers’ Achievement Levels, Perceptions of Self-Efficacy and Attitudes in relation to Summarizing Skills

Abstract

This study aims to compare pre-service Turkish and English teachers’ achievement levels, perceptions of self-efficacy and attitudes in relation to summarizing skills. This study adopted a sequential mixed method research design and there were 265 pre-service teachers who were chosen via convenience sampling. The data were obtained via a story summary rubric, the summarizing attitude scale, summarizing self-efficacy perception scale and a semi-structured interview form. While the quantitative data were analyzed by statistical methods, the qualitative data were subjected to summative content analysis. According to the findings, summarizing achievement level of the participants was at a good level. Also, it was found that the participants had a high level of belief in the importance of summarizing, they enjoyed summarizing at a moderate level, and their attitude scores towards summarizing were high. In addition, the participants' summary-based reading, summary writing and self-efficacy perceptions of summarizing were at a high level. On the other hand, it was revealed that there were no significant differences between the scores of the pre-service English and Turkish teachers in terms of summarizing achievement levels, believing in the importance of summarizing, reading for summarizing, writing summary and summarizing self-efficacy. Finally, there was a significant difference in favor of the pre-service Turkish teachers in the dimension of enjoying summarizing and the overall scores of the summarizing attitudes scale.

Keywords

summarising ability, attitudes towards summarizing, summarizing self-efficacy

Project Number

Herhangi proje kapsamında değildir.

References

• Adams, W. C. (2015). Conducting semi-structured interviews. In Newcomer K. E., Hatry H. P., & Wholey, J. S. (Eds.), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation (pp.492-505). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Ali, S. (2000). Tumble Cart/Voice/Prisoners. İstanbul : Yapı Kredi Publications.
• Bahçıvan, H. K. (2020). Exploring relationship between summarizing achievement and summarizing attitudes and summarizing self-efficacy perceptions of secondary school students. Unpublished master’s thesis, Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University, Turkey. Retrieved from https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezDetay.jsp?id=DlQ6CARYzX6hHDSPgwo4Vg&no=uo3GT4RZ50knveR82DhtmA.
• Bahçıvan, H. K., & Çetinkaya, G. (2021). Exploring relationship between summarizing achievement and summarizing attitudes and summarizing self-efficacy perceptions of secondary school students. Kocaeli University Journal of Education, 4(1), 137-162. http://doi.org/10.33400/kuje.907447.
• Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122.
• Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(1), 1–14. doi:10.1016/S0022- 5371(83)80002-4.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2009). Sosyal Bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2008). Scientific research methods (1st Edition). Ankara: Pegem Academy.
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education. New York: Routledge.
• Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori, and C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousands Oaks, Calif: Sage.
• Çalışır Zenci, S. (2020). Pre-service teachers’ preferences of using text summarizing strategies. Studies in Language and Literature, 21, 341-359. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1011807.
• Çetinkaya, G., & Dikici, A. (2023). Development of the summarization self-efficacy perception scale. Diyalektolog Journal of Social Sciences, 32, 13-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/diyalektolog.68896.
• Çetinkaya, G., & Polat Demir, B. (2017). Development of an attitude scale towards summarization: A study on reliability and validity. In H. Ülper (Ed.), 9th International Turkish Language Education-Teaching Conference Proceedings (pp. 20-221). Ankara: Pegem Academy.
• Çetinkaya, G., Şentürk, R., & Dikici, A. (2020). Relationship between using summarizing strategies and summarizing performance. Journal of Language Education and Research, 6(2), 583-600. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/jlere/issue/57440/763574.
• Deneme, S. (2009). Preferences of pre-service English teachers to use summarizing strategies. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 5(2), 85-91. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/jlls/issue/9930/122883.
• Dilidüzgün, Ş. (2013). From reading to summary writing in secondary school Turkish lessons. Ankara University, Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 46(2), 47-68. https://doi.org/10.1501/Egifak_0000001294.
• Doğan, Y., & Özçakmak, H. (2014). Evaluation of pre-service Turkish language teachers’ summarizing skills for the texts listened. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 11(28), 153-176. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/mkusbed/issue/19574/208789.
• Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Duran, E., & Özdil, Ş. (2018). The effect of matrix technique on text summarization. The Journal of Eurosian Language Education and Researches, 2(1), 41-58. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/adea/issue/37888/424959.
• Duran, E., & Özdil, Ş. (2019a). An action research on the development of text summarying skills: PQRST technique. The Journal of National Education, 48(221), 215-230. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/milliegitim/issue/43527/533222.
• Duran, E., & Özdil, Ş. (2019b). Contribution of WINDOW technique to the development of text summarying skills. Turkish Studies-Educational Sciences, 14(2), 55-71. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.14845.
• Eyüp, B., Stebler, M. Z., & Uzuner Yurt, S. (2012). Tendencies of pre-service Turkish teachers in the use of summarizing strategies. Journal of Language and Literature Education, 1(1), 22-30. https://www.ajindex.com/dosyalar/makale/acarindex-1423875348.pdf.
• Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Hamilton, L., & Corbett-Whittier, C. (2013). Using case study in education research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
• Hamzadayı, E., & Demir, B. (2022). Examination of secondary school students in terms of various variables summarizing self-efficacy. International Journal of Philology Bengü, 2(1), 25-39. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ufb/issue/70056/1113198.
• Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. England: Pearson Education Ltd.
• Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1049732305276687.
• Karadağ, Ö. (2019). An evaluation of the summarizing activities in Turkish textbooks. Journal of Mother Tongue Education, 7(2), 469-485. https://www.anadiliegitimi.com/tr/pub/issue/44913/449294.
• Kaya, K. (2021). An assessment of topic main idea summarization teaching in education of comprehension in the framework of curriculum textbook and teacher’s views. Unpublished master 's thesis, Hacettepe University, the Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara, Turkey. https://www.openaccess.hacettepe.edu.tr/xmlui/handle/11655/25255.
• Kaya, K., & Kurudayıoğlu, M. (2021). Examination of Turkish teaching textbooks for foreigners in terms of summarization teaching. The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 19(2), 1143-1159. https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.996050.
• Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363-394. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363.
• Kondracki, N. L., Wellman, N. S., & Amundson, D. R. (2002). Content analysis: Review of methods and their applications in nutrition education. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 34(4), 224–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60097-3.
• Kurnaz, H., & Akaydın, Ş. (2015). Informative and narrative texts summarization skills of Turkish language teacher candidates. Erzincan University Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences, Special issue, 141-156. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/erzisosbil/issue/45172/565551.
• Kuşdemir, Y., Düşünsel, C. M., & Çelik, M. (2018). Investigation of summarization skills of primary school students. International Journal of Human Sciences, 15(2), 893-910. doi:10.14687/jhs.v15i2.5208.
• Kuşdemir, Y., & Uzun, E. B. (2018). The development of the attitude scale for summarizing: The study of validity and reliability. The Journal of Academic Social Science, 6(71), 271-285. doi : 10.16992/ASOS.13749.
• Külte Çağlar, S. (2016). Developing students' summarizing skills through strategy teaching and self-assessment in Turkish lessons. Unpublished master's thesis, Doğu Akdeniz University, Cyprus. http://i-rep.emu.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11129/2822/ca%20larseher.pdf?sequence=1.
• Larsen, L. R. (2018). The effects of modeling on the summarization skills of community college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED595688.
• Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
• McKay, S. L. (2006). Researching second language classrooms. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
• Mensah, J. K., Okyere, M., & Kuranchie, A. (2013). Student attitude towards Mathematics and performance: Does the teacher attitude matter? Journal of Education and Practice, 4(3), 132-139. https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP/article/view/4502.
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage.
• Nunan, D., & Bailey, K. M. (2009). Exploring second language classroom research: A comprehensive guide. USA: Heinle Cengage Learning.
• Özçakmak, H. (2014). Problems faced by pre-service Turkish language teachers about summarizing the texts listened. International Journal of Language Academy, 2(4), 487-503. https://ijla.net/?mod=makale_tr_ozet&makale_id=25147.
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
• Prentis, N. (2023). The hole in the Wall. https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/general-english/story-zone/b2-c1-stories/the-hole-in-the-wall-b2/c1.
• Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Taşdemir, G. G., & Çağlayan Dilber, N. (2021). The summarizing skills of pre-service teachers on listening texts. International Journal of Humanities and Art Researches, 6(2), 178-195. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ijhar/issue/62419/943086.
• Tekin, M. T., & Bolat, Y. (2018). Analysis scale development studies on writing education in Turkey: A meta-sythesis study. Hatay Mustafa Kemal University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 2(2), 26-40. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/mkuefder/issue/41727/496671.
• Ulaş, M. M. & Yılmaz, M. (2021). Turkish language teachers' views on secondary school students' problems in summarizing. International Journal of Social, Humanities and Administrative Sciences, 7(40), 1031-1036. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.31589/JOSHAS.645.
• Yüksel, L., & Demir, K. (2022). Informative text summary styles of Turkish teaching department students. International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences (IJOESS), 13(49), 901-920. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.35826/ijoess.3140.