THE ASSESSMENT OF MULTIPLE WRITING ACTIVITIES IN TEACHING THE "ECOSYSTEM ECOLOGY" SUBJECTS

Year 2021, , 275 - 282, 01.07.2021

Bülent Karaçar , İzzet Kurbanoglu

https://doi.org/10.24331/ijere.929401

Cited By: 1

Abstract

In this study, the effect of multiple writing activities in teaching "Ecosystem Ecology" subjects on the academic achievements of students was analyzed. The study was conducted in a high school in the Kaynarca district of the Sakarya province in the second term of the 2018-2019 academic year. The sample of the study consists of 48 students studying in the 10th grade. 48 students, which formed the sample, randomly formed Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 groups. While the Experiment 1 group was taught the "Ecosystem Ecology" subjects with classic-traditional teaching methods (direct instruction-catechize), the Experiment 2 group was taught with multiple writing activities. The study is a quantitative research and the data were collected by using pretest-posttest with a quasi-experimental control group. The "Ecosystem Ecology" success test that was developed by the researcher was applied as the pre-test and post-test in the study as the data collection tool. The obtained data were analyzed by using the SPSS 20 statistical program with"Mann Whitney U Test" and "Wilcoxon Sign Rank Test". Analysis results showed that compared to the classic-traditional teaching method, teaching“Ecosystem Ecology" subjects by using multiple writing activities positively affected the student's success.

Keywords

Academic achievement, Biology education, Ecosystem Ecology, Multiple writing activities

References

• Akçay, H. ve Baltacı, A. (2017). Astronomi Öğretiminde Öğrenme Amaçlı Çoklu Yazma Etkinliklerinin Değerlendirilmesi. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(1), 138-151.
• Akçay, H., Özyurt, B. B. ve Bezir Akçay, B. (2014). Çoklu yazma etkinliklerinin fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretiminde kullanılmasının öğrenci başarısı ve kavram öğrenmeye etkisi. Bayburt Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(2), 15-31.
• Akkuş, R., Günel. M. ve Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1745–1765.
• Akyol, C. ve Dikici, A. (2009). Şiirle öğretim tekniğinin öğrencilerin başarı ve tutumlarına etkisi. İlköğretim Online, 8(1), 48-56.
• Altunoğlu, B. D., ve Atav, E. (2005). Teacher expectations for a more effective biology education. Hacettepe University Education Faculty Journal, 28, 19-28.
• Anupam, K. (2014). Development and validation of mathetics style programme in mathematics for grade IX students.International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 5(3), 1309-6249.
• Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Çardak, Ü. (2010). Fen ve teknoloji dersine ilişkin günlük tutmanın öğrenci başarısı ve tutumu üzerine etkisi. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Sakarya Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
• Demircioğlu, H., Demircioğlu, G. ve Ayas, A. (2006). Hikayeler ve kimya öğretimi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30, 110-119.
• Duru, M. K. ve Gürdal, A. (2002). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersinde kavram haritasıyla ve gruplara kavram haritası çizdirilerek öğretimin öğrenci başarısına etkisi. V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, Bildiriler Kitabı, Cilt: 1, s: 310-316, ODTÜ, Ankara.
• Duymaz, N. ve Özer Keskin, M. (2011). Hücre konusunun öğrenilmesinde öğrenme amaçlı yazma etkinliklerinin kullanımı ve analoji üretme. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim bilimleri enstitüsü.
• Erol, G. (2010). Asit-baz konusunun çoklu yazma etkinlikleri ve yaparak yazarak bilim öğrenme metodu kullanılarak öğretilmesinin değerlendirilmesi. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
• Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31, 21–32. Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1984). Images, plans, and prose: The representation of meaning in writing. Written Composition 1, 120–160.
• Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In D. Galbraith and M. Torrance, edsKnowing what to write: conceptual processes in text production, pp. 139–159. Amsterdam University Press: Amsterdam.
• Gladys, J. U. (2014). The effect of individual and collaborative concept mapping learning strategies on chemistry students’ anxiety and academic achievement. International Journal of Innovative Education Research, 2(3), 19-28.
• Günel, M., Atila, M. E. ve Büyükkasap, E. (2009). Farklı betimleme modlarının öğrenme amaçlı yazma aktivitelerinde kullanımlarının 6. sınıf yaşamımızdaki elektrik ünitesinin öğrenimine etkisi. İlköğretim online, 8(1),183-198.
• Hand, B., Hohenshell, L. & Prain V. (2004). Exploring students’ responses to conceptual questions when engaged with planned writing experiences: A study with year 10 science Students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4(2) 186-210.
• Hand, B., Prain, V. & Wallace, C. (2002). Influences of writing tasks on students’ answers to recall and higher- level test questions. Research in Science Education, 32(1), 19-34.
• Hildebrand, G. (1998). Disrupting hegemonic writing practices in school science: Contesting the right way to write. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(4), 345–362.
• Hohenshell, L. M. & Hand, B. (2006). Writing-to-learn strategies in secondary school cell biology: A mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), 261-289.
• Kaptan, F. ve Korkmaz H. (2001). Çoklu Zeka Kuramı Tabanlı Fen Öğretimi Öğrenci Başarısı ve Tutumuna Etkisi.IV.Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Kongresi Bildiri Kitapçığı, 6-8 Eylül 2001.Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Basımevi.
• Keys, C. W. (2000). Investigating the thinking processes of eighth grade writers during the composition of a scientific laboratory report. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7),676-690.
• Klein, P. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11(3), 203–270.
• Klein, P. (2006). The challenges of scientific literacy: From the viewpoint of second generation cognitive science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 143–178.
• Lawwill, K. S. (1999). Using writing to learn strategies: Promoting peer collaboration among high school science teachers. Unpublished doctora’s thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
• Levin, T. & Wagner, T. (2006). In their own words: Understanding student conceptions of writing through their spontaneous metaphors in the science classroom. Instructional Science, 34, 227-278.
• Mason, L. & Boscolo, P. (2000). Writing and conceptual change. What changes? Instructional Science, 28(3), 199–226.
• Nakiboğlu, M., Altıparmak, M. (2002). Aktif öğrenmede bir grup tartıĢması yöntemi olarak “Beyin fırtınası”. V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi’nde sunulmuş bildiri. 16-18 Eylül 2002, Ankara.
• Özyurt, B. B. ve Akçay, H. (2011). Canlılarda üreme büyüme ve gelişme ünitesinin çoklu yazma etkinlikleri kullanılarak öğretilmesinin değerlendirilmesi. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü
• Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in secondary science: some theoretical and practical implications. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 179–201.
• Rijlaarsdam, G. & Couzijn, M. (2002). Effects of observation of reader’s feedback on understanding in physics. Paper presented at the Ontological, Epistemological, Linguistic and Pedagogical Considerations of Language and Science Literacy: Empowering Research and Informing Instruction and Teacher Education, International Conference, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, September 12–15.
• Rijlaarsdam, G., Couzijn, M., Janssen, T., Braaksma, M. & Kieft, M. (2006). Writing experimental manuals in science education: The impact of writing genre and audience. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 203–234.
• Scheppegrell, M. (1998). Grammar as resource: Writing a description. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 67–96.
• Shanahan, T. (2004). Overcoming the dominance of communication: Writing to think and to learn. In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice. New York: Guilford.
• Sperling, M. & Freedman, S. W. (2001). Review of writing research. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
• Tynjala, P., Mason, L. & Lonka, K. (Eds.) (2001) Writing as a learning tool. Amsterdam: Kluwer Press.
• Uluğ, F. (2004). Okulda başarı: Etkili öğrenme ve ders çalışma yöntemleri. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.
• Unsworth, L. (2000). Investigating subject-specific literacies in school learning. In L. Unsworth, eds Researching language in schools and communities. Continuum (Cassell): London.
• Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching Multiliteracies across the Curriculum: Changing Contexts of Text and Image in Classroom Practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.