Journals / Turkish Studies (Elektronik) / 2014 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 6

THE EFFECT OF DYNAMIC AND STILL VISUAL PROMPTS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS' WRITTEN NARRATIVE PRODUCTION

HAREKETLİ VE HAREKETSİZ GÖRSEL UYARANLARIN ÖĞRENCİLERİN ANLATI METNİ ÜRETME EDİMLERİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ

Pages
389–408
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The quantitative and qualitative results obtained from the study demonstrated that although the usage of narrative elements in the texts exhibited significant difference in favor of still visual prompt, the students' narrative text production performance was not good enough in response to both visual prompts.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study was to query the effect of dynamic and still visual prompts on the performance of students' written narative production in a comparatıve manner.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The sample group of the study consisted of 60 randomly selected sixth grade students attending Yasemin KARAKAYA elementary school which is under the roof of ministry of national education, in Ankara Yenimahalle district, in 2008-2009 academic year.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The quantitative and qualitative results obtained from the study demonstrated that although the usage of narrative elements in the texts exhibited significant difference in favor of still visual prompt, the students' narrative text production performance was not good enough in response to both visual prompts.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2008-2009 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The aim of this study was to query the effect of dynamic and still visual prompts on the performance of students' written narative production in a comparatıve manner. In the study quantitative and qualitative research methods were adopted. The quantitative data was analyzed by using frequency distribution and independent sample t test. As for the qualitative data, descriptive analysis was used. The sample group of the study consisted of 60 randomly selected sixth grade students attending Yasemin KARAKAYA elementary school which is under the roof of ministry of national education, in Ankara Yenimahalle district, in 2008-2009 academic year. In line with the aim of the study, the silent film and picture sequence visual prompts were selected as the data collection tool. By this way the narrative samples were taken from the students. The quantitative and qualitative analysis of narrative schema of the written narrative texts were made depending on the rubric developed by Esmer (2010). The essence of rubric is based on Labov's (1972) oral narrative analysis and it also includes the common elements taking place in different narrative structures developed by different analysts. Besides the narratives were classified as "poor, average and good" according to their levels using another rubric developed by the analyst. The quantitative and qualitative results obtained from the study demonstrated that although the usage of narrative elements in the texts exhibited significant difference in favor of still visual prompt, the students' narrative text production performance was not good enough in response to both visual prompts.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı hareketli ve hareketsiz görsel uyaranların öğrencilerin yazılı anlatı gerçekleştirme edimleri üzerindeki etkisini karşılaştırmalı olarak sorgulamaktır. Bu çalışmada yöntem açısından, nitel ve nicel araştırma stratejilerinin birlikte kullanıldığı karma araştırma deseni benimsenmiştir. Nicel verilerin analizinde frekans dağılım ve bağımsız örneklemli t-testinden; nitel verilerin analizinde ise betimsel analiz yönteminden yararlanılmıştır. Çalışmanın örneklem grubunu seçkisiz örnekleme yöntemi ile seçilmiş 2008-2009 eğitim öğretim yılında Ankara İli Yenimahalle Merkez İlçesi Bilkent semti Yasemin Karakaya İlköğretim Okulu 6.sınıfında eğitim öğretim gören toplam 60 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmanın amacı doğrultusunda sessiz film ve resim dizisi görsel uyaranları veri toplama aracı olarak seçilmiş ve bu yolla öğrencilerden yazılı anlatı metni örnekleri alınmıştır. Öğrencilerden elde edilen veriler Esmer (2010) tarafından geliştirilen temelde Labov 'un (1972) sözlü anlatı çözümlemesine dayanan, ancak farklı araştırmacılar tarafından ortaya konmuş farklı anlatı yapılarındaki ortak öğeleri de içeren "anlatı şematik yapı çözümleme" anahtarı temel alınarak çözümlenmiştir. Daha sonra anlatılar çalışma kapsamında geliştirilen "anlatı düzeyi sınıflandırma" anahtarına göre düzeylerine göre zayıf, orta ve iyi düzey olarak sınıflandırılmıştır. Ulaşılan nitel ve nicel sonuçlar, veri tabanında uyaran türüne göre anlatı şematik yapı öğelerinin kullanımının hareketsiz görsel uyaran lehine anlamlı bir farklılık sergilediğini göstermekle birlikte öğrencilerin her iki uyarana bağlı kalarak anlatı metin üretme edim düzeylerinin yeteri kadar iyi olmadığını ortaya koymaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ESMER, E. (2014). THE EFFECT OF DYNAMIC AND STILL VISUAL PROMPTS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS' WRITTEN NARRATIVE PRODUCTION. Turkish Studies (Elektronik), Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 6, 389–408. https://ajindex.com/articles/107057

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. MERRİTT, D. D., & LİLES, B. Z. (1989). Narrative analysis: Clinical applications of story generation and story retelling. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54(3), 438-447.
  2. OMANSON, R. (1982). An analysis of narratives: Identifying central, supportive and distracting content. Discourse Processes,5, 195-224.
  3. PAİVİO, A. (1979). Imagery and verbal processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. PEARCE, W. M. (2003). Does the choice of stimulus affect the complexity of children's oral narratives? Advances in Speech-Language Pathology, 5 (2), 95-103. PEÑA, E. D., GİLLAM, R. B., MALEK,,. M., RUİZ-FELTER, R., RESENDİZ, M., FİESTAS, C., & SABEL, T. (2006). Dynamic assessment of school-age children's narrative ability: An experimental investigation of classification accuracy. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 49 (5), 1037-1057.
  4. PİTTS, M. (1978). The relationship of classroom instructional characteristics and writing in the descriptive/narrative mode. Los Angeles: University of California. RİESSMAN, C. (1993).
  5. Narrative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. RİPİCH, D. N., & GRİFFİTH, P. L. (1988). Narrative abilities of children with learning disabilities and nondisabled children: Story structure, cohesion, and propositions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(3), 165-173.
  6. ROTH, F., & SPEKMAN, N. (1986). Narrative discourse: Spontaneously generated stories of learning-disabled and normally achieving students. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 51, 8-23.
  7. SCHNEİDER, P. (1996). Effects of pictures versus orally presented stories on story telling by children with language impairment. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology,5, 86-96.
  8. SCHNEİDER, P., & DUBÉ, R. V. (2005). Story presentation effects on children's retell content. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology,14, 52-60.
  9. SENEMOĞLU, N. (2007). Gelişim öğrenme ve öğretim, kuramdan uygulamaya. Ankara:
  10. Gönül Yayıncılık. SHARP, D. L., BRANSFORD, J. D., GOLDMAN, S. R., RİSKO, V. J., KİNZER, C. K., & VYE, N. J. (1995). Dynamic visual support for story comprehension and mental model building by young, at-risk children. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43 (4), 25- 42. SHORT, E. J., & RYAN, E. B. (1984). Metacognitive differences between skilled and less skilled readers: Remediating deficits through story grammar and attribution training. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 225-235.
  11. SİNATRA, R. (1986). Visual literacy connections to thinking, reading and writing. S