SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 1

Comparison of Turkish Language Arts Curricula Used Between 2006-2019 in terms of Writing Fluency Skills

2006-2019 Yılları Arasında Kullanılan Türkçe Öğretim Programlarının Akıcı Yazma Becerisi Açısından Karşılaştırılması

Huzeyfe BİLGE
Pages
199–215
Publication Date
2022-10-11
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)

In general, it is concluded that writing fluency has been ignored for the last 15 years.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study was to examine and compare the place of writing fluency in Turkish language arts teaching curricula used in 2006, 2009, 2015, and 2019.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this qualitative study, document analysis was carried out and the findings are presented with descriptive statistics (frequency and percentage).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In general, it is concluded that writing fluency has been ignored for the last 15 years.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2006 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine and compare the place of writing fluency in Turkish language arts teaching curricula used in 2006, 2009, 2015, and 2019. In this qualitative study, document analysis was carried out and the findings are presented with descriptive statistics (frequency and percentage). In the findings of the study, no learning outcomes mentioning writing fluency as a term were found. There was only one learning outcome regarding the speed dimension of writing fluency. In terms of spelling, the learning outcomes related to accurate writing of words were relatively higher. It was also found that there are significant inconsistencies between the curricula and grade levels for the accuracy dimension of writing fluency. In general, it is concluded that writing fluency has been ignored for the last 15 years. The findings of the study are discussed by considering the related scientific literature.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın hedefi 2006, 2009, 2015 ve 2019 Türkçe öğretim programlarındaki akıcı yazmanın yerini incelemek ve karşılaştırmaktır. Nitel desende yürütülen çalışmada doküman incelemesi yapılmış ve bulgular betimleyici istatistiklerle (frekans ve yüzde) sunulmuştur. Çalışmanın bulgularında akıcı yazmanın terim olarak geçtiği hiçbir kazanıma rastlanmamıştır. Akıcı yazmanın hız boyutuyla ilgili sadece bir kazanımın olduğu; imlâ bakımından kelimelerin doğru yazılmasıyla ilgili kazanımların nispeten daha çok olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Akıcı yazmanın doğruluk boyutunda müfredatlar ve sınıf seviyeleri arasında önemli tutarsızlıkların olması da bulgular arasındadır. Genel olarak bakıldığında akıcı yazmanın son 15 yıldır göz ardı edildiği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Çalışmanın bulguları alan yazın ışığında tartışılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

BİLGE, H. (2022). Comparison of Turkish Language Arts Curricula Used Between 2006-2019 in terms of Writing Fluency Skills. Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 1, 199–215. https://ajindex.com/articles/435492

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (5)

  1. Ahmed, Y. (2011). Developmental relations between reading and writing at the word, sentence and text levels: a latent change score analysis. (Yüksek lisans tezi). The Florida State University, Florida. Akyol, H. (2015). Türkçe ilk okuma yazma öğretimi. Ankara:
  2. PegemA. Alamargot, D., ve Fayol, M. (2009). Modelling the development of written composition. R. Beard, M. Debra, M. Nystrand, ve J. Riley (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of writing development (1st ed.) içinde. Los Angeles: SAGE. Appleton, A. (1992). Handwriting skills of children in third through sixth-grade:relationship to academic achievement. (Doktora tezi). Fordham University, New York. Ballator, N., Farnum, M., ve Kaplan, B. (1999). NAEP 1996 trends in writing: fluency and writing conventions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement National Center for Education Statistics. Barnett, A., Stainthorp, R., Henderson, S., ve Scheib, B. (2006). Handwriting policy and practice in english primary schools: an exploratory study. London: Institute of Education, University of London. Beard, R., Myhill, D., Riley, J., ve Nystrand, M. (Eds.) (2009). The SAGE handbook of writing development. Los Angeles: SAGE. Berninger, V. W. (1999). Coordinating transcription and text generation in working memory during composing: automatic and constructive processes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22(2), 99-112. doi:10.2307/1511269 Berninger, V. W., ve Fuller, F. (1992). Gender differences in orthographic, verbal, and compositional fluency: ımplications for assessing disabilities in primary grade children. Journal of School Psychology, 30, 363-382.
  3. Bilge, H. (2015). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin akıcı okuma becerilerinin çeşitli değişkenlere göre karşılaştırılması. (Yüksek lisans tezi). Erzincan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Erzincan. Bilge, H. (2019). Okuma, yazma ve konuşma akıcılık ile okuduğunu anlama ve kelime hazinesi arasındaki ilişki. (Doktora tezi). Gazi Üniversitesi,
  4. Ankara.
  5. Christensen, C. A. (2009). The critical role handwriting plays in the ability to produce high-quality written text. R. Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley, & M. Nystrand (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of writing development (pp. 284-299) içinde. London: SAGE. Couvillion, P. M. (1985). The use of handwriting and copying rate for predicting academic achievement, academic performance and assignment completion. (Doktora tezi). The Florida State University, Florida. Çamurcu, D. (2011). Yüksek öğrenimine yeni başl