Journals / International Journal of Environmental and Science Education (elektronik) / 2009 / Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 4

Doğru yazma: Bir ekoloji kursunda öğrenci sorumluluğunu ve performansını arttırma

Writing right: Enhancing student engagement and performance in an ecology course

Pages
365–380
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

Results showed that final exam grades for the ‘treated’ group and the writing group were significantly higher than their ‘non treated’ and ‘non writing’ counterparts.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This paper outlines the results of a collaborative effort between members of staff in the Departments of Life Sciences and Language, Linguistics and Philosophy, which involved the implementation of Writing Across the Curriculum strategies in an Ecology course.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Results showed that final exam grades for the ‘treated’ group and the writing group were significantly higher than their ‘non treated’ and ‘non writing’ counterparts.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Implications and limitations are discussed.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This paper outlines the results of a collaborative effort between members of staff in the Departments of Life Sciences and Language, Linguistics and Philosophy, which involved the implementation of Writing Across the Curriculum strategies in an Ecology course. The lecturer for this course had expressed concerns regarding the poor quality of the laboratory reports presented and weak essays submitted by students. In order to enhance students' understanding of the content to be included in the report, and to improve expression of thought in writing, we agreed to 'treat' a sample of students selected from two laboratory groups by giving each group the other's lab report to read and to subsequently carry out the experiments described. Additionally a select group of students engaged in the planning, writing and revising of responses to past exam essay questions. Results showed that final exam grades for the ‘treated’ group and the writing group were significantly higher than their ‘non treated’ and ‘non writing’ counterparts. Feedback from students was generally positive. Implications and limitations are discussed.

Özet

Bu makale dil ve biyoloji bölümlerinde bulunan ve bir ekoloji kursunda program stratejileri üzerinden yazma uygulamalarına katılan elemanlar arasında işbirliği çabasının sonuçlarını özetlemektedir. Öğretim elemanı bu kurs için öğrencilerin laboratuvar raporlarındaki düşük kalite ve kompozisyonlarındaki zayıflık husundaki endişelerini ifade etti. Rapordaki öğrenci anlamasının içeriğini artırmak, yazımda öğrenci düşüncesi ifadesini geliştirmek amacı ile “tedavi” için iki laboratuvar grubu öğrencilerinin birbirlerinin lab raporlarını değişerek önce okumalarını ve sonra tanımlanan deneyi yapmalarını kararlaştırdık. İlaveten, seçilen bir grup öğrenci de geçmiş kompozisyon sorularına verilen cevapların planlanması, yazılması ve gözden geçirilmesi ile uğraştı. Sonuçlar “deney” grubun ve “yazma” grubunun final sınavı puanlarının “kontrol” grubu ve “yazım olmayan” grubun puanlarından anlamlı biçimde yüksek olduğunu gösterdi. Öğrencilerden alınan geri bildirimler çoğunlukla olumluydu. Çalışma sonuçlarının etkileri ve sınırlıkları tartışıldı.

🔖

Cite This Article

MACLAREN, I. A. M., WEBBER, D. (2022). Doğru yazma: Bir ekoloji kursunda öğrenci sorumluluğunu ve performansını arttırma. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education (elektronik), Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 4, 365–380. https://ajindex.com/articles/540874

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M.L., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-tolearn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 74, 29-58.
  2. Bean, J. (2001). Engaging ideas: The professor's guide to integrating writing, critical thinking and active learning in the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Becker, R. (1993). Roundtable 3: Do students learn by writing? Writ/Talk, 9, 1-2.
  3. Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning. Buckingham: SHRE and Open University Press.
  4. Bocolo, P., & Mason, L. (2001). Writing to learn, writing to transfer. In P. Tynjala, L. Mason, & K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 83 – 104). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  5. Britton, J., Burgess,T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, H. (1975). The development of writing abilities. London: Macmillan Education. Caribbean Examinations Council (2007a). Report on candidates' work in the Caribbean secondary education certificate examination May/June 2007.
  6. St. Michael, Barbados.Retrieved November 13, 2008 from Carribean Examination Council Web site: http://www.cxc.org/SiteAssets/Jan%202007%20CSEC%20Biology.pdf Caribbean Examinations Council (2007b).Report on Candidates' Work in the Caribbean Advanced Proficiency Examination May/June 2007.St. Michael, Barbados. Retrieved Nov. 13, 2008 from Caribbean Examination Council Web site: http://www.cxc.org/SiteAssets/CAPE_2007_Biology.pdf
  7. Chinn, P., & Hilgers, T. (2000). From corrector to collaborator: The range of instructor roles in writingbased natural and applied science classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(1), 3–25.
  8. Condon, W. (2001). Accommodating complexity: WAC program evaluation in the age of accountability. In S.H. McLeod, E. Miraglia, M. Soven, & C. Thassis (Eds.), WAC for the new millennium: Strategies for continuing writing-across- the curriculum programs (pp. 28-51). North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press.
  9. Day, S. (1989). Producing better writers in sociology classes: A test of the writing- across-thecurriculum approach. Teaching Sociology,17, 458-464.
  10. Ellis, R. (2004). University student approaches to learning science through writing. International Journal of Science Education, 26(15), 1835-1853.
  11. Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28,122-128.
  12. Feldman, S., Anderson, V., & Mangurian, L. (2001). Teaching effective science writing: Refining students’