SavedAdd your journal

Journals / IOJET / 2017 / Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 3

DOMAIN SPECIFIC BELIEFS ABOUT WRITING AND WRITING PERFORMANCE OF PRESERVICE ENGLISH TEACHERS: IS THERE ANY RELATIONSHIP?

Seray TANYER
Journal
IOJET
Pages
265–288
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)

Writing performance was measured on an essay writing task by calculating both overall grade and six component grades.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Learning as a retrospective phenomenon can make learners transmit their past as an ingredient while they are (re)structuring their present and future.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this regard, current study aims to investigate first-year undergraduates’ beliefs about writing and relation of these beliefs to writing performance in essay writing.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Writing performance was measured on an essay writing task by calculating both overall grade and six component grades.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Learning as a retrospective phenomenon can make learners transmit their past as an ingredient while they are (re)structuring their present and future. Previous and present experiences can form a basis for cognitive, behavioral and motivational factors which can create a cognitive load for learners and affect their learning process. In this regard, current study aims to investigate first-year undergraduates’ beliefs about writing and relation of these beliefs to writing performance in essay writing. A total of 147 students studying in ELT department of a Turkish university participated in the research. Their domain-specific beliefs about writing were determined through the Beliefs about Writing Survey (BAWS). Writing performance was measured on an essay writing task by calculating both overall grade and six component grades. As a result, multiple regression analysis affirmed that beliefs about writing accounted for writing performance independently. Pearson correlation values showed that some beliefs about writing were adaptive and associated with higher writing scores (e.g. “Adapt to the Audience”). Also, some belief subcategories were associated with each other. The results of the present study have been discussed along with the related literature on beliefs about writing and writing performance. Implications/suggestions related to the coursework, writing practices and future research have been presented

🔖

Cite This Article

TANYER, S. (2022). DOMAIN SPECIFIC BELIEFS ABOUT WRITING AND WRITING PERFORMANCE OF PRESERVICE ENGLISH TEACHERS: IS THERE ANY RELATIONSHIP?. IOJET, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 3, 265–288. https://ajindex.com/articles/542428

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Andrade, H. G., & Boulay, B. A. (2003). Role of rubric-referenced self-assessment in learning to write. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(1), 21-34.
  2. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175-1184.
  3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman. Beach, R., & Friedrich, T. (2006). Response to writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 222-234). New York: Guilford. Bruning, R., Dempsey, M., Kauffman, D., & Zumbrunn, S. (2011). Writing viewed as transmission and transaction: An empirical study of implicit writing beliefs. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Charney, D., Newman, J. H., & Palmquist, M. (1995). “I’m just no good at writing”: Epistemological style and attitudes toward writing. Written Communication, 12(3), 298-329.
  4. Cramer, R. L. (2001). Creative power: The nature and nurture of children’s writing. New York: Logman. Daly, J. A., & Miller, M. D. (1975). The empirical development of an instrument to measure writing apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 9(3), 242-249.
  5. Gay, L. R. (1992). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (4th ed.). New York: Merrill. Graham, S., Schwartz, S. S., & MacArthur, C. A. (1993). Knowledge of writing and the composing process, attitude toward writing, and self-efficacy for students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(4), 237-249.
  6. Jacobs, H. L., Hartfield, V. F., Hughey, J. B., & Vormuth, D. R. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House Publishers.
  7. Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: a cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1(1), 1-26.
  8. Lavelle, E. (1993). Development and validation of an inventory to assess to processes in college composition. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(3), 489-499.
  9. Lavelle, E. (2001). Writing styles of college students. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 32(1), 60-67.
  10. Lavelle, E. (2003). Writing approaches of college students: A relational perspective. TLAR, 8(2), 5-17.
  11. Lavelle, E., & Guarino, A. J. (2003). A multidimensional approach to understanding college writing. Educational Psychology, 23(3), 295-305.
  12. Lavelle, E., Smith, J., & O’Ryan, L. (2002). The writing approaches of secondary students. British