Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research
ISSN (Print): 1949-4270 - ISSN (Online): 1949-4289

Research article    |    Open Access
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2023, Vol. 18(3) 446-464

Preservice Preschool Teachers' Opinions About Writing to Learn Mathematics and The Methods They Use While Writing

Ferhat Öztürk

pp. 446 - 464   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2023.600.21

Publish Date: September 30, 2023  |   Single/Total View: 38/276   |   Single/Total Download: 53/386

PDF Download

Abstract

This study aims to determine pre-service preschool teachers' opinions about writing to learn mathematics and the methods they use while writing. Survey design, one of the quantitative research methods, was used in the study. The sample of the study consisted of a total of 418 pre-service teachers studying in the preschool teaching undergraduate program of six different state universities. The Likert-type questionnaire developed by Ozturk and Gunel (2015) was used to collect data. Frequency analysis, Mann-Whitney U test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used in data analysis. According to the results obtained from the study, it was determined that pre-service preschool teachers used revising writing and planned writing processes when the methods they used while writing about learning mathematics were taken into consideration. When this situation is evaluated, it can be said that the pre-service teachers carried out a comprehensive writing process. On the other hand, no significant difference was found between pre-service teachers' thoughts about writing to learn mathematics and their gender and grade level. In addition, although there was no significant difference between pre-service teachers' opinions about the methods they used while writing to learn mathematics and their grade levels, a significant difference was found according to the gender variable.

Keywords: Mathematics learning, writing to learn, pre-service preschool teacher

How to Cite this Article?

APA 7th edition
Ozturk, F. (2023). Preservice Preschool Teachers' Opinions About Writing to Learn Mathematics and The Methods They Use While Writing. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 18(3), 446-464. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2023.600.21

Harvard
Ozturk, F. (2023). Preservice Preschool Teachers' Opinions About Writing to Learn Mathematics and The Methods They Use While Writing. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 18(3), pp. 446-464.

Chicago 16th edition
Ozturk, Ferhat (2023). "Preservice Preschool Teachers' Opinions About Writing to Learn Mathematics and The Methods They Use While Writing". Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 18 (3):446-464. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2023.600.21

References
  1. Arıkan, R. (2013). Anketler ve anket soruları (1. Baskı). Nobel Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  2. Biber, B. (2012). Science teachers’ perceptions toward writing and levels of writing-to-learn implementations [Master thesis]. Atatürk University. Retrieved from https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/ [Google Scholar]
  3. Bitir, T., & Duran, E. (2021). Development of a rubric to evaluate the critical writing skills levels of fourth-grade primary school students. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 16(4), 255-273. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2021.383.14 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  4. Bursal, M. (2017). SPSS ile temel veri analizleri. Anı Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  5. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (15. Baskı). Anı Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  6. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. A., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2018). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (24. Baskı). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.). Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. Retrieved from http://users.cla.umn.edu/~nwaller/prelim/cohenpowerprimer.pdf [Google Scholar]
  9. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. Routhledge. [Google Scholar]
  10. Çömen, H., & Uzun, S. (2022). The effect of a hybrid book based on the writing to learn activities supported learning environment on student achievement. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Education Faculty, 42(1), 461-483. https://doi.org/10.17152/gefad.748685 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  11. Demir, T. (2013). Study of the relationship between the creative writing skills of primary school students and their self-efficacy perception. International Journal of Turkish Literature Culture Education, 2(1), 84-114.Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/teke/issue/12845/155637 [Google Scholar]
  12. Demirbağ, M. (2011). The effect of multi modal instruction on student’s science achievement and writing skills in an argument based inquiry classroom [Master thesis]. Ahi Evran University. Retrieved from https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/ [Google Scholar]
  13. Demirbağ, M., Kingir, S., & Çepni, S. (2015). The relationship between prospective teachers’ belief systems and writing-to-learn. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty, 16(2), 423-442. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/kefad/issue/59450/854123 [Google Scholar]
  14. Doğan, Y., & İlhan, N. (2016). Prospective teachers’ views related to using writing to learn activities in “science and technology teaching” course. Adıyaman University Journal of Educational Sciences, 6(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.17984/adyuebd.30690 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  15. Drowns-Bangert, R.L., Hurley, M.M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29-58. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001029 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  16. Eryaman, M.Y. (2008). Writing, method and hermeneutics: Towards an existential pedagogy. İlköğretim Online, 7(1), 2-14. [Google Scholar]
  17. Flower, L., & Hayes, J.R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  18. Galbraith, D., Ford, S., Walker, G., & Ford, J. (2005). The contribution of different components of working memory to planning in writing. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature,15, 113-145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10674-005-0119-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  19. Glen, N.J. (2008). Writing in elementary school science: Factors that influence teacher beliefs and practices [Doctoral dissertation]. Syracure University. [Google Scholar]
  20. Graham, S. (2008). Research on writing development, practice, instruction, and assessment: Introduction to a special issue of reading and writing. Read Write, 21, 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9069-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  21. Günel, M. (2009). Writing as a cognitive process and learning tool in elementary science education. Elementary Education Online, 8(1), 200-211. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ilkonline/issue/8599/107061 [Google Scholar]
  22. Gunel, M., Hand, B., & McDermott, M. (2009). Writing for different audiences: Effects on high school students’ conceptual understanding of biology. Learning and Instruction, 19, 354-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.07.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  23. Gunel, M., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2007). Secondary analysis of non-traditional writing in science across different grade-levels. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(5), 615-637. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). Teachers implementing writing‐to‐learn strategies in junior secondary science: A case study. Science Education, 86(6), 737-755. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10016 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  25. Hand, B., Hohenshell, L., & Prain, V. (2007). Examining the effect of multiple writing tasks on year 10 biology students’ understanding of cell and molecular biology concepts. Instructional Science, 35, 343-373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-006-9012-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  26. Hand, B., Yang, O.E.M., & Bruxvoort, C. (2007). Using writing-to-learn science strategies to improve year 11 students’ understandings of stoichiometry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 125-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-005-9028-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  27. Hohenshell, L., Hand, B., & Staker, J. (2004). Promoting conceptual understanding of biotechnology: Writing to a younger audience. The American Biology Teacher, 66(5), 333-338. https://doi.org/10.2307/4451686 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  28. Jaafar, R. (2016). Writing-to-learn activities to provoke deeper learning in calculus. Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 26(1), 67-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2015.1053642 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  29. Kabataş-Memiş, E. (2014). Students' views about the non-traditional writing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116(2014), 1735-1738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.464 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  30. Kayaalp, F. (2021). The effect of using writing to learning activities in social studies course on cognitive and affective learning [Doctoral dissertation]. Atatürk University. Retrieved from https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/ [Google Scholar]
  31. Klein, P.D., & Rose, M.A. (2010). Teaching argument and explanation to prepare junior students for writing to learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(4), 433-461. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.4.4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  32. Klein. D.P. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11(3), 203-270. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021913217147 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  33. Klein, D.P. (2000). Elementary students’ strategies for writing-to-learn in science. Cognition and Instruction, 18(3), 317-348. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1803_2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  34. Mason, L., & Boscolo, P. (2000). Writing and conceptual change. What changes?. Instructional Science, 28, 199-226. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003854216687 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  35. Metin, M. (2014). Nicel veri toplama araçları. M. Metin (Ed.), Kuramdan uygulamaya eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri içinde (s. 161-214). Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  36. Oz, M., & Kabatas-Memis, E. (2018). Effect of multi modal representations on the critical thinking skills of the fifth grade students. International Journal of Progressive Education, 14(2), 209-227. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2018.139.15 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  37. Ozturk, B., & Gunel, M. (2015). Writing and its use as a learning tool through teacher’s perspective: Instrument development and a pilot implementation. Elementary Education Online, 14(2), 713-733. https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2015.60822 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  38. Özdemir, Ö. (2014). Tarama yöntemi. M. Metin (Ed.), Kuramdan uygulamaya eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri içinde (s. 77-97). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  39. Öztürk, B., Kaymakoğlu, H., & Demiroğlu-Çiçek, S. (2022). The effect of writing to learn activities on the academic achievement of 8th grade students on periodic system. Journal of Science Teaching, 10(1), 115-138. https://doi.org/10.56423/fbod.1097724 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  40. Öztürk, B., Öztürk, F., & Işık, A. (2016b). An investigation into the perspectives of prospective teachers on writing and writing to learn activities. Turkish Journal of Social Research, (Special issue), 1-15. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/journal-file/20653 [Google Scholar]
  41. Öztürk, F., Öztürk, B., & Işık, A. (2016a). The opinions of secondary school mathematics teachers on writing and writing-to-learn activities. Journal of Bayburt Education Faculty, 11(2), 306-328. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/befdergi/issue/28762/307844 [Google Scholar]
  42. Pallant, J. (2017). SPSS kullanma kılavuzu: SPSS ile adım adım veri analizi (2. Baskı) (S. Balcı & B. Ahi, Çev.). Anı Yayıncılık (Orijinal eserin basım tarihi 2016, 6. Baskı). [Google Scholar]
  43. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (2006). Science and literacy. In K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education: Issues and practice (pp. 153-174). Association of Educators of Science Teachers Publication, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  44. Rivard, L.P., & Straw, S.B., (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84, 566-593. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200009)84:5<566::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-U [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  45. Seçer, İ. (2017). SPSS ve LISREL ile pratik veri analizi: Analiz ve raporlaştırma (3. Baskı). Anı Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  46. Sedita, J. (2015). Learning to write and writing to learn. In M.C. Hougen (Ed.), Fundamentals of literacy instruction and assessment: 6-12, (pp. 97-115). Brooks Publishing Company. [Google Scholar]
  47. Sinaga, P., & Feranie, S. (2017). Enhancing critical thinking skills and writing skills through the variation in non-traditional writing task. International Journal of Instruction, 10(2), 69-84. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1138333 [Google Scholar]
  48. Sönmez, V., & Alacapınar, F. (2011). Örneklendirilmiş bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Anı Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  49. Tynjala, P. (1998). Writing as a tool for constructive learning: Students’ learning experiences during an experiment. Higher Education, 36, 209-230. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003260402036 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  50. Van Dijk A., Van Gelderen A., & Kuiken, F. (2022). Effects of instruction in writing-to-learn on low-achieving adolescents in biology and mathematics classes. Education Sciences, 12(9), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12090595 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  51. Wallace, C., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2004). Writing and learning in the science classroom. Kluiwer Academic Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  52. Watts, F.M., Park, G.Y., Petterson, M.N., & Shultz, G.V. (2022). Considering alternative reaction mechanisms: students’ use of multiple representations to reason about mechanisms for a writing-to-learn assignment. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 23, 486-507. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1RP00301A [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  53. Wright, K.L., Hodges, T.S., Zimmer W.K., & McTigue, E.M. (2019). Writing-to-learn in secondary science classes: for whom is it effective?. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 35(4), 289-304. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2018.1541769 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  54. Yıldırım, A., Doğanay, A., & Türkoğlu, A. (2009). Okulda başarı için ders çalışma ve öğretme yöntemleri (2. Baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
Meta
Vol. 18 (3)
Download
Metric
History
Related

Volume 18 Issue 3

September 2023

All Manuscript

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research

Copyright © 2025 Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. CC BY
All elements of this website were created using the BOQ™ - Intelligent Webverse System.