The Effect of a PBWMIP on Writing Success and Attitude toward Writing

References

• Alvermann, D. E. (1981). The compensatory effect of graphic organizers on descriptive text. The Journal of Educational Research, 75(1), 44–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1981.10885354
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aram, D. (2005). Continuity in children’s literacy achievements: A longitudinal perspective from kindergarten to school. First Language, 25(3), 259–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723705050339.
   Google Scholar
• Arıcı, A. F., & Kaldırım, A. (2015). The effect of the process-based writing approach on writing success and anxiety of pre-service teachers. The Anthropologist, 22(2), 318–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2015.11891883
   Google Scholar
• Arıcı, A., & Ungan, S. (2008). İlköğretim ikinci kademe öğrencilerinin yazılı anlatım çalışmalarının bazı yönlerden değerlendirilmesi [An evaluation of secondary school students' writing mistakes with respect to some points]. Dumlupinar University Journal of Social Sciences, 20, 317–328.
   Google Scholar
• Bayat, N. (2014). The effect of the process writing approach on writing success and anxiety. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(3), 1123–1141. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2014.3.1720
   Google Scholar
• Bellamy, P. C. (2000). Research on writing with the 6 + 1 Traits. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
   Google Scholar
• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boscolo, P. (2009). Writing in primary school. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text (pp. 359–380). LEA, Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Bright, R. (2007). Write through the grades: Teaching writing in secondary school. Portage Main Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bruning, R., & Horn, C. (2000). Developing motivation to write. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3501_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı [Data analysis: Handbook for social Sciences]. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
   Google Scholar
• Calkins, L. M. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Chaney, S. L. (2011). Writer’s workshop: Implementing units of study, findings from a teacher study group, and student success in writing [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Pacific Oaks College, California.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, E. V. (2009). First language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson Publication.
   Google Scholar
• Darch, C., & Eaves, R. (1986). Visual displays to increase comprehension in high school learning disabled students. Journal of Special Education, 20(3), 309–318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders. (Research report No. 13). National Council of Teachers of English.
   Google Scholar
• Erdoğan, Ö. (2012). The effects of process based creative writing activities on students writing expression and attitude towards writing [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Hacettepe University, Turkey.
   Google Scholar
• Erdoğan, Ö., & Yangın, B. (2014). Süreç temelli yaratıcı yazma uygulamalarının yazılı anlatıma ve yazmaya ilişkin tutuma etkisi [The effects of process based creative writing activities on students’ writing expression and attitude towards writing]. Abant İzzet Baysal University Journal of Faculty of Education, 14(1), 438–459.
   Google Scholar
• Faraj, A. K. A. (2015). Scaffolding EFL students’ writing through the writing process approach. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(13), 131–141.
   Google Scholar
• Flowers, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 928–950.
   Google Scholar
• Fraenkel, J., Wallen, N., & Hyun, H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education. Mc Graw Hill Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Furtak, E. M. (2012). Linking a learning progression for natural selection to teachers’ enactment of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1181–1210. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21054.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerde, H. K., Bingham, G. R., & Wasik, B. A. (2012). Writing in childhood classrooms: Guidance for best practices. Early Childhood Education Journal, 40(6), 351–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-012-0531-z
   Google Scholar
• Göçer, A. (2014). Yazma eğitimi [Writing training]. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S., & Sandmel, K. (2011). The process writing approach: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(6), 396–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2010.488703
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graves, D. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Graves, D. (2003). Writing: Teachers and children at work (20th ed.). Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Hammill, D. (2004). What we know about correlates of reading. Exceptional Children, 70(4), 453–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290407000405
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herrick, V. E., & Otto, W. (1961). Pressure on point and barrel of a writing instrument. The Journal of Experimental Education, 30(2), 215–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1961.11010709
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humphris, R. (2010). Developing students as writers through collaboration. Changing English, 17(2), 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/13586841003787365
   Google Scholar
• Kansızoğlu, H. B. (2017). Grafik örgütleyicilerin dil öğretme ve öğrenme alanlarındaki başarıya etkisi: bir meta analiz çalışması [The effect of graphic organizers on language teaching and learning areas: A meta-analysis study]. Education and Science, 42(191), 139–164. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2017.6777
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karatay, H. (2011). Süreç temelli yazma modelleri: 4 + 1 planlı yazma ve değerlendirme modeli [Process based writing models: 4 + 1 planned writing and evaluation]. In M. Özbay (Eds.), Yazma eğitimi (pp. 21–40). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
   Google Scholar
• Kear, D., Coffman, G., McKenna, M., & Ambrosio, A. (2000). Measuring attitude toward writing: A new tool for teachers. Reading Teacher, 54, 10–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koutsoftas, A. D. (2018). Writing-process products of fourth-and sixth-grade children: A descriptive study. The Elementary School Journal, 118(4), 632–653. https://doi.org/10.1086/697510
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kozlow, M., & Bellamy, P. (2004). Experimental study on the impact of the 6 + 1 trait writing model on student achievement in writing. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
   Google Scholar
• Kurudayıoğlu, M., & Karadağ, Ö. (2010). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin yazılı anlatımlarının konu seçimleri açısından incelenmesi [Examining the written expressions of primary school graders as regard to their choice of topics]. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 7(13), 192–207.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, J. W. (1987). Topic selection in writing: A precarious but practical balancing act. The Reading Teacher, 41(2), 180–184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lubin, J., & Sewak, M. (2007). Enhancing learning through the use of graphic organizers: A Review of the literature. Lynchburg College Online Journal of Special Education, 2, 1–34.
   Google Scholar
• McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a. Thai EFL Context. System, 32(2), 207–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.01.003
   Google Scholar
• McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2015). Türkçe dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve ortaokul 1–8. sınıflar) [The elementary school Turkish language arts course (1–8 grades) teaching program and guidance]. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2018). Türkçe dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve ortaokul 1–8. sınıflar). [The elementary school Turkish language arts course (1–8 grades) teaching program and guidance]. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
   Google Scholar
• Murray, D. (1972). Teach writing as a process not product. The Leaflet, 71(3), 11–14.
   Google Scholar
• Nauman, A. D. (2007). Writing in the primary grades: Tapping young children’s enthusiasm to help them become good writers. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 35(4), 16–28.
   Google Scholar
• Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Özkara, Y. (2007). 6+1 analytic writing and evaluatine model on enhancing 5th grade students narrative writing skills [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Gazi University.
   Google Scholar
• Pour-Mohammadi, M., Abidin, M. J. Z., & Fong, C. L. (2012). The effect of process writing practice on the writing quality of form one students: A case study. Asian Social Science, 8(3), 88–99. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v8n3p88
   Google Scholar
• Qomariyah, S. S. A., & Permana, D. (2016). Process based approach towards students’ creativity in writing English paragraph. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 37–47.
   Google Scholar
• Reimer, M. (2001). The effect of a traditional, a process writing and a combined talking and writing instructional approach on the quality of secondary English students’ written response [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Manitoba.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, D. H., & Kiewra, K. A. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 455–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.3.455
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruddell, R. B. (2006). Teaching children to read and write: Becoming an effective literacy teacher. (4th ed.). Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Seban, D. (2012). Yazarlık döngüsü’nün üçüncü sınıf öğrencilerinin yazmaya karşı tutum, algı ve yazma becerilerine etkisi [The effect of authoring cycle on third grade students’ attitudes towards writing, self-perception and writing ability]. Education and Science, 37(164), 147–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snyder, A. E. (2012). The effects of graphic organizers and content familiarity on second graders’ comprehension of cause/effect text [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Columbia University.
   Google Scholar
• Sritrakarn, N. O. (2018). A comparison of teacher’s and senior students’ feedback: Student attitudes and their writing improvement. Journal of Asia Tefl, 15(2), 329–348.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanovich, P. J., & Stanovich, K. E. (2003). Using research and reason in education: How teachers can use scientifically based research to make curricular & instructional decisions. National Institute for Literacy, US Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Stapa, S. H. (1994). The effects of the process approach on writing apprehension and writing quality among ESL students at university level in Malaysia [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Glasgow.
   Google Scholar
• Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153–173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strech, L. L. (1994). Action research: The implementation of writing workshop in the third grade (ED 380798). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED380798.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Tavşanlı, Ö. F. (2017). Türkiye’de uygulanan süreç temelli yazma yaklaşımı temele alınarak hazırlanmış öğretim programının değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of the instructional program in Turkey based on the process-based writing approach]. International Journal of Language Academy, 5(2), 79–97. https://doi.org/10.18033/ijla.3551
   Google Scholar
• Tavşanlı, Ö. F. (2018). İlkokul öğrencileri ne yazar?: İlkokul öğrencilerinin yazılı anlatımlarında metin türü, konu ve içerik tercihlerinin incelenmesi [What do primary school students write about? Investigation of text types, subjects and content preferences in the written works of primary school students]. Journal of Mother Tongue Education, 6(1), 32–47. https://doi.org/10.16916/aded.346402
   Google Scholar
• Tavşanlı, Ö. F., Bilgin, A., & Yıldırım, K. (2019). Yazmaya ilişkin tutum ölçeğinin Türkçe uyarlama çalışmaları [Adaptation of writing attitude survey into Turkish language]. Journal of Language Education and Research, 5(2), 267–282. https://doi.org/10.31464/jlere.561205
   Google Scholar
• Tavşanlı, Ö. F., & Kaldırım, A. (2018). İlkokul 2. sınıf öğrencilerinin süreç temelli yazma uygulamalarına ilişkin görüşlerinin incelenmesi [Investigating the opinions of second grade elementary school students on process based writing practices]. Journal of Mother Tongue Education, 6(3), 859–876. https://doi.org/10.16916/aded.436344
   Google Scholar
• Tavşanlı, Ö. F., & Seban, D. (2015). Grafik örgütleyicilerin ilköğretim 4. sinif öğrencilerinin bilgilendirici metinleri çözümleme ve özetleme başarilari üzerine etkisi [The effects of graphic organizers on 4th grade students’ success in analyzing and summarizing expository texts]. Dumlupınar University Journal of Social Sciences, 43, 85–93.
   Google Scholar
• Temizkan, M. (2011). The effect of creative writing activities on the story writing skill educational sciences: Theory & practice. ERIC. 11(2), 919–940.
   Google Scholar
• Tompkins, G., Campbell, R., Green, D., & Smith, C. (2014). Literacy for the 21st century. Pearson Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Tompkins, G. E., & Collom, S. (2004). Sharing the pen: Interactive writing with young children. Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Warne, B. M. (2008). Writing steps: A recursive and individual experience. English Journal, 97(5), 23–27.
   Google Scholar
• Winstead Fry, S., & Griffin, S. (2010). Fourth graders as models for teachers: Teaching and learning 6 + 1 trait writing as a collaborative experience. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49(4), 283–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070903117955
   Google Scholar
• Wu, Y. (2001). English language teaching in China: Trends and challenges. Tesol Quarterly, 35(1), 191–194. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587867
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yarrow, F., & Topping, K. J. (2001). Collaborative writing: The effects of metacognitive prompting and structured peer interaction. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(Pt 2), 261–282. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709901158514
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yılmaz, M., & Kadan, Ö. F. (2019). Sınıf ögretmenlerinin süreç temelli yazmaya yönelik görüşlerinin incelenmesi [The class teachers’ opinions on process-oriented writing]. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Research, 13(27), 559–572. https://doi.org/10.29329/mjer.2019.185.27
   Google Scholar