Author :
Abstract
Bu çalışma Marrs (2016) tarafından geliştirilen Yazma Geribildirim Ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması amacıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Uyarlama sürecinde Marrs (2016)’nin 4 faktörlü ve 31 maddelik ölçeğinin orijinal formu 620 öğretmen adayına uygulanmıştır. Ancak Türkçeye uyarlama çalışması sırasında maddelerinin 8 faktöre dağıldığı ve madde dağılımının faktör yapısına uygun olmadığı gözlemlenmiştir. Bu nedenle ölçekte bulunan bazı maddeler çıkarılmış ve yeni maddeler yazılmıştır. 15 maddelik geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizleri için açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ölçeğin geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizleri için 346 öğretmen adayından veri toplanmıştır. Veri setinin faktör analizi için uygunluğunu belirlemek için KMO değeri hesaplanmış ve bulunan değerin .888 olması açımlayıcı faktör analizi için uygun olduğunu göstermiştir. Açımlayıcı faktör analizi bulgularına göre ölçek 3 faktör 15 maddeden oluşmaktadır. Ölçeğin bütününe ve alt boyutlarına ilişkin Cronbach Alfa iç tutarlılık katsayısının.70’in üstünde olması nedeniyle ölçeğin güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu söylenebilir. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi kapsamında ölçek alternatif uyum indekslerine uygunluğu açısından incelenmiştir. Elde edilen değerlerin önerilen kabul kesme noktaları ile uyumlu olduğu bu nedenle de YGÖ’nin üç faktörlü yapısının doğrulandığı söylenebilir.
Keywords
Abstract
This study intended to to adapt the Writing Feedback Scale developed by Marrs (2016) to Turkish. In the adaptation process, the original form of the 4-factor and 31-item scale of Marrs (2016) was applied to 620 prospective teachers. However, during the adaptation study to Turkish, it was observed that the items were distributed to 8 factors and the item distribution was not suitable for the factor structure. For this reason, some items in the scale have been removed and new items have been written. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyzes were performed for validity and reliability analysis of 15 items. Data were collected from 346 prospective teachers for the validity and reliability analysis of the scale. The KMO value was calculated to determine the suitability of the data set for factor analysis, and the value found was .888 showed that it was suitable for exploratory factor analysis. According to the exploratory factor analysis findings, the scale consists of 3 factors and 15 items. It could be argued that the scales are reliable since the factor analysis conducted in the study pointed that the scale had three factor structure. Within the context of confirmatory factor analysis, the scale was analyzed for compliance with alternative fit indices. It can be argued that the obtained values are compatible with the proposed acceptance breakpoints and therefore the three-factor structure of the WFS is confirmed.
Keywords
- Archibald, M. (2010). Perceptions of diverse first-grade learners of their writing instruction and growth as writers. Doctoral of dissertation, Walden University
- Bangert-Drowns, 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.
- Bee, R. & Bee, F. (1998). Constructive feedback. CIPD Publishing.
- Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (2001). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment, King’s Assessment for Learning Group, King’s College London.
- Brown T.A (2006). Confimatory factor analysis for applied research. (First Edition). N.Y: NY: Guilford Press
- Caffarella, R. S. & Barnett, B. G. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: The importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 39-52.
- Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219- 233.
- Casey, L. B., Miller, N. D., Stockton, M. B. & Justice, W. V. (2016). Assessing writing in elementary schools: Moving away from a focus on mechanics. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(1), 42-54.
- Chory-Assad, R.M. 2002. Classroom justice: perceptions of fairness as a predictor of student motivation, learning and aggression. Communication Quarterly, (50), 58–77
- Coleman, L. M., Jussim, L., & Abraham, J. (1987). Students' R eactions to Teachers' E valuations: The Unique Impact of Negative Feedback 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17(12), 1051-1070.
- Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.L. and Ng, K. (2001). Justice in the millennium: a meta‐analytic review of 25 years of organisational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, (86), 425–445.
- Connors, R.J. and Lunsford, A.A. 1993. Teachers’ theoretical comments on students’ papers. College Composition and Communication, 44, 200–223.
- Crisp B.R. (2007). Is it worth the effort? How feedback influences students' subsequent submission of assessable work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(5), 571-581.
- Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal Bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik SPSS ve LISREL Uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
- Çotuksöken, Y. (2006). Uygulamalı Türk Dili, İstanbul: Papatya Yayıncılık
- De Nisi, A. and Kluger, A.N. 2000. Feedback effectiveness: can 360‐degree appraisals be improved? Academy of Management Executive, 14, 129–139.
- Dochy, F. J. & McDowell, L. (1997). Introduction: Assessment as a Tool for Learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 279-98.
- Dowden, T., Pittaway, S., Yost, H., & McCarthy, R. (2013). Students’ perceptions of written feedback in teacher education: Ideally feedback is a continuing two-way communication that encourages progress. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(3), 349-362.
- Driscoll, D.L & Powell, R. (2016). States, Traits, and Dispositions: The İmpact of emotion on writing development and writing transfer across college courses and beyond. In Composition Forum (Vol. 34). Association of Teachers of Advanced Composition.
- Ekholm, E., Zumbrunn, S., & Conklin, S. (2015). The relation of college student self-efficacy toward writing and writing self-regulation aptitude: Writing feedback perceptions as a mediating variable. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(2), 197-207.
- Ferris D.R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315-339.
- Garver, M. S. & Mentzer, J. T. (1999). Logistics research methods: employing structural equation modeling to test for construct validity. Journal of Business Logistics, 20(1), 33.
- Gerbing, D. W. & Anderson, J. C. (1992). Monte Carlo evaluations of goodness of fit indices for structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 132-160.
- Graham S. & Harris K.R. (2004). Writing instruction. In B. Wong (Ed.), Learning About Learning Disabilities, 3rd ed. 281 – 313, San Diego, CA: Elsevier Science.
- Graham, S., & Herbert, M. (2011). Writing to read: A meta-analysis of the impact of writing and writing instruction on reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81(4), 710-744.
- Graham, S. & R. Harris, K. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 3-12.
- Graham, S. Bollinger, A., Olson, C. B., D'Aoust, C., MacArthur, C., McCutchen, D., & Olinghouse, N. (2012). Teaching Elementary School Students to Be Effective Writers: A Practice Guide. NCEE 2012 4058. What Works Clearinghouse. Guilford Publications. Inc
- Hattie J. & Timperley H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112
- Hebert, M. Gillespie, A. & Graham, S. (2013). Comparing effects of different writing activities on reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. Reading and Writing, 26(1), 111-138.
- Hester, V. 2001. Responding to student writing: Locating our theory-practice among communities. Paper presented at the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication. 14–17 March.
- Higgins R. Hartley P., & Skelton A. (2001). “Getting the message across: The problem of communicating assessment feedback”. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(2), 269-274.
- Higgins, R. Hartley, P. and Skelton, A. (2002). The conscientious consumer: reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 53–64.
- Hillocks, G. (2008). Writing in secondary schools. Handbook of research on writing: History, Society, School, İndividual, text, 311-329.
- Holmes, K. & Papageorgiou, G. (2009). Good, bad and insufficient: Students' expectations, perceptions and uses of feedback. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education, (Pre-2012), 8(1), 85.
- Hooper, D. Coughlan, J. & Mullen, M. (2008.). Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1),53-60.
- Hounsell, D. 1987. “Essay writing and the quality of feedback”. In Student learning: research in education and cognitive psychology, Edited by: Richardson, J.T.E. (p.109-119).Eysenck, M. and Piper, D.W. Milton Keynes: SRHE & Open University Press.
- Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students. Language Teaching Research, 4(1), 33-54.
- Hyland, F. & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185–212.
- Iacobucci, D. (2010). Structural equations modeling: Fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 90-98.
- İlhan, M. & Çetin, B. (2014). LISREL ve AMOS programları kullanılarak gerçekleştirilen yapısal eşitlik modeli (YEM) analizlerine ilişkin sonuçların karşılaştırılması. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 5(2), 26-42.
- Jöreskog, K. G., Sörbom, D., & Du Toit, S. H. C. (2001). LISREL 8: New statistical features. Scientific Software International.
- Kellogg, R. T. & Whiteford, A. P. (2009). Training advanced writing skills: The case for deliberate practice. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 250-266.
- Kilmen, S. (2015). Eğitim araştırmacıları için SPSS uygulamalı istatistik. Ankara: Edge Akademi.
- Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. (Secondedition). N.Y: Guilford Publications, Inc. Young, P. 2000. ‘I might as well give up’: self‐esteem and mature students’ feelings about feedback on assignments. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 24, 409–418.
- Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of learning technologies. 2nd ed. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
- Lea, M.R. & Steirer, B.V. 2000. “Student writing and staff feedback in higher education: an academic literacy approach”. In Students’ writing in higher education: new contexts, Edited by: Lea, M. and Steirer, B. Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press.
- Lizzio, A. & Wilson, K. (2008). Feedback on assessment: Students’ perceptions of quality and effectiveness. Assessment & Evaluation İn Higher Education, 33(3), 263-275.
- Lizzio, A. Wilson, K., Gilchrist, J. & Gallois, C. (2003). The role of gender in the construction and evaluation of feedback effectiveness. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 341–379.
- Marrs, S. A. (2016). Development of the student perceptions of writing feedback scale. Doctoral of dissertation Philosophy at Virginia Commonwealth University. Richmond, Virginia.
- Marrs, S. Zumbrunn, S., McBride, C., & Stringer, J. K. (2016). Exploring Elementary Student Perceptions of Writing Feedback. Journal on Educational Psychology, 10(1), 16-28.
- Matsumura, L.C. Pattthey‐Chavez, G.G., Valdes, R. and Garnier, H. (2002). Teacher feedback, writing assignment quality, and third grade students’ revision in lower‐ and higher‐achieving urban schools. Elementary School Journal, 103, 3–24.
- McDonald, R. P. & Ho, M. H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64.
- McGrath, A. L., Taylor, A. & Pychyl, T. A. (2011). Writing Helpful Feedback: The Influence of Feedback Type on Students' Perceptions and Writing Performance. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 5.
- McMillan, J. H. (2007). Formative classroom assessment: The key to improving student achievement. In J. McMillan, Formative classroom assessment: Theory into practice (pp. 1 – 7). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
- Mory, E. H. (2004). Feedback research revisited. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 2, 745-783.
- Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501-517.
- 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.
- Norton, L.S. & Norton, J.C.W. (2001). Essay feedback: How can it help students improve their academic writing? paper presented at First International Conference of the European Association for the Teaching of Academic Writing across Europe (EATAW). June18–20, Gronigen.
- O’Donovan, B., Price, M. & Rust, C. (2004). Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria. Teaching in Higher Education, 9, 325-335.
- Orsmond, P., Merry, S. & K. Reiling. (2005). Biology student’s utilization of tutors’ formative feedback: A Qualitative interview study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30 (4), 369–386.
- Poulos, A. & Mahony, M. J. (2008). Effectiveness of feedback: The students’ perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(2), 143-154.
- Roberts, S. (2009). Pod casting feedback to students: students' perspectives of effectiveness. Innovations in Practice, 1(2), 44-47.
- Rowe A. (2011). The personal dimension in teaching: Why students value feedback. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(4), 343-360.
- Rowe, A. D., Fitness, J. & Wood, L. N. (2014). The role and functionality of emotions in feedback at university: A qualitative study. The Australian Educational Researcher, 41(3), 283-309.
- Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H. & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
- Sipahi, B., Yurtkoru, E. S. & Çinko, M. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS’le veri analizi. İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım.
- Smith E. & Gorard S. (2005). “They don't give us our marks': the role of formative feedback in student progress”. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 12(1), 21-38.
- Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
- Turbill, J. & Bean, W. (2006). Writing Instruction K-6: Understanding Process, Purpose, Audience. Education Review//Reseñas Educativas.
- Ülper, H. (2012). Taslak metinlere öğretmenler tarafından sunulan geribildirimlerin özellikleri. Eğitim ve Bilim. 37(165).
- Vardi I. (2009). The relationship between feedback and change in tertiary student writing in the disciplines. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20 (3), 350-361.
- Värlander, S. (2008). The role of students’ emotions in formal feedback situations. Teaching in higher education, 13(2), 145-156.
- Weaver, M. R. (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ written responses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 379-394.
- Whitington, V., Glover, A. & Harley, F. 2004. Preservice early childhood students’ perceptions of written feedback on their essays. Early Child Development and Care, 174, 321–337.
- Zumbrunn, S., Marrs, S. & Mewborn, C. (2016). Toward a better understanding of student perceptions of writing feedback: a mixed methods study. Reading and Writing, 29(2), 349-370.
