Browsing by Subject "writing"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access The effects of two different goal setting processes on students' attitudes towards writing and towards a writing course(Bilkent University, 2004) Topuz, ElifThis study was designed to investigate the effects of two different goal setting procedures on students’ attitudes towards writing in general and towards the English 102 course offered at METU. Three groups of students participated in this study. One group was the control group. The other two groups were experimental groups. One of the experimental groups was assigned goals by their teacher whereas the other set their own goals. To compare groups for the overall attitudes, attitudes towards writing and the writing course, the same survey was given as a pre- and post-treatment survey to the three groups. Six ANOVAs were used to analyze the comparisons between groups. Nine t-tests were used to investigate the attitude changes within groups. The between groups analyses indicated that the significant difference in overall attitudes and attitudes towards the writing course that existed between the control and the self-set goal setting groups disappeared after the treatment. The within groups analysis showed that the attitudes of the control and the assigned goal setting groups changed in a negative direction while attitudes for the self-set goal setting group moved in a positive direction. Reflections gathered from the self-set goal setting group indicated positive changes related to effort, self-study, and awareness resulting from the goal setting process.Item Open Access Exploring the language skills embedded in the grade nine New Bridge to Success textbook(Bilkent University, 2013) Uçaner, NihanThe main aim of this study is to explore and map out the receptive and productive language skills and sub-skills embedded in the grade nine textbook, New Bridge to Success Elementary (2011) for Anatolian High Schools. To this end, content analysis is used to identify, analyze and quantify the language skills and sub-skills in the textbook. The results highlight the range, and the number of, receptive and productive sub-skills in the textbook. They also show that the textbook offers a wide range of productive sub-skills; however, the number of listening and writing subskills included in the textbook is relatively limited. The results are used to explicitly specify the receptive and productive language strands rooted in the textbook.Item Open Access The impact on critical thinking of the use of L1 and L2 in peer feedback(Bilkent University, 2010) Dağkıran, DidemThis study investigated (a) quantitative and (b) qualitative differences between the critical thinking displayed in L1 and L2 in peer feedback discussions of Turkish EFL (English as a Foreign Language) students. High-proficiency EFL learners participated in the study on a voluntary basis after a critical thinking test. With eight high-scorer students of the test, two groups were formed with four students in each group. These students had previously taken advanced writing courses and practiced peer feedback in these courses. Still, they were given a simple feedback guide sheet and training. The participants were asked to write two argumentative essays on two different topics one week before the discussion meeting. Focusing on those essays, each group had feedback discussions in L1 (Turkish) and L2 (English), in different orders. The researcher made no interventions. The discussions were audio- and video-recorded, and transcribed for a detailed analysis. The transcriptions were coded according to a critical thinking framework that was prepared by the researcher by adapting and combining items from previously used frameworks. The findings were analyzed for the quantitative and qualitative differences between the critical thinking expressed in the two languages. The data analysis showed that critical thinking was displayed significantly more in the L1. This finding, however, is affected by the fact that participants’ total amount of talk in L1 was also more than L2 talk, therefore the quantitative difference appears to have caused by the surplus amount of total talk in the L1. The study also revealed that there were qualitative differences between the languages that critical thinking was displayed. It was speculated that the qualitative differences resulted from the ease of using the native language as well as the safety provided by the pragmatic knowledge that made communication and interaction clearer in the L1. Suggestions were made for further support to students to express their thoughts in spoken L2 more effectively, which could include more practice on giving effective peer feedback, focusing on the necessary discourse and pragmatic skills, and providing students with other discussion tasks and subject matters that invites critical thinking.