PEN Academic Publishing   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2018, Vol. 14(6) 117-131

Comparison of Writing Skills of Students of Different Socioeconomic Status

Onur Dölek & Ergün Hamzadayı

pp. 117 - 131   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2018.179.9   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1811-21-0004

Published online: December 31, 2018  |   Number of Views: 176  |  Number of Download: 172


Abstract

This study compares the writing skills of students with different socioeconomic statuses, using the quantitative research method designs of “survey study” and “causal-comparative study”. The study group included 67 Turkish teachers and a total of 120 eighth-grade students from four different middle schools in the province of Gaziantep, Turkey, and the study was conducted during the 2016–2017 academic year. The socioeconomic status determination survey was applied to the students in order to ascertain their socioeconomic status. The students’ written texts and the teachers’ responses to the questionnaire were used as the study data. The written expression texts were evaluated by two experts according to the written expression evaluation form. NCSS (Number Cruncher Statistical System) 2007 (Kaysville, Utah, USA) software was used to analyze the data. In the analysis of the data, in addition to descriptive statistical methods (mean, standard deviation, median, frequency, ratio, minimum, and maximum values), Mann-Whitney U test was used for the paired comparison of data which did not display a normal distribution. The results revealed there to be a significant difference between the students with high and low socioeconomic status, in favor of the group with high socioeconomic status in terms of the form, content formation, content organization, word choice, and grammar dimensions of the written expressions. The results failed to show a significant difference between the two groups in terms of the students’ skills in “conducting research on the writing subject” and “building a draft of the text to be written” but did show a significant difference in “evaluating their writing”, in favor of the students with high socioeconomic status.

Keywords: Socioeconomic status, language skills, writing skills


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Dolek, O. & Hamzadayi, E. (2018). Comparison of Writing Skills of Students of Different Socioeconomic Status . International Journal of Progressive Education, 14(6), 117-131. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2018.179.9

Harvard
Dolek, O. and Hamzadayi, E. (2018). Comparison of Writing Skills of Students of Different Socioeconomic Status . International Journal of Progressive Education, 14(6), pp. 117-131.

Chicago 16th edition
Dolek, Onur and Ergun Hamzadayi (2018). "Comparison of Writing Skills of Students of Different Socioeconomic Status ". International Journal of Progressive Education 14 (6):117-131. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2018.179.9.

References
  1. Asiegbu, C., E. and Ezeugbor, C., O. (2018). Relationship between the socioeconomic status of parents and academic performance of students in Onitsha North Local Government Area of Anambra State. Journal Plus Education, XIX, 166-175. [Google Scholar]
  2. Avcı, M. (2013). The language of poverty or the effects of language codes of lower social class children on educational process. International Journal of Human Sciences, 10(1), 1050-1077. [Google Scholar]
  3. Avcıoğlu, H. (2000). İlköğretim İkinci Kademe Öğrencilerinin Okuma Becerilerinin Değerlendirilmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 25 (115), 10-17. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bai, B. (2015). The effects of strategy -based writing instruction in Singapore primary schools. System, 53, 96-106. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bal, H. (2009). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nicel Araştırma Yöntem ve Teknikleri. Isparta: Fakülte Kitapevi. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bartscher, M. A., Lawler, K. E., Ramirez, A. J. and Schinault, K. S. (2001). Improving student's writing ability through journals and creative writing exercises. Master of arts action research project reports, Saint Xavier University, Chicago.   [Google Scholar]
  7. Bayat, N. (2014). The effect of the process writing approach on writing success and anxiety. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(3), 1123-1141. [Google Scholar]
  8. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö., E., Karadeniz, Ş. and Demirel F. (2016). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. 21. Baskı, Ankara: Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  9. Calvo, A. and Bialystok, E. (2014). Independent effects of bilingualism and socioeconomic status on language ability and executive functioning. Cognition, 130(3), 278-288. [Google Scholar]
  10. Ceran, D. (2013). Turkish teachers attitudes towards the evaluation of writing training course. Electronic Turkish Studies, 8(1), 1151-1169. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cedeño, L. F., Martínez-Arias, R. and Bueno, J. A. (2016). Implications of socioeconomic status on academic competence: A perspective for teachers. International Education Studies, 9(4), 257-267.  [Google Scholar]
  12. Conti, G. (2004). Metacognitive enhancement and error correction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Reading, Reading, UK. [Google Scholar]
  13. Creswell, J., W. (2016). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods and approaches. Selçuk Beşir Demir (Trans. and Ed.), 2. Press, Ankara: Eğiten Kitap. [Google Scholar]
  14. Coşkun, E. (2003). Çeşitli değişkenlere göre lise öğrencilerinin etkili okuma becerileri ve bazı öneriler. Türklük Bilimi Araştırmaları, 13(13), 101-130.  [Google Scholar]
  15. Çelen, N. (1993). Ailenin Dil Gelişimine Etkisi. Oğuzkan, F. (Ed.), İlköğretim okullarında Türkçe öğretimi ve sorunları, Ankara: Türk Eğitim Derneği Yayınları, 77-93. [Google Scholar]
  16. 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.  [Google Scholar]
  17. Deniz, K. (2003). Yazılı anlatım becerileri bakımından köy ve kent beşinci sınıf öğrencilerinin durumu. TÜBAR-XIII, 233-255. [Google Scholar]
  18. Dökmen, Ü. (1994). Okuma becerisi, ilgisi ve alışkanlığı üzerine psiko-sosyal bir araştırma. Ankara: MEB Yay. [Google Scholar]
  19. Dölek, O. and Hamzadayı, E. (2016). The effect on peer interactıon-based writing activities on written expression abilities of 7th grade students. Turkish Studies, 11(3), 965-980.  [Google Scholar]
  20. Erkan, S. (2011). A study on the school readiness of first graders from different socio-economic levels. H. U. Journal of Education, 40, 186-197. [Google Scholar]
  21. Güler, Ç. (2013). Sosyokültürel-sosyoekonomik çevre. http://hasuder.org.tr/hsg/?p=1127 02.06.2017.  [Google Scholar]
  22. Güneş, F. (2014). Türkçe öğretimi: Yaklaşımlar ve modeller. 2. Baskı, Ankara: Pegem Akademi [Google Scholar]
  23. Güven, A. (2012). The comprehension of sociolinguistics. Pamukkale University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 13, 55-62.  [Google Scholar]
  24. Hamzadayı, E. (2010). Yapılandırmacı Öğrenme Kuramının Anadili Öğretimi Açısından İşlevselliği, Hasan Ali Yücel Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (3), 31-48. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hamzadayı, E. and Çetinkaya, G. (2011). Peer feedbacks in revision of written expressions: feedback types, students’ perceptions. Abant İzzet Baysal University Journal Of Faculty of Education, 11(1), 147-165.  [Google Scholar]
  26. Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1998). The relation of birth order and socioeconomic status to children's language experience and language development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19(4), 603-629. [Google Scholar]
  27. İmer, K. (1987). Toplum dilbilimin kimi kavramlarına kuramsal bir bakış ve dil turleri, http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/26/1029/12452.pdf (28.03.2017). [Google Scholar]
  28. İşeri, K. and Ünal, E. (2012). Analysing the Turkish teacher candidates’ writing anxiety situations in terms of several variables. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 8(2), 67-76.   [Google Scholar]
  29. Johnson, B. and Christensen, L. (2014). Eğitim Araştırmaları: Nicel, Nitel ve Karma Yaklaşımlar. Selçuk Beşir Demir (Çev. Ed.), 4. Baskı, Ankara: Eğiten Kitap. [Google Scholar]
  30. Katırcı Ağaçkıran Z. (2016). İlkokul birinci sınıf öğrencilerinin okuduğunu anlama başarılarının ve okuma hızlarının çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gaziantep Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Gaziantep.  [Google Scholar]
  31. Kemerlioğlu, E. (1996). Toplumsal tabakalaşma ve hareketlilik. İzmir: Saray Kitabevleri. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kurt, G. and Atay, D. (2007). The effects of peer feedback on the writing anxiety of prospective Turkish teachers of efl. Online Submission, 3(1), 12-23. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kuzgun, Y. (1986). Sosyo-Ekonomik Düzey ve Psikolojik İhtiyaçlar. A.Ü. Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, (81)2, 55-58. [Google Scholar]
  34. Maden, S. and Durukan, E. (2010). İstasyon tekniğinin yaratıcı yazma becerisi kazandırmaya ve derse karşı tutuma etkisi. Türklük Bilimi Araştırmaları, 28(28), 299-312. [Google Scholar]
  35. Magnifico, A. M. (2010). Writing for whom? Cognition, motivation, and a writer's audience. Educational Psychologist, 45(3), 167-184. [Google Scholar]
  36. McKenzie, S. (2015). Socioeconomic factors that affect children’s literacy experiences. Education and Human Development Master's Theses, 550. [Google Scholar]
  37. Neumann, M. M. (2016). A socioeconomic comparison of emergent literacy and home literacy in Australian preschoolers. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 24(4), 555-566. [Google Scholar]
  38. Öztürk Dağabakan, F. (2012). An approach of Turkish and German to language discrimination of men and women as a sociolinguistic concept. Atatürk University Journal of Turkish Researches Institute, 47, 87-106. [Google Scholar]
  39. Schweiker-Marra, K. E. and Marra, W. T. (2000). Investigating the effects of prewriting activities on writing performance and anxiety of at-risk students. Reading Psychology, 21(2), 99-114. [Google Scholar]
  40. Selen, N. (1989). Toplumsal dilbilime giriş. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  41. Suleman Q., Hussain I., Khan, U., F. and Nisa, Z. (2012). Effects of Parental Socioeconomic Status on the Academic Achievement of Secondary School Students in District Karak (Pakistan). International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 2(4), 14-32. [Google Scholar]
  42. Şahin, A. (2009). A study on primary education 6th 7th and 8th grade students reading habits according to their socio-economic status. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 5(2), 215-232.  [Google Scholar]
  43. Şahin, A. (2011). A study on 6th grade students’ self-awareness on listening skills according to their socio-economic level. Cankırı Karatekin University Journal of Instıtute of Social Sciences, 2(1), 178-188.  [Google Scholar]
  44. Taner, M. and Başal H., A. (2005). Compare language development in first grade primary school students from different socioeconomic levels who take and do not take pre-school education according to the gender. Journal of Uludağ University Faculty of Education, 18(2), 395-420. [Google Scholar]
  45. Temizkan, M. (2011). The effect of creative writing activities on the story writing skill.  Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 11(2), 919-940. [Google Scholar]
  46. Topuzkanamış, E. (2014). The effect of teaching writing strategies on Turkish language teaching department fresman students’ writing achievement. International Journal of Turkish Literature Culture Education, 3(2), 274-290. [Google Scholar]
  47. Yılmaz, Y. (2013). Yazma öğretimi. Cemal Yıldız (Ed.), Yeni öğretim programına göre kuramdan uygulamaya Türkçe öğretimi içinde (s. 217-295). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.  [Google Scholar]