International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2022, Vol. 18(1) 210-228

Determining the Metaphor Perceptions of Generation Z Teacher Candidates for Handwriting and Keyboarding (Typing)

Zeynep Aydemır

pp. 210 - 228   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2022.426.12   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2106-15-0006.R2

Published online: February 01, 2022  |   Number of Views: 22  |  Number of Download: 77


Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine the metaphor perceptions of Generation Z teacher candidates towards handwriting and typing. Based on the metaphors obtained, elective courses related to handwriting may be included in undergraduate programs according to their point of view on handwriting. Many researches are carried out on the area created by the change that comes with the use of new technology. However, it is still necessary to ask new questions and seek answers. Therefore, in this study, according to the medium in which it is presented, whether in print or digital, how the nature of the content of the article changes according to the medium; what are the consequences of the superficialization of the content in terms of mental processes and what are the pre-service teachers' perspectives on handwriting. Study group of this research consists of 70 students among the Teacher Candidates in Istanbul in the fall semester of the 2020-2021 school year. For the data collection, a form with incomplete sentences such as “Handwriting is like... Because…” and “Keyboarding (typing) is like… Because…” was used to allow students to write down metaphors they attribute to “writing”. Generation Z Teacher Candidates produced metaphors in the category of handwriting respectively the life (27.1 %), thought and feelings (20%) attention and production (15.7 %), skill (15.7 % ), functional ( 12.9 % ) and share/transfer (8.6 %). Teacher Candidates produced metaphors in the category of keyboarding (typing) high level attention/ production (24.3%), superficiality/forgery (21.4%), easy/effortless (17.1%), thought and feelings (12.9%), sound (10%), skill  (8.6%) and future (5.7%). Teacher Candidates should provide content and environments that will increase the longing for handwriting in their students to create awareness of writing and make them feel the need for writing. The determination of the meanings attributed by the Generation Z Teacher Candidates to traditional writing and typing with keys, and the perspective of Teacher Candidates on this subject were discussed.

Keywords: Writing, Handwriting, Keyboarding, Typing, Metaphor


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Aydemir, Z. (2022). Determining the Metaphor Perceptions of Generation Z Teacher Candidates for Handwriting and Keyboarding (Typing) . International Journal of Progressive Education, 18(1), 210-228. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2022.426.12

Harvard
Aydemir, Z. (2022). Determining the Metaphor Perceptions of Generation Z Teacher Candidates for Handwriting and Keyboarding (Typing) . International Journal of Progressive Education, 18(1), pp. 210-228.

Chicago 16th edition
Aydemir, Zeynep (2022). "Determining the Metaphor Perceptions of Generation Z Teacher Candidates for Handwriting and Keyboarding (Typing) ". International Journal of Progressive Education 18 (1):210-228. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2022.426.12.

References
  1. Abasıyanık, S. F. (1993). Bütün Eserleri 6, Havuz Başı - Son Kuşlar. İstanbul: Bilgi Yayınevi. [Google Scholar]
  2. Akyol, H. (2005). Türkçe ilk okuma yazma öğretimi. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  3. Alonso, M. (2015). Metacognition and sensorimotor components underlying the process of handwriting and keyboarding and their impact on learning. An analysis from the perspective of embodied psychology. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 176, 263-269. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.470 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  4. Aral, İ. (2009). Anlar İzler Tutkular. İstanbul: Turkuvaz Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  5. Aragón-Mendizábal, E., Delgado-Casas, C., Navarro-Guzmán, J., Menacho-Jiménez, I., & Romero-Oliva, M. (2016). A comparative study of handwriting and computer typing in note-taking by university students. [Análisis comparativo entre escritura manual y electrónica en la toma de apuntes de estudiantes universitarios ]. Comunicar, 48, 101-107. https://doi.org/10.3916/C48-2016-10 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  6. Armstrong, K. (2014). Cursive handwriting in an internet age. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 8(11), 3594-3600.  [Google Scholar]
  7. Berk, A. Ronald. (2009). Teaching strategies for the net generation. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning, 3 (2).  [Google Scholar]
  8. Berninger, V. (2013). Educating students in the computer age to be multilingual by hand. National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE), 19(1), 1-4. Alexandria, VA: Policy Information Clearinghouse. [Google Scholar]
  9. Brosdahl, D. J., & Carpenter, J. M. (2011). Shopping orientations of US males: A generational cohort comparison. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 18, 548-554. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bull, G., Thompon, A., Searson, M., Garofalo, J., Park, J., Young, C. & Lee, J. (2008). Connecting informal and formal learning: Experiences in the age of participatory media. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(2). http://citejournal.org/vol8/iss2/editorial/article1.cfm  [Google Scholar]
  11. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç, Ç. E., Akgün Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. & Demirel, F. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  12. Christensen, C. A. & Jones, D. (2000). Handwriting: An underestimated skill in the development of written language. Handwriting Today, 2, 56–69.  [Google Scholar]
  13. Cox, D., Cox, J. G., & Cox, A. D. (2017). To Err is human? How typographical and orthographical errors affect perceptions of online reviewers. Computers in Human Behavior, 75 (Supplement C), 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  14. Erdem, B. & Ünlü, D. (2018). A Review of readers' evaluations of the typing errors in digital communication environments. Global Media Journal TR Edition, 9 (17), 264. [Google Scholar]
  15. Eryaman, M. Y. (2008). Writing, Method and Hermeneutics: Towards an Existential Pedagogy . İlköğretim Online , 7 (1) , 2-14 [Google Scholar]
  16. Freeman, A. R., Mackinnon, J. R. & Miller, L.T. (2005). Keyboarding for Students with Handwriting Problems. Physical & Occupational Therapy In Pediatrics, 25 (1-2), 119-147, DOI: 10.1080/J006v25n01_08 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fogg, B.J., Marshall, J., Laraki, O., Osipovich, A., Varma, C., Fang, N., Paul, J., Rangnekar, A., Shon, J., Swani, P., & Treinen, M. (2001). What makes Web sites credible? A report on a large quantitative study. Proceedings of CHI'01, Human Factors in Computing Systems, 61-68.  [Google Scholar]
  18. Glenn, J. M. (2000). Teaching the Net Generation. Business Education Forum, 54 (3), 6-14. [Google Scholar]
  19. Göçer, A. (2010). Türkçe öğretiminde yazma eğitimi. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 3 (12), 178-195.  [Google Scholar]
  20. Grapes, M., Parsons, E., & Towne, R. (2014). On cursive writing, keyboarding, and handwriting: An argument of efficacy. Undergraduate Student Publications. Paper 10. Cedarville, OH: Cedarville University. [Google Scholar]
  21. Güneş, F. (2014). Turkish teaching (Türkçe öğretimi). Ankara: Pegem Academy. [Google Scholar]
  22. Güneş, F. (2016). The Discussion on writing with pencil and typing on keyboard in education. Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education, 5 (1), 10-33. DOI: 10.14686/buefad.v5i1.5000155472 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gündüz , S. (2003). Öykü ve roman yazma sanatı. İstanbul: Toroslu.  [Google Scholar]
  24. Hay, L. E. 2000. Educating the Net Generation. The Social Administrator, 57 (54), 6-10. [Google Scholar]
  25. Horn, J., Nelson, C. E., & Brannick, M. T. (2004). Integrity, conscientiousness, and honesty. Psychological Reports, 95(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.95.5.27-38 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  26. Işık, S. Y. (2016). İnsan okudum. Ankara: Ütopya Yayınevi. [Google Scholar]
  27. Karasevda, N. (2010). Yazarlık okulu: Sen de yazar olabilirsin! İstanbul:  Popüler Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kayabaşı, B. & Yılmaz Karadağ, R. (2019). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının yazma alışkanlıkları, tercihleri, tutum ve inançları. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 27(6). DOI: 10.24106/kefdergi.3417 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kuran, E. (2019). Z-Bir kuşağı anlamak. İstanbul: Mundi Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  30. Le Guin, U. K. (2018). Dümeni yaratıcılığa kırmak (D. Göl, Çev.) İstanbul: Hep Kitap Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  31. Lenhart, A., Arafeh, S., & Smith, A. (2008). Writing, technology and teens. Pew internet & American life project.  [Google Scholar]
  32. Medwell, J. & Wray, D. (2008). Handwriting – A Forgotten Language Skill?, Language and Education, 22 (1), 34-47. DOI: 10.2167/le722.0 [Google Scholar]
  33. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  [Google Scholar]
  34. Mogey, N. N., Sarab, G. G., Haywood, J. J., Van Heyningen, S. S., Dewhurst, D. D., Hounsell, D. D., & Neilson, R. R. (2008). The end of handwriting? Using computers in traditional essay examinations. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(1), 39-46. [Google Scholar]
  35. Oral, G. (2003). Yine yazı yazıyoruz. Ankara: Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  36. Özdemir, R. (2020). Türk ve Yabancı Yazarların Yazma  Eylemi Üzerine Görüş ve Düşünceleri. Yayımlanmamş yüksek lisans tezi. Ankara Üniversitesi, Güzel Sanatlar Enstitüsü. [Google Scholar]
  37. Saada-Robert, M. (1999). Effective means for learning to manage cognitive load in second grade school writing: A case study. Learning and Instruction, 9, 189–208.  [Google Scholar]
  38. Sanders, B. (1994). A is for ox (Öküzün A’sı). Ayrıntı Yayınları: İstanbul. [Google Scholar]
  39. Stevenson, N., & Just, C. (2012). In early education, why teach handwriting before keyboarding? Early Childhood Education, 42, 49-56. doi: 10.1007/s10643-012-0565-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  40. Susar Kırmızı, F., Kapıkıran, Ş., & Akkaya, N. (2021). Attitude scale for digital writing (DWS): Scale development study. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 52, 417-444 . [Google Scholar]
  41. Sülzenbrück, S., Hegele M., Rinkenauer, G. & Heuer, H.(2011). The death of handwriting: secondary effects of frequent computer use on basic motor skills. Journal of Motor Behavior, 43 (3), 247-251. [Google Scholar]
  42. Tiryaki, E. & Demir, A. (2016). Turkısh teacher candidates’ metaphorical perceptions related to writing skills. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences, 13 (33), 18-27. [Google Scholar]
  43. Tok, M., Rachim, S. & Kuş, A. (2014). Yazma alışkanlığı kazanmış öğrencilerin yazma nedenlerinin incelenmesi. GEFAD/ GUJGEF, 34(2), 267-292. [Google Scholar]
  44. Tüzel, S. & Tok, M. (2013). Investigation of teacher candidates’ experiences in digital writing. Journal of History School (JOHS), 6 (XV), 577-596. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14225/Joh292 [Google Scholar]
  45. Türk Dil Kurumu (TDK). https://sozluk.gov.tr/ (Erişim tarihi: 01.10.2021) [Google Scholar]
  46. Ustabulut, M. Y. (2021). Analysis of the opinions of Turkish language teachers about digital writing. Manisa Celal Bayar University Journal of Social Sciences, 19 (2), 300-311. [Google Scholar]
  47. Vignovic, C.N. & Thompson, L.F. (2010). Computer-mediated cross-cultural collaboration: attributing communication errors to the person versus the situation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 265-276. [Google Scholar]
  48. Vincent, J. (2014). Sociological insights on the comparison of writing/reading on paper with writing/reading digitally. Telematics and Informatics, 31(1), 39-51. [Google Scholar]
  49. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (3. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  50. Yücel, R. (2020). Digital resonance of writing and becoming superficial of the content. Journal of Erciyes Communication, 7 (1), 487-506.  [Google Scholar]