International Journal of Progressive Education
ISSN (Print): 2834-7919 - ISSN (Online): 1554-5210

Original article    |    Open Access
International Journal of Progressive Education 2022, Vol. 18(3) 226-243

The Effect of Activity-Based Poetry Studies on Reading Fluency and Creative Writing Skills

Mehmet Razgatlıoğlu & Mustafa Ulusoy

pp. 226 - 243   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2022.439.15

Publish Date: June 01, 2022  |   Single/Total View: 262/532   |   Single/Total Download: 392/877

PDF Download

Abstract

The study aims to reveal the effect of ABPS on the reading fluency and creative writing skills of third-grade students at primary school. The research study group consists of 56 students, 26 in the experimental group and 30 in the control group, studying in the third grade. While ABPS was implemented in the experimental group, the control group continued their classes according to the Turkish Course Curriculum. The Error Analysis Inventory, Prosodic Reading Scale, Running Record Chart, Accuracy Rate Chart, Prosody Record Chart, and Poetry Writing Rubric were used as data collection tools in the research. The experimental implementation process lasted for 18 weeks. Different reading fluency strategies and poetry writing techniques were used together at each stage of the practice process based on poems. As a result of the research, it was determined that the students in the experimental group made more progress in all sub-dimensions of creative writing than the control group. Additionally, it was found out that the activities contributed to the students' reading rate and prosodic reading skills.

Keywords: Activity-Based Poetry Studies, Poetry, Reading Fluency, Creative Writing, Primary School Students

How to Cite this Article?

APA 7th edition
Razgatlioglu, M., & Ulusoy, M. (2022). The Effect of Activity-Based Poetry Studies on Reading Fluency and Creative Writing Skills. International Journal of Progressive Education, 18(3), 226-243. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2022.439.15

Harvard
Razgatlioglu, M. and Ulusoy, M. (2022). The Effect of Activity-Based Poetry Studies on Reading Fluency and Creative Writing Skills. International Journal of Progressive Education, 18(3), pp. 226-243.

Chicago 16th edition
Razgatlioglu, Mehmet and Mustafa Ulusoy (2022). "The Effect of Activity-Based Poetry Studies on Reading Fluency and Creative Writing Skills". International Journal of Progressive Education 18 (3):226-243. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2022.439.15

References
  1. Ak, E. (2011). Yaratıcı yazma tekniklerinin ilköğretim 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin Türkçe dersindeki yazılı anlatım becerileri üzerindeki etkisi. (Yüksek lisans tezi). https://tez.yok.gov.tr sayfasından erişilmiştir. [Google Scholar]
  2. Akdal, D. (2011). Metinler arası okuma yaklaşımının ilköğretim beşinci sınıf öğrencilerinin yaratıcı yazma becerilerine etkisi. (Yüksek lisans tezi). https://tez.yok.gov.tr sayfasından erişilmiştir. [Google Scholar]
  3. Akyol, H. (2005). İlk okuma yazma programı ve öğretimi. Eğitimde Yansımalar: VIII Yeni İlköğretim Programlarını Değerlendirme Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı(s. 93-108). Sim.  [Google Scholar]
  4. Arshavskaya, E. (2015). Creative writing assignments in a second language course: A way to engage less motivated students. InSight: A Journal of ScholarlyTeaching, 10 (annual), 68-78. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ataman, M. (2008). Yaratıcı drama ve yaratıcı yazma. http://www.yaratıcıdrama.org/content/viev/88/122/ [Google Scholar]
  6. Ateş, S., & Yıldız, M. (2011). Okumayı farklı yöntemlerle öğrenen ilköğretim 3. Sınıf öğrencilerinin sesli okuma akıcılıklarının karşılaştırılması. Türk Eğitim BilimleriDergisi. 9(1), 101-124. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bagherkazemi, M., & Alemi, M. (2010). Literature in the EFL/ESL classroom: Consensus and controversy. LiBRI. Linguistics and Literary Broad Research Innovation, 1(1), 1-12. [Google Scholar]
  8. Baştuğ, M. (2012). İlköğretim I. kademe öğrencilerinin akıcı okuma becerilerinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. (Doktora tezi). https://tez.yok.gov.tr sayfasından erişilmiştir. [Google Scholar]
  9. Beydemir, A. (2010). İlköğretim 5. sınıf Türkçe dersinde yaratıcı yazma yaklaşımının yazmaya yönelik tutumlara, yaratıcı yazma ve yazma erişisine etkisi. (Yükseklisans tezi). https://tez.yok.gov.tr sayfasından erişilmiştir. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bielick, S., Chandler, K., & Broughman, S. P. (2001). Homeschooling in the United States: 1999. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED455926.pdf sayfasından erişilmiştir. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bilton, L., & Sivasubramaniam, S. (2009). An inquiry into expressive writing: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research, 13(3), 301-320. [Google Scholar]
  12. Campbell, D. (2001). Time is broken: The return of the past in the response. Theory & Event. Johns Hopkins University Press,5(4),10.1353/tae.2001.0032. [Google Scholar]
  13. Coden, B. (2004).  The Room 20 School of Poetry. Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute. http://www.yale.edu/ynhti /curriculum/units /1985/1/85.01. 01.x.  html. Sayfasından erişilmiştir. [Google Scholar]
  14. Colantone, L., Cunningham, W. M., & Dreznes, J. (1998). Improving creative writing. MA Thesis. Saint Xavier University.  [Google Scholar]
  15. Cramer, R. L. (2001).Creative power: The nature and nurture o f children’s writing. Longman. [Google Scholar]
  16. Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage. [Google Scholar]
  17. Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Understanding mixed methods research. In: J. Creswell (Ed.), Designing and conducting mixed methods research (pp. 1-19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  18. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Boston: Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  19. Cullinan, B., Scala, M., & Schroder, V. (1995). Three voices: An invitation to poetry across the curriculum. Stenhouse. [Google Scholar]
  20. Çayır, A. (2014). Akıcılığı geliştirme programının ilkokul ikinci sınıf öğrencilerinin okuma ve anlama becerileri üzerindeki etkisi. (Doktora tezi). https://tez.yok.gov.tr sayfasından erişilmiştir. [Google Scholar]
  21. De La Paz, S., & McCutchen, D. (2011). Learning to write. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.) Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 32-54). Routledge Press/Taylor & Francis.   [Google Scholar]
  22. Denton, C. A., & Hasbrouck, J. E. (2000). “Fluent Reading” (Report Number H029K5020). Boston, MA: Federation for Children with Special Needs. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service Number ED454633 [Google Scholar]
  23. Denton, C. A., Kethley, C., Nimon, K., Kurz, T. B., Mathes, P. G., Minyi, S., & Swanson, E. A. (2010). Effectiveness of a Supplemental Early Reading Intervention Scaled Up in Multiple Schools. Exceptional Children, 76(4), 394-416. EBSCOhost.  [Google Scholar]
  24. Dils, L.  “Seeing with the Heart: Poetry in the Classroom”, Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute, 2004 [Google Scholar]
  25. Dolmaz,  M., & Kaya, E. (2018). 7. Sınıf öğrencilerinin yaratıcı yazma becerileri ve dilsel becerileri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi, Uluslararası Sosyal Bilgilerde Yeni Yaklaşımlar Dergisi,2(1), 22-41. [Google Scholar]
  26. Dowker, A., Krasowicz, G., Pinto, G., Roazzi, A., & Smith, A. (1998). Phonological and semantic devices in very young children's poems: A cross-cultural study. CurrentPsychology of Cognition, 17(2), 389-416. [Google Scholar]
  27. Egmon, B. (2008). The effect of fluency on reading comprehension. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Houston Üniversitesi.  [Google Scholar]
  28. Ekwall, E. E., & Shanker, J. L. (1988). Diagnosis and remediation of the disabled reader. (Third edition). Allyn and Bacon, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  29. Enochs, E. L. (2010). Pedagogy in perspective: The historical case for teaching poetry. Journal of Children’s Literature, 36(1), 27-36. [Google Scholar]
  30. Erdoğan, Ö. (2012). Süreç temelli yaratıcı yazma uygulamalarının yazılı anlatım becerisine ve yazmaya ilişkin tutuma etkisi. (Doktora tezi). https://tez.yok.gov.tr sayfasından erişilmiştir. [Google Scholar]
  31. Eryaman, M. Y. (2008). Writing, method and hermeneutics: Towards an existential pedagogy. Elementary Education Online, 7(1), 2-14 [Google Scholar]
  32. Faver, S. (2008). Repeated reading of poetry can enhance reading fluency. The Reading Teacher, 4, 350-352. [Google Scholar]
  33. Friedman, J. (2012). A stepping stone of language: Teaching poetry in the fourth grade classroom. (Master’s thesis). ProQuest Dissertations and ThesesDatabase. (1512390)  [Google Scholar]
  34. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239-256. [Google Scholar]
  35. Gill, S. R. (2007). Learning about word parts with kidspiration. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 79–84. [Google Scholar]
  36. Goforth, F. S. (1998). Literature & the learner. Wadsworth. [Google Scholar]
  37. Graham, S., & Hebert, M. A. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading. A carnegie corporation time to act report. Alliance for Excellence in Education. [Google Scholar]
  38. Güneş, F. (2013). Türkçede metin öğretimi yerine metinle öğrenme. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi Türkçenin Eğitimi Öğretimi Özel Sayısı, 6 (11), 603-637. [Google Scholar]
  39. Harper, G. (2010). On creative writing. Multilingual Matters. [Google Scholar]
  40. Harris, A. J., & Edward, R. S. (1990). How to increase reading ability a guide to developmental remedial methods. New York: Longman. [Google Scholar]
  41. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 3-30). Lawrence Erlbaum.  [Google Scholar]
  42. Huck, C. (2001). Children’s Literature in the Elementary School, 7th Edition. McGraw Hill.  [Google Scholar]
  43. Hunley, T. C. (2007). Teaching poetry writing: A five-canon approach.Multilingual Matters, Language Arts & Disciplines.  [Google Scholar]
  44. Janeczko, P. B. (2003).  Opening a door: Reading poetry in the middle school classroom. Scholastic Professional. [Google Scholar]
  45. Kemiksiz, Ö., & İncebacak, B.B. (2017).  İlkokul Türkçe çalışma kitaplarındaki şiir türüne yönelik etkinliklerin incelenmesi, Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / The Journal of Social Science,4 (11), 673-688. [Google Scholar]
  46. Keskin, H. K. (2012). Akıcı okuma yöntemlerinin okuma becerisi üzerindeki etkisi. (Doktora tezi).  https://tez.yok.gov.tr sayfasından erişilmiştir. [Google Scholar]
  47. Klauda, S. L., & Guthrie, J. T. (2008). Relationships of three components of reading fluency to reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 310-321. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.310. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  48. Kocolas, A. (2013). The effect of poetry on reading fluency. (Unpublished master’s  thesis) California State University, Stanislaus, Turlock, CA.   [Google Scholar]
  49. Lehr, S. S. (2008). On poetry and the Middle East experience: An interview with Naomi Shihab Nye. In S. S. LEHR (Ed.), Shattering the looking glass: Challenge, risk & controversy in children’s literature. (p. 323-335). Christopher-Gordon. [Google Scholar]
  50. Lima, I. (2011). Linking poetry with fluency in the first grade classroom.  (Unpublished master’s thesis), California State University, Stanislaus, Turlock, CA.  [Google Scholar]
  51. Linaberger, M. (2004). Poetry top 10: A foolproof formula for teaching poetry. The Reading Teacher, 58(4), 366-372. [Google Scholar]
  52. Lyon, G. R., & Moats, A. C. (1997). Critical conceptual and methodological considerations in reading intervention research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(6), 578-588. [Google Scholar]
  53. Lynch-Brown, C., & Tomlinson, C. M. (1993). Essentials of children's literature. Allyn and Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  54. Mahurt, S. F. (2005). Writing supports reading instruction. Indiana Reading Journal, 37(1), 19-26. [Google Scholar]
  55. May, F. B. (1986). Reading as communication: An interactive approach. Merril. [Google Scholar]
  56. Mayer, M. (2009). Research for the classroom. English Journal, 99(2), 91-94. [Google Scholar]
  57. Miller, J., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2008). A longitudinal study of the development of reading prosody as a dimension of oral reading fluency in early elementary school children. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(4), 336-354. [Google Scholar]
  58. Nasr, N. (2001). The Use of poetry in TEFL: Literature in the new Lebanese curriculum. CAUCE: A Journal of Philology and Pedagogy, 24, 345-363. [Google Scholar]
  59. Newsome, K.E. (2008). Using poetry to improve fluency and comprehension in third-grade students. Georgia Educational Researcher, 6(1) 1.Doi:10.20429/ger.2008. 060101. [Google Scholar]
  60. Nodelman, P. (1992). The pleasures o f children's literature. (2nd Ed.). Longman. [Google Scholar]
  61. Oczkus, L., Baura, G., Murray, K., & Berry, K. (2006). Using the love of "poitchry" to improve primary students' writing. The Reading Teacher, 5(5), 475-479. [Google Scholar]
  62. Olthouse, J. M. (2012). Talented young writers’ relationships with writing. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35, 66–80. [Google Scholar]
  63. Öztürk, E. (2007). İlköğretim beşinci sınıf öğrencilerinin yaratıcı yazma becerilerinin değerlendirilmesi. (Doktora tezi). https://tez.yok.gov.tr sayfasından erişilmiştir. [Google Scholar]
  64. Öztürk, E., & Aydemir, Z. (2013). Başlangıç düzeyi okuyucularının okuma motivasyonlarının, günlük kitap okuma süreleri ve ailenin okuma durumuna göre değerlendirilmesi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 3(21), 1105-1116. [Google Scholar]
  65. Pardlow, D. K. (2003). Flight to flatland: A descriptive study of using creative writing pedagogy to improve the teaching of first year english composition. Doctoral of dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.   [Google Scholar]
  66. Ramet, A. (2007). Creative writing. How To Books. [Google Scholar]
  67. Rasinski, T. V., Padak, N. D., Linek, W. L., & Sturtevant, E. (1994). Effects of fluency development on urban second-grade readers. Journal of Educational Research, 87 (3), 158– 165. [Google Scholar]
  68. Rasinski, T. (2000) Speed does matter in reading. The Reading Teacher, 54, 146-155. [Google Scholar]
  69. Rasinski, T. (2010). The fluent reader. Scholastic. [Google Scholar]
  70. Rasinski, T. V. & Zimmerman, B. (2013). What’s the perfect text for struggling readers? Try poetry! Reading Today, 30, 15-16. [Google Scholar]
  71. Robinson, M. (2005). Examining the relationship between vocabulary knowledge, oral reading fluency, and reading comprehension. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, College of Education and the GraduateSchool of University of Oregon.  [Google Scholar]
  72. Sale, J. (2016). Can the writing of poetry be taught?. The Society, The Society of Classical Poets. http://classicalpoets.org/can-the-writing-of-poetry-be-taught/sayfasından erişilmiştir. [Google Scholar]
  73. Sekeres, D. C., & Gregg, M. (2007). Poetry in third grade: Getting started. The Reading Teacher, 60(5), 466-475. [Google Scholar]
  74. Sidekli, S. (2010). İlköğretim 5.sınıf öğrencilerinin okuma ve anlama becerilerini geliştirme (Eylem araştırması). (Doktora tezi). https://tez.yok.gov.tr sayfasından erişilmiştir. [Google Scholar]
  75. Sloan, G. (2003). The child as critic: Developing literacy through literature, K-8. Teachers College. [Google Scholar]
  76. Smutny, J. F. (2001). Creative Strategies for Teaching Language Arts to Gifted Students (K-8), ERIC Digest E612, Bloomington. https://eric.ed.gov/?id= ED455659 sayfasından erişilmiştir. [Google Scholar]
  77. Stange, T. V., &Wyant S. S. (2008). Poetry proves to be positive in the primary grades. Reading Horizons, 48(3), 5. [Google Scholar]
  78. Stickling, S. (2009). Student's resistance to poetry: An exploratory study on motivation and comprehension. Unpublished master's thesis, Illinois State University. [Google Scholar]
  79. Temizkan, M. (2011). Türkçe öğretmeni adaylarının temel dil becerilerinden okuma ile ilgili kavramları öğrenme düzeyleri ve kavram yanılgıları. Journal of Ziya Gökalp Education Faculty, 17, 29-47. [Google Scholar]
  80. Tonyalı, E. (2010). Yaratıcı yazma uygulamalarının ilköğretim altıncı sınıf öğrencilerinin yazma becerilerine etkisi. (Yüksek lisans tezi). https://tez.yok.gov.tr sayfasından erişilmiştir. [Google Scholar]
  81. Ulusoy, M., Ertem, İ. S., & Dedeoğlu, H. (2011). Öğretmen adaylarının 1-5. sınıf öğrencilerine yönelik hazırladıkları sesli okuma kayıtlarının prozodi yeterlilikleri açısından değerlendirilmesi. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi,31(3), 759-774. [Google Scholar]
  82. Vanderburg, R. (2005). Working memory contributions to analytical and creative writing samples in high school students. University of California Riversiade, USA. (www.proquest.com). [Google Scholar]
  83. Weaven, M., & T. Clark. (2011). Evolution and contingency: Poetry, curriculum and culture in Victoria, Australia. Changing English: Studies in Culture and Education,18 (1), 75–84. [Google Scholar]
  84. Weigle, C. S. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge University. [Google Scholar]
  85. Wilfong, L. G. (2008). Building fluency, word-recognition ability, and confidence in struggling readers: The poetry academy. The Reading Teacher, 62(1), 4-13. doi: 10.1598/RT.62.1.1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  86. Winch, G., Johnston, R.R., March, P., Ljungdahl, L., & Holliday, M. (2006). Literacy: Reading, writing and children’sliterature (3rd ed.). Oxford University. [Google Scholar]
  87. Wise, J. C., Sevcik, R. A., Morris, R. D., Lovett, M. W., Wolf, M., Kuhn, M., & Schwanenflugel, P. (2010). The relationship between different measures of oral reading fluency and reading comprehension in second-grade students who evidence different oral reading fluency difficulties. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools.  [Google Scholar]
  88. Yıldırım, K. (2010). İşbirlikli öğrenme yönteminin okumaya ilişkin bazı değişkenler üzerindeki etkisi ve yönteme ilişkin öğrenci-veli görüşleri. (Doktora tezi). https://tez.yok.gov.tr sayfasından erişilmiştir. [Google Scholar]
  89. Yıldız, M., Yıldırım, K., Ateş, S., & Çetinkaya, Ç. (2009). An evaluation of the oral reading fluency of 4th graders with respect to prosodic characteristic. International Journal of Human Science/Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, 6(1), 353-360. [Google Scholar]
Meta
Vol. 18 (3)
Download
Metric
History
Related

Volume 18 Issue 3

June 2022

All Manuscript

International Journal of Progressive Education

Copyright © 2025 International Journal of Progressive Education.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. CC BY
All elements of this website were created using the BOQ™ - Intelligent Webverse System.