Yıl 2015, Cilt 12, Sayı 32, Sayfalar 337 - 372 2015-12-30

Yazma Eğitiminde Geri Bildirim Türleri ve Kullanımı / Types and Use of Feedback in Writing Education

Eyyup COŞKUN [1] , Mehmet TAMER [2]

259 810

Yazma bir hamlede başlayıp biten bir eylem değildir. İyi bir metin yazmak için çoğu zaman bir metni birkaç kez gözden geçirmek gerekir. İnsanlar kendi yazdıkları metinlerdeki hatalarını belirlemekte güçlük çekebilir. Bu bakımdan yazma eğitiminde okur/öğretmen geri bildirimi yazma kalitesini etkileyen önemli bir etkendir. Bu çalışmada yazma eğitiminde kullanılan geri bildirimler sınıflandırılmış, açıklanmış ve örneklendirilmiş, avantaj ve dezavantajlarıyla değerlendirilmiştir.

Yazma eğitiminde geri bildirimler bakış açısına göre farklı şekillerde sınıflandırılabilmektedir. Metni değerlendiren kişi açısından geri bildirimler öğretmen ve akran geri bildirimi olarak ikiye ayrılmaktadır. İletişim biçimi açısından ise yazılı ve sözlü geri bildirim olarak ikiye ayrılmaktadır. Diğer geri bildirim türleri ise şöyledir: Övgü veya yergi bildiren geri bildirimler, değerlendirenin tutumuna göre yapıcı, yansız veya yıkıcı geri bildirimler; özgül veya genel geri bildirimler; biçime veya içeriğe yönelik geri bildirimler; açık veya muğlak geri bildirimler; metin içi veya metin dışı geri bildirimler.

Geri bildirim, yazma eğitimi, yazma süreci
  • Akyol, H. (2006). Yeni Programa Uygun Türkçe Öğretim Yöntemleri. Ankara: KÖK Yayıncılık.
  • Amores, M. (1997). A new perspective on peer editing. Foreign Language Annals 30.4, 513–523.
  • Anson, C. M. (1997). In our own voices: Using recorded commentary to respond to writing. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 69, 105-113.
  • Arndt, V. (1993). Response to writing: Using feedback to inform the writing process. In M. Brook & L. Walters (eds.), Teaching composition around the Pacific rim: Politicsand pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 90–116.
  • Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multi-draft composition classroom: is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing 9.3, 227–257.
  • Balta, Y. ve Türel, Y.K. (2013). Çevrimiçi Uzaktan Eğitimde Kullanılan Farklı Ölçme Değerlendirme Yaklaşımlarına İlişkin Bir İnceleme. Turkish Studies, 8 (3), 37-45.
  • Bates, L., Lane, J. & Lange, E. (1993). Writing clearly: Responding to ESL composition. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
  • Beach, R.& Friederich, T. (2006). Response to Writing. In C. A MacArthur, S. Graham, J.Fitzgerald (Eds.). Handbook of Wiriting Research. The Guilford Press. New York: pp.222-234.
  • Berg, E. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of SecondLanguage Writing 8(3), 215–241.
  • Bostock, S.J. (2000). Computer Assisted Assessment - experiments in three courses. A workshop at Keele University.
  • Bulunuz, M. ve Bulunuz, N. (2013). Fen Öğretiminde Biçimlendirici Değerlendirme ve Etkili Uygulama Örneklerinin Tanıtılması. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 10 (4), 119-135.
  • Caulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student responses to written work. TESOL Quarterly 28(1), 181–187.
  • Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error correction for improvement of the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 12(3), 267–296.
  • Chaudron, C. (1984). The effects of feedback on students’ composition revisions. RELC Journal 15(2), 1–15.
  • Cheng, W. & Warren, M. (1996). Hong Kong students’ attitudes toward peer assessment in English language courses. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching 6, 61–75.
  • Cheng, W. & Warren, M. (1997). Having second thoughts: Students perceptions before and after a peer assessment exercise. Studies in Higher Education, 22(2), 233–239.
  • Coffin, C., Curry, M., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lilis, T., Swan, J. (2003). Teaching academic writing: A toolkit for higher education. London: Routledge.
  • Cohen, A. D. & Cavalcanti, M. C. (1990). Feedback on compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Resarch insights for the clasroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 155-177.
  • Connors, R. J. & Lunsford, A. (1993). Teachers’ rhetorical comments on student papers. College Composition and Communication, 44, 200-223.
  • Conrad, S. M. & Goldstein, L. (1999). Student revision after teacher written comments: Text, contexts and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing 8.2, 147–180.
  • Coşkun, E. (2007). Türkçe Öğretiminde Metin Bilgisi. (Ed.: Ahmet Kırkkılıç ve Hayati Akyol), İlköğretimde Türkçe Öğretimi. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık. s. 233-279.
  • Coşkun, E. (2011). Yazma Eğitiminde Aşamalı Gelişim. Yazma Eğitimi.(Ed.: Murat Özbay). Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık, 45-83.
  • Cotterall, S. & Cohen, R. (2003). Scaffolding for second language writers: Producing an academic essay. ELT Journal, 57(2), 158–166.
  • Cumming, A. (1995). Fostering writing expertise in ESL composition instruction: Modeling and evaluation. In d. Belcher & G. Braine, (eds.), Academic Writing in a second language: Essay on research & pedagogy (pp. 375–397). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • Curtis, A. (2001). Hong Kong student teachers’ responses to peer group process writing. Asian Journal of English LanguageTeaching 11, 129–143.
  • Dahl, K. L.,& Farnan, N. (1998). Children's Writing: Perspectives from Research. Literacy Studies Series. International Reading Association.
  • Demirel, Ö. (2006). Planlamadan Değerlendirmeye Öğretme Sanatı. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
  • Elbow, P. (1998). Writing With Power: Revising With Feedback. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Fathman, A. K., Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Resarch insights for the clasroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 179-189.
  • Fazio, L. (2001). The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy of minority- and majority language students. Journal of Second Language Writing 10 (4), pp. 235–249.
  • Ferris, D. R. (1995). Students reaction to teacher response in multible-draft composition clasroom. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33-55.
  • Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31 (2), 315–339.
  • Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing 8(1), 1–10.
  • Ferris, D. & Roberts,B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing 10 (3), 161–84.
  • Ferris, D. R. (2003). Responding to writing. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the Dynamics of second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 115-140.
  • Ferris, D. & Hedgcock,J. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Fitzgerald, J.,& Stamm, C. (1990). Effects of group conferences on first graders' revision in writing. Written Communication, 7(1), 96-135.
  • Gass, S. & Selinker,L. (2001). Second language acquisition: an introductory course (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Goldstein, L. (2004). Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision: teachers and students working together. Jurnal of Second Language Writing. 13 (31). 63-80.
  • Goldstein, L., & Conrad, S. (1990). Student input and negotiation of meaning in ESL writing conferences. TESOL Quarterly, 24(3): 443–60.
  • Göçer, A. (2007). Türkçe Öğretiminde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme. İlköğretimde Türkçe Öğretimi, Ankara: Pegem A Yayınları.
  • Grimm, N. (1986). Improving students’ responses to their peers’ essays. College Composition and Communication, 37(1), 91–94.
  • Gül, P. (2007). İlköğretim Öğrencilerinin Yazılı Anlatım Becerilerinin Geliştirilmesi. İlköğretmen, 5, 28-29.
  • Gulcat, Z.,& Ozagac, O. (2004). Correcting and giving feedback to writing. http://www.buowl.boun.edu.tr/teachers/fCORRECTING%20AND%20GIVING%20FEEDBACK%20TO%20WRITING.htm (E.T.: 15.03.2015)
  • Hamzadayı, E. ve Çetinkaya, G. (2011). Yazılı Anlatımı Düzenlemede Akran Dönütleri: Dönüt Türleri, Öğrenci Algıları. AİBU Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 11(1) 147-165.
  • Hayes, J. R., Flower, L., Schriver, K. A., Stratman, J., & Carey, L. (1987). Cognitive processes in revision. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics, Volume II: Reading, writing, and language processing (pp. 176–240). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hedgcock, J. & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal ofSecond Language Writing 1.3, 255–276.
  • Hedgcock, J. & Lefkowitz,N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing 3.2, 141– 163.
  • Hedgcock, J. & Lefkowitz,N. (1996). Some input on input: Two analyses of student response to expert feedback in L2 writing. The Modern Language Journal 80.3, 287–308.
  • Herrington, A. J.,& Cadman, D. (1991). Peer review and revising in an anthropology course: Lessons for learning. College Composition and Communication, 42, 184-199.
  • Hillocks, G. J. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching and Learning, 69, 77-89. Urbana, III.: ERIC Clearinghouse on reading and communication skills and the National conference on Research in English.
  • Holt, S. L. (1997). Responding to grammar errors. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 70, 69-76.
  • Hyland, K. (1990). Providing productive feedback. ELT Jurnal, 44 (4), 279-285.
  • Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Jurnal of Second Language Writing, 7 (3), 255-286.
  • Hyland, F. (2000a). ESL writers and feedback: giving more autonomy to learners. Language Teaching Research, 4 (1), 33-54.
  • Hyland, F. & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring The Pill: Praise And Criticism İn Written Feedback. Jurnal of Second Language Writing. 10 (3). 185-212.
  • Hyland, F. (2001a). Providing effective support: investigating feedback to distance language learners. Open Learning 16(3), 233–247.
  • Hyland, F. (2001b). Dealing with plagiarism when giving feedback. English Language Teaching Journal, 55(4), 375–382.
  • Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2002). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39, 83–101.
  • Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (Eds.) (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006b). Feedback on second language students’ writing, Language Teaching, 39 (2), 83-101.
  • Jacobs, G., Curtis, A., Braine,G. & Huang, S. (1998). Feedback on student writing: Taking the middle path. Journal of Second Language Writing 7(3), 307–317.
  • Karaalioğlu, S. K. (1992). Yazmak ve Konuşmak Sanatı Kompozisyon (7. Basım), İstanbul: İnkılâp Kitabevi.
  • Karatay, H. (2011). Süreç Temelli Yazma Modelleri: Planlı Yazma ve Değerlendirme. (Ed: M. Özbay), Yazma Eğitimi, Ankara: Pegem Akademi, s. 21-42.
  • Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation. ELT Jurnal, 44 (4), 294-304.
  • Keeley, P. (2008). Science Formative Assessment: 75 Practical Strategies for Linking Assessment, Instruction, and Learning. California: Corwin & NSTA Press.
  • Kepner, C. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 305-313.
  • Knoblauch, C. H., Brannon, L. (1981). Teacher commentary on student writing: the state of the art. Freshman English News, 10, 1-4.
  • Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research insights for the clasroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57-68.
  • Lockhart, C. & P. Ng (1993). How useful is peer response? Perspectives 5(1), 17–29.
  • MacArthur, C., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (2006). The handbook of writing research. New York: Guilford Press, 171-183.
  • Master, P. (1995). Consciousness raising and article pedagogy. In D. Belcher and G. Braine (eds.), Academic writing in a second language, Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 183–205.
  • McCarthey, S. J. (1992). The teacher, the author, and the text: variations in form and content of writing conferences. Journal of Reading Behaviour, 24 (1), 51–82.
  • McGrath, April L.; Taylor, Alyssa; and Pchyl, Timothy A. (2011) Writing Helpful Feedback: The Influence of Feedback Type on Students’ Perceptions and Writing Performance, The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2 (2).
  • McGroarty, M. & Zhu, W. (1997). Triangulation in classroom research: A study of peer revision. Language Learning 47.1, 1–43.
  • Mendoca, C. & Johnson, K. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly 28.4, 745–768.
  • Mitchell, R. & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories. London: Arnold.
  • Mlynarczyk, R. W. (1996). Finding grandma’s words: A case study in the art of revising. Journal of Basic Writing, 15 (1), 3-22.
  • Nelson, G. & Murphy, J. (1992). An L2 writing group: Task and social dimensions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 171–193.
  • Nelson, G. & Murphy, J. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts? TESOL Quarterly 27(1), 135–141.
  • Nelson, M. & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: how different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37 (4), 375-401.
  • Neuwirth, C. M., Chandhok, R., Charney, D., Wojahn, P., & Kim, L. (1994). Distributed Collaborative writing: A comparison of spoken and written modalities for reviewing and revising documents. Proceedings of the Computer-Human Interaction ‘94 Conference, April 24–28, 1994, Boston Massachusetts (pp. 51–57). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
  • Nguyen, T.H.T. (2009). Relationship Between Teacher Written Feedback and Progress of The Freshmen in Writing. Hanoi: Wietnam National University Press.
  • Nilson, L. B. (2003). Improving student peer feedback. College Teaching, 51(1), 34–38.
  • Nunan, D. (Ed.). (2003). Practical English Language Teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill companies, Inc.
  • Overall, L. & Sangster, M. (2006). Assessment: a practical guide for primary teachers. London: Continum
  • Patthey-Chavez, G., & Ferris, D. (1997). Writing conferences and the weaving of multi-voiced texts in college composition. Research in the Teaching of English, 31(1), 51–90.
  • Paulus, T. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 8(3), 265–289.
  • Polio, C., Fleck,C. & Leder, N. (1998). ‘If I only had more time’: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing 7(1), 43– 68.
  • Probst, R. E. (1989). Transactional theory and response to student writing. In C. Anson (ed.), Writing and response. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 68–79.
  • Radecki, P. & Swales, J. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their work. System 16 (3), 355–365.
  • Raimes, A. (1983). Anguish as a second language? Remedies for composition teachers. In A. Freeman, I. Pringle, & J. Yalden (Eds.), Learning to write: First language/second language. (s. 258-272). London: Longman.
  • Reid, J.M. (1994). Responding to ESL students’ texts: Themyths of appropriation. TESOL Quarterly 28(2), 273–294.
  • Rezaei, S. (2011). Corrective feedback in task-based grammar instruction. Saarbrücken, Germany. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.
  • Richards, J. C. (2005). Communicative language teaching today. SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
  • Robb, T., Ross, S. & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly 20 (1), 83–93
  • Roediger, H. L. (2007). Twelve Tips for Reviewers. APS Observer, 20 (4), 41–43.
  • Rushton, C., Ramsey, P., & Rada, R. (1993). Peer assessment in a collaborative hypermedia environment. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20, 75–80.
  • Saddler, B.,& Andrade, H. (2004). The writing rubric. Educational Leadership, 62 (2), 48–52.
  • Saito, H. (1994). Teachers’ practices and students’ preferences for feedback on second language writing: A case study of adult ESL learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11(2), 46–70.
  • Senemoğlu, N. (2002). Gelişim Öğrenme ve Öğretim: Kuramdan Uygulamaya. Ankara: Gazi Kitapevi.
  • Sengupta, S. (1998). Peer evaluation: ‘I am not the teacher’. ELT Journal, 52.1, 19–28.
  • Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal 23.1, 103–110.
  • Simmons, J. (2003). Responders are taught, not born. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 46 (8),684-683.
  • Smith, S. (1997). The genre of the end comment: Conventions in teacher responses to student writing. College Composition and Communication, 48(2), 249-268.
  • Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to Student writing. In. I. L. Clark, (Ed.), Concepts in Composition: theory and practice in teaching of writing. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publisher. 232-240.
  • Stanley, G. (2003). Approaches to process writing. Teaching English. British Council, BBC.
  • Stannard, R. (2006). The spelling mistake: Scene one, take one. Times Higher Education Supplement. 8 December 2006.
  • Sternberg, R. J. (2002). On civility in reviewing. APS Observer, 15 (1), 3-34.
  • Stiff, R. (1967). The effect upon student composition of particular correction techniques. Research in the teaching English, 1, 54-75.
  • Stoddard, B., & MacArthur, C. (1993). A peer editor strategy: guiding learning disabled students in response and revision. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(1), 76–103.
  • Straub, R. (1996). The concept of control in teacher response: Defining the varicties of “directive” and “facilitative” commentary. College Composition and Communication, 47(2), 223-251.
  • Straub, R. (1997). Students reactions to teacher comments: An exploratory study. Research in the Teaching of English. 31, 91-119.
  • Sugita, Y. (2006). The impact of Teachers’ comment types on students’ revision. ELT Jurnal, 60 (1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Tan, Ş. (2010). Öğretimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
  • Temizkan, M. (2008). Türkçe ve Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarının Yazılı Anlatım Çalışmalarını Düzeltme ve Değerlendirme Durumları. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD), 9 (3), 49-61.
  • Temizkan, M. (2009). Akran Değerlendirmenin Konuşma Becerisinin Geliştirilmesi Üzerindeki Etkisi. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6(12), 90-112.
  • To, T. H. et al. (2008). ELT Methodology II. Hanoi: Wietnam National University Press.
  • Todd, R.W., Mills, N., Palard, C., & Khamcharoen, P. (2001). Giving feedback on journals. ELT Journal, 55(4), 354-359.
  • Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer Assessment Between Students in Colleges and Universities, Review of Educational Research,68, 249-276.
  • Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–69.
  • Truscott, J. (1999). The case for ‘the case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes’: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing 8.2, 111–122.
  • Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of SecondLanguage Writing 13.4, 337–343.
  • Tseng, S. C. & Tsai, C.C. (2006). On-line peer assessment and the role of the peer feedback: A study of high school computer course. Computers & Education.
  • Tsui, A. B. M. & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Learning, 9, 147-170.
  • Ülper, H. (2009). Metinlerin Tutarlılık Özelliklerine İlişkin Olarak Öğrencilere Geri Bildirim Sunmada İşbirliği İlkelerinin Kullanımı. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2(8), 422-429.
  • Ülper, H. (2011). Öğrenci Metinlerinin Tutarlılık Ölçütleri Bağlamında Değerlendirilmesi. Turkish Studies. 6 (4), 849-863.
  • Ülper, H. (2011). Öğrencilerin Ürettikleri Taslak Metinlerine Yönelik Geri Bildirim Almaya İlişkin Yeğleyişleri, Mehmet Âkif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11 (22), 280-300.
  • Ülper, H. (2012). Taslak Metinlere Öğretmenler Tarafından Sunulan Geribildirimlerin Özellikleri, Eğitim ve Bilim, 37 (165), 127-136.
  • Welch, N. (1997). Getting restless: Rethinking revision in writinginstruction. Portsmout, NH: Boynton/Cook.
  • Yılmaz, Y. (2006). Yazma Öğretimi. Kuramdan Uygulamaya Türkçe Öğretimi (Ed.: Cemal Yıldız). Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık, 203-276.
  • Yılmaz, M. (2012). İlköğretim I. Kademe Öğrencilerinin Kompozisyon Yazma Becerilerini Geliştirmede Planlı Yazma Modelinin Etkisi. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9 (19), 321-330.
  • Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, (1), 79-101.
Birincil Dil tr
Konular
Dergi Bölümü Makaleler
Yazarlar

Yazar: Eyyup COŞKUN

Yazar: Mehmet TAMER

Bibtex @ { mkusbed209046, journal = {Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi}, issn = {1304-429X}, address = {Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi}, year = {2015}, volume = {12}, pages = {337 - 372}, doi = {}, title = {Yazma Eğitiminde Geri Bildirim Türleri ve Kullanımı / Types and Use of Feedback in Writing Education}, key = {cite}, author = {COŞKUN, Eyyup and TAMER, Mehmet} }
APA COŞKUN, E , TAMER, M . (2015). Yazma Eğitiminde Geri Bildirim Türleri ve Kullanımı / Types and Use of Feedback in Writing Education. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 12 (32), 337-372. Retrieved from http://dergipark.gov.tr/mkusbed/issue/19578/209046
MLA COŞKUN, E , TAMER, M . "Yazma Eğitiminde Geri Bildirim Türleri ve Kullanımı / Types and Use of Feedback in Writing Education". Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 12 (2015): 337-372 <http://dergipark.gov.tr/mkusbed/issue/19578/209046>
Chicago COŞKUN, E , TAMER, M . "Yazma Eğitiminde Geri Bildirim Türleri ve Kullanımı / Types and Use of Feedback in Writing Education". Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 12 (2015): 337-372
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - Yazma Eğitiminde Geri Bildirim Türleri ve Kullanımı / Types and Use of Feedback in Writing Education AU - Eyyup COŞKUN , Mehmet TAMER Y1 - 2015 PY - 2015 N1 - DO - T2 - Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 337 EP - 372 VL - 12 IS - 32 SN - 1304-429X- M3 - UR - Y2 - 2019 ER -
EndNote %0 Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi Yazma Eğitiminde Geri Bildirim Türleri ve Kullanımı / Types and Use of Feedback in Writing Education %A Eyyup COŞKUN , Mehmet TAMER %T Yazma Eğitiminde Geri Bildirim Türleri ve Kullanımı / Types and Use of Feedback in Writing Education %D 2015 %J Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi %P 1304-429X- %V 12 %N 32 %R %U
ISNAD COŞKUN, Eyyup , TAMER, Mehmet . "Yazma Eğitiminde Geri Bildirim Türleri ve Kullanımı / Types and Use of Feedback in Writing Education". Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 12 / 32 (Aralık 2016): 337-372.