A Research on The Improvement of Persuasive Writing Skill of Sixth Grade Students in Secondary School
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today's communication possibilities bring along directive communication. Certain groups, institutions, or people can use communication to persuade for their special purposes. When Turkish main language curriculums were examined, even though the persuasive writing takes place at the elementary school level, it does not take place at the secondary school level. Contrary to this situation in Turkey, in the main language curriculums of many countries such as South Korea, China Hong-Kong, Singapore, Canada, Ireland, Australia, and the USA there is a systematic and important place at elementary and secondary school level for persuasive writing. In this research, moving from the lack of this writing skill at secondary school level, an action research process based on the question "How can the persuasive writing skills of 6th-grade students in secondary school be improved in Turkish lesson?" was carried out. For this purpose, a persuasive writing education program was prepared using a process - based writing model. This program was applied 15 weeks (34 class hours) in a class of 18 students and the effect of the program on the students was followed. Research questions are as follows: What is the opinion of students about persuasion before persuasive writing education? What is the effect of persuasive writing education on the ability of students to create the persuasive text? How is the relationship between persuasive text analysis and persuasive text creation? What are the views of students about persuasive writing education? What are the problems encountered in the research process? The data in the study were obtained from student products, evaluation rubric for persuasive text, analysis texts, checklist, student and researcher diary. In data analysis SPSS 23 and NVivo-11-Pro programs were used. In the direction of the findings, text creation and text analysis ability of 6th-grade students developed in the process and that there is a meaningful relationship between these skills. Moreover, it was seen that students did not succeed at the expected level in applying "counter opinions" and "source" items of persuasive expression in the process of text creation and text analysis, and there was no significant progress with the education process in "spelling" and "punctuation". On the other hand, it has been found that students are "good" level for “elaboration", " "transition words” and "very good" level for "title", "introduction", "development", "result", "thesis", "supporting opinions", "emotional orientation", "repeat", "call", "justification", “requirement statements". After analyses of researcher and student diaries, the themes have been reached that can increase productivity in education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".