 |
Description of Individual Course Units| Course Unit Code | Course Unit Title | Type of Course Unit | Year of Study | Semester | Number of ECTS Credits | | TR107B | Written Expression I | Compulsory | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| | Level of Course Unit | | First Cycle | | Objectives of the Course | | The process approach to research, one of the consequences of written expression (writing process) these problems within the framework of the development of students' writing skills is intended. In this context the author and the reader-centered text-based content to motivate them in terms of passing and thought processes of the draft study. | | Name of Lecturer(s) | | DOÇ. DR. KÜRŞAD KARA | | Learning Outcomes | | 1 | The students will be able to; classify types of written texts (informative texts, literary texts etc.) and explain features of these texts. | | 2 | The students will be able to; develop their writing skills. | | 3 | The students will be able to; write (create) various kind of texts (informative texts, literary texts etc.). | | 4 | The students will be able to; employ writing methods and techniques |
| | Mode of Delivery | | Normal Education | | Prerequisites and co-requisities | | None | | Recommended Optional Programme Components | | None | | Course Contents | | The focus of the ongoing debate for a long time "Language is learned best how to answer the question" are available. This is an attempt to solve the problem, such as read-write linguistic forms obtained for the primary discourse (Gee, 1991), the issue of data for the current tried to be configured. So much so that one side of the language taught these attempts, his only experience of participating in certain contexts, linguistic forms are available by proponents of the thesis. The best way to learn the language of the other side of the structure and shape characteristics of its proponents should be taught to have a clear. Therefore we model the cognitive artificial intelligence search of text analysis problem-solving activities and products of a kind of knowledge that are encountered. In this course the students of writing within the framework of the mentioned works of literature "in terms of the properties of text and open a real teaching" to be informed about planned improvements. | | Weekly Detailed Course Contents | |
| 1 | A historical perspective to the investigation of written texts. Course description of the theoretical framework. | | | | 2 | Learn to read and write in a certain genre-specific texts | | | | 3 | disparity between the different types of reports and draft of the written text. | | | | 4 | What is the presentation? External Presentations: written and graphical presentations. Differences Between External Presentations. The differences between external and mental presentations. | | | | 5 | Propositions: Objects and relationships | | | | 6 | presentation of the concepts associated with it. | | | | 7 | midterms | | | | 8 | Texts Properties Real and Public Education | | | | 9 | Written accounts of children in the Development of Small Structures. | | | | 10 | The theoretical framework of teaching writing. Product and process-based writing instruction | | | | 11 | An overview of research in product and process-based writing instruction. In this context, the process-based approach to teaching writing as a form of cognitive research, often referred to with the model iteratively, knowledge conversion (especially in light of the emphasis on Flower and Hayes), information, description, and examples of approaches, such as goal | | | | 12 | Student applications | | | | 13 | Student applications | | | | 14 | Student applications | | | | 15 | assessments | | | | 16 | Final exam | | |
| | Recommended or Required Reading | | Mar, R. A. (2004). The neuropsychology of narrative: story comprehension, story production and their interrelation, Neuropsychologia,. 42(10), 1414-1434.
Bereiter, C. and Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., Sinatra, G.M. and Loxterman, J.A. (1991) Revising social studies text from a text processing perspective: evidence of improved comprehensibility. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 251–76.
Gardner, H. (1985). The mind’s new science: A history bof the cognitive revolution, NY: AP.
Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Herriot, P. (2004). Language development in children. In R. Gregory (Edt. By), The Oxford Companion to the Mind. Second Edition, (pp. 519-521), Oxford University Press.
Miller, G.A., Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Milliss, K.K., Just, M.A. (1994). The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 128-147.
Schnotz, W. (1984). Comparative Instructional Text Organization. In H Mandl et al. (Editors), Learning and Comprehension of Text. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Miller, G.A., Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Mar, R. A. (2004). The neuropsychology of narrative: story comprehension, story production and their interrelation, Neuropsychologia,. 42(10), 1414-1434.
Horowitz, R. (1987). Rhetorical structure in discourse processing. In R. Horowitz and S.J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 117–160). NY: Academic Press
Milliss, K.K., Just, M.A. (1994). The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 128-147.
Herriot, P. (2004). Language development in children. In R. Gregory (Edt. By), The Oxford Companion to the Mind. Second Edition, (pp. 519-521), Oxford University Press.
Hayes, S.C., Holmes, D.B. and Roche, B. (2002). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. Kluwer Academic Publishers. | | Planned Learning Activities and Teaching Methods | | | Assessment Methods and Criteria | |
| Midterm Examination | 1 | 100 | | SUM | 100 | |
| Final Examination | 1 | 100 | | SUM | 100 | | Term (or Year) Learning Activities | 40 | | End Of Term (or Year) Learning Activities | 60 | | SUM | 100 |
| | Language of Instruction | | Turkish | | Work Placement(s) | | None |
| | Workload Calculation | |
| Midterm Examination | 1 | 1 | 1 | | Final Examination | 1 | 2 | 2 | | Attending Lectures | 14 | 2 | 28 | | Self Study | 14 | 2 | 28 | | Individual Study for Mid term Examination | 8 | 1 | 8 | | Individual Study for Final Examination | 9 | 1 | 9 | | Homework | 14 | 1 | 14 | |
| Contribution of Learning Outcomes to Programme Outcomes | | LO1 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | | LO2 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 3 | | LO3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | | LO4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
| | * Contribution Level : 1 Very low 2 Low 3 Medium 4 High 5 Very High |
 |
| |
|
|