Written Expression Skills of Both Monoliterate, and Emergent Bilingual Primary School Students: A Comparison with Monolingual Students

Abstract

Many students learn Turkish as a second language in Turkey. These students, whose first language is Kurdish, learn Turkish at a certain level before starting school. As a result, these students become emergent bilinguals along with school life. On the other hand, some of these students almost do not use Kurdish in their lives and wholly turn to Turkish. Ultimately, all students whose first language is Kurdish continue their education in the same environment with students whose first language is Turkish. As a result, these children lag behind students whose first language is Turkish in many respects. They even lag behind students whose dominant language is Turkish and Kurdish as their first language. This research it is aimed to reveal the differences between the two student groups in the context of written expression skills. The effect of the dominant language difference, preschool education status and socioeconomic level on the written expression skills of primary school students were examined. The research group of 428 primary school fourth-grade students (girl: 201, boy:227) was determined by criterion sampling method. As a result of the research, it was revealed that the written expression skills of the students whose dominant language is Kurdish remained at a deficient level, and they made more spelling mistakes

Full text

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V17, N3, 2022
© 2022 INASED
57
Written Expression Skills of Both Monoliterate, and Emergent Bilingual Primary
School Students: A Comparison with Monolingual Students
1
Yusuf KIZ
2
Van Yuzuncu Yil University
Abstract
Many students learn Turkish as a second language in Turkey. These students, whose first language is
Kurdish, learn Turkish at a certain level before starting school. As a result, these students become
emergent bilinguals along with school life. On the other hand, some of these students almost do not
use Kurdish in their lives and wholly turn to Turkish. Ultimately, all students whose first language is
Kurdish continue their education in the same environment with students whose first language is
Turkish. As a result, these children lag behind students whose first language is Turkish in many
respects. They even lag behind students whose dominant language is Turkish and Kurdish as their
first language. This research it is aimed to reveal the differences between the two student groups in
the context of written expression skills. The effect of the dominant language difference, preschool
education status and socioeconomic level on the written expression skills of primary school students
were examined. The research group of 428 primary school fourth-grade students (girl: 201, boy:227)
was determined by criterion sampling method. As a result of the research, it was revealed that the
written expression skills of the students whose dominant language is Kurdish remained at a deficient
level, and they made more spelling mistakes
Keywords: Monoliterate Bilingual, Emergent Bilingual, Primary School Students, Written
Expression Skills.
DOI: 10.29329/epasr.2022.461.3
1
This study was presented as a oral presentation at the ISCER congress (Konya-Turkey) in 2018.
2
Asst. Prof. Dr., Faculty of Education, Van Yuzuncu Yil University, Van, Turkey, ORCID: 0000-0001-9434-4629
Correspondence: yusufkiziltas@yyu.edu.tr

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V17, N3, 2022
© 2022 INASED
58
Introduction
Language is accepted as the most essential and necessary tool in communication and
interaction (Abdel-rahman Arman et al., 2015: Farooq et al., 2012). Thanks to language, people can
understand each other more easily. As Bachore (2014) states, language is one of the critical concepts
of communication and understanding. For this reason, it is essential to master the dominant language.
However, sometimes people may not be able to master their language skills sufficiently for various
reasons. Especially individuals in acquiring a second language face these problems (Rao, 2019).
Individuals trying to acquire a second language can partially speak and understand the second
language. However, they may not have immediate reach to the ability to speak the second language at
a proficiency level (Ellis, 1997). Therefore, individuals who acquire a second language are likely to
encounter difficulties in reading, to speak, listening and writing skills. Sokip (2020) also emphasizes
this difficulty in second language learners. Abdel-rahman Arman et al. (2015) attribute these
problems in basic language skills to the lack of effective and adequate language teaching. In other
words, it is possible to achieve success in the four basic language skills such as reading, writing,
listening and speaking with adequate language skills teaching.
Monoliterate Bilinguals
In rural regions of Turkey, such as Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia, many students learn
Turkish as a second language before starting school, whose first language is Kurdish (Yılmaz &
Şekerci, 2016). Since these students, who are official citizens of Turkey, have different language
skills, their proficiency in basic language skills is lower than monolingual students (Asrağ, 2009;
Derince, 2012; Uğur, 2017). These students, who have to learn the second language rather than their
first language, are literate only in the second language (Turkish). In other words, they are not literate
in their first language (Kızıltaş, 2021). Literacy skills are almost non-existent in their first language.
This situation is also included in the literature as monoliterate bilingualism (Güzel, 2014; Fishman,
1976).
Although monoliterate bilingual students speak both languages in everyday life, they speak
only the second language in school education. They speak their first language again, but this use
occurs mainly outside of class/school (Liddicoat, 1991; Musyahda, 2018). On the other hand,
according to Fishman (1976), monoliterate bilingual students may have particular proficiency in their
speech in both languages. However, since improving literacy skills in the country's official language,
rather than in their first language, is a priority, proficiency in the first language may decrease
(Ağırman, 2019). Bilingual students in Turkey speak as a second language to Turkish mainly in their
schools. In the classroom, they only learn and speak Turkish. This prohibition is that there is no
bilingual education in Turkey by the constitution (Turkish Constitution, 1982). In other words, since

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V17, N3, 2022
© 2022 INASED
59
they speak Kurdish at home and Turkish in a classroom environment, this also creates problems in
acquiring second language skills (Ağırman,, 2019). As a result, monoliterate bilingual students have
problems with their second language skills because they speak Kurdish at home and Turkish in the
classroom (Ağırman, 2019).
Emergent Bilinguals
Emergent bilingual students continue to speak their first language at home while learning the
second language at school (García et al., 2008). Students whose first language in Turkey, especially in
rural areas, are Kurdish, also use the first language more intensively at home (Koşan, 2015). In such
cases, children in the second language may remain at a lower level (Saydı, 2013) than other first
language skills while progressing towards a better level. This negative result occurs because the
emergent bilinguals are seen at the same level as monolingual students in the classroom. In the
context of ethnicity, dominant language and socioeconomic level, emergent bilinguals, usually
composed of heterogeneous and disadvantaged groups (Kong & Hurless, 2021), often do not receive
the educational programs they need, according to García et al. (2008). He states that this causes
various problems. Indeed, Ortiz et al. (2020) also draws attention to this problem and emphasizes
differences between the achievements of emergent bilinguals and monolingual students. López and
Santibañez, (2018) also emerged as another source of problems, stating that developing bilingual
students also need qualified teachers. Likewise, it should be said that emergent bilingual students are
also more unsuccessful in exams based on standardized tests than monolingual students (Hickey,
2016; Kong & Hurless, 2021).
Although emergent bilingual learners use two languages together in their social lives, literacy
skills in their first and second languages are low. Language skills also negatively affect academic
achievement (Kim, 2019). In other words, emergent bilingual students need language support
programs (Menken & Klyen, 2010). Namely, although development is progressing in the second
language, it can be said that they are not at the desired level. There are three types of developing
bilingual students. These are going to adequate formal schooling, limited formal schooling and long-
term emergent bilingual students. The first group have a limited educational background. They are not
literate in their first language. The second group can speak both languages. However, they do not
have good literacy skills in either language. The third group has superficial reading and writing skills
(Freeman, Freeman, Mercuri, 2003; Olsen, 2010). Students whose first language is Kurdish in Turkey
can also be evaluated in this context.
Written Expression Skill
It is a well-known fact that emergent bilingual students do not have adequate reading,
speaking, understanding and writing skills in Turkish (Yılmaz & Şekerci, 2016; Yiğit, 2009). The

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V17, N3, 2022
© 2022 INASED
60
writing and reading skills (Ellis, 1997; Rao, 2019) of bilingual students who acquire a second
language other than their first language will be negatively affected by this situation (Alfaqiri, 2018).
Moreover, according to Ağırman (2019), the skill bilingual students have the most difficulty with
after grammar is written expression. This situation may be due to a lack of proficiency in the second
language. According to Göçer (2013), if the student does not acquire good reading and
comprehension skills, the student is written expression skills will not be good either. In other words, it
states that writing skill is acquired after teaching other language skills. Namely, learning language
skills at a proficiency level is also an essential condition.
Written expression skills include a complex and cognitive process. Written expression skill,
which seriously affects students' language development and academic success (Hyland, 2003; Safa,
2018), requires the ability to think deeply and analyze a subject by using the individual's prior
knowledge (Chakraverty & Gautum, 2000; Eryaman, 2008; Nunan, 1989). That is why written
expression skill, unlike speaking skill, needs more support from family. In other words, it is
challenging to acquire written expression skills naturally. However, since it has a complex feature that
requires the coordination of many cognitive skills and requires support, students accept written
expression as a challenging process (Gillespie & Graham, 2014). For this reason, it is an expected
possibility to encounter some difficulties in acquiring written expression skills (Anvar & Ahmed,
2016; Aronoff & Rees-Miller, 2007).
According to Brisk (2011), especially students who acquire a second language face some
difficulties acquiring and developing their written expression skills. Written expression skill is
challenging as it requires much knowledge such as vocabulary, grammar and rules (Negari, 2012). In
addition, Brisk (2011) draws attention to the fact that as children who acquire a second language
develop their written expression skills, they have more command of the language. He states that
students begin to have power over the second language with this proficiency. Husna et al. (2013) also
draw attention to the difficulties experienced by second language learners, especially in written
expression skills. The problems experienced by second language learners are listed as insufficient
vocabulary knowledge, not knowing the meanings of words sufficiently, not being able to organize
paragraphs. According to Alfaqiri (2018), there is a fundamental reason for this: Acquiring a language
becomes a burden as students see second language acquisition as a goal they must conquer. Thus, they
face severe difficulties, especially in their written expression skills. On the other hand, it can be stated
that the different language structures cause these problems. In other words, it can be a problem if the
first language does not provide the desired contribution to the second language. The lack of concrete
data showing that the first language contributes to the written expression skills of bilingual students in
Turkey and the similarity of this situation in other countries (McCarthey et al., 2005) is proof in this
regard. Likewise, the fact that emergent bilinguals do not meet the second language in a formal sense

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V17, N3, 2022
© 2022 INASED
61
is an obstacle to developing written expression skills. Especially not having preschool education
negatively affects the language skills of bilingual students (Susar Kırmızı et al., 2016; Kıvrak, 2019;
Koşan, 2015). Similarly, the low socioeconomic level is also a negative factor affecting the written
expression skills of second language learners (Doğan, 2017). To summarize, monoliterate and
emergent bilinguals students in Turkey have problems with their written expression skills. Language
differences, lack of preschool education and socioeconomic level are also essential factors at the root
of the problem.
It is important not to see written expression only as a judgment and evaluation tool and
overcome the difficulties encountered in written expression skills. Teachers have a significant role in
teaching written expression skills. First, the teacher should help students acquire good writing skills
(Rao, 2019). Therefore, teachers should emphasize improving students' written expression skills
because written expression skill is not an innate skill that cannot be changed or developed (Nasir et
al., 2013). Therefore, misconceptions about written expression skills should be avoided. Otherwise,
the development of written expression skills is prevented, and its importance is pushed into the
background. In other words, the importance of written expression skills should be given priority in the
first stages of second language teaching (Al-Gharabally, 2015: Fareed et al., 2016). Teachers should
take responsibility in this context.
When the literature is examined, it is noteworthy that the studies examining the written
expression skills of students who acquire Turkish as a second language are limited. These studies
were mostly limited to secondary school students (Ağırman, 2019; Doğan, 2017; Kıvrak, 2019;
Özdemir, 2016). Therefore, no comprehensive research was found on emergent bilingual primary
school students in rural areas of Turkey. Düzen (2017) also draws attention to this limitation. On the
other hand, in the literature outside of Turkey, it can be said that there are a significant number of
studies to determine the written expression skills of second language learners and the problems they
experience (Anvar & Ahmed, 2016; Alfaqiri, 2018; Farooq et al., 2012; Fareed et al., 2016: Rao,
2019). The lack of studies in this context in Turkey, especially in bilingual primary school students, is
a fact. This study is of great importance to fill the gap in this area. Comparing the written expression
skills of bilingual primary school students and monolingual students makes the study even more
original and meaningful. The research assumes that students whose first language is Turkish have
lower written expression skills than students whose first language is Kurdish. Among the bilingual
students in Turkey, some students almost forget their first language (Kurdish) and rarely use this
language. Therefore, it is essential to identify some students in this context who are almost at the
same level as monolingual students. For this reason, the dominant language of all student groups was
determined in the research. In the context of the importance and aims of the research, answers to the
following questions were sought:

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V17, N3, 2022
© 2022 INASED
62
1. Do bilingual and monolingual students’ typos, correct and total word levels, and written
expression skills differ significantly according to the dominant language?
2. Do bilingual and monolingual students’ typos, spelling errors, correct and total word
levels, and written expression skills differ significantly according to their preschool
education status?
3. Do bilingual and monolingual students’ typos, spelling errors, correct and total word
levels, and written expression skills differ significantly according to socioeconomic level?
Method
Research Design
The quantitative research method was used in this study. Quantitative research offers the
opportunity to perform analysis and quantification to get results related to various variables from the
collected data. This context includes using specific statistical techniques and analyzing numerical data
to answer various questions (Apuke, 2017). Quantitative research methods are divided into surveys,
correlational, experimental and causal-comparative research, according to Sukamolson (2017). In this
study, the 'survey model' was used within the scope of quantitative research methods. The survey
model is a model that requires the use of statistical methods by measuring the characteristics of a
particular population selected through a designed measurement such as a survey (Sukamolson, 2017).
In this study, the scanning model was used because it was aimed to determine the effects of some
variables on the written expression skills of primary school students whose first language was
different from their second language.
The Study Group
The study group of this research consists of fourth-grade primary school students studying in
a city located in the eastern part of Turkey. The research sample was selected by criterion sampling
method, one of the purposeful sampling methods. In the criterion sample, it is essential to determine
the participants with a predetermined set of criteria (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2006). The criteria
determined in selecting the sample of this study; are bilingual and monolingual primary school
students who study in the same schools. In addition, being a fourth-grader is also a criterion. Because
the last grade level of primary school in Turkey is the fourth grade. Therefore, students who have
reached this grade level are expected to have good language skills. Descriptive statistics of the study
group are given in Table 1.

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V17, N3, 2022
© 2022 INASED
63
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Fourth-Grade Students with Different Dominant Languages
Participating in the Research.
Variables
Answer
f
%
Dominant language
Turkish
170
39.7
Kurdish
258
60.3
Gender
Girl
201
47.0
Boy
227
53.0
Pre-school education status
Yes
246
57.5
No
182
42.5
Socioeconomic level
Low
204
47.7
Average
118
27.6
High
106
24.8
It is seen that the dominant language of 39.7% of the primary school students who
participated in the research is Turkish, and the dominant language of 60.3% of them is Kurdish. 53%
of the students are boys, and 47% are girls. 57.5% of students whose dominant language is further
received preschool education. 47.7% of the students, that is, most of them, are in the lower
socioeconomic level.
Data Collection Tools
Data collection tools developed to measure written expression skills of primary school
students whose dominant language is different are listed below.
Student Information Form: There are 11 questions in the student information form. These
questions are the gender of the students, the education level of the parents of the student, the income
of the family, the profession of the parents of the students, the status of receiving preschool education,
the language most used in the family (Turkish, Kurdish), whether the mother and the student know
Kurdish. In addition, the first language learned from the mother (Turkish, Kurdish).
Written Epression Skills Scale: The 'Story Writing Evaluation Form' developed by Doğan and
Müldür (2014) was used. This form consists of 17 items: margins, paragraphs and lines, outline, title,
heroes, place, time, plot, problem, solution, main idea, word, sentence, coherence, paragraph, spelling
and punctuation. The criteria in the form prepared as a rubric were scored between 1 and 4. Therefore,
scoring is as follows: unsatisfactory (1), acceptable (2), sufficient (3), very good (4).
Typos Identification Form: Criteria such as 'letter skipping, reverse writing, letter mixing,
compound writing, syllable writing, word addition, misspelling, spelling errors' were considered.
Typos determined for grades 1-5 in primary school by Erden et al. (2002) were also taken as a
reference in evaluating written expression skills.

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V17, N3, 2022
© 2022 INASED
64
Data Collection Process
In order to measure written expression skills, five topics were determined following the
themes in the primary school fourth-grade textbook. Students were asked to write an accessible story
about one of these topics. These issues were determined as 'healthy individual, environmental
pollution, our responsibilities in the family, conscious consumerism and protecting animals'. The
students were given about 40 minutes, which is one class hour. Classroom teachers carried out the
activity. Hyland (2003) emphasizes that freewriting allows students to express their thoughts freely
and develops their creativity. Freely written stories were evaluated with an assessment scale of written
expression skills. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient calculated for the story writing evaluation scale
was 0.81. According to Kalaycı (2018), in this case, the scale is highly reliable (0.80 ≤ α <1.00). The
data collection process took approximately one week.
Data Analysis
The data collected at the research end were analyzed with the SPSS 25.00 package program.
In the context of these data, the t-test was used to compare the means of the two groups and determine
whether there was a significant difference between them. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
was used to compare more than two groups. A significance level of 0.05 was taken as a criterion in all
analyses. In scoring students' written expression skills, the sum of the scores in 17 questions in the
written expression skills scale was considered. The number of all words in the free story written by
the students was determined as 'total word levels'. 'Correct word levels' were determined by
subtracting typos (letter skipping, reverse writing, letter mixing, compound writing, syllable writing,
word addition, misspelling, spelling errors, etc.) from the total number of words written.
In the research, two-step cluster analysis was applied by using SPSS 25.00 program to
determine the dominant language of primary school fourth-grade students whose first language was
different. With this analysis, the homogeneity of the clusters within themselves and the heterogeneity
between clusters is very high (Kalaycı, 2018). In this context, as seen in Figure 2, some questions
were asked to the students about using the first language. As a result of the questions, the students
were divided into two groups as the students whose dominant language was Turkish or Kurdish. They
are primarily emergent bilingual students whose dominant language is Kurdish. Because these
students receive their education in the second language, Turkish, not Kurdish, they also become
bilingual over time.

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V17, N3, 2022
© 2022 INASED
65
Table 2. Results of Two-Step Cluster Analysis for the Dominant Language
Variables
Cluster 1 (Kurdish)
Cluster2 (Turkish)
Kurdish language proficiency
Yes (%93)
No (%100)
The most spoken language in the family
Kurdish(%73,6)
Turkish (%100)
The first language learned from mother
Kurdish (%64,7)
Turkish (%100)
Mother’s Kurdish language proficiency
Yes (%96,1)
No (%54,7)
N* (428)
258
170
N: Total number of individuals in clusters
In the two-step clustering analysis conducted within the scope of the research, the silhouette
coefficient was taken as the basis when deciding on the number of clusters. Silhouette coefficient
takes values between -1 and +1. As this coefficient gets closer to the value of +1, the difference
between clusters is minimum, and the difference between clusters is maximum. If this coefficient is 0,
it means that the clusters are very close to each other and that the cluster elements are not different;
that is, there is no clustering. Negative values indicate that individuals are placed in the wrong clusters
(Rousseeuw, 1987). In the context of this research, the silhouette coefficient was obtained as 0.60.
This value indicates a good level of differentiation between clusters and similarity within clusters.
The findings of the AIC and BIC values used in deciding the number of clusters are given in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Change in BIC and AIC Values of 12 Clusters Obtained in the Study
Both AIC and BIC showed the most break in the second cluster. In other words, the values of
the 2 clusters are generally close to each other, and the decrease in these values gradually decreases.
These findings indicate that the data fit both clusters well.

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V17, N3, 2022
© 2022 INASED
66
Similarly, two-step cluster analysis was used in the study to determine the socioeconomic
levels (SEL) of primary school fourth-grade students whose first language was different. Five
questions were asked to the students in this context. According to the findings obtained as a result of
the questions, students were generally divided into three clusters in terms of socioeconomic level. The
defining features of the clusters are given in Table 3.
Table 3. Results of Two-Step Cluster Analysis for Socioeconomic Level
Variables
Cluster 1 (upper)
Cluster 2 (average )
Cluster 3 (lower)
Family monthly income
3000 TL-More (%92)
1000-3000 TL (%100)
1000-3000 TL (%93)
Mother's education level
Bachelor’s degree/
higher (%56.6)
Primary education (%73)
Primary education
(%99.5)
Father’s education level
Bachelor’s degree/
higher (%75.5)
High school (%60.2)
Primary education
(%100)
Mother’s profession
Public official (%40.6)
Self-employment (%100)
Self-employment (%100)
Father’s profession
Public official (%78.3)
Self-employment (%61)
Self-employment (%100)
N* (428)
106
118
204
N: Total number of individuals in clusters.
There are 106 students in the first cluster (upper socioeconomic level), 118 in the second
cluster (average socioeconomic level), and 204 students in the third cluster (lower socioeconomic
level). As a result of the two-step clustering analysis, the silhouette coefficient was 0.60. This value
indicates a good level of differentiation between clusters and similarity within clusters. Findings of
AIC and BIC values used in deciding the number of clusters are given below.
Figure 2. Change in BIC and AIC Values of 15 Clusters Obtained in the Study.

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V17, N3, 2022
© 2022 INASED
67
Both AIC and BIC gave the breaking value in the third cluster the most. In other words, the
values above 3 clusters are generally close to each other, and the decrease in these values gradually
decreased. These findings indicate that the data fit well in all three clusters.
Results
In this section, the findings related to the sub-problems are presented. Table 4 shows the
values of typos (spelling and word errors), correct and total word levels, written expression skills
scores on the arithmetic mean, standard deviation and independent T-Test, according to the dominant
language variable of primary school fourth-grade students whose first language is different.
Table 4. T-Test Results of Typos, Correct, and Total Word Levels, Written Expression Skills
Scores of Primary School Fourth Grade Students with Different First Language According to
the Dominant Language Variable.
Variables
Dominant
language
n


Ss
Sd
t
p
Typos
Turkish
170
23.61
20.13
426
-6.723
000*
Kurdish
258
41.55
30.68
Correct word level
Turkish
170
96.47
41.59
426
5.745
000*
Kurdish
258
72.74
41.96
Total word level
Turkish
170
109.0
40.49
426
3.133
002*
Kurdish
258
96.67
39.65
Written expression skill
Turkish
170
32.23
10.49
426
9.040
000*
Kurdish
258
26.55
11.05
* p<.05
Typos of primary school fourth grade students whose dominant language is different (t(426)=-
6.723; p<.05); correct word levels (t(426)=5.745; p<.05); There was a significant difference in total
word levels (t(426)=3.133; p<.05) and written expression skill scores (t(426)=9.040; p<.05). All the
differences favour the students whose dominant language is Turkish.
Table 5 shows the typos (spelling and word errors), correct and total word levels, arithmetic
mean, standard deviation and independent T-Test of written expression skills scores of primary school
fourth-grade students whose dominant language is Turkish according to the variable of receiving
preschool education.
Table 5. T-Test Results of Typos, Correct, and Total Word Levels, Written Expression Skills
Scores of Primary School Fourth Grade Students Whose Dominant Language is Turkish
According to the Variable of Receiving Preschool Education.
Variable
Preschool
education
n


Ss
Sd
t
p
Typos
Yes
134
23.42
20.36
168
-.240
811
No
36
24.33
19.50
Correct word level
Yes
134
98.00
42.49
168
.925
356
No
36
90.77
38.07
Total word level
Yes
134
110.4
41.98
168
.874
383
No
36
103.8
34.40

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V17, N3, 2022
© 2022 INASED
68
Written expression skill
Yes
134
37.00
10.95
168
1.847
067
No
36
33.38
8.025
* p>.05
Typos of primary school fourth grade students whose dominant language is Turkish (t(168)=-
.240; p>.05); correct word levels (t(168)=.925; p>05); It was found that there was no significant
difference in total word levels (t(168)=874; p>.05) and written expression skill scores (t(168)=1.847;
p>.05).
Table 6 shows the values of typos (spelling and word errors), correct and total word levels,
arithmetic mean, standard deviation and independent T-Test of written expression skills scores of
primary school fourth-grade students whose dominant language is Kurdish, according to the variable
of receiving preschool education.
Table 6. T-Test Results of Typos, Correct, and Total Word Levels, Written Expression Skills
Scores of Primary School Fourth Grade Students Whose Dominant Language is Kurdish
According to the Variable of Receiving Preschool Education.
Variable
Preschool
education
n


Ss
Sd
t
p
Typos
Yes
112
36.24
25.85
256
-2.458
.015*
No
146
45.62
33.45
Correct word level
Yes
112
76.64
40.61
256
1.309
192
No
146
69.75
42.86
Total word level
Yes
112
97.16
39.38
256
.177
860
No
146
96.28
39.98
Written expression skill
Yes
112
28.75
12.55
256
.400
005*
No
146
24.86
9.459
* p>.05
Correct word levels of primary school fourth-grade students whose dominant language is
Kurdish (t(256)=1.309; p>05); It is seen that there are no significant differences in total word levels
(t(256)=.177; p>.05) scores. It is possible to interpret these findings as that preschool education does not
affect the correct-total word-level scores of students whose dominant language is Kurdish. On the
other hand, there was a significant difference in typos (t(256)=-2.458; p<.05) and written expression
skill scores of primary school fourth-grade students whose dominant language is Kurdish. (t(256)=.400;
p<.05). According to this finding, it favours students whose dominant language is Kurdish who
receive preschool education.
Table 7 shows the values of typos (spelling and word errors), correct and total word levels,
arithmetic mean, standard deviation and ANOVA of written expression skills scores of primary
school fourth-grade students whose dominant language is Turkish, according to the socioeconomic
level variable.

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V17, N3, 2022
© 2022 INASED
69
Table 7. ANOVA Results of Typos, Correct, and Total Word Levels, Written Expression Skills
Scores of Primary School Fourth Grade Students Whose Dominant Language is Turkish
According to the Variable of Socioeconomic Level
Variables
SEL
n


Ss
SOS
df
AOS
F
p
D
Typos
Low
78
20.39
16.73
2000
2
1000
2.512
.084
Average
59
24.59
20.30
6651
167
398
High
33
29.48
25.64
Correct word level
Low
78
103.4
41.15
1098
2
5493
3.260
.041*
H-A
Average
59
85.66
36.98
2814
167
1685
High
33
99.24
47.33
Total word level
Low
78
114.1
42.24
7069
2
3534
2.186
.116
Average
59
100.2
34.60
2700
167
1616
High
33
112.6
44.41
Written expression skills
Low
78
40.34
10.22
2472
2
1236
12.79
000*
H-A
Average
59
33.22
9.838
1612
167
96.57
H-L
High
33
31.90
8.765
According to the socioeconomic level variable of primary school fourth-grade students
dominant language is Turkish, the difference in typos (F =2.512; p>.05) and total word levels (F
=2.186; p>.05) scores was not significant. On the other hand, the difference in correct word level (F
=3.260; p<.05) and written expression skills scores were statistically significant (F =12.79; p<.05).
After testing that the variances were not homogeneous, Tukey’s multiple comparison technique, one
of the post-hoc techniques, was applied to determine which group the difference originated from.
There was a difference between the upper-level and intermediate-level students in the correct word
levels of the students whose dominant language is Turkish. Likewise, there were significant
differences in written expression skills between high-level students and intermediate and low-level
students. These differences are in favour of high-level students.
Table 8 shows the values of typos (spelling and word errors), correct and total word levels,
arithmetic mean, standard deviation and ANOVA of written expression skills scores of primary
school fourth-grade students whose dominant language is Kurdish, according to the socioeconomic
level variable.
Table 8. ANOVA Results of Typos, Correct, and Total Word Levels, Written Expression Skills
Scores of Primary School Fourth Grade Students Whose Dominant Language is Kurdish
According to the Variable of Socioeconomic Level
Variable
SEL
n


Ss
SOS
df
AOS
F
p
D
Typos
Low
28
30.57
28.10
4700
2
2350
2.525
.082
Average
59
39.49
32.95
2373
255
930
High
171
44.05
30.00
Correct word level
Low
28
97.53
44.70
1946
2
9730
5.729
.004*
H-A
Average
59
68.32
37.93
4330
255
1698
H-L
High
171
70.21
41.70
Total word level
Low
28
116.5
43.00
1285
2
6426
4.188
.016*
H-A

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V17, N3, 2022
© 2022 INASED
70
Average
59
91.84
36.59
3912
255
1534
H-L
High
171
95.08
39.38
Written expression
Low
28
34.64
9.145
2087
2
1043
9.072
000*
H-A
skill
Average
59
24.91
9.344
2933
255
115.0
H-L
High
171
25.80
11.37
* p<.05 H: High, A: Average, L: Low, SOS: Sum of Squares, AOS: Average of Squares, D: Difference
According to the socioeconomic level variable of primary school fourth-grade students whose
dominant language is Kurdish, there was no significant difference in typos (F =2.525; p>.05). On the
other hand, correct word level (F =5.729; p<.05); The difference in total vocabulary level (F =4.188;
p<.05) and written expression skills scores were statistically significant (F =9.072; p<.05). There was
a significant difference in the correct and total word levels, written expression skills of the students
whose dominant language is Kurdish in favour of the students in the upper socioeconomic level.
Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendations
Significant differences were found between the written expression skills of primary school
fourth-grade students whose dominant language was different. There are various reasons behind these
differences. In this part of the study, the effect of these reasons was questioned. Those whose
dominant language is Kurdish are emergent bilingual learners. The language of instruction for these
students is only Turkish. Even if Kurdish is dominant, students become bilingual because the
education is in Turkish. Bilingualism is in the process of development.
It has been concluded that there are significant differences between the typos, correct and
total word levels and written expression skills scores of the students whose dominant language is
different. The scores for written expression skills of students whose dominant language is Turkish,
monolingual, are at a higher level. This finding is consistent with various studies conducted in Turkey
(Kan & Hatay, 2017: Özdemir, 2016; Sarı, 2001; Sugiharto, 2015). Likewise, Ng (2015) emphasizes
that monolingual students have better-written expression skills than bilingual students. Similar results
are found in the research conducted by Kan and Yeşiloğlu (2017). Farooq et al. (2012) also concluded
in their research that the written expression skills of bilingual students develop in a challenging way.
They emphasize that this difficulty creates a disadvantage. This disadvantage is mainly attributed to
the structural and cultural differences in written languages. According to Cai (2004), these differences
also lead to different problems. The problems are concentrated in grammar, writing appropriate
compositions, and appropriately presenting their thoughts. According to Safa (2018), a written
expression often becomes scary for individuals who acquire a second language due to these problems.
It should also be noted that different research results draw attention to the disadvantages and
difficulties experienced by second language learners in written expression skills (Ahmed Suliman,
2014; Hussein & Mohammad, 2011; Jun 2008). On the other hand, Poorebrahim et al. (2017) state

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V17, N3, 2022
© 2022 INASED
71
that bilingual students use more metacognitive skills than monolingual students, which positively
affects their composition writing and written expression. Findings related to the better-written
expression skills of students who acquire a second language are also included in other research results
(Gort, 2006). Apart from this, according to Ng (2015), although being bilingual provides an advantage
in writing skills, there is no clear and satisfactory data or study about this situation. On the other hand,
there are also studies stating that there is no difference between the written expression skills of
bilingual students and monolingual students. According to the results of his research, Ng (2013, 2020)
states that there is no significant difference between the written expression skills of bilingual and
monolingual students. Likewise, the research conducted by Droop and Verhoeven (2003) studying the
written expression skills of bilingual and monolingual students supports this situation.
It has been concluded that there is no effect of preschool education on typos, correct and total
word levels and written expression skills of monolingual primary school students whose dominant
language is Turkish. In other words, taking preschool education or not does not affect the written
expression skills of Turkish-speaking monolingual students. Likewise, students whose dominant
language is Turkish have an excellent level of Turkish proficiency before they come to school may be
effective because Turkish is already spoken in the students' homes and the neighbourhood. Yazıcı
(1999) also states that having specific proficiency in the dominant language before starting school
contributes to writing. More importantly, students in this group are exposed to the Turkish language
to a great extent before they start school life. This situation is effective in language proficiency.
Contrary to the result of this research, a significant number of studies have concluded that taking
preschool education has a positive effect on written expression skills. Based on their research,
Tavşanlı and Bulunuz (2017) state that preschool education positively affects the development of
written expression skills. Similarly, Erdoğan (2011) draws attention to the positive relationship
between preschool education and written expression skills in monolingual students. It should be noted
that other studies draw attention to the effect of preschool education and going through this education
process on students' written expression skills (Catts et al., 2012; Coşkun, 2006, 2010; Crone &
Whitehurst, 1999; Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997; Farver et al. al., 2007; Kartal et al., 2016).
According to Çetin et al. (2018), emphasizing that especially phonological awareness of preschool
students is related to written expression skills, this relationship positively affects written expression
skills in later ages. Undoubtedly, these results draw attention to the role of preschool education on
primary school students' written expression skills. In addition, Yılmaz (2012) states that preschool
education is a source for written expression skills. The child's scribbling at home before starting
school, observing the writing work of his sibling who goes to school, drawing pictures and drawings
form the basis for him to develop a thorough understanding of writing. This pre-knowledge he gained
will benefit his writing studies when he starts school.

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V17, N3, 2022
© 2022 INASED
72
It has been concluded that preschool education does not affect bilingual students' correct and
total word levels whose dominant language is Kurdish. It is pretty remarkable not to come across
research findings in the literature stating that preschool education does not affect the written
expression skills of bilingual students. On the other hand, the other findings obtained as a result of the
research show that the variable of receiving preschool education effectively affects the spelling
mistakes and written expression skills of bilingual students. In other words, it should be said that
emergent bilinguals students who receive preschool education make fewer spelling mistakes and their
written expression skills are generally better. This result is consistent with various research results in
the literature (Susar Kırmızı et al., 2019; Kıvrak, 2019; Topcu, 2012). Similarly, in the study
conducted by Kan and Hatay (2017), there is a conclusion that the reading and writing skills of
bilingual students who receive preschool education are better than those of bilingual students who
have not received preschool education. Similarly, in the study conducted by Kan and Hatay (2017),
there is a conclusion that the reading and writing skills of bilingual students who receive preschool
education are better than those of bilingual students who have not received this education. Koşan
(2015) also states that bilingual students who receive preschool education in Turkey are successful in
reading and writing. Therefore, Koşan states that going through preschool education also effectively
ensures school readiness. Restrepo and Harmon (2008) also state that the education and writing
activities during preschool education contribute to bilingual students' written expression skills later
on. In Doğan's (2017) study on bilingual students (Turkish-Arabic) studying in Turkey, it was
concluded that bilingual students who received preschool education had better written expression
skills than students who did not receive this education. Other studies reveal the effect of preschool
education on the written expression skills of bilingual students (Çabuk et al., 2018; Susar Kırmızı et
al., 2016).
It has been concluded that the variable socioeconomic influences the typos, correct word
levels and written expression skills of the monolingual students whose dominant language is Turkish.
In other words, the better the socioeconomic levels of the students, the better their written expression
skills. This finding also overlaps with some research results (Çelik, 2012; Deniz, 2003; Dölek &
Hamzadayı, 2018; Haykır, 2012; Tabak & Topuzkanamış, 2014; Yılmaz, 2011). Similarly, Bartscher
et al. (2001) also emphasize that low socioeconomic level causes a low level of written expression
skills according to the results of their research. Chokwe (2013) draws attention to the fact that
socioeconomic level is very effective, especially on writing skills, which is also harmful. When the
results of various studies are examined, it is seen that socioeconomic level affects written expression
skills (Arıcı & Ungan, 2008; Sholikah et al., 2019). In addition, Temel and Katrancı (2019) state that
the socioeconomic level of the region where the school is located affects the students' ability to write

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V17, N3, 2022
© 2022 INASED
73
narrative and informative texts. On the other hand, there should be mentioned that studies conclude
that socioeconomic level does not affect students' written expression skills (Pettigrew, 2009).
It was concluded that the socioeconomic variable affected the correct and total word levels
and written expression skills of monoliterate and emergent bilinguals students. In other words,
bilingual students with good socioeconomic levels have good written expression skills. This result is
consistent with various research results (Deniz, 2003; Doğan, 2017). Likewise, according to the
research conducted by Van Rensberg and Lamberti (2013), the written expression skills of students
with low socioeconomic levels who continue their education in rural areas remain at a lower level.
Salameh (2012) also attributes second language learners' low written expression performance to the
low socioeconomic level. Chokwe (2013) also states that the academic writing skills of students who
acquire a second language and have a low socioeconomic level are adversely affected by these
disadvantages. On the other hand, Babayiğit (2014) draws attention to a fundamental issue in his
research. He points out that studies examining the written expression skills of bilingual and
monolingual students at the socioeconomic level are pretty limited, even in England. Moreover, he
emphasizes that there is a need to examine the effect of socioeconomic variables on the writing skills
of second language learners. It can be said that similar limitations exist in Turkey.
Recommendations and Limitations
Preschool education should be compulsory, as it is foreseen that it will contribute to the
development of written expression skills of emergent bilinguals. In order to reduce the negative
impact of bilingual students' socioeconomic disadvantages on their written expression skills, students
in these regions should be provided with original teaching materials. Supporting bilingual students to
improve their Turkish skills outside of school can make their education at school more meaningful.
For this purpose, projects can be developed to make parents a part of the language teaching process.
Additional textbooks can be prepared to improve the Turkish skills of bilingual students. It may be
suggested that researchers investigate and compare the academic achievement and reading
comprehension levels of emergent bilinguals with those whose dominant language is Turkish. The
research is limited to students whose dominant language is different and their primary school level. At
the same time, the data were selected from only one province. This is another limitation.
References
Abdel-rahman Arman, İ. M., Saleh Naser, I. A., & Ismail Nafi, J. S. (2017). Student's difficulties in writing
expression in the departments of English and Arabic at Al-Quds University. European Journal
of Education Studies, 3(1), 67-90. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.221380.
Ağırman, F. (2019). İki dilli ortaokul öğrencilerinin Türkçe öğrenimi üzerine bir değerlendirme
[Unpublished master’s thesis]. Nevşehir.

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V17, N3, 2022
© 2022 INASED
74
Ahmed Suliman, M. M. (2014). Socioeconomic factors affecting English socioeconomic factors affecting
English. Sudan.
Alfaqiri, M. (2018). English second language writing difficulties and challenges among Saudi Arabian
language learners. Journal for the Study of English Linguistics, 6(1), 24-36.
https://doi.org/10.5296/jsel.v6i1.12740
Al-Gharabally, M. (2015). The writing difficulties faced by L2 learners and how to minimize them.
International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research , 3(5), 42-49.
https://www.eajournals.org/wp-content/uploads/The-writing-difficulties-faced-by-L2-learners-
and-how-to-minimize-them.pdf
Anvar, M., & Ahmed, M. (2016). Students difficulties in learning writing skillsin second language.
Sci.Int.(Lahore), 28(4), 735-739. http://www.sci-int.com/pdf/636371044369572552.pdf
Apuke, O. D. (2017). Quantitative research methods a synopsis approach. Arabian Journal of Business and
Management Review (Kuwait Chapter), 6(10), 40-47. https://doi.org/ 10.12816/0040336
Arıcı, A. F., & Ungan, S. (2008). İlköğretim ikinci Kademe öğrencilerinin yazılı anlatım çalışmalarının
bazı yönlerden değerlendirilmesi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20, 317-
328. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/55457
Aronoff, M., & Rees-Miller, J. (2007). The handbook of linguistics. Oxford.
Asrağ, A. C. (2009). İlköğretim birinci kademe öğrencilerinin ana dil öğrenim probemleri ve sınıf iklimine
etkisi: Türkçe konuşma problemi Şanlıurfa örneği [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Konya.
Babayiğit, S. (2014). Contributions of word-level and verbal skills to written expression: comparison of
learners who speak English as a first (L1) and second language (L2). Reading and Writing, 27,
1207–1229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9482-z.
Bachore, M. M. (2014). Learners’ success in mother tongue based classroom instruction and the attitudes
and perceptions of school communities. International Journal of Sociology of Education, 3(2),
118-135. https://doi.org/10.4471/rise.2014.09.
Bartscher, M. A., Lawler, K. E., Ramirez, A. J., & Schinault, K. S. (2001). Improving student's writing
ability through journals and creative writing exercises. Chicago.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED455525.pdf
Brisk, M. E. (2011). Learning to write in the second language: K-5 from. In E. Hinkel, Handbook of
research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 40-56). London.
Cai, G. (2004). Beyond bad writing: Teaching English composition to Chinese ESL students. 12 27, 2020
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED364104.pdf
Catts, H. W., Gillispie, M., Leonard, L. B., Kail, R. V., & Miller, C. A. (2012). The role of speed of
processing, rapid naming and phonological awareness in reading achievement. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 35(6), 509–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194020350060301
Chakraverty, A., & Gautum, K. (2000). Dynamics of write. Form, 38(3).

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V17, N3, 2022
© 2022 INASED
75
Chokwe, J. M. (2013). Factors impacting academic writing skills of English second language students.
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(14), 377-384.
https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n14p377.
Coşkun, İ. (2006). İlköğretim 5.sınıf öğrencilerinin kompozisyon yazma becerileri üzerine bir araştırma.
[Unpublished master’s thesis]. İstanbul.
Coşkun, İ. (2010). İlköğretim 4. sııf öğrencilerinin okuduğunu anlama ve yazılı anlatım becerilerindeki
gelişimin birbirlerini etkileme durumu: Eylem araştırması. [Unpublished doctoral thesis].
Ankara.
Crone, D., & Whitehurst, G. (1999). Age and schooling effects on emergent literacy and early reading
skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4). https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.604
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading
experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934–945.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.934.
Çabuk, B., Er, B., Karageyik, S., & Tokgöz, K. (2018). Okul öncesi dönemdeki iki dilli olan ve olmayan
çocukların okuma yazmaya hazırlık becerileriyle ilgili öğretmen algılarının incelenmesi.
Karabük Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Entitüsü Dergisi, 4, 12-43.
http://johut.karabuk.edu.tr/Makaleler/189256464_2.%20Burcu%20%c3%87abuk.pdf
Çelik, M. E. (2012). İlköğretim sekizinci sınıf öğrencilerinin yazılı anlatım becerilerinin farklı değişkenler
açısından incelenmesi. Turkish Studies, 7(1), 727-743.
https://doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.3202
Çetin, Ö. Ş., Gülhan, M., & Katrancı, M. (2018). A Study on the effect of pre-school education on early
literacy skills. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(5), 201-221.
https://doi.org/10.15345/iojes.2018.05.014.
Deniz, K. (2003). Yazılı anlatım becerileri bakımından köy ve kent beşinci sınıf öğrencilerinin durumu.
TÜBAR-XIII, 233-255. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/156770
Derince, M. Ş. (2012). Ana dili temelli çok dilli ve çok diyalektli dinamik eğitim:Kürt öğrencilerin
eğitiminde kullanılabilecek modeller. Diyarbakır.
Doğan, H. (2017). İki dilli öğrencilerin Türkçe yazılı anlatım becerilerinin geliştirilmesine yönelik bir
araştırma-Şanlıurfa örneği [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Ankara.
Doğan, Y., & Müldür, M. (2014). İlköğretim 7. sınıf öğrencilerine verilen yazma eğitiminin öğrencilerin
hikâye yazma becerisine etkisi. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 10(1), 49-65.
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/161040
Dölek, O., & Hamzadayı, E. (2018). Comparison of writing skills of students of different socioeconomic
status. International Journal of Progressive Education, 14(6), 117-131.
https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2018.179.9
Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Language proficiency and reading ability in first- and second-
language learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(1), 78-103.
https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.38.1.4

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V17, N3, 2022
© 2022 INASED
76
Düzen, N. (2017). Ana dili Türkçe olan ve olmayan okul öncesi öğrencilerinin Türkçe okuryazarlık
becerilerinin değerlendirilmesi. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Ankara.
Ellis, R. (1997). Studies in second language acqusition. The United States: Oxford.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001058.
Erden, G., Kurdoğlu, F., & Uslu, R. (2002). İlköğretim okullarına devam eden Türk çocukların sınıf
düzeylerine göre okuma hızı ve yazım hataları normlarının geliştirilmesi. Türk Psikiyatri
Dergisi, 13(1), 5-13.
Erdoğan, Ö. (2011). Relationship between the phonological awareness skills and writing skills of the first
year students at primary school. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 11(3), 1499-1510.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ936331.pdf
Eryaman, M. Y. (2008). Writing, method and hermeneutics: Towards an existential pedagogy. Elementary
Education Online, 7(1), 2-14.
Fareed, M., Ashraf, A., & Bilal, M. (2016). ESL learners’ writing skills: Problems, factors and
suggestions. Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 4(2), 81-92.
https://doi.org/10.20547/jess0421604201
Farooq, M. S., Ul-Hassan, M. U., & Wahid, S. (2012). Opinion of second language learners about writing
difficulties in English language. A Research Journal of South Asian Studies, 27(1), 183-
194.http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/csas/PDF/11.%20Dr.%20Muhammad%20Shahid%20Faro
oq_January-June%202012.pdf
Farver, J. M., Nakamoto, J., & Lonigan, C. (2007). Assessing preschoolers' emergent literacy skills in
English and Spanish with the get ready to read screening tool. Annals of Dyslexia, 57(2), 161-
178. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23764721
Fishman, J. A. (1976). Bilingual education: What and why? In J. Alatis, & K. Twaddell, English as second
language in bilingual education (pp. 263-271). Washington, D.C.
Freeman, Y., Freeman, D., & Mercuri, S. (2003). Helping middle and high school age English language
learners achieve academic success. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 1(1), 110-122
Gillespie, A., & Graham, S. (2014). HotSheet 5: Effective practices for written expression. 12 25, 2020
https://www.teachingld.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/DLD_HotSheet5.pdf
García, O., Kleifgen, J. A., & Falchi, L. (2008). From English language learners to emergent bilinguals.
New York.
Gort, M. (2006). Strategic codeswitching, interliteracy, and other phenomena of emergent bilingual
writing: Lessons from first grade dual language classrooms. Journal of Early Childhood
Literacy, 6(3), 323-354. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798406069796
Göçer, A. (2013). Türkçe öğretmeni adaylarına göre yazma becerisinin ediniminde ve gelişiminde etkili
olan unsurlar. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 10(24), 1-14.
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/182911
Güzel, A. (2014). İki dilli Türk çocukların Türkçe öğretimi. Ankara.

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V17, N3, 2022
© 2022 INASED
77
Haykır, H. A. (2012). İlköğretim 6, 7 ve 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin okuduğunu anlama becerisi ile yazılı
anlatım becerisi arasındaki ilişki. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Kırşehir.
Hickey, P. (2016). 'They always keep us in line': Neoliberalism and elementary emergent bilinguals. The
Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 14, 14-40.http://www.jceps.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/08/14-2-1.pdf.
Husna, L. (2013). An Analysis of students’ writing skill in descriptive text at grade XI IPA 1 of MAN 2
padang. Journal English Language Teaching, 1(2), 1-16.
http://ejournal.unp.ac.id/index.php/elt/article/view/4555/3600
Hussein, A., & Mohammad, M. (2011). Negative L1 impact on L2 writing. International Journal of
Humanities and Social Science, 1, 184-195.
http://www.ijhssnet.com/view.php?u=http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_1_No_18_Special
_Issue/22.pdf
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam041/2003041957.pdf
Jun, Z. (2008). A Comprehensive review of studies on second language writing . HKBU Papers in Applied
Language Studies, 12, 89-123.
http://ibaroudy.ir/bookcontent/Baroudy%27s%20Work%20Cited%2015.pdf
Kalaycı, Ş. (2018). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri. İstanbul.
Kan, M. O., & Yeşiloğlu, F. (2017). İlk okuma yazma öğretiminde izlenen aşamalarda iki dilli çocukların
yaşadıkları sorunlar ve bu sorunlara dair çözüm önerileri. Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi, 5(3), 519-
533. https://doi.org/10.16916/aded.331270
Kan, M., & Uçar Hatay, F. (2017). İki dilli ilkokul öğrencilerinin dikte ve yazma becerisi. Ana Dili Eğitimi
Dergisi, 5(2), 217-225. https://doi.org/10.16916/aded.287872
Kartal, H., Balantekin, Y., & Bilgin, A. (2016). The ımportance of early childhood education and school
starting age in the reading-writing learning process. Participatory Educational Research (PER)
, 3(1), 79-101. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.16.05.3.1.
Kıvrak, D. (2019). Türkçeyi ikinci dil olarak öğrenen öğrencilerin Türkçe yeterlik algı düzeyleri ve Türkçe
yazılı anlatımlarındaki yazım yanlışları [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Muğla.
Kızıltaş, Y. (2021). İki dilli öğrencilerin ikinci dil ediniminde etkili olan faktörler ve dezavantajlı gruplara
dönüşmeleri: Kuramsal ve derleme bir çalışma. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 11(2), 1012-1036.
https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.775100
Kim, W. (2019). Secondary long-term emergent bilingual students’ educational needs. Literacy
Information and Computer Education Journal (LICEJ), 10(1), 3133-3139.https://infonomics-
society.org/wp-content/uploads/Secondary-Long-term-Emergent-Bilingual-Students-
Educational-Needs.pdf.
Kong, N., & Hurless, N. (2021). Vocabulary interventions for young emergent bilingual children: A
Systematic review of experimental and quasi-experimental studies. Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, 1-13.https://doi.org/10.1177/02711214211027625.

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V17, N3, 2022
© 2022 INASED
78
Koşan, Y. (2015). Okul öncesi eğitimin iki dilli çocukların okula hazırbulunuşluk etkisinin incelenmesi
[Unpublished master’s thesis]. Ankara.
Liddicoat, A. (1991). Bilingualism: An Introduction. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED404847.pdf
López, F., & Santibañez, L. (2018) Teacher preparation for emergent bilingual students: Implications of
evidence for policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(36), 1-47.
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.2866
McCarthey, S. J., Guo, Y. H., & Cummins, S. (2015). Understanding changes in elementary Mandarin
students’ L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing , 14(2), 71-104.
https://doi.org/10.1016 / j.jslw.2005.05.003.
Menken, K., & Klyen, T. (2010). The long-term impact of subtractive schooling in the educational
experiences of secondary English language learners. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 13(4), 399-417.
Musyahda, L. (2018). Revisiting strategic competence: Implications for multimodal language learning.
dvances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), 228, 278-281.
https://doi.org/10.2991/klua-18.2018.41
Nasir, L., Naqvi, S. M., & Bhamani, S. (2013). Enhancing students' creative writing skills: An action
research project. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 6(2), 1-6
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1053632.pdf.
Negari, G. (2012). A study on strategy instruction EFL learners’ writing. International Journal of English
Linguistics, 1(2), 299-307. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v1n2p299
Ng, E. (2013). Formulation processes and metacognition of monolingual, bilingual and biliterate writers:
From thinking to writing in English and Chinese. [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Sydney.
Ng, E. (2015). Bilingualism, biliteracy and cognitive effects: A review paper. University of Sydney Papers
in TESOL, 10, 93-128.
https://faculty.edfac.usyd.edu.au/projects/usp_in_tesol/pdf/volume10/Article04.pdf
Ng, E. (2020). Formulation processes of monolingual,bilingual, and biliterate writers: Effects of biliteracy.
Australian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(3), 213-232.
https://doi.org/10.29140/ajal.v3n3.353.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge.
Olsen, L., & Jaramillo, A. (1999). Turning the tide of exclusion: A guide for educators and advocates for
immigrant students. Oakland, CA.
Ortiz, A., Fránquiz, M., & & Lara, G. (2020). Applying an intersectionality lens to education policy and
practice for emergent bilinguals. Bilingual Research Journal, 43(4), 357-
361.https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2020.1896310.
Özdemir, H. (2016). Ortaokul beşinci sınıfta okuyan iki dilli öğrencilerin yazma becerilerinin
değerlendirilmesi. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Van.

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V17, N3, 2022
© 2022 INASED
79
Pettigrew, E. J. (2009). A study of the impact of socioeconomic status on student achievement in a rural
east tennessee school system. Tennessee.
https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3196&context=etd
Poorebrahim, F., Tahririan, M. H., & Afzali, K. (2017). Bilingual and Monolingual EFL learners’ use of
writing metacognitive strategies and writing performance. Applied Research on English
Language, 6(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.22108/ARE.2017.21323.
Rao, P. S. (2019). The significance of writing skills in ELL environment.
Int.J.Eng.Lang.Lit&Trans.Studies, 9(3), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.5958/2249-
7137.2019.00035.1.
Restrepo, M. A., & Harmon, M. T. (2008). Addressing emergent literacy skills in English-language
learners. ASHA Leader, 13(13), https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FTR1.13132008.10.
Rousseeuw, P. J. (1987). Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis.
Journal of computational and applied mathematics, 20, 53-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-
0427(87)90125-7
Salameh, W., & Sathakathulla, A, A. (2012). The impact of social and economic factors on students’
English language performance in EFL classrooms in Dubai public secondary schools.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ells.v8n4p110
Sarı, M. (2001). İki dilli çocukların çözümleme yöntemi ile okuma yazma öğrenirken karşılaştıkları
güçlükler [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Adana.
Safa, J, A. (2018). A Brief overview of key issues in second language writing teaching and research.
International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies, 6(2), 15-25.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.6n.2p.15
Saydı, T. (2013). Avrupa birliği vizyonuyla ikidillilik, çokdillilik ve eğitimi. Uluslararası Sosyal
Araştırmalar Dergisi, 28(6), 269-283.
https://www.sosyalarastirmalar.com/articles/bilingualism-plurilingualisme-and-its-education-
in-the-vision-of-theeuropean-union.pdf
Sholikah, M., Yufiarti., & Yetti, E. (2019). Early childhood literacy skills: The effect of socioeconomic
status, home literacy environment, and social skills. International Journal of Innovative
Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE), 9(1), 3769-3775.
https://doi.org/10.35940/ijitee.A4807.119119
Sokip. (2020). Overcoming the problem of learning foreign language skills in the classroom. Universal
Journal of Educational Research, 8(2), 723-729. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080246.
Sugiharto, S. (2015). İmpacts of bilinguality on students 'academic writing skill:Additional evidence.
Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 63-69.doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.17509%2Fijal.v5i1.832.
Sukamolson, S. (2017). Fundamentals of quantitative research.
https://www.academia.edu/5847530/Fundamentals_of_quantitative_research

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V17, N3, 2022
© 2022 INASED
80
Susar Kırmızı, F, Boztaş, H., Salgut, E., Adıgüzel, D., & Koç, A. (2019). Ana dili Türkçe olmayan
öğrencilerde okul öncesi eğitimin ilk okuma yazma sürecine etkisi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi
Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (PAU Journal of Education), 48, 105-129.
https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.509817.
Susar Kırmızı, F., Özcan, E., & Şencan, D. (2016). Türkçenin az konuşulduğu bölgelerde ilk okuma yazma
sürecinde karşılaşılan sorunlara ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri. Uluslararası Türkçe Edebiyat
Kültür Eğitim Dergisi, 5(1), 412-445. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/227862
Tabak, G., & Topuzkanamış, E. (2014). An analysis of writing dispositions of 6th grade students in terms
of different variables. Mevlana International Journal of Education, 4(2), 1-11.
http://dx.doi.org/10.13054/mije.14.15.4.2
Tavşanlı, Ö. F., & Bulunuz, M. (2017). The development of the written expression skills of a first grade
student at home, school an duniversity program: A case study. European Journal of Education
Studies, 3(4), 20-48. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.321561.
Temel, S., & Katrancı, M. (2019). İlkokul öğrencilerinin yazılı anlatım becerileri, yazmaya yönelik
tutumları ve yazma kaygıları arasındaki ilişki. AVRASYA Uluslararası AraĢtırmalar Dergisi
,7(17), 322 – 356. https://doi.org/10.33692/avrasyad.590688
Topcu, Z. (2012). Okul öncesi eğitimin ilköğretim birinci sınıf öğrencilerinin okula uyum ve Türkçe dil
becerilerine etkisi. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Ankara.
Turkish Constitution. (1982). Resmi Gazete Kanun No.: 2709 Accept Date: 7.11.1982.
Uğur, N. (2017). Ana dili eğitim dilinden farklı olan öğrenci ve velilerin yaşadıkları sorunların
çözümlenmesi. [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Ankara.
Van Rensberg, W., & Lamberti, P. (2013). The language of learning and teaching. In S. Gravett, & H.
Geyser, Teaching and learning in higher education. Pretoria.
Yazıcı, Z. (1999). Almanya ve Türkiye’de anaokuluna devam eden 60-76 aylar arasındaki Türk
çocuklarının dil gelişimi ile okuma olgunluğu arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. [Unpublished
master’s thesis]. Ankara.
Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara.
Yılmaz, M. (2012). İlköğretim birinci kademe öğrencilerinin kompozisyon yazma becerilerini geliştirmede
planlı yazma modelinin önemi. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi,
9(19), 321-330. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/183064
Yılmaz, O. (2011). İlköğretim ikinci kademe öğrencilerinin yazılı anlatım becerilerinin çeşitli değişkenlere
açısından incelenmesi: Erzincan örneği. Erzincan Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(2), 167-178.
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/67839
Yılmaz, F., & Şekerci, H. (2016). Ana dil sorunsalı: Sınıf öğretmenlerinin deneyimlerine göre ilkokul
öğrencilerinin yaşadıkları sorunlar. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi - ENAD, 4(1), 47-63.
http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148- 2624.1.4c1s3m

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V17, N3, 2022
© 2022 INASED
81
Yiğit, V. (2009). Ses temelli cümle yöntemi ile ilkokuma yazma öğretim sürecinde Karşılaşılan güçlükler
ve bu güçlüklerle baş etme stratejilerinin belirlenmesi (Şırnak İli Örneği). [Unpublished
master’s thesis]. Adana.