vii
ABSTRACT
Dewi, Mega Oktaviana Kusuma. 2015. The Students’ Perception on the Use of Google Translate in Writing Analytical Exposition: a Study at SMA N 1 Banguntapan. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Sanata
Dharma University.
The study aims to investigate the students’ perception on the use of Google Translate in writing Analytical Exposition. The study is conducted because students in XI IPS 1 SMA N 1 Banguntapan always use Google Translate in English class. The students also use Google Translate to help them in translating their Bahasa Indonesia text into English. Therefore, the researcher
conducts a research regarding students’ perception on the use of Google Translate.
To answer the problem above, there is one research question formulated.
The research question is; what is the students’ perception about the use of Google
Translate as a learning tool in writing analytical exposition text?
In order to solve the research question that was already formulated, this research conducted a mixed method research. There were two instruments used in this research which were questionnaire and interview. The subject of this research was 31 students of XI IPS 1 SMA N 1 Banguntapan.
Based on the data analysis, the students were still in process to decide. This could be seen in result that most of the students chose undecided. The students found that Google Translate was not helpful and not reliable. However, Google Translate helped the students to enrich their vocabulary. There were also some suggestions to teachers who teach analytical exposition text, students who learn analytical exposition text, and the future researchers.
▸ Baca selengkapnya: text analytical exposition beserta soal dan jawabannya
(2)viii
ABSTRAK
Dewi, Mega Oktaviana Kusuma. 2015. The Students’ Perception on the Use of Google Translate in Writing Analytical Exposition: a Study at SMA N 1
Banguntapan. Yogyakarta: Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata
Dharma.
Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui persepsi siswa-siswa mengenai penggunaan Google Translate dalam menulis Analytical Exposition. Penelitian ini dilakukan karena para siswa di XI IPS 1 SMA N 1 Banguntapan selalu menggunakan Google Translate ketika pelajaran Bahasa Inggris. Para siswa juga menggunakan Google Translate untuk menterjemahkan teks analytical
exposition mereka yang ditulis dalam Bahasa Indonesia ke Bahasa Inggris.
Karenanya, peneliti melakukan penelitian mengenai persepsi para siswa dalam penggunaan Google Translate.
Untuk menjawab rasa permasalahan diatas, maka dibuatlah satu pertanyaan. Pertanyaan pada penelitian ini adalah apakah persepsi para siswa terhadap penggunaan Google Translate sebagai alat belajar dalam menulis teks
enalytical exposition?
Untuk menjawab pertanyaan yang sudah dibuat, penelitian ini menggunakan metode campuran. Ada dua instrumen yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini, yaitu kuisioner dan wawancara. Subjek dalam penelitian ini adalah 31 siswa di XI IPS 1 SMA N 1 Banguntapan.
Berdasarkan analisa data, para siswa masih dalam proses untuk memutuskan. Hal ini dapat terlihat dalam hasil akhir penelitian yaitu sebagian
besar siswa memilih “undecided”. Menurut para siswa Google Translate tidak
terlalu membantu dan diandalkan. Namun Google Translate juga membantu para siswa untuk memperkaya kosa kata Bahasa Inggris mereka. Di dalam penelitian ini juga diberikan beberapa masukan untuk guru-guru yang mengajar analytical
exposition teks, para siswa yang belajar analytical exposition teks dan juga untuk
para peneliti di kemudian hari.
THE STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION
ON THE USE OF GOOGLE
TRANSLATE IN WRITING ANALYTICAL EXPOSITION
TEXT: A STUDY AT SMA N 1 BANGUNTAPAN
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree
in English Language Education
By
Mega Oktaviana Kusuma Dewi Student Number: 111214118
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM
DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION
FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
YOGYAKARTA
i
THE STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION
ON THE USE OF GOOGLE
TRANSLATE IN WRITING ANALYTICAL EXPOSITION
TEXT: A STUDY AT SMA N 1 BANGUNTAPAN
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree
in English Language Education
By
Mega Oktaviana Kusuma Dewi Student Number: 111214118
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM
DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION
FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
YOGYAKARTA
iv
It is HARD, but
it is NOT impossible -Bu Lani-
I DEDICATE THIS THESIS TO
vii
ABSTRACT
Dewi, Mega Oktaviana Kusuma. 2015. The Students‟ Perception on the Use of Google Translate in Writing Analytical Exposition: a Study at SMA N 1 Banguntapan. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Sanata
Dharma University.
The study aims to investigate the students‟ perception on the use of
Google Translate in writing Analytical Exposition. The study is conducted because students in XI IPS 1 SMA N 1 Banguntapan always use Google Translate in English class. The students also use Google Translate to help them in translating their Bahasa Indonesia text into English. Therefore, the researcher
conducts a research regarding students‟ perception on the use of Google Translate.
To answer the problem above, there is one research question formulated.
The research question is; what is the students‟ perception about the use of Google
Translate as a learning tool in writing analytical exposition text?
In order to solve the research question that was already formulated, this research conducted a mixed method research. There were two instruments used in this research which were questionnaire and interview. The subject of this research was 31 students of XI IPS 1 SMA N 1 Banguntapan.
Based on the data analysis, the students were still in process to decide. This could be seen in result that most of the students chose undecided. The students found that Google Translate was not helpful and not reliable. However, Google Translate helped the students to enrich their vocabulary. There were also some suggestions to teachers who teach analytical exposition text, students who learn analytical exposition text, and the future researchers.
viii
ABSTRAK
Dewi, Mega Oktaviana Kusuma. 2015. The Students‟ Perception on the Use of Google Translate in Writing Analytical Exposition: a Study at SMA N 1
Banguntapan. Yogyakarta: Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata
Dharma.
Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui persepsi siswa-siswa mengenai penggunaan Google Translate dalam menulis Analytical Exposition. Penelitian ini dilakukan karena para siswa di XI IPS 1 SMA N 1 Banguntapan selalu menggunakan Google Translate ketika pelajaran Bahasa Inggris. Para siswa juga menggunakan Google Translate untuk menterjemahkan teks analytical
exposition mereka yang ditulis dalam Bahasa Indonesia ke Bahasa Inggris.
Karenanya, peneliti melakukan penelitian mengenai persepsi para siswa dalam penggunaan Google Translate.
Untuk menjawab rasa permasalahan diatas, maka dibuatlah satu pertanyaan. Pertanyaan pada penelitian ini adalah apakah persepsi para siswa terhadap penggunaan Google Translate sebagai alat belajar dalam menulis teks
enalytical exposition?
Untuk menjawab pertanyaan yang sudah dibuat, penelitian ini menggunakan metode campuran. Ada dua instrumen yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini, yaitu kuisioner dan wawancara. Subjek dalam penelitian ini adalah 31 siswa di XI IPS 1 SMA N 1 Banguntapan.
Berdasarkan analisa data, para siswa masih dalam proses untuk memutuskan. Hal ini dapat terlihat dalam hasil akhir penelitian yaitu sebagian
besar siswa memilih “undecided”. Menurut para siswa Google Translate tidak
terlalu membantu dan diandalkan. Namun Google Translate juga membantu para siswa untuk memperkaya kosa kata Bahasa Inggris mereka. Di dalam penelitian ini juga diberikan beberapa masukan untuk guru-guru yang mengajar analytical
exposition teks, para siswa yang belajar analytical exposition teks dan juga untuk
para peneliti di kemudian hari.
ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to express my greatest gratitude to Jesus Christ
for His guidance and blessing so that I can finish my thesis. I thank Him for
always giving me strength to finish my thesis.
My deepest gratitude to my sponsor, Concilianus Laos Mbato, M.A., Ed.
D., for his guidance and patience during the process of writing this thesis. His advice and encouragement from the beginning until the end has become my spirit.
I thank Fidelis Chosa Kastuhandani, M. Hum for being my academic advisor in
ELESP. His support and help during my study in ELESP make me realize that I
am lucky to have him as my academic advisor. Further, I would like to thank all
of ELESP lecturers and staff for all the knowledge, help, and guidance during
my study.
I also thank all of the staff and teachers in SMA N 1 Banguntapan who
helped me to do my research and make it comfortable to me. I also thank the
students of XI IPS 1 SMA N 1 Banguntapan academic year 2014/2015. Without
them being my subjects, I could not do my research.
My special thankfulness is for my family. I thank my father Djanu
Kaskoyo, who never stops supporting me in everything that I choose. I thank my mother A.M Dewi Windriani, who always stands by me and gives me her warm
hugs whenever I need it. I thank my older brother Mikael Hendra Wijaya
x
always cheer me up with their smiles and jokes whenever I feel tired. They are the
reason why I never stop and keep going. They always believe in me, stand by my
side and never feel tired to support me.
Special thanks are addressed to my best friends who share everything,
happiness and sadness, and also struggle together with me in ELESP; Ghina
Rindiani Ariesty, Ayu Wulan Kinanti, and Bagas Raharjo Ranggen. I thank them for always standing by my side since the very beginning. I also thank Devita
for her companion to do our thesis together. I also thank all of my friends in
ELESP batch 2011 especially class B who have given unforgettable memories during my study in Sanata Dharma University.
I send my gratitude to my best friends who believe in me and always
support me; Elisabeth Kartika Utami, Pradnand Krisnara Budi, Christian
Pramudhito, and Adelheid Kartika Destiana. I also thank Kak Dira, Mbak Tanti, Mbak Ndus, Mbak Ophi, Mbak Fiana, Ageng for all the supports, and Kak Diska who cheers me up and gives endless support whenever I feel tired.
However, this thesis would not be complete without I, myself. I thank
myself for enduring the hardship during the writing of this thesis and never give
up.
In the end, I thank everyone who always cheers me up and support me.
xi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TITLE PAGE ... i
APPROVAL PAGES ... ii
DEDICATION PAGE ... iv
STATEMENT OF WORK‟S ORIGINALITY ... v
PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ... vi
ABSTRACT ... vii
ABSTRAK ... viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... xi
LIST OF FIGURES ... xv
LIST OF TABLES ... xvi
LIST OF APPENDICES ... xvii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... 1
A. Research Background... 1
B. Research Problem... 3
C. Problem Limitation ... 4
D. Research Objectives ... 4
E. Research Benefits ... 4
xii
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ... 7
A. Theoretical Description ... 7
1. Perception ... 7
2. Writing ... 10
3. Translation... 12
4. Attitude ... 13
5. Perceived Usefulness ... 14
B. Theoretical Framework ... 14
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY ... 17
A. Research Method ... 17
B. Research Setting ... 18
C. Research Participants ... 18
D. Research Instruments and Data Gathering Technique ... 19
1. Questionnaire ... 19
2. Interview ... 21
E. Data Analysis Technique ... 22
1. Quantitative Data ... 22
2. Qualitative Data ... 24
F. Research Procedure ... 25
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ... 28
A. Results ... 28
1. Quantitative Result of Students‟ Perception about the Use of Google Translate ... 28
2. Qualitative Result of Students‟ Perception about the Use of Google Translate ... 39
xiii
b. Qualitative Result from Interview ... 48
B. Discussion ... 54
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... 59
A. Conclusions ... 59
B. Suggestions ... 60
REFERENCES ... 62
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
xv
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
4.1 The Students‟ Writing Skill Before Using Google Translate ... 29
4. 2 The Students‟ Writing Technique ... 31
4.3 The Students‟ Knowledge of Google Translate ... 33
4.4 The Students‟ Perception about the Use of Google Translate in Writing
xvi
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Page
APPENDIX A Surat Izin Penelitian ... 66
APPENDIX B Questionnaire Blueprint ... 68
APPENDIX C Questionnaire ... 72
APPENDIX D Raw Data of Closed-ended Questions ... 78
APPENDIX E Raw Data of Open-ended Questions ... 82
APPENDIX F Transcript of the Interview ... 88
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Research Background
Writing is one of the skills that a student needs to practice in English
class. However, Tiedt (1989) states that from all of the languages skills,
writing is the most difficult and it is a hard work (p. 6). Therefore, many
students do not able to make a good writing of their own. Moreover, according
to Fulwiler, Gorman & Gorman (1986, pp. 21-23) and Griffin (1985, pp.
202-203) writing is a process that needs learning and involving practice (as cited in
Day, 1989, p. 458). Thus, it is possible for student to improve their writing
skill by practicing and doing assignment in the class.
Writing is also learned by XI graders in SMA N 1 Banguntapan. For
the XI graders, one of the genres that students need to learn is exposition text.
According to Anderson (1997, p. 122), exposition text is a text which presents
one side of an issue. The purpose of this text is to persuade the readers to
agree with the writer by presenting one side of argument. Exposition text has
two types which are analytical exposition and hortatory exposition.
Since English is not students‟ first language, the majority of the
students at XI IPS 1 SMA N 1 Banguntapan find it difficult to make analytical
exposition text. Yet the students need to write one because it is important to
fill in their grade. Students at XI IPS 1 of SMA N 1 Banguntapan always write
their text in Bahasa Indonesia then translate it into English. This is because the
students cannot construct the right pattern for English sentences; therefore
they start it with their own language which is Bahasa Indonesia. However,
translating Bahasa Indonesia text into English is not an easy task for the
students at XI IPS 1, thus they use a translating tool to help them in their
writing process.
Finding a translating tool is easy for students at XI IPS 1 SMA N 1
Banguntapan. The students are familiar with technology since it has become a
part of their daily life. Students have their own smartphone and they are
allowed to access to the Internet during the lesson. The students usually use
their smartphone to open online dictionary to help them translate their writing.
The teacher also supports the use of technology since online learning is a new
and fun way to learn for the students.
Online learning has become the most famous current application of
computers in education (Warschauer, 1998). According to Harasim (1990a, p.
xvii), this is because online learning introduces unprecedented options for
teaching, learning, and knowledge building (as cited in Warschauer, 1998, p.
68). In addition, Robertson and Fluck (2004) state that electronic learning
works best when the learner is in control of the process. In the learning
process in English class, one of online tools that is used is Google Translate.
Google translate is a translation tool that is used by the students at XI
IPS 1 SMA N 1 Banguntapan. This tool is free for all Internet users. Google
language to another language. This tool is very easy to be used. It can be
accessed as long as there is anInternet connection. Therefore, the students
choose to use Google Translate to help them in writing process.
The fact is Google Translate is not a reliable tool. The tool often makes
grammatical mistakes whenever people want to try translating a sentence.
However, students in XI IPS 1 SMA N 1 Banguntapan still use Google
Translate. Even when the students know that Google Translate does not have
correct structure when translating Bahasa Indonesia into English, the students
still use it to translate their analytical exposition assignment in Bahasa
Indonesia into English.
In this study, the researcher investigates the students‟ perception on the
use of Google Translate in writing analytical exposition since the students
always use it in the English class. The researcher wants to figure outthe
students‟ perception as the students keep using Google Translate to translate their analytical exposition text even though they already know that Google
Translate is not always correct.
B. Research Problem
Based on the research background, there is one main problem in this
C. Problem Limitation
In this study, the researcher focuses on the students‟ perception on the use of Google Translate in writing an analytical exposition text in the English
Class at XI IPS 1 SMA N 1 Banguntapan. This study is aimed to answer the
research problem which about the students‟ perception on the use of Google Translate as a translation tool in writing analytical exposition text.
This study is conducted using mixed method to complete the analysis
of the students‟ perception. The subjects of this research are students from XI
IPS 1 SMA N 1 Banguntapan in the academic year of 2014/2015. There are 31
students in the class.
D. Research Objective
The study is conducted to figure out about the students‟ perception of
XI IPS 1 SMA N 1 Banguntapan on the use of Google Translate as a tool to
help in writing analytical exposition text.
E. Research Benefits
The writer believes that this research will be useful for:
1. English Teachers
For English teachers, the researcher believes that this research will
help them understand the students‟ difficulties in writing assignments. The researcher also believes that this research will give English teachers a new
2. Students of XI IPS 1 of SMA N 1 Banguntapan
The researcher believes that this study will help the students of XI
IPS 1 SMA N 1 Banguntapan to improve their writing skill. The results of
the study can show how Google Translate works as well as the advantages
and the disadvantages of using Google Translate.
3. The Readers of the Study
In this study, the researcher gives information about the use of
Google Translate in writing analytical exposition text for XI IPS 1 SMA N
1 Banguntapan. Therefore, the readers can understand the students‟
perception on the use of Google Translate in writing analytical exposition
text. Thus, from this study, the researcher expects the readers to get new
knowledge and information.
4. FutureStudy
The researcher expects that there will be further study about the use
of online tools such as Google Translate in writing class. Through this
study, the researcher provides the data that can be used for the future
study.
F. Definition of Terms
This part is going to explain briefly about the definition of terms that
are related to this study. The terms that are going to be explained are Google
Translate, Analytical Exposition, and students of XI IPS 1 SMA N 1
1. Google Translate
Google translate is an online tool from Google. It is a tool which
helps people to translate sentences or words from 1st language to the
targeted language. It is very easy to be used and can be accessed as long as
the computer connected to Internet.
2. Analytical Exposition
Analytical Exposition is one of the genre texts that students in
grade XI need to learn. According to Coffin (2001), analytical exposition
is a text which is used to put forward a point of view or argument. The
purpose of this text is to argue and give arguments for one point of view of
an issue (Mali, 2009).
3. Students of XI IPS 1 SMA N 1 Banguntapan
Students of XI IPS 1 SMA N 1 Banguntapan are students who are
taking social stream in SMA N 1 Banguntapan. There are 31 students and
have an English lesson twice a week. The students who become subject of
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter consists of two main parts, namely theoretical description and
theoretical framework. Theoretical description explains about the theories that are
used in this study to answer the research question. The theories are about
perception, writing assignment, translation, attitude, and perceived usefulness.
Meanwhile the second part will explain about theoretical framework.
Theoretical framework will synthesize all the theories elaborate in theoretical
description in order to make correlation between the theories and recent study.
A. Theoretical Description 1. Perception
George and Jones (2005) state that perception is how an individual
sees others and how other perceive individual. They also said that
perception is a process to select, organize, and interpret the input from
their sense (vision, hearing, touch, smell, and taste) to give meaning and
order around by someone. This statement is also supported by Huffman
(2000) who states the similar statement with George and Jones. Therefore,
perception might be different from one to another person.
Perception is a cognitive process which lets people to interpret and
understand surroundings as stated by Kreitner and Kinicki (2007, p. 207).
Figure 2.1 The Perceptual Process (Altman et al, 1985, p.86)
Based on Figure 2.1, perceptions occur because of stimuli. Then,
the sensors‟ selection of stimuli will respond and create perception,
organization, and interpretation of stimuli to be behavioral response.
The theory above is supported by Gibson, Ivaneceivh, and Donnely
(2006, p. 99) who define perception as a process involving receive,
organize, and interpret the stimuli.
Therefore, perception is the way people look or understand
something from their own views (Mouly, 1973). They believe what they
see and they see what they believe.
The perception of people will be different from one to another.
However, it is not something bad. The difference of point of view is true
since people have their own opinion to see thing from their own
perceptive.
Perception, organization, and
interpretation of stimuli Sensors‟
selection of stimuli
Stimuli Behavioral
Altman, Valenzi, and Hadgetss (1985) state that there are four
factors that influence perception; there are selection of stimuli,
organization of stimuli, situation, and self-concept.
a. Selection of Stimuli
This stage is when a person selects and perceives things
differently. The person will only focus on a small number of
stimuli. This is the reason why people have different way to
perceive things.
b. Organization of Stimuli
After the information is gathered, the brain has to
organize the information to be meaningful. The mind tries to
order the unarranged data by selecting certain data and putting
them together.
c. Situation
According to Altman et al (1985, p. 89) the situation
which influences someone to perceive can be in a form of
someone‟s familiarity with, expectations about, a situation, as
well as his or her past experiences. Therefore, perception is
affected by the experience and situation around.
d. Self-concept
Self-concept means the way a person feels or looks
her/himself. The image of us is important to help people to look
self-concept, he or she may have positive perception too about what
are in the outside.
From the theories above, it can be concluded that perception occurs
because of the process. Perception occurs because of the stimuli and the
individual organizes the stimuli and it gets influence from the environment
to have their own perception. Therefore, because individual gets different
stimuli and lives in different environment, they might have different
perception.
2. Writing
Writing has purpose to communicate something to somebody by
written form of language (Wright, 2006). However, according to Tiedt
(1989, p. 6) from all of the languages skills, writing is the most difficult
and it is a hard work. This is because writing is a skill that requires
learners to produce a correct written language (Brown, 2007, p. 391).
Similarly, Harmer (2011, p. 52) states that writing is a complex skill which
requires some steps and takes more time.
Writing is defined as a process of discovering, thinking, and
organizing the ideas and then putting them on the paper and then revising
them (Meyers, 2005). Written products are often the result of thinking,
drafting, and revising procedures that require specialized skills (Brown,
Brown (2007) also states that there are three stages of writing;
a. Pre-writing: in this stage, students obtain ideas by reading,
clustering, questioning, and then making an outline
b. Drafting : in this stage, students compose sentences and
paragraphs within class hour then submit the work. Students
then will receive feedback from the teacher before they have
their work back.
c. Revising : in the last stage, students rewrite the drafts and
improve the writing according to the teacher‟s suggestion.
Therefore, from the theories above can be concluded that writing is
not an easy task for students. Wrting can be harder for the students
because they write unfamiliar language.
For XI graders, one of genres that they need to write is exposition
text. According to Anderson (1997, p. 122), exposition text is a text which
presents one side of an issue. The purpose of this text is to persuade the
readers to agree with the writer by presenting one side of argument.
Exposition text itself has two types which are analytical exposition and
hortatory exposition.
According to Coffin (2001), analytical exposition is a text which is
used to put forward a point of a view or argument. This is supported by
Wahidi (2009) who states that Analytical Exposition is a text which
purpose of analytical exposition is to argue and give reasons for particular
point of view of an issue (Mali, 2007).
To make a good text of analytical exposition, there are three steps
that students need to follow. The first step is to make a thesis, and then
provide a series of arguments, and the last it to make a conclusion.
(Anderson, 1997, p. 122).
3. Translation
There are two kinds of translation; one is an art and the other one is
a test, a method of explanation, a means to another end (Rouse, 1908). In
this study, translation is a method of explanation which is used in teaching
activities in the class. From Report of the Committee of Twelve (1898),
translation is still considered an important method, although oral work is
also important.
According to Catford (1965) translating is making the substitution
of the text in one language to another language. This statement is
supported by Nida and Taber (1974) who mention that a translator
produces a text from the source language into the target language.
As technology develops, translating becomes easier as there are
tools to help. Students of XI IPS 1 SMA N 1 Banguntapan feel that
technology helps them. Technology introduces them to online learning
which has become the most famous current application of computers in
education (Warschauer, 1998). This is because according to Harasim
teaching, learning, and knowledge building (as cited in Warschauer, 1998,
p. 68).
According to Robertson and Fluck (2004), online learning gives
students control in their learning.This is how students able to access online
translating tool to help them in writing process. The online translating tool
is Google Translate.
Google Translate is a tool which helps the users to translate the
first language to the targeted language. The use of this tool is easy since
people can access it online usinga browsing machine, Google. Google
Translate is used by people to translate words and sometimes sentences.
However, Google Translate does not have a reliable structure about the
grammar though it does have many choices of vocabularies.
4. Attitude
Attitude is a part of component of motivating in language learning
(Gardner, 1985). This statement is supported by Wenden (1991, p.114)
who states that there are 3 components to form attitude. Those three
components are; cognitive, affective, and behavioral. Cognitive includes
beliefs and ideas (opinion), meanwhile affective includes feeling and
emotion, and behavioral includes someone‟s consisting actions or behavior intention towards the object.
In addition, Gardner (1985, p. 267) states that attitude is an
inference which is made on the basis of a complex of beliefs about the
disposition to respond favorably or unfavorably to object, person,
institution, or event (1988, p. 4). Thus, someone‟s attitude depends on others‟ behavior toward that person.
Therefore, attitude in learning language is important. This is
because according to De Bot, Lowie, and Verspoor(2005, p.72),high
motivation and positive attitude toward language learning will help the
language learning process. Positive attitude towards learning language will
help the learners to achieve a better result.
5. Perceived Usefulness
According to Ashton (1974), Bruns (1968), and Joyce (1976),
perceived usefulness have sufficient self-insight into their decision process
so as to understand the importance of information to their task activity (as
cited in Chenhall, R. H. & Morris, D., 1986, p. 17).
Davis (1989) defines perceived usefulness as the degree to which a
person believes that using a particular system will enhance his or her job
performance (as cited in Hendrickson, Massey, & Cronan, 1993, p. 228).
According toIgbaria, Parasuraman, and Baroudi (1996), study also finds
that perceived usefulness is the principal motivator for the successfulness
of learning.
B. Theoretical Framework
In this part, the researcher synchronizes the theories that are supposed
are the students‟ perceptions on the use of Google Translate in writing analytical exposition text?‟
In order to answer the research question, the researcher adapts the
theories of perception from George and Jones (2005) who state that perception
is how an individual sees others and how other perceive individual. To add in,
Kreitner (1995) states that perception will lead to change of attitude,
motivation, and behavior as a response.
Moreover, Altman et al. (1985) state that perceptions occur because
of stimuli then the sensors‟ selection of stimuli will respond and create
perception, organization, and interpretation of stimuli to be behavioral
response. The theory is supported by Gibson et al. (2006, p. 99) who state that
perception is defined as a process involving receive, organize, and interpret
the stimuli. Therefore, the researcher applies the theories of perception to find
out the answer for the research problem.
The study puts writing theory into the discussion because according to
Tiedt (1989, p. 6), writing is the most difficult and it is a hard work. Writing is
already difficult, and it becomesmore difficult because the students are
supposed to write their writings in English, which is not their first language.
Therefore, the students prefer to make their writings in Bahasa
Indonesia and translate it into English with Google Translate. Google
Translate is a tool which helps people to translate from one language to
another language. Even though the result is not reliable, many people still use
Thus, the students‟ feeling and attitude are also important in this study. The reason is because attitude is a part of component of motivating in
language learning (Gardner, 1985). The students also believe that using
Google Translate will help them as (Davis, 1989) states that perceived
usefulnessis the degree to which a person believes that using a particular
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This chapter provides the methodology of gathering the data. In this
chapter, the researcher provides the research method, research participant,
research setting, research instruments, data gathering technique, data analysis
technique, and the research procedure.
A. Research Method
This study used mixed methods as the method to gather data. This was
because Denscombe (2008, p. 272) suggests that mixed methods study could:
(a) increase the accuracy of data; (b) provide a more complete picture of the
phenomenon; (c) enable the researcher to develop the analysis and build on
the original data; and (d) aid sampling (as cited in Cohen, Manion, &
Morrison, 2011, p. 22).
To gather more complete data, mixed methods were chosen because a
mixed methods study design was a procedure for collecting, analyzing, and
mixing both quantitative and qualitative method which provided a better
understand to a research problem (Creslwell & Clar, 2011).
Moreover, Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2009, p. 265) state that
conducting mixed methods research involved collecting, analyzing, and
interpreting quantitative and qualitative data in a single study or series studies
that investigated the same phenomenon(as cited in Cohen, Manion, &
Morrison, 2011, p. 22).
In this study the researcher wanted to figure out about the perception
of using Google Translate as a tool in helping students from XI IPS 1 SMA N 1
Banguntapan in writing analytical exposition text. Therefore, the researcher
conducts mixed methods study.
B. Research Setting
This study was conducted in SMA N 1 Banguntapan. The setting of
this study was in XI IPS 1. There were three IPS classes in SMA N 1
Banguntapan. However, the researcher chose XI IPS 1. The class had English
class twice in a week; which was on Wednesday and Thursday. On
Wednesday, the English class started at 07:00 am and finished at 8:30 am.
Meanwhile on Thursday, the English class started at 12:15 pm and finished at
01:45 pm.
C. Research Participants
The study participants were students of XI IPS 1 SMA N 1
Banguntapan. There were 31 students in the class. The criteria for being a
participant were; the student must be a student of XI IPS 1 SMA N 1
Banguntapan, participate in English class during writing assignment that is
D. Research Instruments and Data Gathering Technique
In this study, the researcher used two instruments which were
questionnaire and interview. The reason is to obtain the qualitative and
quantitative data in order to get the answer of the study questions. This was
because questionnaires or interviews could be used in survey to collect data
from selected sample to which the findings of the data analysis can be
generalized (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007).
According to Gall, Gall, & Borg (2007, p. 228), questionnaires and
interviews were used extensively in educational study to collect data about
phenomena that are not directly observable; inner experience, opinions,
values, interests, and the like. They also can be used to collect data about
observable phenomena more conveniently than by direct observation.
1. Questionnaire
Questionnaire was chosen because it had advantages for the study.
The first advantage was the cost of sampling respondents over a wide
geographic was lower, and the second advantage was that the time
required to collect the data typically was much less (Gall, Gall, & Borg;
2007).
The questionnaire was made to obtain the data quickly. The
participants would have two types of questions in the questionnaire. The
first one was open-ended questions and another one was closed-ended
a. Close-ended questions
Close-ended questions were questions which were easy. They
were straightforward to code and did not discriminate unduly on the
basis of how articulate the respondents were (Wilson and McLean,
1994).
However, according to Oppenheim (1992, p. 115) close-ended
questions also had its disadvantages. Close-ended questions do not
enable participants to add any remarks, qualifications and explanations
to the categories, and there is a risk that the categories might not be
exhaustive and that there might be bias (as cited in Cohen, Manion, &
Morrison, 2011, p. 382).
For the closed-ended questions, the researcher used likert-scale
as there are 25 questions with 5 choices of answer. There are „Strongly Disagree‟, „Disagree‟, „Undecided‟, „Agree‟, and „Strongly Agree‟. As
Joshi, Kale, Chandel, and Pal (2015) state that likert-scale is a set of
statements offered for a real situation under study. For the likert-scale,
the participants are asked to show their level of agreement with the
given statement. The level of agreement itself is from „strongly
disagree‟ to „strongly agree‟.
As Joshi, Kale, Chandel, and Pal (2015) have said, the position
of neutrality (undecided) in the middle of the level of agreement
provides independence to the participants to choose any response in a
b. Open-ended questions
The aim of open-ended questions was to give freedom to the
participants to write the answer. These kinds of questions were good,
however it was difficult to code and classify. It meant the researcher
should work harder in order to find the answer.
2. Interview
The aim of interview in this study was to obtain data in details
from the participants. The interview allowed the researcher to obtain more
data and clarify some of the data which already existed from the
questionnaire.
As Kerlinger (1970) states, interview could be used to follow up
unexpected results or to go deeper into the motivations of respondents and
their reasons for responding as they do (as cited in Cohen, Manion, &
Morrison, 2011, p. 411). Thus, the researcher could clarify the students‟
answers in questionnaire and got the clearer answers through interview.
Interview in this study was a set of questions which were asked to
the respondents. The answers were recorded which the interviewer was
free to modify the sequence of questions, change the wording, explain
them or add to them to the completely informal interview (Cohen, Manion,
and Morrison; 2011).
By using those instruments, the researcher wanted to figure out the
Banguntapan in writing exposition text. The data gathering technique was
going to be done in two steps.
The first step was the researcher distributed the questionnaire to XI
IPS 1 SMA N 1 Banguntapan. The researcher distributed the
questionnaires after observing the class during the PPL. The researcher
expected that the students already used Google Translate to help them
doing writing assignments which was given by the researcher as an
individual assignment.
The next step was the researcher did the interview with students
who always used Google Translate to help them in doing the assignments
and with the students who did not really use Google Translate. This
interview was done with expectation the researcher obtained clearer and
reliable data. The researcher was going to interview two learners who have
the most positive answer toward Google Translate and other two learners
who have the most negative answer toward Google Translate. The
interview was done in two days, with two learners each day and took 20
minutes the most for each learner.
E. Data Analysis Technique 1. Quantitative Data
Quantitative data was numerical data that was from the study
(Cohen, Manion, and Morrison; 2011). The qualitative data from this
questionnaire had 25 close-ended questions which would be analyzed and
calculated using the percentage.
a. Closed-ended questions
In the questionnaire, the researcher made 25 close-ended
statements. For each statement, the degree of agreements and
disagreements were classified as „Strongly Disagree,‟ „Disagree,‟ „Undecided,‟ „Agree,‟ and „Strongly Agree‟.
The first step to obtain the data was the researcher calculated
the amount of respond from the students who answered „strongly agree,‟ „agree,‟ „undecided,‟ „disagree,‟ and „strongly agree.‟ After
knowing the amount, the researcher put the data on the table to make it
clear.
In this study, the students‟ perception on Google Translate
could be measured based on the answers they gave. Students who had
the positive perceptive were the students who had „strongly agree‟ and
„agree‟ as the most answer of their questionnaire. Thus, the students who had the negative perceptive are mostly answer „disagree‟ and „strongly disagree‟.
In order to know the result in numbers, the researcher
calculated the total respondents and the data obtained, and changed it
Notes:
∑n is the numbers of participants based on the degree of agreement ∑ is the numbers of participants in this study
Percentage is the result
2. Qualitative Data
According to Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2011, p. 537),
qualitative data involved organizing, accounting for, and explaining the
data; in short, making sense, noting patterns, themes, categories, and
regularities. Moreover, Gibbs (2007, p. 3) states that qualitative data
analysis was distinguished by its merging of analysis and interpretation (as
cited in Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011, p. 537).
There were two types of qualitative data in this study. The first one
would be from open-ended questions in the questionnaire and the second
one was from the interview.
a. Open-ended questions in Questionnaire
In the questionnaire, the researcher made three open-ended
questions. The aim of these open-ended questions was to know the
learners‟ perceptive more. In analyzing the data, the researcher
major theme for each question. After the researcher found the major
theme, the researcher checked it with the theories that were presented
in the literature review. It helped the researcher to identify the result
easier.
b. Interview
In order to answer the research problems, the researcher
analyzed and presented data from the English learners‟ interviews. The interview was conducted to get the data for the research problem which
was the students‟ perception on the use of Google Translate in writing analytical exposition text. After the researcher had conducted the
interview, the researcher transcribed the record of the interview. Then,
the researcher had to summarize the data. Next, the researcher
compared the results from the questionnaire and the interview in order
to find the differences and similarities. Then, based on the comparison
of the data, the researcher concluded the data to find the students‟ perception about Google Translate in writing and their suggestions. At
last the researcher had to describe and explain the result into
description and words.
F. Research Procedure
In this study, the researcher conducted the following study steps to
make the study effective. There were eight steps that should be followed
instrument, asking permission, conducting the survey, processing the data, and
reporting the data.
1. Planning
The first step that should be followed by the researcher was
planning the study. The researcher decided a topic to conduct the study.
The researcher also explained the reasons for choosing the topic and the
background of the problem chosen. After that, the researcher formulated
the research problem for the study. Last, the researcher gathered all
theories to support the researcher‟s study problems.
2. Defining the Population
The next step that the researcher had to conduct was to define the
population of the study. The target population of this study was the
students of grade XI of SMA N 1 Banguntapan academic year 2014/2015.
3. Sampling
For the sampling part, the researcher chose purposive sampling. The
samples were students of XI IPS 1 SMA N 1 Banguntapan academic year
2014/2015. There were 31 students in the class.
4. Constructing th eInstrument
Constructing the instrument was the next step to do in the study.
The researcher already found the sampling, therefore the researcher need
questionnaire. Open-ended and close-ended questions were used in the
questionnaire. The researcher also used interview as instrument. In the
interview, the researcher had to record the interview to gain data.
5. Asking Permission
In this step, the researcher had to ask for a permission to distribute
the questionnaire and do the interview. The researcher had to go to SMA N
1 Banguntapan to ask for permission. When the researcher got the
permission, the researcher could start the data collecting.
6. Conducting the Research
The researcher distributed the questionnaire to the participants of
the study. After done with the questionnaire, the researcher conducted
interview with the participant chosen.
7. Processing the Data
After conducting the study, the researcher gathered the data from
questionnaire and interview. Then, the researcher analyzed the data to be
processed. This step was done to find the answer for the research
problems.
8. Reporting the Data
The last step of the study was to report the data. The result of this
CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this chapter, the researcher presents and discusses the result obtained
from the questionnaire and the interview to answer the research problem which is
what is the students‟ perception on the use of Google Translate in Writing
Analytical Exposition? The questionnaire and the interview are the instruments
used by the researcher to obtain the data from the research participants.
A. Results
In this section, the researcher would present the results that had already
obtained from the research. There were quantitative and qualitative results.
The quantitativeresult was from the first part of the questionnaire meanwhile
the qualitative result was from the second part of the questionnaire and
interview.
1. Quantitative Result of Students’ Perception on the Use of Google Translate
This part presents the findings to answer the formulated research
problem which is already formulated. The research problem is about the
students‟ perception on the use of Google Translate in Writing Analytical
Exposition. The data gathered using a questionnaire which consisted of 25
statements and 4 open-ended questions for 31 research participants.
The researcher divided this part into four parts in order to present
the data clearly. The parts were: (1) students‟ writing skills before knowing Google Translate, (2) students‟ writing method, (3) students‟ knowledge about Google Translate, and (4) students‟ perception on the use of Google Translate in writing Analytical Exposition. From the
close-ended statements, there were 5 degree of agreements; Strongly Disagree
(SD), Disagree (D), Undecided (U), Agree (A), and Strongly Agree (SA).
a. Students’ Writing Skill Before Using Google Translate
The researcher found out the students‟ perception about their skill
before knowing Google Translate through the questionnaire and interview.
In the questionnaire from the close ended questions, the statements were
from number 1 to 6. The table 4.1 showed the data from part 1.
Table 4.1 The Students’ Writing Skill Before Using Google Translate
No. Statements
Frequencies of Response
1 (SD) 2 (D) 3 (U) 4 (A) 5 (SA)
% % % % %
1. I do not like writing in my spare time 12.90 12.90 41.93 19.35 12.90 2. I feel that writing assignment in English
is difficult 9.67 29.03 38.70 16.12 6.45
3. I feel that writing Analytical Exposition
in English requires to many steps 0.00 35.48 29.03 32.25 3.22
4. I do not know that in writing an
Analytical Exposition there are steps to help the writing process
6.45 22.58 29.03 41.93 0.00
5. I do not like writing Analytical
Exposition because English is difficult 16.12 32.25 19.35 29.03 3.22 6. I do not like writing an Analytical
Exposition because English is not a language that I mastered
As presented in Table 4.1, the result of statement 1 was 41.39% of
the students chose undecided. Meanwhile 12.90% of the students chose
disagree, 12.90% of the students chose disagree, 19.35% of the students
chose agree, and 12.90% of the students chose strongly agree. It could be
seen that the highest percentage was undecided. Therefore, it could be
concluded that most of the students thought writing was not problem for
them.
Next, the result of statement 2 was 38.70% of the students chose
undecided. Meanwhile 29.03% of the students chose disagree, 16.12% of
the students chose agree, 9.67% of the students chose strongly disagree,
and 6.45% of the students chose strongly agree. It showed that most of the
students in the class thought that sometimes writing was difficult but
sometimes writing was also easy.
The result from statement number 3 was 35.48% of the students
disagreed with this statement. Meanwhile 32.25% of the students agreed,
29.03% of the students chose undecided, 3.22%of the students strongly
agreed and no one chose strongly disagree. Therefore, it could be seen that
the majority of the class disagreed that writing Analytical Exposition
required too many steps.
The result for statement number 4 was the majority of the students
agreed with 41.93%. Meanwhile 29.03% of the students chose undecided,
22.58% of the students disagreed, 6.45% of the students strongly
most of the students did not know that writing an analytical exposition
needed many steps and was a long process.
Next, the result of statement 5 was the majority of the students
chose disagree. This could be seen from the data obtained that 32.25% of
the students disagreed, 29.03% of the students agreed 16.12% of the
students strongly disagreed, 19.35% of the students chose undecided, and
3.22% of the students strongly agreed. Thus, the statement number 5
showed that the students disagreed that they did not like writing Analytical
Exposition because English was difficult for them.
The last, the result of statement number 6 was 35.48% of the
students disagreed with the statement number 6. Meanwhile 19.35% of the
students strongly disagreed and 19.35% of the students undecided for this
statement. The rest were 16.12%of the agreed and 6.45%of the students
strongly agreed. It could be concluded that the majority of the students
disagreed that they did not like writing an Analytical Exposition because
they did not master English.
b. Students’ Writing Technique
Table 4.2 The Students’ Writing Technique
No. Statements translate it into English
3.22 19.35 19.35 41.93 16.12
8. I write my Analytical Exposition in Indonesian word by word to be translated into English
No. Statements
Frequencies of Responses
1(SD) 2 (D) 3 (U) 4 (A) 5 (SA)
% % % % %
9. I feel it is not easy to translate my Indonesian Analytical Exposition into English
9.67 25.80 38.70 22.58 0.00
The result of statement number 7 was most of the students agreed
that they wrote their assignment in Bahasa Indonesia and translated it to
English with 41.93% agreed. Meanwhile 19.35% of the students
disagreed, 19.35% of the students undecided, 16.12% of the students
strongly agreed and 3.22% of the students strongly disagreed. It showed
that the amount of students who chose agree were more than half class.
Therefore, it could be concluded that the class agreed that they wrote
Bahasa Indonesia text first when writing their Analytical Exposition then
translated it into English.
Next, the result of statement number 8 was 35.48% disagreed,
35.48% agreed, 16.12% undecided, 9.67% of the students strongly
disagreed, and 3.22% of the students strongly agreed. From the result
above, it could be seen that most of the students did not translate their
assignment word by word from Bahasa Indonesia into English.
The last, the result of statement number 9 was most of the student
had undecided opinion with 38.70%. Meanwhile 25.80% disagreed,
22.58% agreed, 9.67% strongly disagreed, and no one chose strongly
sometimes felt that translating Bahasa Indonesia into English was difficult,
but sometimes it was easy too. That was why they chose undecided choice.
c. Students’ Knowledge about Google Translate
Tabel 4.3 Students’ Knowledge of Google Translate
No. Statements
13. I use Google Translate to translate my Indonesian Analytical
Exposition into English
0.00 25.80 35.48 35.48 3.22
The result of statement number 10 was the majority of the students
agreed with this statement. Twenty students or 64.51% agreed with
statement number 10 and 32.25% strongly agreed. Meanwhile only 3.22 %
disagreed and no one chose strongly disagree nor undecided. It showed
that almost the whole class agreed that they know online tool for helping
them translate.
Table 4.3 also showed 20 students agreed for statement number 11.
It meant that 64.51% agreed and 9.67% strongly agreed. With that, total
74.18% agree with statement number 11 and only 1 student or 3.22%
students used a tool to help them translating their Bahasa Indonesia
Analytical Exposition into English.
As for statement number 12, the result showed that 41.93% of the
students disagreed, 25.8% of the students strongly disagreed, 16.12%
agreed, 12.90% undecided, and 3.22% strongly agreed. Therefore, it could
be seen that most of the students disagreed that they only knew one tool to
help them translating which was Google Translate.
The last, as for statement number 13, the result was 35.48%
agreed, 35.48% undecided, 25.80% disagreed, 3.22% strongly agreed, and
no one chose strongly disagree. Thus, it could be seen that most of the
students agreed with statement number 13 which was students used
Google Translate to translate their Analytical Exposition from Bahasa
Indonesia into English.
d. Students’ Perception on the Use of Google Translate in Writing Analytical Exposition Text
Table 4.4The Students’ Perception about the Use of Google Translate in
Writing Analytical Exposition Text
No. Statements
Frequencies of Responses
1(SD) 2 (D) 3 (U) 4 (A) 5 (SA)
% % % % %
14. I use Google Translate to translate
my Indonesian writing into English 3.22 16.12 35.48 41.93 3.22 15. I feel that Google Translate helps
me a lot in doing my writing assignment in English class
0.00 19.35 48.38 29.03 3.22
16. I feel that Google Translate makes easier to write my Analytical Exposition
From table 4.4, statement 14, it could be seen that the result was
positive. It showed the majority of the students or 41.93% agreed 35.48%
undecided, 16.12% of the students disagreed, 3.22% of the students
strongly disagreed, and 3.22% of the students strongly agreed. Therefore,
it could be concluded that 14 people or 45.15% were using Google
Translate to translate Indonesian to English.
No. Statements
Frequencies of Responses
1(SD) 2 (D) 3 (U) 4 (A) 5 (SA)
% % % % %
17. I prefer Google Translate than asking teacher or friends in writing my Analytical Exposition
6.45 64.51 19.35 6.45 3.22
18. I feel more comfortable to use Google Translate in writing Analytical Exposition because it easy to be accessed
6.45 38.70 22.58 29.03 3.22
19. I find writing Analytical Exposition becomes easier with the help of Google Translate
3.22 25.80 35.48 35.48 0.00
20. I feel Google Translate is a useful tool for a student like me in writing an Analytical Exposition
3.22 12.90 35.48 45.16 3.22
21. I feel that I should use Google Translate in writing my Analytical Exposition
12.90 45.16 29.03 12.90 0.00
22. Google Translate motivates me to
write a good Analytical Exposition 6.45 29.03 48.38 19.35 0.00 23. Google Translate helps me to
improve my writing skill 6.45 32.25 48.38 12.90 0.00 24. Google Translate helps me to be
aware with my grammatical mistakes and fix it
12.90 38.70 32.25 16.12 0.00
25. I find it necessary for my teacher to allow me using Google Translate to help me in finishing my Analytical Exposition
The result of statement 15 showed that 48.38% of the students
chose undecided. Meanwhile 29.03% agreed, 19.35% disagreed, 3.22%
strongly agreed, and no one chose strongly disagree. Thus, it could be
concluded that the majority of the students did not know whether Google
Translate helped them in writing their Analytical Exposition or not as they
chose undecided.
The result of statement 16 was 45.16% chose undecided, 32.25%
agreed, 19.35% disagreed, 3.22% strongly disagreed, and no one chose
strongly agree. It meant that most of the students did not know whether
Google Translate made their writing easier since the majority of the
students chose undecided.
Meanwhile the result of statement number 17 was 64.51%
disagreed, 19.35% were undecided, 6.45% strongly disagreed, 6.45%
agreed, and 3.22% strongly agreed. From the result above it could be
concluded that 22 students or 70.96% students did not agree with the
statement which said that the students prefered to use Google Translate
than asking friends or teacher.
As the result for statement number 18 was 38.70% disagreed,
29.03 agreed, 22.58% chose undecided, 6.45% strongly disagreed, and
3.22% strongly agreed. It showed that the students did not find Google
Translate convenient to be used as the rate of disagreement was 45.15%.
Then, the result of statement number 19 was 35.48% agreed,
0.00% strongly agreed. It showed that students in XI IPS 1 mostly agreed
with statement number 19 which was writing analytical exposition text
became easier with the help of Google Translate.
Next, the result for statement number 20 was 45.16% agreed,
35.48% undecided, 12.90% disagreed, 3.22% strongly agreed, and 3.22%
strongly disagreed. It showed the result was majority of the students felt
that Google Translate was useful for them to write an Analytical
Exposition.
As for the result for statement number 21 was 45.61% disagreed,
29.03% undecided, 12.90% agreed, 12.90% strongly disagreed, and none
chose strongly agree. From the result, it could be concluded that most of
the students agreed that Google Translate not should be used all the time
while writing their analytical exposition text.
Statement number 22 was related to students‟ motivation writinganalytical exposition text with Google Translate, the result was
48.38% chose undecided, 29.03% disagreed, 19.35% agreed, 6.45%
students strongly disagreed and no one strongly agreed with this statement.
Thus, it could be concluded that most of the students could not decide
whether Google Translate motivated them in writing or not.
The result of statement number 23 was most of the students chose
undecided. There were 48.38% of the students chose undecided, 32.25%
disagreed, 12.90% of the students agreed, 6.45% of the students strongly
