PERCEIVED SELF-EFFICACY VS ACTUAL PERFORMANCE: A CASE IN TEACHING WRITING.

(1)

PERCEIVED SELF-EFFICACY VS ACTUAL PERFORMANCE: A CASE IN TEACHING WRITING

A THESIS

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the master’s degree in English Education

by: Nia Kurniawati

1103236

ENGLISH EDUCATION

SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

(2)

PERCEIVED SELF-EFFICACY VS ACTUAL PERFORMANCE:

A CASE IN TEACHING WRITING

Oleh

Nia Kurniawati

S.Pd UPI Bandung, 2014

Sebuah Tesis yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Magister Pendidikan (M.Pd.) pada Sekolah Pasca Sarjana

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

April 2014

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

Skripsi ini tidak boleh diperbanyak seluruhya atau sebagian,

(3)

(4)

DECLARATION

I hereby to certify, that this thesis entitled, “Perceived Self-Efficacy VS Actual Performance:

A Case in Teaching Writing” is completely my own work. I am fully aware that I have

quoted some statements and ideas from various sources, and all quotations are properly

acknowledged.

Bandung, April 2014

(5)

PREFACE

This is a report of a thesis entitled “Perceived Self-Efficacy and Actual Performance:

A Case in Teaching Writing”. This research explored the teaching writing self-efficacy of a

lecturer and her actual teaching writing performance. To be a self-efficacious teacher requires

not only high self-confidence, but also pedagogical knowledge, subject matters understanding

and the ability to self-measure the teaching self-efficacy itself. Therefore, English teachers or

lecturers should be ready and equip themselves with proper knowledge and self-efficacy to

teach writing skill to their students.

This report has been organized to give a hint to the readers especially those who are

involved in the teaching of English as a Foreign Language about the concept of teaching

writing self-efficacy and it’s reflection in the teaching of writing in the classroom.

I hope it will trigger teacher researchers and educators to explore more about

self-efficacy especially in teaching writing. It is important as a source of information for teachers’

professional development. By knowing the level of teaching self-efficacy, the policy makers

and educational institution know what to focus on the teachers’ professional development program to improve the teachers’ quality.

I am aware that this thesis is far from perfect. Therefore, for the improvement of this

writing, suggestions and recommendations will be highly appreciated.

Bandung, April 2014

(6)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis has come to existence by the blessing of Allah the Almighty and the

Merciful and also the helps and supports from many people. Therefore in this occasion, I

would like to thank those who helped and supported me in accomplishing this thesis.

First of all, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude for my first and second

supervisor; Prof. H. A. Chaedar Alwasilah, M. A., Ph. D., and Dr. Rd. Safrina Noorman,

M.A, who have embraced me with their open hands and inspired me with their knowledge,

strong encouragement, and sustained contribution for the whole courses of the study. Without

their guidance and supervision, it would be impossible to finish this thesis writing.

Secondly, I would thank to a wonderful lecturer and her writing class students, who

had willingly involved in this research. This research would not be accomplished without

their cooperation.

In addition, I would like to thank my examiners and lecturers at English Education

department of postgraduate school, Indonesia University of Education, Bandung, whose

names I cannot mention one by one in this regards for giving me knowledge, suggestions and

encouragement, particularly in relation to the completion of this study.

My special appreciation is also for my classmates in C class of English Education of

SPS UPI 2011 for the delightful moment in our class. Finally, I would like to thank all my

family especially my beloved parents, husband, and children for their sincere support and

prayer during my thesis writing.

(7)

Nia Kurniawati, 2014

Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

TABLE OF CONTENT

2.1.1 Bandura’s Socio Cognitive Theory... 6

(8)

2.1.3 Source of Self-Efficacy Belies... 9

2.1.4 Self-Efficacy Activated Processes... 11

2.1.5 Effects of Self-Efficacy on Teaching... 12

2.1.6 Perceived Teacher Self-Efficacy... 14

2.1.7 Teacher Self-Efficacy with Regard to Writing... 16

2.2 Teaching Writing Performance... 18

2.2.1 Teaching Performance... 18

2.2.2 Characteristics of Written Language... 20

2.2.3 Approaches to Teaching Writing... 21

2.2.4 Principles on Teaching Writing………... 22

2.3 Teaching Writing Self-Efficacy and Teaching Writing Performance Measurement... 24 2.3.1 Measurement of Teacher Self-Efficacy... 25

2.3.2 The Teaching Writing Self-Efficacy Scale (TWSES) ... 26

2.3.3 Measuring Teaching Writing Performance……… 27

2.4 Review of Related Research... 27

2.5 Concluding Remarks... 30

(9)

3.2.2 Participants... 32

3.2.3 Research Instruments... 34

3.2.3.1 Questionnaire... 34

CHAPTER IV... FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION... 41 41 4.1 TheLecturer’s Perceived TWSE………... 41

4.1.1 The Lecturer’s Perceived TWSE Seen from the Questionnaire... 42

4.1.1.1. Aspects that the Lecturer Feels Most Confident in TWSE... 43 4.1.1.2. Aspects that the Lecturer Feels Less Confident in TWSE... 44 4.1.1.3. Aspects that the Lecturer Feels Unconfident in TWSE... 45 4.1.2 Findings from the Interviews with the Lecturer... 46

4.1.2.1 Aspects that the Lecturer Feels Most Confident in TWSE...

49

(10)

TWSE...

4.1.2.3 Aspects that the Lecturer Feels Unconfident in TWSE 57

4.2 The Lecturer’s Actual Teaching Writing Performance. ... 58 4.2.1 Findings from the Classroom Observations... 58

4.2.1.1 Aspects that the Lecturer Feels Most Confident in

TWSE……...

60

4.2.1.2 Aspects that the Lecturer Feels Less Confident in TWSE...

65

4.2.1.3 Aspects that the Lecturer Feels Unconfident in

TWSE...

68

4.2.2 Findings from the Interview with the students…... 69 4.2.2.1 Aspects that the Lecturer Feels Most Confident in

TWSE...

71

4.2.2.2 Aspects that the Lecturer Feels Less Confident in TWSE...

74

4.2.2.3 Aspects that the Lecturer Feels Unconfident in

TWSE...

76

4.2.3. The Lecturer’s Actual Teaching Writing Performance Seen

from the Students’ Writings...

77

4.2.3.1. The Students’ Writing Ability on the Lecturer’s Most

Confident Aspects in TWSE...

79

(11)

4.3 The Discrepancy between the Lecturer’s Perceived TWSE and her Actual Teaching Writing Performance………...

81

4.4 The Factors that Caused the Discrepancy between the Lecturer’sPerceived TWSE and her Actual Teaching Writing Performance...

86

CHAPTER IV...

Figure 1 The Cyclical Nature of Teacher Efficacy...

Table 4. 1 Lecturer Most Confident Aspects on TWSE...

Table 4. 2 Lecturer Less Confident Aspects on TWSE...

Table 4. 3 Lecturer’s Unconfident Aspects in TWSE……….

Table 4. 4 The Result of Classroom Observations………..

13

43

44

45

(12)

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX I...

A. Questionnaire Sheets...

101

(13)

B. Activities Done in the Classroom Observation...

APPENDIX II...

A. Data from The Interviews (Lecturer #1)...

B. Data from Interviews (Lecturer #2)...

C. Data from Interviews (Students #1)...

(14)

APPENDIX IX...

A. The Texts Written by the Students in Assignment 1...

B. The Texts Written by the Students in Assignment 2...

160

(15)

ABSTRAK

Efikasi diri telah menjadi topic penelitian yang cukup menarik di bidang

pendidikan selama dua decade terakhir ini. Hal ini dipercaya dapat memberikan

efek yang baik terhadap kinerja guru dan juga prestasi siswa. Maka dari itu,

penelitian inipun berusaha menggali lebih dalam mengenai kesenjangan antara

efikasi diri dalam pengajaran menulis dari seorang dosen dengan cara dosen

tersebut mengajar menulis di kelas. Data dalam penelitian ini didapat dengan

menggunakan beberapa instrument untuk triangulasi data. Efikasi diri dalam

pengajran menulis digali melalui instrumen kuisioner yang diadaptasi dari

Teaching Writing Self-Efficacy Scale (Hughey, 2010) . Sedangkan performa

mengajar dosen dinilai melalui observasi kelas, wawancara dan hasil tulisan para

mahasiswa.

Penelitian ini merupakan studi kasus. Responden dalam penelitian ini

terdiri dari seorang dosen bahasa Inggris yang mengampu mata kuliah menulis

beserta para mahasiswanya. Penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa terdapat

kesenjangan antara performa mengajar dengan efikasi diri dalam mengajar

menulis (TWSE) yang diyakini, baik dilihat dari proses maupun hasil

pengajarannya.

Selain itu, dalam temuan penelitian ini juga dapat dilihat bahwa frekuensi

kemunculan kesenjangan tadi cukup tinggi. Hal ini terjadi karena responden tidak

mampu mengenali efikasi diri dalam mengajar menulisnya secara akurat, dan

juga karena kemampuan berbahasa Inggris dan pengetahuannya dalam mengajar

menulis masih terbatas. Maka dari itu, responden disarankan untuk mengikuti

berbagai pelatihan keprofesionalan yang akan meningkatkan pengetahuan,

keterampilan dan juga kepercayaan dirinya dalam mengajar menulis. Selain itu,

untuk penelitian lebih lanjut disarankan untuk menggunakan instrumen dalam

bahasa ibu agar data yang didapat lebih akurat juga dengan cakupan yang lebih

(16)

Kata Kunci: Kesenjangan, efikasi diri, Teaching Writing Self-Efficacy, performa

(17)

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

This part discusses five main issues including the background of the

study, the research questions, the purpose of the study, the significance of the

study, and the organization.

1.1 . Background of the Study

Self-efficacy theory has a tremendous effect on human functioning.

Bandura was one of the scholars who paved a way the way to make a theoretical

breaktrough in introducing self-efficacy concept to human functioning,

especially in educational sphere (Setiadi, 2010).

In the academic sphere, the importance of self-efficacy has been

recognized by many researchers even though it is regarded as a relatively new

conception, but it has been confirmed to have a powerful impact on academic

achievement in various areas (Setiadi, 2010).

Teacher’s self-efficacy itself has been defined as the extent to which a

teacher’s belief that she or he can influence students’ behaviour and their

academic achievement (Friedman&Kass, 2001). In most studies, this involves

only the classroom in which the teacher engages in education and teaching.

Teacher’s efficacy also includes classroom management and student engagement

aspects. Thus, the concept of teacher’s efficacy in the literature has focused on

the teacher’s perception of his or her own competence and on the ability of

teaching as a professional discipline to shape students’ knowledge, values and

behaviour (Guskey & Passaro, 1994; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy,

(18)

As for writing, all language teachers realize that this skill is an

important part of literacy development. It enables students to develop and to

express their idea in written form. This skill is very useful for their personal and

professional life both in and outside classroom. However, it is largely admitted

that most Indonesians have problem with writing skill. Writing is never given

enough time in language classroom. It is caused by the misconception that being

literate is being able to read only (Alwasilah, 2007).

Writing is also considered as a sophisticated skill not only by the

students but also the teachers. “Writing is one of the most complex literate

activities in which children engage…and not only it is challenging, it creates

anxiety, avoidance, and frustration for the learner and the teacher,” (Troia &

Graham, 2003, p.75). It is no surprise therefore to find that experts in the field of

writing describe the process as intense, in-depth, and difficult.

Writing is frequently considered as the last language skill to be acquired

(Hamp-Lyons and Heasley, 1987; Lavelle, 2006). Writing is also the most

popular means by which teachers assess students’ performance; however,

writing is not an easy skill to learn (Shah, et.al, 2011). Many teachers spend

countless hours in preparation and professional development that exposes them

to varied instructional techniques to meet proficient expectations for writing

achievement and the development of writing as a lifelong skill. But even if

teachers are appropriately prepared to teach writing, they may not feel confident

in their ability to teach the necessary skills to their students.

Regarding the importance of the teachers’ role in the teaching writing process, many studies have explored various aspects of teachers' perception

(19)

writing, there are only few that considered the relationship between teaching

writing self-efficacy and teaching performance (Moore, 2000).

Teaching writing self-efficacy, later mentioned as TWSE and

becomes the focus in the present study, is focused on a writing teacher’s self

-efficacy in using instructional strategies, managing the class, engaging the

students, and also in the process of writing itself (Setiadi, 2010).

As for the teaching writing performance, it refers to teaching process

(observable and documented instructional skills, teacher’s responsibilities, and

content knowledge) and teaching products (student’s achievement gains

attributed to the teacher and school). It is also graded into several levels, i.e.,

unsatisfactory, satisfactory, and exceed expectations (Richards, 2011).

Considering the importance of and the importance of the teachers’ self

-efficacy and also the writing skill for language learners in the language learning,

the study on teacher’s self- efficacy in teaching writing is essential to give new

insight on teachers’ professional development opportunities, currently ignored in the area of teacher self-efficacy with regards to writing (Lieberman & Wood,

2003). It is because teachers are too often considered as “passive consumers of

pre-packaged knowledge or, at best, compliant participants whose role it is to

absorb information…regardless of whether it is useful or appropriate”

(Lieberman & Wood, 2003, p.3; see also Cochran-Smith &Lytle, 1999).

Research in the area of teacher self-efficacy with regards to writing could

provide education institutions with a cost, time, and material-effective

professional development network, built upon the needs and interests of the

teachers from different areas (Lieberman & Wood, 2003).

1.2 . Research Questions

(20)

1. How does a lecturer perceive her own TWSE?

2. How is her actual teaching writing performance?

3. Is there any discrepancy between the lecturer’s perceived TWSE and her

actual teaching writing performance?

4. What are the causes of the discrepancy between the lecturer’s perceived

TWSE and her actual teaching writing performance?

1.3 . Purpose of the Study

Based on the focus mentioned above, the purposes of this study are:

1. To portray a lecturer’s perceived TWSE.

2. To explore her actual teaching writing performance.

3. To investigate the discrepancy between the lecturer’s perceived TWSE and

her actual teaching writing performance.

4. To find out the causes of the discrepancy between the lecturer’s perceived

TWSE and her actual teaching performance.

1.4 . Significance of the Study

This study is significant for several reasons. The result of this study hopefully

provides new insight to the areas of English language teaching. This study will

enrich the existing research in the field of teacher self-efficacy, specifically

teachers’ perceived TWSE and its’ discrepancy in her teaching writing performance. The findings from this study will establish the relationship

between knowledge of pedagogy to teach writing and the personal self-efficacy

beliefs of the teachers who utilize those techniques. The analysis of TWSE

responses from the teacher and their actual teaching performance in the

classroom would provide information for professional development. Further,

(21)

teachers handle their students in the classroom.The following terms are provided

in order to understand the case presented in this paper.

1.5. Clarification of Terms

There are some terms frequently used in this study that need to be clarified to

have a better understanding to the present study. The first is self- efficacy. It was

defined as an individual’s confidence in his ability to employ a suitable

behaviour needed to produce the preferred outcome (Bandura, 1977).

Self-efficacy is different from other perceptions like esteem and

self-concept. Self-efficacy is belief in one’s ability to perform an action, where

self-esteem is an evaluative judgment and self-concept is an overall regard

(Coopersmith, 1967 in Bandura, 1997). The personal beliefs about the level and

strength of this ability, not the knowledge alone are the primary focal point of

self-efficacy.

The second specific term is teaching writing self-efficacy (TWSE). TWSE

is focused on a writing teacher’s self-efficacy in using instructional strategies, managing the class, engaging the students, and also in the process

of writing itself (Setiadi, 2010).

The third specific term is teaching performance (Richards, 2011). In this

study, it refers to teaching process (observable and documented instructional

skills, teacher responsibilities, and content knowledge) and teaching products

(student achievement gains attributed to the teacher and school). It is also graded

into several levels, i.e., unsatisfactory, satisfactory, and exceed expectations.

(22)

This thesis consists of five chapters. Chapter One is an introduction. This chapter

elaborates the background of the study, research questions, purpose of the study,

the significant of the study, and study organization.

Chapter Two is theoretical framework. This chapter presents relevant

theories that underpinned this study. The theories deal with theory of

self-efficacy; including the definition, the socio cognitive theory, the source and the

measurement of self-efficacy and teaching writing.

Chapter Three is research methodology. This chapter describes the

research methodology of this study that covers research problems; research

design; data collection including research site, participants and research

instrument; teaching material and data analysis.

Chapter Four is data presentation and analysis. This chapter presents and

analyses data obtained in the study.

Chapter Five is conclusions and recommendation. This chapter highlights

the conclusions of the finding of this study and presents some suggestions for

(23)

(24)

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This part focuses on the process of conducting the research. These include

research design, data collection, and data analysis.

3.1 . Research Design

idividual) based on extenstive data collection (Cresswell, 2007). This design also

allows the researcher to concentrate on a single group of subjects and the use of

multi-method data collection strategies to identify the extent of which a teacher’s

writing self-efficacy is different with her teaching performance. This design is

an appropriate way to illustrate those phenomena which are not very well

understood and need to be examined very closely and also has the potential to

provide an in-depth understanding of process rather than outcome (Creswell,

2003).

To ensure the internal validity in the research design, several methods of

data collection should be used for triangulation purposes (Yin, 2003). In this

(25)

interviews, classroom observations, and documents analysis. The quessionnaire

was for collecting the data on the level of the lecturer’s TWSE. The interviews

were conducted to verify the data from the questionnaire and involving both the

lecturer and her students. The classroom observations were to obtain the data on

the actual teaching writing performance of the lecturer. The last was the

documents analysis. The documents used in this research were the students’ writings. Using a writing rubric, the students’ writings were scored and analyzed to see their writing skill progress.

3.2 . Data Collection

This section discusses the data collecting techniques in conducting this study

including research site, participants, and research instruments. Each division is

explained below.

3.2.1. Research Site

The research was conducted in an English Education study program in a private

university in Cianjur. It is a newly opened study program. It started two years

ago. The first batch students are at their third semester and the newest batch are

at their first. There are two classes in each year.

Since it is a new study program, the demand for conducting research on

various aspects related to EFL teaching is very high. That research is very crucial

in order to improve the quality of the study program and all related elements such

as the lecturers’ teaching quality as well as the students’ achievement. This

present research specifically contributed to the development of the teaching of

writing that covering the lecturer’s competence in teaching writing and also the

students’ writing performance.

The other reason is a technical consideration which is its easy access. It

means the researcher finds easy to get data since the university is located where

the researcher works.

(26)

In a qualitative inquiry, the intent is not to generalize the findings, but to develop

an in-depth exploration of a central phenomenon. Thus, to best understand the

phenomenon, the reseracher purposefully or intentionally selects individuals and

site. Cresswell (2008) states that the research term used for qualitative sampling

is purposeful sampling. In purposeful sampling a researcher intentionally select

individuals and sites to learn or understand the central phenomenon. The standard

used in choosing participants and sites is whether they are “information rich”

(Patton, 1990. p. 169).

As it has been discussed earlier that the research was to find out a novice

lecturer’ self-efficacy in teaching writing and her actual teaching writing

performance, the discrepancy, and the causes of the discrepancy between those

two variables. Based on those considerations, the researcher selected the

participants for the present study.The participants of the research included a

writing lecturer and her writing class students. The class consists of 48 students

taking writing for general communication course. The instructor is a novice

lecturer. She graduated form a school of post graduate majoring English

education. She has eight years experience in teaching English at junior high

school but she has no experience in teaching writing at university level. The

students are at their third semester and new to a writing course in their study at a

university level. Most of them come from rural areas around Cianjur and have

limited English ability.

Regarding the data collected from the questionnaire, the lecturer was

given the questionnaire to see her academic and personal background, and to find

out her level in TWSE as well as the reasons of her level in the ten items of

TWSE asked in the questionnare. After filling out the questionnaire, the

respondent was interviewed to clarify and get deeper understanding to all the

answers in the questionnaire.

Meanwhile, in the non-participant observations, the lecturer and all of the

(27)

classrooms, six students who were active in the classrooms during the classroom

observations were choosen purposively to be interviewed. They were interviewed to

find out their opinions about the teaching performance of the lecturer.

The students were also asked to compose two texts in the first and in the last

classroom observations. This was to find out their writing performance in average

and also the common problems they faced in writing.

3.2.3. Research Instruments

This study collected data from different instruments, namely questionnaires,

nonparticipant classroom observations, semi-structure interviews and documents

analysis. Each technique is elaborated below.

3.2.3.1. Questionnaire

Brown (2001: 6 cited from Dornyei, 2003: 6) states that questionnaires are any

written instruments that present respondents with a series of questions or

statements to which they are to react either by writing out their answers or by

selecting from among existing answers. Meanwhile, Thomas (2003: 66) argues

that questionnaire is typically used in a very general sense to mean any printed

set of questions that participants in a survey are asked to answer, either by

checking one choice from among several possible answers listed beneath a

question or by writing out an answer.

The questionnaire in this current study was adapted from the Teaching

Writing Self-Efficacy Scale (Hughey, 2010). Originally, it consisted of thirty five

items and used Likert scale. But after it was tried out to five English instructors,

they found that some items were unclear, and some were not suitable for the

present research context. The unclear and unsuitable items were deleted. Finally,

for the purpose of this research, the rest of ten items were modified into an

(28)

subject, the questionnaire was modified into two parts. Part 1 is about the

personal and academic information of the sample, and part 2 is about the

respondent’s teaching writing self-efficacy (Appendix I). In the first part, the respondent answered some questions about her personal and academic

background such as gender, age, educational background, writing habbit, and

teaching writing experience. In the second part, there were ten items exploring

the respondent’s TWSE. Each item provided three options that the respondent might choose, i.e, most confident, less confident and unconfident. After choosing

the level of her TWSE, the repondent wrote the reasons of her choice in each

item. The theoretical basis for the instrument was to measure the lecturer’s self-

efficacy of a teacher's ability to teach writing to students; specifically the

teacher’s beliefs about her ability to teach specific writing skills and tasks.

3.2.3.2. Classroom Observations

Thomas (2003: 60) argues that gathering information by means of observation

involves watching and or listening to events, then recording what occurred.

Regarding this, after obtaining data by distributing questionnaires, the next data

was collected by conducting non-participant classroom observations. According

to Cresswell (2008) nonparticipant observer is an observational role adopted by

reseracherss when they visit a site and record notes without becoming involved in

the activities of the participants. In this case, the researcher positioned herself not

as a teacher. It means that the researcher only noted what is going on during the

teaching writing process conducted by the respondent. The researcher did not

also interact to participate during the teaching-learning process. As collecting

data of the questionnaires, the classroom observations were conducted to

investigate the first research questions.

This instrument was used in answering the second research question

(29)

observations were conducted six times, at which the researcher wrote down the

activities done by the teacher and the students in the interaction setting in the

classroom as suggested by Morrison (1993, cited in Emilia at al, 2008). Besides,

the researcher made the observation notes as soon as after each session of the

observations finished when the memory of the observations was still fresh as

proposed by Van Lier (1988: 241). Moreover, to ensure the construct validity for

the observations, a colleague of the researcher was invited to record all activities

during the processes of the classroom observations. It is intended to enable the

researcher to watch the classroom observations repeatedly when it is necessary

(Van Lier, 1988).

3.2.3.3. Interviews

According to Thomas (2003: 63), interviews usually involve a researcher orally

asking questions for individuals to answer orally. Meanwhile, Kvale (1996: 14)

states that individual interview is an interchange of views between an interviewer

and the interviewee by talking about a theme of mutual interest. Moreover,

Dawson (2010: 28) argues that an interview aims to know specific information

that can be compared and contrasted with the information gained from other data

collecting techniques. For the reasons, this study employed semi structures

interviews that could support the findings of the data gained from the

questionnaires and the classroom observations.

In the interviews, the researcher interviewed both the teacher and the

students.This instrument is to gain deeper information about the teacher’s self -efficacy and her students perception. The interviews with the lecturer were

conducted twice. The first interview was conducted after the lecturer completed

(30)

after the the fourth meeting on November 7, 2013. In the first interview, there

were twenty five questions. As in the second interview, the researcher posed fifty

seven questions. The respondent was asked about her experiences, difficulties,

and beliefs in teaching writing. Since the respondent has a good command in

English, the interview was conducted in English. In the first interview, there were

twenty five questions (see Appendix VI).

While for the students’ interview, only six students who were actively

involved in the activities during classrooms observatios were involved. They

were asked to cross check the teacher perceieved self-efficacy in teaching writing

self-efficacy with the students’ perception on the teachers actual performance in

teaching writing. The interviews were semi-guided and the type of interview

questions were open-ended questions. As for the students’ interview, it was a

group interveiw. The group interview was conducted to lead to spontaneous and

emotional statements about the topic being discussed, and also to reduce the

interviewer’s control of the interview situation (Kvale, 1996: 101). Even the

students are the English education study program’s studens, the interview was

conducted in their first language, in this case Bahasa Indonesia. It was intended

to get natural and real answers to the questions. There were twenty six questions

in the interview. The questions were based on the ten items in the questionnaire,

exploring the students’ opinion on the lecturer’s actual teaching writing

performance in the classroom (see Appendix VI).

3.2.3.4. Documents Analysis

In the qualitative research, documents consist of public and private records that

qualitative researchers can obtain aout a site or participants in a study, such as

newspaper, minutes of meetings, personal journal, or diaries (Cresswell, 2008).

The documents used in this present study were the students’ writings from two

writing assignments. Those writing assignments were used to evaluate the

teaching writing performance, whether or not the teacher had successfully

(31)

There were two assignments tests given to the students. Writing

assignment 1 was given by the lecturer at the beginning of the semester, and

writing assignment 2 was given by the lecturer after five meetings. In assignment

1, the students were given a topic and they have to develop a descriptive text

based on the topic within 45 minutes. While in assignment 2, the students were

given a topic from a video and they were asked to write a procedural text based

on the video for thirty minutes. Their writings were scored based on an analytic

scoring rubric addapted from Weir’s (1990 cited in Weigle, 2009). The scoring

criteria covers the writing microskills that have been taugh by the teachers within

six meetings (see Appendix V).

3.3 Data Analysis

Data analyis consits of examining, categorizing, tabulating, testing, or otherwise

recombining both quantitative and qualitative evidence to address the initial

propositions of a study. Analyzing case study evidence is especially difficult

because the strategies and technique have not been well defined (Yin, 2003).

Further, Yin (2008) also suggested that the main point of data analysis in a case

study is defining priorities for what to analyze and why. In a qualitative study a

researcher needs to analyze the data to form answers to the research questions.

This process involves examining the data in detail to describe what the reseracher

learned, and developing themes or broad categories of ideas from the data

(Cresswell, 2008). Describing and developing themes from the data consists of

answering the major research questions and forming an in-depth understanding of

the central pheomenon through description and thematic development (Cresswell,

2008).

In the present study, the data analyses were conducted to answer four

research questions. The data obtained from closed-ended and open-ended

questionnaires, non-participant classroom observations, semi-structured

interviews, and writing assignments were analyzed, categorized, and then

(32)

The TWSE questionnaire was analyzed to answer the first research question

concerning a lecturer’s perceived English teachers’ self efficacy in teaching

writing. The data was analyzed in some of the following analytic strategy offered

by Bagdan and Biklen (1992) in Creswell (1998). Step 1 was reading the

respondent’ answers. Step 2 was writing memos and comment. Step 3 was trying

out themes on subjects. Step 4 was playing with concept. Step 5 was developing

coding strategies. Step 6 was sorting material into categories.

As discussed in the previous section, the data gained from classroom

observations were analyzed to answer the second research and the third research

questions about the actual teaching writing performance of the respondent and

also to see the discrepancy between the respondent’s perceived TWSE and her

actual teaching writing performance. In a qualitative analysis, the data analysis

was conducted in the followings. Step 1 was transferring the data from the

memory card into the computer file. Step 2 was transcribing data. It was

conducted by listening and watching the videotapes, reading the notes of the

classroom observations, and then converting data from videotapes into text data.

Step 3 was marking the text data by hand and dividing them into three parts based

on the themes of the research questions (hand analysis). The themes are the

English lecturer’s TWSE and its’ discrepancy on her teaching performance. Step 4

was describing data. In this , the researcher described and developed the data

consisting in answering the research questions and forming deep understanding of

the phenomenon through the description and the thematic development. The 5

was reporting and interpreting the findings. The steps explained above are

relevant to the statement suggested by Creswell (2008: 245-257; see also Powell

and Renner, 2003).

After completing the field note and classifying the records from the

classroom observation, the raw data then be classified to a teaching performance

assessment. This step is to see if the respondent has been at which level, i.e., not

(33)

Meanwhile, the data from the interviews was analyzed to answer the four

research questions in this study by following these steps. Step 1 was converting

the data from oral language to written language. The interview transcripts were

read many times to look for the statements representing the perspective mainly

related to the research questions. Step 2 was coding the data. The codes were later

used as categories to organize the data based on the research questions. Step 3 was

interpreting and concluding the data into the findings as a descriptive report

representing point of views within interpretative orientation. The stages of the

data analysis conformed to the statement proposed by Kvale (1996).

Lastly, the data from the students’ writings were analyzed using writing

rubric adapted from Jacobs et al.”s (1981 cited in Weigle, 2009). This data was to

enhance the findings on the effect of the actual teaching writing performance of

the respondent to her students. The rubric covered five categories of microskills in

writing including relevance and adequacy content , compositional organization,

adequacy vocabulary, grammar, and mechanical accuracy (punctuation). Each

category was graded into 4 levels with similar score to each level and each level

has its own descriptors (see Appendix VII). The maximum score based on the

rubric is twenty and it is multiplied by five to get 100 as the final score. The

results of the students’ writings in assignment 1 and assignment 2 were compared to get the average score. Besides looking at the average, the researcher also noted

the most common problems occured in the students writings (see Appendix VIII).

Finally, the average score and the students’ most commonly ocuuring problems in

their writing were compared to results of the teacher’s TWSE and also the

interviews.

3.5.Data Validation

In doing a case study report, the third procedure to be followed is related to the

overall quality of the study (Yin, 2003). In other words, the researcher should

make sure that the findings and interpretations are accurate throughout the process

(34)

means that the researcher determies the accuracy or credibility of the findings

through strategies such as member checking or triangulation.

There are varied terms that qualitative researchers use to describe this

accuracy or credibility and the strategies used to validate qualitative accounts vary

in number (Cresswell&Miller, 2000). Among others, Cresswell (2008) mentioned

three primary strategies typically used by qualitative researchers to validate the

findings : triangulation, member chekcing, and auditing.

The present study followed two strategies to validate the accuracy of the

findings. To triangulate the data, the researcher relied on several instruments in

gaining the data such as a questionnaire, classroom observations, interviews and

documents analysis. The questionnaire, and the lecturer’s interviews were

intended to answer the first research question about the respondent’s perceived TWSE. As for the second research questions, the instrument used were classroom

observations, the students’ interviews, and the students’ writings.

The second strategy applied to ensure the validity of the present research

was member checking. In this strategy, the researcher checked the fidings with the

participant in the study to determine if the findings were accurate. After

completing the TWSE questionnaire, the respondent was given the opportunity to

clarify every answer she wrote in the TWSE and also the activites she run in the

classroom observations, as it can be found in the second interview (see Appendix

VI).

3.6. Concluding Remark

This part outlined the research methodology, and also the approaches to data

collection, data analysis and data validation. Multi-methods of data collection

were chosen to provide the researcher with information that would enrich the

answer to the research questions. This approach provides a greater chance for

(35)

(36)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter discusses three sections namely conclusions, and suggestions for

further research. The sections summarize up the information, the research findings, and

arguments from the discussion of the previous chapters.

5.1. Conclusions

After discussing the findings from the data gained from the questionnaires, the

classroom observations, and the interviews, and documents analysis, the researcher

draws the following conclusion.

Regarding the first research question concerning the lecturer’s perceived TWSE, this study found that from the ten aspects of TWSE, the lecturer perceived her

self-efficacy in teaching writing in three different ways. In general, the respondent claimed

herself to be a efficacious writing lecturer. Her level of teaching writing

self-efficacy was varied from very high to low depending on her mastery to the content

knowledge in writing. The source of the lecturer’s TWSE mainly came from her mastery experience (Bandura, 1997), and external factors which came mainly from her

students’ condition.

Meanwhile, for the second research question, it was revealed that her actual

teaching writing performance somehow different from her perceived TWSE. What he

mentioned in the questionnaire and interviews was not carried out in her real teaching

writing performance. As from the teaching product perspective, it was found out that

there was a slight improvement on the students writing, the average score of the second

writing assignment was improving around 12.88 %. However, in general the students

microskills on writing was still poor. Many students still made mistakes, especially on

grammar in which the lecturer’s admitted to have no self-efficacy in dealing with it, and on punctuation and capitalization to which the lecturer actually admitted to have high

(37)

discrepancies of the respondent’s perceived TWSE in her actual teaching writing

teaching performance was not really satisfying. First, because the lecturer rarely gave

real example of material she explained in the classroom. Secondly, the lecturer

transformed the writing class into a speaking class, where the students were more

frequently required to speak rather than to write.

Considering the findings above, it can be concluded that the lecturer failed to

recognized her actual TWSE. There were many discrepancies occurred in her actual

teaching performance compared to her perceived TWSE and those might occur because

of several reasons. First, the respondent had limited reading proficiency to understand

the items in the questionnaire which were written in English. Second, the respondent

might be confused with the terminologies used in the instruments, even actually those

were common terminologies in teaching writing. Last reason, the respondent had no

ability to recognize her own strength and weaknesses as a writing lecturer.

The external factor come from the respondent’s environment started from her educational and working environment, until the students’ condition. The failure of the respondent to recognize her level of TWSE might happen because all these time

language teachers were not equipped with sufficient content knowledge as well as

pedagogical knowledge that contributes to the teaching self-efficacy. Realizing the

importance of TWSE for a writing teacher, the pre-service teacher training institutions

should seriously take part in preparing the pre-service teachers to have good writing

skill and also teaching writing skill. However, the resposibility is not only for the

pre-service teacher training institution. The writing teachers themselves should have the

willingness to improve themselves and it can be assisted by the institution where they

work by providing or sending them to any writing and teaching writing professional

(38)

In conducting this study, there were some limitations of the study. The first one

was the number of participants. This study only involved an English lecturer and her

students. If this study involved more participants, the data gained would be richer. The

second one was limited time in collecting the data. If this study were conducted in a

longer time, the data would be more detail.

5.3 Suggestions

Based on the findings and the limitations of the study, the researcher offers

thefollowing suggestionsns for further research related to the main issue.

The first, as discussed in the previous section, a research particularly

incollecting data of classroom observations and interviews with sufficient time might

contribute on more significant findings regarding the primaryissue. A further study

related to the English lecturer’s TWSE in its application in teaching-learning activities in a longer timeand more participants might present more significant findings on

theprimary issue.

The second, concerning the instrument especially the questionnaire, it is better

to be written in the respondent first language. It is to avoid the possibility that the

respondents failed to understand the item because of their limited proficiency in

English. The specific terminologies involved in the instruments also should be carefully

chosen to prevent misunderstanding among the respondents, or else the data gained

would be unsatisfactory.

The third, regarding to the English lecturers’s TWSE, it isa must for the English lecturer toequip themselves with all of the four language skills equally well, not only

with the skills they feel comfort to teach.Itwas also recommend that the English

lecturers follow prefessional development sessions to improve her knowledge, skill and

ability in writing, and to develop her self-efficacy in teaching writing.

(39)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allington, R. L. (2005a). Ideology is still trumping evidence. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(6), 462-468.

Allington, R. L. (2005b). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based programs (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Alwasilah, A. Chaedar. (2011). Pokoknya Kualitatif: Dasar-dasar Merancang dan Melakukan Penelitian Kualitatif: 6th edition, Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya.

Alwasilah, A. Chaedar. & Alwasilah, A. S. Suzzana. (2007). Pokoknya Menulis: 2nd edition, Bandung: PT Kiblat Buku Utama.

Ashton, P., & Webb, R.B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bandura, A. (2006). Adolescent development from and agentic perspective. In F. Pajares & T.

Bandura, A. & Adams, N. E. (1977). Analysis of self-efficacy theory of behavioral change.

Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 287-308.

Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., & Beyer, J. (1977) Cognitive processes mediating behavioral change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 125-139.

(40)

York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Braunger, J. & Lewis, J. (1997) Building a knowledge base in reading. Portland: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Brown, H.D. (2001). Teaching by Principles. An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Callagan, M., And Rothery, J. (1988). Teaching Factual Writing. Sydney:Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program.

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy beliefs as determinants of teachers' job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95,

821−832.

Chambers, Sharon, Henson, Sienty (2001) Classroom-orientation in the Beginning Teache. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Chamblis, C. A., & Murray, E. J. (1979). Efficacy attribution; focus on control, and weight loss. Cognitive Theory and Research, 3, 349-353.

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S.L. (1999). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28 (7), 15-25.

Creswell, J. W., and Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. London: Sage Publications, Inc.

Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational Research. New Jersey: Pearson education, Inc.

Dawson, C. (2009). Introduction to Research Methods: a practical guide for anyone undertaking a research project (4th ed). Oxford: How to Books Ltd.

Dembo, M.H. & Gibson, S. (1985). Teachers' sense of efficacy: An important factor in school improvement. The Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 173-184.

(41)

Derewianka, B. (2003). Trends and Issues in Genre Based Approach. RELC Journal. Volume 34: 133. August 2003. http://rel.sagepub.com/content/34/2/133. www.sagepublications.com.

Access on 25 March 2011.

Dornyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in Second Language Research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Dyson, A.H. & Freedman, S.W. (2003). Writing. In J. Flood & J.M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts, (pp. 967 – 992). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Emilia, E., Hermawan, B., and Tati, D. (2008). The Genre Based Approach in the 2006 Curriculum of English. Participatory Action Research in One Junior High School in Bandung, Indonesia. A research report submitted to the English education department, Faculty of Language and Art Education, Indonesia University of Education, Bandung – Indonesia.

Enochs, L.G., & Riggs, I.M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science teaching efficacy beliefs instrument: a preservice elementary scale. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 695-706.

Erikson, E. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. New York: International Universities Press.

Erlandson, D., Harris, E., Skipper, B. & Allen, S. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: a guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Evans, R. I. (1989). Albert Bandura: The man and his ideas- A dialogue. New York: Praeger.

Evans, L. (1998). Teacher, morale, job satisfaction and motivation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Feather, N. T. (1966). Effects of prior success and failure on expectations of success and subsequent performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 287-298. Friedman, I. A & Kass. Efrat. (2001). Teacher self-efﬁcacy: a classroom-organization

Conceptualization. Teacher and Training Education 18, 675-686.

(42)

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M.H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582.

Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A Theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183-211.

Goddard, R.D., Hoy, W.K., & Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 479-507.

Graham, S., Harris, K., Fink, B., & MacArthur, C. (2001). Teacher efficacy in writing: A construct validation with primary grade teachers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(2), 177-202.

Guskey, T.R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teacher and Teacher Education, 4, 63-69.

Guskey, T.R., & Passaro, P.D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 627-643

Hamp-Lyona and Heasley, B. (1987). Study Writing: A Course in Written English for Academic Puroposes, Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Hawkins, R. M. (1995). Self-efficacy a Cause of Debate. Journal of Behavioral Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 26, 235-240.

Harmer, J. (2002). The Practice of English Language Teaching. London: Longman.

Henson, R., Kogan, L., & Vacha-Haase, T. (2001). A reliability generalization study of the Teacher Efficacy Scale and related instruments. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(3), 404-420.

Isaacson, S. (2004). Instruction that helps students meet state standards in writing. Exceptionality, 12(1), 83-108.

(43)

Lieberman, A., & Wood, D. R. (2003). Inside the National Writing Project: Connecting network learning and classroom teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Mills, N., Pajares, F., & Herron, C. (2007). Self-efficacy of College Intermediate French Students: Relation to Achievement and Motivation. Language Learning, 57(3), 417– 442.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00421.x

Martin, J. (1985). Factual Writing Exploring and Challenging Social Reality.Deakin University.

Martin, J., Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., Painter, C. (1997). Working With Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.

Moore, R.A. (2000) Preservice Teachers Explore Their Conception on the Writing Process with Young Pen Pals. Reading Research and Instruction, 40(1), 17-33.

Nurviyani, Vina. ( 2012). The English Teachers’ Understanding Of Genre Based Approach: Application And Difficulties In Teaching-Learning Activities A thesis submitted to the School of Postgraduate Studies, Indonesia University of Education, Bandung – Indonesia.

Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.

Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Reviews of Educational Research, 66, 543-578.

Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy. Retrieved February 25, 2006, from http://www.emory.edu/Education/mfp.eff.html.

Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy during childhood and adolescence: Implications for teachers and parents. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 339-367). Greenwich, CT: Informational Age Publishing.

(44)

Pellegrino, J., Chudowsky, N., & Glasner, R. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know: The Science and design of educational assessment. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Pintrich P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (2nded.). Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Powell, E. T. (2003). Program Development and Evaluation. Analyzing Quantitative

Data. Madison: University of Wisconsin,

U.S.http://www.learningstore.uwex.edu/assets/pdfs (G3658-6). Access on 26 June 2011.

Pressley, M., Rankin, J., & Yokoi, L. (1996). A survey of instructional practices of primary teachers nominated as effective in promoting literacy. Elementary School journal, 96, 363-384.

Rankin-Erickson, J. L., & Pressley, M. (2000). A survey of instructional practices of special education teachers nominated as effective teachers of literacy. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 206- 225.

Richards, Jack. C. (2011). Competence and Performance in Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rimm-Kaufman, S.E. & Sawyer, B. E. (2004). Primary-grade teachers' self-efficacy beliefs, attitudes toward teaching, and discipline and teaching practice priorities in relation to the Responsive Classroom approach. The Elementary School Journal,104(4), 321-341.

Rodgers, T. (2001). Language Teaching Methodology.

Available:http://www.cal.org/ericell/digest/rodgers.html,ERIC Digest, September2001. Access on 16 February 2011.

Ross, J.A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on student achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 17, 51-65.

Ross, J., & Bruce, C. (2007). Professional development effects on teacher efficacy: Results of randomized field trial. The Journal of Educational Research (Washington, D.C.), 101(1),50-60.