1. Data Presentation
As previously mentioned, the data presented in this subsection were the quantitative and qualitative data gathered from the closed-ended items of the
questionnaire and interviews. While the findings from the questionnaire indicate the application of the CALL principles in the web-based Sentence Writing class in
general, the interview results provide in-depth picture and clarification of the CALL principles appl
ied based on the student interviewees‟ experience.
a. Data from the closed-ended items questionnaire
The data displayed here are the quantitative data collected from the closed- ended items of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was published in the
ELTGallery website so that the students could easily access it and thus the data collection could be done more efficiently. The closed-ended items consist of 30
statements. The student respondents must respond to the statements according to their degree of agreement. For the computing analysis purposes, Likert Scale was
used to represent the students‟ responses about the CALL principles implementation in the web-based Sentence Writing class based on what they have
experienced. The degrees of agreement and the scoring using the Likert Scale can be seen in Table 4.1. The degrees of agreement were used as the reference of the
dominant CALL principles that the web-based class follows. Table 4.1. Degrees of agreement of the questionnaire
Degrees of Agreement Score
Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
Not Sure 3
Agree 4
Strongly Agree 5
The results of the closed-ended questionnaire are presented in Table 4.2 below. The table shows the distribution of the respondents‟ answers for each
statement in the form of percentage and the average score for each statement from all of the respondents.
Table 4.2. Students‟ response distribution of the closed-ended questionnaire
NO Closed-Ended
Statements Result Distribution
Score 1
2 3
4 5
SD D
NS A
SA
1 I gave constructive
comments to my classmates‟ sentences and
passages throughout the course period of the
semester. 0.67
4.05 15.54
67.56 12.16
3.86
2 I read the comments I got
from my classmates and teacher in the website
before revising or continuing my work.
1.35 5.40
22.97 58.78
11.48 3.73
3 I could ask questions or
request for clarifications about comments or
grammar lessons during the regular face-to-face
meeting. 1.35
4.72 27.02
57.43 9.45
3.68
4 I could give and receive
comments on my sentences and passages
easier via the online communication.
2.70 2.70
22.97 57.43
14.18 3.77
5 When reading my
classmates‟ passages, I put my interest on the content
of the passages. 0.67
5.40 16.89
64.86 12.16
3.82 6
When giving comments to my classmates‟ sentences
and passages, I was concerned more on the
content or message rather than the grammar.
2.02 23.64
31.08 37.16
6.08 3.21
7 The tasks required me to
practice my sentence and passage writing skills.
1.35 3.37
6.08 61.48
27.70 4.10
8 The passage writing tasks
enabled me to express my thoughts and ideas
0.67 2.70
12.16 64.18
20.27 4.00
regarding the topics chosen.
9 The tasks enabled me to
apply my writing skills when doing writing for
other courses besides Writing 1 or other non-
academic purposes. 2.02
4.72 12.83
70.94 9.45
3.81
10 I was required to use fully
English when giving written comments.
2.70 11.48
60.81 25
4.08 11
The website provided me with a sufficient number
of exercises and lessons to learn English grammar.
1.35 5.40
14.18 67.56
11.48 3.82
12 The teacher and
classmates‟ comments as well as corrections helped
me to understand grammar better.
1.35 6.08
22.29 58.10
12.16 3.73
13 The website provided a
sufficient number of exercises for me to write
sentences and passages. 2.70
2.70 16.21
67.56 10.81
3.81 14
The classmate‟s comments and corrections helped me
to improve my sentences and passages.
2.02 4.05
22.29 63.51
8.10 3.71
15 The teacher‟s comments
and corrections helped me make better sentences and
passages. 2.02
3.37 17.56
62.83 14.18
3.83 16
The deadlines to do each assignment were enough
for me to finish my work. 4.72
12.16 32.43
43.91 6.75
3.35 17
I was given sufficient time to revise and improve my
passages. 1.36
7.48 28.57
55.78 6.80
3.59 18
The teacher and the website provided me with
instructions and examples about how to learn using
ELTGallery effectively. 4.72
6.08 29.72
50.67 8.78
3.52 19
The teacher helped to solve my problem by
challenging my thinking, such as by not giving the
correct answer directly but providing explanation or
examples. 2.02
6.08 20.27
64.18 7.43
3.68
20 I did the grammar and
sentence practices to 4.72
10.81 66.89
17.56 3.97
improve my scores and participation.
21 I did the grammar and
sentence practices to improve my grammar
knowledge and writing skills.
2.02 2.02
10.81 66.21
18.91 3.97
22 I could always ask the
teacher for help when I had a question or problem
about writing, grammar, or ELTGallery.
4.05 4.05
23.64 54.72
13.51 3.69
23 I could always ask my
classmates for help when I had a question or problem
about writing, grammar, or ELTGallery.
2.02 2.70
17.56 57.43
20.27 3.91
24 The difficulty level of the
assignments and exercises was appropriate for my
English level. 2.02
2.70 20.94
64.86 9.45
3.77 25
I felt relaxed with the online learning situation
that the teacher set for the course.
2.70 9.45
27.02 51.35
9.45 3.55
26 I felt relaxed with the
face-to-face learning situation with the teacher
and my classmates in the classroom.
1.33 2.66
18.66 66.66
10.66 3.82
27 I could work on the tasks
given according to my own preferred time and
place. 1.35
5.40 12.16
68.24 12.83
3.85 28
I managed my own learning to keep up with
the material coverage and the schedule of the
lessons. 2.70
22.29 68.24
6.75 3.79
29 The ELTGallery website
provided me with sufficient materials and
features to learn independently.
2.02 6.75
25.67 55.40
10.13 3.64
30 I used the menus provided
by the website to check my learning progress and
participation. 0.68
3.42 15.06
69.17 11.64
3.87
From the total number of 151 students, not all students, however, completed the questionnaire. Only 148 student respondents submitted the completed
questionnaire. The table above shows the percentage number of the students‟
responses for each statement and the average score for each statement from all of the respondents. The highest score is 4.10, while the lowest score is 3.21. The
statement which gets the highest score is “The tasks required me to practice my sentence and passage writing skills
”. On the other hand, the statement with the lowest score is “When giving comments to my classmates‟ sentences and
passages, I was concerned more on the content or message rather than the grammar
”. In addition, both the percentage and the questionnaire scores show that most students responded affirmatively with the statements. It indicates that the
students experienced all of the CALL principles implemented in the web-based Sentence Writing class. To find the dominant principles applied, further analysis
was conducted. For analyzing the results of the questionnaire, the quantitative data of the
questionnaire were converted into a qualitative scale. That is, the scores of the students‟ responses were categorized into “Very high”, “High”, “Fair”, “Low”,
and “Very low” to show which principles the students experienced more intensively. The scoring criteria for the result interpretation can be seen in Table
4.3 below. The criteria were based on the results of the questionnaire and a reference conversion using PAP Penilaian Acuan Patokan approach Sukardjo,
2005. Table 4.3. Scoring criteria for data interpretation
Criteria Score
Very high 3.93
– 5.0 High
3.75 – 3.92
Fair 3.58
– 3.74 Low
3.4 – 3.57
Very low – 3.39
Based on the scoring criteria above, the average score for each principle indicator could thus be interpreted qualitatively. The “very high” score rate means that the
intensity of the CALL principle applied is very high. The “high” score rate indicates that the intensity of the CALL principle applied is high.
The “fair” score rate shows that
the intensity of the CALL principle applied is fair. The “low” score rate means that the intensity of the CALL principle applied is low. The
“very low” score rate indicates that the intensity of the CALL principle applied is very low. While the complete scores per item of the closed-ended questionnaire
results can be seen in Appendix 5, the interpretation of the CALL principles applied in the Sentence Writing class is displayed in Table 4.4 below.
Table 4.4. The score interpretation of the CALL principles applied
CALL PRINCIPLES AVERAGE
SCORES INTERPRETATION
Authentic tasks 3.97
Very high Opportunities for exposure
and language production 3.86
High Attention to the learning
process 3.79
High Learner autonomy
3.79 High
Interaction 3.76
High Atmosphere with an ideal
stressanxiety level 3.75
High Enough time and feedback
3.62 Fair
Authentic audience 3.52
Low The table above shows the score interpretation for each CALL principle. The
CALL principle applied which gets the highest score is the authentic task. In other
words, the intensity of the authentic task principle applied is very high. As for the other principles: interaction, opportunities for exposure and language production,
attention to learning process, atmosphere with an ideal stressanxiety level, and learner autonomy, the intensity of their application in the Sentence Writing class
is considered high. In addition, the time and feedback principle has fair application intensity. Next, the CALL principle with the lowest score is the
authentic audience. It also indicates that compared to the other principles applied in the Sentence Writing class, the intensity of the authentic audience principle is
considered low. Further analysis of the results will be discussed in the second part of the section.
b. Data from the interviews
Kategori