36
A pre-test was held on June 4, 2011. The pre-test was conducted with the purpose of testing the validity of the instruments. Two participants were selected
to evaluate the instrument. The participants were a lecturer who was conducting the lecture in and supervising Microteaching Class, and a lecturer who had
educational psychology background. The participants were chosen due to the experience of lecturing in Microteaching Class and the subject matter knowledge
the participants possess, and also the knowledge on educational psychology. Afterward, the revision of the instrument was managed soon after the pre-test
result was obtained.
E. Data Gathering Technique
In order to discover the problems of the study, the researcher distributed the questionnaires. The distribution was conducted on the final meeting of the
Microteaching Class. The distribution was done in the Microteaching Class. Thus, the distribution required the last 11 minutes of the meeting.
The participants were convinced that any of the information over them would remain confidential. Moreover, the participants were explained that their opinion
on the questionnaires would not make any changes in any matter of their Microteaching Class. The participants were also informed the purpose of the
distribution of the questionnaires. And in the end of the occasion, the participants received gratification for their involvement, engagement, and attention to
participate the research.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
37
The instruction of the questionnaires was given before the participants did the questionnaire. Since there were various types of response, the instructions were
stated clearly before the participants did the questionnaire. However, to avoid any unclear instruction, the participants were suggested to read all of the instructions
before starting giving responses to the questionnaires.
F. Data Analysis Technique
Having had the data, the researcher started analyzing it in two stages of analysis. Firstly, the questionnaire of self-report on teacher personal efficacy data
was analyzed. The first thing done was dividing the participants who were motivated to be teacher and not. It was done by counting the responses YES or
NO on the item 1. Next, the researcher tried to seek participants’ level of teacher personal efficacy after they had finished the Microteaching Course item no. 2 to
no. 26. However, there were two kinds of calculation of this part. The first method was by leveling the efficacy per each skill. Each skill was categorized into
three levels: LOW, AVERAGE, and HIGH. The standard was as the table below. Points
0 – 49 50 – 79
80 – 100 Levels
LOW AVERAGE
HIGH Table 4 The Level Standard
Afterward, the percentage of the level of each skill was calculated. The calculation was by summing the total participants who had LOW level, etc., then
divided by the total number of the participants. The formula was as below.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
38
Meanwhile the second method that was to discover the participants’ level of teacher personal efficacy was by finding the average points. The calculation used
the formula below: Σ PE
N Σ
: Sum of PE
: Point of Teacher Personal Efficacy N
: Number of Items 25 Afterward, the point of teacher personal efficacy was differentiated into
three levels. First level is LOW, in which the participant’s average point sums from 0 to 49. The next level is AVERAGE, in which the participant’s average
point sums from 50 to 79. And the final level is HIGH efficacy, in which the participant’s average point sums from 80 to 100. The leveling standard was as
the Table 4. Afterward, the participants will be classified into each level LOW-
AVERAGE- HIGH. Then it will be calculated how many participants are in LOW level, how many participants are in AVERAGE level, and how many
Σ LE x 100 Σ P
Σ : Sum ofTotal
P : Participants
LE : The number of participants who had LOW teacher
personal efficacy AE
: The number of participants who had AVERAGE teacher personal efficacy
HE : The number of participants who had HIGH teacher
personal efficacy Σ AE x 100
Σ P
Σ HE x 100 Σ P
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
39
participants are in HIGH level. Then the percentage was sought. The formula was as the formula used to find percentage of teacher personal efficacy level in the
first method. Next, the items no 27 and 28 were to clarify the self-test scale of teacher personal efficacy items no 2 up to no. 26.
For the next stage, the analysis was calculating the percentage for each response of the item no. 29 – 49. The general formula was as below.
Σ nRs Σ P
Σ nRs : Total number of the response Σ P
: Total number of the participants Finally, by separating and comparing the result of analysis between
the participants who were and were not motivated to be teachers, the influence of teacher personal efficacy on the participants’ motivation to be teacher could be
found.
G. Research Procedure
