Documents Analysis Research Instruments
Nia Kurniawati, 2014 Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
| repository.upi.edu
| perpustakaan.upi.edu
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
satisfactory, standard, satisfactory and exceed satisfactory.
Nia Kurniawati, 2014 Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
| repository.upi.edu
| perpustakaan.upi.edu
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 a dapted 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.