The Effectiveness of Self-Regulated Strategy Development to Teach Writing Viewed from Students’ Creativity (An Experimental Study in the Third Semester Students of English Department IKIP PGRI Madiun in the Academic Year of 2012/ 2013.

perpustakaan.uns.ac.id

digilib.uns.ac.id

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SELF-REGULATED STRATEGY
DEVELOPMENT TO TEACH WRITING VIEWED FROM
STUDENTS’ CREATIVITY
(An Experimental Study in the Third Semester Students of English Department
IKIP PGRI Madiun in the Academic Year of 2012/2013)

THESIS

Submitted to Fulfill One of the Requirements of Getting
Graduate Degree in English Education

By:
SAMSUL ARIFIN
S891108095

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATION
GRADUATE SCHOOL

SEBELAScommit
MARET
to UNIVERSITY
user
2013

i

perpustakaan.uns.ac.id

digilib.uns.ac.id

commit to user

iii

perpustakaan.uns.ac.id

digilib.uns.ac.id

commit to user

iv

perpustakaan.uns.ac.id

digilib.uns.ac.id

commit to user

v

perpustakaan.uns.ac.id

digilib.uns.ac.id

MOTTO

Believe in yourself,
Nothing will put you down

(Samsul Arifin, 2013)

commit to user

vi

perpustakaan.uns.ac.id

digilib.uns.ac.id

DEDICATION

This thesis is proudly dedicated to:

My beloved wife and daughters
Sutri Ekawati, Nasywa Jawahir M., Qurrota A’yunina,
My beloved family
Djurin, Suprihatin, Sutrisno, Suwarni, Retno, Wahyu,
Solo boarding-mates

Joni Siswo, Dedi Tri, Siti Sulastri, Dwi Rosita.

Thank you for believing in me, for always being my touchstone and for the
endless and unconditional love and support in this journey. I am incredibly
humbled and grateful for all the things that you have done for me. This would not
be possible without you. Thank you for celebrating the successes and for your
constant faith as I worked toward this achievement. I am so blessed to have each
of you in my life.

commit to user

vii

perpustakaan.uns.ac.id

digilib.uns.ac.id

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The writer’s greatest thank goes to Allah SWT for the mercy and blessing to

finish the thesis. In addition, he realizes that he is unable to finish the works, from
the preparation to the report, without contributions, support, helps, advice, and
suggestions from many people. Therefore, he would deeply like to thank to:
1.

The Director of Graduate School of Sebelas Maret University for the
permission to conduct the research.

2.

The Head of English Education Department of Graduate School of Sebelas
Maret University Surakarta for the support to finish the thesis.

3.

Dr. Abdul Asib, M.Pd, the first consultant, for the patience, valuable
guidance and time during the consultation to finish the thesis.

4.

Dra. Dewi Rochsantiningsih, M.Ed., Ph.D, the second consultant, for the
advice, suggestions, and criticism during the consultation to finish the thesis.

5.

The lecturers of English Education Department of Graduate School of
Sebelas Maret University Surakarta, for the knowledge during the study.

6.

The Rector of IKIP PGRI Madiun for the permission to conduct the research.

7.

Nuri Ati Ningsih, S.Pd., M.Pd, the head of English Teaching Department of
IKIP PGRI Madiun, for the help, support, advice, and permission to conduct
the research.

8.

The students of English Teaching Department of IKIP PGRI Madiun for the
cooperation during the research.

9.

His friends and family for the support and assistance once he met difficulty in
accomplishing the thesis.
Therefore, the writer will accept all constructive criticism and suggestion for

a better study in the future.

Surakarta, August 2nd 2013
commit to user

viii

Samsul Arifin

perpustakaan.uns.ac.id

digilib.uns.ac.id

ABSTRACT
SAMSUL ARIFIN. NIM S891108095. 2013. The Effectiveness of Self-Regulated
Strategy Development to Teach Writing Viewed from Students’ Creativity (An
Experimental Study in the Third Semester Students of English Department IKIP
PGRI Madiun in the Academic Year of 2012/ 2013). First Consultant: Dr. Abdul
Asib, M.Pd. Second Consultant: Dra. Dewi Rochsantiningsih, M.Ed., Ph.D.
Thesis. English Department, Graduate School, Sebelas Maret University.
The research is aimed at finding out whether: (1) Self-Regulated Strategy
Development is more effective than Collaborative Writing to teach writing; (2)
The students having high creativity have better writing skill than those having low
creativity; and (3) there is an interaction between teaching strategies and students’
creativity in teaching writing.
The research was an experimental study conducted at the third semester
students of English Department of IKIP PGRI Madiun in the academic year of
2012/2013, starting from October 2012 to June 2013. The population was the third
semester students of English Department of IKIP PGRI Madiun in the academic
year of 2012/2013 which consisted of 7 classes with the total of 207 students. The
samples were two classes namely experimental class which was taught using SelfRegulated Strategy Development and control class which was taught using

Collaborative Writing. To find out the sample, a cluster random sampling
technique was implemented. Each class was divided into two groups of which
each consisted of students having high creativity and those having low creativity.
To gain the data, two instruments were used namely writing test to find out the
score of students’ writing and creativity test to find out the score of students’
creativity. The two instruments were, firstly, tried out to get readable instruction.
The data were, then, analysed by using Multifactor Analysis of variance ANOVA
2x2 and Tukey test. Before conducting the ANOVA test, pre-requisite test namely
normality and homogeneity test were conducted.
There are some research findings that can be taken: (1) Self-Regulated
Strategy Development is more effective than collaborative writing to teach
argumentative essay writing; (2) The students having high creativity have better
writing skill than those having low creativity; and (3) There is an interaction
between teaching strategies and students’ creativity in teaching writing.
Based on the results of the research, it implies that Self-Regulated Strategy
Development is an effective strategy for teaching writing to the third semester
students of English Department IKIP PGRI Madiun. Therefore it is recommended
that; (1) it is better for lecturers to implement Self-Regulated Strategy
Development in the teaching of argumentative essay; (2) it is better for lecturers
to implement Self-Regulated Strategy Development to accomodate students’

creativity; and (3) it is better to use the finding of this research as a literatural
refference for other researches with different sample and different psychological
aspect.
Keywords:

Self-Regulated Strategy
Development,
Collaborative Writing,
commit
to user
creativity, experimental study.

perpustakaan.uns.ac.id

digilib.uns.ac.id

RINGKASAN
SAMSUL ARIFIN. NIM S891108095. 2013. Efektivitas Self-Regulated Strategi
untuk Mengajar Keterampilan Menulis Ditnijau dari Kreatifitas Mahasiswa
(Penelitian Eksperimen pada Mahasiswa Semester Tiga Program Studi

Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris IKIP PGRI Madiun Tahun Akademik 2012/2013).
Pembimbing 1: Dr. Abdul Asib, M.Pd. Pembimbing 2: Dra. Dewi
Rochsantiningsih, M.Ed., Ph.D. Thesis. Prodi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris,
Program Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Sebelas Maret Surakarta.
Penelitian ini bertujuan mengetahui apakah self-regulated strategi lebih
efektif daripada menulis berkolaborasi dalam pengajaran keterampilan menulis;
apakah siswa dengan kreatifitas kebahasaan tinggi memiliki ketrampilan menulis
lebih baik daripada mereka dengan kreatifitas kebahasaan rendah; dan apakah ada
interaksi antara strategi pembelajaran dan kreatifitas mahasiswa dalam
pembelajaran menulis.
Penelitian ini menggunakan model eksperimen pada mahasiswa semester tiga
prodi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris IKIP PGRI Madiun tahun akademik 2012/2013
mulai Oktober 2012 sampai Juni 2013 dengan jumlah populasi sebanyak 238
mahasiswa. Sampel penelitian ini yaitu kelas III F yang merupakan kelas
eksperimen yang diajar dengan menggunakan self-regulated strategi dan kelas III
G yang merupakan kelas kontrol yang diajar dengan menggunakan strategi
menulis berkolaborasi. Untuk menentukan sampel, tehnik acak (sample random
sampling) digunakan. Untuk mengetahui tingkat kreatifitas mahasiswa, masingmasing kelas dibagi menjadi dua kelompok yang terdiri dari mereka dengan
kreatifitas kebahasaan tinggi dan mereka dengan kreatifitas kebahasaan rendah.
Untuk mendapatkan data, dua instrumen penelitian digunakan yaitu tes menulis
untuk menentukan nilai ketrampilan menulis mahasiswa dan tes kreatifitas untuk
menentukan nilai kreatifitas kebahasaan mahasiswa. Kedua instrumen tersebut
terlebih dahulu di uji cobakan untuk mengetahui apakah keduanya memiliki
tingkat keterbacaan intruksi yang baik. Kemudian data dianalisa menggunakan
multi faktor varian dua arah (ANOVA) dan test tukey. Sebelumnya, tes normality
dan homogeneity dilaksanakan.
Hasil temuan menunjukkan bahwa self-regulated strategi lebih efektif dari
pada menulis berkolaborasi untuk pengajaran menulis; mahasiswa dengan
kreativitas kebahasaan tinggi memiliki kemampuan menulis lebih baik dari pada
mereka dengan kreatifitas kebahasaan rendah; ada keterkaitan antara strategi
pembelajaran dan kreatifitas kebahasaan mahasiswa dalam pembelajaran menulis.
Dari hasil tersebut, bisa disimpulkan bahwa self-regulated strategi efektif
untuk pengajaran menulis bagi mahasiswa di tingkat universitas. Oleh karena itu,
direkomendasikan bagi dosen untuk mengimplementasikan dan menggunakannya
dalam pembelajaran menulis untuk mengakomodasi kreatifitas mahasiswa.
Keywords:

Self-regulated strategi, Menulis berkolaborasi, Creativity,
Experimental Study.
commit to user

perpustakaan.uns.ac.id

digilib.uns.ac.id

TABLE OF CONTENT
TITLE ...............................................................................................................
ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................
APPROVAL.....................................................................................................
LEGITIMATION FROM THE BOARD OF EXAMINATION .....................
PRONOUNCEMENT ......................................................................................
MOTTO ...........................................................................................................
DEDICATION .................................................................................................
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...............................................................................
TABLE OF CONTENT ...................................................................................
LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................
LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................

i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
xii
xiii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ...................................................................
A. Background of the Study ...................................................................
B. Identification of the Problems ............................................................
C. Limitation of the Problems ................................................................
D. Statement of the Problems .................................................................
E. Objectives of the Study ......................................................................
F. Benefits of the study ..........................................................................

1
1
5
5
6
6
6

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .............................
A. Writing ...............................................................................................
1. The Definition of Writing ...........................................................
2. Writing Skill ...............................................................................
3. The Teaching of Writing.............................................................
4. Assessing Writing .......................................................................
5. Types of Writing Task ................................................................
6. Argumentative Essay ..................................................................
7. Assessing Argumentative Essay .................................................
B. Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) .................................
1. The Definition of SRSD .............................................................
2. The Implementation of SRSD.....................................................
3. The Advantages of Using SRSD ...............................................
4. The Disadvantages of Using SRSD ...........................................
C. Collaborative Writing (CW) ..............................................................
1. The Definition of Collaborative Writing ....................................
2. The Implementation of Collaborative Writing ...........................
3. The Advantages of Collaborative Writing .................................
4. The Disadvantages of Collaborative Writing ............................
D. Teaching Writing Using Self-Regulated Strategy Development
Compared to Collaborative Writing...................................................
1. General Differences of SRSD and CW.......................................
2. The Difference of Lesson Plan between SRSD and CW
in the Teaching of Writing ..........................................................
commit to user
E. Creativity............................................................................................

8
8
8
9
10
11
12
14
17
20
20
21
24
25
25
25
26
27
28

ix

29
29
30
31

perpustakaan.uns.ac.id

digilib.uns.ac.id

1. The Definition of Creativity .......................................................
2. Verbal Creativity.........................................................................
3. Measuring Creativity ..................................................................
F. Review of Related Research ..............................................................
G. Rationale ............................................................................................
1. The Difference between Self-regulated Strategy Development
and Collaborative Writing in Teaching Writing .........................
2. The Difference in Writing Skill between Students Having
High Creativity and Low Creativity ...........................................
3. The Interaction between Teaching Strategies and the Students’
Creativity in Teaching Writing ...................................................
H. Hypothesis..........................................................................................

31
32
32
34
42
42
44
45
47

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...........................................
A. The Setting of the Study ....................................................................
B. The Research Design .........................................................................
C. Population, Sample, and Sampling ....................................................
D. Technique of Collecting the Data ......................................................
E. Technique of Analysing the Data .....................................................
F. Statistical Hypothesis .........................................................................

48
48
48
49
50
51
55

CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDING .........................................................
A. Data Description ................................................................................
1. Data of Students Taught Using SRSD (A1) ................................
2. Data of Students Taught Using CW (A2)....................................
3. Data of Students Having High Creativity (B1) ...........................
4. Data of Students Having Low Creativity (B2) ............................
5. Data of Students Having High Creativity who are Taught
Using SRSD (A1B1) ....................................................................
6. Data of Students Having Low Creativity who are Taught
Using SRSD (A1B2) ....................................................................
7. Data of Students Having High Creativity who are Taught
Using CW (A2B1)........................................................................
8. Data of Students Having High Creativity who are Taught
Using CW (A2B2)........................................................................
B. Normality and Homogeneity Test ......................................................
1. Normality of Students Taught Using SRSD (A1) .......................
2. Normality of Students Taught Using CW (A2) ...........................
3. Normality of Students Having High Creativity (B1) ..................
4. Normality of Students Having Low Creativity (B2) ...................
5. Normality of Students Having High Creativity who are Taught
Using SRSD (A1B1) ....................................................................
6. Normality of Students Having Low Creativity who are Taught
Using SRSD (A1B2) ....................................................................
7. Normality of Students Having High Creativity who are Taught
Using CW (A2B1)........................................................................
commit to user

57
57
57
58
59
60

x

62
63
64
65
66
66
66
66
67
67
67
68

perpustakaan.uns.ac.id

digilib.uns.ac.id

8.

Normality of Students Having High Creativity who are Taught
Using CW (A2B2)........................................................................
9. Homogeneity Test .......................................................................
C. Hypothesis Testing.............................................................................
D. Discussion and Finding ......................................................................
1. Self-regulated Strategy Development is more Effective than
Collaborative Writing in Teaching Writing ................................
2. Students Having High Creativity have better Writing Skill
than those Having Low Creativity ..............................................
3. There is an Interaction between Teaching Strategies and the
Students’ Creativity in Teaching Writing ...................................

80

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, SUGGESTION ...............
1. Conclusion ..................................................................................
2. Implication ..................................................................................
3. Suggestion ...................................................................................

83
83
84
85

68
69
70
74
74
77

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................ 87
APPENDICES
1. Syllabi of Writing III ..................................................................
2. Lesson Plan of Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) .
3. Lesson Plan of Collaborative Writing (CW) ..............................
4. The Blue Print of Writing Test ...................................................
5. Readability of Writing Test ........................................................
6. The Blue Print of Creativity Test ................................................
7. Readability of Creativity Test .....................................................
8. The Answer Key of Creativity Test ............................................
9. The Scoring Rubric of Argumentative Essay Writing ................
10. The Score of Writing Test ..........................................................
11. The Tabulation of Students’ Creativity and Writing Score ........
12. Frequency Distribution of the Data ............................................
13. Normality Test ............................................................................
14. Homogeneity Test .......................................................................
15. Preparation for Anova Test .........................................................
16. Anova Test ..................................................................................
17. Tukey Test ..................................................................................
18. Table of Frequency Distribution .................................................
19. Table of Chi-Square ....................................................................
20. Table of Tukey ............................................................................

commit to user

xi

94
97
125
153
155
156
157
164
167
169
171
173
181
189
190
192
193
194
195
196

perpustakaan.uns.ac.id

digilib.uns.ac.id

LIST OF TABLES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

Table 2.1. Element of Structure of Argumentative Essay .......................
Table 2.2. The Scoring Rubric of Argumentative Essay Writing ...........
Table 2.3. Comparison of SRSD and CW in Teaching Writing .............
Table 2.4. The Basic Stages of Teaching Strategies of Writing .............
Table 2.5. The Implementation of Strategies in the Classroom ..............
Table 3.1. Time and Place of the Research .............................................
Table 4.1. Frequency Distribution of Data A1 ........................................
Table 4.2. Frequency Distribution of Data A2 ........................................
Table 4.3. Frequency Distribution of Data B1 .........................................
Table 4.4. Frequency Distribution of Data B2 .........................................
Table 4.5. Frequency Distribution of Data A1B1 ....................................
Table 4.6. Frequency Distribution of Data A1B2 ....................................
Table 4.7. Frequency Distribution of Data A2B1 ....................................
Table 4.8. Frequency Distribution of Data A2B2 ....................................
Table 4.9. Summary of Normality Test...................................................
Table 4.10. Summary of Homogeneity Test .............................................
Table 4.11. Summary of a 2X2 Multifactor Analysis of Variance ...........
Table 4.12. The Mean of Scores ...............................................................
Table 4.13. The Result of Tukey’s HSD Test ...........................................

commit to user

xii

16
18
29
30
30
48
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
69
69
70
70
72

perpustakaan.uns.ac.id

digilib.uns.ac.id

LIST OF FIGURES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Figure 2.1.
Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.3.
Figure 4.4.
Figure 4.5.
Figure 4.6.
Figure 4.7.
Figure 4.8

The Three Stages of Collaborative Writing ...........................
Histogram and Polygon of Data A1 ........................................
Histogram and Polygon of Data A2 ........................................
Histogram and Polygon of Data B1 ........................................
Histogram and Polygon of Data B2 ........................................
Histogram and Polygon of Data A1B1 ....................................
Histogram and Polygon of Data A1B2 ....................................
Histogram and Polygon of Data A2B1 ....................................
Histogram and Polygon of Data A2B2 ....................................

commit to user

xiii

26
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65