PERCEIVED SELF-EFFICACY VS ACTUAL PERFORMANCE: A CASE IN TEACHING WRITING.
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
BANDUNG 2014
(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
© Nia Kurniawati 2014
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
APPROVAL SHEET... DECLARATION... PREFACE... ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... ABSTRACT... TABLE OF CONTENT... LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES…...
LIST OF APPENDICES... CHAPTER I... INTRODUCTION... i ii iii iv v vi xi xii 1 1
1.1 Background of the Study... 1
1.2 Research Questions... 3
1.3 Purposes of the Study... 3
1.4 Significance of the Study... 3
1.5 Clarification of the Terms... 4
1.6 Organization of the Study... 5
CHAPTER II... THEORETICAL FOUNDATION... 6 6 2.1 Theories of Self Efficacy... 6
2.1.1 Bandura’s Socio Cognitive Theory... 6
(8)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
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
CHAPTER III... RESEARCH METHODOLOGY... 31 31 3.1 Research Design... 31
3.2 Data Collection... 32
(9)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
3.2.2 Participants... 32
3.2.3 Research Instruments... 34
3.2.3.1 Questionnaire... 34
3.2.3.2 Classroom Observations... 35
3.2.3.3 Interviews... 36
3.2.3.4 Documents Analysis... 37
3.3 Data Analyis... 37
3.4 Data Validation... 40
3.5 Concluding Remarks... 40
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 4.1.2.2 Aspects that the Lecturer Feels Less Confident in
(10)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
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 4.2.3.2. The Students’ Writing Ability on the Lecturer’s Less
Confident Aspects in TWSE...
80
4.2.3.3. The Students’ Writing Ability on the Lecturer’s
Unconfident Aspects in TWSE...
80
(11)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
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 4.5 Concluding Remarks... 89
CHAPTER IV... CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS...
91 91 5.1 Conclusions... 96 5.2 Suggestions... 93
BIBLIOGRAPHY... APPENDICES...
94 100
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
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 59
(12)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX I... A. Questionnaire Sheets...
101 106
(13)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
B. Activities Done in the Classroom Observation... APPENDIX II... Data from the Questionnaire... APPENDIX III... Data from Classroom Observations... APPENDIX IV...
The Excerpt of Observation Result...
APPENDIX V... Observation Transcriptions... APPENDIX VI...
A. Data from The Interviews (Lecturer #1)... B. Data from Interviews (Lecturer #2)... C. Data from Interviews (Students #1)... D. Interviews Codification... APPENDIX VII... Writing Rubric... APPENDIXVIII...
Students’ Writing Performance...
107 107 109 109 117 117 124 124 128 128 132 139 142 157 157 158 158
(14)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
APPENDIX IX... A. The Texts Written by the Students in Assignment 1... B. The Texts Written by the Students in Assignment 2...
160
160 162
(15)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
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 luas.
(16)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Kata Kunci: Kesenjangan, efikasi diri, Teaching Writing Self-Efficacy, performa dalam mengajar menulis.
(17)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
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, 2001).
(18)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
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 about teaching writing. However, from all of those studies about teaching
(19)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
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)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
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)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
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)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
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)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
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
This part discusses the research methodology to investigate the answers of all research questions. The research questions consisted of 1) how does a lecturer portray her perceived TWSE?; 2) how is her actual teaching writing performance?; 3) are there any discrepancy between the lecturer’s perceived TWSE and her actual teaching performance; and 4) what are the causes of discrepancy between the lecturer’s perceived TWSE and her actual teaching performance?
The case study design employed for this research. A case study is a variation of an ethnography in that the researcher provides an in-depth exploration of a bounded system (e.g., an activity, an event, a process, or an 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 research, some instruments were used to collect the data, i.e., questionnaire,
(25)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
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)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
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 students in her class were involved. By considering the students characteristics in the
(27)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
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 open-ended form (Fowler, 2002). To gain personal and academic information about the
(28)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
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 about the actual teaching performance of the respondent.The classroom
(29)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
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 the questionnaire on October 9, 2013, and the second interview was conducted
(30)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
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 delivered the materials in her teaching to the students.
(31)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
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 interpreted into two themes based on the research questions.
(32)
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.
(33)
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 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 of dta collection and analysis. According to Cresswell (2008) validating findings
(34)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
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 evaluating the results of the study.
(35)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
(36)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
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 self-efficacy. This fact answers the third question directly that there are some
(37)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
discrepancies of the respondent’s perceived TWSE in her actual teaching writing performance.
The last issue of the factors that might cause the discrepancy between the
respondent’s perceived TWSE and her actual teaching writing performance is also answered. The internal factor comes from the respondent herself. Mostly, the respondents did not meet the requirements to conduct good teaching. Ingeneral, her 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 development session, shortcourse, seminar or workshop regularly.
(38)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
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)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
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)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
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)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
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.
Gecas, V. (1989). The social psychology of self-efficacy. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 291- 316.
(42)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
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.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews. An Inyroduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. London: Sage Publication Ltd.
(43)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
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)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
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.
(45)
research-Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
based composition activities to writing improvement in the lower and middle grades. Research in the Teaching of English, 31(1), 120-150.
Salahu-Din, D., Persky, H., and Miller, J. (2008). The Nation’s report card: writing 2007 (NCES –468). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.
Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on children‟s achievement: A self- efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 93-125.
Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In J.E. Maddux (Ed.), Self- efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research and applications (pp. 281-303). New York: Plenum.
Schunk, D. H. & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence.Educational Psychologist, 32, 195-208.
Schunk, D.H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: influence of modeling, goal setting, and self-evaluation. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 159-172.
Schunk, D. H. & Meece, J. L. (2006). Self-efficacy development in adolescence. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 71-96). Greenwich, CT: Informational Age Publishing.
Setiadi, Riswanda. (2010). Self-Efficacy in Indonesian Literacy Teaching Context: A Theoretical and Empirical Perspective. Bandung: Rizqi Press.
Stein, M.K. & Wang, M.C. (1988). Teacher development and school improvement: The proces of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 171-187.
Thomas, R. M. (2003). Blending Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods in Theses and Dissertations. California: Corwin Press. Inc.
Troia, G. A., & Graham, S. (2003). Effective writing instruction across the grades: What every educational consultant should know. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 14, 75-89. (1.100)
Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher Efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education 17, 781-805.
(46)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 944-956.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248.
Van Lier, L. (1988). The Classroom and the Language Learner. Ethnography and Second- Language Classroom Research. New York: Longman Inc.
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing Writing, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Winch, G., Johnson, R.R., Holliday, M & Ljunhdahl, L. (2001). Literacy: Reading,
Writing, and Children’s Literature. Australia: Oxford University Press.
Yin . R. K. (2003). Case Study Research Design and Methods. California: Sage Publications, Ltd.
Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Attainment of self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
(47)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
(48)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
(49)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
(50)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
(51)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
(52)
(1)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing
(2)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing
(3)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing
(4)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing
(5)
Nia Kurniawati, 2014
Perceived self efficacy vs actual teaching performance : A case in teaching writing
(6)