a comparative study on the teaching of writing by paper-based portfolio learning and...

A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON TEACHING WRITING BY

PAPER-BASED PORTFOLIO LEARNING AND ELECTRONIC-BASED

PORTFOLIO LEARNING VIEWED FROM WRITING INTEREST

(An Experimental Study at SMA Negeri 2 Sampit

in the 2009/2010 Academic Year)

A THESIS

submitted as a fulfillment of the requirements for the award of Master Degree English Education Department

By:

Abdul Syahid

S890908201

GRADUATE SCHOOL

SEBELAS MARET UNIVERSITY

SURAKARTA

2010






A THESIS

submitted as a fulfillment of the requirements

for the award of Master Degree

English Education Department

By:

Abdul Syahid

S890908201

GRADUATE SCHOOL

SEBELAS MARET UNIVERSITY

SURAKARTA

2010

ii






A THESIS

By:

Abdul Syahid

S890908201

Approved by Consultants

Position Name Signature Date

Consultant I Dr. Sujoko, M. A.

NIP 130817794

Consultant II Drs. Heribertus Tarjana, M. A.

English Education Program

Graduate School

Sebelas Maret University

Head,

Dr. Ngadiso, M. Pd.

NIP 131792932

iii






A THESIS

By:

Abdul Syahid

S890908201

Approved by Team of Examiners

Position Name Signature Date

Chairman

NIP

Secretary

NIP

Member Dr. Sujoko, M. A.

NIP 130817794

Member Drs. Heribertus Tarjana, M. A.

Acknowledged by

The Director of Graduate School The Head of English Education Program

Sebelas Maret University

Prof. Drs. Suranto, M.Sc.,Ph.D. Dr. Ngadiso, M. Pd.

NIP. 131472192 NIP 131792932

iv

ABSTRACT

Abdul Syahid, S890908201. 2010. A Comparative Study on Teaching Writing By

Paper-Based Portfolio Learning and Electronic-Based Portfolio Learning Viewed

from Writing Interest (An Experimental Study at SMA Negeri 2 Sampit in the

2009/2010 Academic Year). Thesis. English Education Departement, Graduate

School, Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta.

The research is aimed at finding out: (1) the effectiveness of electronic-based

portfolio learning in improving students’ writing competence, (2) the effectiveness of

writing interest in influencing students’ writing competence, and (3) the interaction

between portfolio-based learnings and writing interest in teaching writing.

Related to the aims of the research, an experimental method was carried out.

The population was all of the tenth graders of a senior high school in Sampit, East

Kotawaringin regency. Two out of six classes consisting of 32 students respectively

were taken as the sample by applying cluster random sampling. The instruments for

collecting the data were a questionnaire on writing interest and a writing test. Before

the questionnaire was utilized, a tryout had been administered to know the validity of

the items and the reliability of the questionnaire. Pearson’s product moment

correlation coefficient was used to calculate the validity of items while Cronbach’s

alpha reliability was employed to measure the internal consistency of items on the

questionnaire. Before the writing test was taken by the students, an analysis of its

readability had been completed by asking for his colleague’s opinion and some

students at same level whether the writing test provided was readable or not. In

addition, the writer applied the readability statistics in MS Word 2007.

Based on the two formulas, it was found that all of 40 items in the writing

interest questionnaire were valid on a critical value (N = 40) of .349 and the

coefficient of the questionnaire reliability met the criterion, i.e. .942 > .349 or r obtained

> r table meaning that the questionnaire of writing interest was reliable.

After administering the questionnaire, giving eight times treatment and

administering a writing test for each class, the writer analyzed the writing test scores

of 27 % of students who had high and low writing interest in the experimental and

control groups. Multifactor Analysis of Variance and Tuckey test were applied with

significance level of 5% for the data analysis as soon as it was found that the samples

were in normal distribution and the data were homogeneous based on the normality

testing and homogeneity testing.

Based on the result of data analysis, it can be concluded that: (1) electronic-

based portfolio learning is more effective than paper-based portfolio learning in the

teaching of writing, (2) the students who have high writing interest have higher

writing competence than those who have low writing interest, and (3) there is an

interaction between the portfolio-based learnings and writing interest for the teaching

of writing.

v

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORSHIP

I whose autograph signed below:

Name : Abdul Syahid

ID : S890908210

Department : English Education

certify that the thesis, entitled A Comparative Study on Teaching Writing By Paper-

Based Portfolio Learning and Electronic-Based Portfolio Learning Viewed from

Writing Interest (An Experimental Study at SMA Negeri 2 Sampit in the 2009/2010

Academic Year) submitted as a partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award

of Masters of Education (English Education) in the Graduate School, Sebelas Maret

University, is wholly my own work unless otherwise referenced or acknowledged.

Any help that I have received in my research work and the preparation of the thesis

itself has been acknowledged. In addition, I certify that all information sources and

literature used are indicated in the thesis.

I certify that the work in this thesis has not previously been submitted for a degree

nor has it been submitted as part of requirements for a degree except as fully

acknowledged within the text.

Surakarta, January 10 2010

Abdul Syahid

vi

MOTTO

God is the only one who does not grow tired of listening to the man

(Søren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813 - 1855), Danish philosopher)

My formula is amour fati, not only to bear up under necessity but

also to love it

(Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844 - 1900), German philosopher and poet)

vii

DEDICATION

o my loving ummi, Hj. Rinti, and my caring abah, H. Syukrie

Djamal who are always with my dream.

“I am the luckiest son in the universe because I have you all in my life.”

o my wife, Leny Mahdalena, who is always my navigator.

“Without you, I am lost in the sea of life. It is also said that behind every

good man is a magnificent woman. If this is true, then I must be a good man

because you are absolutely outstanding.”

o my children: Cattleya Asya Putri (Leya), Rolihlahla Adhie

Nugraha Asya Putra (Ale), and Linus Osama Asya Putra (Ama),

who fill my life with happiness.

“I’ll always learn from you all. Am I a good learner, my sweethearts?”

T

T

T

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

All praise and honor be to Allah SWT, the Lord of the Universe, Who has

given me His blessing to accomplished the writing of this thesis.

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my consultants, Dr. Sujoko,

M. A. and Drs. Heribertus Tarjana, M. A. for their encouraging advice, invaluable

criticism, patience and time, without which the study would not have been

completed. They not only stood by me, but also inspired me to complete the project

when I doubted my ability to do so. I particularly thank Dr. Ngadiso, M. Pd., the

head of English Education Department, for being another supervisor.

I am grateful to all of the lecturers at English Education Department and my

classmates in Class A and B for having made my academic life terrific and a source

of happiness and contentment. I also would like to acknowledge the care, concern

and friendship shown to me by all of the librarians at University Library and

Graduate School Library.

I owe a debt gratitude to the Department of Education, Youth and Sports of

East Kotawaringin Timur regency for the grant of my scholarship and to the principal

of SMA Negeri 2 Sampit, Drs. Hadriansyah, M. Pd. and my colleagues at the school

for making it possible for me to take a study leave and conduct my project. I also

wish to extend my gratefulness to the students for taking part in the research and

wish them well in their future.

In doing my master degree, I was also helped by many people who could not

be completely mentioned here. I am really indebted to them all.

Finally, my heartfelt thanks go to my parents for their endless love and my

family for for having faith in me even when they do not always know what I am

doing, even when I do not know what I am doing; faith is never something that can

be underestimated. To all of you, this thesis is dedicated.

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE ………………………………………………………………………….. i

APPROVAL OF CONSULTANTS …………………………………………….. ii

APPROVAL OF EXAMINERS ..……………………………………………….. iii

ABSTRACT …………………….……………………………………………….. iv

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORSHIP ……………………………………………. v

MOTTO ………………………………………………………………………….. vi

DEDICATION ………………………………………………………………….. .. vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ……………………………………………………… viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………………………. ix

LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………… xi

TABLE OF FIGURES …………………………………………………………. xii

TABLE OF APPENDICES ……………………………………………………… xiii

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study ………………………………….. 1

B. Identification of the Problems …………………………….. 11

C. Limitation of the Problems ………………………………….. 12

D. Statement of the Problems …………………………………. 12

E. Objectives of the Study …………………………………….. 12

F. Benefits of the Study ……………………………………….. 13

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

A. The Review of Writing Competence ……………………….. 15

1. Introduction ……………………………………………… 15

2. The Definition of Writing Competence …………………. 17

3. Writing Skills ……………………………………………. 20

4. Writing – an Overlooked Skill …………………………. 22

5. Process Writing ………………………………………… 23

6. Students’ Difficulties in English Writing ………………. 34

B. The Review of Paper-Based Portfolio Learning …………… 43

1. The Nature of Paper-Based Portfolio Learning …………. 43

2. Constructivist Learning ………………………………… 46

3. Characteristics of Paper-Based Portfolio Learning ……… 51

4. Types of Paper-Based Portfolios ……………………….. 54

5. Implementation of Paper-Based Portfolio Learning ……. 55

6. Advantages of Paper-Based Portfolio Learning …………. 65

7. Disadvantages of Paper-Based Portfolio Learning ……… 67

C. The Review of Electronic-Based Portfolio Learning ………. 68

1. The Nature of Electronic-Based Portfolio Learning ……. 68

2. Constructivist Learning …………………………………. 69

3. Implementation of Electronic-Based Portfolio Learning .. 71

4. Advantages of Electronic-Based Portfolio Learning ……. 78

x

5. Disadvantages of Electronic-Based Portfolio Learning … 81

6. Points of Difference from Paper-Based Portfolio Learning 84

D. The Review of Writing Interest ……………………………. 84

1. The Definition …………………………………………. 84

2. Types of Interest ………………………………………… 87

3. Aspects of Interest ……………………………………… 89

4. Developing Sustained Interest …………………………. 89

5. Effects on the Teaching of Writing ……………………… 91

6. Raising Interest in Writing ……………………………… 92

E. Rationale …………………………………………………… 93

F. Hypothesis …………………………………………………. 98

CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A. The Aims of the Study …………………………………….. 100

B. Setting of the Research ……………………………………. 100

1. Time of the Research ……………………………………. 100

2. Place of the Research …………………………………… 101

C. The Method of the Research ………………………………. 101

D. The Subject of the Research ……………………………….. 105

1. Population ………………………………………………. 105

2. Sample …………………………………………………… 105

3. Sampling ………………………………………………… 107

E. The Techniques of Collecting Data ……………………….. 109

1. Questionnaire …………………………………………… 109

2. Test ……………………………………………………… 114

F. The Technique of Analyzing the Data ……………………… 116

CHAPTER IV. THE RESULT OF THE STUDY

A. Data Description ………….……………………………….. 15

1. Experimental Group …………………………………….. 15

2. Control Group ……………………………………………. 17

B. Prerequisite Testing ………………………………………… 43

1. Normality Testing …………………………….…………. 43

2. Homogeneity Testing ..………………………………… 46

C. Hypothesis Testing ………………………………..………. 68

D. Discussion …………………………………………………. 84

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, AND SUGGESTION

A. Conclusion ……..………….……………………………….. 15

B. Implication ………………………………………………… 43

C. Suggestion ……….………………………………..………. 68

BIBLIOGRAPHY …………………………………………………………… 123

APPENDICES …………………………………………………………… 124

xi

LIST OF TABLE

Table 2.1 Stages of Portfolio Implementation …………………………… 59

Table 2.2 Prewriting ……………………………………………………… 61

Table 2.3 Samples of Revising/Editing Checklists ……………………….. 63

Table 2.4 Six Levels of Electronic-Based Portfolio Software ……………. 75

Table 2.5 Comparison of Development Processes ……………………….. 84

Table 3.1 Time Schedule ………………………………………………… 100

Table 3.2 Research Design ………………………………………………. 105

Table 3.3 Scores of Writing Interest Questionnaire ……………………… 111

Table 3.4 Analytic Scale for Rating Writing Test ……………………….. 116

Table 3.5 Groups of Data ……………………………………………….. 117

Table 3.6 The Design of Multifactor Analysis of Variance ……………… 118

Table 3.7 Summary of A 2 X 2 Multifactor Analysis of Variance ………. 122

Table 4.1 Item Validity of the Writing Interest Questionnaire …………… 125

Table 4.2 Readability Statistics …………………………………………. 127

Table 4.3

The frequency distribution of the writing test scores of the

students or the group taught by Electronic-based Portfolio

Learning (A1) …………………………………………………. 129

Table 4.4 The frequency distribution of the writing test scores of the

students or the group having high writing interest who are

taught by electronic-based portfolio learning (A1B1) ………… 131


students or the group having low writing interest who are taught

by electronic-based portfolio learning (A1B2) ………………… 133


students or the group taught by paper-based portfolio learning

(A2) ……………………………………………………………. 135


students or the group having high writing interest who taught

by paper-based portfolio learning (A2B1) ……………………… 137


students or the group having low writing interest who taught by

paper-based portfolio learning (A2B2) ………………………… 139

Table 4.9 Descriptive Statistics …………………………………………. 141

Table 4.10 Normality Testing …………………………………………….. 142

Table 4.11 Homogeneity Testing ………………………………………… 143

Table 4.12 Summary of a 2 X 2 Multifactor Analysis of Variance ……….. 144

Table 4.13.

Summary of Tukey Test ………………………………………. 146

xii

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Stages involved in process writing ……………………………. 24

Figure 2.2 A Model of Writing ……………………………………………. 25

Figure 2.3 Top-down Choices ……………………………………………. 27

Figure 2.4 Interactive Stages of Process Writing ………………………….. 32

Figure 2.5 Quality Writing ………………………………………………… 33

Figure 2.6 Outline ………………………………………………………… 61

Figure 2.7 The Thinking Framework …………………………………….. 98

Figure 3.1 A Likert Scale …………………………………………………. 110

Figure 4.1 The histogram of the frequency distribution of the writing test

scores of the students or the group taught by Electronic-based

Portfolio Learning (A1) ………………………………………. 130

Figure 4.2 The frequency distribution of the writing test scores of the

students or the group having high writing interest who are

taught by electronic-based portfolio learning (A1B1) ………… 132


scores of the students the group having low writing interest who

are taught by electronic-based portfolio learning (A1B2) ……… 134


scores of the students or the group taught by paper-based

portfolio learning (A2) ………………………………………… 136


scores of the students or the group having high writing interest

who taught by paper-based portfolio learning (A2B1) ………… 138


scores of the students or the group having low writing interest

who taught by paper-based portfolio learning (A2B2) ………… 140

Figure 4.7 The interaction between the types of portfolio-based learning

and the level of writing interest ………………………………. 145

xiii

TABLE OF APPENDICES

(in Chronological Order)

Appendix 1. Blue Print of Writing Interest Questionnaire ………............... 167

Appendix 2. Writing Interest Questionnaire ………………………………. 168

Appendix 3. Answer Sheet of Writing Interest Questionnaire ……………. 175

Appendix 4. Blue Print of Writing Test …………………………………… 176

Appendix 5. ESL Composition Profile ……………………………………. 178

Appendix 6. Writing Test …………………………………………… 183

Appendix 7. Readability Statistics ………………………………………… 185

Appendix 8. Lesson Plan for the Experimental Group ……………………. 186

Appendix 9. Lesson Plan for the Control Group ………………………….. 208

Appendix 10. An Application of Research Permission …………………….. 230

Appendix 11. Recommendation ……………………………………………. 231

Appendix 12. List of Students in the Tryout Class …………………………. 232

Appendix 13. List of Students in the Experimental Class …………………… 233

Appendix 14. List of Students in the Control Class ………………………… 234

Appendix 15. Validity and Reliability of Writing Interest Questionnaire ….. 235

Appendix 16. Data of Writing Interest Questionnaire ………………………. 242

Appendix 17. Students of Experimental Group Sorted by Writing Interest … 252

Appendix 18. Email Accounts of Students in Experimental Group ………… 253

Appendix 19. Students of Control Group Sorted by Writing Interest ………. 254

Appendix 20. Paper-based Portfolio Builder ……………………………….. 255

Appendix 21. Correspondence with the Administrator of

www.writing.colostate.edu ………………………………….. 296

Appendix 22. Samples of the Students’ Works ……………………………… 298

Appendix 23. The Score of Writing Test …………………………………… 302

Appendix 24. Descriptive Statistics ………………………………………… 307

Appendix 25. Prerequisite Testing ………………………………………….. 322

Appendix 26. Multifactor Analysis of Variance and Tukey Test …………… 332

Appendix 27. Letter of Notification ………………………………………… 339

http://www.writing.colostate.edu/

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study

English is now widely considered to be a global language and the Indonesian

government has identified the urgent socio-political, commercial and educational

needs for Indonesian people to be able to better communicate in English. One

criterion for a language to be considered global is Crystal‘s (2003: 29) assertion that

the language is used in a number of countries, serving sometimes as a first language,

sometimes as a second or official language, and sometimes as a foreign language. By

this criterion, English has been global in scope since the 19th century. Another

measure of the global character of English lies in the number of people who speak it

as a first or second language – estimated to be 400 million for first language speakers

and more than double this number for second language speakers (Brutt-Griffler and

Samimy, 1999: 419). Kachru and Nelson (2001: 13) point out that English is used in

more countries throughout the world than any other language: ―no other language

even comes close to English in terms of the extent of its usage‖.

Kachru and Nelson (2001: 13 - 15) metaphorically divide types of English

speakers throughout the world into three groups represented by three concentric

circles: Inner Circle, Outer Circle and Expanding Circle. The Inner Circle refers to

native speakers, namely British, American, Canadian, Irish, Australian and New

Zealander who use English as their first or native language (ENL). The Outer Circle

represents users from formerly colonized countries such as India, Pakistan,

Singapore, the Philippines, South Africa, Nigeria, and Zambia, where English serves

as an official language for parts of education, governance, and the media. In this

sense, English is used as a second language (ESL) or as an intranational language.

The Expanding Circle consists of countries where English is used as a foreign

language (EFL) for international communication by non-native speakers and

includes, for example, Russia, Japan, China, Korea, Indonesia, and Thailand. In these

countries, English has varying roles and is widely studied as a school subject.

1

2

The global spread of English through the three concentric circles has taken

place in different ways. Its spread in the Inner Circle has involved migrations of

native speakers from the British Isles to Australia, New Zealand, the United States of

America, and Canada. The spread of English in the Outer Circle occurred in colonial

contexts of Asia and Africa, where English was used in new sociocultural contexts.

The spread of English in the Expanding Circle has occurred because of the impact of

advancement of science and technology, commerce and various forms of knowledge

and information.

English has become a lingua franca – a common language widely adopted for

communication between speakers whose native languages are different from each

other. Warschauer (2002: 64) puts it:

―The intersection of language with international networks and globalisation is

perhaps most evident. Put simply, global trade, distribution, marketing, media

and communications could not take place without a lingua franca. These

processes of globalisation over the last thirty years have propelled English

from being an international language…to becoming a truly global one, spoken

and used more broadly than probably any other language in world history.‖

Kachru and Nelson (1996: 88) further note that:

―…many non-native users of English employ it (English) as a common

language to communicate with other non-natives, while the interactional

contexts in which non-native and native speakers use English with each other

are fast shrinking.‖

English is thus used for many purposes and by a wide range of speakers.

First, English is used as a language for international business communication. In this

age of globalization, the market has become a global one where people conduct

business with other people worldwide. Second, English is a dominant official

language used as a means for contact among governmental institutions and agencies

such as the United Nations, the European Union, the World Bank, the International

Monetary Fund (IMF), and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development (OECD). Crystal also points out that although languages other than

English are used for communication at meetings of the European Union, English is

used as an intermediary language or ‗interlingua‘ to facilitate controversial

communications in which translating between languages is difficult or confusing

3

(2003: 81). Notably, English is the official working language of the Association of

South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) of which Indonesia is a member. Third, English

is used globally in education; as a vehicle in academic conferences and contacts; in

international tourism and air traffic control; and in entertainment, advertising, media

and popular culture (Harmer, 2001: 3). In addition, a great number of textbooks and

educational materials used worldwide are published in English.

The global nature of English has both enhanced and been stimulated by the

growth of the Internet. Because most Internet hosts are based in English-speaking

countries, particularly the United States, most web sites and communication through

the Internet are based in English. In 1997, Graddol (2000: 50) notes that English was

the medium for 80% of the information stored in the world‘s computers, and

suggests that ―English appears to have extended its domain of use to become the

preferred lingua franca for the many new kinds of user who have come on-line in the

1990s‖.

Because of the significance of English as a global language, Indonesia has

had a long commitment to teaching English at all levels of education and there are

many reasons why Indonesia needs to develop effective programs for the teaching of

English. Increasing the general levels of performance in English is now seen as an

important part of building a much more critical and independent community of

people in Indonesia. The development of a critical capacity in the workforce at all

levels is now seen as of great national importance, and the teaching of writing in both

English and Indonesian assumes a new significance as a means by which critical

capacities can be promoted.

The importance and the need for English and the teaching of English in

Indonesia have been explicitly stated in several official documents released by the

government, especially those related to education. The first document is the

Competence-Based English Curriculum, released by the Department of National

Education of Indonesia. In the rationale of this curriculum, it is stated that:

―As a language which is used by more than half of the world‘s population,

English is ready to carry out the role as the global language. Apart from being

the language for science, technology and arts, this language can become a

tool to achieve the goals of economy and trade, relationship among countries,

4

socio-cultural purposes, education and career development for people. The

mastery of English can be considered as a main requirement for the success

of individuals, the society and the nation of Indonesia in answering the

challenges of the time in the global level. The mastery of English can be

acquired through various programs, but the program of English teaching at

school seems to be the main facility for Indonesian students.‖ (Depdiknas,

2001: 1 - 2)

The curriculum further mentions the role of English in Indonesia as described

below:

In Indonesia, English is a means to grasp and develop science, technology

and arts and culture. Furthermore, English has a tremendously significant role

in founding the relationship between the nation of Indonesia and others in

various fields such as social economy, trade and politics. Therefore English

can be considered as a means to accelerate the developments of the

Indonesian nation and country (Depdiknas, 2001: 2)

Moreover, an important and interesting evidence of the significance of English

in Indonesia is the decision of the Congress of Bahasa Indonesia VII in Jakarta in

1998 (summarised by Erdina, 2001). Although the congress focused on Bahasa

Indonesia as bahasa persatuan (language for unity), the decision of the congress

stresses the prominence of English as a foreign language, and considers that the skills

of English cannot be separated from the development of human resources in facing

the globalization era. The decision of the congress, under the section Follow Up

regarding English as a Foreign Language, states:

―1) The improvement of English skills is an inseparable part of the

development of human resources in facing the globalization era. Therefore,

the availability and the use of the facilities as well as educational technology

which can support the acquisition of the target language (English) need to be

accorded a special importance. 2) The facilities and human resources for the

teaching of English in tertiary education need to be developed to strengthen

the position of the language as an effective tool in the international

constellation …‖ (cited in Erdina, 2001: 2).

The significance of English is also supported by Alwasilah, saying that

foreign languages, specifically English, function as a source language in the process

of transferring technology from other countries and ―the more people who master

English, the more textbooks and publications in bahasa Indonesia will be‖ (2000:

15). Alwasilah (2000: 8) also contends that English is important in empowering

5

someone in the society, by maintaining that those who master English tend to be

more respected than those who do not and that the latter groups of society do not get

as many economic privileges. The importance of English can also be seen in the

national school curricula, which will be taken up below.

The position of English in primary and secondary education can be depicted

as follows. In primary education (grades one to six), English is not explicitly

mentioned as a subject. However, it has become one of the subjects for the local

content. Based on the decree of the Minister of Education No. 060/U/1993 and the

policy referring to the 1994 curriculum, the teaching of English is formally

encouraged in primary schools as the subject for the local content. In high school,

English has been a compulsory foreign language subject throughout Indonesia. In

junior high schools (grades 7 - 9), English is taught in four teaching periods a week,

occupying the second highest number of teaching periods after the main subjects

such as Mathematics, Bahasa Indonesia, Science and Social Science. English also

has an important position in the senior high school curriculum. This can be seen from

the proportion of teaching periods for English in secondary education which is high.

English is taught four teaching periods a week in grade ten and eleven, one teaching

period less than Physics and Bahasa Indonesia and two teaching periods less than

Mathematics. In grade twelve, English gets a higher proportion, which is five

teaching periods a week, especially for the language program, which is 11 teaching

periods a week.

With respect to the release of the 2004 curriculum (later on adopted in the

2008 Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan), through which the genre-based

approach to teaching English is introduced to Indonesian schools, the socialization of

the curriculum which has been carried out so far by the government, involving some

teacher education institutions should lead to the promotion of teachers‘ competence

in applying the curriculum in the class. In doing so, the release of the new curriculum

will also bring about changes in the teaching practice of English in the classroom,

unlike the cases of the previous curricula.

6

Regarding the teaching of writing, specifically English writing, Alwasilah

(2001: 24) observes that writing is the most neglected skill in Indonesian schools. He

explains:

―Writing is not only less practised, but –if anything- is also taught

unprofessionally. … Writing is the most exalted language skill, yet it has been

the most neglected one in our education. Our high school and college students

are subjected to unprofessional teachers and professors. Most of the teachers

and professors lack writing skills, informed understanding of the nature of

writing and teaching strategies.‖ (2001: 25-26)

Surveying 100 freshmen representing high schools in West Java, Alwasilah

(2001: 24) concludes that (i) writing is considered most difficult to learn by the

majority of the students; (ii) students are barely exposed to the practice of writing;

and (iii) teachers lacks information and knowledge on what they should do regarding

their students‘ composition. From his findings, he further insists that Indonesian

university students‘ writing capacity cannot be expected to be good, for two reasons.

Firstly, students who enter university do not have solid English writing skills, given

the lack of provision of such skills in high school education. Secondly, colleges also

fail to demonstrate a strong commitment to the development of writing skills.

Writing is not solely the product of an individual, but is a social and cultural

act (Weigle, 2002: 19). Writing is ‗an act that takes place within a context, that

accomplishes a particular purpose, and that is appropriately shaped for its intended

audience‘ (Hamp-Lyons and Kroll, 1997: 8). In a similar vein, Sperling (1996: 55)

notes that ‗writing, like language in general, [is] a meaning making activity that is

socially and culturally shaped and individually and socially purposeful.‖ From this

perspective, learning to write involves much more than simply learning the grammar

and vocabulary of the language (Weigle, 2002: 20).

Communicative language ability or the ability to use language to achieve

genuine communicative functions consists of interaction between aspects of

language knowledge, on the one hand, and strategic competence, on the other part.

Douglas (2000: 35) defines language knowledge specifically relevant to writing as

consisting of four types of knowledge. Firstly, grammatical knowledge concerns

knowledge of the fundamental building blocks of language. Secondly, textual

7

knowledge concerns the knowledge of how these building blocks are put together to

form coherent texts. Thirdly, functional knowledge involves knowledge about how

language is used to achieve a variety of communicative functions. Finally,

sociolinguistic knowledge concerns knowledge about how to use language

appropriately in different settings.

Writing in English is generally regarded as a difficult skill by EFL students.

If the exercise is not a controlled writing exercise, the learners may not feel confident

when they write. They may find it a struggle to generate ideas in order to finish a

long essay as Indonesian education still emphasizes memorization and rote learning

and such a teaching methodology is particularly inappropriate for the teaching of

foreign languages (Todd, 2004: 15). In this educational context, Indonesian students

rarely have a chance to generate and express ideas. Therefore, writing, as a

productive skill, tends to be a serious problem for them.

The teaching of writing in the classroom in Indonesia has been modeled on

product—oriented approaches emphasizing quality of writing. Students have been

expected to create a good written product. As Nunan (1989: 36, 1991: 86-87) claims,

the classroom activities used in this approach often involve imitating or copying and

changing words from a model text to produce a new text.

In such a teaching of writing primarily focused on product, aiming at

producing ―coherent, error free text‖ (Nunan, 1999), the teachers of English

generally pay little attention to other considerations such as purpose, audience or the

processes of composing the text itself. As a result, students may be able to write a

specific text type as instructed, but are unable to apply the knowledge thus gained to

produce more varied writing as required.

In a normal English class at schools, the approach used in teaching writing is

described as product-oriented, with course books prepared by individual teachers.

The lessons revolve around the presentation of a text in terms of its text types. If a

text is a description of a place, then only the linguistic features and text organization

are presented. There are neither references to the text‘s social function nor its

register. Quite often, there are scaffolding exercises on problematic language features

and aspects of paragraph organization. However, there are no exercises where

8

teacher and students engage in any joint constructing activity, though the teacher

sometimes assigns group writing activities among students. As a result, students

eventually associate and memorize particular features with particular text types,

without actually gaining control over them. As these students progress further in

their education, they find complex writing even more difficult to accomplish. As a

teacher of English, the writer begins to investigate alternative methods to the

teaching of writing.

As stated before, English in Indonesia remains a foreign language. This has

consequences for teaching and learning as follows. For most students, English is

regarded as one subject in the school curriculum. Students usually lack exposure to

an authentic English learning environment, materials, and possibilities for engaging

with the culture of (native speakers of) the target language beyond the classroom.

Texts used in class are mostly commercial textbooks which sometimes fail to provide

authentic types of English used in real contexts. In particular, the teaching of writing

without providing an audience to whom the students‘ work can be shown and

traditional in-class writing instruction that pay little attention to the process of

writing are artificial. In such artificial English classrooms, students may take low

interest in learning and using English for ‗real‘ reasons.

It is stated by Schraw and Lehman (2009: 510) that researchers have

identified two types of interest. They further define that situational interest is

spontaneous, transitory, and environmentally activated, whereas personal interest,

also referred to as individual interest, is less spontaneous, of enduring personal value,

and activated internally (2009: 510). Moreover, Schraw and Lehman (2009: 510)

postulate that interest is significantly related to learning in three important ways. One

way is that interest increases motivation, engagement, and persistence. A second way

that interest is related to learning is through strategy use. A third way that interest

affects learning is through deeper information processing. Thus, interest plays a great

role in the students‘ learning achievement.

Underpinned by the brief theoretical foundations and encountered problems

above, the use of portfolio in improving students‘ writing competence is of great

significance. It is stated by Richards and Schmidt (2002: 406) that portfolio is a

9

purposeful collection of work that provides information about someone‘s efforts,

progress or achievement in a given area. They further assert, ―It is a learning as well

as assessment tool.‖ According to Herman and Stephen (undated: 137), it is a process

that can serve a variety of purposes. Specifically, the point of view that portfolio is a

learning tool is the bedrock of this research, in terms of theoretical and practical

frameworks.

Apart from that, in relation to the platform of portfolio as a learning tool

Richards and Schmidt (2002: 406 - 407) list some characteristics of portfolio as

applied in language learners. They are:

a. the learner is involved in deciding what to include in the portfolio;

b. the learner may revise material in the portfolio after feedback from the

teacher or others;

c. the learner is required to assess or reflect on the work in the portfolio thus

becoming aware of personal development;

d. there is evidence of mastery of knowledge;

e. it may include various forms of work, such as written work, audio

recording, video recording, etc.

Herman and Stephen (undated: 138) portray the use of portfolio as follows:

―During the instructional process, students and teachers work together to

identify significant pieces of work and the processes required for the

portfolio. As students develop their portfolio, they are able to receive

feedback from peers and teachers about their work. Because of the greater

amount of time required for portfolio projects, there is a greater opportunity

for introspection and collaborative reflection. This allows students to reflect

and report about their own thinking processes as they monitor their own

comprehension and observe their emerging understanding of subjects and

skills. The portfolio process is dynamic and is affected by the interaction

between students and teachers.‖

Therefore, portfolio-based learning encourages the students to improve their

writing competence and increases their interest in writing English. In addition,

through portfolio-based learning, the teachers of English can provide documentation

on a student's language development, especially in writing English. The collection

should include evidence of a student‘s reflection and self-evaluation, guidelines for

10

selecting the portfolio contents and criteria for judging the quality of the work. The

goal is to help students assemble portfolios that illustrate their talents, represent their

writing competency and tell their stories of school achievement (Venn, 2000: 530).

Portfolio itself can be divided into two types, namely paper-based portfolio

and electronic portfolio (―electronic portfolio,‖ 2007; van Wesel and Prop, 2008: 1).

In writing class, paper-based portfolio includes:

1. Showcase portfolios that highlight the best products over a particular time

period or course such as the best examples of different writing genres (an

essay, a poem, a short story, a biographical piece, or a literary analysis;

2. Process portfolios that concentrate on such journey of learning as

different stages of the process: an outline, first draft, peer and teacher

responses, early revisions, and a final edited draft; and

3. Evaluation portfolios that exhibit a series of evaluations over a course and

the learning or accomplishments of the student in regard to previously

determined criteria or goals such as documents tests, observations,

records, or other assessment artifacts required for successful completion

of the course (Fernsten, 2009: 694).

Secondly, an electronic portfolio, also known as an e-portfolio or digital

portfolio may be one of the above portfolio types or a combination of different types,

a general requirement being that all information and artifacts are somehow accessible

on-line (Fernsten, 2009: 694). It may include inputted text, electronic files, images,

multimedia, blog entries, and hyperlinks. With this type of portfolio, students are

able to visually track and show their accomplishments to a wider audience. E-

portfolios are both demonstrations of the user's abilities and platforms for self-

expression, and, if they are on-line, they can be maintained dynamically over time.

Before replacing a well established paper-based portfolio with an electronic

version, a comparison of e- and paper-based portfolios on their shared potential

merits such as support for self-reflection and effect on learning outcomes in a similar

ecological setting ought to be carefully undertaken. Due to the underlying theories

above, the problems encountered in the teaching of writing, and the preceding

consideration that he takes into account, the writes compares the English writing

11

achievement of the students taught using two different portfolio-based learning in a

study entitled “A Comparative Study on Teaching Writing by Paper-Based

Portfolio Learning and Electronic-Based Portfolio Learning (An Experimental

Study at SMA Negeri 2 Sampit in the 2009/2010 Academic Year).”

B. Identification of the Problems

Based on the prior section, the writer identifies some problems, such as:

1. Why do many students still get difficulties in writing?

2. What makes writing difficult?

3. What are the difficulties encountered by the students in writing?

4. How can the teacher of English as a foreign language implement a portfolio-

based learning?

5. What are the differences between the implementation of electronic-based

portfolio and paper-based portfolio learning?

6. What are the strengths and weaknesses of those portfolio-based learning?

7. Is portfolio-based learning effective to teach writing?

8. Which portfolio is best applied to get better achievement?

9. Are the students interested in learning English?

10. Are the students interested in learning writing?

11. Are students interested in writing?

12. Does the students‘ interest influence their writing competence?

13. Does portfolio-based learning make the students interested in learning writing?

14. Which students are better, students who have high writing interest or those who

have low writing interest in their English writing competence?

15. What kind of topic will be used in English instructional activity by using those

methods?

16. Is there any interaction between writing interest and English instructional

activity by using those portfolio-based learnings in student‘s English writing

skill?

12

C. Limitation of the Problems

Since there are several problems that emerge on the identification of the

problems above, the research problems are limited to the comparison between the

implementation of electronic-based portfolio learning and that of paper-based

portfolio learning in teaching writing viewed from students‘ writing interest. In other

words, the research is focused on the problems which are supposed to influence the

students‘ writing competence namely: the portfolio learning employed by the teacher

and the students‘ interest.

D. Statement of the Problems

On the basis of the previous sections, the problems of the study are

formulated as follows:

1. Which one is more effective, paper-based portfolio learning or electronic-based

portfolio learning for teaching writing?

2. Which one has higher writing competence, students who have high writing

interest or those who have low writing interest?

3. Is there any interaction between the portfolio-based learnings and the students‘

writing interest in teaching writing?

E. Objectives of the Study

This research is aimed to find out the influence of portfolio-based learning

and the students‘ interest on the students‘ writing competence. In particular, this

research is proposed to find out:

1. The effectiveness of electronic-based portfolio learning in improving students‘

writing competence.

2. The effectiveness of writing interest in influencing students‘ writing competence.

13

3. The interaction of portfolio-based learnings and writing interest in teaching

writing.

F. Benefits of the Study

After conducting the research, the writer expects that the portfolio-based

learning utilized in this research can improve the students‘ writing competence. If

interest also plays an important role for the students‘ writing competence, it becomes

a crucial thing and it cannot be neglected during the teaching-learning process to

support the students‘ competence, especially in their writing competence. The result

of the research can also inform the interaction between teaching model and students‘

interest in terms of their writing competence. If there is an interaction, it is necessary

to consider the use of a better portfolio-based learning type, which is suitable for the

students who have high learning interest or those who have low learning interest.

This study will prove beneficial to the process of English language teaching-

learning, especially in the teaching of writing, for the following parties.

a. To the researcher, it develops the researcher‘s knowledge on the development of

various techniques implemented in teaching English writing to advance another

research.

b. To other researchers, the result of this study can be a basis to carry out other

researches and a reference to study writing competence and take into

consideration in their researches. This research also gives brief knowledge to

another researcher to conduct a similar research in another school with another

research subject by using the result of this study as a starting point to conduct the

next research.

c. To the teachers of English, this research enriches the teachers‘ knowledge on the

use of various portfolio-based learnings in teaching English writing. This, in turn,

enhances teaching and learning English by providing students with a more

authentic and meaningful learning environment. A variety of learning strategies

that are applied by the teacher makes the students interested in learning English,

especially in English writing, and applying it for the real purpose.

14

d. To the students, the study is also beneficial for them to find meaningful strategy

to overcome their problems, not only in improving their English writing

competence but also in increasing their writing interest. They will be highly

interested by various strategies and techniques applied in the classroom.

e. To the school, the research is valuable in giving beneficial contribution of the

improvement of the English language teaching at school. In addition, the rapid

development of Information Computer Technology (ICT) that cannot be ignored

must be well integrated and effectively exploited in teaching-learning process to

improve the learning outcomes.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

In this chapter, the writer takes a journey into an exploration of theoretical

foundations of the research. At the outset, he journeys into the review of writing

competence. The next journey is into the review of portfolio-based learning that is

explored under such headings as paper-based portfolio learning and its counterpart,

electronic-based portfolio learning. Before ending the journey of this chapter with

hypothesis formulation, he travels the writing interest and explores the rationale of

the research.

A. The Review of Writing Competence

1. Introduction

The acquisition of a language, whether our native tongue or a second

language presumes a process in which both receptive skills such as listening and

reading) and productive skills such as speaking and writing (Richards and Schmidt,

2002: 293) intervene to affect and complement each other simultaneously. It is

through the integration of these four separate skills that learners‘ language

performance is comprehensively strengthened to attain the desired communicative

competence. In other words, the desired competence is the competence to

communicate effectively, both orally and in writing, to use language according to the

parameters imposed by the speech community in which they are inserted. According

to Hyme (in Widdowson, 1989: 132), who coined the term communicative

competence, these parameters not only involve the knowledge of composing

sentences correctly according to grammatical rules but also the possibility, feasibility

and appropriateness of the utterance.

This interactive nature of communication closely intertwines listening and

speaking skills together as they are usually the function through which the ability to

15

16

perform in another language is measured (Nunan, 1999: 225), just as reading and

writing go hand in hand and demonstrate that the leaner is part of a literate society.

However, not all four skills are regarded as equal. While speaking and listening are

the starting points in the acquisition of a language and are learned naturally, writing

and reading are ‗culturally specific, learned behaviors‘ (Brown, 2001: 334) which are

acquired only if someone is taught, much like the ability to swim. Because all of the

questions on writing and the teaching of writing are based on it, Brown‘s prologue of

Chapter 19: Teaching Writing (2001: 334 – 360) is interesting to quote:

―How is writing like swimming? Give up? Answer: The psycholinguist Erie

Lenneberg (1967) once noted, in a discussion of ―species specific" human

behavior; that human beings universally learn to walk and to talk, but that

swimming and writing are culturally specific learned behaviors. We learn to

swim if there is a body of water available and usually only if someone

teaches us. We learn to write if we are members of a literate society, and

usually only if someone teaches us. Just as there are non-swimmers, poor

swimmers, and excellent swimmers, so it is for writers. Why isn‘t everyone

an excellent writer? What is it about writing that blocks so many people, even

in their own native language? Why don‘t people learn to write "naturally,‖ as

they learn to talk? How can we best teach second language learners of

English how to write? What should we be trying to teach?‖

Another analog of writing is uttered by F. Scott Fitzgerald (1896-1940), a

famous American writer. His famous quotation goes, ―All good writing is swimming

under water and holding your breath‖ (Marc: 2008).

Brown (2001) and writers like F. Scott Fitzgerald make analogies of the

difficulties of writing to those of swimming, for even though one may learn to swim

and to write this does not imply that the skill will be mastered, even if one is

proficient in a language. Writing is not a spontaneous skill or acquired easily, in fact,

it is viewed as ‗probably the most difficult thing to do in language‘ (Nunan, 1999:

271). While speech allows the user to exploit various devices such as body

movement, gestures, facial expression, tone of voice, pitch, hesitation and stress to

facilitate communication, this is not available to the writer. Nor can the writer clarify

revise or backtrack ideas when there is miscommunication or misunderstanding

between reader and writer (Hedge, 2005: 7). Writing to be effective is dependant on

a number of features which are not shared by spoken language, not only in terms of

17

linguistic and pragmatic features but also the context in which it will be interpreted

(Nunan, 1999). Writing is a ‗complex, cognitive process that requires sustained

intellectual effort over a considerable period of time‘ (Nunan, 1999:273) as,

according to Hedge (2005), there is a need to organize the development of ideas or

information; ambiguity in meaning must be avoided through accuracy; the writer

must choose from complex grammatical devices for emphasis or focus; and finally,

they must pay attention to the choice of vocabulary, grammatical patterns and

sentence structures to create a feasible meaning and an appropriate style to the

subject matter and reader.

This section provides some definitions of writing competence, a brief

overview of process writing and how the various stages involved in process writing

may be used to address some of the previously mentioned features to help develop

students‘ writing skills. Subsequently five examples of writing will be analyzed to

assess difficulties and how the process of generating ideas, drafting and revising are

suggested to provide some possible solutions to the highlighted difficulties. The five

examples include different text types and patterns such as an informal letter, a

comparative and contrast essay, a descriptive essay, an opinion essay and a formal

letter. Some of these texts are exam specific tasks and they have all been tailored into

tenth graders as they belong to a level in which students are expected to express

themselves effectively in writing (Depdiknas, 2006: 5).

2. The Definition of Writing Competence

Gnanadesikan (2009: 1) opens her book by reminding the readers of the fact

that writing is a miracle. In the first paragraph, she emphasized:

―This sentence is a time machine. I wrote it a long time before you opened

this book and read it. Yet here are my words after all this time, pristinely

preserved, as good as new. The marvelous technology that allows the past to

speak directly to the future in this way is by now so pervasive that we take it

for granted: it is writing.‖

18

She further highlights:

―Imagine a world without writing. Obviously there would be no books: no

novels, no encyclopedias, no cookbooks, no textbooks, no telephone books,

no scriptures, no diaries, no travel guides. There would be no ball-points, no

typewriters, no word processors, no Internet, no magazines, no movie credits,

no shopping lists, no newspapers, no tax returns. But such lists of objects

almost miss the point. The world we live in has been indelibly marked by the

written word, shaped by the technology of writing over thousands of years.‖

The big question that lies and underpins the research is how to conceptualize

or define the miracle if writing is not merely writing?

Generally, writing can be interpreted as the act of forming or tracing a

character on paper or other suitable materials with a pen or pencil. Rivers (1968:

242) distinguishes writing from other skills according to the forms ranging from the

simplest to the most highly developed one. From its simplest one, writing can be

conceived as the act of putting down in conventional graphic from something that

had been spoken.

Another definition is given by Michael (1981: 10) who says that writing can

be a systematical visible and permanent representation of the auditory and transient

phenomena of speech. Byrne (1993: 24) defines that writing is a primary means of

recording speech, even though it must be acknowledged as a secondary medium of

communication.

It is more elaborately defined by Flower (1989: 54) that:

―Writing is a social act that can only occur within a specific situation. It is

therefore influenced both by the personal attitudes and social experiences that

the writer brings to writing and the impacts of the particular political and

institutional context in which it interviews, analyses of surrounding practices

and other techniques, researchers seek to develop more complete accounts to

local writing contexts.‖

In line with Flower, Nystrand (1989: 75) also states that writing is a matter of

elaborating text in accordance with what the writer can reasonably assume that the

reader knows and expects, and the process of reading is a matter of predicting text in

accord with what the reader assumes about the writer‘s purpose.

19

Harmer (2004: 86) states that writing is a process and what is written is often

heavily influenced by the constraints of genres as elements that have to be present in

learning activities.

After quoting Plato who utters that written language addresses the reader

when its author is absent and has no capacity to respond (2004: 154), Holme defines

philosophically that writing is an ability to make a form of words that in general it

may have a higher truth value than the fact that it has set it down (2004: 160).

According to Gelb and Whiting (2008) writing is a way of recording

language in visible form and giving it relative permanence. Byrne (1993: 1)

emphasizes:

―But writing is clearly much more than the production of graphic symbols,

just as speech is more than the production of sounds. The symbols have to be

arranged according to certain conventions to form words, and words have to be

arranged to form sentences, although again we can be said to be 'writing' if we are

merely making lists of words, as in inventories of items such as shopping lists.‖

He further (1993: 1) concludes that writing is a sequence of sentence

arranged in a particular order and linked together in certain ways.

Writing, more particularly, refers to two things: writing as a noun, the thing

that is written; and writing as a verb, which designates the activity of writing. It

refers to the inscription of characters on a medium, thereby forming words, and

larger units of language, known as texts. It also refers to the creation of meaning and

the information thereby generated (―Writing,‖ 2009).

According to Petty and Jensen (l980: 362), writing is the mental and physical

act of forming letters and words. But it is much more than that, it is putting words

into sentences, sentences into paragraphs, spelling word correctly, punctuating and

capitalizing in customary ways, and observing conventions in written forms and

more. Writing is a process of expressing thoughts and feelings of thinking and

shaping experiences.

The last definition refers to a process taking place in human‘s brains. That is

why the definition becomes a starting point in defining the term of writing. Writing,

thus, can be defined as a mental and physical process of expressing thought and

20

feelings by forming words into a sequence of arranged sentences leading to the

creation of meaning and the information. The writing itself is influenced both by the

personal attitudes and social experiences that the writer brings to writing and the

impacts of the particular political and institutional contexts. It is also a process that

what is written is influenced by the constraints of genre.

The term ‗competence‘ is generally defined as the ability to do something

well, measured against a standard, especially ability acquired through experience or

training and linguistically, knowledge of a language that enables somebody to speak

and understand it (Microsoft® Encarta® 2009). It is defined by Richards and

Schmidt (2002: 93 – 94) that competence in generative grammar is the implicit

system of rules that constitutes a person‘s knowledge of a language. This includes a

person‘s ability to create and understand sentences, including sentences they have

never heard before, knowledge of what are and what are not sentences of a particular

language, and the ability to recognize ambiguous and deviant sentences. They also

differentiate between competence and performance, which is the actual use of the

language by individuals in speech and writing.

They, however, add an entry of competencies related to competency based

teaching, an approach to teaching that focuses on teaching the skills and behaviors

needed to perform competencies. In this point of view, competencies are descriptions

of the essential skills, knowledge and behaviors required for the effective

performance of a real world task of activity.

Therefore, in this study writing competence can be stated as skills,

knowledge, and behaviors of writing that enable a person to express his/ her ideas,

thoughts, and feeling in a well arranged set of sentences.

3. Writing Skills

As discussed before, in order to make it operational, the construct of writing

competence is viewed under the term ‗skills‘. Skill is defined as the ability to do

something well, usually gained through training or experience and something that

requires training and experience to do well, e.g. an art or trade (Microsoft® Encarta®

21

2009). According to Richards and Schmidt (2002: 293), in language teaching, skill is

defined as the mode or manner in which language is used. Thus, writing skills are the

trained or experienced manner in which English written language is used.

Brown (2004: 220) derives a checklist of writing skills, which are what a

writer must employ in the process of writing. So they represent the specific skills

called for in smooth writing process. The comprehensive taxonomy of writing skill is

also developed from a variety of sources, including needs analysis, discourse

analysis, and related research. The following is the taxonomy of writing skills as

postulated by Brown (2003: 343).

1. Produce grapheme and orthographic patterns of English;

2. Produce writing at an efficient rate of speed to suit the purpose;

3. Produce an acceptable core of words and use appropriate word order patterns;

4. Use acceptable grammatical systems (e.g. tense, agreement, pluralization patterns

and rules);

5. Express a particular meaning in different grammatical forms;

6. Use cohesive devices in written discourse.

7. Use the rhetorical forms and conventions of written discourse;

8. Appropriately accomplish the communicative function of written texts according

to form and purpose;

9. Convey links and connection between events, and communicate such relation as

main idea, supporting idea, new information, given information, generalization,

and exemplification;

10. Distinguish between literal and implied meanings when writing;

11. Correctly convey culturally specific references in the context of the written text;

12. Develop and use of writing strategies, such accurately assessing the audience‘s

interpretation, using pre-writing devices, writing the fluency in the first drafts,

using paraphrases and synonyms, soliciting peer and instuctor feedback, and

using feedback for revising and editing.

It can be seen that the checklist can be very helpful in planning a specific

technique or writing module, focusing on clearly conceptualized objectives, and

putting testing criteria.

22

The procedures in teaching writing itself, according to Ur (1996: 162 – 163),

must take into accounts whether the writing is as a means or as end. If it is as an end,

writing is simply used as either as a means of getting the students to attend to and

practice a particular language point or as a testing method. If it is meant to be an end,

at the micro level, the students practice specific written forms at the level of word or

sentence and at the macro level, the emphasis is on content and organization. Finally,

the combination of writing as a means and an end is in the form of purposeful and

original writing with the learning or practice of some other skill or content.

Therefore, it is of importance to clarify the objective of the teaching of

writing as it determines the classification of writing activities.

4. Writing – an Overlooked Skill

The complexity of factors involved in effective writing would presume that a

substantial amount of time is dedicated to writing in language programs.

Nonetheless, as White and Arndt (1991:1) point out, ‗it has tended to be a much

neglected part of the language programme‘, despite the power of writing as a

permanent record, as a form of expression and as a means of communication. It

would seem that, in general, this may still be very true today for a number of reasons,

and when the writer refers to writing, it is the writing of whole texts, not writing

which is mainly used to assist in the learning of new structures or vocabulary on a

sentence level, used by teachers to monitor and diagnose students‘ problems (Hedge,

2005: 10).

In the era of communicative teaching, it is possible that communicative

competence is often misunderstood as only referring to oral skills when in fact

communicative competence involves all four skills in language, and writing (of

whole texts) may often be neglected by teachers and students for all the wrong

reasons: Students in the main consider writing to be important but regard writing

assignments as ―tedious‖ mainly due to:

− the design or purpose of writing activities in course books and their unrealistic or

non-authentic nature;

23

− the non-interactive nature of the activity;

− finding the process of generating ideas difficult;

− finding the process of organizing ideas difficult;

− not enjoying it when they have limited time to complete assignments, as in exam

situations

Teachers on the other hand, often pressed for time to complete a set program,

may in many instances cut writing assignments or relegate them to homework. It is

interesting to verify that writing assignments are often found at the end of each unit

in course books and may on occasions have a weak or non-authentic contextual link

to the unit. Perhaps this sub-consciously influences teachers to send them as

homework assignments with little or no prior discussion in class to provide support

or a framework that will aid students to generate ideas. Teachers may also find that

they have very little direct control over how students write, due to the intricate nature

of writing. Despite spending a substantial time correcting, making suggestions,

teachers verify that over time very little improvement occurs. Students repeatedly

make the same mistakes, whether these are linguistic or structural.

5. Process Writing

If the teaching of writing is divided into separate stages to reflect the various

moments involved in the process of writing then perhaps many of the obstacles

experienced by both students and teachers can be addressed. Writing practice in the

classroom however, is often taken up for display purposes, to assess if students have

learned language structures taught in class and for examination purposes. Here, the

teacher is concerned with the final product of writing: an essay, a report, an article or

story, based on standard models; that these meet the standard English rhetorical

style; and are grammatically correct and organized in a conventional manner (Brown,

2001: 335). Thus writing is apparently used to promote language learning, through

models, rather than to encourage creativity and communication and language

acquisition. To an extent, students simply have to follow a structure that has been

24

provided, ‗copy‘ the main structures and ‗fill in‘ the rest depending on the context or

writing task. An example might be a commercial letter,

I’m writing to inform you that…,

or report which are made up of pre-set expressions and sentences. Good writers will

manage without any real difficulty and will know how to include more detailed

information, whereas weak writers will limit themselves to the pre-set structures and

will not learn nor practice how to develop ideas and put these into words.

Process writing may be a more effective method of teaching writing as it

helps students to focus on the process of creating text through the various stages of

generating ideas, drafting, revising and editing, a number of activities which can be

represented as in the figure below.

Figure 2.1 Stages involved in process writing (Hedge, 2005:51)

White and Arndt (1991:3) describe writing as

―A form of problem-solving which involves such processes as generating ideas, discovering a ‗voice‘ with which to write, planning, goal-setting, monitoring and evaluating what is going to be written as well as what has been written and searching for language with which to express exact meaning.‖

In a simplified manner, Figure 2.2, tries to demonstrate the complex and

recursive nature of writing and the interaction between the different operations which

may occur simultaneously (White and Arndt,1991:4; Hedge, 2005:50). Cognitive

process or thinking is not linear. However, writing is linear and a writer must know

how to organize his/her thoughts and message in an appropriate manner. Many

writers often do not know what they want to write beforehand and many ideas are

only revealed once the writer has started. They then move backwards to revise and

change words or structures before they move forwards and they continue doing this

25

until they are satisfied with the end result. Thus, writing is a ‗process through which

meaning is created‘ (Zamel, 1982: 195).

Figure 2.2 A Model of Writing (White and Arndt,1991:43)

a. Generating Ideas

Many reading activities or lessons include pre-reading tasks with the aim of

activating learners‘ background knowledge (schema). This is a top-down approach

which aids students to predict the type of information they will encounter and will

help them interpret the text, as readers will only have to concentrate on what they do

not know. The same concept should be used in writing. Lessons should try to take an

organic and experiential approach, in other words, allow students to put into practice

what was taught, or discussed in class, with authentic or semi-authentic tasks. One

activity naturally flows into the next. The first part of the lesson may almost be

considered the pre-writing stage to develop ideas. An example might be a descriptive

essay which follows a lesson or section on adjectives. An opinion essay could follow

a class discussion about a specific topic. Another good pre-writing activity is the use

of brainstorming, especially if we consider the complexity of writing and how

26

generating ideas is an essential stage in the writing process (White and Arndt,

1991:17). The objective of brainstorming is to stimulate the imagination to produce

ideas on a topic or problem. This is particularly useful for those less imaginative

students who do not exercise their creative abilities frequently and thus find it

difficult to generate or recall encyclopaedic/world knowledge and link ideas

together. Is it not possible to assert that like many other skills, creativity and

imagination must be developed through practice.

Text below is a clear example of the difficulty in generating ideas as the

student limited himself to mentioning the items stated in the task assignment. The

writer of the text does not provide any additional detailed information or develop the

topic further. No motivation to write is present. This text resembles more the act of

note taking than it does a final draft as paragraphs have not been structured nor have

the ideas been developed appropriately.

Travelling by train on holiday has many advantages, but on the other hand it has

many disadvantages.

The cost depends on the train. If we are talking about an executive train, of course is

more expensive than an ordinary train.

If the travelling is to long, you can meet nice and kind people. Other advantage are

the waiters. They are very polite and sympathetic.

Moreover, trains are, in my opinion, the most comfortable vehicles.

One of the disadvantages are the rest room, sometimes, they are not very clean and

the poop are left to the train away, and it‘s disgusting.

To sum up, trains are very environmental friendly, because they can transport many

people only on one time.

White and Arndt (1991: 18) suggest that brainstorming should be unhindered

and non-critical to promote productivity and creativity. Brainstorming should be

used to identify purpose and audience (if these are not pre-set), to develop the topic

and the organization of ideas. One of the reasons why this student is unable to

perform to set standards may have been the lack of purpose or audience in his

27

writing. He does not know who he was writing to nor why. If the set task states

something similar to: ‗the school is planning a trip to Paris. Despite many requests to

fly we would prefer to travel by train. Please provide a list of advantages and

disadvantages of travelling by train on holiday to present to the student council.‘ the

task can be facilitated and the writer can compare and contrast the train with other

means of transportation. The statement can motivate the writer to ponder more on

his/her development of ideas.

Any type of writing done in real life is for a purpose with a reader in mind,

thus the interactive nature of written texts is implicit. For this reason any type of

writing task should stipulate why the student is writing to fulfill some kind of

communicative purpose, whether stimulated or real, and who for, to provide a sense

of audience, hence providing a context. Hedge point outs that when the context is

explicit, students write more effectively and appropriately (2005: 11). The sense of

audience and purpose will influence the writer with his/her choice of content,

style/genre and will determine other lower-end choices such as vocabulary and

grammatical forms or how information will be ‗packaged within a sentence‘ (Nunan,

1999:272) thus taking a top-down approach to writing. A visual display of how lower

order choices determined by higher order one is shown in the figure 2.3 below.

Figure 2. 3 – Top-down Choices

28

Dear Syahid,

I live in the centre of a town called Solo. My house is near a fantastic

bowling club and I love playing bowling!

Usually, I play bowling in the evening, after school, and in the weekends,

with my friends. Sometimes, I also play bowling with my family but, of

course, I always win!

I have joined a club too, called ―Super Bowling Club‖. There I can play with

many good bowling players and learn many things. Someday, if you want,

you can come and play with us! You will see that it‘s great!

I am waiting for you, Gatot Kaca

If Syahid is a friend then clearly he will know where the writer lives. In

addition to not mentioning the letter that is received in the opening of the letter, the

student is providing information which is shared (common knowledge) and thus

unnecessary. As the student does not take the audience or purpose into consideration,

this influences the structuring of the letter – the paragraph ‗I have joined a …‘ should

really be in the first or second paragraph. It also influences the choice of vocabulary:

this is an informal letter between friends, it should ‗sound‘ chatty as if Gatot Kaca is

talking to Syahid.

This can be accomplished with discourse markers and fillers such as ‗well‘,

‗by the way‘, ‗you know‘ instead of the ‗usually‘ and ‗sometimes‘ which make the

letter sound more like a description of a daily routine exercise. This demonstrates

how choices from the top-end affect lower-end consequences.

Another equally important outcome of brainstorming is that it encourages

interaction among students and teachers. Communication takes place within the

classroom for a real purpose – to solve a problem, gather information, whether the

brainstorming is executed with the whole class or in groups. Willis (1990: 59) argues

in favor of ‗language for real communication‘ as students present their ideas with no

predetermined language, they choose what to say and how to say it - choice is the

essence of communication. Thornsbury (1996: 282) also states that communication

29

initiated by students to negotiate meaning promotes learner involvement. It seems to

lead to more learning as students are paying attention to and are more responsible for

the activity, transforming the activity into a student-centered task which according to

White and Arndt (1991:20), promotes a cooperative approach to learning.

A simple method to prompt the process of brainstorming, to be used

individually or in group, is the use of simple questions such as ‗Who‘ ‗What‘

‗Where‘ ‗When‘ ‗Why‘ and ‗How‘ along with other more complex ones. The use of

a ―Why?‖ and ―How?‖ can prompt more detailed information for ―In the city we

have so many opportunities to study, to work, to have a better and maybe brilliant

future.”

b. Focusing, Structuring and Writing the First Draft

After the initial stage of brainstorming, student gather their ideas and

subsequently select and outline them to write the first draft. As a follow-up of

brainstorming White and Arndt (1991) and Hedge (2005) suggest the technique of

fast-writing (free-writing) and loop writing. The purpose of free-writing is to write

without any inhibition concentrating more on content rather than on form. With loop

writing the student writes about one idea, and then summarizes that stretch of text in

one sentence. This sentence then leads to another loop. This technique could help

students avoid vague statements, the repetition of ideas and help to produce natural

flowing text. An example is given below

Concentration must be paid to the global organization of the text depending

on the purpose, as information must unfold in a structured form in order to achieve

coherence. Students must be made aware of this. A good idea to help those who have

problems organizing their thoughts is to make a visual plan for the text. Most of the

problems due to structuring can be avoided during a drafting stage with explicit

30

reference to patterns of discourse organization in class and adequate feedback from

classmates. The prior choice of a discourse pattern might have also influenced the

choice of vocabulary items, as particular words have a tendency to occur with

particular text-patterns (top-down choices) (McCarthy,1991:82).

Possible structures may include:

− Problem – solution

− General – specific

− Claim – counterclaim

− Question – answer

− Cause and effect

− Chronological order

The text is usually divided into introduction, body paragraph(s) and

conclusion. In addition to being aware of the possible text structures, students should

be aware that effective paragraphs contain good topic sentences which introduce

what the topic is about as well as the purpose of the paragraph, and these should be

written in such a way as to attract the reader‘s attention. These are then followed by

supporting sentences which develop the topic.

c. Revising and Redrafting/ Editing

Revising is part of the writing process which entails assessing what has

already been written and is an important source of learning (Hedge, 2005). Sommers

(1982: 154 in Zamel, 1985: 96) states:

We need to sabotage our students' conviction that the drafts they have written

are completed and coherent. Our comments need to offer students revision

tasks ... by forcing students back into chaos, back to the point where they are

shaping and restructuring their meaning.

This is one of the most crucial and beneficial stages in the writing process,

when the most meaningful learning will take place that will aid students in future

writing as they will have the opportunity to receive feedback while the experience is

still ‗fresh in the mind‘ (Hedge, 2005: 121). In general, students receive feedback

31

from teachers the day after the writing task has been completed, mistakes are

highlighted and corrected, and suggestions for improvement are provided. In certain

occasions students may be ‗spoon-fed‘ and this may account for why there is no real

improvement in subsequent drafts or writing tasks. The teacher has done all the

work; consequently learners do not mentally correct their mistakes as meaningful

learning may not have taken place.

Once again there is an opportunity to transform this task into a student-

centered activity thus promoting real communication amongst students. Students

may work in pairs or groups and correct, provide feedback on each other‘s text. This

collaborative work generates discussion and activities which may increase students‘

awareness of problems they may have in their own writing when they have to clarify

ideas or expressions used in the text (Hedge, 2005:122). By providing students with

the opportunity to correct and provide feedback on their classmates‘ texts, they are

learning by doing and as Hedge points out (2005:18), ‗accuracy work which is

comparatively spontaneous‘ is ‗certainly more meaningful and motivating‘. Through

peer-correcting, there is also less of a chance of the teacher misinterpreting and

dictating students‘ intentions by correcting with what the teacher thinks is best and

which may not necessarily be what the student originally intended.

During the peer-correcting stage teachers have the opportunity to work face

to face with individual students, as everyone is busy doing something. This is an

excellent opportunity for teachers to take on the role of ‗facilitator‘, to provide

guidance in the thinking process without imposing their own thoughts and beliefs on

student‘s writing (Brown, 2001:340) and an opportunity to diagnose and address

specific problem areas.

This revising not only addresses such features as form, discourse

organization, paragraph structure, and cohesive devices but encourages students to be

more than just mere language learners but rather developing writers (Zamel, 1985).

It is an excellent opportunity for learners to acquire less frequent core

vocabulary, which is needed if one takes into consideration that written texts have

more lexical density than that of an oral text. Teachers may address such issues as

collocations, raise student awareness of the feasible partnership between words and

32

thus help them to make better use of the language they already know and build on it.

In addition to collocations, there are idioms, fixed and institutionalized expression

and synonyms for the interchangeable use of words used to enrich the development

of ideas, raise awareness on the syntagmatic and paradigmatic relationship between

words, the referential, metaphorical and connotational meaning of words and how

the choice of words and structures may influence the message, and how to

incorporate stylistic resources - a long list of teaching resources which goes beyond

the scope of this paper. Linguistic resources which in other teaching situations may

not have such a meaningful opportunity to be taught as students will be learning ‗by

doing‘.

To attain a good balance between all the components involved, the amount of

planning and revising varies according to the kind of writing that is required. Thus a

holiday postcard may be written spontaneously, while the process of writing a letter

of complaint to a service provider will resemble figure 3.4. It includes all the

interactive stages of process writing. Thus this process may be shorter or much

longer depending on the purpose and the audience of the text.

Figure 2.4 – Interactive Stages of Process Writing

d. Quality in Writing

All these issues are quite uncomplicated matters, but nonetheless crucial

features in effective writing which must be taught and will require plenty of time and

practice to develop. Hedge (2005: 119) divides the quality of writing into two

different groups: ‗authoring‘ made up of skills involved in the process of writing and

Figure 2.4 Interactive Stages of Process Writing

33

‗crafting‘ – skills involved in the appropriate and accurate choice of language .

Figure 2.5 lists the different components included in each group.

Figure 2.5 – Quality Writing (Hedge, 2005: 119)

It is interesting to note that criteria set by examination councils to grade

written papers are very similar in that they mark for content, organization, cohesion,

register, format and target reader (Cambridge ESOL). Thus, if students learn to

develop their skills and writing through process writing, then product writing will

improve as well.

No one ever learned how to swim by being thrown into the deep end, just as

no one will ever learn how to write simply by being told to write. Writers need to

write a lot to become good writers and they need the opportunity to practice various

types and functions of writing to develop skills and build competence and confidence

and progress toward autonomy. The various stages implied in process writing will

encourage students to exploit the language resources they possess and build on them

as they know they will not be judged or critiqued right away but will have an

opportunity to revise, improve and correct before being evaluated. It is through time

and practice and through well planned stages that we may change students‘ negative

34

views and attitudes towards writing. To sum up, the result of process writing

activities in the classroom is more than just the mere written text. Through integrated

teaching, learners‘ language competence is comprehensively fostered from different

sides so as to develop both receptive and productive skills resulting in an overall

improvement of students' language competence.

6. Students‟ Difficulties in English Writing

When discussing the difficulties students have writing in English, it is

important to first determine what the student is attempting to communicate to their

reader. A teacher can then decide which strategies to adopt to help the student

improve their writing skills to achieve their goal. These strategies can take many

forms but a ‗communicative approach‘ to language learning, according to

McDonough and Shaw (1993: 181 - 182), would involve an extension of the size of

language stretches that can be dealt with from sentence to discourse level and

―require learners to understand the overall purpose of a piece of writing, not just the

immediate sentence-bound grammatical context.‖ They state that considerations of

both ‗cohesion‘ and ‗discourse coherence‘ make up some of the criteria used when

evaluating a piece of writing as communicative or not, and that sentence-level

critiquing and grammar practice is not omitted but is ―set in the context of a longer

and purposeful stretch of language.‖

Writing, then, they suggest, is seen as primarily message-oriented, so a

communicative view of language is a necessary foundation. Difficulties students

appear to have writing in English and strategies to help them overcome these

difficulties will be discussed within this communicative context.

35

a. Some Issues on the Teaching of Writing

1) Process vs Product

The process vs. product discussion cited by Brown (2001: 320) and others is

one area where fundamental differences on what the objectives of a writing task

should be are illustrated. Are student writing compositions supposed to meet certain

standards of prescribed English rhetorical style, grammar, and audience

expectations? Or, conversely, should writing be seen more as a ‗process‘ where

learners are ―allowed to focus on content and message‖ and where ―their own

individual intrinsic motives‖ become the focus of their learning rather than the

mastery of certain structures or models? Nunan (1991: 87) comments that in the

process approach the focus is on:

―quantity rather than quality, and beginning writers are encouraged to get

their ideas on paper in any shape or form without worrying too much about

formal correctness. The approach also encourages collaborative group work

between learners … and more controversially, attention to grammar is played

down.‖

Brown quotes Peter Elbow (1973: 14-16) when attempting to highlight the

different approaches in the process vs. product debate. He states that instead of

focusing on the written ‗product‘ we should think of writing as an ―organic,

developmental process in which you start writing at the very beginning – before you

know your meaning at all –and encourage your words to gradually change and

evolve.‖ However, as Brown himself admits, the real emphasis of process writing

must be seen as ―a balance between process and product‖ since ―product is, after all,

the ultimate goal.‖ Swan (1997: 81) too, makes the point that we should teach ‗use‘

as well as ‗meaning‘ and not neglect the structural elements (for instance, lexis)

through which meaning is ultimately conveyed.

36

2) First Language Interference

Another issue related to the teaching of writing is the consideration of to what

extent a student‘s first language may interfere with their writing in a second. Brown

(2001: 323) recommends that teachers adopt a ―weak‖ position when attending to

first language interference. He suggests that student‘s ―cultural/literary schemata‖

should be thought of as ―one possible source of difficulty.‖ He adds that recent

studies in ‗contrastive rhetoric‘ have shown the significance of ―valuing student‘s

native-language-related rhetorical traditions‖ and of leading them through a ―process

of understanding those schemata, but not attempting to eradicate them.‖ He considers

this self-understanding on the part of the students may ―lend itself to a more effective

appreciation and use of English rhetorical conventions.‖ Nunan (1991: 144) also

outlines the different elements of the contrastive hypothesis where ‗negative transfer‘

and ‗positive transfer‘ refer to the interference the first language may have on the

second, but states that attempts to prove definitively this relationship have yet to be

made.

3) Audience

A third factor when discussing writing in the classroom is the notion of the

writer‘s ‗audience.‘ Callow and John (1992: 8-12) states that a communicator must

be constantly aware of the addressee as they attempt to convey their message. The

need to be understood ―prompts the communicator to be aware of the addressee‘s

initial state of knowledge,‖ and their ―continued comprehension.‖ It is these factors,

for Callow, which produce the true orientational elements in a written composition.

McDonough and Shaw cite Byrne (1988: 183) as one of several authors on writing

skills who stress that: ―writing is a process of encoding (putting your message into

words) carried out with the reader in mind.‖ The overall organization of a piece of

writing is ―best considered in relation to audience and purpose,‖ while stylistic

choices ―depend on why and for whom we are writing.‖

37

b. Discussing the Difficulties

1) Assessment Criteria

McDonough and Shaw (1993: 190) suggest that when assessing students‘

writing we need to take into account the ―appropriacy of the writing to its purpose

and its intended audience as well as topic and content criteria.‖ Brown (2001: 342)

talks of six general categories often used as the basis for evaluating student writing:

content, organization, discourse, syntax, vocabulary, and mechanics (adapted from J.

D. Brown, 1991). Brown‘s list above - where the order emphasizes the importance of

content, organization, and discourse over syntax, vocabulary, and mechanics - will

serve as a useful framework for assessment criteria.

Another important overall consideration involves the degree to which the

student writing succeeded or failed to effectively convey its message to the reader.

Bozek (1991: 29) states that difficulties of this sort arise when writers misperceive

their readers and assume that they will: ―read every word of the document and will

know what action to take as a result of the information presented in the document.‖

With these assumptions, he says, writers often produce documents which are too

long, do not clearly specify action requests, or must be read in their entirety for

readers to find key points.

2) Content

The term ‗content‘ for Brown (2001) includes how effectively a writer relates

ideas in their writing and develops those ideas through personal experience,

illustration, facts and opinions. Use of description and consistent focus in the writing

is also important.

It is apparent that lack of content negatively affects the writer‘s ability to

convey their message.

38

3) Organization

The term ‗organization‘ for Brown (1994) includes such things as effective

introductions, logical sequence of ideas, and appropriate length.

4) Discourse

For Brown (1994), ‗discourse‘ refers to such things as the student‘s effective

use of topic sentences, paragraph unity, transitions, cohesion, and rhetorical

conventions.

5) Syntax/Vocabulary/Mechanics

Syntax, vocabulary, and mechanics were all sources of writing difficulty for

the students. Even short sections of writing had a tendency to demonstrate a

combination of such difficulties. Richards and Schmidt (2002: 535) define that

‗syntax‘ is concerned with the ways in which words combine to form sentences and

the rules which govern the formation of sentences, making some sentences possible

and others not possible within a particular language.

‗Vocabulary‘ is defined as a set of lexical items, ―including single words,

compound words, and idioms‖ (Richards and Schmidt, 2002: 580).

Spelling and punctuation are the most prominent of the mechanical

difficulties in the student writing. Most are minor, but others occasionally lead to a

breakdown in fluency, or even meaning, for the reader.

c. Suggesting Strategies

1) Higher/Lower Order Concerns

Keh (1990: 297-302) distinguishes between difficulties in student writing as

either surface mechanical errors (lower order concerns, or LOC), or issues related to

39

the development of ideas, organization, and overall focus (higher order concerns, or

HOC). Keh promotes the notion of focusing on HOCs and states that: ―the rationale

here is that LOCs may disappear in a later draft as the writer changes content.‖ She

states, for example, that students may eliminate paragraphs or rewrite sentences

where surface problems existed.

2) Conferencing

One suggested strategy for helping students experiencing writing difficulties

of the HOC kind is to involve the students directly in the evaluation process. The

writing samples under discussion can be displayed by overhead projector or

distributed as copies throughout the class. Students can ask questions about the

sample including: Are the author‘s points clear? Do they give enough examples to

support their views? Do they provide a good conclusion? This is what Keh refers to

as an example of peer/group feedback and is included in a larger category known as

‗conferences.‘ Nunan (1991: 87) also comments on the classroom technique of

‗conferencing‘ and its emergence from the process approach to writing. He states:

―the aim of conferencing is to encourage young writers to talk about their initial

drafts with the teacher or with fellow students.‖ He adds that the technique draws on

principles of discovery learning and links reading with the writing process.

3) Planning

Another suggested strategy is careful planning of the assigned writing task.

Bozek (1991: 55) states that effective subject lines and headings are one way writers

can help their readers obtain the pertinent information they need from a document.

Readers can ―scan for the main ideas of a written composition and pick and choose

the sections of the document that most interest them and set their own reading

priorities.‖ He adds that proficiency in these skills on the part of the writer allows for

multiple-reader flexibility and can appeal to readers with different levels of subject

matter expertise.

40

Richards and Lockhart (1996: 65) suggest that there is a difference in

strategies used by skilled and unskilled writers and that skilled ones tend to:

―spend time thinking about the task and planning how they will approach it;

they gather and organize information; and they use note taking, lists, and

brainstorming to help generate ideas. On the other hand, unskilled writers

tend to spend little on planning; they may start off confused about the task;

and they use few planning and organizing strategies.‖

In addition, sequencing strategies such as pre-writing, drafting and revising

are generally acknowledged as assisting students in generating new ideas and plans

for their writing.

4) Pair Work

A further suggested strategy for helping students with their writing is the

inclusion of pair work in the curriculum. Students are required to comment on what

they consider difficulties in their partner‘s written composition. This can be through

employing their own schematic knowledge of written English, or by utilizing a

similar list of criteria as mentioned above (for peer/group feedback). Richards and

Lockhart (1996: 152-65) suggest that students interacting in groups or pairs are given

―the opportunity to draw on their linguistic resources in a nonthreatening situation

and use them to complete different tasks.‖ For example, in a writing class: students

may work in pairs to read each others assignments and provide suggestions for

improvement. This feedback may address content, organization, or clarity of

expression, and serves to provide information that may be useful to the student when

revising the piece of writing.

Chaudron (1988: 134) comments as well on the nature of feedback and how it

can affect student attitudes to learning: ―…the function of feedback is not only to

provide reinforcement, but to provide information which learners can use actively in

modifying their behaviors.‖ He later goes on to state that: ―information available in

feedback allows learners to confirm, disconfirm and possibly modify the

hypothetical, ―transitional‖ rules of their developing grammars‖ but that these things

depend on the writer‘s willingness to accept feedback given to them.

41

d. Discussing Potential Beneficial „Side-Effects‟

1) Overall Targets

Writing exercises must be aimed at skill building and more complex

communication as the overall targets. Faster student writing speed, increased length

and difficulty level of sentences, and heightened confidence in their writing abilities

are some of the potential benefits of such exercises. Providing as many opportunities

as possible to actually use the phrases and patterns introduced in the model writing is

one way of helping students acquire the target language. Listening to peer comments

regarding their writing, defending their work, or providing feedback themselves to

other students in the class, all serve to further exposure and enhance acquisition.

2) Tasks

Topic and concluding sentence tasks challenge students to construct a

sentence or passage based on the surrounding language context. The inference skills

and schematic knowledge required to complete such an exercise is potentially

applied to similar writing situations of their own (e.g. business correspondence, etc.).

Benefits to overall skill building include decision-making regarding the appropriacy

of certain language. Potentially, students can utilize such decision-making skills -

and whatever new vocabulary they have acquired – when revising and redrafting

their own work. Awareness of language appropriacy and certain rhetorical devices

are heightened by such tasks as students work to construct the most effective and

communicative (and thereby, grammatical) writing possible.

3) Pair Work/Peer Correction

In addition to employing the skill building techniques of reading, listening

and speaking, pair work and peer correction both allow learners the opportunity to

bring whatever schematic knowledge they have to the writing task at hand. Pairs or

42

small groups of students can assist each other when evaluating one another‘s writing.

A written composition read aloud can be checked by both the writer and others for

appropriate syntax, cadence, stress, and logical sequencing, among other things. As a

consequence, pair work and peer correction can facilitate a range of other skills.

Reading, listening and speaking skills are all utilized and therefore have the potential

to improve along with the writing skills being practiced.

4) Rewrite/Redrafts

Having a student rewrite or redraft their written document challenges them to

reassess what they are trying to achieve. Incorporating whatever suggestions others

(teacher, pair work partner, etc.) make exposes them to a high occurrence of recycled

language and this sort of repetition is thought to aid acquisition. Nunan (1991: 52)

states that such activities, especially when done as pairs, allow students to gain

insight into their own approach to learning:

A teacher who…talks about, analyses, compares, contrasts and reflects on

written texts, whether they be published texts or the students‘ own writing,

not only promotes an interest in written texts, but provides the students with a

language that enables them to reflect on and analyze written texts themselves.

It enables the students to…develop an insight into what makes one text

successful and another unsuccessful. (Hammond 1989: 19).

The suggested strategies aimed at incorporating as much reading, speaking

and listening activities as possible into their design. So, not only are the students

developing and improving writing skills they need to complete their job-related

tasks, but they are furthering their overall communicative skills in the language as

they attempt to master the complexities of English grammar, syntax and, generally,

how to convey meaning through written form.

What evolved from the above discussion is the notion that a teacher should

consider elements of both ‗process‘ and ‗product‘ in any discussion involving

strategies to assist students in improving their writing skills. Without knowledge of

writing techniques such as sequencing or repetition structures (important conveyers

of meaning) a student‘s ability to effectively communicate what they want in the

43

target language is drastically reduced. As the suggested strategies outlined above

illustrate, there are a number of ways that a teacher can make their teaching of

writing communicative while still moving learners towards a desire for accuracy.

B. The Review of Paper-Based Portfolio Learning

Barrett and Knezek (2003) make the argument that electronic portfolios

should be electronic versions of paper portfolios. The same thinking about purpose,

pedagogy and assessment lies behind both kinds of portfolio. With this in mind, the

discussion will begin with paper-based portfolios learning: the different types of

portfolio; their uses; their benefits; problems, issues and tensions that arise relating to

their use; and the essential elements that need to be present in their design to ensure

their success as learning, development and assessment tools. This section also covers

their uses in a variety of disciplines. Following this, electronic-based portfolios will

be discussed in depth: how they differ from traditional portfolios, their benefits, and

issues relating to their use. In adopting electronic-based portfolios as a medium for

student learning, certain criteria ensure success and several barriers to

implementation exist. In addition, several educational and technical considerations

are inherent when adopting an electronic-based portfolio system.

1. The Nature of Paper-Based Portfolio Learning

A simple search of the Internet using the key words "language portfolios" and

"portfolio assessment" shows how popular these concepts are in educational circles:

the former produced about 150,000 mostly European-based hits and the latter about

250,000 mostly US-based hits. Many of these articles naturally link portfolios with

personal skills like reflection.

The concept of portfolio has long existed in many fields outside the

classroom. For example, artists, architects, and photographers use portfolios to

illustrate their work to potential clients; financial advisers speak of a client`s

44

investment portfolios (Barrett, 2006: 1). In education, however, portfolios are a

relatively new phenomenon and their full potential needs to be explored.

In reviewing the literature, different definitions of portfolios are provided.

The National Education Association (1993: 41) defines a portfolio as ―‗a record of

learning that focuses on the students‘ work and her/ his reflection on that work.

Material is collected through a collaborative effort between the student and staff

members and is indicative of progress toward the essential outcomes.‖

A commonly accepted definition of a portfolio is provided by educators in the

Pacific Northwest who form the Northwest Evaluation Association (Paulson,

Paulson, and Meyer, 1990: 60):

―A portfolio is a purposeful collection of student work that exhibits the

student‘s efforts, progress and achievements in one or more areas. The

collection must include student participation in selecting contents; the criteria

for selection; the criteria for judging merit; and evidence of student self-

reflection.‖

According to Herman and Stephen (undated: 137), it is a process that can

serve a variety of purposes. It is stated by Richards and Schmidt (2002: 406) that

portfolio is a purposeful collection of work that provides information about

someone‘s efforts, progress or achievement in a given area. They further assert, ―It is

a learning as well as assessment tool.‖ Stiggins (1994: 87) also adds that a portfolio

is "a means of communicating about student growth and development" and "not a

form of assessment".

According to Barrett (2001: 110), a learning portfolio normally contains work

that a learner has collected and selected to show growth and change overtime. A

critical component of a learning portfolio is the learner`s reflection on the individual

piece of work (often called an artifact) as well as an overall reflection on the story

that the portfolio should tell. The learner‘s reflections provide the rationale that

specific artifacts are evidence of achieving the stated standards or goals.

In the context of the teaching of writing, a portfolio can be defined as ―a

collection of texts the writer has produced over a defined period of time‖ (Hamp-

45

Lyons, 1991: 262) and the collection may consist of ―selected but not necessarily

polished or finished pieces‖ (Privette, 1993: 60).

Based on the definitions above and the teaching of English writing as the

topic in this research, it can be concluded that portfolio is a purposeful learning

record of students‘ works collected through a collaborative effort between the

student and the teachers as a reflection of the student‘s efforts, progress and

achievements in English writing competence.

The next term modified by the term ‗portfolio-based‘ is learning. It is stressed

by Hohn (2005: 283) that dictionaries typically define learning as the act of acquiring

knowledge and skills through observation, study, or instruction. Mazur (2008) states

that learning is acquiring knowledge or developing the ability to perform new

behaviors. He further underlines, ―It is common to think of learning as something

that takes place in school, but much of human learning occurs outside the classroom,

and people continue to learn throughout their lives.‖

According to Wildman (2008: 573 – 579), based on the framework that looks

at learning in terms of observable behavior learning is defined as any relatively

permanent change in behavior that is not the result of normal growth or maturation.

On the basis of the second framework that views learning as a cognitive activity,

learning is defined as the acquisition of knowledge and the ability to use knowledge

to solve problems. Lastly, in the point of view on how people work and learn in

cultural settings, learning is defined not as the acquisition of knowledge but as

participation in meaningful social practices.

As can be concluded from the above definitions, learning is the process by

which change in behavior, knowledge, skills, etc., comes about through practice,

instruction or experience and the result of such a process.

As a term, portfolio-based learning applied in this research is a concept that

views portfolio as an educational concept, while a more popular term, portfolio

assessment, looks at portfolio as a concept of assessment (Dasim Budimansyah,

2003: 7). The noun phrase of portfolio-based learning is also stated by Pitts (2009) in

his article entitled How to Understand Portfolio-based Learning and van Wesel and

Prop (2008: 1) in their paper by saying that portfolio-based learning finds increasing

46

implementation in a variety of educational and professional learning contexts.

Similarly, it is pointed out that

―Also complicating research and literature regarding portfolios in education

is the fact that there are many purposes for portfolios in education: there are

portfolios that center around learning, assessment, employment, marketing,

and showcasing best work. With so many purposes for developing portfolios,

it becomes clear that the term "portfolio" should always have a modifier or

adjective that describes its purpose.‖

Thus, portfolio-based learning in this research can be defined as the process

of change in English writing competence as a result of the teaching of English

writing based on purposeful record of students‘ works collected through a

collaborative effort between the student and the teachers as a reflection of the

student‘s efforts, progress and achievements.

The traditional storage format for portfolios in education is paper-based,

usually in manila folders, three-ring notebooks or larger containers. Most often, the

artifacts are comprised of text and images on paper, although the use of video or

audio tape has been emerging (Barret: 2001). To conclude with, paper-based learning

portfolio as the title of this research can be concluded as the process of change in

English writing competence as a result of the teaching of English writing based on

purposeful printed/ handwritten record of students‘ works collected through a


student‘s efforts, progress and achievements.

The topic of the next section is on the bedrock of portfolio-based learning and

the answers for a question of ―what is it the paper-based portfolio learning for?‖

2. Constructivist Learning

As stated before, portfolios are derived from constructivist perspectives.

Constructivist learning has emerged as a prominent approach to teaching during this

past decade. Constructivism represents a paradigm shift from education based on

behaviorism to education based on cognitive theory. It is stated by Prawat (2008:

182) that constructivism is a learning theory based on the notion that students

47

actively construct knowledge. While behaviorist epistemology focuses on

intelligence, domains of objectives, levels of knowledge, and reinforcement,

constructivist epistemology assumes that learners construct their own knowledge on

the basis of interaction with their environment.

As portfolios are based on constructivist philosophy, Klenowski, Askew,

and Carnell (2006: 278) give a definition of constructivism that is useful for those

thinking of implementing portfolio assessment: ―knowledge is constructed through

activities such as participatory learning, open-ended questioning, discussion and

investigation. Facilitation helps learners construct their own schema for internalizing

information and organizing it so that it becomes their own‖.

There are two major strands of the constructivist perspective: cognitive

constructivism and social constructivism. Cognitive constructivism is based on the

work of Piaget. His theory emphasizes the need for students to have a rich

environment for exploration, thus giving students opportunities to assimilate and

accommodate new knowledge (Gutek: 2008). Social constructivism is based on the

work of Vygotsky whose theory of learning emphasizes the importance of the social

and cultural context for learning (Thompson: 2008). He claims that it is the

collaboration between people that causes learning to occur, not just a rich, interesting

environment. Although these two strands are different in emphasis, they share many

common perspectives about teaching and learning. In many cases the strengths of

one theorist complement the weakness of the other.

Developing a portfolio is an individual activity. It is the students themselves

who decide the goals and contents of their portfolios, artifacts they will use to

document their learning, and the formats they will use to develop and present their

portfolios. However, both peers and teachers play a very important role in this

process because teachers should be ready to support and provide advice to their

students, and students will learn most from their peers especially from those who had

the same experience. It can be hard for students to finish their projects without the

collaboration with their classmates. Therefore, this study will combine the ideas of

Piaget with those of Vygotsky and use the general term, constructivism, as the

theoretical framework.

48

According to constructivism, learning is an active process and should be

whole, authentic, and real. Piaget‘s theory of cognitive development suggests that

learners cannot be ―given‖ information which they immediately understand and use.

Instead, they must ―construct‖ their own knowledge. They learn by fitting new

information together with what they already know. Learners learn best when they

actively construct their own understanding. Learning is also affected by the context,

the beliefs and attitudes of the learner. Vygotsky's 1978 zone of proximal

development is the idea that human learning presupposes a specific social nature and

is part of a process by which children grow into the intellectual life of those around

them. Learners are encouraged to invent their own solutions and to try out ideas and

hypotheses (Daniels: 2001: 56). They build their knowledge through experience.

Creating portfolios helps students to continue their learning as a Dewey‘s

famous quotation goes, ―The educational process has no end beyond itself; it is its

own end‖ (Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009).

Learning, for Dewey, has different angles. In one sense, learning is a kind of

activity which includes experiencing, trying, doing, acting, observing, playing,

communicating, working, making, and studying. In another sense, learning is a

mental process involving thinking, using intelligence, making judgments, and

looking for meanings, connections and possibilities. In other words, in the process of

learning, one needs to use the mind to organize activities, and intelligence to direct

them. In addition, a learning activity is not an activity that occurs just in the mind,

although it involves the mind; it occurs in a social medium through social interaction,

especially in ―the very process of living together‖.

Dewey emphasized that learning is a social activity and should take place in a

social medium. For Dewey, social participation is a way of exchanging and

expanding experiences. Through this activity one increases one‘s social interest,

skills, understanding, and virtue which, in turn, help further learning.

According to Prawat (2008: 183), Dewey favors ‗‗the guide on the side‘‘

approach. The assumption here is that a student can create meaning only by working

in his or her own experiential workspace, the 4 or 5 inches of brain between the ears.

The role of the teacher is to quietly nudge the process along, to point out in a gentle

49

way any problems the student may be encountering in figuring out how to construe a

new experience, to bring to the fore the most important aspects of that experience,

and so forth. The type of pedagogy that best fits this view of learning is portfolio-

based learning.

Dewey believes that learning requires some outside guidance from ‗‗the

guide on the side‘‘ such as teachers, parents, or social institutions. For Dewey, since

not all experiences are educative, in order to help children to have educative

experiences, guidance from the teacher is still necessary. Dewey also advocated that

learning should meet students‘ needs. He suggested child-centered learning and

using the child‘s impulses, needs and experiences as the starting point of learning.

Piaget developed Dewey‘s idea in creating a meaningful learning

environment for students. According to Piaget, in a constructivist classroom, students

must be given opportunities to construct knowledge through their own experiences.

Less emphasis is put on directly teaching specific skills and more is put on learning

in a meaningful context.

Exploring interesting things within a classroom encourages students to

become active constructors of their own knowledge through experiences that

encourage assimilation and accommodation. Assimilation occurs when students try

to compare old information to new information they come across to see if new

information fits with older information already learned. Accommodation occurs

when students take the new information and then either save it in their mind since it

is similar to older information or try to discard the information if it doesn‘t fit with

the existing information or develop new categories to accommodate the new

information. Creating portfolios offers a vast array of such opportunities. In this

learning environment, students‘ conceptual and experiential background can be

expanded.

In addition, Pitts (2009: 1) points out:

―Educational programs most likely to be effective include interactivity,

reflection and relate to personal professional experiences. Through this,

learners are given more autonomy and responsibility for their learning.

Portfolios are an ideal vehicle for capturing such learning experiences

50

through the recording of reflective purposes and can contain a wide range of

materials and media.‖

First referred to by Dewey in 1933, and achieving expansion in the 1980s

with authors such as Schon, reflective practice has been defined as: the process of

internally examining and exploring an issue of concern, triggered by an experience,

which creates and clarifies meaning in terms of self, and which results in a changed

concept perspective (Pitts, 2009: 1). In constructivist learning theory, practical

experience is at the centre of professional learning, and it is has been suggested that

educational programs should include reflective processes based on personal

experiences. The greatest strength attributed to the portfolio approach is individuality

as stated by D‘Angelo, Touchman, and Clark (2009: 263) that Radical

constructivism proposes that the construction of knowledge takes place solely in the

learner‘s mind and on an individual level.

Based on the discussion above, that paper-based portfolio learning in the

teaching of writing is based on the learning theory of constructivism can be

concluded from the fact as follows:

1. It matches assessment to teaching. The products that are assessed are mainly

products of class work, and are not divorced from class activities like test items.

2. It has clear goals. They are decided on at the beginning of instruction and are

clear to teacher and students alike.

3. It gives a profile of learner abilities. The abilities can be viewed from three

perspectives: depth, breadth, and growth. In terms of depth, it enables students to

show quality work, which is done without pressure and time constraints, and with

the help of resources, reference materials and collaboration with others. In the

aspect of breadth, by portfolio-based learning a wide range of skills can be

demonstrated. Finally, in the perspective of growth, it shows efforts to improve

and develop, and demonstrates progress over time.

4. It is a tool for assessing a variety of skills. Written as well as oral and graphic

products can easily be included.

5. It develops awareness of own learning. Students have to reflect on their own

progress and the quality of their work in relation to known goals.

51

6. It caters to individuals in the heterogeneous class. Since it is open-ended,

students can show work on their own level. Since there is choice, it caters to

different learning styles and allows expression of different strengths.

7. It develops social skills. Students are also assessed on work done together, in

pairs or groups, on projects and assignments.

8. It develops independent and active learners. Students must select and justify

portfolio choices; monitor progress and set learning goals.

9. It can improve motivation for learning and thus achievement. Empowerment of

students to prove achievement has been found to be motivating.

10. It is an efficient tool for demonstrating learning. Different kinds of products and

records of progress fit conveniently into one package; changes over time are

clearly shown.

11. It provides opportunity for student-teacher dialogue. Enables the teacher to get to

know each and every student. Promotes joint goal-setting and negotiation of

grades.

3. Characteristics of Paper-Based Portfolio Learning

In relation to the platform of portfolio as a learning tool Richards and

Schmidt (2002: 406 - 407) list some characteristics of portfolio as applied in

language learners. They are:

1. the learner is involved in deciding what to include in the portfolio;

2. the learner may revise material in the portfolio after feedback from the teacher or

others;

3. the learner is required to assess or reflect on the work in the portfolio thus

becoming aware of personal development;

4. there is evidence of mastery of knowledge;

5. it may include various forms of work, such as written work, audio recording,

video recording, etc.

McAlpine (2006) also proposes some characteristics of portfolio as follows:

1. accentuate the positive, and generally include samples of "best performance"

52

2. show systematic evidence of student achievement

3. reflect a sample of student work over time

4. include a rich variety of style and content, and

5. encourage higher levels of reflective practice and self assessment.

Another list of portfolio‘s characteristics is postulated by Kemp and

Toperoff (1998: 1). They are:

1. A portfolio is a form of assessment that students do together with their teachers.

2. A portfolio is not just a collection of student work, but a selection - the student

must be involved in choosing and justifying the pieces to be included.

3. A portfolio provides samples of the student‘s work which show growth over

time. By reflecting on their own learning (self-assessment), students begin to

identify the strengths and weaknesses in their work. These weaknesses then

become improvement goals.

4. The criteria for selecting and assessing the portfolio contents must be clear to the

teacher and the students at the outset of the process.

5. The entries in an EFL portfolio can demonstrate learning and growth in all

language domains/skills, or can focus on a specific skill such as appreciation of

literature, or writing.

Similarly, Yance (1992) as cited by Park (undated: 1 – 2) states that all

portfolios, regardless of the particular context, share three essential characteristics.

Firstly, they are longitudinal in nature. That is, in a portfolio classroom, the teacher

sets out quite explicitly to create the time necessary for writers to develop. In

practice, what this means is that the piece initiated on Monday need not be submitted

a week or two later for a final evaluation. Instead, it can be reshaped and revised in

light of what is learned days or weeks or even a month or two later. Secondly,

portfolios are diverse in content. That is, as a system, the portfolio is open rather than

closed and its contents are intended to be diverse and inclusive. Thirdly, portfolios

are almost always collaborative in ownership. In other words, portfolios are created

collaboratively by the student as author, working with the teacher and other students

as partners, who respond to and advise the writer, helping to evaluate and rework and

53

select pieces to be submitted for the institutional assessment that fully determines the

grade.

After doing analytical reading, to emphasize the fundamentally

developmental character of a valid portfolio system, the writer set forth the following

principles and features:

1. A portfolio is a printed/ handwritten collection of work, but it is a collection that is

a subset of a larger archive. Theoretically, the archive is the whole of a student‘s

work, but more practically and more frequently, it is a subset of writing completed

in a class, a program, and a school.

2. The process by which the subset is created is one of selection, which is the second

principle of portfolios. How entries are selected varies according to the rhetorical

situation contextualizing the portfolio.

3. A third principle is reflection, the process by which a student explains his or her

learning.

4. A fourth principle is communication, in the sense that the writing portfolio, like

any portfolio, will communicate something about the writer, about what he or she

values, about the context in which the writer has worked, and so on.

Based on the characteristics above, it is necessary to indicate essential

elements of the paper-based portfolio. Kemp and Toperoff (1998: 3) identify such

elements as:

1. Cover Letter ―About the author‖ and ―What my portfolio shows about my

progress as a learner‖ (written at the end, but put at the beginning).

The cover letter summarizes the evidence of a student‘s learning and progress.

2. Table of Contents with numbered pages.

3. Entries - both core (items students have to include) and optional (items of

student‘s choice).

The core elements will be required for each student and will provide a common

base from which to make decisions on assessment. The optional items will allow

the folder to represent the uniqueness of each student. Students can choose to

include ―best‖ pieces of work, but also a piece of work which gave trouble or one

that was less successful, and give reasons why.

54

4. Dates on all entries, to facilitate proof of growth over time.

5. Drafts of aural/oral and written products and revised versions; i.e., first drafts and

corrected/revised versions.

6. Reflections can appear at different stages in the learning process (for formative

and/or summative purposes.) and can be written in the mother tongue at the lower

levels or by students who find it difficult to express themselves in English.

a. For each item - a brief rationale for choosing the item should be included. This

can relate to students‘ performance, to their feelings regarding their progress

and/or themselves as learners. Students can choose to reflect upon some or all

of the following:

What did I learn from it?

What did I do well?

Why (based on the agreed teacher-student assessment criteria) did I choose

this item?

What do I want to improve in the item?

How do I feel about my performance?

What were the problem areas?

b. For the whole portfolio (the cover letter – see above).

4. Types of Paper-Based Portfolios

In writing class, paper-based portfolio includes:

1. Showcase portfolios that highlight the best products over a particular time period

or course such as the best examples of different writing genres (an essay, a poem,

a short story, a biographical piece, or a literary analysis;

2. Process portfolios that concentrate on such journey of learning as different stages

of the process an outline, first draft, peer and teacher responses, early revisions,

and a final edited draft; and

3. Evaluation portfolios that exhibit a series of evaluations over a course and the

learning or accomplishments of the student in regard to previously determined

criteria or goals such as documents tests, observations, records, or other

55

assessment artifacts required for successful completion of the course (Fernsten,

2009: 694).

Two types of portfolios are required for this research: process portfolios and

showcase portfolios, the former to be maintained by students and the latter by the

reseracher. A process portfolio has also been referred to as a ―working portfolio‖ as

―it serves as a holding tank for work that may be selected later for a more permanent

assessment or display portfolio‖ and it is differentiated from a work folder as it ―is an

intentional collection of work guided by learning objectives‖. Showcase portfolios

(or display or best work portfolios), refer to portfolios meant for exhibiting students‘

best work. The process portfolio in the writing course thus functions as a ―working‖

Portfolio comprising everything from brainstorming activities to drafts of finished

products while the showcase portfolio functions as a record of the specific

assignments set for the successful completion of the research.

5. Implementation of Paper-Based Portfolio Learning

a. Implementation Stages

The following is the Guidelines for Paper-based Portfolio Learning in

Teaching English adapted from Kemp and Toperoff‘s (1998: 4 – 7).

1. Identifying learning goals to learn through the portfolio

The very first and most important part of organizing portfolio-based learning is to

decide on the learning goals. These goals will guide the selection and assessment

of students‘ work for the portfolio. To do this, the teachers of English must ask

themselves ―What do I want the students to learn?‖ and choose several goals to

focus on; for example, general goals such as improvement in writing

competence, and specific goals such as writing a procedure text. This stage is so

important because teachers have to know what their goals are in terms of what

the students will be able to do. Moreover, students have to know what they need

to show evidence of in their portfolios.

56

It is even better if they do this fixing of goals together with the students, asking

them, for example, what they need and want to achieve in the different language

domains and skills. They will usually show good understanding of goals ―We

should be able to correct our written mistakes.‖) and hopefully these will then

become common goals for teacher and class. Or they can give a list of goals for

the students to rank, and use the results for establishing the criteria for

assessment.

2. Introducing the idea of portfolios to the class.

Teachers of English will need to present the idea of a portfolio to their classes.

They can start by explaining the wor- from portare (carry) and foglio (sheet of

paper). If possible, they may ask an artist or a student of art, architecture or

design to bring in their portfolio; this will help convey the principle of a portfolio

as a selection of a student‘s work, showing progress in different areas or skills. It

is also a good idea to show the students examples of English portfolios prepared

by other classes, and, ideally, even a portfolio of their own (showing, for

example, the development of their work with the class).

It is worth directing students‘ attention at this stage to the main aspect of

portfolios, which is their use as a learning tool.

3. Specifying portfolio content.

Specify what, and how much, has to be included in the portfolio - both core and

options (it is important to include options as these enable self-expression and

independence). Specify for each entry how it will be assessed. The students

should be acquainted with the scoring guides/rating scales that will be used

before performing the task. Portfolio entries can take many forms - written, audio

and video-recorded items, artifacts (e.g., a T-shirt, an annotated drawing, a

model), dialogue journals, etc.

3. Give clear and detailed guidelines for portfolio presentation.

Explain the need for: clear and attractive presentation dated drafts attached

reflections or comment cards.

Explain how the portfolio will be graded and when it needs to be ready (final and

mid-way dates).

57

Remember - unfamiliar ways of teaching and assessment are potentially

threatening and confusing to students. It is important to present the portfolio

guidelines clearly, and to go over the guidelines periodically. Although all the

guidelines - goals, content, timetable, etc. should be presented to the class orally,

so that they can discuss the procedure and ask questions, there should also be

written guidelines to back-up the points discussed and for reference while

preparing the portfolio. It is helpful to prepare these guidelines in question-and-

answer form. These can be written in the student‘s mother tongue if necessary.

4. Notify other interested parties.

Make sure that the school principal is aware of the new learning procedures. It is

also a good idea to inform parents about the portfolio-based learning and allow

them to comment on the work.

5. Preparation Period

Support and encouragement are required by both teacher and students at this

stage. The students will get it from the understanding teacher. Teachers will get it

by doing portfolio-based learning as teamwork in their staff or joining or

initiating a support group to discuss questions with colleagues as they arise.

Devote class-time to student-teacher conferences, to practicing reflection and

self-assessment and to portfolio preparation, since these may be new skills for

most students.

Reflection and self-assessment do not come naturally to people who have had

little practice in it, and require learner training. For example, encourage them to

ask themselves: What did I learn from that activity? Which is my best piece?

How can I improve this? This can be done by class brainstorming (what are some

possible reasons for including an item in your portfolio?) or in pairs - ―portfolio

partners‖ - who help each other select samples of their work (written comments

on their work from a peer can also be included in the portfolio). Teachers should

start with more structured forms of reflection and slowly proceed to more open

reflective comments. This is training in a life-skill, and is well worth the time and

effort spent in class. Give guiding feedback. The finished portfolio may be due

only at the end of the semester, but it is a good idea to set regular dates at which

58

time several portfolio-ready items (i.e. with drafts and reflections) will be handed

in, so that students know whether they are on the right track. Alternatively, the

teacher can have a portfolio project on a single unit of material so that both

teacher and students will acquire experience in this kind of learning over a

shorter period of time. Ownership: To ensure that the portfolio represents the

student‘s own work, some items can be done completely in class. The teacher

might also decide to have a test (preferably with corrected version) included as a

core item together with reflection on what the student learned from doing the test

and revising it. Furthermore, the teacher may ask the students to explain in their

reflections who helped them to improve their work (a peer, a parent, a spell-

checker) and what they learned from revising their work.

6. Assessing the portfolios and giving feedback.

Each portfolio entry needs to be assessed with reference to its specific goal(s).

Since the goals and weighting of the various portfolio components have been

clearly fixed in advance, assessing the portfolios is not difficult.

Self and peer-assessment can be used too as a tool for formative evaluation, with

the students having to justify their grade with reference to the goals and to

specific pages in the portfolio. This actually makes the teacher‘s job of assessing

the portfolio much simpler, because the pupil has done the groundwork of

proving how far each goal is met in the portfolio. It takes some of the burden off

the teacher and helps students to internalize criteria for quality work. Students

can even generate their own report cards based on their portfolios.

After all the efforts that the students have invested in their portfolios, it is

recommended that the teacher provides feedback on the portfolios that is more

than just a grade. One possibility is to write a letter about the portfolio, which

details strengths and weaknesses and generates a profile of a student‘s ability,

which is then added to the portfolio. Another option is to prepare certificates

which comment on the portfolio strengths and suggest future goals.

7. Student-teacher conferences.

An important element of the portfolio philosophy of shared and active

assessment is that the teacher should have short individual meetings with each

59

pupil, in which progress is discussed and goals are set for a future meeting.

Students and teachers should document these meetings and keep the goals in

mind when choosing topics for future meetings. In this way student-teacher

conferences play an important role in the formative evaluation of a student‘s

progress. They can also be used for summative evaluation purposes when the

student presents his final portfolio product and together with the teacher decides

on a final grade. This is a student‘s chance to negotiate the portfolio grade using

evidence of achievement according to the agreed goals. Notes from these

conferences can be included in the portfolio as they contain joint decisions about

the individual‘s strengths and weaknesses. These conferences can be prepared for

in pairs, where students practice presenting their portfolios.

8. Follow-up.

After the portfolios are complete, it is a good idea to have an exhibition of

portfolios and/or student-led parent-teacher conferences, in which students

present their portfolios to their parents.

b) Paper-Based Portfolio Learning for the Teaching of Writing

In assessing writing competence through portfolios, the following will

explain the stages of one activity from beginning to end and show how the portfolio-

based learning can be implemented in the classroom:

Table 2.1 – Stages of Portfolio Implementation

Goal

Sample Classroom

Activity

Portfolio Evidence

Assessment Tools

Correct copying

Transfer selected

information from

text

Handwriting

sample, ―a text I

copied‖

Teacher/peer

compliment

60

Goal

Sample Classroom

Activity

Portfolio Evidence

Assessment Tools

Expressing feelings

and ideas

Write caption

describing favorite

person or object

Write about hobby,

favorite person etc.

+ comment (why I

like it/her)

Dialogue journal

entry

Project – me/my

family/neighbour-

hood etc. (first

draft, revised/

edited draft, final

written product)

Journal

Rating scale,

Self/peer

assessment with

revising/editing

checklists

Teacher‘s log

(minimum/partial/

maximum

investment)

Convey factual

message

Write note/ caption

/ad/ newspaper

article

Written product

with first draft,

revised/edited draft

and final copy

Teacher‘s rating

scale, Self/peer

assessment with

revising and

editing checklists

Review and reflect Write guided

comment card on

task

Explain why

favorite task was

included

Write cover letter

(Guided) comment

card on task

Cover letter

Scale to assess

quality of

reflection

(clear/partial/poor

evidence of review

and reflection)

Supplement: Process writing

Portfolio assessment and process writing are natural partners, since both

show effort and development very clearly. This supplement will introduce the way

how to apply some principles and techniques of process writing. Process writing is

an approach to teaching writing which tries to simulate the process that many writers

go through in their native language. In this way it does not only focus on the final

product but also on the stages along the way, such as gathering ideas, noting them

down, reorganizing and rephrasing them and preparing a final, accurate version. In

other words, process writing marks a shift from exclusive emphasis on the products

of writing to emphasis on the process of writing and on interactive learning between

61

teachers and students and among students themselves. The five stages of the writing

process can be referred to as:

1. Prewriting

Before students start on their writing task, it is important to define the three

corner stones of any piece of writing: the audience, the purpose and the form.

In real life, every piece of writing is influenced by who it is written for (its audience)

and why it is being written (its purpose). It is helpful to reproduce this procedure in

the classroom. For example, instead of telling the students "Write a composition

about your holiday", the instructions could be "Write a postcard to a friend about

how you are spending your holiday". Some examples:

Table 2.2 - Prewriting

Audience Purpose Form

a firm

to complain about a faulty

item purchased

a letter

your mother

to inform about your

absence

a note

the general public to report an accident a newspaper article

Prewriting helps to stimulate student interest, develops concepts and ideas,

and gives students confidence. Some prewriting activities are brainstorming,

mapping, listing and outlining. Samples of pre-writing tools:

Figure 2.6 - Outline

62

The tree outline can help prepare pupils in writing a description (e.g., My cat

Icha), where the different branches represent the different paragraphs (e.g., his

physical description, how I look after him, why I love him so much)

2. Drafting

Writing the first draft enables the student to write freely and without frustration. It

is important that the student puts the message down as soon as possible after the

prewriting stage without worrying about grammar, spelling or punctuation.

Some guidelines for students:

1. Write the draft immediately after the prewriting stage.

2. Write on every other line.

3. Don't worry about mistakes at this stage.

4. Complete the draft in class.

3. Revising/ Editing

Revision gives the student the opportunity to:

1. Improve the content

2. Improve the organization

63

3. Improve the sentence structure

4. Make vocabulary more exact

5. Reduce sentences for conciseness or expand for clarification

Editing eliminates or reduces spelling, grammar and punctuation mistakes. During

this stage teacher's feedback is important and valuable. A few suggestions:

1. Make concrete suggestions for improvement in an encouraging way.

2. Have students share their writing with a partner or small group.

3. Use a writing improvement checklist, such as the ―Story Checklist‖ below.

4. Use a mechanics checklist, such as the ―Self and Peer Editing Checklist‖.

Table 2.3 - Samples of Revising/Editing Checklists

Self Assessment Revising Checklist for Story

Name _______________ Title __________________ Date __________

Directions: Read the story to yourself. Then check your story for each item below.

Make any changes to make your story better.

1. ……………..... The title goes with my story.

2. ……………..... I like the beginning.

3. ………………. I used good descriptive words to describe what I meant.

4. ………………. Each sentence makes sense.

5. ………………. The order is logical.

6. ………………. I like the ending.

64

5. Publishing/ Sharing

Some suggestions:

1. a class/school magazine

2. thank you letters

3. letters to authors of books read

65

4. letters to celebrities

5. e-mail projects with other schools

6. bulletin boards

7. booklets for others to enjoy

6. Advantages of Paper-Based Portfolio Learning

Portfolios have great value for the student. Because the collection of artifacts

should be driven mainly by the student; it is bottom-up, reflective, intrinsic and

meaningful, thus, self-motivational. Engel (1996: 25) states, ―Portfolios allow

children to express themselves. Even if students are told what artifacts that are to be

used, in the reflection portion the students can tell why they did the artifact as they

did‖.

Portfolios also allow for individualization; the brightest and best students

will still be allowed to express themselves fully, but portfolios will allow the more

reserved students to come to the front of the class, as well. Engel (1996: 25) notes:

―Many children are inexpressive in schools; portfolios allow them to be

expressive. Characteristics and habits of mind, although not always acquired

in school, can, nonetheless, be sustained there. Curiosity, confidence, and

imagination must be recognized, valued, and given opportunity for

expression. These are the sources of energy, not only for school learning, but

for lifelong learning. . . . Portfolios can capture and reveal significant aspects

of personal meaning. When reviewing portfolios with children, teachers find

that they are indeed using ‗new instruments and looking in new places‘. The

new instruments are the portfolios themselves. The new places are the

products of the active, creative, energetic, imaginative, constructive, and

meaning-making minds of children.‖

Portfolios also have the advantage of maintaining a students‘ work for an

extended period of time. This is a significant dynamic, which deserves emphasis.

Without a systematic scheme for retaining students‘ work it can be rightfully

assumed that once papers and assignments are returned to students this same work

often fails to make its way out of the classroom. Instead, the work might be

deposited in the trash, or even just left strewn about the classroom. Essential learning

opportunities are wasted with this type of practice. Wolf (1996: 108) states:

66

―The use of portfolios engages students in constructing a story--a long-term

account--of what and how they learn. As they page through their collections

in April or June, they are struck by what they have learned. But that in itself

is a story. With time, experience, and conversation, students‘ ability to read

their own portfolios with depth and understanding also develops. Early on,

students appraise their own work using only standard and flat-footed criteria:

neatness, length, or the grade written at the top. As little as six months later,

they notice and care about a widened range of characteristics. Their judgment

is variegated; they know a piece of work can open with fireworks and fizzle

in closing.‖

Further, portfolios may: 1) represent a wide rage of student work in a given

content area, 2) engage students in self-assessment and goal setting, 3) allow for

student differences, 4) foster collaborative assessment, 5) focus on improvement,

effort, and achievement, 6) link assessment and teaching to learning 7) focus on

actual pieces of student work, not approximations supplied by a score on a

standardized test, and, 8) present a learning history (Grady, 1996: 75).

While the above discussion is intended to give a broad overview of the

advantages of portfolios, the next portion is attributed to the teaching of English

writing in particular. Park (undated: 2) lists two advantages. The first one is what he

states as ―one advantage cited frequently in the portfolio literature‖ is the notion of

student authority or ownership enabled by the opportunity students have to review

their writing and decide which pieces they will present to the teachers and what they

would like teachers to see in that writing. For reasons such as this, portfolios

stimulate student interaction with peers and student ownership in the learning

process. This feeling of ownership is enhanced by the fact that the portfolio

experience is not a brief, one-shot presentation of writing. A greater sense of

authority or ownership, in turn, can increase learner motivation, since learners feel a

greater personal stake in the work they produce. Another often cited benefit of

portfolios is that portfolios can be used to encourage students to reflect on the pieces

they write and on the processes they use to write them. Student reflection on their

writing in preparation of a portfolio is a key concept in portfolio pedagogy and an

essential aspect of learner-directed assessment.

67

7. Disadvantages of Paper-Based Portfolio Learning

The management portion of this review examines the disadvantages a teacher

might encounter should they, either, presently use portfolios, or decide to employ

them in the future. Perhaps as expected transition to a different educational practice

and the apparent burden presented by time constraints are real issues to be

considered. Other issues such as individualized grading can also be problematic.

True assembly line education is convenient and time effective, but is it best? The

scales of advantages versus disadvantages should always be tipped in favor of the

students‘ achievement. Black (1996: 54) supports this by stating:

―Time and grades are among the other concerns. Managing portfolios takes

time. But, teachers who change from traditional assessment to portfolio

assessment are more likely to manage their time without frustration if they

change teaching styles at the same time. Grades are another sticky issue. How

can teachers assign grades when they‘re assessing students‘ portfolios for

effort, progress, and insight? High school students and their parents might

object to portfolio assessment on the grounds that college admissions offices

require grades and class rankings.‖

Granting school rankings, transition issues, logistics, and other concerns their

fair measure, the availability of time appears to stand alone as the most often cited

disadvantage for the use of portfolios in the classroom. Glazer, Rooman and Luberto

(1996: 78) state: ―A major concern was the amount of time and effort required to

implement the use of portfolios in the daily classroom‖.

Melograno (1996: 154), when looking at the use of portfolios, adds ―teachers

may say, ‗I have too many students and not enough time.‘ The reality for most

teachers is to manage students first and deliver some kind of instruction second‖.

Danielson and Abrutyn (1997: 43) classify time, perhaps the most often cited

disadvantage, as nothing more than a challenge. They state:

―Many educators think that their days are already full and they cannot

possibly add another major initiative to their work with students. Practitioners

most apprehensive about the time demands of portfolios tend to regard the

processes of instruction, testing, and portfolio development as three discrete

tasks. They point out that they are already pressed for sufficient time to cover

all the content of the curriculum and doubt that they could add another

68

element to the instructional process curriculum and doubt that they could add

another element to the instructional process.‖

In terms of the teaching of writing, Park (undated: 2) lists some

disadvantages in handling portfolio-based learning such as the complexity involved

in grading such collections of writing (developing appropriate grading guidelines),

maintaining consistency in portfolio grading, and avoiding subjectivity in grading.

A possible solution to these problems is the development of explicit

instructions for both students and instructors that ensure consistency and reliability in

both the compilation and evaluation of portfolios (Park, undated: 2).

C. The Review of Electronic-Based Portfolio Learning

1. The Nature of Electronic-Based Portfolio Learning

Portfolios can be presented in different formats, and electronic-based

portfolios are one of them. The paper-based portfolio learning is stated by Meo

(2002) as one of the most pervasive innovations recommended by educational

reformers of the 1980s and 1990s while the electronic-based portfolio one is

acknowledged by Barret (2001:1) as ―an innovation of the early 1990s‖, an

electronic portfolio (also know as an ePortfolio, e-portfolio, efolio, digital portfolio,

webfolio and so on) is essentially an electronic version of a paper-based portfolio,

created in a computer environment, and incorporating not just text, but graphic,

audio and video material as well. An early definition is established by the National

Learning Infrastructure Initiative (Cambridge, 2004) that electronic portfolio is a

collection of authentic and diverse evidence, drawn from a larger archive

representing what a person or organization has learned over time on which the

person or organization has reflected, and designed for presentation to one or more

audiences for a particular rhetorical purpose. Later on, Abrami and Barrett (2005)

define an electronic portfolio as: ―a digital container capable of storing visual and

auditory content including text, images, video and sound…designed to support a

variety of pedagogical processes and assessment purposes‖. Lastly, Challis (2005)

69

providing a more in depth definition states that an ePortfolio is described as selective

and structured collections of information, gathered for specific purposes and

showing/evidencing one‘s accomplishments and growth which are stored digitally

and managed by appropriate software, developed by using appropriate multimedia

and customarily within a web environment and retrieved from a website, or delivered

by CD-ROM or by DVD.

Therefore, electronic-based portfolios keep all the features of portfolios, that

is, a carefully selected collection of exemplary artifacts that allows demonstration of

one‘s work and accomplishments. Nevertheless, an electronic-based portfolio

developer uses electronic technologies to collect and organize portfolio artifacts in

many media types, such as: audio, video, graphics, and text. Different from the

traditional formats of portfolios, electronic-based portfolios are easily accessible and

are easy to update. In addition, the hyperlinks among standards, artifacts, and

reflections provide a much richer picture of a student‘s abilities and growth than

paper-based portfolios do.

Lastly, based on the preceding discussions, in this research it can be

concluded that electronic-based portfolio learning is an electronic version of paper-

based portfolio learning previously defined with some differences in the way it is

developed, accessed, updated, and enriched with many media types, such as: audio,

video, and graphics.

2. Constructivist Learning

As previously discussed, the same pedagogical thinking lies behind both

kinds of portfolio, the electronic-based portfolio learning are derived from

constructivist perspectives. The main difference is that the students and the teachers

need an extra skill in developing their electronic-based portfolios, i.e. learning with

technology.

In their book ―Learning with Technology‖, Jonassen, Peck, and Wilson

(1999) discuss how educators can use technologies to support constructivist learning.

In the past, students learned from technology as a medium for delivering and

70

communicating messages. Computer programs were developed with the belief that

they could convey information (and hopefully understanding) more effectively than

teachers. But constructivists believe that neither teacher nor computer programs can

convey understanding, which can only be constructed by learners. Therefore,

Jonassen, Peck, and Wilson argue that technologies are more effectively used as

tools with which to construct knowledge. Their perspective is that technology is a

tool with which to think and learn. According to Jonassen, Peck, and Wilson,

students cannot learn from teachers or technologies.

Rather, students learn from thinking -- thinking about what they are doing or

what they did, thinking about what they believe, thinking about what others have

done and believe, thinking about the thinking processes they use -- just thinking.

They point out, ―Thinking mediates learning. Learning results from thinking‖ (2).

They emphasize that thinking is engaged by activity and different activities engaged

different kinds of thinking. That is to say, different kinds of thinking are required to

memorize a list, read a book, understand a lecture, solve a problem, design a new

product, or argue for a belief. These activities can be presented and supported by

teachers and technologies. But teachers and technologies do not necessarily cause

thinking, so they do not necessarily cause learning. They may, if the learner has a

need or desire to learn, but they may not, if the learner is thinking about something

else. Therefore, Jonassen, Peck, and Wilson (1999: 2) conclude:

―The role of teachers and technologies in learning is indirect. They can

stimulate and support activities that engage learners in thinking, which may

result in learning, but learners do not learn directly from the technology; they

learn from thinking about what they are doing. Technology can foster and

support learning if they are used as tools and intellectual partners that help

learners to think.‖

They further discuss that students learn from experiencing phenomena

(objects, events, activities, and processes), interpreting those experiences based on

what they already know, reasoning about them, and reflecting on the experiences and

the reasoning. This process is called meaning making. Meaning making is at the

heart of constructivism.

71

Electronic-based portfolios influence student learning through the process of

construction and through collaboration with and feedback from the teachers. In the

words of Klenowski, Askew, and Carnell (2006: 268):

―To use portfolios to support professional development, learning and

technology requires tutors to understand some key assessment concepts such

as the link between learning objectives as success criteria, the use of rich

questioning and the role of feedback in a pedagogy focused on learning, self-

and peer-assessment.‖

Acosta and Liu (2006: 21) envisage electronic-based portfolios as a way of

shifting the locus of control from teacher to student, which entails changes in

curriculum design and leads to the development of social capital. They define social

capital as ―using collective power and resources to improve and benefit society and

the individual through strong relationships and active interactions‖ (Acosta & Liu,

2006: 21). Electronic-based portfolios can help students to make connections

between different aspects of their lives and help them to form their social identities,

and their identity within their discipline of study.

3. Implementation of Electronic-Based Portfolio Learning

a. Guidelines of Implementation

As portfolios move from traditional paper-based creations to electronic, web-

based platforms, the teachers must continue to focus on how the medium supports

and influences the purpose of the portfolio. Some general guidelines for

implementing electronic-based portfolios in a program are offered by Bergman

(undated) cited by Ali (2005). It is suggested that one must start slowly and seek

linkages for stakeholders. Students and teachers should be realistic with the design of

portfolios and their own expectations from the portfolios. They should also make use

of available models that have relevance to portfolio development and gain

acceptance from the head of the institution before they begin. Teachers must

encourage students to ‗own‘ their portfolios, and should clearly communicate

implementation steps and timelines.

72

On the other hand, students must be selective in their design and strategy, and

must allow for continuous improvement and growth as their portfolios evolve.

Teachers and students should together incorporate assessment from stakeholders

(parents, prospective, employers, department heads etc) in all phases and

components of portfolio development.

b. Steps for Electronic-Based Portfolio Development Process

Barret (2001: 5), after combining both the Multimedia Development Process

and the Portfolio Development Process, purposes five stages of electronic-based

portfolio development process. The stages are:

1. Defining the Portfolio Context & Goals:

2. The Working Portfolio:

3. The Reflective Portfolio:

4. The Connected Portfolio:

5. The Presentation Portfolio.

The above stages are then developed by Ali (2005) who states there are the

nine steps in developing electronic-based portfolios.

1. Define aim of the portfolio.

The first step is to decide whether the portfolio will be used for formative

evaluation or summative evaluation. The content and organization of the

portfolio will depend on its aim. Needs analysis should be carried out before

beginning the portfolio development process.

2. Take into account the type and extent of technology available to your

students.

Do not expect your students to develop an electronic-based portfolio if they do

not have access to the required hardware and software. Again, needs analysis

would help in identifying students‘ technological needs and availability.

3. Take students‟ consent for portfolio development.

If portfolio development is not part of the curriculum and you want to initiate it

into your own individual teaching methodology, you will have to first take

73

students‘ consent. It should be remembered that it is essentially learner centered

and the students have to be ‗involved‘ right from the planning to the assessment.

You will also need to take permission from parents to use their child's work,

name, and perhaps a photo.

4. Define an audience for the portfolio.

This would motivate and boost students to work harder on their portfolios.

Audience may range from parents, teachers, and administrators to relatives and

other students. In case of webfolios the students have to be very cautious with

their work since it can be accessed by anyone.

5. Empower students.

The main aim of portfolio development is to get students to work on their Math,

Science, English composition, or art etc. Students should select work that best

shows their achievement of the curriculum goals. They should include the first

draft and the final draft to show progress or they may choose to include multiple

drafts.

6. Involve students in peer correction or review.

It is amazing how much students can learn through their peers‘ comments on

their work and through their own comments on some one else‘s work. Peer

review on students‘ portfolio work should become an essential part of the process

of portfolio development.

7. Incorporate feedback mechanism into student portfolios.

About midway through the portfolio development process brief feedback must be

given to the students so that they know if they are going in the right direction.

Feedback could also be posted onto the electronic-based portfolios if students do

not mind and find it encouraging.

8. Encourage reflective practice.

An essential inclusion in the portfolios is the reflective notes. Documentation of

thoughts makes the portfolios more personal and provides a view into the

student‘s performance and abilities. They exhibit the thought processes and

critical thinking capabilities of the students, which may not be evident from a

74

mere collection of their work. Reflective notes tell us how the learners feel about

the learning process.

9. Evaluate the presented portfolio.

The main aim of assessment may be to evaluate the work included in the

portfolio and to see if there has been significant progress from the first draft.

However, it must also be noticed if all the required contents are included; that

there are no typing/mechanical errors; and that the portfolio is well organized and

presentable for WWW publication or saving onto a CD-ROM.

As a paper-based portfolio must include some essential elements, a simple

student electronic-based portfolio should include (based on Ali (2005)):

1. Title. The title card consists of the student‘s and teacher‘s names and the

academic year. It may include a picture or video of the student.

2. Table of Contents. This is a summary of the portfolio. Links may be added to

guide the viewer.

3. Samples of work. Include the first draft and the final draft to show progress. You

may choose to include multiple drafts.

4. Short resume. This acts as a window into the student‘s life and makes the

portfolio more personal.

5. Student‘s reflective notes.

6. Letter to viewers.

7. Viewer comments box.

75

c. Creating Electronic-Based Portfolios

This section outlines the equipment, and planning required for creating and

saving an electronic-based portfolio.

1) Equipment

According to Barrett (2000), to begin with, students would require at least the

following equipment:

Computer – IBM or Macintosh. It should have audio and video display hardware.

Scanner and/or a Digital Camera.

Multimedia Software Program. The most popular software used for electronic-based

portfolio development are Microsoft Word and PowerPoint, Adobe Acrobat, digital

and analog video, and WWW pages created with HTML editors like Netscape

Composer, Microsoft FrontPage, or Adobe PageMill. The choice of software can

either restrict or enhance the development process and the quality of the final

product. Different software packages each have unique characteristics, which can

limit or expand the electronic-based portfolio options.

Barrett (2000) suggests six levels of electronic-based portfolio software.

Table 2.4 – Six Levels of Electronic-Based Portfolio Software

Level I No digital artifacts. Some video tape artifacts

Level II Word processing or other commonly used files stored in electronic folders on

a hard drive, floppy diskette or LAN server

Level III Databases, hypermedia or slide shows (e.g., PowerPoint), stored on a hard

drive, Zip, floppy diskette or LAN server

Level IV Portable Document Format (Adobe Acrobat PDF files), stored on a hard

drive, Zip, CD-R/W, or LAN server

Level V HTML-based web pages created with a web authoring program and posted to

a WWW server

76

Level VI Multimedia authoring program, such as Macromedia Author ware or

Director, pressed to CD-R/W or posted to WWW

2) Planning

It is suggested to create a flowchart on paper to plan what to put in each link

of the portfolio. Students should choose the appearance of the portfolio webpage and

links. This is also the stage when the students should decide and work on the content

of the portfolio. If the portfolio is to be hosted on the WWW then a free or cheap

web hosting site should be contacted at this point.

3) Creating and Saving the Portfolio

Design a portfolio by including graphics, photos, clip art, scanned images,

videos, and sound etc. Add text to it and buttons to create links. This stage is the

most technical and would require some help from the teacher unless the students

have a technological edge over the language instructor which is not uncommon these

days! Finally students should store and present their portfolio. They could choose to

save it on computer hard drive, videotape, a WWW or LAN server, flash disk, Zip

disk or onto a CD-ROM.

d. Publishing Electronic-Based Portfolio

Here are the basic steps for using WordPress to construct an interactive

electronic-based portfolio. Note that WordPress is primarily a blog, so the first page

is organized in reverse chronological order. However, the latest version of

WordPress also allows pages to be set up and show as tabs at the top of the page. In

this example, ―home‖ is the blog; ―welcome!‖ is a page that the teacher set up

explaining the focus of this site; ―my portfolio‖ is a set of pages and sub-pages that

contain my portfolio; and ―how to‖ is this page.

1. Purpose.

77

Decide on the purpose for the portfolio. What are you trying to show with this

portfolio? Are there outcomes, goals, or standards that are being demonstrated

with this portfolio? In this example, the writer uses an electronic-based portfolio

to provide formative feedback on student work.

Identify how you are going to organize the portfolio. Will it be around the

outcomes, goals or standards that you identified in this first step?

Set up a ―parent‖ page that will serve as the opening page/Introduction to the

portfolio

Set up a template for students, if appropriate.

2. Collection/Selection.

What artifacts will you include in your portfolio?

Create a digital archive of work. Offline, this archive would be on a hard drive,

flash drive, iPod or local area network server; on-line, these files can be stored

anywhere on the Internet, as long as each document has a unique URL.

Use a simple table to list the artifacts, and assign (classify) each one to the

outcome/goal/standard that the artifact will demonstrate.

Once these categories are identified, set up sub pages for each major category

you have identified.

Add the artifacts (through hyperlinks) to the appropriate sub-pages in the

portfolio.

Reflection. Reflection is the heart and soul of a portfolio. Reflection provides the

rationale for why these artifacts represent achievement of a particular outcome,

goal or standard.

Write a brief reflection on each artifact (what is the context in which this artifact

was developed? Why was it included in the portfolio?).

You might also write a reflection on each grouping of artifacts (by

outcome/goal/standard).

The Introduction page should contain an overview of the portfolio. It serves as a

―letter to the reader‖ and provides an explanation of the overall goals of the

portfolio.

78

3. Connection/Interaction/Dialogue.

This stage provides an opportunity for interaction and feedback on the work

posted in the portfolio. This is where the power of Web 2.0 interactive tools

becomes apparent.

Teachers and peers can use the feedback features of the software, such as

comments, to provide feedback on the work posted in the ePortfolio.

Teachers often provide exemplars for different levels of achievement, and

provides a rubric for evaluation.

The portfolio developer should be given the option of updating the work, based

on the feedback and the rubric.

4. Presentation/Publishing.

The portfolio developer decides what parts of the portfolio are to be made public.

However, the decision on which blog provider the subjects of this research

publish their portfolios will depend on discussion between the researcher and the

participants. It is assumed that the most familiar blog providers for the students

(blogger and wordpress) are easier to master.

Blogs are easy-to-create and easy-to-maintain websites. Blogs have been

around for over 10 years, but have become more popular since hosting websites such

as Blogger.com introduced itself in 1999. Blogs function mostly as on-line journals

and their content is traditionally personal. Blogs can be updated at any time using

software that allows users with little or no technical background to create, design and

maintain the blog.

4. Advantages of Electronic-Based portfolio Learning

The use of electronic-based portfolios offers a number of advantages over

traditional paper-based portfolios, such as portability, accessibility, distribution

ability, and repeatability of performances.

a. First Benefit

79

Electronic-based portfolios increase students‘ hands-on technology skills and

enable them to demonstrate effective and appropriate use of technology. Testerman

and Hall (2000/2001) find in their study that electronic-based portfolios help

educational leaders enrolled in a doctoral program extend their understanding of

technology and learn applications worthwhile for personal and professional

involvement. Testerman and Hall indicate that creating portfolios helped students to

understand the methodology for archiving, indexing, and organizing new materials

through an electronic media. ―The portfolio can become the foundation repository for

future uses such as employment applications or demonstrations of comprehensive

technology skills, knowledge, and synthesis‖ (202). They state, ―The skills acquired

through preparing and presenting an electronic-based portfolio provide graduate

students the ability to develop other useful applications for personal and professional

improvement‖ (205).

Similarly, Purves (1996: 146) find that portfolios are not simply an

alternative to a test, but represent a different way of viewing the nature of curriculum

and instruction. Portfolios transfer the focus of the course from the teacher to the

student. ―They call for maturity and independence on the students‘ part, and they

make any course become a matter of student learning rather than of teacher

instruction‖ (146).

b. Second Benefit

Electronic-based portfolios document students‘ progress and encourage

improvement. Ellsworth (2002) reports her findings from a three-year case study of

an elementary school in which student portfolios were implemented as part of a

comprehensive school reform effort. Her participants are seventeen classroom and

specialist teachers who are involved in the implementation of portfolios over three

years. The result indicates that portfolios are an important mechanism through which

teachers came to a deeper understanding of their professional practices and that

teachers start to recognize changes in classroom practice and schoolwide

responsibilities and to identify organizational structures and professional

80

development opportunities needed for the inquiry and reform process. In her study,

―teachers reported significant professional growth as a result of implementing

student portfolios in an environment where they could inquire and reflect on what the

portfolios were telling them‖ (353).

c. Third Benefit

Electronic-based portfolios motivate involvement in learning. In a paper

describing the electronic-based portfolio project, Swain and Ring (2000) discuss the

benefits of electronic-based portfolios in educational technology. They state:

―Creating portfolios gives students the opportunity to create a learning

environment which demonstrates what they learned, as well as providing

students an opportunity to work on an open-ended project. An additional

benefit of electronic portfolios is that students will leave their educational

program with a product demonstrating their knowledge and abilities.‖ (340)

d. Fourth Benefit

Electronic-based portfolios motivate self-assessment. ―Portfolio assessment

allows for the specific talents and abilities of individuals to be highlighted as

preservice teachers evaluate their own work and products‖ (Gatlin and Jacob, 2002:

35).

Delett, Barnhardt, and Kevorkian (2001: 560) indicate that portfolio

assessment is an ongoing, interactive assessment that actively involved both the

teacher and the students in the process of learning. In the environment of electronic-

based portfolio, both teachers and students found themselves in new roles with new

responsibilities. According to them, portfolios are one means of developing a

learner-centered classroom. ―Well-designed portfolios offer students the opportunity

to become actively involved in the learning process by contributing to instructional

planning and assessment‖ (560). They find that portfolios are most useful as tools for

81

assessing progress in language development by establishing a partnership between

teachers and students in the language classroom.

e. Fifth Benefit

Electronic-based portfolios motivate reflective learning. Porter and Cleland

(1995: 22) states that the power of reflection helps students and teachers move

beyond seeing the portfolio as a mere alternative to traditional assessment to

appreciating its value as a leaning strategy. In this capacity, Porter and Cleland think

that portfolios become vehicles for reflection in which learners examine where they

have been, where they are now, how they got there, and where they need to go next.

They stress, ―A portfolio is comprised of a collection of artifacts accompanied by a

reflective narrative that not only helps the learner to understand and extend learning,

but invites the reader of the portfolio to gain insights about learning and the learner‖

(23). Crafton (1991: 314) states, ―When learners have a chance to reflect on their

reading, writing, language experiences, they can assume an altered stance on their

learning and see it in a new way. They also become aware of and learn to value the

strategies they are developing.‖

Porter and Cleland (1995: 37 – 50) summarize the advantages of reflection

through their studies with their own students in the following aspects:

1. Reflection allows learners to examine their learning process.

2. Reflection allows learners to take responsibility for their own learning.

3. Reflection allows learners to see ―gaps‖ in their learning.

4. Reflection allows learners to determine strategies that support their

learning.

5. Reflection allows learners to celebrate risk-taking and inquiry.

6. Reflection allows learners to set goals for future experiences.

7. Reflection allows learners to see changes and development over time.

5. Disadvantages of Electronic-Based Portfolio Learning

82

The literature review shows that electronic-based portfolios not only have

many benefits but also have problems to be considered.

a. First Disadvantage

The first problem deals with deficient hardware and software. Bartlett (2002:

93) finds equipment problems in her study. Her students complain, ―All the

equipment (video camera, computer with movie making capabilities) isn‘t available

to everyone.‖

b. Second Disadvantage

The second problem is concerned with considerable investment of time and

effort. Research suggests that the implementation of electronic-based portfolios

requires considerable investment of time and effort from both the instructor and the

student. Campbell and Brummett (2002: 27) also point out the amount of time

consumed in developing electronic-based portfolios and state, ―No portfolio is ever

done; it will always be a work-in-progress. As skills develop, knowledge expands,

and becomes more refined so, too, will the portfolio‖.

c. Third Disadvantage

The third disadvantage that must be taken into account is insufficient

attention and instruction on reflection. Reflection is an essential part of the

electronic-based portfolio process. The result of Cunningham and Benedetto‘s (2002)

study indicates that students spend a great deal of time selecting video clips to

communicate their growth, but less on reflection of the performance captured in the

video segment. They think, ―the greatest influence on program-wide integration is

the realization that the creation of a meaningful and reflective video takes a great

deal of time; not because of technology, but because critical reflection is a skill that

teacher candidates are just beginning to develop during their programs‖ (552).

83

Based on the preceding discussion, the literature review suggests that

developing an electronic-based portfolio is one of the effective ways of carrying out

constructivism learning theory because it helps students to construct their individual

knowledge and skills. The power of reflection helps students and teachers move

beyond seeing the portfolio as a mere alternative to traditional assessment to

appreciating its value as a learning strategy. Developing and creating electronic-

based portfolios not only force students to examine their learning process, determine

learning strategies, but also allow them to set goals for future learning. Through this

process, students effectively use technology to construct knowledge.

Likewise, too great an emphasis on students meeting standards for

competency will endanger the reflective and learning potential of electronic-based

portfolios. To be successful users of electronic-based portfolios, students need to

understand the reasons for constructing a portfolio, be given clear guidelines, and

have access to an electronic-based portfolio system that is easy to use and gives them

as much flexibility or as much structure as they require. They also need the support

of their teachers. The teachers need to be committed to the portfolio process, and

willing to give students regular and useful feedback on their work and reflections.

Institutions need to be aware of the impact that an electronic-based portfolio

development will have. Electronic-based portfolios need to be an integral part of a

program of study, not an ‗added-on‘ assessment, which may necessitate the review

and restructuring of courses. The type of portfolio required, its purpose and its

audience need to be clearly articulated. Students and the teachers using an electronic-

based portfolio system need the time, skills and resources to do so successfully.

Institutions need to provide strong leadership to encourage their staff to participate in

an electronic-based portfolio development, whilst also enabling collaboration and

staff input into decision-making. Institutions also need to recognize that the process

of implementing an electronic-based portfolio system is a long-term one, and it may

take several years before the full benefits will be seen.

6. Points of Difference from Paper-Based Portfolio Learning

84

On the basis of the previous discussion, it can be concluded that there is a

variety of points of difference, which are summarized here. Electronic-based

portfolios:

• Are easier to search, and records can be simply retrieved, manipulated, refined

and reorganized;

• Reduce effort and time;

• Are more comprehensive and rigorous;

• Can use more extensive material;

• Include pictures, sound, animation, graphic design and video;

• Are much smaller;

• Are cost effective to distribute;

• Are instantly accessible;

• Can have an organizational structure that is not linear or hierarchical;

• Are easy to carry and share with peers, supervisors, parents, employers and others;

• Allow fast feedback;

• Showcase the technological skills of the creator;

• Provide access to a global readership if they are based on the web.

Below is a chart that identifies the portfolio development processes identified

in the portfolio literature, and the technological strategies that enhance the process.

Table 2.5 – Comparison of Development Processes

Paper-Based Portfolio Processes Electronic-based portfolio Processes

• Collecting

• Selecting

• Reflecting

• Projecting

• Celebrating

• Archiving

• Linking/Thinking

• Storytelling

• Collaborating

• Publishing

85

D. The Review of Writing Interest

1. The Definition

Five minutes of work on a writing task may feel like hours to a student who

does not know what the next steps need to be, or even what the longer- range goals

for the work are—especially if the student does not have a developed interest for the

writing task. Similarly, a student with a well-developed individual interest for

English may be able to briefly glance at the differences between recount text and

narrative text and decide he knows them, while another, equally able student with a

less-developed interest for English, has to work after school to learn these text types.

This illustration informs that interest factor in the teaching of writing is of

importance.

The first definition of interest in this section is by Hurlock (1978: 420) that

defines interests as sources of motivation which drive people to do what they want to

do when they are free to choose. It is also stated by Getzels in Smith and Dechant

(1961: 273) that interest is a characteristic disposition, organized through experience,

which impels an individual to seek out particular objects, activities, understanding,

skills, or goals for attention or acquisition. Interest is also defined as one‘s

consciousness that an object, person, problem or situation has relation to him

(Witherington in Buchori (2000: 122)). Lastly, interest describes the cognitive and

affective relationship between a student and particular classes of subject matter

(Renninger, undated: 705).

Lowman and Carson (2003: 468) cite the formal definition of interests

offered by Strong (1955: 138) as:

―activities for which we have liking or disliking and which we go toward or

away from, or concerning which we at least continue or discontinue the status

quo; furthermore, they may or may not be preferred to other interests and

they may continue varying over time. Or an interest may be defined as a

liking/disliking state of mind accompanying the doing of an activity, or the

thought of performing the activity.‖

86

In this definition, there are four attributes of interest as follows: attention and

feeling for an object, intensity (preference for some activities over others), and

duration. According to Lowman and Carson (2003: 467 – 468) each of these

attributes reflects an area of theoretical and research activity related to interests in the

first third of this century.

Based on the definitions above, it can be concluded that interest is one‘s

cognitive and affective consciousness, organized through experience, which impels

someone to seek out particular objects and motivates him to do the activities he likes

in order to strive a particular goal.

According to Gelb and Whiting (2008) writing is a way of recording

language in visible form and giving it relative permanence. Byrne (1993: 1)

emphasizes:

―But writing is clearly much more than the production of graphic symbols,

just as speech is more than the production of sounds. The symbols have to be

arranged according to certain conventions to form words, and words have to

be arranged to form sentences, although again we can be said to be 'writing' if

we are merely making lists of words, as in inventories of items such as

shopping lists.‖

He further (1993: 1) concludes that writing is a sequence of sentence

arranged in a particular order and linked together in certain ways.

Writing, more particularly, refers to two things: writing as a noun, the thing

that is written; and writing as a verb, which designates the activity of writing. It

refers to the inscription of characters on a medium, thereby forming words, and

larger units of language, known as texts. It also refers to the creation of meaning and

the information thereby generated (―Writing,‖ 2009).

According to Petty and Jensen (l980: 362), writing is the mental and physical

act of forming letters and words. But it is much more than that, it is putting words

into sentences, sentences into paragraphs, spelling word correctly, punctuating and

capitalizing in customary ways, and observing conventions in written forms and

more. Writing is a process of expressing thoughts and feelings of thinking and

shaping experiences.

87

The last definition refers to a process taking place in human‘s brains. That is

why the definition becomes a starting point in defining the term of writing. Writing,

thus, can be defined as a mental and physical process of expressing thought and

feelings by forming words into a sequence of arranged sentences leading to the

creation of meaning and the information.

The writing interest, therefore, can be defined one‘s cognitive and affective

consciousness, with four attributes: attention and feeling for an object, intensity

(preference for some activities over others), and duration, organized through

experience, which impels someone mentally and physically to express thoughts and

feelings by a sequence of arranged sentences leading to the creation of meaning and

the information.

The importance of writing interest is supported by the fact that one of the foci

of the actions to improve the writing curriculum is to raise students‘ interest in

writing, assuming that increased interest leads to more involvement in learning

(Rijlaarsdam and Van Den Bergh, 2005: 9).

2. Types of Interest

According to Schraw and Lehman (2009: 510), researchers have identified

two types of interest. They are:

1. Situational interest.

It is spontaneous, transitory, and environmentally activated. Situational interest

often precedes and facilitates the development of personal interest. Situational

interest appears to be especially important in catching students‘ attention. It

increases learning when the task or to-be-learned information is novel or when

information is relevant to a task or learning goal. Text variables such as

coherence, identification with characters, suspense, and the concreteness and

image-ability of salient text segments also increase situational interest.

2. Personal interest.

Personal interest, also referred to as individual interest, is less spontaneous, of

enduring personal value, and activated internally. Its development is often

88

preceded and facilitated by situational interest. Compared to situational interest,

this type of interest may be more important in holding students‘ attention.

Personal interest increases learning due to increased engagement, the acquisition

of expert knowledge, and making mundane tasks more challenging. Therefore,

personal interest is also important because it appears to mediate the relationship

between short-term situational interest and long-term mastery and learning within

a domain. In addition, several studies suggest that personal interest increases the

amount and quality of information processing.

Correspondingly, Renninger (undated: 705) identifies three types of interest,

each of which reflects differing amounts of knowledge, value, and feelings. They are

as follows:

1. Situational interest.

Situational interest refers to the short-lived or momentary attention to, or

curiosity about, particular subject matter, and can be accompanied by either

positive or negative feelings.

2. Individual interest (sometimes referred to as Topic interest).

Individual interest is a relatively enduring predisposition to experience

enjoyment in working with particular subject matter. An individual interest may

or may not provide a student with the support to put forth effort when faced with

a difficult task, presumably because the identification of individual interest in

terms of enjoyment provides no information about the depth of a student‘s

knowledge about the topic.

3. Well-developed individual interest.

Well-developed individual interest is a relatively enduring predisposition to re-

engage particular classes of subject matter over time. A student with a well-

developed individual interest for a subject has more stored knowledge and stored

value for that subject than he or she has for other subjects. With more stored

knowledge and stored value for a given subject matter, the student is positioned

to begin asking curiosity questions that drive knowledge acquisition,

89

consolidation, and elaboration, and that leads the student to persist in the face of

frustration or difficulty.

Well-developed interest is the type of student interest to which most people are

referring when they talk about interest and its impact on learning. For example,

students who immerse themselves in a task they have been assigned, or who are

willing to expend a lot of effort to master a skill that will allow them to begin

work on some future project, are likely to have a well-developed interest for the

subject of that project. Importantly, the student who has a well-developed interest

for a subject area may not seem to be aware that he or she is exerting effort.

Instead, it appears that interest may free up possibilities for students to push

themselves, just as it frees up their ability to process interesting stories.

It can be seen that the third type in the second classification is a more

developed type of the second one. Another conclusion is that all types of interest

require conditions that allow the interest to be maintained, to continue to deepen, and

to merge with other content.

In the teaching of writing, it is important for the teachers of English to

provide students with meaningful choices, well organized tasks that promote interest,

and the background knowledge necessary to fully understand a topic. Even students

with a well-developed interest for a particular subject need to be supported to

continue challenging what they know and assume in order for their interest to be

sustained.

3. Aspects of Interest

It is stated by Renninger (undated: 706) that interest needs to be understood

as a cognitive and affective relationship between a student and a particular subject

that varies depending on the type of interest being described. In the same way,

Hurlock (1987: 422-423) identifies two aspects of interest such as cognitive aspect

and affective aspect. Cognitive aspect is based on the concept of development about

the areas related to the interest. Concept that makes up the cognitive aspects of

interest is based on personal experiences, which learned at home, at school, and in

90

community. The cognitive aspect of students‘ interest in school, for example, is

based on concept of school as a place where they can learn and have opportunities

for contact with their friends.

Subsequently, affective aspect or the emotional weighting of the concept that

makes up the cognitive aspect of interest is expressed in attitude toward the

activities. It is the development of personal experience, from attitude of such

significant people as parents, teachers, and peers toward the activities interest give

rises to. For instance, students who have a pleasant relationship with teachers usually

develop favorable attitudes toward school. Because of the way a teacher of English

let a certain student know how rich and famous J. K. Rowlin (the author of Harry

Potter) is, he/ she takes a deep interest in writing.

It can be seen that the two aspects are important. However, the affective one

is more important than the cognitive one is because of playing a greater role in

motivating action. In this point of view, Hidi (undated: 1991) states that interest

undoubtedly has a strong emotional component and points out that this aspect may

play a critical role in how interest influences The affective aspect of interest can be

said to tend to be more resistant to change.

4. Developing Sustained Interest

Mitchell (1993) as cited by Schraw and Lehman (2009: 511) originally

proposes a simple three-stage model in which situational interest leads to personal

interest, which leads to higher learning. Schraw and Lehman (2009: 510 - 511) then

put forward a more sophisticated model proposed by Hidi and Renninger (2006).

In the model, interest develops through four continuous stages, including

triggered situational interest, maintained situational interest, emerging personal

interest, and well-developed individual interest. Triggered situational interest refers

to a change in interest that is related directly to a temporary change in the stimuli,

environment, or to-be-learned information. These changes may be evoked by a wide

variety of factors, including highly relevant information, surprising or unexpected

information, information that is incongruous with the task, a change in environment,

91

or the enthusiasm of a teacher or mentor. Maintained situational interest refers to a

state of focused attention and greater personal investment with the to-be-learned

information.

These changes usually are supported externally by a stimulating text, task, or

teacher. In addition, maintained interest is sustained through meaningful tasks and

personal involvement. Emerging individual interest refers to a state in which interest

does not need to be sustained externally and one in which the interest becomes an

enduring disposition. These changes are supported by increased curiosity, greater

domain knowledge, and a perceived sense of pleasure and usefulness in the activity.

Well-developed individual interest refers to an enduring change in disposition

for the information or activity. These changes are characterized by positive affect,

greater intrinsic motivation, extensive knowledge about the domain, a high level of

procedural expertise, and an ability to monitor and self-regulate one‘s future

development in the domain.

5. Effects on the Teaching of Writing

Definitive evidence indicates that situational and personal interests are related

to learning in three important ways (Schraw and Lehman, 2009: 511). Based on their

explanation, the writer draws a relationship between writing interest and the teaching

of writing in three ways. The first way is that interest increases motivation,

engagement, and persistence. Situational interest has a positive effect on extrinsic

motivation, whereas personal interest has a positive long-term effect on intrinsic

motivation. Presumably, external factors such as teachers and interesting writing

tasks provide external motivation to learn more about a domain. Once situational

interest develops into well-developed individual interest, external factors likely play

a smaller role in motivation, whereas intrinsic motivation and enjoyment play larger

roles.

Extrinsic and intrinsic motivations are essential precursors to engagement.

Students who are interested in a topic or activity are more likely to engage and

persist, which in turn leads to the acquisition of writing competence.

92

Motivation helps individuals to develop the confidence to undertake a new

learning activity or to venture into an unfamiliar intellectual domain such as

publishing their works on-line or to a wider audience.

In turn, motivation and engagement facilitate persistence within a domain

that is necessary to develop true writing competence. Persistence produces greater

writing competence, which increases confidence and self efficacy, and makes it

easier and more enjoyable to learn.

The second way that interest is related to the teaching of writing is through

strategy use. Students who are interested in writing a topic report using more

strategies are more likely to monitor their performance and shift strategies when

necessary and are better able to self-regulate their learning. Increased strategy use,

metacognitive monitoring, and self-regulation improve the efficiency of writing

competence and knowledge acquisition as well as the amount of information learned.

Finally, the third way that interest affects the teaching of writing is through

deeper information processing. High-interest learners were more likely to construct

deeper mental representations of a text. This correlation may be due in part to the

fact that high-interest learners are more likely to possess topic-specific knowledge

and learning strategies. Yet regardless of knowledge and strategies, students with

high levels of interest are more likely to engage in an activity, persist, report positive

affect, and focus more of their effort on constructing a deeper understanding of

writing competence that they are studying.

6. Raising Interest in Writing

As shown by the preceding discussion, interest is an important precursor to

learning and is changeable. A number of suggestions are included below that are

based on some studies on writing. Thus, it is reasonable to use as many strategies as

are feasible in the classroom.

The first suggestion is to expand the notion of written text, using out of

school cultural practices as a resource for writing in secondary school. Based on their

study, McClenaghan and Doecke (2005: 124) put out:

93

―Popular cultural texts – digital media texts, chat groups, the internet – play a

particularly significant role in adolescents‘ communicational webs. Such

concepts are important, not simply because they highlight new forms of

communication, but because they sensitise us to the ways in which literacy

practices are bound up with the network of relationships in which people find

themselves. Individuals do not simply ‗read‘ or ‗write‘ or ‗speak‘ or ‗listen‘

(i.e., the traditional way in which we conceptualise the components of the

English curriculum); these acts are social practices, embedded in specific sets

of social relationships, which are mediated in technologically complex

ways.‖

Another suggestion is to understand student‘s perceptions about the dualism

students have to deal with when writing in private at home is introduced into the

public space of the school. Because in his study, it becomes clear that students

experience a clear difference between private home writing and school writing, even

if the genre is poetry, Erixon (2005: 140) concludes:

―We have, however, to accept that genuine communication between students

may be less easy to establish. As a result of projects like The Garden of

Thought ritual activities are expressed alongside elements of communication.

That is certainly a step in the right direction.‖

A more traditional move to enhance interest in writing is by developing

(research) projects in class, where writing supports the development of the project,

and writing is the ultimate educational aim. Munch (2005: 339 - 347) in secondary

and Oliver (2005: 369-382) in primary education report on these kinds of writing

environments.

E. Rationale

The main goal of English instruction in Indonesia is that at the end of the

study, students master language skills involving listening, speaking, reading, and

writing. In relation to writing competence, the goal is to enable the students to

express the meanings in written interpersonal and transactional discourses formally

and informally in the forms of recount, narrative, procedure, descriptive, news item,

report, analytical exposition, hortatory exposition, spoof, explanation, discussion,

and review in a context of daily lives. To achieve this goal, two important factors

94

play significant roles, i.e. the external factors and the internal factor. In terms of the

external factors, the teaching method is of significance and some innovations have

been applied, in this case paper-based portfolio learning and electronic-based

portfolio learning. In relation to the internal factors, students‘ writing interest also

plays an important role in achieving the goal since it is the essential for learning

process. In this rationale, the writer explores the effectiveness of portfolio-based

learnings and the students‘ writing interest in the teaching of writing as follows:

1. The difference between paper-based portfolio learning and electronic-based

portfolio learning for the teaching of writing.

Born in the 1980‘s, as an innovation in the educational field after having

been widely applied outside of the classrooms, paper-based portfolio learning for

the teaching of writing is the process of change in English writing competence as

a result of the teaching of English writing based on purposeful printed/

handwritten record of students‘ works collected through a collaborative effort

between the student and the teachers as a reflection of the student‘s efforts,

progress and achievements. The storage format for paper-based portfolio learning

is usually in manila folders, three-ring notebooks or larger containers. Most

often, the artifacts are comprised of text and images on paper. The

implementation of paper-based portfolio learning for the teaching of writing is

beneficial as it enables the students have authority or ownership to review their

writing and decide which pieces they will present to the teachers and what they

would like teachers to see in that writing. For reasons such as this, portfolios

stimulate student interaction with peers and student ownership in the learning

process. This feeling of ownership is enhanced by the fact that the portfolio

experience is not a brief, one-shot presentation of writing. A greater sense of

authority or ownership, in turn, can increase learner motivation, since learners

feel a greater personal stake in the work they produce. Another benefit of paper-

based portfolio learning is that it can be used to encourage students to reflect on

the pieces they write and on the processes they use to write them. Student

reflection on their writing in preparation of a portfolio is a key concept in

95

portfolio pedagogy and an essential aspect of learner-directed assessment. Later

on, in line with the rapid development of Information Communication

Technology, electronic-based portfolio learning was born in the early 1990s. It is

an electronic version of paper-based portfolio learning with some differences in

the way it is developed, accessed, updated, and enriched with many media types,

such as: audio, video, and graphics. Different from the traditional formats of

portfolios, electronic-based portfolio learning is easily accessible and easy to

update. In addition, the hyperlinks among standards, artifacts, and reflections

provide a much richer picture of a student‘s abilities and growth than paper-based

portfolios do. The main difference is that the students and the teachers need an

extra skill in developing their electronic-based portfolios, i.e. learning with

technology. Thus, the use of electronic-based portfolios offers a number of

advantages over traditional paper-based portfolios, such as portability,

accessibility, distribution ability, and repeatability of performances for the reason

that they are easier to search, and records can be simply retrieved, manipulated,

refined and reorganized. They also reduce effort and time and are more

comprehensive and rigorous. They can use more extensive material including

pictures, sound, animation, graphic design and video. Another reason is that they

are much smaller and cost effective to distribute so that they are easy to carry and

share with peers, supervisors, parents, employers and others. This, in turn, allows

fast feedback. The electronic version can have an organizational structure that is

not linear or hierarchical and showcase the technological skills of the creator.

Built on the web, they are instantly accessible and can provide access to a global

readership. Based on the above exploration, it is assumed that electronic-based

portfolio learning is more effective than paper-based portfolio learning is for the


2. The difference between students who have high writing interest and those who

have low writing interest for the teaching of writing.

The students‘ writing interest as their cognitive and affective consciousness

(organized through experience) which impels them mentally and physically to

96

express their thoughts and feelings by a sequence of arranged sentences leading

to the creation of meaning and the information is of great importance. One of the

foci of the actions to improve the writing curriculum is to raise students‘ interest

in writing, assuming that an increased interest leads to more involvement in

learning. The relationship between writing interest and the teaching of writing

can be described in three ways. The first way is that writing interest increases

writing motivation, writing engagement, and writing persistence. Writing

motivations are essential precursors to writing engagement. Students who are

interested in a topic or activity are more likely to engage and persist, which in

turn leads to the acquisition of writing competence. Writing motivation also helps

individuals to develop the confidence to undertake a new writing activity or to

venture into an unfamiliar intellectual domain such as publishing their works on-

line or to a wider audience. In turn, writing motivation and engagement facilitate

writing persistence within a domain that is necessary to develop true writing

competence. Writing persistence produces greater writing competence, which

increases confidence and self efficacy, and makes it easier and more enjoyable to

learn. The second way that writing interest is related to the teaching of writing is

through strategy use. Students who are interested in writing a topic report using

more strategies are more likely to monitor their performance and shift strategies

when necessary and are better able to self-regulate their learning. Increased

strategy use, metacognitive monitoring, and self-regulation improve the

efficiency of writing competence and knowledge acquisition as well as the

amount of information learned. Finally, the third way that writing interest affects

the teaching of writing is through deeper information processing. High-interest

learners were more likely to construct deeper mental representations of a text.

This correlation may be due in part to the fact that high-interest learners are more

likely to possess topic-specific knowledge and learning strategies. Yet regardless

of knowledge and strategies, students with high levels of interest are more likely

to engage in an activity, persist, report positive affect, and focus more of their

effort on constructing a deeper understanding of writing competence that they are

studying. Based on the above explanation, it is assumed that the students who

97

have high writing interest have higher writing competence than those who have

low writing interest.

3. The interaction between the portfolio-based learnings and writing interest for the


The main goal of English instruction in Indonesia is that at the end of the

study, students master language skills involving listening, speaking, reading, and

writing. In relation to writing competence, the goal is to enable the students to

express the meanings in written interpersonal and transactional discourses

formally and informally in the forms of recount, narrative, procedure, descriptive,

news item, report, analytical exposition, hortatory exposition, spoof, explanation,

discussion, and review in a context of daily lives. To achieve this goal, some

innovations have been applied, in this case paper-based portfolio learning and

electronic-based portfolio learning. Those types of portfolio-based learning have

strengths as well as weaknesses. Nevertheless, students‘ writing interest also

plays an important role in achieving the goal. It is the essential for learning

process. Seeing the characteristics that the electronic-based portfolio learning

possesses, it is suitable for the teacher to put this kind of portfolio-based learning

into practice to students who have high writing interest. High-interested students

will generate full interest and participation during the learning with technology.

Another factor is that they get involved in the process of construction and

through collaboration with and feedback from the teachers. From such reason as

this, the students not only can take teacher‘s feedback and peer reviews anytime

and anywhere but also update and revise their works. That their works are

published on-line with unlimited audience in the virtual world is an added value

that increases their writing interest. Meanwhile, the paper-based portfolio

learning possesses characteristics that are nearly similar to the usual in-class

writing instruction. The students, particularly low-interested students, cannot

meet the media to share their writings except those who are their teachers/

classmates. They are also not challenged to learn with technology. Most of peer

reviewing and teacher‘s feedback take place in a classroom setting only.

98

Considering the explanation above, it is assumed that electronic-based portfolio

learning is better applied for high-interested students while paper-based portfolio

learning is better applied for low-interested students in improving students‘

writing competence. In other words, it is assumed that there is an interaction

between the portfolio-based learnings and the student‘s writing interest for the


Therefore, the thinking framework can be drawn as follows.

The Thinking Framework

F. Hypothesis

The hypotheses of the study are formulated as follows:

1. Electronic-based portfolio learning is more effective than paper-based portfolio

learning is for the teaching of writing.

2. The students who have high writing interest have higher writing competence

than those who have low writing interest.

3. There is an interaction between the portfolio-based learnings and writing interest

for the teaching of writing.

The Thinking Framework The Thinking Framework

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The word methodology is derived from the word ‗method‘ that means ‗the

way of doing something‘ (Hornby, 1995: 671). The aim of methodology is,

according to Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2000: 44) citing Kaplan‘s words (1973):

―to describe and analyze these methods, throwing light on their limitations

and resources, clarifying their presuppositions and consequences, relating

their potentialities to the twilight zone at the frontiers of knowledge. It is to

venture generalizations from the success of particular techniques, suggesting

new applications, and to unfold the specific bearings of logical and

metaphysical principles on concrete problems, suggesting new formulations‖.

In summary, the methodology is aimed at helping the researcher to

understand, in the broadest possible terms.

Correspondingly, research methodology consists of the assumptions,

postulates, rules, and methods—the blueprint or roadmap—that researchers employ

to render their work open to analysis, critique, replication, repetition, and/or

adaptation and to choose research methods (Schensul, 2008: 516). In this chapter, the

writer gives details on Research Methodology. He begins with the aims of the study

to undertake. In so doing, the rest of this chapter will be on the right track. Secondly,

setting of the research in terms of time and place of the research is talked over. The

next thing he considers is the method of the research. After that, the subject of the

research is discussed under the following headings: population, sample, and

sampling. The last two parts are concerned with technique of collecting data and

technique of analyzing data.

99

100

A. The Aims of the Study

This research is aimed at finding out:

1. Whether the electronic-based portfolio learning is more effective than the paper-

based portfolio learning is in improving students‘ writing competence.

2. Whether writing interest is effective in influencing students‘ writing competence.

3. Whether there is interaction between the two portfolio-based learnings and

writing interest in teaching writing.

B. Setting of the Research

1. Time of the Research

This comparative study is planned to carry out in seven months from July

2009 to January 2010. The following is the schedule of this comparative research:

Table 3.1 - Time Schedule

No. Activities

JUL

Y

AU

GU

ST

SE

PT

OC

T

NO

V

DE

C

JAN

1 Pre-Research

2 Proposal

3 Literature Review

4 Instrument Development

5 Data Collection & Analysis

6 Report Writing

7 Document Submission

101

2. Place of the Research

This research is conducted at Sekolah Menengah Atas Negeri 2 Sampit

(henceforth, SMA Negeri 2 Sampit), a state owned Senior High Schools in East

Kotawaringin regency, Central Kalimantan province. Located at Jalan Gunung

Kerinci No. 3 0531-24312 Sampit 74312, SMA Negeri 2 Sampit is a computer

laboratory equipped school in addition to an internet accessed laboratory. The

previous one consists of 40 unit of desktop computers linked with a network and the

latter one consists of 20 unit of desktop computers linked with Jaringan Pendidikan

Nasional (Jardiknas), a nationally linked educational network and PT Telkom‘s

Speedy Internet.

Besides that, the school‘s policy has managed an internet course in its

Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan, School-Based Curriculum. The course itself

is given to the first year student in the first semester and once a week in a period of 2

x 45 minutes. The writer was the person who took the responsibility of managing

both of the computer laboratory and internet laboratory from 2005 to 2008.

C. The Method of the Research

Research, according to Richards and Schmidt (2002: 456), is the study of an

event, problem or phenomenon using systematic methods, in order to understand it

better and to develop principles and theories about it. Another definition of the term

is organized study, i.e. methodical investigation into a subject in order to discover

facts, to establish or revise a theory, or to develop a plan of action based on the facts

discovered (―research,‖ 2008). The last definition the writer cites is from Nunan

(1992: 3) stating that research is a scientific method for gaining knowledge through

investigation or experimentation to find out empirical facts that may verify the

hypothesis proposed before.

Based on the definitions above, it can be concluded that research is a

scientific study organized to understand a phenomenon better by doing

experimentation leading to verify a proposed hypothesis.

102

In connection with the aims of the study and the discussion above, the

method of the research is of great significance to take into account before the

research begins. As this study is designed to obtain data from the students‘ writing

competence when they are taught by electronic-based portfolio learning and by

paper-based portfolio learning, experimental research seems ideally suited to this

study. In other words, the method applied is an experimental one.

Experimental method, as stated by Richards and Schmidt (2002: 191), is an

approach to educational research in which an idea or hypothesis is tested or verified

by setting up situations in which the relationship between different participants or

variables can be determined. In educational setting, Mayer (2009: 394) is of the

opinion that:

―experimental research is generally recognized as the most appropriate method

for drawing causal conclusions about instructional interventions, for example,

which instructional method is most effective for which type of student under

which conditions‖.

At its simplest, experimental researcher‘s approach is described by Kerlinger

(1970) cited by Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2000: 44), ―If x, then y; if frustration,

then aggression…the researcher uses some method to measure x and then observes y

to see if concomitant variation occurs.‖ In other words, the experimental method is

intended to investigate the effect of a treatment (X) for the effect (Y).

However, Banister (2008: 27) identifies some requirements for conducting an

experimental research as follows:

1. Randomly selected participants who are randomly assigned to groups

(experimental and control);

2. Independent treatment variable that can be applied to the experimental

group;

3. Dependent variable that can be measured in all groups.

The requirements are certainly hard to meet by the writer. In addition to this,

Muijs (2004: 25 – 26) also points out, ―In everyday settings, any causal effect found

in an experimental setting is likely to be influenced by a whole load of contextual

factors and influences which will tend to make the relationship far less predictable

103

than in a laboratory setting.‖ He also says that another problem with experimental

research is that it can be difficult to put into practice in educational settings. In

implementing an intervention that is specifically designed to take place in a

classroom, he thinks that there would be problems in trying to randomly allocate

pupils to teachers who did and did not implement the intervention. Finally, the lack

of control over the environment is another thing he worries about. He further

maintains, ―In a classroom situation, there is a whole variety of other influences that

may affect outcomes, making it difficult to ascribe effects to the intervention.‖

Based on the discussion above, the writer conducts a quasi-experimental

design. As suggested by its name, it is the design that comprises quasi experimental

research approximate experimental method (Pion and Cordray, undated: 2024).

Pioneered by Thomas Campbell and Julian Stanley in the 1960s by publishing a

handbook chapter titled ―Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for

Research‖ (Donmoyer, 2008: 715), a quasi experimental is characterized by several

things, i.e. it has both pre- and post-test; it has experimental and control group; it has

no random assignment of subjects (Nunan, 1992: 41). Kraska (2008: 836)

characterizes such an experimental research as follows: Nonrandomized Control

Group, Pre-test and Post-test Design, Time Series, Single-Subject Designs, and

Factorial Designs.

Therefore, there are two groups in the study, i.e. an experimental group and

a control one. The experimental group is the class that is taught by electronic-based

portfolio learning and the control group is the class taught by paper-based portfolio

learning. Moreover, the experimental one attends a class equipped with Internet-

accessed computers whereas the latter one receives instruction in a class with no

Internet-accessed computers. It also implies that, if needed, the control group is

allowed to use computer in a computer equipped classroom to build and print out

their portfolios such as for editing, reviewing, etc. Each student in the experimental

one is asked to build their own blogs guided by the writer. To sum up, the main

difference between the two groups is that the experimental one builds a collection of

electronic evidence assembled and managed on the Web while the control one builds

104

a collection of paper-based work that provides information about the students‘

efforts.

Instruction or treatment will be delivered in eight, ninety-minute periods,

typical of secondary school in Indonesia. The control and experimental groups are

given the same teaching-learning material and assignments as regular practices.

In addition, at the end of the treatment, the writer gives a questionnaire about

students‘ writing interest. The students‘ writing interest is classified into two

categories, namely high writing interest and low writing interest. By so-doing, the

writer can find out what type of portfolio-based learning can be used to teach

students having high motivation and those having low writing interest.

The groups are also given a post-test which is the same as the pre-test. The

writer then compares the improvement of English wiring competence from pre-test

to post-test between the two groups to find out whether there is a different influence

between electronic-based portfolio learning and paper-based learning.

As one of the characteristics of quasi experimental research is factorial design

and the researcher wants to assess both independent variables, factorial design is

used to analyze the main effects of both experimental variables and the interaction

between the treatments. The factorial design, founded by a British statistician Ronald

Fisher, allows the researcher to simultaneously study the impact of multiple variables

(Sheskin, 2008: 374). He further asserts:

―An example of a more complex design commonly employed in

psychological research is the factorial design, which is able to simultaneously

evaluate the impact of two or more independent variables on one or more

dependent variables. A major advantage of the factorial design is it allows the

researcher to identify an interaction between variables. An interaction is

present when subjects‘ performance on one independent variable is not

consistent across all the levels of another independent variable.‖ (2008: 378).

This research is designed to describe and to prove the effectiveness of

electronic-based portfolio learning to improve students‘ writing competence and to

get the students interested to learn. The proposed 2 x 2 factorial design is shown at

the following table:

105

Table 3.2 - Research Design

Factor A PORTFOLIO LEARNING

Factor B

ELECTRONIC-

BASED

(Experimental Group)

(A1)

PAPER-

BASED

(Control Group)

(A2)

WRITING

INTEREST

HIGH

(B1)

A1B1 A2B1

LOW

(B2) A1B2 A2B2

D. Subject of the Research

1. Population

According to Saumure and Given (2008: 644), population as a concept in

research methods refers to every individual who fits the criteria (broad or narrow)

that the researcher has laid out for research participants. It is also said by Fraenkel

and Wallen (2003: 103) that population is the group to which the results of the study

are intended to apply. It may be called that population is any of individuals having

the quality or characteristic in common from which a researcher may get the data.

The target population in the present study is the tenth graders of SMA Negeri

2 Sampit in the 2009/2010 academic year. The total population is 192 students. They

are grouped into a class of 32 students making a total of six classes. They are XR1,

XR2, XR3, XR4, XR5, and XR6

2. Sample

Sample (in statistics and testing) is any group of individuals that is selected to

represent a population (Richards and Schmidt, 2002: 465). According to Bloor and

Wood (2006: 154), a sample is representative of the population from which it is

selected if the characteristics of the sample approximate to the characteristics in the

106

population. Based on the statements above, it can be concluded that sample is

representative elements from a larger population taken from certain rules.

The sample used in the research is two classes of the tenth graders at SMA

Negeri 2 Sampit in the 2009/2010 academic year. One class is the experimental class

and the other one is the control class. As the sample, the students have common

characteristics of population as follows:

1. The students study at the same school, specifically SMA Negeri 2 Sampit in the

2009/2010 academic year.

2. The students are at the same grade, namely the tenth grade.

3. The students are taught by the same teacher.

4. They are more homogenous than the eleventh graders and twelfth graders are

because they have not been grouped into some classes of Natural Science

Program and Social Science Program.

Thus, the most important thing is that both groups have a similar ability based

on the same characteristics above.

In this research, XR1 is chosen as the experimental group consisting of 32

students while XR4 is chosen as the control group consisting of 32 students. The two

classes are chosen by a technique of cluster random sampling and the details of the

technique are argued in the next portion.

Since the research design is a 2 x 2 factorial design (see Table 3.2 above),

each class is divided into two groups, students who have high writing interest and

those who have low writing interest. As a result, there are four groups: (1) students

having high writing interest who are taught by electronic-based portfolio learning;

(2) students having low writing interest who are taught by electronic-based portfolio

learning; (3) students having high writing interest who are taught by paper-based

portfolio learning; and (4) students having low writing interest who are taught by

paper-based portfolio learning.

107

3. Sampling

According to Johnson and Christensen (2000: 156), ―Sampling is the process

of drawing a sample from a population‖. Sampling, as stated by Richards and

Schmidt (2002: 465), is the procedure of selecting a sample. Thus, sampling can be

said as a technique used for getting samples.

According to Sridhar (2008: 18), based on representation basis the types of

sample designs can be classified into probability sampling and non-probability one.

Cohen and Holliday (1979, 1982, 1996) and Schofield (1996) in Cohen, Manion and

Morrison (2000: 99) also state there are two main methods of sampling. They are

probability sample and non-probability sample. Therefore, it can be concluded that

there are two types of samples, i.e. probability sample and non-probability sample.

In this study, the writer applies two types of sample. Firstly, he utilizes a non-

probability sample, namely purposive sampling. Cohen, Manion and Morrison

(2000: 99) put out, ―In this way, they build up a sample that is satisfactory to their

specific needs‖. In addition, it involves the selection of cases on the basis of the

researcher‘s own judgment about which will be the most useful (Bloor and Wood,

2006: 134). From the statements above, it can be said that in applying a purposive

sample a researcher selects a sample according to a specific criteria. In this case, the

writer selects the tenth graders as the sample because they are still homogenous in

term of having the same courses while in the second or third year they will major

either at Natural or Social Science Programs. Another reason is that they have an

internet course in the first half of the 2009/2010 academic year. SMA Negeri 2

Sampit has included the course in its School Based Curriculum since the 2006/2007

academic year.

Secondly, the researcher makes use of probability sample because he draws

the sample randomly from the wider population (Cohen, Manion and Morrison,

2000: 99). In line with the explanation above, Sridhar (2008: 24) points out that in

probability sampling each unit of the population is assigned equal probability. In

other words, every element has equal chance of being selected.

108

There are several types of probability samples: simple random samples;

systematic samples; stratified samples; cluster samples; stage samples, and multi-

phase samples. For the purpose of this research, the writer uses cluster random

sampling, a probability sample in which the elements are all the members of

randomly selected sampling units, each of which is a collection or cluster of elements

from the population sampled (Schofield, 2006: 34 – 35). Likewise, Sridhar (2008:

33) asserts that in a cluster sampling a large area of in interest is divided into a

number of smaller non overlapping areas/ clusters. In his research, the writer picks

up two classes (sub groups) from a larger group of six classes (tenth graders) then

uses the two classes (subgroups) as a basis for making judgments about the larger

group. All in all, he selects groups or clusters of subjects rather than individuals. This

sampling strategy is applied because administrative problems will be posed by the

writer if he gathers a simple random sample. Another reason is that it is completely

impractical to select students as individuals.

The method involves selecting at random from a list of the population (a

sampling frame) the required number of subjects for the sample. To do this, the

writer operates MS Excel 2007 through Adds-ins of Data Analysis (Sampling). It

intends to determine classes. The procedures of randomizing sample by Sampling of

Data Analysis in MS Excel 2007 are as follows:

1. Defining the population;

2. Numbering each class from 1 to 6 (referring to XR1, XR2, XR3, XR4, XR5, and

XR6) by typing 1 to 6 in an Excel document;

3. Inputting the range and number of samples, namely 2 samples;

4. Inputting the cells in which the sample out will be displayed;

5. Clicking OK.

The first sample displayed is the experimental group taught by electronic-

based portfolio learning whereas the second one is taken as the control group taught

by paper-based portfolio learning.

109

E. The Techniques of Collecting Data

This section moves to a closer-grained account of instruments for collecting

data, how they are used, and how they are constructed. In connection to the design of

the research, the writer identifies two kinds of instrument for data collection in what

follows.

1. Questionnaire

Questionnaires are often referred to under different names, such as

―inventories‖, ―forms‖, ―opinnionaires‖, ―tests‖, ―batteries‖, ―checklists‖, ―scales‖,

―surveys‖, ―schedules‖, ―studies‖, ―profiles‖, ―indexes/indicators‖, or even simply

―sheets‖ (Aiken, 1997 in Dornyei, 2003: 5). Brown (2001: 6) defines 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 selecting from among existing answers. Moreover, Wilson and Sapsford (2006:

121) state that a questionnaire is a structured set of questions, containing all

necessary instructions, for respondents to fill in by themselves. In conclusion, a

questionnaire is a set of written items for respondents to fill in by themselves based

on the instruction given.

In this study, the writer uses a questionnaire to get information from the

students about their writing interest. Because the questionnaire asks for information

about the respondents, i.e. their writing interest, in a non-evaluative manner, it does

not have good or bad answers. Accordingly, in order to elicit more truthful

responses, it is of significance to think about the issue of confidentiality from the

students. The writer puts a notice that the questionnaire cannot be seen by anyone in

the school and only members of the research team will have access to the students‘

answers.

The most important step in preparing the questionnaire items is to specify

their content in explicit terms. Since the design of this questionnaire is to measure

students‘ writing interest, the researcher concentrates on some aspects of the writing

110

interest. Based on the theoretical reviews as discussed in the previous chapter and the

identification of some main dimensions, forty items is produced, all targeting

important characteristics of writing interest.

The questionnaire type constructed by the writer belongs to 'Closed-ended'

Questionnaire Items. These items do not require the respondents to produce any free

writing; instead, they are to choose one of the alternatives, regardless of whether

their preferred answer is among them (Dornyei, 2003: 35). In particular, the writer

uses the Likert scale, one of scaling techniques. In this research, ―the most

commonly used scaling technique‖ (Dornye, 2003: 5) consist of a series of forty

statements all of which are related to the writing interest. The tenth graders of SMA

Negeri 2 Sampit as respondents are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree

or disagree with these items by marking (e. g., circling) one of the responses ranging

from 'strongly agree' to 'strongly disagree.' Each response option is assigned a

number for scoring purposes (e. g., 'strongly agree' = 4, 'strongly disagree' = 1). The

following is an example of the questionnaire‘s response item.

Figure 3.1-A Likert Scale

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

(SA) (A) (D) (SD)

The number of response options each scale contains four responses options.

The researcher prefers using an even number of response options because of the

concern that certain respondents might use the middle category ('neither agree nor

disagree, ' 'not sure, ' or 'neutral') to avoid making a real choice, that is, to take the

easy way out.

To provide a total score that reflects writing interest, the scoring of negative

items is reversed. A student having high writing interest agrees with positive items

and disagrees with negative ones. A student having low writing interest, on the

contrary, disagrees with positive items and agrees with negative ones (Tuckman,

1978: 179 – 181).

111

Table 3.3 - Scores of Writing Interest Questionnaire

Response Item Positive Item Negative Item

Strongly Agree (SA) 4 1

Agree (A) 3 2

Disagree (D) 2 3

Strongly Disagree (SD) 1 4

In fact, validity and reliability are two key concepts in measurement theory,

referring to the psychometric properties of the measurement techniques and the data

obtained by them. Therefore, the items of the questionnaire are tried out to know the

validity and the reliability. The tryout of questionnaire is performed before a

treatment and carried out to one out of four other classes, which are not the

experimental group and the control one. For this reason, the next two sub-sections

are concerned with the two significant concepts.

a. Validity

The writing interest questionnaire is a measurement instrument and,

accordingly, it must possess adequate validity too. Validity is the extent to which a

psychometric instrument measures what it has been designed to measure (Dornyei ,

2003: 110). According to the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing,

published in 1999 by the American Educational Research Association, American

Psychological Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education,

validity is defined as the extent to which empirical evidence and theory lend support

to the interpretation and inferences made about test scores for particular uses

(Leighton, 2008: 995). In addition, Blaxter (1995: 200) asserts that validity deals

with whether the researcher‘s methods, approaches, and actually relate to, or

measure, the issues he or she has been exploring. Based on the three definitions, it

can be concluded that validity is the extent to which an instrument measure what it is

designed to measure based on empirical and theoretical evidences.

To measure the validity of the instrument, the writer uses internal validity.

This kind of validity refers to the extent to which any findings obtained are

112

exclusively the result of the variables being studied here or are potentially affected

by other factors that are not part of the original relationship studied (Porte, 2002: 37).

The statement supports the definition previously stated by Cohen, Manion and

Morrison (2000: 126) who point out that internal validity is concerned with the

question, do the experimental treatments, in fact, make a difference in the specific

experiments under scrutiny. Lastly, Arikunto (2002: 160) states that an instrument

will have an internal validity if every part of the instrument supports its mission in

opening the data from the variable being studied.

In this research, a statistical procedure is applied to the questionnaire to

estimate its validity or generally to determine what it measures, and how well it does

so. The procedure named Point biserial correlation (rpbi) is a correlation coefficient

calculated between a dichotomous nominal variable and a continuous (interval)

variable. The formula looks like this:

If ro is higher than rt, the item under analysis is valid.

b. Reliability

According to Miller (2008: 851), reliability is concerned with inconsistent or

random errors of measurement. Another explanation is from Cohen, Manion and

Morrison (2000: 117) who maintain:

―Reliability is essentially a synonym for consistency and replicability over

time, over instruments and over groups of respondents. It is concerned with

precision and accuracy; some features, e.g. height, can be measured precisely,

whilst others, e.g. musical ability, cannot.‖

Prior to the explanations above, Nunan (1992: 231) defines the reliability as

(a) the extent to which an independent researcher, on analyzing one‘s data, would

reach the same conclusion, (b) a replication of one‘s study yield similar result. The

reliability, in this context, refers to the accuracy (consistency and stability) of

113

measurement by a test. From the explanations above, it can be sum up that reliability

refers it refers to the consistency of the test score.

In the research, the writer uses one main form of reliability, namely internal

consistency. It is stated by Muijs (2004: 73) that internal consistency reliability refers

to how homogeneous the items of a test are or how well they measure a single

construct. Considering the practically and efficiency, the way the writer calculates

internal consistency reliability is by Cronbach‘s alpha to test internal reliability and

correlate performance on each item with an overall score. It is stated by Duwi

Priyatno (2008: 25) that the alpha method is suitable for scale scores (e.g. 1-4, 1-5)

or interval scores (e.g. 0-20, 0-50). The Cronbach‘s alpha test of internal reliability

calculates the average of all possible split-half reliability coefficients and a computed

alpha coefficient varies between 1, denoting perfect internal reliability, and 0,

denoting no internal reliability. The formula of the Cronbach‘s alpha test of internal

reliability is shown below:

Definitions

k = the number of items on the test.

= the variance on each item.

= the total variance on the test.

If rkk is higher than rt, the items of the instrument under analysis is reliable.

The valid and reliable items are managed to get the data of the experimental

and control class. Afterward, the instruments are administered to 27% of upper group

(group of high writing interest) and 27% of lower group (group of high writing

interest) from both classes. Hence, there are eighteen students from the experimental

class and eighteen students from the control one (27% x 32 students = 9 students of

upper group, 27% x 32 = 9 for lower group) (Sudjana, 1991: 398-400).

114

2. Test

To get the data of students‘ writing competence, the writer uses a test. It is

defined by Boyle and Fisher (2007: 11) that a test is a form of systematic assessment,

with standardized procedures, from which numerical scores are taken. In simple

term, Brown (2003: 3) points out that a test is a method of measuring a person's

ability, knowledge, or performance in a given domain. In brief, a test is a systematic

procedure to measure an individual‘s competence in a given domain.

Brown (2003: 43) lists five types of language tests. They are language

aptitude test, proficiency test, placement test, diagnostic test, and achievement test.

Reviewing the purpose of the research, the writer designs an achievement test. The

primary role of the test in this research is to determine whether the treatment given

gains a significant effect and appropriate competence writing is acquired by the end

of a period of research. In short, the test is designed for purposes of comparison of

two groups taught by portfolio-based learning, i.e. electronic-based portfolio and

paper-based portfolio.

Tests are the most effective instrument to reveal one‘s proficiency in a certain

subject. In this study, the writer uses an essay test. The test given is in accordance

with Standar Isi Bahasa Inggris SMA, a guideline of English Language Teaching for

senior high schools on the standard of competencies and basic competencies. It is

stated that, in terms of writing skill in the first half of the academic year, the tenth

graders are able to

“Mengungkapkan makna dalam bentuk teks tulis fungsional pendek

(misalnya pengumuman, iklan, undangan dll.) resmi dan tak resmi dengan

menggunakan ragam bahasa tulis secara akurat, lancar dan berterima dalam

konteks kehidupan sehari-hari. Mengungkapkan makna dan langkah-langkah

retorika secara akurat, lancar dan berterima dengan menggunakan ragam

bahasa tulis dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari dalam teks berbentuk:

recount, narrative, dan procedure.‖ (Departemen Pendidikan Nasional,

2006).

115

Therefore, after the treatment the students are asked to perform their writing

competence through free writing. The criteria that underlie rating the writing test are

content, organization, language use or grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics

(Genesse and Upshur, 1996: 207).

The writing test is rated by two raters on a score scale of 0 – 100 according to

the standards (rubric) below. If the two ratings differ by more than 20 point, a third

rater evaluates the response and resolves the score.

As a replacement of validity and reliability issue, in writing test it is known

as ―readability‖. It is stated by Wolfe (undated: 1972) that the term has also been

used to describe the legibility of writing or the interest value of texts. In this case,

before administering the test, the writer asks for his colleague‘s opinion and some

students at same level whether the writing test provided is readable or not.

The writer also checks the writing test‘s readability statistics according to the

tests of Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level by using the Spelling

and Grammar tool in Microsoft Word 2007. The previous one rates text on a 100-

point scale, meaning that the higher the score, the easier it is to understand the

document (‗Word Help‘, 2006). It is also stated that for most standard files, the

desired score is between 60 and 70.

The formula for the Flesch Reading Ease score is:

206.835 – (1.015 x ASL) – (84.6 x ASW)

where:

ASL = average sentence length (the number of words divided by the number of

sentences);

ASW = average number of syllables per word (the number of syllables divided by

the number of words).

The latter test rates text on a U.S. school grade level. For example, a score of

8.0 means that an eighth grader can understand the document. For most documents,

they are aimed at a score of approximately 7.0 to 8.0.

116

The formula for the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level score is:

(.39 x ASL) + (11.8 x ASW) – 15.59

where:

ASL = average sentence length (the number of words divided by the number of

sentences);

ASW = average number of syllables per word (the number of syllables divided by

the number of words).

Table 3.4 - Analytic Scale for Rating Writing Test

(Based on ESL Composition Profile)

No. Categories Level Criteria

1 Content: 30 – 27 Excellent to very good

The appropriateness with 26 – 22 Good to average

the title chosen. 21 – 17 Fair to poor

16 – 13 Very poor

2 Organization: 20 – 18 Excellent to very good

paragraph unity, coherence, 17 – 14 Good to average

and cohesion 13 – 10 Fair to poor

9 – 7 Very poor

3 Vocabulary: 20 – 18 Excellent to very good

the precision of using 17 – 14 Good to average

Vocabulary 13 – 10 Fair to poor

9 – 7 Very poor

4 Language Use/ Grammar 25 – 22 Excellent to very good

tenses and pattern 21 – 18 Good to average

17 – 11 Fair to poor

10 – 6 Very poor

117


5 Mechanics: 5 Excellent to very good

spelling and punctuation 4 Good to average

3 Fair to poor

2 Very poor

The Range of Writing Score 35 – 100

F. The Technique of Analyzing the Data

As previously stated, the objective of this study is to investigate the combined

effect of electronic-based portfolio learning and writing interest in improving

students‘ writing competence. The experiment investigating the combined effects of

two or more independent variables is called a factorial design and the results are

analyzed by means of multifactor analysis of variance (Ary, 1985: 169).

In the preceding part of this section, it is maintained that there are four groups

of students and the data to analyze are arranged into 4 groups as shown below.

Table 3.5 - Groups of Data

Data A

The scores of students having high writing interest who are taught

by electronic-based portfolio learning;

Data B

The scores of students having low writing interest who are taught

by electronic-based portfolio learning;

Data C

The scores of students having high writing interest who are taught

by paper-based portfolio learning;

Data D

The scores of students having low writing interest who are taught

by paper-based portfolio learning.

118

In the following table, the design of multifactor analysis of variance is shown.

Table 3.6 - The Design of Multifactor Analysis of Variance

Factor A PORTFOLIO-BASED LEARNING

Factor B

ELECTRONIC-

BASED

(Experimental Group)

(A1)

PAPER-

BASED

(Control Group)

(A2)

WRITING

INTEREST

HIGH

(B1) A1B1 A2B1 B1

LOW

(B2) A1B2 A2B2 B2

A1 A2

Definitions:

A1B1 = the mean score of writing test of students having high writing

interest who are taught using electronic-based portfolio

learning.

A1B2 = the mean score of writing test of students having low writing

interest who are taught using electronic-based portfolio

learning.

A2B1 = the mean score of writing test of students having high writing

interest who are taught using paper-based portfolio learning.

A2B2 = the mean score of writing test of students having low writing

interest who are taught using paper-based portfolio learning.

A1 = the mean score of writing test of experimental class taught by

using electronic-based portfolio learning.

A2 = the mean score of writing test of experimental class taught by

using electronic-based portfolio learning.

B1 = the mean score of writing test of students having high writing

interest.

B2 = the mean score of writing test of student having low interest.

119

What should be analyzed are as follows:

1. Descriptive Statistics: Mean, Standard Error of Mean, Median,

Mode, Standard Deviation, Variance, Skewness, Standard Error of

Skewness, Kurtosis, Standard Error of Kurtosis, Range, Minimum,

Maximum, and Sum.

2. Pre-requisite testings (normality and homegeneity)

Normality

Normality is calculated for each group of data in Table 3.5.

If obtained Lo is lower than Lt or Lo < Lt, it can be concluded that

sample is in normal distribution. The analysis of comparative test can

be continued if the four samples are in normal distribution.

Homogeneity

Homogeneity is also calculated for all of the four groups of data in

Table 3.5.

The formula to calculate homogeneity is shown below.

–

If is lower than , it can be concluded that the data are

homogeneous. Thus, the comparative test can be continued.

120

3. Multifactor Analysis of Variance

The steps are as follows:

Analysis:

Formulating the hypothesis

a. H01 : Electronic-based portfolio learning is less effective than

paper-based portfolio learning is for the teaching of

writing.

b. H02 : The students who have high writing interest have lower

writing competence than those who have low writing

interest.

c. H03 : There is no interaction between the portfolio-based

learnings and writing interest for the teaching of writing.

d. Ha1 : Electronic-based portfolio learning is more effective than

paper-based portfolio learning is for the teaching of

writing.

e. Ha2 : The students who have high writing interest have higher

writing competence than those who have low writing

interest.

f. Ha3 : There is no interaction between the portfolio-based

learnings and writing interest for the teaching of writing.

Deciding the level of significance

The level of significance used is α = 5%.

Deciding F computation (MANOVA).

The F computation is carried out as follows.

1. The total sum of squares:

121

2. The sum squares between groups:

3. The sum squares within groups:

4. The between-columns sum of squares:

5. The between-rows sum of squares:

6. The sum of squares interaction:

7. The number of degrees of freedom associated with each source of variation: df for between-columns sum of squares = C – 1 = 2 – 1 = 1 df for between-rows sum of squares = R – 1 = 2 – 1 = 1 df for interaction = (C – 1) (R – 1) = 1 X 1 = 1 df for between groups sum of squares = G – 1 = 4 – 1 = 3 df for within-groups sum of squares = ∑(n-1) = 8+8+8+8 = 32df for total sum of squares = N – 1 = 32 – 1 = 31 where :

C = the number of columns

R = the number of rows

G = the number of groups

n = the number of subjects in one group

N = the number of subjects in all groups.

122

Table 3.7 Summary of A 2 X 2 Multifactor Analysis of Variance

Source of Variance SS df MS F Ft(.05) Ft(.01) Between column (Portfolio-based Learning) Between rows (Writing Interest)

Columns by rows (interaction)

Between Groups

Within groups

Total

8. Between column q =

9. Between column (HI) q=

10. Between column (LI) q = or q =

11. The test statistic is obtained by dividing the difference between the means by

square root of the ratio of the within group variation and the sample size.

TS: q =

12. Tukey test is used to know which teaching model is more effective or better

to teach writing.

a. If Fo between columns is higher than Ft(.05), the difference between

column is significant. It can be concluded that the two portfolio-based

learnings differ significantly from each other in their effect on the

performance of the subjects in the experiment.

b. If Fo between rows is higher than Ft(.05), the difference between rows is

significant. It can be concluded that the performance of those subjects

having high writing interest and those having low writing interest is

significant. A higher level of performance can be expected when the

writing interest is high than when it is low.

123

c. If Fo interaction is higher than Ft(.05), there is an interaction effect

between the two variables, the portfolio-based learning and writing

interest level. There is no significant difference in the students‘ scores

resulted from the interaction between the two variables, the portfolio-

based learning used and level of motivation. It means that the effect of

portfolio-based learning on writing competence depends on the writing

interest level of the students.

Test Criteria:

H0 is accepted if –F table ≤ F observation ≤ F table

H0 is rejected if –F observation < - F table or F observation > F table.

Comparing F observation and F table

a. If Fo between columns is higher than Ft(.05), the difference between column is

significant. H01 is rejected and it can be concluded that there is a significant

difference in the students‘ score between the students taught using electronic-

based portfolio learning and those taught using paper-based portfolio learning.

b. If Fo between rows is higher than Ft(.05), the difference between rows is

significant. H02 is rejected and it can be concluded that there is a significant

difference in the students‘ scores between the students who have low writing

interest and those who have high writing interest.

c. If Fo interaction is higher than Ft(.05), there is the interaction effect between the

two variables, portfolio-based learning and writing interest level. H03 is rejected

and it can be concluded that the effect of portfolio-based learning on writing

competence depends on the writing interest level of the students.

CHAPTER IV

THE RESULT OF THE STUDY

In this chapter, the writer sets out the result of the study. It is divided into

four parts: description of the data, prerequisite testing which comprises normality

and homogeneity tests, hypothesis testing, and the discussion of the study result.

A. Data Description

This study is aimed at investigating the combined effect of methods (the

types of portfolio-based learning) and writing interest in the teaching of writing. This

study is carried out at the tenth grade of SMA Negeri 2 Sampit. The writer takes two

classes as the sample; those are X1 as the experimental group and X4 as the control

group. Each group consists of 32 students as the respondents.

The writer gives different treatments to the groups. As stated before, in the

teaching of English writing, the first group as the experimental one is taught using

electronic-based portfolio learning while the latter group as the control one is taught

using paper-based portfolio learning.

The treatments are preceded by giving a questionnaire about students‘ writing

interest. A tryout of the instrument consisting of 40 items was held on November

24th

, 2009. Based on the result of the tryout, after calculated by using the formula

shown in the preceding chapter, it can be seen that all of the items are valid. The

summary of the tryout result is shown in the table 4.1.

124

125

Table 4.1.

Item Validity of the Writing Interest Questionnaire

Item No. Coefficient(s) of Correlation Critical Value (N = 40) Criteria

1 0.636 0.349 VALID

2 0.569 0.349 VALID

3 0.519 0.349 VALID

4 0.385 0.349 VALID

5 0.499 0.349 VALID

6 0.400 0.349 VALID

7 0.363 0.349 VALID

8 0.369 0.349 VALID

9 0.618 0.349 VALID

10 0.613 0.349 VALID

11 0.752 0.349 VALID

12 0.418 0.349 VALID

13 0.474 0.349 VALID

14 0.595 0.349 VALID

15 0.356 0.349 VALID

16 0.500 0.349 VALID

17 0.500 0.349 VALID

18 0.600 0.349 VALID

19 0.636 0.349 VALID

20 0.664 0.349 VALID

21 0.646 0.349 VALID

22 0.428 0.349 VALID

23 0.549 0.349 VALID

24 0.638 0.349 VALID

25 0.639 0.349 VALID

126

Item No. Coefficient(s) of Correlation Critical Value (N = 40) Criteria

26 0.422 0.349 VALID

27 0.619 0.349 VALID

28 0.543 0.349 VALID

29 0.422 0.349 VALID

30 0.656 0.349 VALID

31 0.502 0.349 VALID

32 0.814 0.349 VALID

33 0.805 0.349 VALID

34 0.674 0.349 VALID

35 0.486 0.349 VALID

36 0.575 0.349 VALID

37 0.597 0.349 VALID

38 0.527 0.349 VALID

39 0.691 0.349 VALID

40 0.663 0.349 VALID

(Source: Appendix 8)

Below is an example on how to carry out the validity test for item number 1.

= 273

127

Because r1(0.636) < rt(0.349), item no. 1 is valid.

The next step is to obtain the reliability of the writing interest questionnaire.

It is obtained that the reliability is .942. Thus, the coefficient of the questionnaire

reliability meets the criterion, i.e. .942 > .349 or r obtained > r table. It means that the

questionnaire of writing interest is reliable.

After administering the questionnaire, the writer divided each class into two

levels of writing interest, i.e. high and low. As soon as the division into two levels of

interest is managed, the writer takes 27 % of the students who have a high writing

interest and a same percentage of those who have a low writing interest in both

classes. Following the treatments in the terms of the teaching of writing, the writer

gives a writing test to the students of experimental group, who are taught by using

electronic-based portfolio learning and those of control group, who are taught by

using paper-based portfolio learning.

After rewriting the test based on the students‘ feedbacks and peer reviews, the

writer finds out the readability statistics of the writing test as shown in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2.

Readability Statistics

Counts

Words 97

Character 552

Paragraphs 10

Sentences 4

128

Averages

Sentences per Paragraph 1.0

Words per Sentence 10.5

Character per Word 4.6

Readability

Passive Sentences 0 %

Flesch Reading Ease 67.2

Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 6.4

The data under analysis in this study are the result of the writing test for 27 %

of the students with high writing interest level and 27 % of those with low writing

interest in both classes. The data include the mean, mode, median, standard

deviation, and frequency distribution then followed by some histograms. Before the

data are analyzed by means of multifactor analysis of variance, the data are divided

into two major groups as follows:

1. Data of the experimental group comprising:

a. The data of the writing test of the students or the groups who are taught by

electronic-based portfolio learning (A1);

b. The data of the writing test of the students or the group having high writing

interest who are taught by electronic-based portfolio learning (A1B1);

c. The data of the writing test of the students or the group having low writing

interest who are taught by electronic-based portfolio learning (A1B2); and

2. Data of the control group comprising:

a. The data of the writing test of the students or the groups who are taught by

paper-based portfolio learning (A2).

b. The data of the writing test of the students or the group having high writing

interest who are taught by paper-based portfolio learning (A2B1).

129

c. The data of the writing test of the students or the group having low writing

interest who are taught by paper-based portfolio learning (A2B2).

1. Data of the Experimental Group

a. The Data of Writing Test of the Students or the Group taught by Electronic-

based Portfolio Learning (A1)

From the data taken from the result of the experimental group‘s writing test,

it is shown that the highest score is 62 and the lowest score is 35. The mean of the

scores is 48.611, the mode is 39, the median is 48.500, and the standard deviation is

10.421. The frequency distribution of these data analyzed by applying SPSS 16.0 for

Windows Release 16.0.1 can be seen on the Table 4.3. and the histogram of

frequency distribution is shown on the Figure 4.1.

Table 4.3.

The frequency distribution of the writing test scores of the students or the group

taught by Electronic-based Portfolio Learning (A1)

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid 35 2 11.1 11.1 11.1

37 1 5.6 5.6 16.7

39 3 16.7 16.7 33.3

40 1 5.6 5.6 38.9

42 1 5.6 5.6 44.4

44 1 5.6 5.6 50.0

53 1 5.6 5.6 55.6

55 1 5.6 5.6 61.1

130

57 1 5.6 5.6 66.7

58 2 11.1 11.1 77.8

60 2 11.1 11.1 88.9

62 2 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

Figure 4.1.

The histogram of the frequency distribution of the writing test scores of the students

or the group taught by Electronic-based Portfolio Learning (A1)

131

b. The Data of Writing Test of the Students or the Group Having High Writing

Interest who are Taught by Electronic-based Portfolio Learning (A1B1)

From the data, it can be seen that the number of respondents is 9, the highest

score is 62, and the lowest score is 53. The mean of the scores is 58.333, the mode is

62, the median is 58, and the standard deviation is 3.01. The frequency distribution

of this group is presented on the Table 4.4 and the histogram of frequency

distribution is displayed on the Figure 4.2.

Table 4.4.


having high writing interest who are taught by electronic-based portfolio learning

(A1B1)

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid 53 1 11.1 11.1 11.1

55 1 11.1 11.1 22.2

57 1 11.1 11.1 33.3

58 2 22.2 22.2 55.6

60 2 22.2 22.2 77.8

62 2 22.2 22.2 100.0

Total 9 100.0 100.0

132

Figure 4.2.


the group having high writing interest who are taught by electronic-based portfolio

learning (A1B1)

c. The Data of Writing Test of the Students or the Group Having Low Writing

Interest who are taught by Electronic-based Portfolio Learning (A1B2)

From the data, it can be seen that the number of respondents is 9, the highest

score is 44, and the lowest score is 35. The mean of the scores is 38.889, the mode is

39, the median is 39, and the standard deviation is 2.977. The frequency distribution

of this group is shown on the Table 4.5 and the histogram and polygon of frequency

distribution is displayed on the Figure 4.3.

133

Table 4.5.


having low writing interest who are taught by electronic-based portfolio learning

(A1B2)


Cumulative

Percent

Valid 35 2 22.2 22.2 22.2

37 1 11.1 11.1 33.3

39 3 33.3 33.3 66.7

40 1 11.1 11.1 77.8

42 1 11.1 11.1 88.9

44 1 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 9 100.0 100.0

134

Figure 4.3.


the group having low writing interest who are taught by electronic-based portfolio

learning (A1B2)

2. Data of the Control Group

a. The Data of Writing Test of the Students or the Group taught by Paper-based

Portfolio Learning (A2)

From the data taken from the result of the control group‘s writing test, it can

be seen that the highest score is 52 and the lowest score is 35. The mean of the scores

is 43.444, the mode is 45, the median is 44, and the standard deviation is 4.668. The

frequency distribution of these data, also analyzed by applying SPSS 16.0 for

Windows Release 16.0.1 can be observed on the Table 4.6. and the histogram


135

Table 4.6.


taught by paper-based portfolio learning (A2)


Cumulative

Percent

Valid 35 1 5.6 5.6 5.6

37 1 5.6 5.6 11.1

38 2 11.1 11.1 22.2

40 1 5.6 5.6 27.8

42 3 16.7 16.7 44.4

44 2 11.1 11.1 55.6

45 3 16.7 16.7 72.2

47 2 11.1 11.1 83.3

49 1 5.6 5.6 88.9

50 1 5.6 5.6 94.4

52 1 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

136

Figure 4.4.


or the group taught by paper-based portfolio learning (A2)

b. The Data of Writing Test of the Students or the Group Having High Writing

Interest who taught by Paper-based Portfolio Learning (A2B1)

From the data, it can be observed that the number of respondents is 9, the

highest score is 52, and the lowest score is 35. The mean of the scores is 41.444, the

mode is 42, the median is 42, and the standard deviation is 5.11. The frequency

distribution of this group is presented on the Table 4.7 and the histogram of


137

Table 4.7.


having high writing interest who taught by paper-based portfolio learning (A2B1)


Cumulative

Percent

Valid 35 1 11.1 11.1 11.1

37 1 11.1 11.1 22.2

38 2 22.2 22.2 44.4

42 2 22.2 22.2 66.7

44 1 11.1 11.1 77.8

45 1 11.1 11.1 88.9

52 1 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 9 100.0 100.0

138

Figure 4.5.


or the group having high writing interest who taught by paper-based portfolio

learning (A2B1)

c. The Data of Writing Test of the Students or the Group Having Low Writing

Interest who taught by Paper-based Portfolio Learning (A2B2)

From the data, it can be observed that the number of respondents is 9, the

highest score is 50, and the lowest score is 40. The mean of the scores is 45.444, the

mode is 47, the median is 45, and the standard deviation is 3.206. The frequency

distribution of this group can be seen on the Table 4.8 and the histogram of


139

Table 4.8.


having low writing interest who taught by paper-based portfolio learning (A2B2)


Cumulative

Percent

Valid 40 1 11.1 11.1 11.1

42 1 11.1 11.1 22.2

44 1 11.1 11.1 33.3

45 2 22.2 22.2 55.6

47 2 22.2 22.2 77.8

49 1 11.1 11.1 88.9

50 1 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 9 100.0 100.0

140

Figure 4.6.


or the group having low writing interest who taught by paper-based portfolio

learning (A2B2)

141

d. Summary

The above data, analyzed by applying analyzed by applying MS Excel 2007

Add-ins: Descriptive Statistics of Data Analysis, can be reviewed on the table below.

Table 4.9.

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive

Statistics A1 A1B1 A1B2 A2 A2B1 A2B2

Mean 48.611 58.333 38.889 43.444 41.444 45.444

Standard Error 2.456 1.014 0.992 1.100 1.733 1.069

Median 48.500 58.000 39.000 44.000 42.000 45.000

Mode 39.000 62.000 39.000 45.000 42.000 47.000

Standard Deviation 10.421 3.041 2.977 4.668 5.199 3.206

Sample Variance 108.605 9.250 8.861 21.791 27.028 10.278

Kurtosis -1.902 -0.462 -0.315 -0.573 0.934 -0.448

Skewness 0.003 -0.476 0.248 -0.040 0.916 -0.285

Range 27.000 9.000 9.000 17.000 17.000 10.000

Minimum 35.000 53.000 35.000 35.000 35.000 40.000

Maximum 62.000 62.000 44.000 52.000 52.000 50.000

Sum 875.000 525.000 350.000 782.000 373.000 409.000

Count 18.000 9.000 9.000 18.000 9.000 9.000

Confidence

Level (95.0%) 5.182 2.338 2.288 2.321 3.996 2.464

The highest standard deviation is 10.421 (A1) meaning that that the data (A1)

have the most variation scores among the other data.

142

B. Prerequisite Testing

In addition to the above descriptive statistics involving the tabulation and

organization of data in order to demonstrate their main characteristics, the writer

applies inferential statistics that deals with generalization from samples to the

population of values and involves significance testing. Moreover, the method of data

analysis is parametric statistics. In statistical analysis, parametric significance tests

are only valid if two assumptions are met, i.e. that the samples are in normal

distribution and the data are homogenous. That is why in the next two sections the

writer presents normality testing and homogeneity testing.

1. Normality Testing

The normality testing used in this study is by using Liliefors testing. The

sample is in normal distribution if Lo (L obtained) is lower than Lt (L table) or Lo> Lt.

Table 4.10.

Normality Testing

No. Data The number of

Sample

Lo

Lt Distribution of

Population α = .01 α = .05

1 A1 18 0.1856 0.239 0.200 NORMAL

2 A1B1 9 0.1131 0.311 0.271 NORMAL

3 A1B2 9 0.1507 0.311 0.271 NORMAL

4 A2 18 0.1856 0.239 0.200 NORMAL

5 A2B1 9 0.1131 0.311 0.271 NORMAL

6 A2B2 9 0.1507 0.311 0.271 NORMAL


As shown on the table above that all of the samples are in normal

distribution, it can be concluded that the data analysis can be continued.

143

2. Homogeneity Testing

The homogeneity testing used in this study is by applying Bartlett formula.

From the data, it is obtained that the value of the chi square observation is

3.849593538, while the table value of the chi square for df = 3 at the level of

significance α = 0.05 is 7.815. and α = 0.01 is 11.345. Because χ2

observation is

smaller than χ 2

table, it can be concluded that the data are homogeneous.

Table 4.11.

Homogeneity Testing

Sample df 1/(df) si2 log si

2 (df) log si

2

X1 8 0.125 9.25 0.9661 7.7291

X2 8 0.125 8.86 0.9475 7.5799

X3 8 0.125 27.03 1.4318 11.454

X4 8 0.125 10.28 1.0119 8.0952

32 0.500 34.859


Based on the result of the homogeneity testing above, it can be concluded that

the analysis of comparative test can be continued. Finally, based on the result of the

prerequisite testing above, it can be concluded that the analysis of comparative test

can be continued.

144

C. Hypothesis Testing

Statistically, there are null hypothesis (Ho) and alternative hypothesis (Ha).

The null hypothesis will be accepted if Fo is lower than Ft. Conversely, null

hypothesis will be rejected if Fo exceeds Ft. Based on the objective of this study, the

results are analyzed by means of multifactor analysis of variance. If Ho is rejected

the analysis is continued to know which group is better using Tukey test. The

multifactor analysis of variance 2 x 2 and Tukey test are shown in the summary

below.

Table 4.12.

Summary of a 2 X 2 Multifactor Analysis of Variance

Source of Variance SS df MS F Ft(.05) Ft(.01)

Between column ( Portfolio) 240.25 1 240.250 17.341 4.149 7.499

Between rows (Writing Interest) 536.694 1 536.694 38.739

Columns by rows (interaction) 1,236.69 1 1236.694 89.265

Between Groups 2,013.64 3 671.213

Within groups 443.333 32 13.854

Total 2,456.97 35


From the summary of 2 x 2 multifactor analysis of variance above, it can be

concluded that

d. Because Fo between columns (17.341) is higher than Ft(.05) (4.149) and Ft(.01)

(7.499), the difference between column is significant. It can be concluded that

the types of portfolio-based learning differ significantly from one another in

their effects on the performance of the subjects in the experiment.

e. Because Fo between rows (38.739) is higher than Ft(.05) (4.149) and Ft(.01)

(7.499), the difference between rows is significant. It can be concluded that the

performance of those subjects having high writing interest and those having low

writing interest is significant. A higher level of performance can be expected

when the writing interest is high than when it is low.

145

f. Because Fo interaction (89.265) is higher than Ft(.05) (4.149) and Ft(.01) (7.499),

there is an interaction effect between the two variables, portfolio-based learning

types and the level of writing interest. It means that the effect of portfolio-based

learning types on English writing competence depends on the level of writing

interest. The plot on the figure below, generated by applying SPSS 16.0 for

Windows Release 16.0.1, shows that an interaction between the types of

portfolio-based learning and the level of writing interest influences the students‘

writing competence.

Figure 4.7.

The interaction between the types of portfolio-based learning and the level of writing

interest

146

As previously stated, after analyzing the variance, it needs to be followed by

the Tukey test functioning to test the different mean of each group. The finding of q

is found by dividing the difference between the means by the square root of the ratio

of the within group variation and the sample size as shown in the formula below.

Table 4.13.

Summary of Tukey Test

Between

Group qo

qt Significance Meaning

0.05 0.01

A1 – A2 5.889 2.97 4.07 Significant A1 > A2

A1B1 – A2B1 13.612 3.20 4.60 Significant A1B1 > A2B1

A1B2 – A2B2 5.284 3.20 4.60 Significant A1B2 < A2B2


Based on the summary of Tukey test, it can be concluded that:

1. Because qo between column (5.889) is higher than qt(.05) 2.97 and qt(.01) 4.07,

electronic-based portfolio learning differs significantly from paper-based

portfolio learning in the teaching of writing. Because the mean score of A1

(48.611) is higher than the mean score of A2 (43.444), electronic-based portfolio

learning is more effective than paper-based portfolio learning in the teaching of

writing.

2. Because qo between column A1B1 and A2B1 (High Writing Interest) is higher

than qt(.05) 3.20 and qt(.01) 4.60, in the teaching of writing, electronic-based

portfolio learning differs significantly from paper-based portfolio learning for

the students who have high writing interest. Because the mean score of A1B1

(58.333) is higher than the mean score of A2B1 (41.444), it can be concluded

that electronic-based portfolio is more effective than paper-based portfolio

learning for students having high writing interest.

147

3. Because qo between column A1B2 and A2B2 (Low Writing Interest) is higher

than qt(.05) 3.20 and qt(.01) 4.60, in the teaching of writing, paper-based portfolio

learning differs significantly from electronic-based portfolio learning for the

students who have low writing interest. Because the mean score of A2B2

(45.444) is higher than the mean score of A2B1 (38.889), it can be concluded

that paper-based portfolio is more effective than electronic-based portfolio

learning for students having low writing interest.

D. Discussion

After describing the result of the study, in the next section the writer

discusses it. In relation with the result of the study, the discussion is divided into

three parts as follows:


learning in the teaching of writing. To achieve the competency standard of

writing, some innovations have been applied, in this case electronic-based

portfolio learning and paper-based portfolio learning. In the teaching-learning of

writing, the first type of portfolio-based learning offers a number of advantages

such as portability, accessibility, distribution ability, and repeatability of

performances for the reason that it is easier to search, and records can be simply

retrieved, manipulated, refined and reorganized. The electronic-based portfolio

learning also reduces effort and time and is more comprehensive and rigorous. In

addition, in building the first type of portfolio-based learning the students can use

extensive materials including pictures, sound, animation, graphic design and

video. Because of being much smaller and cost effective to distribute, it is easy

to carry and share with peers, supervisors, parents, employers and others. In other

words, built on the web, the electronic-based portfolio learning is instantly

accessible. It also implies that an access to global readership can be provided.

Thus, a fast feedback is allowed. The electronic version can have an

organizational structure that is not linear or hierarchical and display the

technological skills of the students. In this research, the writer gets a permission

to build a writing class of Colorado State University and has an access to use the

148

writing site of the university and all of its facilities such as Writing Tools (Blogs,

To-Do-List, etc.), and Feedback. The students have the opportunity to develop

their writing competence over the course of, at least the following activities, for

example electronic pals, self and peer assessments, process of writing

compositions, learning logs/ reflections, reports from other subject areas, and

other relevant learning opportunities that involve writing. The other type of

portfolio-based learning is the paper-based portfolio learning which is based on

purposeful printed/ handwritten record of students‘ works collected through a


student‘s efforts, progress and achievements. The storage format for paper-based

portfolio learning is usually in manila folders, three-ring notebooks or larger

containers. Most often, the artifacts are comprised of text and images on paper.

In this kind of portfolio-based learning, the students cannot meet the media to

share their writings except those who are their teachers/ classmates. Most of peer

reviewing and teacher‘s feedback take place in a classroom setting only. The

students are also not challenged to learn with technology that enables them to

have many more relevant learning opportunities engaging some writing activities.

The result of the study shows that there is a significant difference in English

writing competence between students taught by electronic-based portfolio

learning and those taught by lecturing method. Based on their means, students

taught by electronic-based portfolio learning have higher English writing scores

than those taught by paper-based portfolio learning. Hence, in the teaching of

writing electronic-based portfolio learning is more effective than paper-based

portfolio learning.

2. The students who have high writing interest have higher writing competence than

those who have low writing interest. It is also observed that the students who

have high writing interest impel themselves mentally and physically to express

their thoughts and feelings by a sequence of arranged sentences leading to the

creation of meaning and the information. Because of being interested in the

writing activities, the high interested students are more engaged and persistent

149

with those activities. This, in turn, leads to the acquisition of writing competence.

They also develop the confidence to undertake a new writing activity or to


line or to a wider audience. Students who have high writing interest are observed

to use more strategies. By so doing, they are more likely to monitor their

performance and shift strategies when necessary and are better able to self-

regulate their learning. This, in turn, improves the students‘ efficiency of writing

competence and knowledge acquisition as well as the amount of information

learned. Another important thing to point out is that the students with high levels

of writing interest show up positive attitudes towards a writing assignment and

focus more of their efforts on constructing a deeper understanding of writing

competence that they are studying. On the other hand, it is observed that the

students who have low writing interest do not push themselves mentally and

physically to express their thoughts and feelings by writing. Because of being

uninterested in the writing activities, the low interested students do not get

involved and persistent with those activities. It means that the students do not

acquire a writing competence. By having such level of writing interest, they also

have no confidence to undertake a new writing activity. In addition, they do not

know how to use more strategies in writing. They just take the writing activities

for granted. The lack of writing strategies evidently makes them less efficient in

acquiring the writing competence. Moreover, it is noticed that the students

having low writing interest do not show positive affects with the writing

activities. It seems that they do not pay attention to their efforts on constructing a

deeper understanding of writing competence. Based on their means, the students

having high writing interest get better writing scores than those who have low

writing interest. Therefore, the students who have high writing interest have

higher writing competence than those who have low writing interest.

3. There is an interaction between the portfolio-based learnings and writing interest

for the teaching of writing. Both types of portfolio-based learning have strengths

as well as weaknesses. Nevertheless, students‘ writing interest also plays an

150

important role in achieving the goal of the teaching of writing. Such interest is

the essential for learning process. Derived from the characteristics that the

electronic portfolio learning possesses, it is suitable for the teacher to put this

kind of portfolio-based learning into practice to the students who have high

writing interest. High-interested students will generate full interest and

participation during the learning with technology. Their high writing interests

will help them develop the confidence to undertake a new learning activity or to


line or to a wider audience. In this case, the wider audience gets involved in the

process of construction through collaboration and feedback out of the class. That

their works are published on-line with unlimited audience in the virtual world is

an added value that increases their writing interest. The students not only can

take teacher‘s feedback and peer reviews anytime and anywhere but also update

and revise their works. The updating and revising processes need a strong

engagement and persistence, the characteristics that only the students of high

writing interest level have. Meanwhile, the paper based portfolio learning

possesses characteristics that are nearly similar to the usual in-class writing

instruction. The students, particularly low-interested students, do not need to

meet the media to share their writings except those who are their teachers/

classmates. They are also not challenged to learn with technology. Most of peer

reviewing and teacher‘s feedback take place in a classroom setting only. By

having a more limited audience that give the feedbacks and reviews, the students

of low writing interest level do not need to update and revise their works. Based

on the result of the study, electronic-based portfolio learning is better applied for

high-interested students while paper based portfolio learning is better applied for

low-interested students in the teaching of writing. That the effect of portfolio-

based learning types on English writing competence depends on the level of

writing interest is shown on Figure 4.7. The blue line (high writing interest)

indicates the highest point in the electronic-based portfolio learning of the

vertical axis and the lowest one in the paper-based portfolio learning of the

vertical axis. In contrast, the highest point of the red line of low writing interest

151

points to the paper-based portfolio learning of the vertical axis and the lowest one

in the electronic-based portfolio learning of the vertical axis. That is why it can

be concluded that there is an interaction between the types of portfolio-based

learning and the writing interest for the teaching of writing.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, AND SUGGESTION

In this ending chapter, the writer presents his conclusion and in the following

sections, he puts forward the implication and some suggestions.

A. Conclusion

Based on the previous chapter, some conclusions that can be drawn are as

follows:


learning for the teaching of writing;

2. The students who have high writing interest have higher writing competence than

those who have low writing interest.

3. There is an interaction between the two variables, the types of portfolio-based

learning and the level of writing interest. The interaction in the teaching of

writing itself can be elaborated as follows:

a. Electronic-based portfolio learning is effective for the students having high

writing interest; and

b. Paper-based portfolio learning is effective for those who have low writing

interest.

B. Implication

The result of the study shows that the application of electronic-based

portfolio learning is able to give a better writing competence than the application of

paper-based portfolio learning. It implies that the electronic-based portfolio learning

is appropriate in the teaching of writing, especially the teaching of recount text for

the tenth graders. The application of electronic-based portfolio learning in the

teaching of writing is more effective, meaningful, communicative, and integrated

than the use of paper-based portfolio learning. The electronic version of portfolio-

152

153

based learning presents active nuance within the learning process. In addition, it

emphasizes on students‘ writing activities enhanced with multimedia hyperlinks for

unlimited audience. In other words, it involves the students in various activities as

the primary means to achieve the learning objective.

Besides, the result of the study also shows that high-interested students have

a better writing competence than low-interested students do. High-interested students

have increased motivation, engagement, and persistence that help them to undertake

a new writing activity and to venture into some unfamiliar intellectual domains of

writing competence. They also use more strategies in writing and process deeper

information to develop their writing competence. It means that the writing interest

play a great role in the teaching of writing. To raise the interest in writing, the

teacher can apply the two types of portfolio-based learning because both of them

expand the notion of written text by using out of school cultural practices as a

resource for writing in a secondary school and enable the students experience a clear

difference between private home writing and school writing. That the portfolio-based

learning can raise the students‘ writing interests is by developing portfolio projects in

class, where writing supports the development of the project, and writing is the

ultimate educational aim.

The students having high writing interest who are taught by electronic-based

portfolio learning have the highest writing score among other groups. It means that

the type of portfolio-based learning is good and suitable for high-interested students.

For low-interested students, paper-based portfolio learning is more effective than the

other type of portfolio-based learning. Since there is an interaction between the types

of portfolio-based learning and the degree of writing interest in the teaching of

writing, it is important for the teacher to select the type that is more suitable for high

and low-interested students. In view of the fact that every English writing class has

students having high and low writing interest, both types of portfolio-based learning

can be employed to complement at each other.

154

C. Suggestion

After coming to some conclusions and reviewing the implication, in this

section the writer proposes some suggestions to some parties as follows:

1. For teachers:

a. Teachers can apply the portfolio-based learning in the teaching of writing to

develop students‘ writing competence.

b. Teachers must consider that interest is one of critical factor that can influence

the students in teaching learning process. By applying the portfolio- based

learning in the teaching of writing, teachers can raise the students‘ writing

interest with a more authentic and meaningful learning environment. A

variety of teaching method makes the students interested in learning English,

especially in English writing, and in applying it for the real purpose. For

those who have writing interest, teachers can apply the electronic-based

portfolio learning and for those who have low writing interest, teachers can

apply the paper-based one.

2. For students:

a. The students themselves should have awareness and high writing interest in

the learning of writing because the higher writing interest they possess the

better writing competence they will achieve.

b. The students should get involved more actively in the teaching learning

process in order to develop their writing competence in particular and English

achievement in general. They must know that neither teacher nor computer

programs can convey understanding. It can only be constructed by

themselves through the processes of experiencing some phenomena,

interpreting them and reflecting on the experience and the reasoning.

c. For low-interested students, they should encourage themselves and be aware

that they have to be more active in their involvement in the teaching-learning

process.

155

3. For future researchers:

a. A replication of this research design using electronic-based portfolio learning

and paper-based one as the treatments in the teaching of writing can be

carried out with some revision.

b. A similar research with different population characteristic and different

language skill is also possible.

c. It maybe also useful to conduct other researches with different student‘s

condition such as students‘ writing habit and motivation

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abrami, P. C., & Barrett, H. 2005. Directions for Research and Development on

Electronic Portfolios. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(3),

on-line version. Retrieved August 22, 2009 from

http://electronicportfolios.org/

Acosta, T., & Liu, Y. 2006. ―ePortfolios: Beyond assessment.‖ In A. Jafari & C.

Kaufman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on ePortfolios (pp. 15-23).

Hershey: Idea Group Reference.

Ali, Y. S. 2005. ―An Introduction to Electronic Portfolios in the Language

Classroom‖. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. XI, No. 8, August 2005.

Retrieved August 21, 2009 from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Ali-

Portfolios.html

Ary, D., Jacobs, L., & Razavieh, A. 1985. Introduction to Research in Education.

New York: CBS College Publishing.

Banister, S. 2008. Research in Education: Course Packet. Lecturing material,

unpublished. No publisher.

Barrett, H. 2000. ―Electronic Portfolios = Multimedia Development + Portfolio

Development : The Electronic Portfolio Development Process‖ in B.

Cambridge (ed.) Electronic Portfolios. American Association for Higher

Education, pp. 110-116.

Barrett, H., 2001. ―Electronic Portfolios‖ - A chapter in Educational Technology;

An Encyclopedia to be published by ABC-CLIO, 2001. Retrieved August

22, 2009 from http://electronicportfolios.org/

Barrett, H., & Knezek, D. 2003. E-portfolios: Issues in assessment, accountability

and preservice teacher preparation. Paper presented on April 22, 2003 at the

American Educational Research Association Conference, Chicago, IL.

Barrett, H. 2006. Researching Electronic Portfolios and Learner Engagement: The

REFLECT Initiative. Paper presented at The REFLECT Initiative

Researching Electronic portFolios: Learning, Engagement and

Collaboration through Technology.

Black, S. 1996. ―Portfolio Assessment.‖ In R. Fogarty (Ed.) Student Portfolios: A

Collection of Articles. (pp. 47-56). Arlington Heights: IRI/Skylight Training

and Publishing, Inc.

156

157

Byrne, D. 1993. Teaching Writing Skills. Harlow: Longman Group UK Limited.

Bloor, M. and Wood, F. 2006. Keywords in Qualitative Methods: A Vocabulary of

Research Concepts. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Boyle, J. & Fisher, S. Educational Testing: A Competence-Based Approach.

Victoria: Blackwell Publishing.

Bozek, P. E. 1991. 50-Minute Tips for Better Communication. Menlo Park: Crisp

Publications.

Brown, J. D. 2001. Using Surveys in Language Programs. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Brown, D. H. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language

Pedagogy. New York: Longman.

Brown, H. D. 2003. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices.

New York: Longman.

Brutt-Griffler, J., & Samimy, K. 1999. Revisiting the Colonial in the Postcolonial:

Critical Praxis for Nonnative-English-speaking Teachers in a TESOL

Program. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 413-429.

Callow, K. and John C. 1992. Text as Purposive Communication: A Meaning Based

Analysis. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Campbell, M. R., & Brummett, V. M. 2002. Professional Teaching Portfolios: For

Pros and Preservice Teachers Alike. Music Educators Journal, 89(2), 25-30.

Chaedar A. Alwasilah. 2000. Pemasyarakatan Bahasa Indonesia dalam

Pembangunan Perdesaan. RELC Proceedings in 2000.

Chaedar A. Alwasilah. 2001. ‗Writing is neglected in our school.‘ In Chaedar A.

Alwasilah. Language, Culture and Education. Bandung: Andira.

Challis, D. 2005. ―Towards the Mature ePortfolio: Some Implications for Higher

Education.‖ Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(3), on-line

version. Retrieved August 22, 2009 from http://electronicportfolios.org/

Chaudron, C. 1988. Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and

Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. 2000. Research Methods in Education (5-th

ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

158

Crafton, L. 1991. Whole Language: Getting Started Moving Forward. New York:

Richard C. Owen.

Crystal, D. 2003. English as a Global Language (Second Edition). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

D‘Angelo, C. M. , Touchman, S., & Clark, D. B. 2009. ―Constructivism: Overview.‖

In Eric M. Anderman and Lynley H. Anderman (Eds.), Psychology of

Classroom Learning: An Encyclopedia (pp. 262 – 267). Dertroit: Macmillan

Reference USA.

Danielson, C. & Abrutyn, L. 1997. An Introduction to Using Portfolios in the

Classroom. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Dasim Budimansyah. 2003. Model Pembelajaran Berbasis Portofolio. Bandung: PT

Ganesindo.

Daniels, H. 2001. Vygotsky and Pedagogy. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Delett, J. S., Barnhardt, S., & Kevorkian, J. A. 2001. A Framework for Portfolio

Assessment in the Foreign Language Classroom. Foreign Language Annals,

36(6), 559-568.

Depdiknas 2001. Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pusat Kurikulum: Kurikulum

Berbasis Kompetensi Mata Pelajaran Bahasa Inggris untuk Sekolah

Menengah Umum. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.

Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. 2006. Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional

Republik Indonesia Nomor 22 Tahun 2006 tentang Standar Isi untuk Satuan

Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan

Nasional.

Donmoyer, R. 2008. ―Quantitative Research‖. In Lisa M. Given (Ed.), The Sage

Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 713 – 718). Thousand

Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Dornyei, Z. 2003. Questionnaires in Second Language Research: Construction,

Administration, and Processing. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

Inc.

Duwi Priyatno. 2008. Mandiri Belajar SPSS untuk Analisis Data dan Uji Statistik.

Yogyakarta: MediaKom.

Electronic portfolio. 2007. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved August 13,

2009 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_portfolio

159

Ellsworth, J. Z. 2002. Using Student Portfolios to Increase Reflective Practice among

Elementary Teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(4), 342-355.

Engel, B. 1996. ―Portfolio Assessment and the New Paradigm: New Instruments and

New Places.‖ In R. Fogarty (Ed.) Student portfolios: A Collection of

Articles. (pp. 17-26). Arlington Heights: IRI/Skylight Training and

Publishing, Inc.

Erdina, M. S. 2001. ―Putusan Kongres Bahasa Indonesia VII.‖ In Putusan Kongres

Bahasa Indonesia VIII 1998. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.

Retrieved on July 5, 2009 from

http://www.depdiknas.go.id/publikasi/Buletin/Pppg_Tertulis/08_2001/Kong

res_Bhs_Indonesia_

Erixon, P. 2005. ―The Garden of Thought –About Writing Poems in Upper

Secondary School.‖ In Gert Rijlaarsdam, Huub van den Bergh, and Michel

Couzijn (Eds), Effective Learning and Teaching of Writing: A Handbook of

Writing in Education (Second Edition) (pp. 131 - 140). New York: Kluwer

Academic Publishers.

Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. 2000. How to Design and Evaluate Research in

Education. (4-th

ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Fernsten, L. A. 2009. ―Portfolio Assessment.‖ In Eric M. Anderman and Lynley H.

Anderman (Eds.), Psychology of Classroom Learning: An Encyclopedia

(pp. 693 – 695). Dertroit: Macmillan Reference USA.

Flower. L. 1989. Writing English Language Test. New York: Longman.

Gatlin, L., & Jacob, S. 2002. Standards-Based Digital Portfolios: A Component of

Authentic Assessment for Preservice Teachers. Action in Teacher

Education, 23(4), 35-42.

Gnanadesikan, A. E. 2009. The Writing Revolution : Cuneiform to The Internet.

Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Gelb, I. Jay, & Whiting, R. M. 2008. "Writing." Microsoft® Student 2009 [DVD].

Redmond: Microsoft Corporation.

Genesse , F. & Upshur, J. A. 1996. Classroom-based Evaluation in Second

Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Glazer, S., Rooman, K. & Luberto, K. 1996. ―User-Friendly Portfolios: The Search

Goes On.‖ In R. Fogarty (Ed.) Student Portfolios: A Collection of Articles.

(pp. 77-82). Arlington Heights: IRI/Skylight Training and Publishing, Inc.

160

Graddol, D. 2000. The Future of English?: A Guide to Forecasting the Popularity of

the English Language in the 21st Century (2-nd

ed.). London: The British

Council.

Gutek, G. L. 2008. "History of Education." Microsoft® Student 2009 [DVD].


Harmer, J. 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching (Third Edition). Essex:

Pearson Education Limited.

Hamp-Lyons, L. & Kroll, B. 1997. TOEFL 2000 – Writing: Composition,

Community, and Assessment (TOEFL Monograph Series Report No. 5).

Princeton: Educational Testing Service.

Hedge,T. 2005. Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Herman, J. L. & Zuniga, S. A. Undated. ―Portfolio Assessment.‖ In (unknown

editors) Encyclopedia of Education: Second Edition. (pp. 137 - 139).

Unknown publisher.

Hidi, S. undated. ―Interest‖. In (unknown editors) Encyclopedia of Education:

Second Edition. (pp. 1989 - 1993). Unknown publisher.

Holme, R. 2004. Literacy: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press

Ltd.

Hurlock, E. D. 1987. Child Development. Tokyo: McGraw Hill.

Jacqueline P. Leighton. 2008. ―Validity.‖ In Neil J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of

Educational Psychology (pp. 832 – 838). Thousand Oaks: SAGE

Publications, Inc.

Kachru, B. B., & Nelson, C. L. 2001. ―World Englishes.‖ In A. Burns & C. Coffin

(Eds.), Analysing English in a Global Context: A Reader (pp. 9-25).

London: Routledge.

Klenowski, V., Askew, S., & Carnell, E. 2006. ―Portfolios for Learning, Assessment

and Professional Development in Higher Education.‖ Assessment and

Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 267-286.

Keh, C. L. ―Feedback in the Writing Process: A Model and Methods for

Implementation.‘ In T. Hedge and N. Whitney (eds.). Power Pedagogy &

Practice (pp. 294-306). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

161

Kemp, J. & Toperof, D. 1998. Guidelines for Portfolio Assessment in Teaching

English. English Inspectorate Ministry of Education, English Inspectorate,

Ministry of Education of the State of Israel.

Klenowski, V., Askew, S., & Carnell, E. 2006. ―Portfolios for Learning, Assessment

and Professional Development in Higher Education.‖ Assessment and

Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 267-286.

Kraska, M. 2008. ―Quantitative Research Methods‖. In Neil J. Salkind (Ed.),

Encyclopedia of Educational Psychology (pp. 832 – 838). Thousand Oaks:

SAGE Publications, Inc.

Lowman, R. L. and Carson, A. D. 2003. ―Assessment of Interests.‖ In John R.

Graham and Jack A. Naglieri (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology Volume 10:

Assessment Psychology (pp. 467 – 485). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Marc, David. 2008. "F. Scott Fitzgerald." Microsoft® Student 2009 [DVD].

Redmond: Microsoft Corporation, 2008.

Mayer, R. E. 2009. ―Experimental Research‖. In Eric M. Anderman and Lynley H.


(pp. 393 – 398). Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA.

Mazur, J. E. "Learning." Microsoft® Student 2009 [DVD]. Redmond: Microsoft

Corporation.

Melograno, V. 1996. ―Portfolio Assessment: Documenting Authentic Student

Learning.‖ In R. Fogarty (Ed.) Student Portfolios: A Collection of Articles.

(pp.149-168). Arlington Heights: IRI/Skylight Training and Publishing,

Inc.

Meo, S. L. 2002. ―Portfolio Assessment for History Majors: One Department's

Journey.‖ Perspectives, February 2002. Retrieved on August 19, 2009 from

http://www.historians.org/Perspectives/Issues/2002/0202/index.cfm

McAlpine, D. G. 2006. “Portfolio Assessment.” Related Reading on School Policies

and Programmes. Retrieved August 19, 2009 from

http://www.tki.org.nz/r/gifted/reading/assessment/portfolio_e.php

McCarthy, M. 1991. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge:


McClenaghan, D., & Doecke, B. ―Popular Culture: A Resource for Writing in

Secondary English Classrooms.‖ In Gert Rijlaarsdam, Huub van den Bergh,

and Michel Couzijn (Eds), Effective Learning and Teaching of Writing: A

162

Handbook of Writing in Education (Second Edition) (pp. 121 – 124). New

York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

McDonough, J. and C. Shaw. 1993. Material and Methods in ELT: A Teacher’s

Guide. Oxford: Blackwell.

Miller, M. D. 2008. ―Reliability.‖ In Neil J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of


Publications, Inc.

Muijs, D. 2004. Doing Quantitative Research in Education with SPSS. London:

SAGE Publications Ltd.

Munch, S. 2005. ―Teaching Writing – Teaching Oral Presentation.‖ In Gert

Rijlaarsdam, Huub van den Bergh, and Michel Couzijn (Eds), Effective

Learning and Teaching of Writing: A Handbook of Writing in Education

(Second Edition) (pp. 339-347). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Nunan, D. 1989. Understanding Language Classroom: A Guide for Teacher-initiated

Action. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Nunan, D. 1991. Language Teaching Methodology. London: Prentice-Hall.

Nunan, D. 1992. Research Methods in Language Learning. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Nunan, D. 1999. Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle

Publisher.

Nystrand. 1989. Writing English Language Test. New York: Longman.

Oliver, R. 2005. ―Writing ―In Your Own Words‖: Children‘s Use of Information

Sources in Research Projects.‖ In Gert Rijlaarsdam, Huub van den Bergh,

and Michel Couzijn (Eds), Effective Learning and Teaching of Writing: A

Handbook of Writing in Education (Second Edition) (pp. 369-382). New

York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Park, T. undated. An Overview of Portfolio-based Writing Assessment. Teachers

College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied

Linguistics, Vol. 4, No. 2 The Forum.

Paulson, F. L., P. R. Paulson, & C. A. Meyer. 1991. ―What Makes a Portfolio a

Portfolio?‖ Educational Leadership 58(5): 60–63.

Pion, G. M., Cordray, D. S. Undated. Research Methods: Overview. In (unknown

editors) Encyclopedia of Education: Second Edition. (pp. 2020 – 2026).

Unknown publisher.

163

Pitts, J. 2009. How to Understand Portfolio-based Learning. Paper, unpublished.

Cardiff, School of Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education, Wales

College of Medicine, Cardiff University, Heath Park.

Porte, G. K. 2002. Appraising Research in Second Language Learning: A Practical

Approach to Critical Analysis of Quantitative Research. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins Publishing Company.

Porter, C., & Cleland, J. 1995. The Portfolio as a Learning Strategy. Portsmouth:

Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc.

Prawat, R. S. 2008. ―Constructivism.‖ In Neil J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of


Publications, Inc.

Privette, L. M. 1993. ―The Empty Space.‖ In K. Gill (Ed.), Process and Portfolios in

Writing Instruction (pp. 60-62). Urbana: National Council of Teachers of

English.

Purves, A. C. 1996. Electronic Portfolios. Computer and Composition, 13(2), 135-

146.

―research‖. 2008. Microsoft® Encarta® 2009. Microsoft® Student 2009 [DVD].


Reid, J. M. 1993. Teaching ESL Writing. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Regents.

Renninger. K. A. undated. ―Effort and Interest.‖ In (unknown editors) Encyclopedia

of Education: Second Edition. (pp. 704 - 707). Unknown publisher.

Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. 2002. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and

Applied Linguistics (3-rd edition). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Richards, J. C., and Lockhart, C. 1996. Reflective Teaching in Second Language

Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rijlaarsdam, G. & Van Den Bergh, H. 2005. ―Effective Learning and Teaching of

Writing‖. In Gert Rijlaarsdam, Huub van den Bergh, and Michel Couzijn

(Eds), Effective Learning and Teaching of Writing: A Handbook of Writing

in Education (Second Edition) (pp. 1- 16). New York: Kluwer Academic

Publishers.

Rivers. 1968. Teaching Foreign Language Skill. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

164

Robert L. Hohn. 2005. ―Learning.‖ In Steven W. Lee (Ed.), Encyclopedia of School

Psychology (pp. 283 - 289). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Saumure, K. & Given, L. M. 2008. ―Population‖. In Lisa M. Given (Ed.), The Sage

Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 643 – 644). Thousand

Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Sheskin, D. J. 2008. ―Experimental Design.‖ In Neil J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia

of Educational Psychology (pp. 373 – 379). Thousand Oaks: SAGE

Publications, Inc.

Sperling, M. 1996. ―Revisiting the Writing Speaking Connection: Challenges for

Research on Writing and Writing Instruction.‖ Review on Educational

Rserach, 66, 53 – 63.

Schensul, J. J. 2008. ―Methodology‖. In Lisa M. Given (Ed.), The Sage Encyclopedia

of Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 516 – 521). Thousand Oaks: SAGE

Publications, Inc.

Schofield, W. 2006. ―Survey Sampling‖. In Roger Sapsford and Victor Jupp (Eds.),

Data Collection and Analysis (Second Edition) (pp. 26 - 55). London:

SAGE Publications Ltd.

Schraw, G. & Lehman, S. 2009. ―Interest.‖ In Eric M. Anderman and Lynley H.


(pp. 510 – 513). . Dertroit: Macmillan Reference USA.

Smith, H. P., & Dechant, E. V. 1961. Psychology in Teaching Reading. Englewood

Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Sridhar, M. S. 2008. Research Methodology: Part 5 - Sampling & Sampling

Strategy or Plan. Presentation, unpublished, ISRO Satellite Centre,

Bangalore.

Stiggins, R. J. 1994. Student-centered Classroom Assessment. New York: Merrill.

Sudjana. 1991. Desain dan Analisis Eksperimen. Bandung: Tarsito.

Suharsimi Arikunto. 2002. Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik. Jakarta:

Rineka Cipta.

Swan, M. 1997. Practical English Usage (2-nd

ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, C., & Ring, G. 2000. ―Integrating Electronic Portfolios into Undergraduate

and Graduate Educational Technology Courses at the University of Florida.‖

165

Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education 2000 Conference

Proceedings, 339-342.

Testerman, J., & Hall, H. D. 2000/2001. ―The Electronic Portfolio: A Means of

Preparing Leaders for Application of Technology in Education.‖ Journal of

Educational Technology Systems, 29(3), 199-206.

Thompson, R. A. 2008. "Child Development." Microsoft® Student 2009 [DVD].


Thornbury, S. 1996. ‗Teachers Research Teacher Talk‘. ELT Journal. 50/4: 279-289.

Todd, W. R. 2004. Process and Product of English Language Learning in the

National Education Act, Ministry of Education Standards and

Recommended Textbooks at the Secondary Level. Thai TESOL Bulletin, 17,

(1), 15 – 45.

Tuckman, B. W. 1978. Conducting Educational Research. New York: Harcourt

Brace Jovanovich.

Ur, P. 1996. A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory. Cambridge:


van Wesel, M. & Prop, A. 2008. The Influence of Portfolio Media on Student

Perceptions and Learning Outcomes. Paper presented at Student Mobility

and ICT: Can E-LEARNING overcome barriers of Life-Long learning? 19-

20 November 2008, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Venn, J. J. 2000. Assessing Students with Special Needs (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle

River: Merrill. Retrieved June 29, 2009 from

http://www.unm.edu/_devallenz/index.html

Warschauer, M. 2002. ―Languages.com: The Internet and Linguistic Pluralism.‖ In I.

Snyder (Ed.), Silicon Literacies: Communication, Innovation and Education

in the Electronic Age (pp. 62-74). London: Routledge.

Wilson, M. and Sapsford, R. 2006. ―Asking Questions‖. In Roger Sapsford and

Victor Jupp (Eds.), Data Collection and Analysis (Second Edition) (pp. 93 –

123). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Weigle, S. 2002. Assessing Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

White, R. and Arndt, V. 1991. Process Writing. Essex: Addison Wesley Longman

Ltd.

166

Willis, D. 1990. ‗Communicating Methodology and Syllabus Specification‘. In The

Lexical Syllabus: A New Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford: Collins

COBUILD

Wildman. T. M. 2008. ―Learning.‖ In Neil J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of


Publications, Inc.

Witherington, W. 2000. Educational Psychology (Translated edition by M. Buchori).

Bandung: Jemmars.

Wolfe, Michael B. W. undated. ―Readability Indices.‖ In (unknown editors)

Encyclopedia of Education: Second Edition. (pp. 1972 - 1973). Unknown

publisher.

―writing‖. 2009. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved August 18, 2009 from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing

Zamel, V. 1985. ―Responding to Student Writing‖. TESOL Quarterly, 19/1: 79-101

167

Appendix 1:

BLUE PRINT OF WRITING INTEREST QUESTIONNAIRE

No. Dimension Indicator Item No. Total Item

1 Affective

Attention for an object 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 16, 19,

23, 27, 34

10

Feeling for an object 1, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17,

18, 35, 40

10

2 Cognitive

Intensity (preference for

some activities over

others)

3, 7, 20, 21, 31, 32, 36,

38, 4, 28

10

Duration 13, 22, 24, 25, 26, 33,

37, 39, 29, 30

10

Total 40

Notice : Underlined items are negative items.

Scoring:

1. Maximum score : 4 x 40 = 160

2. Minimum score : 1 x 40 = 40

3. Maximum average = 4

4. Minimum average = 1

168

Appendix 2:

ANGKET Abdul Syahid Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Program Pasca Sarjana - Universitas Sebelas Maret - Surakarta

169

Siswa-siswi yang tercinta,

Terima kasih atas kesediaan Anda berperan serta dalam Studi Banding yang saya

laksanakan. Penelitian ini dilakukan untuk meningkatkan kemampuan Anda untuk

menulis (WRITING) dalam Bahasa Inggris.

Angket ini bukanlah UJIAN/ TES. Jadi, tidak ada jawaban yang BENAR atau

SALAH. Tujuan disebarkannya angket ini adalah untuk mengetahui pendapat Anda

secara pribadi. Berikanlah jawaban yang jujur karena hanya jawaban jujur dan apa

adanya yang akan memberikan keberhasilan penelitian ini.

Saya berharap Anda menjawab semua pertanyaan. Namun Anda boleh melewatkan

pertanyaan yang tidak ingin Anda jawab.

Semua jawaban Anda akan dirahasiakan. Setelah saya menerima jawaban Anda, saya

akan memberikan kode dan memotong bagian Angket di mana Anda mencantumkan

nama Anda sehingga jawaban Anda tidak akan disangkutpautkan dengan nama

Anda.

Terima kasih atas bantuan dan kerja sama yang baik. Tuhan memberkati.

b y

Email: [email protected]

Facebook: facebook.com/abdul.syahid

b y

170

Petunjuk:

Dalam angket ini terdapat pernyataan yang Anda setujui dan yang tidak Anda setujui.

Tidak ada jawaban yang benar karena setiap orang memiliki pendapat yang berbeda.

Berilah jawaban Anda segera setelah Anda membaca pernyataan-pernyataan di

bawah ini namun jangan tergesa-gesa. Hal ini penting agar saya memperoleh

jawaban sesuai dengan apa yang benar-benar Anda rasakan.

Berikan tanda centang () pada kolom angka di lembar jawaban sesuai dengan

perasaan Anda terhadap pernyataan tersebut. Arti dari angka-angka tersebut adalah

sebagai berikut:

1 = Sangat setuju

2 = Setuju

3 = Tidak setuju

4 = Sangat tidak setuju

Contoh:

Pernyataan Pendapat Anda

1 2 3 4

Saya adalah seorang super hero seperti Spider Man.

Dari angka 1 yang Anda centang tersebut, Anda sangat setuju bahwa Anda

termasuk seorang pahlawan super/ super hero seperti Spider Man.

Selamat mengerjakan.

171

No. Pernyataan

Pendapat

Anda

1 2 3 4

1 Saya suka menulis.

2 Saya membaca kembali apa yang sudah saya tulis sebelum

saya menyerahkan tulisan saya kepada Guru.

3 Saya berkirim surat/ email atau pesan singkat (SMS) untuk

berhubungan dengan teman.

4 Dengan menulis, saya merasa lebih bisa mengungkapkan

perasaan dan pikiran saya dibandingkan dengan

mengungkapkannya secara lisan.

5 Saya yakin bahwa saya memahami apa yang harus saya

lakukan sebelum saya mulai menulis.

6 Ketika saya mengerjakan tugas mengarang, saya lebih senang

jika saya diberitahu tujuan yang ingin dicapai melalui tugas

tersebut.

7 Saya lebih suka mengerjakan soal pilihan ganda daripada

mengerjakan soal uraian (esai) dalam suatu ulangan.

8 Saya senang mengarang karena saya merasakan sesuatu dalam

diri saya yang bisa saya ungkapkan.

9 Saya menyusun ide-ide saya sebelum saya mulai mengarang.

10 Mengarang/ menulis adalah sesuatu yang tidak

menyenangkan.

11 Saya tidak memahami apa yang harus dilakukan dalam

hampir semua tugas mengarang/menulis dalam bahasa

Inggris.

12 Teman-teman saya berpendapat bahwa saya penulis/

pengarang yang baik.

13 Saya pernah mengikuti lomba mengarang/menulis sekurang-

kurangnya satu kali.

172

No. Pernyataan

Pendapat

Anda

1 2 3 4

14 Saya menata kalimat-kalimat saya dalam suatu susunan yang

lebih baik daripada siswa lain di kelas saya.

15 Saya bisa menulis kalimat dan paragraf lebih baik

dibandingkan siswa lain di kelas saya.

16 Saya senang memeriksa kembali tulisan saya dan

memperbaiki kesalahan yang saya temukan.

17 Saya merasa percaya diri terhadap kemampuan saya

mengungkapkan ide-ide saya dalam tulisan.

18 Saya tidak suka menulis.

19 Saya memperoleh nilai yang baik untuk tulisan-tulisan saya

dalam bahasa Inggris.

20 Saya lebih senang menuangkan pikiran-pikiran saya dan

mengungkapkan perasaan saya dengan cara menuliskannya

daripada secara lisan.

21 Saya senang mengirimkan tulisan saya ke majalah/majalah

dinding untuk diterbitkan.

22 Saya berusaha segiat mungkin untuk menyelesaikan tugas

menulis/ mengarang yang diberikan kepada saya.

23 Memperoleh nilai yang bagus untuk tugas mengarang/

menulis merupakan sesuatu yang penting bagi saya.

24 Meskipun jika saya beranggapan bahwa tugas menulis/

mengarang itu membosankan, saya akan berusaha segiat

mungkin.

25 Saya akan menjadi penulis yang lebih baik dengan cara

belajar bahasa Inggris segiat mungkin tahun ini.

26 Jika saya sering merasa bingung ketika menulis/ mengarang,

saya tidak berusaha mencari bantuan.

173

No. Pernyataan

Pendapat

Anda

1 2 3 4

27 Saya memilih kata-kata yang saya pakai dalam

tulisan/karangan saya secara hati-hati agar menarik perhatian

pembaca.

28 Saya lebih suka mencatat penjelasan guru daripada hanya

menyimaknya.

29 Saya bisa duduk berlama-lama ketika menulis/ mengetik

dengan komputer.

30 Saya sering mencurahkan pikiran dan perasaan saya dengan

menuliskannya dalam buku harian atau mempostingnya di

facebook.

31 Saya menuangkan pemikiran saya dengan cara curah pendapat

sebelum saya menulis karangan yang panjang.

32 Saya lebih senang jika ada teman yang membaca tulisan/

karangan saya daripada hanya saya yang membacanya.

33 Mengerjakan tugas mengarang/menulis adalah sesuatu yang

penting bagi saya.

34 Saya tidak mengerti bagaiman cara menyusun suatu esai/

membuat karangan dengan baik.

35 Saya bukan seorang pengarang/penulis yang baik.

36 Saya tidak berusaha sekuat tenaga untuk menulis dalam

bahasa Inggris karena masih banyak hal lain yang lebih

penting.

37 Pada waktu luang, saya sering mengupdate status saya di

jaring pertemanan seperti facebook dan chatting online.

38 Saat bersantai saya menghindari hal-hal yang berkaitan

dengan tulis menulis.

39 Saya sering tidak menyelesaikan tugas menulis dalam kelas.

174

No. Pernyataan

Pendapat

Anda

1 2 3 4

40 Menyerahkan tugas mengarang/menulis membuat saya

senang.

Terima kasih atas kesediaan Anda mengisi angket ini.

175

Appendix 3: Nama

Kelas

Code

Code

L E M B A R A N J A W A B A N A N G K E T

Petunjuk:

Berdasarkan lembaran angket, berilah tanda centang pada kolom Pendapat Anda

yang sesuai dengan pendapat Anda terhadap suatu pernyataan.

No.

Pendapat AndaSangatsetuju

Setuju TidakSetuju

SangatTidakSetuju

1 2 3 41.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18.19.20.

No.

Pendapat AndaSangatsetuju

Setuju TidakSetuju

SangatTidakSetuju

1 2 3 421.22.23.24.25.26.27.28.29.30.31.32.33.34.35.36.37.38.39.40.

176

Appendix 4:

BLUE PRINT OF WRITING TEST

(based on Panduan Penulisan Butir Soal by Departemen Pendidikan Nasional, Dirjen Manajemen Dikdasmen,

Direktorat Pembinaan SMA, 2008)

School : Senior High School No. of questions : 1

Subject : English Test format : Essay Test

Skill/ Genre : Writing/ Recount Grade/ Semester : X / First

Curriculum : School-Based Curriculum Time allotment : 45 minutes

No. Standard of

Competency

Basic

Competencies

Learning material Indicator(s) of the Question Test Item Scoring

1 To express

the meaning

of a short

functional

written text

and a simple

essay.

To express the

rhetorical

meaning and

steps

accurately,

fluently, and

acceptably in a

written

language in a

1. Recount:

- Social function

- Generic structure

1. Students are able to

organize a recount text

by using its generic

structure.

2. Students are able to

address the topic

concretely and

thoroughly.

3. Students are able to use

Write a text of

three paragraphs

telling about your

most memorable

experience.

In writing the

text, you must

Analytic Scale

for Rating

Writing Test

(Based on ESL

Composition

Profile):

177

No. Standard of

Competency

Basic

Competencies

Learning material Indicator(s) of the Question Test Item Scoring

daily life

context in the

forms of

recount,

narrative and

procedure.

acceptable grammatical

systems (e.g. tense,

agreement, pluralization

patterns and rules);


English writing

conventions correctly:

margins, capitals,

paragraphs indention,

punctuation and spelling.


vocabulary, structures,

and register precisely.

pay attention to

the generic

structure, the

development of

ideas, English

grammar, and the

usage of

vocabulary.

178

Appendix 5:

ESL COMPOSITION PROFILE

(From Reid, J. M. 1993. Teaching ESL Writing. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall

Regents (pp. 236 – 237)).

No. Category Level Criteria Comment

1 Content:

The

appropriateness

with the title

chosen.

30 – 27 Excellent to very

good

Knowledgeable;

substantive

development of thesis,

relevant to assigned topic

26 – 22 Good to average sure knowledge of subject;

adequate range; limited

development of thesis;

mostly relevant to topic but

lacks detail

21 – 17 Fair to poor limited knowledge of

subject; little substance;

inadequate development of

topic

16 – 13 Very poor does not show knowledge

of subject; non-

substantive; not pertinent,

OR not enough to evaluate

2 Organization:

paragraph unity,

coherence, and

cohesion


good

fluent expression; ideas

clearly stated/supported;

succinct; well-organized;

logical sequencing;

cohesive

179


17 – 14 Good to average somewhat choppy; loosely

organized

but main ideas stand out;

limited support; logical

but incomplete sequencing

13 – 10 Fair to poor non—fluent; ideas

confused or disconnected;

lacks logical sequencing

and development

9 – 7 Very poor does not communicate; no

organization; OR not

enough to evaluate

3 Vocabulary: the

precision of using

vocabulary


good

sophisticated range;

effective word/ idiom

choice and usage; word

from mastery; appropriate

register

17 – 14 Good to average adequate range;

occasional errors of word/

idiom form, choice, usage

but meaning not obscured

13 – 10 Fair to poor limited range; frequent

errors of work/ idiom

form, choice, usage;

meaning confused or

obscured

180


9 – 7 Very poor essentially translation;

little knowledge of English

vocabulary, idioms, word

form; OR not enough to

evaluate

4 Language Use/

Grammar: tenses

and pattern


good

effective, complex

constructions; few errors

of agreement, tense,

number, word order/

function, articles,

pronouns, prepositions

21 – 18 Good to average effective but simple

constructions; minor

problems in complex

constructions; several

errors of agreement, tense,

number, word order/

function, articles,

pronouns, prepositions, but

meaning seldom obscured

181


17 – 11 Fair to poor major problems in simple/

complex constructions;

frequent errors of negation,

agreement, tense, number,

word order/ function,

articles, pronouns,

prepositions and or

fragments, run-ons,

deletions; meaning

confused or obscured

10 – 6 Very poor virtually no mastery of

sentence construction

rules; dominated by errors;

does not communicate; OR

not enough to evaluate

5 Mechanics:

spelling and

punctuation

5 Excellent to very

good

demonstrates mastery of

conventions; few errors of

spelling, punctuation,

capitalization,

paragraphing

4 Good to average occasional errors of

spelling, punctuation,

capitalization,

paragraphing, but meaning

not obscured

182


3 Fair to poor frequent errors of spelling,

punctuation, capitalization,

paragraphing; poor

handwriting; meaning

confused or obscured

2 Very poor no mastery of

conventions; dominated by

errors of spelling,

punctuation, capitalization,

paragraphing; handwriting

illegible; OR not enough

to evaluate

The Range of Writing

Score 35 – 100

183

Appendix 6:

WRITING TEST

School : SMA Negeri 2 Sampit

Subject/ Skill : English/ Writing

Grade/ Semester : X/ First

Time Allocation : 45 minutes

Academic Year : 2009/2010

Directions:

1. Put your name and class on the top right side of your answer sheet.

2. Write a text of three paragraphs about your most memorable experience.

3. Your text must meet a minimum of 100 words.

3. You must pay attention to organization (the generic structure, paragraph unity,

coherence, and cohesion), content (the development of ideas, the

appropriateness with the title chosen), vocabulary (the precision of using

vocabulary), language use/ grammar (clauses, prepositions, modals, articles,

verb forms, pattern and tenses) and mechanics (spelling and punctuation such as

period, comma, etc.) in your text.

4. Two English teachers will grade your text by using the following scale.


1 Content: 30 – 27 Excellent to very good

26 – 22 Good to average


16 – 13 Very poor

2 Organization: 20 – 18 Excellent to very good



9 – 7 Very poor

184


3 Vocabulary 20 – 18 Excellent to very good



9 – 7 Very poor

4 Language Use/ Grammar: 25 – 22 Excellent to very good



10 – 6 Very poor

5 Mechanics: 5 Excellent to very good

4 Good to average

3 Fair to poor

2 Very poor

The Range of Writing Score 35 – 100

185

Appendix 7:

READABILITY STATISTICS

qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyu

iopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg

hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv

bnmqwert bnmqwe

rtyuiopasd rtyuiopa

sdfghjklzxc sdfghjkl

zxcvbnmq zxcvbnm




bnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwe

rtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa

sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjkl

b i df hjkl b

Appendix 8:

LESSON PLAN

(EXPERIMENTAL GROUP)

183

187

LESSON PLAN I

School : SMAN 2 Sampit

Subject : English


Skill : Writing

Time Allocation : 2 x 45” (4 meetings)

Meeting I

A. Standard of Competency:

To express the meaning of a short functional written text and a simple essay in

the forms of narrative, descriptive and news item in a context of a daily life.

B. Basic Competencies:

To express the meaning of formal and informal short functional written texts

such as an announcement, an advertisement, an invitation, etc. accurately,

fluently, and acceptably using a variety of a written language in a context of a

daily life.

C. Indicator (s):

1. To be able to write a simple instruction;

2. To arrange some instructions into a good order of a procedure text;

3. To express meaning and information in a procedure text;

4. To apply the structure of a procedure text.

D. Teaching Materials:

Student-searched samples of instructions.

Student-searched samples of manuals.

Student-searched samples of a procedure text.

E. Teaching Method: Electronic-based portfolio learning.

188

F. Teaching Activities:

1. Introductory Activities (15 minutes):

a. Orientation:

i. Students are introduced to the idea of electronic-based portfolio

learning by showing them a sample of electronic-based portfolio, the

goals of learning through portfolio, the specification of portfolio

content, the guidelines for portfolio presentation, and the advantages

of electronic-based portfolio learning.

iii. Students are shown some user manuals in order to make them

focused on the material to be taught.

b. Motivation:

i. Students are motivated by being told about the functions of giving

instruction and a written procedural text.

2. Main Activities (65 minutes):

a. Pre-writing (10)

i. The teacher defines the three corner stones of any piece of a

procedure text: the audience, the purpose and the form.

The audience The purpose The form

A computer user To inform how to log in

one’s facebook account.

Instruction manual

A bank customer To inform how to use

ATM machine

Instruction manual

A cook To inform how to make

fried rice.

Recipe

ii. Students brainstorm and note down any ideas connected to a

procedure text using a word processor.

ii. Students and the teacher decide the most relevant ideas to the topic,

task or title from the brainstormed list.

189

iii. Students decide which order to put those ideas in. This is carried out

in one of three pre-writing formats (softcopy): bubbling (mind web),

outlining, and drawing/writing a captioned cartoon strip.

iv. Students are shown some examples and templates of the pre-writing

formats.

v. Students and the teacher discuss the prewriting form that works best

for them and the type of text.

b. Drafting (30 minutes)

i. Students write the first draft of their piece of work using a word

processor.

ii. Students are told to write on every other line and not to worry about

mistakes.

c. Revising and Editing (20 minutes)

i. Students are told the way how to apply the spelling and grammar

checker.

ii. Students revise their first drafts: improving on the content,

organization, and the sentence structure; making vocabulary more

exact and reducing sentences for conciseness or expand for

clarification (if needed);

ii. Students edit their work by eliminating or reducing spelling,

grammar and punctuation mistakes.

iii. The teacher has students share their writing with a partner or small

group.

iv. Students use a writing improvement checklist and a mechanics

checklist (softcopy);

d. Publishing (5 minutes)

i. Students are asked to publish their works on their own web-blogs.

ii. Students are requested to comment/ revise their friends’ works (at

least one friend) on the web.

190

3. Closing Activities (10):

a. Students are asked to express how they feel after taking part in the

electronic-based portfolio learning.

b. Students are also told to write down how they feel in the web-blog class.

b. Students are requested to update their electronic portfolios at home

(sample is enclosed) and to give comments/ revision on their friends’

works (at least one friend).

c. Students are told that student-teacher conference will be held in the form

of web-based discussion in a web-blog class.

G. Teaching Resource:

1. Some user instruction manuals/ booklets and recipes in the net.

2. Web-blog class and students’ web-blogs.

3. Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) projector, a notebook/ desktop computer.

4. Internet access.

5. Web browser, word processor.

6. EAQUALS-ALTE electronic European Language Portfolio (e-Portfolio)

H. Evaluation:

1. Technique : Portfolio assessment

2. Tools: Rating scale, Self/ peer assessment with revising/editing checklists.

Meeting II




191





daily life.

C. Indicator (s):

1. To be able to write an invitation;

2. To express meaning and information in an invitation;

4. To apply the structure of an invitation.


Student-searched tips on how to write an invitation on the net.

Student-searched sample of e-invitation cards.




a. Orientation: the teacher has students get focused by showing them some

invitations and e-invitations.

b. Motivation: students are motivated by being told about the functions of

an invitation.


a. Pre-writing (10 minutes)

i. The teacher defines the three corner stones of any piece of an

invitation: the audience, the purpose and the form.

192


Friends To invite some friends to

attend one’s birthday

party.

Invitation card.

Parents To invite students’ parents

to come to a meeting of

PTA (Parents-Teachers

Association).

Invitation.

ii. Students brainstorm and note down any ideas connected to an

invitation.



iii. Students decide which order to put those ideas in by using one of

three pre-writing formats: bubbling (mind web), outlining, and

drawing/writing a captioned cartoon strip works best for them and

the type of text.


i. Students write the first draft of their piece of work.


mistakes.

c. Revising and Editing (30)

i. Students revise their first drafts: improving on the content,







group.

193




i. Students are asked to put some decorations on their invitations.

ii. Students are asked to make a copy of their invitations and exchange

with classmates using their email accounts.

iii. Students are requested to comment/ revise their friends’ works (at

least one friend).

iii. Students are asked to upload their works on their own web-blogs.











1. Student-searched e-invitations.



4. Internet access.



H. Evaluation:


194

2. Tools: Rating scale, Self/ peer assessment with revising/editing checklists

(softcopy).

Meeting III








daily life.

C. Indicator (s):

1. To be able to write an announcement;

2. To express meaning and information in an announcement.


Student-searched samples of announcements on the net.





announcements.


an announcement.



195


announcement: the audience, the purpose and the form.


Short story writers To inform that a short

story contest will be held.

An announcement.

Students, parents, teachers To inform that a book fair

will be held.

An announcement.


announcement.






the type of text.




mistakes.









group.

196


checklist (enclosed);


i. Students are asked to put some decorations (pictures, etc.) on their

announcements.

ii. Students are asked to make a copy of their announcements and

exchange with classmates using their email accounts.


least one friend).

iv. Students are asked to upload their works on their own web-blogs.











1. Student-searched announcements (in Indonesian and English).



4. Internet access.



197

H. Evaluation:



(softcopy).

Meeting IV








daily life.

C. Indicator (s):

1. To be able to write an advertisement;

2. To express meaning and information in an advertisement.


Some samples of e-advertisements.





advertisements.


an advertisement.

198




advertisement: the audience, the purpose and the form.


Prospective Sumatera –

Java – Bali passengers

To inform that a travel

agency provides luxury

buses and serve Sumatera

– Java – Bali.

An advertisement.

Students, parents To inform an

internationally-

standardized school with

an affordable fee holds an

open house and science

fair.

An advertisement.


announcement.






the type of text.




mistakes.


199








group.





advertisements.

ii. Students are asked to make a copy of their advertisements and



least one friend).





b. Students are also told to write down how they feel in the web-blog

class.

c. Students are requested to update their electronic portfolios at home



d. Students are told that student-teacher conference will be held in the

form of web-based discussion in a web-blog class.

200


1. Student-searched e-advertisements (in Indonesian and English).



4. Internet access.



H. Evaluation:



(included in the teacher-made Electronic-based portfolio builder above).

201

LESSON PLAN II


Subject : English


Skill : Writing


Meeting V and VI





To express the meaning and rhetorical steps accurately, fluently and acceptably

using a written language variety in a context of a daily life in the text forms of

recount, narrative, and procedure.

C. Indicator (s):

1. To apply Simple Past Tense in a recount text.

2. To arrange some sentences into a correct order in a logical time order and

use them to write a paragraph.

3. To write a recount text.


Student-searched articles on the usage of Simple Past Tense.

Student-searched articles on Recount Text on the net.

Student-searched articles on Using Prepositions of Time on the net.

202




a. Apperception:

Students are asked to answer the following questions such as:

1. Do you have a diary?

2. What do people usually write in it?

3. What advantages can people get from writing it?

4. Have you ever written your past experience in a diary?

5. If yes, what was it about?

Students are reminded of the generic structure of a recount text, Simple

Past Tense and preposition of time by arranging some sentences into a

correct order in a logical time order and use them to write a paragraph.

b. Motivation:

i. Students are motivated by being told to find the functions of a

recount text on the net.

ii. Students are asked to find some famous people who wrote their own

past experience on the net.



i. The teacher defines the three corner stones of any piece of a recount

text: the audience, the purpose and the form.


The writer him/herself To retell his/ her daily

activities and experiences

Dairy

ii. Students brainstorm and note down any ideas connected to a recount

text.



203


in one of three pre-writing formats: bubbling (mind web), outlining,

and drawing/writing a captioned cartoon strip.




mistakes.









group.





recount texts.

ii. Students are asked to make a copy of their recount texts and exchange

with classmates using their email accounts.


least one friend).





b. Students are also told to write down how they feel in the web-blog

class.

204

c. Students are requested to update their electronic portfolios at home

and to give comments/ revision on their friends’ works (at least one

friend).

d. Students are told that student-teacher conference will be held in the

form of web-based discussion in a web-blog class.


1. Student-searched articles on recount text.



4. Internet access.


6. EAQUALS-ALTE electronic European Language Portfolio (e-Portfolio).

H. Evaluation:




Meeting VII and VIII








205

C. Indicator (s):

1. To develop a paragraph of a narrative text;

2. To write a narrative text


Student-searched articles on the usage of Simple Past Tense (in-depth) on the

net.

Student-searched articles on Narrative Text on the net.




a. Apperception:


1. Have you ever written a story?

2. Is it difficult or not?

3. What makes you feel difficult in writing a story?

4. What makes you feel easy in writing a story?

Students are reminded of the generic structure of a narrative text and

Simple Past Tense by arranging some pictures based on a narrative text

(on a computer).

b. Motivation:

i. Students are asked to search their favorite authors such as

J.K.Rowlin, Adrea Hirata, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

ii. Students are requested to share the information on their favorite

authors in the web-blog class.



i. The teacher defines the three corner stones of any piece of a narrative


206


Children To entertain them and to

convey some moral

messages

Fairy tales, fables

Youngsters To entertain them Love stories


text.









mistakes.









group.



207



narrative texts.

ii. Students are asked to make a copy of their narrative texts and



least one friend).






c. Students are requested to update their electronic portfolios at home and to

give comments/ revision on their friends’ works (at least one friend).

d. Students are told that student-teacher conference will be held in the form



1. Student-searched articles on narrative texts.



4. Internet access.


6. EAQUALS-ALTE electronic European Language Portfolio (e-Portfolio).

H. Evaluation:







bnmqwert bnmqwe

rtyuiopasd rtyuiopa

sdfghjklzxc sdfghjkl

zxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm




bnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwe

rtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa

sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjkl

b i df hjkl b

Appendix 9:

LESSON PLAN

(CONTROL GROUP)

205

209

LESSON PLAN I


Subject : English


Skill : Writing


Meeting I








daily life.

C. Indicator (s):

1. To be able to write a simple instruction;

2. To arrange some instructions into a good order of a procedure text;

3. To express meaning and information in a procedure text;

4. To apply the structure of a procedure text.


1. Procedure

Social function : to describe how something is accomplished through a

sequence of actions or steps.

Generic structure

- Goal.

210

- Materials (not required for all procedural texts)

- Steps (a series of steps oriented to achieving the goal)

2. Related vocabularies;

E. Teaching Method: Paper-based portfolio learning.



a. Orientation:

i. Students are introduced to the idea of paper-based portfolio learning

by showing them a sample of portfolio, the goals of learning through

portfolio, the specification of portfolio content, the guidelines for

portfolio presentation, and the advantages of paper-based portfolio

learning.

ii. The teacher-made paper-based portfolios for English writing are

handed out.

iii. Students are shown some user manuals in order to make them

focused on the material to be taught.

b. Motivation:

i. Students are motivated by being told about the functions of giving

instruction and a written procedural text.


a. Pre-writing (10)

i. The teacher defines the three corner stones of any piece of a

procedure text: the audience, the purpose and the form.


A computer user To inform how to log in

one’s facebook account.

Instruction manual

A bank customer To inform how to use Instruction manual

211

ATM machine

A cook To inform how to make

fried rice.

Recipe

ii. Students brainstorm and note down any ideas connected to a

procedure text.






iv. Students are shown some examples and templates of the pre-writing

formats. (enclosed)

v. Students and the teacher discuss the prewriting form that works best

for them and the type of text.




mistakes.









group.




212

i. Students are asked to share their works with other class or grades.


a. The teacher asks some reflection questions to help the students pinpoint

their own strengths and areas for improvement and to help the teacher

define his ideal writing classroom;

b. Students are requested to fill in their portfolios at home (sample is

enclosed) and


of a short individual meeting to discuss their progresses.


1. Some user instruction manuals/ booklets and recipes.

2. Teacher-made paper-based portfolio builder adapted from European

Language Portfolio (enclosed).

H. Evaluation:



(included in the teacher-made paper-based portfolio builder above).

Meeting II





To express the meaning of formal and informal short functional written texts as

such an announcement, an advertisement, an invitation, etc. accurately, fluently,

and acceptably using a variety of a written language in a context of a daily life.

213

C. Indicator (s):

1. To be able to write an invitation;

2. To express meaning and information in an invitation;

4. To apply the structure of an invitation.


The followings are some tips on how to write an invitation:

• state the occasion, date, time, and place;

• include addresses and a map if necessary;

• include a telephone number for RSVPs;

• if there is a dress code, state the preferred dress in the lower left-hand corner

of the card; and

• express that you are looking forward to seeing the person.





invitations.


an invitation.




invitation: the audience, the purpose and the form.

214


Friends To invite some friends to

attend one’s birthday

party.

Invitation card.

Parents To invite students’ parents

to come to a meeting of

PTA (Parents-Teachers

Association).

Invitation.


invitation.






the type of text.




mistakes.

c. Revising and Editing (30)








group.

215




i. Students are asked to put some decorations on their invitations.

ii. Students are asked to make a copy of their invitations and exchange

with classmates.






enclosed) and




1. Some invitations (in Indonesian and English).

2. List of related vocabularies;



4. Interlanguage: English for Senior High School Students X: SMA/MA Kelas

X by Joko Priyana, Riandi, Anita Prasetyo Mumpuni. (pp. 42 – 43). Jakarta:

Pusat Perbukuan, Departemen Pendidikan Nasional, 2008.

H. Evaluation:




216

Meeting III








C. Indicator (s):

1. To be able to write an announcement;

2. To express meaning and information in an announcement.


Some samples of announcements.





announcements.


an announcement.




announcement: the audience, the purpose and the form.

217


Short story writers To inform that a short

story contest will be held.

An announcement.

Students, parents, teachers To inform that a book fair

will be held.

An announcement.


announcement.






the type of text.




mistakes.









group.



218



announcements.

ii. Students are asked to make a copy of their announcements and put

them on the class announcement board.






enclosed) and




1. Some announcements (in Indonesian and English).




4. Interlanguage: English for Senior High School Students XII: SMA/MA

Kelas XII by Joko Priyana, Riandi, Anita Prasetyo Mumpuni. (pp. 18 and

25). Jakarta: Pusat Perbukuan, Departemen Pendidikan Nasional, 2008.

H. Evaluation:




219

Meeting IV








C. Indicator (s):

1. To be able to write an advertisement;

2. To express meaning and information in an advertisement.


Some samples of advertisements.





advertisements.


an advertisement.




advertisement: the audience, the purpose and the form.

220


Prospective Sumatera –

Java – Bali passengers

To inform that a travel

agency provides luxury

buses and serve Sumatera

– Java – Bali.

An advertisement.

Students, parents To inform an

internationally-

standardized school with

an affordable fee holds an

open house and science

fair.

An advertisement.


announcement.






the type of text.




mistakes.








221


group.





advertisements.

ii. Students are asked to make a copy of their advertisements and put

them on the class board.






enclosed) and




1. Some advertisements (in Indonesian and English).




4. Developing English Competencies 2: for Senior High School (SMA/MA)

grade XI by Achmad Doddy, Ahmad Sugeng, Effendi; Team of Setia Purna

Inves. (editor) (pp. 16 – 20). – Jakarta : Pusat Perbukuan, Departemen

Pendidikan Nasional, 2008.

222

H. Evaluation:




LESSON PLAN II


Subject : English


Skill : Writing


Meeting V and VI








C. Indicator (s):

1. To apply Simple Past Tense in a recount text.

2. To arrange some sentences into a correct order in a logical time order and

use them to write a paragraph.

3. To write a recount text.


Genre : Recount

223

Social function : to retell events for the purpose of informing or

entertaining

Generic structure :

- Orientation : provides the setting and introduces participants

- Events : tell what happened, in what sequence

- Re-orientation : optional-closure of events

- Steps (a series of steps oriented to achieving the goal)

Using Prepositions of Time

It is important to use correct prepositions to show time relationship.

Study the prepositions of time and the example.

• Use at with specific times: at 5:00/ at 7:30/ at noon/ at midnight

• Use from and to with a span of time: from 6:00 to 9:00/ from 1941 to 1945

• Use in with other parts of the day: in the afternoon/ in the morning/ in the

evening (exception: at night)

• Use in with months: in August/ in June

• Use in with years: in 19999/ in 2001

• Use in with seasons: in the spring/ in the summer/ in the winter




a. Apperception:


1. Do you have a diary?

2. What do people usually write in it?

3. What advantages can people get from writing it?

4. Have you ever written your past experience in a diary?

5. If yes, what was it about?

224

Students are reminded of the generic structure of a recount text, Simple

Past Tense and preposition of time by arranging some sentences into a

correct order in a logical time order and use them to write a paragraph.

b. Motivation:

i. Students are motivated by being told about the functions of a recount

text.

ii. Students are asked to mention some famous people who wrote their

own past experience.



i. The teacher defines the three corner stones of any piece of a recount



The writer him/herself To retell his/ her daily

activities and experiences

Dairy


text.









mistakes.






225




group.




i. Students are asked to share their works in a class magazine.






enclosed) and





grade X by Achmad Doddy, Ahmad Sugeng, Effendi; Team of Setia Purna

Inves. (Ed.) – Jakarta : Pusat Perbukuan, Departemen Pendidikan Nasional,

2008. (pp. 18 – 22)



H. Evaluation:




226

Meeting VII and VIII








C. Indicator (s):

1. To develop a paragraph of a narrative text;

2. To write a narrative text


Genre : Narrative

Social Function : to amuse, entertain and to deal with actual or vicarious

experience in different ways.

Generic Structure :

- Orientation : sets the scene and introduces the participants.

- Complication : a crisis arises.

- Resolution : the crisis is resolved, for better or for worse.

Simple Past Tense

Affirmative

1. Rosaura ate her meal quickly.

2. Her father looked away in disappointment.

Negative

1. Rosaura did not eat her meal quickly.

2. Her father did not look away in disappointment.

227

Questions:

1. Did Rosaura eat her meal quickly?

2. Did her father look away in disappointment?




a. Apperception:


1. Have you ever written a story?

2. Is it difficult or not?

3. What makes you feel difficult in writing a story?

4. What makes you feel easy in writing a story?

Students are reminded of the generic structure of a narrative text and

Simple Past Tense by arranging some pictures based on a narrative text.

b. Motivation:

i. Students are asked to answer a question:

Who wrote Harry Potter?

Is J. K.Rowlin rich and famous?



i. The teacher defines the three corner stones of any piece of a narrative



Children To entertain them and to

convey some moral

messages

Fairy tales, fables

Youngsters To entertain them Love stories

228


text.









mistakes.









group.




i. Students are asked to share their works in a class magazine.






enclosed) and

229





grade X by Achmad Doddy, Ahmad Sugeng, Effendi; Team of Setia Purna

Inves. (Ed.) – Jakarta : Pusat Perbukuan, Departemen Pendidikan Nasional,

2008. (pp. 46 – 49)



4. Interlanguage: English for Senior High School Students X: SMA/MA Kelas

X by Joko Priyana, Riandi, Anita Prasetyo Mumpuni. (pp. 42 – 43). Jakarta:

Pusat Perbukuan, Departemen Pendidikan Nasional, 2008.

H. Evaluation:




230

Appendix 10:

231

Appendix 11:

232

Appendix 12:

LIST OF STUDENTS IN THE TRYOUT CLASS

Respondent

No.

ID

No. Name Sex Code

1 4255 Ade Mulyasari F O1

2 4397 Amelya Nur Ayesha F O2

3 4403 Aulia Dinata F O3

4 4472 Desy Mandasari F O4

5 4301 Ellyia Widia Ningsih F O5

6 4283 Eva Elisa F O6

7 4484 Zulkifli F O7

8 4410 Fitriyanigsih F O8

9 4412 Gina Munnija R. F O9

10 4287 Heni Yunita F O10

11 4270 Iman Abdurahman M O11

12 4271 Imelda Selta A.S. F O12

13 4418 Irma Eriyanti F O13

14 4339 Kartrika Apriliyani F O14

15 4389 Listhia Rahmawati F O15

16 4419 M. Yadi M O16

17 4275 Majiatulhana F O17

18 4450 Milasari F O18

19 4308 Muhammad Ariadi M O19

20 4451 Nor Bayah F O20

21 4422 Nur Apriliyani D. F O21

22 4279 Nur Rahmah Wati F O22

23 4424 Nurul Syamsiah F O23

24 4376 Nurhidayati F O24

25 4293 Rizki Sri Ratmulia F O25

26 4396 Sari Rahmawati F O26

27 4317 Siti Qomariah F O27

28 4287 Supriadi M O28

29 4356 Tri Wahyuningsih F O29

30 4393 Vina Aderanda N. F O30

31 4359 Warsinah F O31

32 4482 Wirana Zulia F O32

∑ the students = 28 female students + 4 male students = 32 students

233

Appendix 13:

LIST OF STUDENTS IN THE EXPERIMENTAL CLASS

Respondent

No.

ID

No. Name Sex Code

1 4258 Anita Yuliana F X1

2 4326 Berkat Imanuel M X2

3 4366 Een Dwiki Novita Sari F X3

4 4330 Eka Agustina F X4

5 4441 Elly Oktaviana S. F X5

6 4440 Eddy Kurniawan M X6

7 4332 Feri Yansyah M X7

8 4411 Fredy M X8

9 4555 Hans Robertlie M X9

10 4334 Herry Pendapotan S. M X10

11 4556 Ida Rosida F X11

12 4337 Irma Wahyunita F X12

13 4338 Juwita Yuniar Ariani F X13

14 4304 Karina Novrianti F X14

15 4373 Liana F X15

16 4343 Nirmala Sari F X16

17 4373 Nony F X17

18 4374 Nor Yunita Sari F X18

19 4280 Rahayu Husnul K. F X19

20 4455 Retno Palupi F X20

21 4454 Rangga Oktavianto E. M X21

22 4351 Robby Cahyadi M X22

23 4349 Risa Violeta Maris F X23

24 4351 Rizky Khairunnisa F X24

25 4282 Rima Melati F X25

26 4348 Ria Wijayanti F X26

27 4295 Selvia Habibah F X27

28 4286 Siti Noorjanah F X28

29 4284 Sampras Oskar T. M X29

30 4392 Theresia Manalu F X30

31 4355 Tri Indah Sari F X31

32 4299 Yonli Berrymor M. M X32


234

Appendix 14:

LIST OF STUDENTS IN THE CONTROL CLASS

(X R 4)

Respondent

No.

ID

No. Name Sex Code

1 4256 Aditya Lukman .P M C1

2 4257 Alfianoor M C2

3 4400 Ariska Indah F C3

4 4296 Catur Dian Pratiwi F C4

5 4362 Chi Asmanari F C5

6 4528 Dedy Muammar M C6

7 4365 Desi Mialita F C7

8 4408 Diah Safitri F C8

9 4298 Didiet Triadi M C9

10 4300 Eka Ayu Lestari F C10

11 4367 Elina Harviana F C11

12 4266 Hammam Oktajianto M C12

13 4269 Ika Permatasari F C13

14 4465 Iga Ade Pratama M C14

15 4272 Irfan M C15

16 4340 Lailatul Qamariyah F C16

17 4307 Muhammad Fuad F. M C17

18 4370 Meliana F C18

19 4371 Mentari Pajar sari F C19

20 4377 Nurlina F C20

21 4421 Norjannah F C21

22 4309 Nurlaily Alfazriani F C22

23 4578 Rabiatul Adawiyah F C23

24 4380 Radiatul Oktavia F C24

25 4382 Ria Oktoryna F C25

26 4313 Ricky Setawan M C26

27 4314 Rian Robby Rodiyya M C27

28 4318 Sri Lestari F C28

29 4390 Sri Mulyani F C29

30 4354 Sylvia Anggraini F C30

31 4357 Vina SultaN F C31

32 4429 Yudi Effendi M C32


Appendix 15:

VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE WRITING INTEREST QUESTIONNAIRE

1 2 3 4 5 6

O1 3 3 3 2 2 3

O2 4 4 4 4 4 4

O3 3 3 4 3 3 3

O4 4 4 3 3 2 3

O5 2 2 3 4 3 2

O6 2 3 3 4 2 4

O7 3 3 3 4 3 3

O8 2 2 3 3 3 2

O9 2 2 3 2 3 2

O10 3 4 3 3 3 4

O11 2 2 3 4 3 2

O12 2 2 3 3 3 2

O13 3 3 3 3 3 3

O14 3 3 3 4 3 3

O15 3 3 3 4 3 2

O16 3 3 3 4 3 3

O17 3 3 3 4 4 3

O18 3 3 3 3 4 3

O19 3 3 3 3 3 2

O20 3 3 2 3 4 1

O21 3 3 3 3 3 2

O22 3 3 3 3 3 2

O23 3 3 3 3 3 3

O24 4 4 3 3 3 3

O25 3 2 3 3 3 2

O26 4 3 4 4 4 1

O27 3 3 3 2 3 4

O28 3 3 3 3 3 3

O29 1 2 3 3 2 2

O30 3 3 3 3 3 3

O31 3 3 3 3 3 3

O32 2 2 3 4 4 2

∑ 91 92 98 104 98 84

(X) 2 8,281 8,464 9,604 10,816 9,604 7,056

∑xt2 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219

∑Xi2

273 276 304 350 310 240

∑xi2

14.219 11.500 3.875 12.000 9.875 19.500

∑XiXt 10,664 10,743 11,364 12,079 11,406 9,809

∑xixt 184.781 148.625 78.688 102.750 120.688 135.875

rit 0.636 0.569 0.519 0.385 0.499 0.400

rt 0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349

CRITERIA VALID VALID VALID VALID VALID VALID

si2

0.444 0.359 0.121 0.375 0.309 0.609

st2

185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257

Code

6

Item No.

6

235

Appendix 15:


O1

O2

O3

O4

O5

O6

O7

O8

O9

O10

O11

O12

O13

O14

O15

O16

O17

O18

O19

O20

O21

O22

O23

O24

O25

O26

O27

O28

O29

O30

O31

O32

∑

(X) 2

∑xt2

∑Xi2

∑xi2

∑XiXt

∑xixt

rit

rt

CRITERIA

si2

st2

Code7 8 9 10 11 12

4 4 4 3 3 4

4 4 4 4 4 4

3 2 3 4 3 4

2 4 4 2 3 4

3 4 3 3 2 3

3 4 2 3 3 4

3 4 3 3 3 3

3 3 2 3 2 3

2 3 2 3 2 3

3 3 3 4 3 3

3 3 2 3 2 3

3 3 2 3 2 3

3 4 3 3 3 3

3 3 3 3 3 4

3 3 3 4 3 4

3 4 3 3 3 3

2 4 3 4 3 4

3 4 4 4 3 3

3 3 3 3 3 3

4 2 4 3 3 3

2 2 2 3 2 3

3 4 3 3 3 3

3 4 3 3 3 3

3 3 3 3 4 4

3 3 3 3 3 3

3 4 4 4 4 3

4 2 3 2 2 3

3 3 3 3 3 3

3 3 2 3 2 3

3 3 3 3 3 3

3 3 3 3 3 3

3 4 2 3 2 4

96 106 94 101 90 106

9,216 11,236 8,836 10,201 8,100 11,236

5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219

296 366 290 327 264 358

8.000 14.875 13.875 8.219 10.875 6.875

11,134 12,316 11,002 11,766 10,555 12,291

79.000 109.438 177.313 135.219 190.938 84.438

0.363 0.369 0.618 0.613 0.752 0.418

0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349

VALID VALID VALID VALID VALID VALID

0.250 0.465 0.434 0.257 0.340 0.215

185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257

Item No.

236

Appendix 15:


O1

O2

O3

O4

O5

O6

O7

O8

O9

O10

O11

O12

O13

O14

O15

O16

O17

O18

O19

O20

O21

O22

O23

O24

O25

O26

O27

O28

O29

O30

O31

O32

∑

(X) 2

∑xt2

∑Xi2

∑xi2

∑XiXt

∑xixt

rit

rt

CRITERIA

si2

st2

Code13 14 15 16 17 18

4 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4

3 3 4 3 3 3

3 3 3 3 2 3

4 3 3 3 3 3

4 3 4 3 4 4

4 2 4 3 4 3

3 2 3 3 3 3

2 3 3 3 2 3

3 4 3 3 4 3

4 2 3 3 2 3

3 3 3 3 2 3

3 3 3 3 3 3

4 2 4 3 3 3

4 3 4 4 4 4

4 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 3 2 4

3 3 3 3 3 3

3 3 3 3 2 3

3 2 4 3 3 2

3 1 4 2 1 3

3 2 2 3 3 3

3 3 3 3 3 3

3 3 3 3 3 3

3 2 3 2 3 3

4 3 4 3 3 4

2 3 4 3 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3

3 2 3 3 3 2

3 3 3 3 3 3

3 3 3 3 3 3

4 3 2 3 4 3

106 89 105 96 93 98

11,236 7,921 11,025 9,216 8,649 9,604

5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219

362 261 355 292 287 308

10.875 13.469 10.469 4.000 16.719 7.875

12,327 10,417 12,180 11,132 10,867 11,415

120.438 168.094 88.594 77.000 157.469 129.688

0.474 0.595 0.356 0.500 0.500 0.600

0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349


0.340 0.421 0.327 0.125 0.522 0.246

185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257

0 942

Item No.

0 942

237

Appendix 15:


O1

O2

O3

O4

O5

O6

O7

O8

O9

O10

O11

O12

O13

O14

O15

O16

O17

O18

O19

O20

O21

O22

O23

O24

O25

O26

O27

O28

O29

O30

O31

O32

∑

(X) 2

∑xt2

∑Xi2

∑xi2

∑XiXt

∑xixt

rit

rt

CRITERIA

si2

st2

Code19 20 21 22 23 24

3 3 3 3 3 3

4 3 3 4 4 4

3 3 2 3 4 3

4 2 2 2 2 2

2 2 2 3 3 3

2 2 2 3 4 2

3 2 2 3 3 3

2 2 3 3 3 2

2 2 2 3 3 2

3 3 4 3 3 4

2 2 2 4 4 2

2 2 2 3 3 2

3 1 3 3 3 3

3 2 2 4 3 3

3 3 3 4 4 2

3 3 3 3 3 3

3 3 3 3 4 3

3 2 3 4 4 2

3 2 2 3 3 3

3 2 3 3 3 2

3 1 1 2 4 2

3 2 2 2 3 3

3 2 3 3 3 3

4 3 3 3 3 3

3 2 3 2 3 2

4 3 4 3 4 4

3 3 3 2 3 2

3 3 2 3 3 2

1 1 1 3 2 2

3 3 2 3 3 3

3 2 2 3 3 2

2 2 2 2 4 2

91 73 79 95 104 83

8,281 5,329 6,241 9,025 10,816 6,889

5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219

273 179 211 293 348 229

14.219 12.469 15.969 10.969 10.000 13.719

10,664 8,587 9,296 11,049 12,110 9,740

184.781 180.594 198.656 109.156 133.750 182.031

0.636 0.664 0.646 0.428 0.549 0.638

0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349


0.444 0.390 0.499 0.343 0.313 0.429

185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257

Item No.

0.942

238

Appendix 15:


O1

O2

O3

O4

O5

O6

O7

O8

O9

O10

O11

O12

O13

O14

O15

O16

O17

O18

O19

O20

O21

O22

O23

O24

O25

O26

O27

O28

O29

O30

O31

O32

∑

(X) 2

∑xt2

∑Xi2

∑xi2

∑XiXt

∑xixt

rit

rt

CRITERIA

si2

st2

Code25 26 27 28 29 30

3 4 2 3 3 4

4 4 3 3 4 4

3 3 3 3 3 4

3 4 2 2 2 2

3 3 2 2 2 3

4 4 3 2 4 3

3 4 2 2 3 4

3 3 2 2 2 3

3 2 2 3 2 2

3 3 3 3 2 3

3 4 2 2 2 3

3 3 2 3 2 3

3 3 2 3 3 3

3 3 2 2 3 3

3 4 3 2 2 4

3 3 2 3 3 3

4 4 3 4 2 3

4 4 4 2 3 3

3 3 2 3 3 3

4 4 3 2 1 3

3 4 2 1 2 2

3 3 2 2 2 3

3 3 2 3 3 3

3 3 3 3 3 3

3 3 2 2 3 3

4 4 3 4 1 3

3 3 3 4 2 3

3 3 2 2 3 3

2 3 2 1 1 2

3 3 3 3 3 3

3 3 2 2 3 3

4 4 3 3 2 4

102 108 78 81 79 98

10,404 11,664 6,084 6,561 6,241 9,604

5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219

332 374 200 223 213 310

6.875 9.500 9.875 17.969 17.969 9.875

11,875 12,537 9,132 9,505 9,235 11,444

129.063 100.125 149.813 177.344 137.656 158.688

0.639 0.422 0.619 0.543 0.422 0.656

0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349


0.215 0.297 0.309 0.562 0.562 0.309

185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257

rt(.05, 32) = 0.349

Item No.

239

Appendix 15:


O1

O2

O3

O4

O5

O6

O7

O8

O9

O10

O11

O12

O13

O14

O15

O16

O17

O18

O19

O20

O21

O22

O23

O24

O25

O26

O27

O28

O29

O30

O31

O32

∑

(X) 2

∑xt2

∑Xi2

∑xi2

∑XiXt

∑xixt

rit

rt

CRITERIA

si2

st2

Code31 32 33 34 35 36

3 3 3 3 3 3

3 4 4 4 4 3

2 3 3 3 4 2

2 2 2 2 3 2

1 2 2 2 3 2

2 2 3 3 4 2

2 2 4 4 3 2

2 2 3 3 3 2

2 2 2 3 3 2

3 3 3 3 4 2

2 2 3 3 3 2

1 2 3 2 3 2

3 3 3 3 3 2

3 3 3 3 3 3

2 2 3 3 3 2

3 3 3 3 3 3

2 3 4 3 4 2

2 4 4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3 3 2

2 3 3 4 3 2

2 2 2 3 3 1

2 2 3 3 3 2

3 3 3 3 3 2

2 3 3 3 3 2

2 2 3 3 3 2

4 4 4 4 3 4

2 3 3 3 4 2

2 2 3 3 3 2

2 1 1 1 3 2

3 3 3 3 3 3

2 3 3 3 3 3

1 3 4 4 4 1

72 84 96 97 104 72

5,184 7,056 9,216 9,409 10,816 5,184

5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219

176 236 302 307 344 176

14.000 15.500 14.000 12.969 6.000 14.000

8,436 9,920 11,287 11,357 12,068 8,457

144.750 246.875 232.000 186.844 91.750 165.750

0.502 0.814 0.805 0.674 0.486 0.575

0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349


0.438 0.484 0.438 0.405 0.188 0.438

185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257

Item No.

ro(0.942) > rt(0.349)

240

Appendix 15:


O1

O2

O3

O4

O5

O6

O7

O8

O9

O10

O11

O12

O13

O14

O15

O16

O17

O18

O19

O20

O21

O22

O23

O24

O25

O26

O27

O28

O29

O30

O31

O32

∑

(X) 2

∑xt2

∑Xi2

∑xi2

∑XiXt

∑xixt

rit

rt

CRITERIA

si2

st2

Code37 38 39 40

3 3 3 3 124 15,376

3 3 4 4 152 23,104

3 4 4 4 126 15,876

2 2 2 2 105 11,025

1 1 3 3 103 10,609

2 3 3 2 120 14,400

2 2 4 4 121 14,641

2 2 3 3 103 10,609

2 2 2 2 95 9,025

2 3 3 3 125 15,625

2 4 3 3 108 11,664

2 3 2 3 101 10,201

2 2 3 3 115 13,225

2 3 3 3 119 14,161

2 3 3 3 124 15,376

3 3 3 3 122 14,884

1 3 3 3 128 16,384

2 4 4 4 132 17,424

2 2 2 3 111 12,321

1 3 3 2 111 12,321

1 2 2 3 93 8,649

2 3 3 2 107 11,449

2 2 3 3 116 13,456

2 2 3 3 121 14,641

2 2 3 3 106 11,236

4 4 3 4 142 20,164

2 3 3 4 113 12,769

2 3 3 2 111 12,321

1 2 2 1 82 6,724

3 3 3 3 119 14,161

2 3 3 3 113 12,769

1 4 4 3 117 13,689

65 88 95 94 3,685 430,279

4,225 7,744 9,025 8,836

5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219

147 260 293 292

14.969 18.000 10.969 15.875 482.781

7,663 10,306 11,116 11,028

177.844 172.250 176.156 203.313

0.597 0.527 0.691 0.663

0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349

VALID VALID VALID VALID 40 VALID ITEMS

0.468 0.563 0.343 0.496 ∑si2

15.087

185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257

XtItem No.

THE INSTRUMENT IS RELIABLE.

Xt2

241

Appendix 16:

DATA OF WRITING INTEREST QUESTIONNAIRE (THE EXPERIMENTAL GROUP)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 111 X1 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 4 32 X2 2 2 4 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 33 X3 4 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 4 24 X4 4 4 4 4 3 4 2 4 4 4 35 X5 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 36 X6 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 4 3 37 X7 3 4 4 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 28 X8 3 3 4 2 3 4 2 4 3 4 39 X9 3 4 3 4 4 3 2 2 3 2 210 X10 3 3 2 4 2 3 3 3 3 4 311 X11 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 4 3 3 312 X12 3 4 4 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 313 X13 4 3 4 3 3 4 1 4 4 4 314 X14 2 3 4 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 215 X15 3 3 4 2 3 1 2 2 3 3 216 X16 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 4 3 217 X17 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 4 3 218 X18 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 319 X19 3 4 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 420 X20 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 221 X21 2 3 4 3 3 4 2 2 3 2 222 X22 3 3 4 3 3 3 1 2 3 3 323 X23 3 3 4 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 224 X24 4 4 3 4 4 3 2 3 3 3 225 X25 3 3 3 4 4 3 2 2 3 3 326 X26 3 4 4 2 2 3 2 3 4 3 327 X27 3 2 4 4 2 3 1 1 3 4 228 X28 3 4 4 4 4 3 1 3 2 4 229 X29 3 4 4 3 3 2 2 4 3 3 330 X30 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 2 431 X31 2 3 4 4 4 4 3 2 4 1 432 X32 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 3 2 3 3

No. Code QUESTIONNAIRE ITEM(S)

242

Appendix 16:


1 X12 X23 X34 X45 X56 X67 X78 X89 X910 X1011 X1112 X1213 X1314 X1415 X1516 X1617 X1718 X1819 X1920 X2021 X2122 X2223 X2324 X2425 X2526 X2627 X2728 X2829 X2930 X3031 X3132 X32

No. Code12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 222 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 3 3 32 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 22 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 32 4 1 1 3 2 4 2 4 2 33 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 33 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 33 2 3 3 4 3 2 3 2 1 33 3 2 3 3 3 4 2 2 2 32 2 3 3 2 3 3 1 4 1 32 1 1 2 3 3 4 1 3 1 43 2 3 3 4 4 3 2 4 2 42 2 3 2 4 3 1 3 3 2 42 1 2 2 3 3 4 2 3 2 32 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 31 1 2 2 4 3 4 2 3 1 31 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 42 1 2 2 3 3 4 2 3 1 33 3 3 2 4 3 4 3 4 3 32 2 2 2 3 3 4 3 3 2 32 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 32 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 22 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 32 1 1 1 3 2 3 2 2 2 33 2 2 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 32 1 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 1 31 2 2 2 4 2 4 3 2 2 31 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 23 2 2 2 4 4 4 2 4 2 32 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 32 1 2 3 4 4 4 3 4 2 42 1 2 2 3 4 2 3 4 1 42 2 2 2 4 4 3 4 3 2 3

QUESTIONNAIRE ITEM(S)

243

Appendix 16:



No. Code23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 334 4 4 4 3 2 4 3 3 3 32 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 23 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 33 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 2 3 33 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 23 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 33 4 3 3 3 2 3 1 2 2 23 3 3 4 3 2 3 3 3 4 32 3 3 4 4 4 3 2 4 4 23 3 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 24 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 34 4 4 3 4 4 2 4 4 4 44 3 2 4 4 4 4 3 2 4 33 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 21 4 3 4 3 2 2 3 2 4 14 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 34 3 3 4 4 4 3 2 4 4 34 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 32 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 22 3 3 3 3 4 2 3 3 2 22 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 22 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 33 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 23 4 3 4 3 3 2 4 3 3 34 4 4 4 3 3 4 2 3 3 34 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 4 32 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 22 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 23 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 34 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 2 34 4 4 4 4 2 1 4 4 4 22 3 4 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2


244

Appendix 16:



No. Code34 35 36 37 38 39 403 2 3 3 3 3 3 1173 2 2 2 2 2 2 912 2 3 4 2 3 3 1113 2 3 3 3 3 3 1232 2 3 2 2 3 3 1153 3 3 2 3 3 3 1173 2 2 2 1 3 4 1023 3 2 3 3 3 3 1192 2 3 1 3 4 3 1122 2 1 1 3 3 3 983 3 3 3 3 3 3 1293 2 3 4 3 4 4 1262 2 3 4 2 3 3 1202 2 3 3 2 3 3 992 2 2 4 3 3 3 1022 2 3 3 3 3 3 1073 2 2 2 3 4 3 1143 2 3 3 4 4 4 1373 2 3 2 3 3 3 1062 2 3 2 2 3 3 1073 2 3 2 3 3 3 1043 2 4 2 3 3 3 1072 1 4 4 3 4 3 1093 2 3 3 3 3 3 1201 4 2 3 2 4 3 1143 2 3 3 3 4 4 1162 2 2 4 3 2 2 1003 2 3 2 3 3 2 1123 2 3 2 3 3 3 1163 2 3 4 4 4 3 1262 1 4 4 1 4 4 1203 3 2 3 3 3 3 113

113.5

Score(s)

MEDIAN =


245

Appendix 16:



No. Code

HIGHLOWLOWHIGHHIGHHIGHLOWHIGHLOWLOWHIGHHIGHHIGHLOWLOWLOWHIGHHIGHLOWLOWLOWLOWLOWHIGHHIGHHIGHLOWLOWHIGHHIGHHIGHLOW

WRITING INTEREST

246

Appendix 16:

DATA OF WRITING INTEREST QUESTIONNAIRE (THE CONTROL GROUP)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 111 C1 3 2 3 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 22 C2 2 3 4 4 3 3 1 2 3 2 23 C3 3 3 4 4 4 3 2 4 4 3 34 C4 3 4 3 4 3 3 1 3 3 4 25 C5 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 36 C6 2 4 4 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 37 C7 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 38 C8 3 3 4 3 3 1 3 4 3 3 29 C9 2 3 4 3 3 4 1 2 3 3 210 C10 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 4 3 311 C11 3 3 4 3 2 3 1 4 3 3 212 C12 3 4 4 4 4 3 2 4 4 4 313 C13 3 3 4 4 4 3 1 4 4 3 314 C14 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 2 415 C15 3 4 4 3 3 3 2 3 4 3 316 C16 3 3 3 4 3 3 1 4 4 3 317 C17 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 318 C18 3 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 3 3 319 C19 3 4 3 4 3 3 1 3 3 3 220 C20 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 1 221 C21 3 3 4 4 3 4 1 2 3 4 222 C22 \ 4 4 4 3 3 1 3 4 4 223 C23 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 2 4 3 324 C24 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 325 C25 2 3 4 1 3 4 1 2 3 3 326 C26 2 3 4 4 2 3 1 2 4 3 327 C27 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 1 3 2 228 C28 3 3 3 4 2 2 3 4 4 4 329 C29 3 4 4 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 430 C30 4 4 2 4 3 3 1 2 4 2 131 C31 3 4 3 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 232 C32 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 2 3 3 2

No. Code QUESTIONNAIRE ITEM(S)

247

Appendix 16:


1 C12 C23 C34 C45 C56 C67 C78 C89 C910 C1011 C1112 C1213 C1314 C1415 C1516 C1617 C1718 C1819 C1920 C2021 C2122 C2223 C2324 C2425 C2526 C2627 C2728 C2829 C2930 C3031 C3132 C32

No. Code12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 222 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 31 1 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 22 2 2 4 4 3 3 2 4 1 32 2 3 2 3 2 4 2 3 1 32 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 32 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 32 1 3 3 4 3 3 2 3 2 32 2 2 3 4 3 3 2 4 2 31 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 32 1 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 2 33 3 4 3 4 3 4 2 4 2 33 1 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 1 42 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 2 32 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 4 23 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 32 2 2 3 4 3 4 2 4 2 32 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 32 1 2 2 3 2 4 2 4 1 44 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 2 43 1 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 2 41 1 2 2 3 3 4 2 4 2 32 2 3 2 3 3 4 3 3 2 32 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 32 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 31 1 2 4 4 3 3 4 2 1 42 1 2 2 2 4 3 1 4 1 12 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 12 3 2 2 3 2 4 2 4 2 32 1 3 3 3 3 4 3 2 1 43 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 4 2 32 2 1 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 32 1 2 2 3 4 3 2 3 2 3


248

Appendix 16:



No. Code23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 332 3 3 3 3 2 4 4 3 4 22 3 3 4 3 3 2 4 3 3 24 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 23 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 2 3 23 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 23 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 13 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 33 3 2 3 4 3 2 3 3 3 33 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 23 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 34 3 3 3 4 3 2 4 3 4 33 3 4 3 3 3 3 1 1 4 34 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 33 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 33 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 33 3 3 2 4 4 4 4 3 2 33 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 24 4 3 3 4 3 2 3 3 4 23 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 34 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 34 2 4 3 3 3 2 4 3 4 33 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 33 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 32 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 23 2 4 2 2 3 4 2 2 4 42 3 4 4 3 2 1 3 4 4 11 1 1 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 23 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 34 4 3 3 3 4 3 1 2 3 23 4 3 3 4 4 2 4 2 4 23 3 2 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 24 4 3 3 3 4 4 1 2 2 3


249

Appendix 16:



No. Code34 35 36 37 38 39 402 1 3 4 2 3 3 1062 1 2 4 2 3 3 1012 1 3 4 1 3 4 1222 2 2 1 3 3 3 1092 3 2 2 3 3 3 1032 1 1 4 2 4 2 1023 2 3 2 3 3 3 1122 2 2 3 2 3 3 1112 2 3 3 3 3 3 1043 2 3 2 3 4 3 1211 2 3 3 3 3 4 1212 2 2 2 2 4 3 1213 2 3 3 3 3 3 1143 2 2 4 3 2 3 1112 2 3 4 2 3 3 1173 2 3 4 2 3 3 1203 2 2 3 3 3 2 1012 2 4 3 3 4 4 1201 4 4 4 3 4 3 1293 3 4 3 3 4 4 1312 1 3 4 3 4 3 1152 4 3 4 4 2 3 1193 2 3 2 2 4 3 1163 2 3 2 3 3 3 1064 4 4 2 3 2 4 1133 3 3 4 2 3 3 1063 2 2 3 2 2 3 882 2 2 3 2 4 3 1173 3 4 1 3 4 3 1191 1 3 4 1 3 2 1093 2 4 3 3 4 3 1053 1 3 1 3 3 3 105

112.5

QUESTIONNAIRE ITEM(S) Score(s)

MEDIAN =

250

Appendix 16:



No. Code

LOWLOWHIGHLOWLOWLOWLOWLOWLOWHIGHHIGHHIGHHIGHLOWHIGHHIGHLOWHIGHHIGHHIGHHIGHHIGHHIGHLOWHIGHLOWLOWHIGHHIGHLOWLOWLOW

WRITING INTEREST

251

252

Appendix 17:

STUDENTS OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUP SORTED BY

WRITING INTEREST

No. Code Score(s) WRITING INTEREST

1 X18 137

HIG

H

2 X11 129

3 X12 126

4 X30 126

5 X4 123

6 X13 120

7 X24 120

8 X31 120

9 X8 119

10 X1 117

11 X6 117

12 X26 116

13 X29 116

14 X5 115

15 X17 114

16 X25 114

17 X32 113

LO

W

18 X28 112

19 X9 112

20 X3 111

21 X23 109

22 X16 107

23 X20 107

24 X22 107

25 X19 106

26 X21 104

27 X15 102

28 X7 102

29 X27 100

30 X14 99

31 X10 98

32 X2 91

27 %

27 %

253

Appendix 18:

EMAIL ACCOUNTS OF STUDENTS OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUP

No. Code email address(es) WRITING

INTEREST

1 X18 yunita [email protected]

HIG

H

2 X11 [email protected]



5 X4 kha [email protected]

6 X13 smile [email protected]


8 X31 Blu3 [email protected]

9 X8 fr3dy [email protected]


11 X6 Eddy [email protected]


13 X29 Pi lv [email protected]


15 X17 noe [email protected]

16 X25 yma [email protected]

17 X32 morerie [email protected]

LO

W


19 X9 glitterpy [email protected]

20 X3 e3n [email protected]



23 X20 sweet [email protected]


25 X19 yua [email protected]

26 X21 olge [email protected]



29 X27 slv [email protected]




27 %

27 %

mailto:[email protected]
































254

Appendix 19:

STUDENTS OF CONTROL GROUP SORTED BY

WRITING INTEREST

No. Code Score(s) WRITING

INTEREST

1 C20 131 H

IGH

2 C19 129

3 C3 122

4 C10 121

5 C11 121

6 C12 121

7 C16 120

8 C18 120

9 C22 119

10 C29 119

11 C15 117

12 C28 117

13 C23 116

14 C21 115

15 C13 114

16 C25 113

17 C7 112

LO

W

18 C14 111

19 C8 111

20 C30 109

21 C4 109

22 C1 106

23 C24 106

24 C26 106

25 C31 105

26 C32 105

27 C9 104

28 C5 103

29 C6 102

30 C17 101

31 C2 101

32 C27 88

27 %

27 %

Appendix 20:

Paper-Based Portfolio Builder

For

research

purpose

Abdul Syahid

Th s Portfo is for you: help yo p you wr t nw w t

E l h kee eco d of you w it en w an

pr gress ol ect y r wr te an ua e

c i vement how your w en hieveme o

ou ew tea her when y ch ge c ass or chool)

256

Dear ............................................................., (your name) This English Writing Portfolio is your property. It has been designed to help you improve your English learning. It will accompany you throughout your school life and will help you document your learning both inside and outside the classroom. The English Writing Portfolio contains material which you can use and then keep as a record of your learning. In this portfolio you can also include any extra material given to you by your teacher throughout the course. However, the final decision about what to include in the English Writing Portfolio is completely up to you. In practice, Language Portfolios may include a project or other examples of written work, certificates, reports from your teachers, or even a collection of objects or pictures. Here is a short explanation of each section in your English Writing Portfolio: I. Language Passport This is an updated report of your progress in written English language learning. You will include in this section any evidence of your formal qualifications (certificates, diplomas), tests, progress report cards, self-assessment cards, etc. II. Language Biography This is an updated record of your personal language learning history which helps you evaluate your learning aims and reflect on your language learning experiences. III. Dossier This is a collection of your work which you have chosen to illustrate your written language skills, experiences and achievements in the English language. In this section of your English Writing Portfolio there are some materials you can use. You can also file any work you do inside or outside the classroom that you would like to keep as evidence of your written work in English. I hope you really enjoy doing these activities.

Abdul Syahid

257

How to organize your English Writing Portfolio

In your English Writing Portfolio you can include

almost anything you have produced or collected

that shows your progress in English.

We suggest you keep your work in plastic

envelopes so that it stays in good condition.

In practice, your English Writing Portfolio can

be any shape or size according to the material

you choose to store.

Your English Writing Portfolio can include any of

the following:

postersdrawings

draft

tests poemsreports

revision

commen

259

Here you can record all your achievements in the written English language. You can include certificates, diplomas, progress report cards, self-assessment forms, tests, etc. In general, you can include anything that is proof of your competence in written English.

Every time you add something, record it on your Language Passport Chart.

MY LANG AGE ASSPORT C ART Data Type of Mate

Type of Mate

260

All About Me!

I’m in my year(s) of English. My English teacher’s name:

Read and put a tick () or a cross ().

Some members of my family speak English. Some members of my family are from an English-speaking country.

I often read English books, magazines, etc. I often watch English TV programs. I often listen to English songs. I have extra English lessons. There is someone at home who speaks English to me. I have contact with people from English-speaking countries. I have visited/lived in the following English-speaking countries:

261

I learn English because:

I like it.

I want to travel.

I like learning languages.

It’s one of my school subjects.

I will need it to get a job.

I need it for the Internet.

My friends learn it.

It’s a world language.

I want to understand English texts (e.g. Songs).

I want to read books in English.

I want to watch films and TV programs in English.

I want to have (more) friends in other countries.

My mother/father wants me to learn it.

I want to take international exams in English.

People need to speak at least two modern languages

nowadays.

Other reasons: …………………………………………………………………………….

Language

Biography

262

I learn English at: at school.

at school, but I also have extra lessons after school.

with friends from another country in a school exchange.

on language courses in English-speaking countries.

on holiday (with my parents/family/friends) in English-speaking

countries.

with pen friends in my country.

with pen friends in their country.

Other places: …………………………………………………………………………….

263

I learn English by

N

ever

Som

etimes

Often

Regu

larly

reading books in English.

listening to songs in English. listening to radio programs in English. watching TV programs in English. watching video films or DVDs in the original version

with subtitles.

watching video films or DVDs in the original version. exchanging emails with my epals. exchanging letters in English with my pen friends

from other countries.

listening to cassettes and imitating pronunciation. learning vocabulary in different ways. translating songs. learning songs by heart. looking up new words in a dictionary. trying to guess the meaning of words from the

context.

trying to guess the meaning of words because they are similar

to the words in my mother tongue or other languages I learn.

using the Internet a lot. chatting on the Internet.

Things I like doing in language lessons:

…………………………………………………………………………………………

………

Things I am good at:

…………………………………………………………………………………………

……….

Things I find difficult:

…………………………………………………………………………………………

………

267

Now I Can ...!

Here is what you will be able to do

in English at this research. Every

now and then, for instance once a

week in about one and a half mon

th, you will need to check your

progress in the English written

language. For this reason you

should use a pencil so that you can

change and/or add things as you go

along. You can use the following

code:

Very Well: OK: Not Very Well:

268

I can write a simple instruction

write a procedure text

write an invitation

announce an event in a written language

advertise something

269

Future Plans! What would you like to do in the future to improve

your English writing? How can you learn more about

other people and other countries? Choose and write. You

can also use your own ideas.

Write English stories, etc

Write to people from English speaking countries.

Write and send SMS to my classmates in English

I would like to

Date :

Date :

Date :

270

Language SkillMy opinion

My teacher’s

opinion

could be better

well

very well

could be better

well

very well

Wri

ting

I can write a procedure text/

instruction.

I can tell my friends how to do

something.

My learning goals at the end of Meeting 1:

I think I need to work more on:

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………

Completed on: ……………………………….. My signature

Language Biography –

Lesson 1

271

Language SkillMy opinion

My teacher’s

opinioncould be

better

well

very well

couldbe

better

well

very well

Wri

ting

I can write an invitation of my

birthday party.

I can write a formal invitation of a

meeting.

Have I achieved the learning goals I made at the end of Meeting 1? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… What did I do to achieve these goals? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… My new learning goals at the end of Meeting 2: I think I need to work more on: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………What have I discovered about my learning? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………


Language Biography –

Lesson 2

272

Language Skill My opinion My teacher’s

opinioncould be

better

well

very well

could be better

well

very well

Wri

ting

I can write an announcement clearly.



Language Biography

– Lesson 3

273


opinioncould be

better

well

very well

could be better

well

very well

Wri

ting

I can write an advertisement.



Language Biography

– Lesson 4

274


opinion

could be better

well

very well

could be better

well

very well

Wri

ting

I can write a composition about my past

experience.

I can write my diary in English.

Have I achieved the learning goals I made at the end of Meeting 4? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… What did I do to achieve these goals? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… My new learning goals at the end of Meeting 5 and 6: I think I need to work more on: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………What have I discovered about my learning? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………


Language Biography

– Lesson 5 + 6

275


opinion

could be better

well

very well

could be better

well

very well

Wri

ting

I can write a story that begins or ends with a

given sentence.

Have I achieved the learning goals I made at the end of Meeting 5? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… What did I do to achieve these goals? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… My new learning goals at the end of Meeting 7 and 8: I think I need to work more on: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………What have I discovered about my learning? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………


Language Biography

– Lesson 7 + 8

276

How I Learn! In your English Writing Portfolio, you can include anything of your choosing to keep and show as evidence of your progress in the English written language. Here are some activities you can do that can be included in your Portfolio, if you wish. Every time

you do one of these activities, tick () the relevant box.

1

2

3

4

5

6

No.

Safety first.

A party

For sale

Sports are fun!

Party time

Story time

Title of Activity It can be

done after

284

In this section you can include anything you do inside and outside the classroom which shows your progress in the English written language. You can also write some comments (why you like it, if you found it difficult/easy, etc) on the activity pages. It will be useful if you write the date you completed the activity. Remember: the choice of activity is yours. Every time you include something new, record it in the table on the next page.

288

Writing Tools

294

Revising/Editing Checklists

Self Assessment Revising Checklist

for Meeting I/ II/ III/ IV/ V & VI/ VII & VIII*

Name : Title : Date :

Directions: Read the story to yourself. Then check your story for each item

below. Make any changes to make your story better.

The title goes with my content.

I like the beginning.

I used good words to describe what I meant.

Each sentence makes sense.

The order is logical.

I like the ending.

295

Revising/Editing Checklists

Self and Peer Editing Checklist

for Meeting I/ II/ III/ IV/ V & VI/ VII & VIII*

Author: Peer :

Title : Date:

Carefully read your piece out loud. Then read each item below. Correct any

mistakes you find, and tick off (v) the space next to the item. Then give the piece

to a friend to check.

Author

Check

Peer

Check

Items to Check

Each sentence starts with a capital letter.

Names have capital letters.

Each sentence has a verb.

I checked for words left out.

I circled words I was not sure how to spell.

Right and left margins are OK.

Paragraph indentions are OK.

Tense used is OK.

The sentence pattern is correct.

Pronouns used are correct.

Word orders are correct.

I put vocabularies correctly.

I found the spelling of these words (and

explain how):

I think I need help in :

296

Appendix 21:

THE APPROVAL OF COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY

298

Appendix 22:

SAMPLES OF THE STUDENTS’ WORKS

EXPERIMENTAL GROUP OF HIGH WRITING INTEREST LEVEL

299

EXPERIMENTAL GROUP OF LOW WRITING INTEREST LEVEL

300

CONTROL GROUP OF HIGH WRITING INTEREST LEVEL

301

CONTROL GROUP OF LOW WRITING INTEREST LEVEL

302

Appendix 23:

THE SCORE OF WRITING TEST

Class Experiment Class Control Class

Writing Interest

27 %

HIG

H

X18 62 C20 52

X11 62 C19 45

X12 60 C3 44

X30 60 C10 42

X4 58 C11 42

X13 58 C12 38

X24 57 C16 38

X31 55 C18 37

X8 53 C22 35

27 %

LO

W

X22 44 C26 50

X19 42 C31 49

X21 40 C32 47

X15 39 C9 47

X7 39 C5 45

X27 39 C6 45

X14 37 C17 44

X10 35 C2 42

X2 35 C27 40

Appendix 23:Score(s) of Writing Test (Experimental Group)

Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 1 Rater 2

1 X18 18 17 14 13 14 14

2 X11 17 17 14 13 14 15

3 X12 18 17 13 12 14 14

4 X30 17 17 12 12 14 14

5 X4 16 17 12 12 13 13

6 X13 17 17 12 12 13 13

7 X24 17 16 12 13 13 13

8 X31 16 16 12 12 13 12

9 X8 16 16 11 12 12 11

10 X22 16 15 10 8 9 8

11 X19 14 14 8 9 8 8

12 X21 14 14 8 8 8 8

13 X15 14 13 7 8 8 8

14 X7 14 13 8 8 7 8

15 X27 14 13 8 8 8 8

16 X14 13 13 7 8 8 7

17 X10 13 13 7 7 7 7

18 X2 13 13 7 7 7 7

No. CodeContent Organization Vocabulary

13 - 30 7 - 20 7 - 20

NIP 19701004 199512 100 1 NIP 19641214 199512 100 3

Criteria

e Rater 2

Abdul Syahid Dra. Martini

e

Abdul Syahid

Rater 2

Dra. Martini

303

Appendix 23:Score(s) of Writing Test (Experimental Group)

1 X18

2 X11

3 X12

4 X30

5 X4

6 X13

7 X24

8 X31

9 X8

10 X22

11 X19

12 X21

13 X15

14 X7

15 X27

16 X14

17 X10

18 X2

No. Code

Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 1 Rater 2 ∑ Rater 1 ∑ Rater 2

13 13 4 4 63 61 62

13 13 4 4 62 62 62

12 12 4 4 61 59 60

13 13 4 4 60 60 60

13 13 3 4 57 59 58

14 12 3 3 59 57 58

12 12 3 3 57 57 57

11 12 3 3 55 55 55

11 11 3 3 53 53 53

8 8 3 3 46 42 44

8 9 3 3 41 43 42

7 7 3 3 40 40 40

7 7 3 3 39 39 39

7 8 3 2 39 39 39

7 8 2 2 39 39 39

7 7 2 2 37 37 37

6 6 2 2 35 35 35

6 6 2 2 35 35 35

WRITING SCOREFINAL SCORE

2 - 5

Language Use/ Grammar Mechanics

6 - 25

Rater 2

Abd d Dra. Martini

NIP 19641214 199512 100 3

Criteria

Rater 1

NIP 19701004 199512 100 1

Abd d

Rater 1 Rater 2

Dra. Martini

NIP 19641214 199512 100 3

304

Appendix 23:Score(s) of the Writing Test (Control Group)

Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 1 Rater 2

1 C20 17 17 10 11 10 11

2 C19 16 17 9 9 8 9

3 C3 15 15 9 9 9 9

4 C10 14 14 8 9 8 8

5 C11 15 15 9 9 8 8

6 C12 14 14 8 8 7 7

7 C16 13 14 8 7 8 8

8 C18 13 13 8 7 8 7

9 C22 13 13 7 7 7 7

10 C26 16 16 11 11 10 10

11 C31 15 16 11 11 10 10

12 C32 16 16 10 9 10 9

13 C9 16 15 10 9 10 10

14 C5 16 16 9 9 8 9

15 C6 16 16 9 9 9 8

16 C17 15 15 8 9 10 9

17 C2 15 15 8 7 9 9

18 C27 13 13 8 8 9 10

No. CodeContent Organization Vocabulary

13 - 30 7 - 20 7 - 20

Criteria

te

Abdul Syahid

NIP 19701004 199512 100 1

Rater 2

Dra. Martini

NIP 19641214 199512 100 3

te

Abdul Syahid

Rater 2

Dra. Martini

NIP 19641214 199512 100 3

305

Appendix 23:Score(s) of the Writing Test (Control Group)

1 C20

2 C19

3 C3

4 C10

5 C11

6 C12

7 C16

8 C18

9 C22

10 C26

11 C31

12 C32

13 C9

14 C5

15 C6

16 C17

17 C2

18 C27

No. Code

Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 1 Rater 2 ∑ Rater 1 ∑ Rater 2

10 10 4 4 51 53 52

8 8 3 3 44 46 45

8 8 3 3 44 44 44

9 8 3 3 42 42 42

7 7 3 3 42 42 42

6 6 3 3 38 38 38

7 7 2 2 38 38 38

7 7 2 2 38 36 37

6 6 2 2 35 35 35

10 10 3 3 50 50 50

9 10 3 3 48 50 49

9 9 3 3 48 46 47

9 9 3 3 48 46 47

8 9 3 3 44 46 45

9 8 3 3 46 44 45

8 8 3 3 44 44 44

8 7 3 3 43 41 42

7 8 2 2 39 41 40

WRITING SCORE FINAL

SCORE 2 - 5

Language Use/ Grammar Mechanics

6 - 25

Criteria

Rater 2

Dra. Martini

NIP 19641214 199512 100 3

t

Abdul Syahid

NIP 19701004 199512 100 1

t

Abdul Syahid

Rater 2

Dra. Martini

NIP 19641214 199512 100 3

306

307

Appendix 24:

A. Descriptive Statistics:

Data A1

62 62 60 60 58 58 57 55 53 44 42 40 39 39 39 37 35 35

1. Frequency Distribution:

1. The highest score is 62

2. The lowest score is 35

3. Range (r) is 62 – 35 = 27

4. The number of classes is

1 + (3.3) log n

= 1 + (3.3) log 18

= 1 + (3.3) (1.255273)

= 5.142399267

Use 5 or 6, for example 6 is used

5. The class width (interval) 4.5

Use 4 or 5, for example 5 is used

6. Data Tally

NO. CLASS

LIMITS

CLASS

BOUNDARIES MIDPOINT TALLY FREQUENCY %

1 34 – 38 33.5 – 38.5 36 III 3 16.667

2 39 - 43 38.5 – 43.5 41 IIII 5 27.778

3 44 - 48 43.5 – 48.5 46 I 1 5.556

4 49 - 53 48.5 – 53.5 51 I 1 5.556

5 54 - 58 53.5 – 58.5 56 IIII 4 22.222

6 59 - 63 58.5 – 63.5 61 IIII 4 22.222

18 100

308

7. Histogram and Polygon

2. Mean

No. Class

Limits Frequency (fi) Midpoint (Xi) fiXi

1 34 – 38 3 36 108

2 39 – 43 5 41 205

3 44 – 48 1 46 46

309

No. Class

Limits Frequency (fi) Midpoint (Xi) fiXi

4 49 – 53 1 51 51

5 54 – 58 4 56 224

6 59 – 63 4 61 244

18

878

3. Mode

No. Class

Limits Frequency (fi)

1 34 – 38 3

2 39 - 43 5

3 44 - 48 1

4 49 - 53 1

5 54 - 58 4

6 59 - 63 4

18

3. Median

No. Class

Limits Frequency (fi)

1 34 – 38 3

2 39 - 43 5

3 44 - 48 1

4 49 - 53 1

5 54 - 58 4

6 59 - 63 4

18

310

4. Standard Deviation

No. Class

Limits fi Xi ci ci

2 fi ci fi ci

2

1 34 – 38 3 36 -1 1 -3 9

2 39 – 43 5 41 0 0 0 0

3 44 – 48 1 46 1 1 1 1

4 49 – 53 1 51 2 4 2 4

5 54 – 58 4 56 3 9 12 144

6 59 – 63 4 61 4 16 16 256

18

28 414

The next parts of the descriptive statistics are analyzed by applying SPSS 16.0

for Windows Release 16.0.1.

311

Data A1 B1

62 62 60 60 58 58 57 55 53

Statistics

Electronic-based Portfolio Learning with High Writing Interest

N Valid 9.00

Missing .00

Mean 58.33

Median 58.00

Mode 58.00a

Std. Deviation 3.04

Range 9.00

Minimum 53.00

Maximum 62.00

Sum 525.00

a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown

312

Electronic-based Portfolio Learning with High Writing Interest


Percent

Valid 53 1 11.1 11.1 11.1

55 1 11.1 11.1 22.2

57 1 11.1 11.1 33.3

58 2 22.2 22.2 55.6

60 2 22.2 22.2 77.8

62 2 22.2 22.2 100.0

Total 9 100.0 100.0

313

Data A1B2

44 42 40 39 39 39 37 35 35

Statistics

Electronic-based Portfolio Learning with Low Writing Interest

N Valid 9.00

Missing .00

Mean 38.89

Median 39.00

Mode 39.00

Std. Deviation 2.98

Range 9.00

Minimum 35.00

Maximum 44.00

Sum 350.00

314

Electronic-based Portfolio Learning with Low Writing Interest


Percent

Valid 35 2 22.2 22.2 22.2

37 1 11.1 11.1 33.3

39 3 33.3 33.3 66.7

40 1 11.1 11.1 77.8

42 1 11.1 11.1 88.9

44 1 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 9 100.0 100.0

315

Data A2

52 45 44 42 42 38 38 37 35 50 49 47 47 45 45 44 42 40

Statistics

Paper-based Portfolio Learning

N Valid 18.00

Missing .00

Mean 43.44

Median 44.00

Mode 42.00a

Std. Deviation 4.67

Range 17.00

Minimum 35.00

Maximum 52.00

Sum 782.00


316

Paper-based Portfolio Learning


Percent

Valid 35 1 5.6 5.6 5.6

37 1 5.6 5.6 11.1

38 2 11.1 11.1 22.2

40 1 5.6 5.6 27.8

42 3 16.7 16.7 44.4

44 2 11.1 11.1 55.6

45 3 16.7 16.7 72.2

47 2 11.1 11.1 83.3

49 1 5.6 5.6 88.9

50 1 5.6 5.6 94.4

52 1 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 18 100.0 100.0

317

Data A2B1

Statistics

Paper-based Portfolio Learning with High Writing Interest

N Valid 9.00

Missing .00

Mean 41.44

Median 42.00

Mode 38.00a

Std. Deviation 5.20

Range 17.00

Minimum 35.00

Maximum 52.00

Sum 373.00


318

Paper-based Portfolio Learning with High Writing Interest


Cumulative

Percent

Valid 35 1 11.1 11.1 11.1

37 1 11.1 11.1 22.2

38 2 22.2 22.2 44.4

42 2 22.2 22.2 66.7

44 1 11.1 11.1 77.8

45 1 11.1 11.1 88.9

52 1 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 9 100.0 100.0

319

Data A2B2

Statistics

Paper-based Portfolio Learning with Low Writing Interest

N Valid 9.00

Missing .00

Mean 45.44

Median 45.00

Mode 45.00a

Std. Deviation 3.21

Range 10.00

Minimum 40.00

Maximum 50.00

Sum 409.00


320

Paper-based Portfolio Learning with Low Writing Interest


Cumulative

Percent

Valid 40 1 11.1 11.1 11.1

42 1 11.1 11.1 22.2

44 1 11.1 11.1 33.3

45 2 22.2 22.2 55.6

47 2 22.2 22.2 77.8

49 1 11.1 11.1 88.9

50 1 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 9 100.0 100.0

321

The description of the above data shows that:

Descriptive Statistics A1 A1B1 A1B2 A2 A2B1 A2B2

Mean 48.611 58.333 38.889 43.444 41.444 45.444

Standard Error 2.456 1.014 0.992 1.100 1.733 1.069

Median 48.500 58.000 39.000 44.000 42.000 45.000

Mode 39.000 62.000 39.000 45.000 42.000 47.000

Standard Deviation 10.421 3.041 2.977 4.668 5.199 3.206

Sample Variance 108.605 9.250 8.861 21.791 27.028 10.278

Kurtosis -1.902 -0.462 -0.315 -0.573 0.934 -0.448

Skewness 0.003 -0.476 0.248 -0.040 0.916 -0.285

Range 27.000 9.000 9.000 17.000 17.000 10.000

Minimum 35.000 53.000 35.000 35.000 35.000 40.000

Maximum 62.000 62.000 44.000 52.000 52.000 50.000

Sum 875.000 525.000 350.000 782.000 373.000 409.000

Count 18.000 9.000 9.000 18.000 9.000 9.000

Confidence Level (95.0%) 5.182 2.338 2.288 2.321 3.996 2.464

(analyzed by applying MS Excel 2007 Add-ins: Descriptive Statistics of Data

Analysis)

The highest standard deviation is 10.421 (A1) meaning that that the data (A1) have

the most variation scores among the other data.

322

Appendix 25:

B. Prerequisite Testings:

1. Normality Test:

a. Normality test of the data of the writing test of experimental group (A1).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No. Xi

Xi2 s zi

Table

Value 0.5 - tv Rank n

9 - 12

(absolute) Lo Lt

1 35 -14 1225 10.42135 -1.31 0.5 0.4049 0.0951 2 18 0.11 0.0160 0.1856 0.2000

2 35 -14 1225 10.42135 -1.31 0.5 0.4049 0.0951 2 18 0.11 0.0160

3 37 -12 1369 10.42135 -1.11 0.5 0.3665 0.1335 3 18 0.17 0.0332

4 39 -10 1521 10.42135 -0.92 0.5 0.3212 0.1788 6 18 0.33 0.1545

5 39 -10 1521 10.42135 -0.92 0.5 0.3212 0.1788 6 18 0.33 0.1545

6 39 -10 1521 10.42135 -0.92 0.5 0.3212 0.1788 6 18 0.33 0.1545

7 40 -9 1600 10.42135 -0.83 0.5 0.2967 0.2033 7 18 0.39 0.1856

8 42 -7 1764 10.42135 -0.63 0.5 0.2357 0.2643 8 18 0.44 0.1801

9 44 -5 1936 10.42135 -0.44 0.5 0.1700 0.3300 9 18 0.50 0.1700

10 53 4 2809 10.42135 0.42 0.5 0.1628 0.6628 10 18 0.56 0.1072

11 55 6 3025 10.42135 0.61 0.5 0.2291 0.7291 11 18 0.61 0.1180

12 57 8 3249 10.42135 0.80 0.5 0.2881 0.7881 12 18 0.67 0.1214

13 58 9 3364 10.42135 0.90 0.5 0.3159 0.8159 14 18 0.78 0.0381

14 58 9 3364 10.42135 0.90 0.5 0.3159 0.8159 14 18 0.78 0.0381

15 60 11 3600 10.42135 1.09 0.5 0.3621 0.8621 16 18 0.89 0.0268

323

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 60 11 3600 10.42135 1.09 0.5 0.3621 0.8621 16 18 0.89 0.0268

17 62 13 3844 10.42135 1.28 0.5 0.3997 0.8997 18 18 1.00 0.1003

18 62 13 3844 10.42135 1.28 0.5 0.3997 0.8997 18 18 1.00 0.1003

∑ 875

44,381

48.61111

The formulas above are applied for all of the next normality tests. The highest value of |F(zi) – s(zi)| or Lo is 0.1856. Lt = 0.2000.

Because Lo is lower than Lt or Lo(0.1394) < Lt(0.2000), it can be concluded that the sample is in normal distribution.

324

b. Normality test of the data of the writing test of the experimental group having high writing interest (A1B1).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No. Xi

Xi2 s zi

Table


9 - 12

(absolute) Lo Lt

1 53 -5 2809 3.04138 -1.75 0.5 0.4599 0.0401 1 9 0.11 0.0710 0.1131 0.2710

2 55 -3 3025 3.04138 -1.10 0.5 0.3643 0.1357 2 9 0.22 0.0865

3 57 -1 3249 3.04138 -0.44 0.5 0.1700 0.3300 3 9 0.33 0.0033

4 58 0 3364 3.04138 -0.11 0.5 0.0438 0.4562 5 9 0.56 0.0994

5 58 0 3364 3.04138 -0.11 0.5 0.0438 0.4562 5 9 0.56 0.0994

6 60 2 3600 3.04138 0.55 0.5 0.2088 0.7088 7 9 0.78 0.0690

7 60 2 3600 3.04138 0.55 0.5 0.2088 0.7088 7 9 0.78 0.0690

8 62 4 3844 3.04138 1.21 0.5 0.3869 0.8869 9 9 1.00 0.1131

9 62 4 3844 3.04138 1.21 0.5 0.3869 0.8869 9 9 1.00 0.1131

∑ 525

30,699

58.33333

The highest value of |F(zi) – s(zi)| or Lo is 0.1131. Lt = 0.2710. Because Lo is lower than Lt or Lo(0.1131) < Lt(0.2710), it can be

concluded that the sample is in normal distribution.

325

c. Normality test of the data of the writing test of the experimental group having low writing interest (A1B2).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No. Xi

Xi2 s zi

Table


9 - 12

(absolute) Lo Lt

1 35 -4 1225 2.97676 -1.31 0.5 0.4049 0.0951 2 9 0.22 0.1271 0.1507 0.2710

2 35 -4 1225 2.97676 -1.31 0.5 0.4049 0.0951 2 9 0.22 0.1271

3 37 -2 1369 2.97676 -0.63 0.5 0.2357 0.2643 3 9 0.33 0.0690

4 39 0 1521 2.97676 0.04 0.5 0.0160 0.5160 6 9 0.67 0.1507

5 39 0 1521 2.97676 0.04 0.5 0.0160 0.5160 6 9 0.67 0.1507

6 39 0 1521 2.97676 0.04 0.5 0.0160 0.5160 6 9 0.67 0.1507

7 40 1 1600 2.97676 0.37 0.5 0.1443 0.6443 7 9 0.78 0.1335

8 42 3 1764 2.97676 1.05 0.5 0.3531 0.8531 8 9 0.89 0.0358

9 44 5 1936 2.97676 1.72 0.5 0.4573 0.9573 9 9 1.00 0.0427

∑ 350 13,682

38.88889



326

d. Normality test of the data of the writing test of control group (A2).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No. Xi

Xi2 s zi

Table


9 - 12

(absolute) Lo Lt

1 35 -8 1225 4.66807 -1.81 0.5 0.4649 0.0351 1 18 0.06 0.0205 0.1012 0.2000

2 37 -6 1369 4.66807 -1.38 0.5 0.4162 0.0838 2 18 0.11 0.0273

3 38 -5 1444 4.66807 -1.17 0.5 0.3790 0.1210 4 18 0.22 0.1012

4 38 -5 1444 4.66807 -1.17 0.5 0.3790 0.1210 4 18 0.22 0.1012

5 40 -3 1600 4.66807 -0.74 0.5 0.2794 0.2206 5 18 0.28 0.0572

6 42 -1 1764 4.66807 -0.31 0.5 0.1217 0.3783 8 18 0.44 0.0661

7 42 -1 1764 4.66807 -0.31 0.5 0.1217 0.3783 8 18 0.44 0.0661

8 42 -1 1764 4.66807 -0.31 0.5 0.1217 0.3783 8 18 0.44 0.0661

9 44 1 1936 4.66807 0.12 0.5 0.0478 0.5478 10 18 0.56 0.0078

10 44 1 1936 4.66807 0.12 0.5 0.0478 0.5478 10 18 0.56 0.0078

11 45 2 2025 4.66807 0.33 0.5 0.1293 0.6293 13 18 0.72 0.0929

12 45 2 2025 4.66807 0.33 0.5 0.1293 0.6293 13 18 0.72 0.0929

13 45 2 2025 4.66807 0.33 0.5 0.1293 0.6293 13 18 0.72 0.0929

14 47 4 2209 4.66807 0.76 0.5 0.2764 0.7764 15 18 0.83 0.0569

15 47 4 2209 4.66807 0.76 0.5 0.2764 0.7764 15 18 0.83 0.0569

16 49 6 2401 4.66807 1.19 0.5 0.3830 0.8830 16 18 0.89 0.0059

327

17 50 7 2500 4.66807 1.40 0.5 0.4192 0.9192 17 18 0.94 0.0252

18 52 9 2704 4.66807 1.83 0.5 0.4664 0.9664 18 18 1.00 0.0336

∑ 782 34,344

43.44444



328

e. Normality test of the data of the writing test of the control group having high writing interest (A2B1).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No. Xi Xi2 s zi

Table


9 - 12

(absolute) Lo Lt

1 35 -6 1225 5.19882 -1.24 0.5 0.3925 0.1075 1 9 0.11 0.0036 0.1898 0.2710

2 37 -4 1369 5.19882 -0.85 0.5 0.3023 0.1977 2 9 0.22 0.0245

3 38 -3 1444 5.19882 -0.66 0.5 0.2454 0.2546 4 9 0.44 0.1898

4 38 -3 1444 5.19882 -0.66 0.5 0.2454 0.2546 4 9 0.44 0.1898

5 42 1 1764 5.19882 0.11 0.5 0.0438 0.5438 6 9 0.67 0.1229

6 42 1 1764 5.19882 0.11 0.5 0.0438 0.5438 6 9 0.67 0.1229

7 44 3 1936 5.19882 0.49 0.5 0.1879 0.6879 7 9 0.78 0.0899

8 45 4 2025 5.19882 0.68 0.5 0.2517 0.7517 8 9 0.89 0.1372

9 52 11 2704 5.19882 2.03 0.5 0.4788 0.9788 9 9 1.00 0.0212

∑ 373 15,675

41.44444



329

f. Normality test of the data of the writing test of the control group having low writing interest (A2B2).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No. Xi Xi2 s zi

Table


9 - 12

(absolute) Lo Lt

1 40 -5 1600 3.20590 -1.70 0.5 0.4554 0.0446 1 9 0.11 0.0665 0.1113 0.2710

2 42 -3 1764 3.20590 -1.07 0.5 0.3577 0.1423 2 9 0.22 0.0799

3 44 -1 1936 3.20590 -0.45 0.5 0.1736 0.3264 3 9 0.33 0.0069

4 45 0 2025 3.20590 -0.14 0.5 0.0557 0.4443 5 9 0.56 0.1113

5 45 0 2025 3.20590 -0.14 0.5 0.0557 0.4443 5 9 0.56 0.1113

6 47 2 2209 3.20590 0.49 0.5 0.1879 0.6879 7 9 0.78 0.0899

7 47 2 2209 3.20590 0.49 0.5 0.1879 0.6879 7 9 0.78 0.0899

8 49 4 2401 3.20590 1.11 0.5 0.3665 0.8665 8 9 0.89 0.0224

9 50 5 2500 3.20590 1.42 0.5 0.4222 0.9222 9 9 1.00 0.0778

∑ 409 18,669

45.44444



Based on the result of the normality testing above, it can be concluded that the analysis of comparative test can be continued.

330

2. Homogeneity Test

Statistics A1 A2 ∑

n

B1

9 9 18

∑ X 525 350 875

∑ X2 30,699 13,682 44,381

Mean 58.33333 38.88889 48.61111

n

B2

9 9 18

∑ X 373 409 782

∑ X2 15,675 18,669 34,344

Mean 41.44444 45.44444 43.44444

n

18 18 36

∑ X 898 759 1657

∑ X2 46,374 32,351 78,725

Mean 49.88889 42.16667 46.02778

1.

2.

3.

4.

331

5. =

= 13.854

6.

7.

Sample df 1/(df) si2 log si

2 (df) log si

2

X1 8 0.125 9.25 0.9661 7.7291

X2 8 0.125 8.86 0.9475 7.5799

X3 8 0.125 27.03 1.4318 11.454

X4 8 0.125 10.28 1.0119 8.0952

32 0.500 34.859

8.

Because ( is lower than (7.814727764), it can be concluded

that the data are homogeneous.

Based on the result of the homogeneity testing above, it can be concluded that the

analysis of comparative test can be continued.

Based on the result of the two prerequisite testings above, it can be concluded that

the analysis of comparative test can be continued.

332

Appendix 26:

C. Multifactor Analysis of Variance

MAIN

EFFECT

Electronic-based Portfolio

(A1)

Paper-based Portfolio

(A2)

SIMPLE

EFFECT

High

Writing

Interest

(B1)

62 GROUP 1 52 GROUP 3

62 45

60 ∑ X = 525 44 ∑ X = 373 ∑ Xr1 = 898

60 42

58 = 58.333 42 = 41.444 = 49.889

58 38

57 38

55 37

53 35

Low

Writing

Interest

(B2)


42 49

40 ∑ X = 350 47 ∑ X = 409 ∑ Xr2 = 759

39 47

39 = 38.889 45 = 45.444 = 42.167

39 45

37 44

35 42

35 40

Total ∑ X = 1,657

= 46.028

∑Xc1 = 875

∑Xc2 = 782

= 48.611

43.444

333

1. The total sum of squares:

2. The sum squares between groups:

3. The sum squares within groups:

4. The between-columns sum of squares:

334

5. The between-rows sum of squares:

6. The sum of squares interaction:

–

1,236.694

7. The number of degrees of freedom associated with each source of variation:

df for between-columns sum of squares = C – 1 = 2 – 1 = 1

df for between-rows sum of squares = R – 1 = 2 – 1 = 1

df for interaction = (C – 1) (R – 1) = 1 X 1 = 1

df for between groups sum of squares = G – 1 = 4 – 1 = 3

df for within-groups sum of squares = ∑(n-1) = 8+8+8+8 = 32

df for total sum of squares = N – 1 = 36 – 1 = 35

where :

C = the number of columns

R = the number of rows

G = the number of groups

n = the number of subjects in one group

N = the number of subjects in all groups.

335

SUMMARY OF A 2 X 2 MULTIFACTOR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

Source of Variance SS df MS F Ft(.05) Ft(.01)

Between column ( Portfolio) 240.25 1 240.250 17.341 4.149 7.499

Between rows (Writing Interest) 536.694 1 536.694 38.739

Columns by rows (Interaction) 1,236.69 1 1236.694 89.265

Between Groups 2,013.64 3 671.213

Within groups 443.333 32 13.854

Total 2,456.97 35

a. Because Fo between columns (17.341) is higher than Ft(.05) (4.149) and Ft(.01)

(7.499) , the difference between column is significant. It can be concluded that

the types of portfolio-based learning differ significantly from one another in

their effect on the performance of the subjects in the experiment.

b. Because Fo between rows (38.739) is higher than Ft(.05) (4.149) and Ft(.01)

(7.499), the difference between rows is significant. It can be concluded that the

performance of those subjects having high writing interest and those having low

writing interest is significant. A higher level of performance can be expected

when the writing interest is high than when it is low.

c. Because Fo interaction (89.265) is higher than Ft(.05) (4.149) and Ft(.01) (7.499),

there is the interaction effect between the two variables, portfolio-based learning

types and the level of writing interest. It means that the effect of portfolio-based

learning types on English writing skill depends on the level of writing interest.

336

D. Tukey Test

The finding of q is found by dividing the difference between the means by the

square root of the ratio of the within group variation and the sample size.

Data

MAIN

EFFECT

Electronic-based Portfolio

(A1)

Paper-based Portfolio

(A2)

SIMPLE

EFFECT

High

Writing

Interest

(B1)


62 45

60 ∑ X = 525 44 ∑ X = 373 ∑ Xr1 = 898

60 42

58 = 58.333 42 = 41.444 = 49.889

58 38

57 38

55 37

53 35

Low

Writing

Interest

(B2)


42 49

40 ∑ X = 350 47 ∑ X = 409 ∑ Xr2 = 759

39 47

39 = 38.889 45 = 45.444 = 42.167

39 45

37 44

35 42

35 40

Total ∑ X = 1,657

= 46.028

∑Xc1 = 875

∑Xc2 = 782

= 48.611

43.444

337

a. Between column:

Because between column q is higher than qt(.05) 2.97 and qt(.01) 4.07,

electronic-based portfolio learning differs significantly from paper-based

portfolio learning in the teaching of writing. Electronic-based portfolio

learning is more effective than paper-based portfolio learning in the teaching

of writing.

b. Between column(HWI):

Because between column qo is higher than qt(.05) 3.20 and qt(.01) 4.60, in the

teaching of writing, electronic-based portfolio learning differs significantly

from paper-based portfolio learning for the students who have high writing

interest. Because the mean score of the students taught by using electronic-

based portfolio learning is higher than the mean score of those taught by

using paper-based portfolio learning (48.611 > 43.444), it can be concluded

that electronic-based portfolio is more effective than paper-based portfolio

learning for students having high writing interest.

338

c. Between column(LWI):

Because between column qo is higher than qt(.05) 3.20 and qt(.01) 4.60, in the

teaching of writing, paper-based portfolio learning differs significantly from

electronic-based portfolio learning for the students who have low writing

interest. Because the mean score of the students taught by using paper-based

portfolio learning is higher than those taught by using electronic-based

portfolio learning (45.444 > 38.889), it can be concluded that paper-based

portfolio learning is more effective than electronic-based portfolio for

students having low writing interest.

339

Appendix 27:

NOTIFICATION

a comparative study on the teaching of writing by paper-based portfolio learning and...

Documents