Sunteți pe pagina 1din 353

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 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 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
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

ii
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
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

iii
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.

iv
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

v
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)

vi
DEDICATION

T
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.”

T
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.”

T
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?”

vii
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.

viii
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

ix
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

x
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
Table 4.5 The frequency distribution of the writing test scores of the
students or the group having low writing interest who are taught
by electronic-based portfolio learning (A1B2) ………………… 133
Table 4.6 The frequency distribution of the writing test scores of the
students or the group taught by paper-based portfolio learning
(A2) ……………………………………………………………. 135
Table 4.7 The frequency distribution of the writing test scores of the
students or the group having high writing interest who taught
by paper-based portfolio learning (A2B1) ……………………… 137
Table 4.8 The frequency distribution of the writing test scores of the
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

xi
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
Figure 4.3 The histogram of the frequency distribution of the writing test
scores of the students the group having low writing interest who
are taught by electronic-based portfolio learning (A1B2) ……… 134
Figure 4.4 The histogram of the frequency distribution of the writing test
scores of the students or the group taught by paper-based
portfolio learning (A2) ………………………………………… 136
Figure 4.5 The histogram of the frequency distribution of the writing test
scores of the students or the group having high writing interest
who taught by paper-based portfolio learning (A2B1) ………… 138
Figure 4.6 The histogram of the frequency distribution of the writing test
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

xii
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

xiii
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
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
collaborative effort between the student and the teachers as a reflection of the
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 Portfolio Evidence Assessment Tools
Activity
Correct copying Transfer selected Handwriting Teacher/peer
information from sample, ―a text I compliment
text copied‖
60

Goal Sample Classroom Portfolio Evidence Assessment Tools


Activity
Expressing feelings Write caption Project – me/my Rating scale,
and ideas describing favorite family/neighbour- Self/peer
person or object hood etc. (first assessment with
Write about hobby, draft, revised/ revising/editing
favorite person etc. edited draft, final checklists
+ comment (why I written product)
like it/her) Journal
Dialogue journal
entry
Teacher‘s log
(minimum/partial/
maximum
investment)
Convey factual Write note/ caption Written product Teacher‘s rating
message /ad/ newspaper with first draft, scale, Self/peer
article revised/edited draft assessment with
and final copy revising and
editing checklists
Review and reflect Write guided (Guided) comment Scale to assess
comment card on card on task quality of
task Cover letter reflection
Explain why (clear/partial/poor
favorite task was evidence of review
included and reflection)
Write cover letter

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 a letter
item purchased
your mother to inform about your a note
absence
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 • Archiving
• Selecting • Linking/Thinking
• Reflecting • Storytelling
• Projecting • Collaborating
• Celebrating • 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
teaching of writing.

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
teaching of writing.
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
teaching of writing.
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.
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


AUGUST
JULY

SEPT

NOV

DEC
OCT

JAN
No. Activities

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
ELECTRONIC- PAPER-
BASED BASED
(Experimental Group) (Control Group)
Factor B
(A1) (A2)
HIGH
(B1) A1B1 A2B1
WRITING
INTEREST
LOW
A1B2 A2B2
(B2)

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

No. Categories Level Criteria


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


The scores of students having high writing interest who are taught
Data A
by electronic-based portfolio learning;
The scores of students having low writing interest who are taught
Data B
by electronic-based portfolio learning;
The scores of students having high writing interest who are taught
Data C
by paper-based portfolio learning;
The scores of students having low writing interest who are taught
Data D
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
ELECTRONIC- PAPER-
BASED BASED
(Experimental Group) (Control Group)
Factor B (A1) (A2)
HIGH
A1B1 A2B1 B1
WRITING (B1)
INTEREST LOW
A1B2 A2B2 B2
(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 = 32
df 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)

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
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.
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)

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent 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 histogram of the frequency distribution of the writing test scores of the students
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.
The frequency distribution of the writing test scores of the students or the group
having low writing interest who are taught by electronic-based portfolio learning
(A1B2)

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent 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 histogram of the frequency distribution of the writing test scores of the students
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
frequency distribution is shown on the Figure 4.4.
135

Table 4.6.
The frequency distribution of the writing test scores of the students or the group
taught by paper-based portfolio learning (A2)

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent 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.
The histogram of the frequency distribution of the writing test scores of the students
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
frequency distribution is shown on the Figure 4.5.
137

Table 4.7.
The frequency distribution of the writing test scores of the students or the group
having high writing interest who taught by paper-based portfolio learning (A2B1)

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent 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.
The histogram of the frequency distribution of the writing test scores of the students
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
frequency distribution is shown on the Figure 4.6.
139

Table 4.8.
The frequency distribution of the writing test scores of the students or the group
having low writing interest who taught by paper-based portfolio learning (A2B2)

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent 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.
The histogram of the frequency distribution of the writing test scores of the students
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
A1 A1B1 A1B2 A2 A2B1 A2B2
Statistics
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
5.182 2.338 2.288 2.321 3.996 2.464
Level (95.0%)

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
Lt
The number of Lo Distribution of
No. Data
Sample 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
(Source: Appendix 11)
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) s i2 log si2 (df) log si2

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
(Source: Appendix 8)

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
(Source: Appendix 12)
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 qt
qo Significance Meaning
Group 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
(Source: Appendix 12)
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:
1. Electronic-based portfolio learning is more effective than paper-based portfolio
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
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.
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
venture into an unfamiliar intellectual domain such as publishing their works on-
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
venture into an unfamiliar intellectual domain such as publishing their works on-
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:
1. Electronic-based portfolio learning is more effective than paper-based portfolio
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].


Redmond: Microsoft Corporation.

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.


Anderman (Eds.), Psychology of Classroom Learning: An Encyclopedia
(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:


Cambridge University Press.

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
Educational Psychology (pp. 846 – 852). Thousand Oaks: SAGE
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


Educational Psychology (pp. 182 – 183). Thousand Oaks: SAGE
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].


Redmond: Microsoft Corporation.

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.


Anderman (Eds.), Psychology of Classroom Learning: An Encyclopedia
(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].


Redmond: Microsoft Corporation.

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:


Cambridge University Press.

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


Educational Psychology (pp. 573 – 579). Thousand Oaks: SAGE
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


Attention for an object 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 16, 19, 10
23, 27, 34
1 Affective
Feeling for an object 1, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 10
18, 35, 40
Intensity (preference for 3, 7, 20, 21, 31, 32, 36, 10
some activities over 38, 4, 28
2 Cognitive others)
Duration 13, 22, 24, 25, 26, 33, 10
37, 39, 29, 30
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: abdul.syahid@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/abdul.syahid
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:
Pendapat Anda
Pernyataan
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

Pendapat
No. Pernyataan 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

Pendapat
No. Pernyataan 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

Pendapat
No. Pernyataan 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

Pendapat
No. Pernyataan 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

LEMBARAN JAWABAN ANGKET


Petunjuk:
Berdasarkan lembaran angket, berilah tanda centang pada kolom Pendapat Anda
yang sesuai dengan pendapat Anda terhadap suatu pernyataan.
Pendapat Anda Pendapat Anda
Sangat Setuju Tidak Sangat Sangat Setuju Tidak Sangat
No. setuju Setuju Tidak No. setuju Setuju Tidak
Setuju Setuju
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1. 21.
2. 22.
3. 23.
4. 24.
5. 25.
6. 26.
7. 27.
8. 28.
9. 29.
10. 30.
11. 31.
12. 32.
13. 33.
14. 34.
15. 35.
16. 36.
17. 37.
18. 38.
19. 39.
20. 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 Basic Learning material Indicator(s) of the Question Test Item Scoring
Competency Competencies
1 To express To express the 1. Recount: 1. Students are able to Write a text of Analytic Scale
the meaning rhetorical - Social function organize a recount text three paragraphs for Rating
of a short meaning and - Generic structure by using its generic telling about your Writing Test
functional steps structure. most memorable (Based on ESL
written text accurately, 2. Students are able to experience. Composition
and a simple fluently, and address the topic Profile):
essay. acceptably in a concretely and
In writing the
written thoroughly.
text, you must
language in a 3. Students are able to use
177

No. Standard of Basic Learning material Indicator(s) of the Question Test Item Scoring
Competency Competencies
daily life acceptable grammatical pay attention to
context in the systems (e.g. tense, the generic
forms of agreement, pluralization structure, the
recount, patterns and rules); development of
narrative and 4. Students are able to use ideas, English
procedure. English writing grammar, and the
conventions correctly: usage of
margins, capitals, vocabulary.
paragraphs indention,
punctuation and spelling.
5. Students are able to use
vocabulary, structures,
and register precisely.
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: 30 – 27 Excellent to very Knowledgeable;
The good substantive
appropriateness development of thesis,
with the title relevant to assigned topic
chosen. 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: 20 – 18 Excellent to very fluent expression; ideas
paragraph unity, good clearly stated/supported;
coherence, and succinct; well-organized;
cohesion logical sequencing;
cohesive
179

No. Category Level Criteria Comment


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 20 – 18 Excellent to very sophisticated range;
precision of using good effective word/ idiom
vocabulary 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

No. Category Level Criteria Comment


9–7 Very poor essentially translation;
little knowledge of English
vocabulary, idioms, word
form; OR not enough to
evaluate
4 Language Use/ 25 – 22 Excellent to very effective, complex
Grammar: tenses good constructions; few errors
and pattern 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

No. Category Level Criteria Comment


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: 5 Excellent to very demonstrates mastery of
spelling and good conventions; few errors of
punctuation spelling, punctuation,
capitalization,
paragraphing
4 Good to average occasional errors of
spelling, punctuation,
capitalization,
paragraphing, but meaning
not obscured
182

No. Category Level Criteria Comment


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
35 – 100
Score
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.

No. Categories Level Criteria


1 Content: 30 – 27 Excellent to very good
26 – 22 Good to average
21 – 17 Fair to poor
16 – 13 Very poor
2 Organization: 20 – 18 Excellent to very good
17 – 14 Good to average
13 – 10 Fair to poor
9–7 Very poor
184

No. Categories Level Criteria


3 Vocabulary 20 – 18 Excellent to very good
17 – 14 Good to average
13 – 10 Fair to poor
9–7 Very poor
4 Language Use/ Grammar: 25 – 22 Excellent to very good
21 – 18 Good to average
17 – 11 Fair to poor
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
183

Appendix 8:

hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv
bnmqwert bnmqwe
LESSON PLAN

rtyuiopasd (EXPERIMENTAL GROUP) rtyuiopa


sdfghjklzxc sdfghjkl
zxcvbnmq zxcvbnm
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyu
iopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg
hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv
bnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwe
rtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa
sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjkl
187

LESSON PLAN I

School : SMAN 2 Sampit


Subject : English
Grade/ Semester : X/ First
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 Instruction manual
one’s facebook account.
A bank customer To inform how to use Instruction manual
ATM machine
A cook To inform how to make Recipe
fried rice.

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
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.
191

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 an invitation;
2. To express meaning and information in an invitation;
4. To apply the structure of an invitation.

D. Teaching Materials:
Student-searched tips on how to write an invitation on the net.
Student-searched sample of e-invitation cards.

E. Teaching Method: Electronic-based portfolio learning.

F. Teaching Activities:
1. Introductory Activities (10 minutes):
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.
2. Main Activities (70 minutes):
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

The audience The purpose The form


Friends To invite some friends to Invitation card.
attend one’s birthday
party.
Parents To invite students’ parents Invitation.
to come to a meeting of
PTA (Parents-Teachers
Association).

ii. Students brainstorm and note down any ideas connected to an


invitation.
ii. Students and the teacher decide the most relevant ideas to the topic,
task or title from the brainstormed list.
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.
b. Drafting (20 minutes)
i. Students write the first draft of their piece of work.
ii. Students are told to write on every other line and not to worry about
mistakes.
c. Revising and Editing (30)
i. 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.
193

iv. Students use a writing improvement checklist and a mechanics


checklist (softcopy);
d. Publishing (10 minutes)
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.

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. Student-searched e-invitations.
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
194

2. Tools: Rating scale, Self/ peer assessment with revising/editing checklists


(softcopy).

Meeting III
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 an announcement;
2. To express meaning and information in an announcement.

D. Teaching Materials:
Student-searched samples of announcements on the net.

E. Teaching Method: Electronic-based portfolio learning.

F. Teaching Activities:
1. Introductory Activities (10 minutes):
a. Orientation: the teacher has students get focused by showing them some
announcements.
b. Motivation: students are motivated by being told about the functions of
an announcement.
2. Main Activities (70 minutes):
a. Pre-writing (10 minutes)
195

i. The teacher defines the three corner stones of any piece of an


announcement: the audience, the purpose and the form.

The audience The purpose The form


Short story writers To inform that a short An announcement.
story contest will be held.
Students, parents, teachers To inform that a book fair An announcement.
will be held.

ii. Students brainstorm and note down any ideas connected to an


announcement.
ii. Students and the teacher decide the most relevant ideas to the topic,
task or title from the brainstormed list.
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.
b. Drafting (15 minutes)
i. Students write the first draft of their piece of work.
ii. Students are told to write on every other line and not to worry about
mistakes.
c. Revising and Editing (35 minutes)
i. 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.
196

iv. Students use a writing improvement checklist and a mechanics


checklist (enclosed);
d. Publishing (10 minutes)
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.
iii. Students are requested to comment/ revise their friends’ works (at
least one friend).
iv. Students are asked to upload their works on their own web-blogs.
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. Student-searched announcements (in Indonesian and English).
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)
197

H. Evaluation:
1. Technique : Portfolio assessment
2. Tools: Rating scale, Self/ peer assessment with revising/editing checklists
(softcopy).

Meeting IV
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 an advertisement;
2. To express meaning and information in an advertisement.

D. Teaching Materials:
Some samples of e-advertisements.

E. Teaching Method: Electronic-based portfolio learning.

F. Teaching Activities:
1. Introductory Activities (10 minutes):
a. Orientation: the teacher has students get focused by showing them some
advertisements.
b. Motivation: students are motivated by being told about the functions of
an advertisement.
198

2. Main Activities (70 minutes):


a. Pre-writing (10 minutes)
i. The teacher defines the three corner stones of any piece of an
advertisement: the audience, the purpose and the form.

The audience The purpose The form


Prospective Sumatera – To inform that a travel An advertisement.
Java – Bali passengers agency provides luxury
buses and serve Sumatera
– Java – Bali.
Students, parents To inform an An advertisement.
internationally-
standardized school with
an affordable fee holds an
open house and science
fair.

ii. Students brainstorm and note down any ideas connected to an


announcement.
ii. Students and the teacher decide the most relevant ideas to the topic,
task or title from the brainstormed list.
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.
b. Drafting (20 minutes)
i. Students write the first draft of their piece of work.
ii. Students are told to write on every other line and not to worry about
mistakes.
c. Revising and Editing (30 minutes)
199

i. 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 (10 minutes)
i. Students are asked to put some decorations (pictures, etc.) on their
advertisements.
ii. Students are asked to make a copy of their advertisements 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.
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.
c. 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).
d. Students are told that student-teacher conference will be held in the
form of web-based discussion in a web-blog class.
200

G. Teaching Resource:
1. Student-searched e-advertisements (in Indonesian and English).
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
(included in the teacher-made Electronic-based portfolio builder above).
201

LESSON PLAN II

School : SMAN 2 Sampit


Subject : English
Grade/ Semester : X/ First
Skill : Writing
Time Allocation : 2 x 45” (4 meetings)

Meeting V and VI
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 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.

D. Teaching Materials:
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

E. Teaching Method: Electronic-based portfolio learning.

F. Teaching Activities:
1. Introductory Activities (20 minutes):
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.
2. Main Activities (150 minutes):
a. Pre-writing (20 minutes)
i. The teacher defines the three corner stones of any piece of a recount
text: the audience, the purpose and the form.
The audience The purpose The form
The writer him/herself To retell his/ her daily Dairy
activities and experiences
ii. Students brainstorm and note down any ideas connected to a recount
text.
ii. Students and the teacher decide the most relevant ideas to the topic,
task or title from the brainstormed list.
203

iii. Students decide which order to put those ideas in. This is carried out
in one of three pre-writing formats: bubbling (mind web), outlining,
and drawing/writing a captioned cartoon strip.
b. Drafting (30 minutes)
i. Students write the first draft of their piece of work.
ii. Students are told to write on every other line and not to worry about
mistakes.
c. Revising and Editing (90 minutes)
i. 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 (10 minutes)
i. Students are asked to put some decorations (pictures, etc.) on their
recount texts.
ii. Students are asked to make a copy of their recount texts 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.
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.
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.

G. Teaching Resource:
1. Student-searched articles on recount text.
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
(included in the teacher-made Electronic-based portfolio builder above).

Meeting VII and VIII


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 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.
205

C. Indicator (s):
1. To develop a paragraph of a narrative text;
2. To write a narrative text

D. Teaching Materials:
Student-searched articles on the usage of Simple Past Tense (in-depth) on the
net.
Student-searched articles on Narrative Text on the net.

E. Teaching Method: Electronic-based portfolio learning.

F. Teaching Activities:
1. Introductory Activities (20 minutes):
a. Apperception:
Students are asked to answer the following questions such as:
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.
2. Main Activities (150 minutes):
a. Pre-writing (20 minutes)
i. The teacher defines the three corner stones of any piece of a narrative
text: the audience, the purpose and the form.
206

The audience The purpose The form


Children To entertain them and to Fairy tales, fables
convey some moral
messages
Youngsters To entertain them Love stories
ii. Students brainstorm and note down any ideas connected to a recount
text.
ii. Students and the teacher decide the most relevant ideas to the topic,
task or title from the brainstormed list.
iii. Students decide which order to put those ideas in. This is carried out
in one of three pre-writing formats: bubbling (mind web), outlining,
and drawing/writing a captioned cartoon strip.
b. Drafting (30 minutes)
i. Students write the first draft of their piece of work.
ii. Students are told to write on every other line and not to worry about
mistakes.
c. Revising and Editing (90 minutes)
i. 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);
207

d. Publishing (10 minutes)


i. Students are asked to put some decorations (pictures, etc.) on their
narrative texts.
ii. Students are asked to make a copy of their narrative texts 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.

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.
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.

G. Teaching Resource:
1. Student-searched articles on narrative texts.
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
(included in the teacher-made Electronic-based portfolio builder above).
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyu
205

iopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg
Appendix 9:

hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv
bnmqwert LESSON PLAN bnmqwe
rtyuiopasd (CONTROL GROUP) rtyuiopa
sdfghjklzxc sdfghjkl
zxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyu
iopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg
hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv
bnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwe
rtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa
sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjkl
209

LESSON PLAN I

School : SMAN 2 Sampit


Subject : English
Grade/ Semester : X/ First
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:
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.

F. Teaching Activities:
1. Introductory Activities (15 minutes):
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.

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 Instruction manual
one’s facebook account.
A bank customer To inform how to use Instruction manual
211

ATM machine
A cook To inform how to make Recipe
fried rice.

ii. Students brainstorm and note down any ideas connected to a


procedure text.
ii. Students and the teacher decide the most relevant ideas to the topic,
task or title from the brainstormed list.
iii. Students decide which order to put those ideas in. This is carried out
in one of three pre-writing formats: bubbling (mind web), outlining,
and drawing/writing a captioned cartoon strip.
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.
b. Drafting (30 minutes)
i. Students write the first draft of their piece of work.
ii. Students are told to write on every other line and not to worry about
mistakes.
c. Revising and Editing (20 minutes)
i. 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 (enclosed);
d. Publishing (5 minutes)
212

i. Students are asked to share their works with other class or grades.
3. Closing Activities (10):
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
c. Students are told that student-teacher conference will be held in the form
of a short individual meeting to discuss their progresses.

G. Teaching Resource:
1. Some user instruction manuals/ booklets and recipes.
2. Teacher-made paper-based portfolio builder adapted from European
Language Portfolio (enclosed).

H. Evaluation:
1. Technique : Portfolio assessment
2. Tools: Rating scale, Self/ peer assessment with revising/editing checklists
(included in the teacher-made paper-based portfolio builder above).

Meeting II
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 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.

D. Teaching Materials:
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.

E. Teaching Method: Paper-based portfolio learning.

F. Teaching Activities:
1. Introductory Activities (10 minutes):
a. Orientation: the teacher has students get focused by showing them some
invitations.
b. Motivation: students are motivated by being told about the functions of
an invitation.
2. Main Activities (70 minutes):
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.
214

The audience The purpose The form


Friends To invite some friends to Invitation card.
attend one’s birthday
party.
Parents To invite students’ parents Invitation.
to come to a meeting of
PTA (Parents-Teachers
Association).

ii. Students brainstorm and note down any ideas connected to an


invitation.
ii. Students and the teacher decide the most relevant ideas to the topic,
task or title from the brainstormed list.
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.
b. Drafting (20 minutes)
i. Students write the first draft of their piece of work.
ii. Students are told to write on every other line and not to worry about
mistakes.
c. Revising and Editing (30)
i. 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.
215

iv. Students use a writing improvement checklist and a mechanics


checklist (enclosed);
d. Publishing (10 minutes)
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.
3. Closing Activities (10):
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
c. Students are told that student-teacher conference will be held in the form
of a short individual meeting to discuss their progresses.

G. Teaching Resource:
1. Some invitations (in Indonesian and English).
2. List of related vocabularies;
3. Teacher-made paper-based portfolio builder adapted from European
Language Portfolio (enclosed).
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:
1. Technique : Portfolio assessment
2. Tools: Rating scale, Self/ peer assessment with revising/editing checklists
(included in the teacher-made paper-based portfolio builder above).
216

Meeting III
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 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.

C. Indicator (s):
1. To be able to write an announcement;
2. To express meaning and information in an announcement.

D. Teaching Materials:
Some samples of announcements.

E. Teaching Method: Paper-based portfolio learning.

F. Teaching Activities:
1. Introductory Activities (10 minutes):
a. Orientation: the teacher has students get focused by showing them some
announcements.
b. Motivation: students are motivated by being told about the functions of
an announcement.
2. Main Activities (70 minutes):
a. Pre-writing (10 minutes)
i. The teacher defines the three corner stones of any piece of an
announcement: the audience, the purpose and the form.
217

The audience The purpose The form


Short story writers To inform that a short An announcement.
story contest will be held.
Students, parents, teachers To inform that a book fair An announcement.
will be held.

ii. Students brainstorm and note down any ideas connected to an


announcement.
ii. Students and the teacher decide the most relevant ideas to the topic,
task or title from the brainstormed list.
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.
b. Drafting (15 minutes)
i. Students write the first draft of their piece of work.
ii. Students are told to write on every other line and not to worry about
mistakes.
c. Revising and Editing (35 minutes)
i. 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 (enclosed);
218

d. Publishing (10 minutes)


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 put
them on the class announcement board.
3. Closing Activities (10):
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
c. Students are told that student-teacher conference will be held in the form
of a short individual meeting to discuss their progresses.

G. Teaching Resource:
1. Some announcements (in Indonesian and English).
2. List of related vocabularies;
3. Teacher-made paper-based portfolio builder adapted from European
Language Portfolio (enclosed).
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:
1. Technique : Portfolio assessment
2. Tools: Rating scale, Self/ peer assessment with revising/editing checklists
(included in the teacher-made paper-based portfolio builder above).
219

Meeting IV
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 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.

C. Indicator (s):
1. To be able to write an advertisement;
2. To express meaning and information in an advertisement.

D. Teaching Materials:
Some samples of advertisements.

E. Teaching Method: Paper-based portfolio learning.

F. Teaching Activities:
1. Introductory Activities (10 minutes):
a. Orientation: the teacher has students get focused by showing them some
advertisements.
b. Motivation: students are motivated by being told about the functions of
an advertisement.
2. Main Activities (70 minutes):
a. Pre-writing (10 minutes)
i. The teacher defines the three corner stones of any piece of an
advertisement: the audience, the purpose and the form.
220

The audience The purpose The form


Prospective Sumatera – To inform that a travel An advertisement.
Java – Bali passengers agency provides luxury
buses and serve Sumatera
– Java – Bali.
Students, parents To inform an An advertisement.
internationally-
standardized school with
an affordable fee holds an
open house and science
fair.

ii. Students brainstorm and note down any ideas connected to an


announcement.
ii. Students and the teacher decide the most relevant ideas to the topic,
task or title from the brainstormed list.
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.
b. Drafting (20 minutes)
i. Students write the first draft of their piece of work.
ii. Students are told to write on every other line and not to worry about
mistakes.
c. Revising and Editing (30 minutes)
i. 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.
221

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 (enclosed);
d. Publishing (10 minutes)
i. Students are asked to put some decorations (pictures, etc.) on their
advertisements.
ii. Students are asked to make a copy of their advertisements and put
them on the class board.
3. Closing Activities (10):
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
c. Students are told that student-teacher conference will be held in the form
of a short individual meeting to discuss their progresses.

G. Teaching Resource:
1. Some advertisements (in Indonesian and English).
2. List of related vocabularies;
3. Teacher-made paper-based portfolio builder adapted from European
Language Portfolio (enclosed).
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:
1. Technique : Portfolio assessment
2. Tools: Rating scale, Self/ peer assessment with revising/editing checklists
(included in the teacher-made paper-based portfolio builder above).

LESSON PLAN II

School : SMAN 2 Sampit


Subject : English
Grade/ Semester : X/ First
Skill : Writing
Time Allocation : 2 x 45” (4 meetings)

Meeting V and VI
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 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.

D. Teaching Materials:
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

E. Teaching Method: Paper-based portfolio learning.

F. Teaching Activities:
1. Introductory Activities (20 minutes):
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?
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.
2. Main Activities (150 minutes):
a. Pre-writing (20 minutes)
i. The teacher defines the three corner stones of any piece of a recount
text: the audience, the purpose and the form.
The audience The purpose The form
The writer him/herself To retell his/ her daily Dairy
activities and experiences
ii. Students brainstorm and note down any ideas connected to a recount
text.
ii. Students and the teacher decide the most relevant ideas to the topic,
task or title from the brainstormed list.
iii. Students decide which order to put those ideas in. This is carried out
in one of three pre-writing formats: bubbling (mind web), outlining,
and drawing/writing a captioned cartoon strip.
b. Drafting (30 minutes)
i. Students write the first draft of their piece of work.
ii. Students are told to write on every other line and not to worry about
mistakes.
c. Revising and Editing (90 minutes)
i. 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);
225

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 (enclosed);
d. Publishing (10 minutes)
i. Students are asked to share their works in a class magazine.
3. Closing Activities (10):
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
c. Students are told that student-teacher conference will be held in the form
of a short individual meeting to discuss their progresses.

G. Teaching Resource:
1. Developing English Competencies 1: for Senior High School (SMA/MA)
grade X by Achmad Doddy, Ahmad Sugeng, Effendi; Team of Setia Purna
Inves. (Ed.) – Jakarta : Pusat Perbukuan, Departemen Pendidikan Nasional,
2008. (pp. 18 – 22)
2. Teacher-made paper-based portfolio builder adapted from European
Language Portfolio (enclosed).

H. Evaluation:
1. Technique : Portfolio assessment
2. Tools: Rating scale, Self/ peer assessment with revising/editing checklists
(included in the teacher-made paper-based portfolio builder above).
226

Meeting VII and VIII

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 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 develop a paragraph of a narrative text;
2. To write a narrative text

D. Teaching Materials:
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?

E. Teaching Method: Paper-based portfolio learning.

F. Teaching Activities:
1. Introductory Activities (20 minutes):
a. Apperception:
Students are asked to answer the following questions such as:
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?

2. Main Activities (150 minutes):


a. Pre-writing (20 minutes)
i. The teacher defines the three corner stones of any piece of a narrative
text: the audience, the purpose and the form.
The audience The purpose The form
Children To entertain them and to Fairy tales, fables
convey some moral
messages
Youngsters To entertain them Love stories
228

ii. Students brainstorm and note down any ideas connected to a recount
text.
ii. Students and the teacher decide the most relevant ideas to the topic,
task or title from the brainstormed list.
iii. Students decide which order to put those ideas in. This is carried out
in one of three pre-writing formats: bubbling (mind web), outlining,
and drawing/writing a captioned cartoon strip.
b. Drafting (30 minutes)
i. Students write the first draft of their piece of work.
ii. Students are told to write on every other line and not to worry about
mistakes.
c. Revising and Editing (90 minutes)
i. 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 (enclosed);
d. Publishing (10 minutes)
i. Students are asked to share their works in a class magazine.

3. Closing Activities (10):


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
229

c. Students are told that student-teacher conference will be held in the form
of a short individual meeting to discuss their progresses.

G. Teaching Resource:
1. Developing English Competencies 1: for Senior High School (SMA/MA)
grade X by Achmad Doddy, Ahmad Sugeng, Effendi; Team of Setia Purna
Inves. (Ed.) – Jakarta : Pusat Perbukuan, Departemen Pendidikan Nasional,
2008. (pp. 46 – 49)
2. Teacher-made paper-based portfolio builder adapted from European
Language Portfolio (enclosed).
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:
1. Technique : Portfolio assessment
2. Tools: Rating scale, Self/ peer assessment with revising/editing checklists
(included in the teacher-made paper-based portfolio builder above).
230

Appendix 10:
231

Appendix 11:
232

Appendix 12:
LIST OF STUDENTS IN THE TRYOUT CLASS

Respondent ID
Name Sex Code
No. No.

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 ID
Name Sex Code
No. No.
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
∑ the students = 22 female students + 10 male students = 32 students
234

Appendix 14:

LIST OF STUDENTS IN THE CONTROL CLASS


(X R 4)

Respondent ID
Name Sex Code
No. No.

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
∑ the students = 21 female students + 11 male students = 32 students
235

Appendix 15:

VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE WRITING INTEREST QUESTIONNAIRE

Code Item No.


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
2
(X) 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

6
236

Appendix 15:

VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE WRITING INTEREST QUESTIONNAIRE

Code Item No.


7 8 9 10 11 12
O1 4 4 4 3 3 4
O2 4 4 4 4 4 4
O3 3 2 3 4 3 4
O4 2 4 4 2 3 4
O5 3 4 3 3 2 3
O6 3 4 2 3 3 4
O7 3 4 3 3 3 3
O8 3 3 2 3 2 3
O9 2 3 2 3 2 3
O10 3 3 3 4 3 3
O11 3 3 2 3 2 3
O12 3 3 2 3 2 3
O13 3 4 3 3 3 3
O14 3 3 3 3 3 4
O15 3 3 3 4 3 4
O16 3 4 3 3 3 3
O17 2 4 3 4 3 4
O18 3 4 4 4 3 3
O19 3 3 3 3 3 3
O20 4 2 4 3 3 3
O21 2 2 2 3 2 3
O22 3 4 3 3 3 3
O23 3 4 3 3 3 3
O24 3 3 3 3 4 4
O25 3 3 3 3 3 3
O26 3 4 4 4 4 3
O27 4 2 3 2 2 3
O28 3 3 3 3 3 3
O29 3 3 2 3 2 3
O30 3 3 3 3 3 3
O31 3 3 3 3 3 3
O32 3 4 2 3 2 4
∑ 96 106 94 101 90 106
2
(X) 9,216 11,236 8,836 10,201 8,100 11,236
∑xt2 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219
∑Xi2 296 366 290 327 264 358
∑xi2 8.000 14.875 13.875 8.219 10.875 6.875
∑XiXt 11,134 12,316 11,002 11,766 10,555 12,291
∑xixt 79.000 109.438 177.313 135.219 190.938 84.438
rit 0.363 0.369 0.618 0.613 0.752 0.418
rt 0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349
CRITERIA VALID VALID VALID VALID VALID VALID
si2 0.250 0.465 0.434 0.257 0.340 0.215
st2 185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257
237

Appendix 15:

VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE WRITING INTEREST QUESTIONNAIRE

Code Item No.


13 14 15 16 17 18
O1 4 3 3 3 3 3
O2 4 4 4 4 4 4
O3 3 3 4 3 3 3
O4 3 3 3 3 2 3
O5 4 3 3 3 3 3
O6 4 3 4 3 4 4
O7 4 2 4 3 4 3
O8 3 2 3 3 3 3
O9 2 3 3 3 2 3
O10 3 4 3 3 4 3
O11 4 2 3 3 2 3
O12 3 3 3 3 2 3
O13 3 3 3 3 3 3
O14 4 2 4 3 3 3
O15 4 3 4 4 4 4
O16 4 3 3 3 3 3
O17 4 4 4 3 2 4
O18 3 3 3 3 3 3
O19 3 3 3 3 2 3
O20 3 2 4 3 3 2
O21 3 1 4 2 1 3
O22 3 2 2 3 3 3
O23 3 3 3 3 3 3
O24 3 3 3 3 3 3
O25 3 2 3 2 3 3
O26 4 3 4 3 3 4
O27 2 3 4 3 2 2
O28 3 3 3 3 3 3
O29 3 2 3 3 3 2
O30 3 3 3 3 3 3
O31 3 3 3 3 3 3
O32 4 3 2 3 4 3
∑ 106 89 105 96 93 98
2
(X) 11,236 7,921 11,025 9,216 8,649 9,604
∑xt2 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219
∑Xi2 362 261 355 292 287 308
∑xi2 10.875 13.469 10.469 4.000 16.719 7.875
∑XiXt 12,327 10,417 12,180 11,132 10,867 11,415
∑xixt 120.438 168.094 88.594 77.000 157.469 129.688
rit 0.474 0.595 0.356 0.500 0.500 0.600
rt 0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349
CRITERIA VALID VALID VALID VALID VALID VALID
si2 0.340 0.421 0.327 0.125 0.522 0.246
st2 185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257
0 942
238

Appendix 15:

VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE WRITING INTEREST QUESTIONNAIRE

Code Item No.


19 20 21 22 23 24
O1 3 3 3 3 3 3
O2 4 3 3 4 4 4
O3 3 3 2 3 4 3
O4 4 2 2 2 2 2
O5 2 2 2 3 3 3
O6 2 2 2 3 4 2
O7 3 2 2 3 3 3
O8 2 2 3 3 3 2
O9 2 2 2 3 3 2
O10 3 3 4 3 3 4
O11 2 2 2 4 4 2
O12 2 2 2 3 3 2
O13 3 1 3 3 3 3
O14 3 2 2 4 3 3
O15 3 3 3 4 4 2
O16 3 3 3 3 3 3
O17 3 3 3 3 4 3
O18 3 2 3 4 4 2
O19 3 2 2 3 3 3
O20 3 2 3 3 3 2
O21 3 1 1 2 4 2
O22 3 2 2 2 3 3
O23 3 2 3 3 3 3
O24 4 3 3 3 3 3
O25 3 2 3 2 3 2
O26 4 3 4 3 4 4
O27 3 3 3 2 3 2
O28 3 3 2 3 3 2
O29 1 1 1 3 2 2
O30 3 3 2 3 3 3
O31 3 2 2 3 3 2
O32 2 2 2 2 4 2
∑ 91 73 79 95 104 83
2
(X) 8,281 5,329 6,241 9,025 10,816 6,889
∑xt2 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219
∑Xi2 273 179 211 293 348 229
∑xi2 14.219 12.469 15.969 10.969 10.000 13.719
∑XiXt 10,664 8,587 9,296 11,049 12,110 9,740
∑xixt 184.781 180.594 198.656 109.156 133.750 182.031
rit 0.636 0.664 0.646 0.428 0.549 0.638
rt 0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349
CRITERIA VALID VALID VALID VALID VALID VALID
si2 0.444 0.390 0.499 0.343 0.313 0.429
st2 185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257

0.942
239

Appendix 15:

VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE WRITING INTEREST QUESTIONNAIRE

Code Item No.


25 26 27 28 29 30
O1 3 4 2 3 3 4
O2 4 4 3 3 4 4
O3 3 3 3 3 3 4
O4 3 4 2 2 2 2
O5 3 3 2 2 2 3
O6 4 4 3 2 4 3
O7 3 4 2 2 3 4
O8 3 3 2 2 2 3
O9 3 2 2 3 2 2
O10 3 3 3 3 2 3
O11 3 4 2 2 2 3
O12 3 3 2 3 2 3
O13 3 3 2 3 3 3
O14 3 3 2 2 3 3
O15 3 4 3 2 2 4
O16 3 3 2 3 3 3
O17 4 4 3 4 2 3
O18 4 4 4 2 3 3
O19 3 3 2 3 3 3
O20 4 4 3 2 1 3
O21 3 4 2 1 2 2
O22 3 3 2 2 2 3
O23 3 3 2 3 3 3
O24 3 3 3 3 3 3
O25 3 3 2 2 3 3
O26 4 4 3 4 1 3
O27 3 3 3 4 2 3
O28 3 3 2 2 3 3
O29 2 3 2 1 1 2
O30 3 3 3 3 3 3
O31 3 3 2 2 3 3
O32 4 4 3 3 2 4
∑ 102 108 78 81 79 98
2
(X) 10,404 11,664 6,084 6,561 6,241 9,604
∑xt2 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219
∑Xi2 332 374 200 223 213 310
∑xi2 6.875 9.500 9.875 17.969 17.969 9.875
∑XiXt 11,875 12,537 9,132 9,505 9,235 11,444
∑xixt 129.063 100.125 149.813 177.344 137.656 158.688
rit 0.639 0.422 0.619 0.543 0.422 0.656
rt 0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349
CRITERIA VALID VALID VALID VALID VALID VALID
si2 0.215 0.297 0.309 0.562 0.562 0.309
st2 185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257

rt(.05, 32) = 0.349


240

Appendix 15:

VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE WRITING INTEREST QUESTIONNAIRE

Code Item No.


31 32 33 34 35 36
O1 3 3 3 3 3 3
O2 3 4 4 4 4 3
O3 2 3 3 3 4 2
O4 2 2 2 2 3 2
O5 1 2 2 2 3 2
O6 2 2 3 3 4 2
O7 2 2 4 4 3 2
O8 2 2 3 3 3 2
O9 2 2 2 3 3 2
O10 3 3 3 3 4 2
O11 2 2 3 3 3 2
O12 1 2 3 2 3 2
O13 3 3 3 3 3 2
O14 3 3 3 3 3 3
O15 2 2 3 3 3 2
O16 3 3 3 3 3 3
O17 2 3 4 3 4 2
O18 2 4 4 4 4 4
O19 3 3 3 3 3 2
O20 2 3 3 4 3 2
O21 2 2 2 3 3 1
O22 2 2 3 3 3 2
O23 3 3 3 3 3 2
O24 2 3 3 3 3 2
O25 2 2 3 3 3 2
O26 4 4 4 4 3 4
O27 2 3 3 3 4 2
O28 2 2 3 3 3 2
O29 2 1 1 1 3 2
O30 3 3 3 3 3 3
O31 2 3 3 3 3 3
O32 1 3 4 4 4 1
∑ 72 84 96 97 104 72
2
(X) 5,184 7,056 9,216 9,409 10,816 5,184
∑xt2 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219
∑Xi2 176 236 302 307 344 176
∑xi2 14.000 15.500 14.000 12.969 6.000 14.000
∑XiXt 8,436 9,920 11,287 11,357 12,068 8,457
∑xixt 144.750 246.875 232.000 186.844 91.750 165.750
rit 0.502 0.814 0.805 0.674 0.486 0.575
rt 0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349
CRITERIA VALID VALID VALID VALID VALID VALID
si2 0.438 0.484 0.438 0.405 0.188 0.438
st2 185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257

ro(0.942) > rt(0.349)


241

Appendix 15:

VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE WRITING INTEREST QUESTIONNAIRE

Code Item No. Xt Xt2


37 38 39 40
O1 3 3 3 3 124 15,376
O2 3 3 4 4 152 23,104
O3 3 4 4 4 126 15,876
O4 2 2 2 2 105 11,025
O5 1 1 3 3 103 10,609
O6 2 3 3 2 120 14,400
O7 2 2 4 4 121 14,641
O8 2 2 3 3 103 10,609
O9 2 2 2 2 95 9,025
O10 2 3 3 3 125 15,625
O11 2 4 3 3 108 11,664
O12 2 3 2 3 101 10,201
O13 2 2 3 3 115 13,225
O14 2 3 3 3 119 14,161
O15 2 3 3 3 124 15,376
O16 3 3 3 3 122 14,884
O17 1 3 3 3 128 16,384
O18 2 4 4 4 132 17,424
O19 2 2 2 3 111 12,321
O20 1 3 3 2 111 12,321
O21 1 2 2 3 93 8,649
O22 2 3 3 2 107 11,449
O23 2 2 3 3 116 13,456
O24 2 2 3 3 121 14,641
O25 2 2 3 3 106 11,236
O26 4 4 3 4 142 20,164
O27 2 3 3 4 113 12,769
O28 2 3 3 2 111 12,321
O29 1 2 2 1 82 6,724
O30 3 3 3 3 119 14,161
O31 2 3 3 3 113 12,769
O32 1 4 4 3 117 13,689
∑ 65 88 95 94 3,685 430,279
2
(X) 4,225 7,744 9,025 8,836
∑xt2 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219 5,928.219
∑Xi2 147 260 293 292
∑xi2 14.969 18.000 10.969 15.875 482.781
∑XiXt 7,663 10,306 11,116 11,028
∑xixt 177.844 172.250 176.156 203.313
rit 0.597 0.527 0.691 0.663
rt 0.349 0.349 0.349 0.349
CRITERIA VALID VALID VALID VALID 40 VALID ITEMS

si2 0.468 0.563 0.343 0.496 ∑si2 15.087


st2 185.257 185.257 185.257 185.257

THE INSTRUMENT IS RELIABLE.


242
Appendix 16:

DATA OF WRITING INTEREST QUESTIONNAIRE


(THE EXPERIMENTAL GROUP)
QUESTIONNAIRE ITEM(S)
No. Code
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 X1 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 4 3
2 X2 2 2 4 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3
3 X3 4 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 4 2
4 X4 4 4 4 4 3 4 2 4 4 4 3
5 X5 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 X6 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 4 3 3
7 X7 3 4 4 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 2
8 X8 3 3 4 2 3 4 2 4 3 4 3
9 X9 3 4 3 4 4 3 2 2 3 2 2
10 X10 3 3 2 4 2 3 3 3 3 4 3
11 X11 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 4 3 3 3
12 X12 3 4 4 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3
13 X13 4 3 4 3 3 4 1 4 4 4 3
14 X14 2 3 4 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2
15 X15 3 3 4 2 3 1 2 2 3 3 2
16 X16 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 4 3 2
17 X17 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 4 3 2
18 X18 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 3
19 X19 3 4 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4
20 X20 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2
21 X21 2 3 4 3 3 4 2 2 3 2 2
22 X22 3 3 4 3 3 3 1 2 3 3 3
23 X23 3 3 4 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 2
24 X24 4 4 3 4 4 3 2 3 3 3 2
25 X25 3 3 3 4 4 3 2 2 3 3 3
26 X26 3 4 4 2 2 3 2 3 4 3 3
27 X27 3 2 4 4 2 3 1 1 3 4 2
28 X28 3 4 4 4 4 3 1 3 2 4 2
29 X29 3 4 4 3 3 2 2 4 3 3 3
30 X30 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 2 4
31 X31 2 3 4 4 4 4 3 2 4 1 4
32 X32 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 3 2 3 3
243
Appendix 16:

DATA OF WRITING INTEREST QUESTIONNAIRE


(THE EXPERIMENTAL GROUP)
QUESTIONNAIRE ITEM(S)
No. Code
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
1 X1 2 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 3 3 3
2 X2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2
3 X3 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 3
4 X4 2 4 1 1 3 2 4 2 4 2 3
5 X5 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3
6 X6 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3
7 X7 3 2 3 3 4 3 2 3 2 1 3
8 X8 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 2 2 2 3
9 X9 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 1 4 1 3
10 X10 2 1 1 2 3 3 4 1 3 1 4
11 X11 3 2 3 3 4 4 3 2 4 2 4
12 X12 2 2 3 2 4 3 1 3 3 2 4
13 X13 2 1 2 2 3 3 4 2 3 2 3
14 X14 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 3
15 X15 1 1 2 2 4 3 4 2 3 1 3
16 X16 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 4
17 X17 2 1 2 2 3 3 4 2 3 1 3
18 X18 3 3 3 2 4 3 4 3 4 3 3
19 X19 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 3 3 2 3
20 X20 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3
21 X21 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 2
22 X22 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 3
23 X23 2 1 1 1 3 2 3 2 2 2 3
24 X24 3 2 2 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 3
25 X25 2 1 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 1 3
26 X26 1 2 2 2 4 2 4 3 2 2 3
27 X27 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2
28 X28 3 2 2 2 4 4 4 2 4 2 3
29 X29 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 3
30 X30 2 1 2 3 4 4 4 3 4 2 4
31 X31 2 1 2 2 3 4 2 3 4 1 4
32 X32 2 2 2 2 4 4 3 4 3 2 3
244
Appendix 16:

DATA OF WRITING INTEREST QUESTIONNAIRE


(THE EXPERIMENTAL GROUP)
QUESTIONNAIRE ITEM(S)
No. Code
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
1 X1 4 4 4 4 3 2 4 3 3 3 3
2 X2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 X3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 X4 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 2 3 3
5 X5 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2
6 X6 3 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3
7 X7 3 4 3 3 3 2 3 1 2 2 2
8 X8 3 3 3 4 3 2 3 3 3 4 3
9 X9 2 3 3 4 4 4 3 2 4 4 2
10 X10 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 2
11 X11 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 3
12 X12 4 4 4 3 4 4 2 4 4 4 4
13 X13 4 3 2 4 4 4 4 3 2 4 3
14 X14 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 2
15 X15 1 4 3 4 3 2 2 3 2 4 1
16 X16 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3
17 X17 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 2 4 4 3
18 X18 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 3
19 X19 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 2
20 X20 2 3 3 3 3 4 2 3 3 2 2
21 X21 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2
22 X22 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3
23 X23 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 2
24 X24 3 4 3 4 3 3 2 4 3 3 3
25 X25 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 2 3 3 3
26 X26 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 4 3
27 X27 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 2
28 X28 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2
29 X29 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3
30 X30 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 2 3
31 X31 4 4 4 4 4 2 1 4 4 4 2
32 X32 2 3 4 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2
245
Appendix 16:

DATA OF WRITING INTEREST QUESTIONNAIRE


(THE EXPERIMENTAL GROUP)
QUESTIONNAIRE ITEM(S)
No. Code Score(s)
34 35 36 37 38 39 40
1 X1 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 117
2 X2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 91
3 X3 2 2 3 4 2 3 3 111
4 X4 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 123
5 X5 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 115
6 X6 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 117
7 X7 3 2 2 2 1 3 4 102
8 X8 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 119
9 X9 2 2 3 1 3 4 3 112
10 X10 2 2 1 1 3 3 3 98
11 X11 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 129
12 X12 3 2 3 4 3 4 4 126
13 X13 2 2 3 4 2 3 3 120
14 X14 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 99
15 X15 2 2 2 4 3 3 3 102
16 X16 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 107
17 X17 3 2 2 2 3 4 3 114
18 X18 3 2 3 3 4 4 4 137
19 X19 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 106
20 X20 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 107
21 X21 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 104
22 X22 3 2 4 2 3 3 3 107
23 X23 2 1 4 4 3 4 3 109
24 X24 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 120
25 X25 1 4 2 3 2 4 3 114
26 X26 3 2 3 3 3 4 4 116
27 X27 2 2 2 4 3 2 2 100
28 X28 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 112
29 X29 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 116
30 X30 3 2 3 4 4 4 3 126
31 X31 2 1 4 4 1 4 4 120
32 X32 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 113
MEDIAN = 113.5
246
Appendix 16:

DATA OF WRITING INTEREST QUESTIONNAIRE


(THE EXPERIMENTAL GROUP)

No. Code WRITING INTEREST

1 X1 HIGH
2 X2 LOW
3 X3 LOW
4 X4 HIGH
5 X5 HIGH
6 X6 HIGH
7 X7 LOW
8 X8 HIGH
9 X9 LOW
10 X10 LOW
11 X11 HIGH
12 X12 HIGH
13 X13 HIGH
14 X14 LOW
15 X15 LOW
16 X16 LOW
17 X17 HIGH
18 X18 HIGH
19 X19 LOW
20 X20 LOW
21 X21 LOW
22 X22 LOW
23 X23 LOW
24 X24 HIGH
25 X25 HIGH
26 X26 HIGH
27 X27 LOW
28 X28 LOW
29 X29 HIGH
30 X30 HIGH
31 X31 HIGH
32 X32 LOW
247
Appendix 16:

DATA OF WRITING INTEREST QUESTIONNAIRE


(THE CONTROL GROUP)
QUESTIONNAIRE ITEM(S)
No. Code
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 C1 3 2 3 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 C2 2 3 4 4 3 3 1 2 3 2 2
3 C3 3 3 4 4 4 3 2 4 4 3 3
4 C4 3 4 3 4 3 3 1 3 3 4 2
5 C5 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3
6 C6 2 4 4 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 3
7 C7 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3
8 C8 3 3 4 3 3 1 3 4 3 3 2
9 C9 2 3 4 3 3 4 1 2 3 3 2
10 C10 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 4 3 3
11 C11 3 3 4 3 2 3 1 4 3 3 2
12 C12 3 4 4 4 4 3 2 4 4 4 3
13 C13 3 3 4 4 4 3 1 4 4 3 3
14 C14 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 2 4
15 C15 3 4 4 3 3 3 2 3 4 3 3
16 C16 3 3 3 4 3 3 1 4 4 3 3
17 C17 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3
18 C18 3 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 3 3 3
19 C19 3 4 3 4 3 3 1 3 3 3 2
20 C20 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 1 2
21 C21 3 3 4 4 3 4 1 2 3 4 2
22 C22 \ 4 4 4 3 3 1 3 4 4 2
23 C23 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 2 4 3 3
24 C24 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3
25 C25 2 3 4 1 3 4 1 2 3 3 3
26 C26 2 3 4 4 2 3 1 2 4 3 3
27 C27 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 1 3 2 2
28 C28 3 3 3 4 2 2 3 4 4 4 3
29 C29 3 4 4 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4
30 C30 4 4 2 4 3 3 1 2 4 2 1
31 C31 3 4 3 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 2
32 C32 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 2 3 3 2
248
Appendix 16:

DATA OF WRITING INTEREST QUESTIONNAIRE


(THE CONTROL GROUP)
QUESTIONNAIRE ITEM(S)
No. Code
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
1 C1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 C2 1 1 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 2
3 C3 2 2 2 4 4 3 3 2 4 1 3
4 C4 2 2 3 2 3 2 4 2 3 1 3
5 C5 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 3
6 C6 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 3
7 C7 2 1 3 3 4 3 3 2 3 2 3
8 C8 2 2 2 3 4 3 3 2 4 2 3
9 C9 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 3
10 C10 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 2 3
11 C11 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 2 4 2 3
12 C12 3 1 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 1 4
13 C13 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 2 3
14 C14 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 4 2
15 C15 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3
16 C16 2 2 2 3 4 3 4 2 4 2 3
17 C17 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 3
18 C18 2 1 2 2 3 2 4 2 4 1 4
19 C19 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 2 4
20 C20 3 1 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 2 4
21 C21 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 2 4 2 3
22 C22 2 2 3 2 3 3 4 3 3 2 3
23 C23 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
24 C24 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 3
25 C25 1 1 2 4 4 3 3 4 2 1 4
26 C26 2 1 2 2 2 4 3 1 4 1 1
27 C27 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 1
28 C28 2 3 2 2 3 2 4 2 4 2 3
29 C29 2 1 3 3 3 3 4 3 2 1 4
30 C30 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 4 2 3
31 C31 2 2 1 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 3
32 C32 2 1 2 2 3 4 3 2 3 2 3
249
Appendix 16:

DATA OF WRITING INTEREST QUESTIONNAIRE


(THE CONTROL GROUP)
QUESTIONNAIRE ITEM(S)
No. Code
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
1 C1 2 3 3 3 3 2 4 4 3 4 2
2 C2 2 3 3 4 3 3 2 4 3 3 2
3 C3 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 2
4 C4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 2 3 2
5 C5 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2
6 C6 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 1
7 C7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3
8 C8 3 3 2 3 4 3 2 3 3 3 3
9 C9 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 2
10 C10 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3
11 C11 4 3 3 3 4 3 2 4 3 4 3
12 C12 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 1 1 4 3
13 C13 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3
14 C14 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 3
15 C15 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3
16 C16 3 3 3 2 4 4 4 4 3 2 3
17 C17 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2
18 C18 4 4 3 3 4 3 2 3 3 4 2
19 C19 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3
20 C20 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3
21 C21 4 2 4 3 3 3 2 4 3 4 3
22 C22 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3
23 C23 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3
24 C24 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2
25 C25 3 2 4 2 2 3 4 2 2 4 4
26 C26 2 3 4 4 3 2 1 3 4 4 1
27 C27 1 1 1 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 2
28 C28 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 3
29 C29 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 1 2 3 2
30 C30 3 4 3 3 4 4 2 4 2 4 2
31 C31 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 2
32 C32 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 1 2 2 3
250
Appendix 16:

DATA OF WRITING INTEREST QUESTIONNAIRE


(THE CONTROL GROUP)
QUESTIONNAIRE ITEM(S)
No. Code Score(s)
34 35 36 37 38 39 40
1 C1 2 1 3 4 2 3 3 106
2 C2 2 1 2 4 2 3 3 101
3 C3 2 1 3 4 1 3 4 122
4 C4 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 109
5 C5 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 103
6 C6 2 1 1 4 2 4 2 102
7 C7 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 112
8 C8 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 111
9 C9 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 104
10 C10 3 2 3 2 3 4 3 121
11 C11 1 2 3 3 3 3 4 121
12 C12 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 121
13 C13 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 114
14 C14 3 2 2 4 3 2 3 111
15 C15 2 2 3 4 2 3 3 117
16 C16 3 2 3 4 2 3 3 120
17 C17 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 101
18 C18 2 2 4 3 3 4 4 120
19 C19 1 4 4 4 3 4 3 129
20 C20 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 131
21 C21 2 1 3 4 3 4 3 115
22 C22 2 4 3 4 4 2 3 119
23 C23 3 2 3 2 2 4 3 116
24 C24 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 106
25 C25 4 4 4 2 3 2 4 113
26 C26 3 3 3 4 2 3 3 106
27 C27 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 88
28 C28 2 2 2 3 2 4 3 117
29 C29 3 3 4 1 3 4 3 119
30 C30 1 1 3 4 1 3 2 109
31 C31 3 2 4 3 3 4 3 105
32 C32 3 1 3 1 3 3 3 105
MEDIAN = 112.5
251
Appendix 16:

DATA OF WRITING INTEREST QUESTIONNAIRE


(THE CONTROL GROUP)

No. Code WRITING INTEREST

1 C1 LOW
2 C2 LOW
3 C3 HIGH
4 C4 LOW
5 C5 LOW
6 C6 LOW
7 C7 LOW
8 C8 LOW
9 C9 LOW
10 C10 HIGH
11 C11 HIGH
12 C12 HIGH
13 C13 HIGH
14 C14 LOW
15 C15 HIGH
16 C16 HIGH
17 C17 LOW
18 C18 HIGH
19 C19 HIGH
20 C20 HIGH
21 C21 HIGH
22 C22 HIGH
23 C23 HIGH
24 C24 LOW
25 C25 HIGH
26 C26 LOW
27 C27 LOW
28 C28 HIGH
29 C29 HIGH
30 C30 LOW
31 C31 LOW
32 C32 LOW
252

Appendix 17:

STUDENTS OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUP SORTED BY


WRITING INTEREST

No. Code Score(s) WRITING INTEREST

1 X18 137
2 X11 129
3 X12 126
4 X30 126
HIGH
5
6
X4
X13
123
120
27 %
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
18 X28 112
19 X9 112
20 X3 111
LOW

21 X23 109
22 X16 107
23 X20 107
24 X22 107
25 X19 106
26 X21 104
27 X15 102
28
29
X7
X27
102
100
27 %
30 X14 99
31 X10 98
32 X2 91
253

Appendix 18:

EMAIL ACCOUNTS OF STUDENTS OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUP


WRITING
No. Code email address(es)
INTEREST
1 X18 yunita bawelzz@rocketmail.com
2 X11 rossflowers@rocketmail.com
3 X12 imuts.kecil@yahoo.com
4 X30 theresiamanalu_19@ymail.com
5 X4 kha satu@yahoo.co.id 27 %
6 X13 smile patriot@yahoo.com

HIGH
7 X24 shi_by@ymail.com
8 X31 Blu3 Luckygirl@ymail.com
9 X8 fr3dy bhudazs@ymail.com
10 X1 tha2art@gmail.com
11 X6 Eddy 2393@yahoo.co.id
12 X26 Ryacute83@ymail.com
13 X29 Pi lv Mi@ymail.com
14 X5 Crezytei@yahoo.com
15 X17 noe nie@ymail.com
16 X25 yma nie3zz@yahoo.co.id
17 X32 morerie ckp@ymail.com
18 X28 Hanz_beb09@yahoo.com
19 X9 glitterpy iV4nZa@yahoo.com
20 X3 e3n im0etz@ymail.com
21 X23 eizha@ymail.com
22 X16 nirmalasarim@yahoo.co.id
LOW

23 X20 sweet babz93@yahoo.co.id


24 X22 oby.goen@gmail.com
25 X19 yua adjah@yahoo.com
26 X21 olge oct@yahooo.co.id
27 X15 lienopius@yahoo.com
28 X7 rie_luv_mel@ymail.com 27 %
29 X27 slv mtz@yahoo.com
30 X14 karina.noprianti@rocketmail.com
31 X10 hery_yatitsu@yahoo.com
32 X2 berkat.imanuel@ymail.com
254

Appendix 19:
STUDENTS OF CONTROL GROUP SORTED BY
WRITING INTEREST

WRITING
No. Code Score(s)
INTEREST

1 C20 131
2 C19 129
3 C3 122
4 C10 121
27 %
HIGH
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
18 C14 111
19 C8 111
20 C30 109
21 C4 109
LOW

22 C1 106
23 C24 106
24 C26 106
25 C31 105
26 C32 105
27
28
C9
C5
104
103
27 %
29 C6 102
30 C17 101
31 C2 101
32 C27 88
For
research
Appendix 20:
Paper-Based Portfolio Builder
purpose

Abdul Syahid

Th s Portfo is for you:


 help yo p you wr t nw wt
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:
drawings
posters draft

revision

commen

tests reports poems


258
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
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

Language
Biography

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:
…………………………………………………………………………….
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

Sometimes

Regularly
Never

Often
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:
…………………………………………………………………………………………
………
264
265
266
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.
 I would like to
 Write English stories, etc
 Write to people from English speaking countries.
 Write and send SMS to my classmates in English

Date :

Date :

Date :
270

Language Biography –
Lesson 1

Language Skill My teacher’s


My opinion
opinion

could be better

could be better
very well

very well
well

well
I can write a procedure text/
instruction.
Writing

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
271

Language Biography –
Lesson 2

Language Skill My teacher’s


My opinion
opinion

very well

very well
could be

could be
better

better
well

well
I can write an invitation of my
birthday party.
Writing

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?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………
Completed on:
………………………………..
My signature
272

Language Biography
– Lesson 3

Language Skill My teacher’s


My opinion
opinion

very well

very well
could be

could be
better

better
well

well
I can write an announcement clearly.
Writing

Have I achieved the learning goals I made at the end of Meeting 2?


………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………
What did I do to achieve these goals?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………
My new learning goals at the end of Meeting 3:
I think I need to work more on:
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………
What have I discovered about my learning?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………
Completed on:
………………………………..
My signature
273

Language Biography
– Lesson 4

Language Skill My teacher’s


My opinion
opinion

very well

very well
could be

could be
better

better
well

well
I can write an advertisement.
Writing

Have I achieved the learning goals I made at the end of Meeting 3?


………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………
What did I do to achieve these goals?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………
My new learning goals at the end of Meeting 4:
I think I need to work more on:
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………
What have I discovered about my learning?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………
Completed on:
………………………………..
My signature
274

Language Biography
– Lesson 5 + 6

Language Skill My teacher’s


My opinion
opinion

very well

very well
could be

could be
better

better
well

well
I can write a composition about my past
experience.
Writing

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?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………
Completed on:
………………………………..
My signature
275

Language Biography
– Lesson 7 + 8

Language Skill My teacher’s


My opinion
opinion

very well

very well
could be

could be
better

better
well

well
I can write a story that begins or ends with a
given sentence.
Writing

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?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………
Completed on:
………………………………..
My signature
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.

Title of Activity
No. It can be
done after

1 Safety first.
2 A party
3 For sale
4 Sports are fun!
5 Party time
6 Story time
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
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.
285
286
287
288

Writing Tools
289
290
291
292
293
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 Peer Items to Check
Check 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
297
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
X18 62 C20 52
X11 62 C19 45
HIGH
X12 60 C3 44
27 %

X30 60 C10 42
X4 58 C11 42
X13 58 C12 38
X24 57 C16 38
X31 55 C18 37
X8 53 C22 35
X22 44 C26 50
X19 42 C31 49
LOW

X21 40 C32 47
27 %

X15 39 C9 47
X7 39 C5 45
X27 39 C6 45
X14 37 C17 44
X10 35 C2 42
X2 35 C27 40
303
Appendix 23:
Score(s) of Writing Test (Experimental Group)
Criteria
Content Organization Vocabulary
No. Code
13 - 30 7 - 20 7 - 20
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
e Rater 2

Abdul Syahid Dra. Martini


NIP 19701004 199512 100 1 NIP 19641214 199512 100 3
304
Appendix 23:
Score(s) of Writing Test (Experimental Group)
Criteria
Language Use/ Grammar Mechanics WRITING SCORE
No. Code FINAL SCORE
6 - 25 2-5
Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 1 Rater 2 ∑ Rater 1 ∑ Rater 2
1 X18 13 13 4 4 63 61 62
2 X11 13 13 4 4 62 62 62
3 X12 12 12 4 4 61 59 60
4 X30 13 13 4 4 60 60 60
5 X4 13 13 3 4 57 59 58
6 X13 14 12 3 3 59 57 58
7 X24 12 12 3 3 57 57 57
8 X31 11 12 3 3 55 55 55
9 X8 11 11 3 3 53 53 53
10 X22 8 8 3 3 46 42 44
11 X19 8 9 3 3 41 43 42
12 X21 7 7 3 3 40 40 40
13 X15 7 7 3 3 39 39 39
14 X7 7 8 3 2 39 39 39
15 X27 7 8 2 2 39 39 39
16 X14 7 7 2 2 37 37 37
17 X10 6 6 2 2 35 35 35
18 X2 6 6 2 2 35 35 35
Rater 1 Rater 2

Abd d Dra. Martini


NIP 19701004 199512 100 1 NIP 19641214 199512 100 3
305
Appendix 23:
Score(s) of the Writing Test (Control Group)
Criteria
Content Organization Vocabulary
No. Code
13 - 30 7 - 20 7 - 20
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
te Rater 2

Abdul Syahid Dra. Martini


NIP 19701004 199512 100 1 NIP 19641214 199512 100 3
306
Appendix 23:
Score(s) of the Writing Test (Control Group)
Criteria
Language Use/ Grammar Mechanics WRITING SCORE FINAL
No. Code
6 - 25 2-5 SCORE
Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 1 Rater 2 ∑ Rater 1 ∑ Rater 2
1 C20 10 10 4 4 51 53 52
2 C19 8 8 3 3 44 46 45
3 C3 8 8 3 3 44 44 44
4 C10 9 8 3 3 42 42 42
5 C11 7 7 3 3 42 42 42
6 C12 6 6 3 3 38 38 38
7 C16 7 7 2 2 38 38 38
8 C18 7 7 2 2 38 36 37
9 C22 6 6 2 2 35 35 35
10 C26 10 10 3 3 50 50 50
11 C31 9 10 3 3 48 50 49
12 C32 9 9 3 3 48 46 47
13 C9 9 9 3 3 48 46 47
14 C5 8 9 3 3 44 46 45
15 C6 9 8 3 3 46 44 45
16 C17 8 8 3 3 44 44 44
17 C2 8 7 3 3 43 41 42
18 C27 7 8 2 2 39 41 40
t Rater 2

Abdul Syahid Dra. Martini


NIP 19701004 199512 100 1 NIP 19641214 199512 100 3
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

CLASS CLASS
NO. MIDPOINT TALLY FREQUENCY %
LIMITS BOUNDARIES
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
Class
No. Frequency (fi) Midpoint (Xi) fiXi
Limits
1 34 – 38 3 36 108
2 39 – 43 5 41 205
3 44 – 48 1 46 46
309

Class
No. Frequency (fi) Midpoint (Xi) fiXi
Limits
4 49 – 53 1 51 51
5 54 – 58 4 56 224
6 59 – 63 4 61 244
18 878

3. Mode
Class
No. Frequency (fi)
Limits
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
Class
No. Frequency (fi)
Limits
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
Class
No. fi Xi ci c i2 f i ci f i c i2
Limits
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


Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
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


Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
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
a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown
316

Paper-based Portfolio Learning


Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
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

a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown


318

Paper-based Portfolio Learning with High Writing Interest


Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
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

a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown


320

Paper-based Portfolio Learning with Low Writing Interest

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent 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
Table 9 - 12
No. Xi Xi2 s zi 0.5 - tv Rank n Lo Lt
Value (absolute)

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(z i) – 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
Table 9 - 12
No. Xi Xi2 s zi 0.5 - tv Rank n Lo Lt
Value (absolute)

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
Table 9 - 12
No. Xi Xi2 s zi 0.5 - tv Rank n Lo Lt
Value (absolute)

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

The highest value of |F(zi) – s(zi)| or Lo is 0.1507. Lt = 0.2710. Because Lo is lower than Lt or Lo(0.1507) < Lt(0.2710), it can be

concluded that the sample is in normal distribution.


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
Table 9 - 12
No. Xi Xi2 s zi 0.5 - tv Rank n Lo Lt
Value (absolute)
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
The highest value of |F(zi) – s(zi)| or Lo is 0.1012. Lt = 0.2000. Because Lo is lower than Lt or Lo(0.1012) < Lt(0.2000), it can be

concluded that the sample is in normal distribution.


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
Table 9 - 12
No. Xi Xi2 s zi 0.5 - tv Rank n Lo Lt
Value (absolute)
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

The highest value of |F(zi) – s(zi)| or Lo is 0.1898. Lt = 0.2710. Because Lo is lower than Lt or Lo(0.1898) < Lt(0.2710), it can be

concluded that the sample is in normal distribution.


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
Table 9 - 12
No. Xi Xi2 s zi 0.5 - tv Rank n Lo Lt
Value (absolute)
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

The highest value of |F(zi) – s(zi)| or Lo is 0.1113. Lt = 0.2710. Because Lo is lower than Lt or Lo(0.1898) < Lt(0.2710), it can be

concluded that the sample is in normal distribution.

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 9 9 18
∑X 525 350 875
B1
∑ X2 30,699 13,682 44,381
Mean 58.33333 38.88889 48.61111
n 9 9 18
∑X 373 409 782
B2
∑ 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) s i2 log si2 (df) log si2

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 Electronic-based Portfolio Paper-based Portfolio
EFFECT (A1) (A2)

SIMPLE
EFFECT
62 GROUP 1 52 GROUP 3
62 45
60 ∑X= 525 44 ∑X= 373 ∑ Xr1 = 898
High 60 42
Writing
58 = 58.333 42 = 41.444 = 49.889
Interest
(B1) 58 38
57 38
55 37
53 35
44 GROUP 2 50 GROUP 4
42 49
40 ∑X= 350 47 ∑X= 409 ∑ Xr2 = 759
Low 39 47
Writing
39 = 38.889 45 = 45.444 = 42.167
Interest
(B2) 39 45
37 44
35 42
35 40
∑X = 1,657
Total
= 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 Electronic-based Portfolio Paper-based Portfolio


EFFECT (A1) (A2)

SIMPLE
EFFECT
62 GROUP 1 52 GROUP 3
62 45
60 ∑X= 525 44 ∑X= 373 ∑ Xr1 = 898
High 60 42
Writing
58 = 58.333 42 = 41.444 = 49.889
Interest
(B1) 58 38
57 38
55 37
53 35
44 GROUP 2 50 GROUP 4
42 49
40 ∑X= 350 47 ∑X= 409 ∑ Xr2 = 759
Low 39 47
Writing
39 = 38.889 45 = 45.444 = 42.167
Interest
(B2) 39 45
37 44
35 42
35 40
∑X = 1,657
Total
= 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