Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
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
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
Chairman
NIP
Secretary
NIP
Acknowledged by
The Director of Graduate School The Head of English Education Program
Sebelas Maret University
iii
ABSTRACT
iv
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORSHIP
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.
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)
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
ix
5. Disadvantages of Electronic-Based Portfolio Learning … 81
6. Points of Difference from Paper-Based Portfolio Learning 84
x
LIST OF TABLE
xi
TABLE OF FIGURES
xii
TABLE OF APPENDICES
(in Chronological Order)
xiii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
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.‖
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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?
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
1. Introduction
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?‖
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).
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
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
3. Writing Skills
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
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.
until they are satisfied with the end result. Thus, writing is a ‗process through which
meaning is created‘ (Zamel, 1982: 195).
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.
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!
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
3) Planning
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
1) Overall Targets
2) Tasks
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
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.
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
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
2. Constructivist Learning
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.‖
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
a. Implementation Stages
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
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.
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
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
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.‖
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.‖
2. Constructivist Learning
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.‖
a. Guidelines of Implementation
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
a. First Benefit
79
b. Second Benefit
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
d. Fourth Benefit
e. Fifth Benefit
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
c. Third Disadvantage
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.‖
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
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
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
―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.‖
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:
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
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
F. Hypothesis
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‖.
99
100
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:
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
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‖.
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
1. Population
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
3. Sampling
1. Questionnaire
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.
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
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
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:
b. Reliability
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
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
8. Between column 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
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.
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
124
125
Table 4.1.
Item Validity of the Writing Interest Questionnaire
= 273
127
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).
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
Table 4.11.
Homogeneity Testing
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L., & Razavieh, A. 1985. Introduction to Research in Education.
New York: CBS College Publishing.
156
157
Bozek, P. E. 1991. 50-Minute Tips for Better Communication. Menlo Park: Crisp
Publications.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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
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.
Gelb, I. Jay, & Whiting, R. M. 2008. "Writing." Microsoft® Student 2009 [DVD].
Redmond: Microsoft Corporation.
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
Harmer, J. 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching (Third Edition). Essex:
Pearson Education Limited.
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.
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.
Marc, David. 2008. "F. Scott Fitzgerald." Microsoft® Student 2009 [DVD].
Redmond: Microsoft Corporation, 2008.
Nunan, D. 1999. Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle
Publisher.
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.
Porter, C., & Cleland, J. 1995. The Portfolio as a Learning Strategy. Portsmouth:
Boynton/Cook Publishers, 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.
Reid, J. M. 1993. Teaching ESL Writing. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Regents.
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.
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.
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.
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
Thornbury, S. 1996. ‗Teachers Research Teacher Talk‘. ELT Journal. 50/4: 279-289.
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
White, R. and Arndt, V. 1991. Process Writing. Essex: Addison Wesley Longman
Ltd.
166
―writing‖. 2009. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved August 18, 2009 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing
Appendix 1:
Scoring:
Appendix 2:
ANGKET
Abdul Syahid
Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris
Program Pasca Sarjana - Universitas Sebelas Maret -
Surakarta
169
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.
175
Appendix 3:
Nama
Kelas
Code
Code
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)).
Appendix 6:
WRITING TEST
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.
Appendix 7:
READABILITY STATISTICS
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyu
iopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg
183
Appendix 8:
hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv
bnmqwert bnmqwe
LESSON PLAN
LESSON PLAN I
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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).
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.
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
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
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
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.
ATM machine
A cook To inform how to make Recipe
fried rice.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Questions:
1. Did Rosaura eat her meal quickly?
2. Did her father look away in disappointment?
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?
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.
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.
Appendix 13:
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:
Respondent ID
Name Sex Code
No. No.
Appendix 15:
6
236
Appendix 15:
Appendix 15:
Appendix 15:
0.942
239
Appendix 15:
Appendix 15:
Appendix 15:
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:
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:
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:
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
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
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.
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
revision
commen
Language
Biography
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 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.
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
could be better
could be better
very well
very well
well
well
I can write a procedure text/
instruction.
Writing
Completed on:
………………………………..
My signature
271
Language Biography –
Lesson 2
very well
very well
could be
could be
better
better
well
well
I can write an invitation of my
birthday party.
Writing
Language Biography
– Lesson 3
very well
very well
could be
could be
better
better
well
well
I can write an announcement clearly.
Writing
Language Biography
– Lesson 4
very well
very well
could be
could be
better
better
well
well
I can write an advertisement.
Writing
Language Biography
– Lesson 5 + 6
very well
very well
could be
could be
better
better
well
well
I can write a composition about my past
experience.
Writing
Language Biography
– Lesson 7 + 8
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
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
Writing Tools
289
290
291
292
293
294
Revising/Editing Checklists
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):
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
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
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
3. Range (r) is 62 – 35 = 27
1 + (3.3) log n
= 1 + (3.3) log 18
= 1 + (3.3) (1.255273)
= 5.142399267
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
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
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
Range 9.00
Minimum 53.00
Maximum 62.00
Sum 525.00
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
Range 9.00
Minimum 35.00
Maximum 44.00
Sum 350.00
314
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
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
Range 17.00
Minimum 35.00
Maximum 52.00
Sum 373.00
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
Range 10.00
Minimum 40.00
Maximum 50.00
Sum 409.00
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
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
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
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
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
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
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.
8.
Appendix 26:
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
–
1,236.694
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
a. Because Fo between columns (17.341) is higher than Ft(.05) (4.149) and Ft(.01)
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
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
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,
of writing.
b. Between column(HWI):
Because between column qo is higher than qt(.05) 3.20 and qt(.01) 4.60, in the
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
c. Between column(LWI):
Because between column qo is higher than qt(.05) 3.20 and qt(.01) 4.60, in the
electronic-based portfolio learning for the students who have low writing
interest. Because the mean score of the students taught by using paper-based
Appendix 27:
NOTIFICATION