Upload
nguyenanh
View
218
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN STUDENTS’
AND TEACHERS’ BELIEFS ON EFFECTIVE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING
(A Survey on SMA Negeri 3 Tangerang Selatan)
A “Skripsi”
Presented to Faculty of Educational Sciences
in the Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of S.Pd. (S-1) in English Education
By:
Dessi Wulandari
NIM. 1111014000124
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATION
THE FACULTY OF EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES
SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY
JAKARTA
2016
iii
ABSTRAK
Wulandari, Dessi, 1111014000124. “Comparative Analysis between Students’
and Teachers’ Beliefs on Effective English Language Teaching (A Suevey on
SMA Negeri 3 Tangerang Selatan)”, Skripsi, Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris,
Fakultas Ilmu Tarbiyah dan Keguruan, Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif
Hidayatullah.
Kata kunci: Students’ Beliefs, Teachers’ Beliefs, Effective Language Teaching
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mendeskripsikan tentang perbedaan persepsi antara
dosen dan mahasiswa mengenai pengajaran bahasa Inggris yang efektif yang
berhubungan pada beberapa aspek pembelajaran bahasa yang berbeda seperti
pengajaran gramar, koreksi pada error, budaya, penggunaan bahasa target,
penggunaan computer berbasis tekhnologi, strategi pengajaran bahasa yang
komunikatif, dan penilaian.
Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah kualitatif. Data
diperoleh dari siswa dan guru bahasa inggris dari kelas XI di SMA Negeri 3,
Tangerang Selatan. Data dikumpulkan melalui kuisioner yang diberikan kepada
siswa dan guru bahasa inggris. Hasil dari kuisioner yang telah dikumpulkan diolah
menggunaka independent t-test untuk mencari perbedaan rata-rata antara kedua
partisipan.
Dari hasil analisa data tersebut dapat disimpulkan bahwa terdapat beberapa
perbedaan persepsi antara siswa dan guru yaitu mengenai pengajaran gramar,
strategi pengajaran yang komunikatif dan penggunaan bahasa target dalam
pengajaran bahasa Inggris.
iv
ABSTRACT
Wulandari, Dessi, 1111014000124. “Comparative Analysis between Students’
and Teachers’ Beliefs on Effective English Language Teaching (A Suevey on
SMA Negeri 3 Tangerang Selatan)”, Skripsi of Department of English
Education, Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teachers Training, Syarif Hidayarullah State
Islamic University.
Keywords: Students’ Beliefs, Teachers’ Beliefs, Effective Language Teaching
This study was aimed to describe the differences between students’ and teachers’
beliefs on effective English language teaching regarding different aspects of
language learning such as grammar teaching, error correction, culture, target
language use, computer-based technology, communicative language teaching
strategies and assessment.
The methodology being used in this study was qualitative. The participants were
taken from the XI grade students and English teachers of SMA Negeri 3, South
Tangerang. The data was conducted by questionnaire given to the students and
English Teachers. The response from the questionnaire was analysed using
independent t-test to calculate the diffence mean from both, teachers’ and
students’ responses.
The result can be concluded that there are some differences between students’ and
teachers’ beliefs in some aspects. They are grammar teaching, communicative
teaching strategies, and target language use.
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent and the Merciful
All praised is due to Allah, Lord of the world, who has given the writer love
and blessing to finish her last assignment in the her study, “Skripsi”. Peace and
salutation be upon to the prophet Muhammad Peace be Upon Him, his family, his
companion and his adherence.
It is a pleasure to acknowledge the help and contributions to all of lecturers,
institutions, family and friends who have contributed in the different ways hence
this “Skripsi” is processed until it becomes a complete writing which will be
presented to the Faculty of Tarbiya and Teachers’ Training in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree S. Pd (Bachelor of Arts) in English Languge
Education.
First, the writer would like to give thanks to her advisors Dr. Fahriany, M. Pd.
and Dr. Ranta Sari Dewi, M. Pd. who have given her precious help, guidance and
advices patiently during the completion and the development of the study.
The writer also realize that she will never able to finish this “Skripsi” without
help and support from people around her. Therefore, the writer would like to give
her gratitude and appreciations to:
1. Prof. Dr. Ahmad Thib Raya, MA., as the Dean of Faculty of Tarbiya and
Teachers’ Traning Islamic State University Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
2. Dr. Alek, M.Pd, as the Head of Department of English Education
3. Zaharil Anasy, M.Hum, as the Secretary of Department of English
Education
4. All lecturers of Department of English Education who always give
motivation and valuable knowledge during my study.
5. To the writer’s Papa, Mama, and her little sister and all my family that
always support her.
vi
6. To the writer’s collage best friends Ajeng Rizky Agita, Dwi Ratnasari,
Niki Brilian Rindu Putri, Ditta Fidia Anggiarini, Nunky Aprilia, and Esti
Setianingrum who always be there whenever she needed.
7. To the writer’s friend Omar Bettar who always help her and support her in
working on this skripsi.
8. All XI grade students and teachers of SMA Negeri 3 Tangerang Selatan as
the participant of this research.
9. All friends from Class C 2011 who always together no matter what.
The words are not enough to say any appreciation for their help and
contribution in this “Skripsi”. May Allah, the Almighty bless them all. Moreover,
the writer also realized that this “Skripsi” is far from perfect. It is a pleasure for
her to get critiques and suggestion to make this “Skripsi” better.
Jakarta, July 2016
Dessi Wulandari
vii
Table of Content
APPROVAL ......................................................................................................i
ENDORSEMENT SHEET ...............................................................................ii
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................iii
ABSTRAK .........................................................................................................iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ..................................................................................v
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................vii
LIST OF TABLE ..............................................................................................ix
LIST OF APPENDICES ..................................................................................x
Chapter I INTRODUCTION
1. Background of the Study .........................................................................1
2. Identification of the Problem ..................................................................3
3. The Limitation of the Study ....................................................................3
4. Research Question ...................................................................................3
5. The Objective of the Study .....................................................................4
6. The Significance of the Study .................................................................4
Chapter II LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Beliefs .....................................................................................................5
1. The Nature of Belief..........................................................................5
2. Teachers and Students Beliefs ..........................................................6
B. Effective Language Teaching .................................................................8
1. Definition of Effective Language Teaching ......................................9
2. Aspects of Effective Language Teaching .........................................10
viii
3. Characteristic of Effective Language Teaching ................................13
4. Some Categories of Effective Language Teaching ...........................14
a. Grammar Teaching ......................................................................14
b. Error Correction...........................................................................15
c. Target Language Use ...................................................................16
d. Culture .........................................................................................17
e. Computer-Based Technology ......................................................19
f. Communicative Language Teaching ...........................................20
g. Assessment ..................................................................................21
C. Previous Related Studies .........................................................................23
D. Thinking Framework ...............................................................................24
Chapter III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A. Place and Time of the Study ...................................................................26
B. Research Method .....................................................................................26
C. Participant ...............................................................................................27
D. Technique of Data Collection .................................................................27
E. Data Analysis ..........................................................................................30
Chapter IV RESEARCH FINDING AND DISCUSSION
A. Research Findings ..................................................................................31
1. Data Description................................................................................31
2. Data Analysis ....................................................................................36
B. Interpretation ...........................................................................................38
Chapter V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion ..............................................................................................41
B. Suggestion ...............................................................................................41
REFERENCES ..............................................................................................43
APPENDIXES ..............................................................................................47
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Effective Teaching Questionnaire .............................................27
Table 3.2 General Categories of Questionnaire ........................................29
Table 4.1 Teachers’ Responses of Effective English Language
Teaching Questionnaire ..............................................................31
Table 4.2 Students’ Responses of Effective English Language
Teaching Questionnaire ..............................................................33
Table 4.3 Comparison of Student and Teacher Means by Questionnaire
Item .............................................................................................34
Table 4.4 Comparison of Significant Difference Items of Student
And Teacher Means ....................................................................37
x
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: Effective Teaching Questionnaire ......................................47
APPENDIX 2: Independent T-test Output .................................................50
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1. Background of the Study
Recently the field of foreign language pedagogy and second language
acquisition has changed our way of thinking. Recently, there is one variable
which has received a lot of attention in teaching and learning process. This
variable is beliefs. Beliefs have important role in language teaching process.
The different beliefs between teacher and student can influence the effectives
of language teaching process. This problem has raised language practitioners
and researchers attention. The strong beliefs that teacher bring to the
classroom are thought to be stumbling blocks in the reform of effective
classroom instruction.
Beliefs itself can be defined as “psychologically held understandings,
premises, or propositions about the world that are felt to be true”1. In another
word, beliefs are something that you cannot see or touch but it is something
in your mind that you feel true. Belief also means as the root of our thought.
It influenced the way we think. In language learning, beliefs define as
previous experiences as language learners as well as cultural background are
both likely to influence and shape learners’ beliefs about foreign or second
language learning2. Investigations into students’ beliefs of effective teaching
are necessary, so that teachers in training and practitioners can understand
how to approach and improve their practice. When a teacher and his or her
students have opposing views about what should occur in the classroom, the
students may lack confidence in the teacher’s ability.
1 Virginia Richardson, “Preservice Teachers’ Beliefs”, in James Raths and Amy Raths
McAninch (ed), Teacher Beliefs and Classroom Performance: The Impact of Teacher Education,
(Greenwich: Information Age Publishing, 2003), p.2. 2 Mustafa Zülküf Altan, Pre-service EFL teachers’ beliefs about foreign language
learning, European Journal of Teacher Education. 2012, p.481
2
Besides that, teacher might also hold some kind of beliefs about
language teaching that will affect their instructional practices. Teachers’
beliefs are important concepts in understanding their instructional practices.
When their instructional practices do not fulfil what students need, teaching
process become not effective. Moreover, according to Feiman-Nemser and
Floden in Ta'amneh’s journal, teacher beliefs have an important role in
shaping instruction because there is a lack of consensus about the best
practice based on objective evidence3. So language teachers especially the
one with little experiences may misunderstand toward language teaching
concept that they hold and it may be not effective for their students.
Moreover, learners are multidimensional beings; they are combination
of some different variables that could help them to learn whatever they are
learning in the best possible way4. According to Brown in Ganjabi’s journal,
to realize this multidimensionality, teachers and researchers have noted that
both teachers’ and students’ beliefs and attitudes should have a room in the
process of language learning and teaching5. The gap between teachers’ and
students’ beliefs might cause a problem in teaching and learning activity.
Moreover, learners’ perceptions and interpretations have been found to have
the greatest influence on achievement and somehow students’ and teachers’
beliefs may not be the same. The different beliefs that teachers and learners
hold towards the process of language teaching can negatively influence the
effectiveness of language program.
Effective language teaching defines as meaningful and appropriate
teaching process. It has to be meaningful so learners can reach what they need
and receive maximum benefit from teacher instructions. When teachers and
learners’ have different beliefs, the meaningful learning process might not be
accomplished. Altan in his research concluded that foreign language teacher
3 Mohammad Abd Alhafeez Ali Ta'amneh, Exploring the Harmony between Jordanian
EFLTeachers’ and Students’ Beliefs about Vocabulary Learning Strategies, Journal of Language
Teaching and Research, 2015, pp. 78-84. 4 Mahyar Ganjabi, Effective Foreign Language Teaching: a Matter of Iranian Students’
and Teachers’ Beliefs, English Language Teachin Journal, 2011, p.46 5 Ibid
3
educators and teacher trainers could not afford to ignore students’ beliefs if
they expect their students to be open to particular teaching methods and to
receive the maximum benefit from them6. Moreover, knowing learners’
beliefs about effective language teaching could increase teacher educators’
understanding to create effective language teaching program. Besides that, by
knowing the difference beliefs between teachers and students can help
teachers fulfil students’ needs.
So, here the writer will investigate the beliefs between teacher and
student of XI grade students and English teachers in SMA Negeri 3
Tangerang Selatan to reveal the different beliefs between them regarding
different categorizes of effective language teaching.
2. Identification of the Problem
1. Students have lack confidence in teachers’ ability because of the different
beliefs between them.
2. Teachers give inappropriate instructional practices.
3. The different beliefs that teachers and learners hold might negatively
influence the effectiveness of language program.
3. The Limitation of the Study
The writer will limit the study only in comparing the items with
significant difference between teachers’ and students’ beliefs on effective
English language teaching.
4. Research Question
The research question of this study is:
“How do students’ beliefs about effective English language teaching
compared to the teacher’s beliefs?”
6 Mustafa Zülküf Altan, Beliefs about Language Learning of Foreign Language-Major
University Students, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 31, 2006, pp. 45-52.
4
5. The Objective of the Study
The objective of this study is to run a detail and comprehensive
comparison between teachers’ and students’ beliefs about effective language
teaching.
6. The Significance of the Study
The significances of this research are:
1. English teacher and student, to help them improve their beliefs toward
effective language teaching.
2. Student and teacher, to avoid the gap in teaching and learning process
between them.
3. The future researchers who are going to conduct the same topic of this
research, the researcher hopes this can give them some information for
their further related material research.
5
CHAPTER II
THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK
A. Beliefs
1. The Nature of Belief
The term, beliefs about language learning, were not clearly defined by
researchers in previous studies. It seems either that the researchers assumed
that the term can be understood intuitively or that the construct is too
complex to be operationalized. Even according to Horwitz, one of the pioneer
researchers of the studies on beliefs about language learning refers to
―beliefs‖ using the terms such as preconceptions, preconceived ideas, and
preconceived notions without giving specific descriptions about the
construct.1 In a number of studies, the definition of beliefs alone is provided.
Nevertheless, researchers do not seem to have reached the same consensus
about the meaning of beliefs. Because of its complexity, it may be difficult to
generate a fixed set of meaning or to be defined precisely. But defining
beliefs is not always the challenge in this field, finding consistency across
these definitions so that one can come to a meaningful research seems to be a
more impressive question for scholars in this field. According to Bandur in
Fives and Gill‘s book, beliefs more than truth guide our goals, emotions,
decisions, actions, and reactions.2 Teachers are the one who responsible for
the organization, structure, and tone of learning experiences and social
development in the classroom. Futrhermore, Hermans et al defined beliefs ―as
a set of conceptual representations which store general knowledge of objects,
1 Jurat Vibulphol, Beliefs About Language Learning and Teaching Approaches of Pre-
Service EFL Teacher in Thailand, (Oklahoma: Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma
State University, 2004), p.9. 2 Helenrose Fives and Michele Gregoire Gill (ed), International Handbook of Research
on Teachers’ Beliefs, (New York: Routledge, 2015), p.1.
6
people and events, and their characteristic relationships‖.3 While according to
Richardson beliefs can be defined as ―psychologically held understandings,
premises, or propositions about the world that are felt to be true‖.4 In another
word, beliefs are something that you cannot see or touch but it is something
in your mind that you feel true. Belief also means as the root of our thought.
It influenced the way we think. In addition, Woods wrote in Thu‘s journal
that ―Beliefs refer to an acceptance of a proposition for which there is no
conventional knowledge, one that is not demonstrable, and for which there is
accepted disagreement‖.5 Beliefs are powerful and they can greatly influence
human behaviours. In language learning, beliefs define as previous
experiences as language learners as well as cultural background are both
likely to influence and shape learners‘ beliefs about foreign or second
language learning.6 So, the background culture of the learners and their
experiences or their background knowledge is possible to be one of the
factors that can build learners‘ beliefs. Beliefs also can be far more influential
than knowledge in determining how individuals organize and define tasks and
problems.
2. Teachers and Students Beliefs
If beliefs have indeed that much power, they must be seriously studied in
language learning and teaching as they may be factors that can have
tremendous effects on the process of learning and teaching. In language
learning and teaching, the role of learners‘ and teachers‘ beliefs about
language learning has generally been researched due to its influential nature.
3 Ruben Hermans, Johanvan Braak, and Hilde Van Keer, ―Development of the Beliefs
about Primary Education Scale: Distinguishing a Developmental and Transmissive Dimension‖, in
Helenrose Fives and Michele Gregoire Gill (ed), International Handbook of Research on
Teachers’ Beliefs, (New York: Routledge, 2015), p.1. 4 Virginia Richardson, ―Preservice Teachers‘ Beliefs‖, in James Raths and Amy Raths
McAninch (ed), Teacher Beliefs and Classroom Performance: The Impact of Teacher Education,
(Greenwich: Information Age Publishing, 2003), p.2. 5 Tran-Hoang-Thu, Teachers’ Perceptions about Grammar Teaching, (Alliant
International University, 2009), 6 Mustafa Zülküf Altan, Pre-service EFL Teachers‘ Beliefs about Foreign Language
Learning, European Journal of Teacher Education. 2012. p.481
7
Teachers‘ attitudes and beliefs about L2 acquisition received much attention
in the literature and, more recently, they have resurfaced as key to
understanding what motivates teachers‘ actions. Teachers are highly
influenced by their beliefs, which in turn are closely related to their values, to
their views of the world, to their conceptions of their place within it. In
Altan‘s study, teachers in this study hold a variety of beliefs about language
learning, some of which may constitute an impediment to successful language
learning and teaching, such as some of their beliefs about pronunciation, error
correction, and the time required to become proficient in a foreign language.7
In addition, according to Ganjabi research, he found that the teachers also put
strong emphasis on the communicative activities and the timing of error
correction8. In contrast, the students tended to agree or vary their opinions of
these issues. The students preferred focusing primarily on the grammatical
items which caused by less appropriate idea about the value of
communication and communicative activities. These findings support the
general contention that language teachers may hold certain beliefs about
language learning that may have an impact on their instructional practices.
Furthermore, according to Kern, the different beliefs between students
and teachers and found that over the period of a 15-week program, the
mismatches between student and teacher beliefs still found.9 He found
stability of student beliefs at the global level when analysing beliefs of all the
students and all the teachers as a single group. He explained that the
persisting mismatches might be resulted from factors other than teacher
beliefs such as teachers‘ actual classroom practice, the nature of instructional
activities, students‘ assessment of their own progress, students‘ expectations
of achievement, students‘ awareness of mistakes, textbooks, tests, and written
exercises, teachers‘ individual differences such as personalities, personal
7 Ibid, pp. 481-493.
8 Mahyar Ganjabi, Effective Foreign Language Teaching: a Matter of Iranian Students‘
and Teachers‘ Beliefs, English Language Teaching Journal, 2011, p.50 9 R.G. Kern, Students‘ and teachers‘ beliefs about language learning. Foreign Language
Annals, 28(1), 2000, pp. 71-92.
8
styles, and level of experience. He suggested that beliefs about language
learning may not be easily influenced by teacher beliefs or that teacher beliefs
did not influence their classroom practices.
On the other hand, According to Richards, ―A primary source of
teachers‘ classroom practices is belief systems—the information, attitudes,
values, expectations, theories, and assumptions about teaching and learning
that teachers build up over time and bring with them to the classroom‖.10
Richards and Lockhart further elaborated that teachers‘ beliefs influence how
they make decisions or act in a classroom.11
In addition, according to Liao
and Chiang‘s study, emphasizing that both English learners and teachers have
certain beliefs about how to learn English and these learning beliefs are often
based on their previous learning experiences and cultural backgrounds, and
will further influence strategies these people use to enhance their English
learning and teaching, conducted a study on a total of 143 students and 15
teachers. It turned out that the two groups yielded rather consistent results on
learning beliefs, although some differences between the learners‘ and their
teachers‘ beliefs were also found.12
In conclusion, these studies suggest that second and foreign language
teachers possess certain beliefs about second language learning and second
language teaching which may influence their instructional practices.
However, teachers‘ beliefs system seems to be complicated and consists of
several constructs. Some beliefs may conflict with others or may not be as
influential as others, and thus may not show their effects on teachers‘
instructional practices. The findings about the effect of beliefs originating
from formal learning experience over beliefs originating from the other
sources, found in Johnson, is evidence of this argument.
10
J.C. Richards, Beyond Training, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p.
66 11
J.C. Richards & C. Lockhart, Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms,
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) 12
P.S. Liao and Chiang, M.Y., The study of students‘ and their teachers‘ belief about
English learning. Proceedings of 2003 International Conference on English Teaching and
Learning in the Republic of China.
9
B. Effective Language Teaching
1. Definition of Effective Language Teaching
Defining the effective teacher, effective teaching and teaching
effectiveness can be complex and controversial. ‗Effectiveness‘ is a
challenged term that can bring out compelling feelings due to its apparent
connections with thoughts of professional competency and high responsibility
in some.13
Effective teaching related to the objectives or the goals of
education14
. It means, teaching process can be effective when the goals of
education are reached. Furthermore, notions of what constitutes high quality
or good teaching, the idea that teaching is an art or a craft rather than a
science, are sometimes used to raise concerns with narrower concepts of
effectiveness. However, beliefs about what constitutes good or high quality
practice in teaching can vary markedly for different age groups of students, at
different times and in different contexts. Effective teaching sets as the ability
to adapt teacher‘s pedagogy to the needs of the students.15
It means there is
no such thing as a one-size-fits-all method for teaching, A study of extant
literature on effectiveness in teaching in both schools and higher education
reveals that defining effectiveness is inherently contentious.
Moreover, review shows in order to achieve good teaching, good subject
knowledge, skilful use of well-chosen questions, to engage and challenge
learners, and to consolidate understanding, is an important feature, as is the
effective use of assessment for learning are required. And some good schools
suggesting, they:
a. establish consistency in teaching and learning across the organisation
b. engender a culture of professional debate and developmental lesson
observation
c. rigorously monitor and evaluate what they are doing
13
James Ko and Pamela Sammons, 2013, Effective Teaching: A Review of Research and
Evidence Berkshire: CfBT Education Trust, p. 5 14
Ibid., p. 6. 15
Lawrence N. Berlin, Contextualizing College ESL Classroom Praxis: A Participatory
Approach to Effective Instruction, (New York: Routledge, 2012), p. 21.
10
d. prioritise the teaching of literacy, especially in a child‘s early years
e. focus on the needs, interests and concerns of each individual learner.16
In summary, to build an effective teaching, it needs support from other
aspects not only from the teacher but also the institution. Teacher
effectiveness is generally referred to terms of a focus on student outcomes
and the teacher behaviours and classroom processes that promote better
student outcomes. So, institution has to create good teacher behaviours to
encourage students to have better outcomes.
2. Aspects of Effective Language Teaching
According to Thomas there are some aspects that need to be understood
by the teacher to create effective teaching environment. They are:
a. Defining Classroom Interaction
Most of classroom lessons are based on a plan. So the first thing that
needs to be done by teacher before conducting classroom lesson is having
a lesson plan. Lesson plan is a plan of action to show that teachers know
what they are going to do in the lesson. When teachers do not have clear
idea about the goal of the lesson, useful and meaning full teaching and
learning process may not be achieved.
b. Defining communication in the classroom
Communication is undertaken for a purpose. Some pedagogic reasons
from teachers for undertaking communication in the classroom are: to
present a new structure; to provide the learners with practice in using that
structure; to explain a new word; to provide a model for pronunciation; to
correct error, etc. Communication involves more than one person. In
communication there must be someone to deliver the message and
someone to receive it. There are possible variations on who does the
delivering and who does the receiving in classroom activity. Teachers can
16
James Ko and Sammons, op. cit., p. 2.
11
be the deliver and students are the receiver or the opposite. Furthermore,
communication in the classroom is carried out through a mixture of
language and gesture such as gives orders and instructions or makes
gestures.
c. Defining interaction analysis
The interaction analysis tradition looks at verbal interaction in the
classroom to understand the teaching and learning behaviour going on
there. Many classroom observers have tried to set up descriptive systems
looking at other features of the language classroom which are associated
with this behaviour, including aspects of verbal interaction where they
seem relevant. Bowers identifies from his classroom language data seven
categories of verbal behaviour in the language classroom. They are:
Responding: any act directly sought by the utterance of another speaker,
such as answering a question.
Sociating: any act not contributing directly to the teaching/learning task,
but rather to the establishment or maintenance of interpersonal
relationships.
Organizing: any act which serves to structure the learning task or
environment without contributing to the teaching/ learning task itself.
Directing: any act encouraging non-verbal activity as an integral part of
the teaching/learning task.
Presenting: any act presenting information of direct relevance to the
learning task.
Evaluating: any act which rates another verbal act positively or
negatively.
Eliciting: any act designed to produce a verbal response from another
person.
d. Defining communicative events in the classroom
Methodology in the classroom is also used as communication purposes. It
is used for the transmission of pedagogic message from teacher to student.
This is how teacher deliver his or her teaching message across. Same as all
12
language used for communication purposes, it occurs in a context. Context
can be broken down into different factors such as the addresser, purpose,
addressee, content, form, medium, setting and code. Therefore, the
addresser in speech event has the correct form of words that makes his or
her intentions clear. And the message that being told must be accessible to
the addressee. In the classroom activity, if the teacher wants to achieve his
objectives, then the learners must be able to perceive his intentions.
Learners are unlikely to learn what the teacher wants them to learn if the
intentions of the teacher are not clear enough or there is misinterpretation
subject. In this case, both teacher and learners have to work to make the
intentions clear at securing a match between teacher intention and learner
interpretation.17
3. Characteristic of Effective Language Teaching
Adams and Pierce mention few key characteristics of effective teaching,
they are: ―Knowledge of basic principles and procedures, planning and
preparation, teaching experience, Self-reflection and modification of
techniques, Flexibility‖.18
In addition Harmer stated that teacher can be
effective when they can adopt a variety of roles in the classroom which can
facilitate learning activities.19
Some roles that teacher may hold are:
a. Controller: when teacher as controller they would lead as the front. They
will be the cantered in the classroom. Controllers take the register, tell
students things, organise drills, read aloud and in various other ways
exemplify the qualities of a teacher-fronted classroom. But it appears to
have less advantage because it denies students access to their own
experiential learning, cuts down on opportunities for students to speak,
lack of variety in activities and classroom atmosphere. On the other hand,
17
Ann Malamah-Thomas, Classroom Interaction, (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1991), pp. 3-41. 18
Cheryll M. Adams and Rebecca L. Pierce, Characteristics of Effective Teaching,
Traditions and Innovations: Teaching at Ball State University, 2004, 17, p. 102. 19
Jeremy Harmer, The Practice of English Language Teaching 4th Edition, (London:
Longman Group UK Etd, 2007), p.108.
13
controller can be make sense for giving explanations, organising question
and answer work, lecturing, making announcements or bringing a class to
order.
b. Prompter: teacher as prompter means to encourage student to think
creatively rather than have them hang on our every word. Teacher can
offer some words or phrases, suggesting the students say something
according to their opinion, or suggest what could come next in a
paragraph a student is writing.
c. Participant: teacher as participant means to involve in the activities not
only as a teacher but also as participant such as in discussion or role play
activities. This has good reasons such as students can be more enjoy to
have the teacher with them and teacher liven things up from the inside
instead of always having to prompt or organise from outside the group.
d. Resource: teacher as resource means to facilitate students for such
information that they need. For example, in a discussion they might ask
how to write or to say something or what the meaning of a word or
phrase. This is where teacher can be one of the most important resources
they have.
e. Tutor: teacher can be guidance for the students in such activities such as
longer project like writing process or preparation for a talk or a debate.
Teachers can pointing them in directions they have not yet thought of
taking. This is effective for the teacher to act as a tutor because it can
make the students feel supported.20
4. Some Categories of Effective Language Teaching
There are some keys that related to effective language teaching from
syntactic study, such as corrective feedback, Content and Language
Integrated Learning (CLIL), intensive language programmes, orientation of
language programmes – communicative or analytical approaches – and the
important of teacher factors, and the importance of second language (L2)
20
Ibid, pp. 108-110
14
literacy development.21
More specifically Brown categorized some keys of
effective foreign language teaching that he developed from Bell‘s
questionnaire, they are:
a. Grammar Teaching
Grammar is central to the teaching and learning of languages. It is also
one of the more difficult aspects of language to teach well. A lot of people,
including language teachers, hear the word grammar and think of a fixed set
of word forms and rules of usage. They associate good grammar with the
prestige forms of the language, such as those used in writing and in formal
oral presentations, and bad or no grammar with the language used in everyday
conversation or used by speakers of non-prestige forms. Language teachers
who adopt this definition focus on grammar as a set of forms and rules. They
teach grammar by explaining the forms and rules and then drilling students on
them. This results in bored, disaffected students who can produce correct
forms on exercises and tests, but consistently make errors when they try to
use the language in context.
According to Ur there are four stages in teaching grammar, they are:
1) Presentation, the goals of the presentation is to make the students
recognize the structure – its form and meaning – either in speech or
writing to take it into short-term memory.
2) Isolation and Explanation, the goal is to make learners understand the
various aspects of the structure. In academic classes, it will take more
time if learners have difficulty to comprehend the structure.
3) Practice, this stage aim to make learners absorbing the structure toughly
or to transfer what they know from short-term to long-term memory by
giving exercises and assignment whether in the classroom or at home.
21
John Harris and Pádraig Ó Duibhir, Effective Language Teaching: A Synthesis of
Research, ( Dublin: National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, 2011), p. 14.
15
4) Test, the test is used to demonstrate how good student mastery of the
material they have been learning to themselves and to the teacher. The
main objective of this stage is to provide feedback.22
In summary, grammar teaching is not only about fixed set of word
forms and rules of usage but there are some stages that need to be done in
teaching grammar such as presentation or explanation, practice, test and
teacher‘s feedback.
b. Error Correction
In error analysis, experts distinguish error from mistake. According to
Brown, ―An error is a noticeable deviation from the adult grammar of native
speaker, reflecting the interlanguage competence of the learner‖.23
In another
word, an error is something that can be seen; it shows the learner‘s ability. In
addition, error is viewed as a natural and important part of learning process
because teacher can get more information about learning process through
error.24
At all proficiency levels, learners produce language that is not exactly the
language used by native speakers. Some of the differences are grammatical,
while others involve vocabulary selection and mistakes in the selection of
language appropriate for different contexts. In responding to student
communication, teachers need to be careful not to focus on error correction to
the detriment of communication and confidence building. Teachers need to let
students know when they are making errors so that they can work on
improving. Teachers also need to build students‘ confidence in their ability to
use the language by focusing on the content of their communication rather
than the grammatical form.
22
Penny Ur, Grammar Practice Activities: A Practical Guide for Teachers, (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp.7-9. 23
H. D. Brown, Principle of Language Learning and Teaching, 5th edition (New York:
Pearson Education, Inc., 2007), p.258. 24
H. Douglas Brown, Principle of Language Learning and Teaching, Fourth Edition,
(New York: Pearson Education, 2000), p.217.
16
Teachers can use error correction to support language acquisition, and
avoid using it in ways that undermine students‘ desire to communicate in the
language, by taking cues from context.
1) When students are doing structured output activities that focus on
development of new language skills, use error correction to guide
them. Example:
Student (in class) :I buy a new car yesterday.
Teacher : You bought a new car yesterday.
Correction : “Remember, the past tense of buy is
bought”
2) When students are engaged in communicative activities, correct
errors only if they interfere with comprehensibility. Respond using
correct forms, but without stressing them. Example:
Student (greeting teacher) : I buy a new car yesterday!
Teacher : You bought a new car? That's
exciting! What kind?
c. Target Language Use
Today‘s language classrooms increasingly reflect ACTFL‘s (American
Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages) recommendation that
communication in the target language comprises at least 90% of instructional
time. ACTFL also promoted an emphasis on oral proficiency. Knop claimed
when learners exposed more to foreign language input, they will have better
proficiency.25
Clearly, travel abroad and immersion experiences would
greatly affect language acquisition. But, for the majority of our students,
foreign travel and living abroad are not easily accessible. Instead, the foreign
language classroom is the environment in which they are most likely to need
the language to communicate. Thus, it is important for foreign language
25
Constance Knop, Increasing Use of the Target Language in Classroom Interaction. 2014, p. 1.
17
teachers to consider how they can increase the use of the target language in
classroom interactions so as to promote students‘ oral proficiency. In
classroom, instructors use a kind of ways to facilitate comprehension and
support meaning making. For example, they:26
1) afford intelligible idea which focus on communicative goals;
2) provide body language, gestures, and visual support to interpret the
meaning;
3) make comprehension drafts to make sure learner understanding;
4) discuss and urge negotiation among students about meaning;
5) provoke conversation that expand capability in fluency, accuracy,
and complexity gradually;
6) embolden self-expression and natural use of language;
7) give students specifics ways for how to ask clarification and
assistance when faced difficulties in understanding; and
8) Offer feedback to enhance student capability to communicate orally
in the target language.
d. Culture
The role of cultural learning in the foreign language classroom has been
the concern of many teachers and scholars and has sparked considerable
controversy, yet its validity as an equal complement to language learning has
often been overlooked or even impugned. The existence of culture is recorded
by language either in prints or spoken and culture itself has language as its
component among other components. Therefore, language reflects the self
and other culture, along with the views of moral values, notions of good and
bad, right and wrong, beautiful and ugly. From sociology perspective, culture
can be defined as the product of society.27
Culture, by its nature, cannot be
26
Douglass Crouse, How to Stay in the Target Language, (New Jersey: The Language
Educator, 2012), p.24. 27
Marry Jill Brody, “A Linguistic Anthropological Perspective on Language and Culture
in the Second Language Curriculum” In D.L Lange and R.Michael Paige, eds., Culture as the
Core: Perspective on Cuture in Second Language Learning (Greenwich: Information age
Publishing Inc., 2003), p.39.
18
separated from language as language expresses, embodies and symbolize
culture reality. Language determines thoughts and culture; language influence
thoughts and culture; culture influences people‘s language, and language and
culture influence each other.28 Mitchel and Myles support this notion as
―language and culture are not separate, but are acquired together, with each
providing support for the development of the other‖.29
In addition, according to Liddicoat et al, culture is ―a complex system of
concepts, attitudes, values, beliefs, conventions, behaviours, practices, and
rituals, lifestyles of the people, who make up a cultural group, as well as the
artefacts they produce and the institution they create‖.30
To this point culture
teaching seems to be the responsibility of historians or social scientist.
However, to some extent, culture becomes the responsibility of language
teachers, as culture manifests itself is through language.
Since culture and language is not two different teaching subjects, foreign
language learning is at the same time cultural learning. Horbie modified the
categorization presented by Adaskou, Britten, and Fahsi into a conceptual
framework in which culture is divided into three kinds. They are:
1) Culture as social custom
Social custom includes culture with ‗small c‘ such as the
organization of a family, a home life, interpersonal relations,
material conditions, work and leisure, customs and institution.
Culture in this term is a vast area which only some parts can ever be
selected by the learners.
2) Culture in semantic sense
Sematic sense associates with the concepts, perceptions, or thought
towards the culture.
3) Culture in pragmatic sense
28
Ronald Wardhaugh, An Introduction to Sociolinguistic 4th Edition (West Sussex:
Wiley-Blackwell publishing, 2002), pp.219-220. 29
Rosamund Mitchell and Florence Myles, Second Language Learning Theories 2nd
Edition (London; Arnold, 2004), p. 235. 30
Anthony J. Liddicoat, et al., Report on Intercultural Language Learning. (Canberra:
Commonwealth of Australia, 2003), p.45.
19
Pragmatic sense deals with the background knowledge, social and
paralinguistic skills and language code which are necessary for
successful communication, including:
1) the ability to use appropriate exponents for the various
communicative functions;
2) the ability to use appropriate intonation pattern;
3) the ability to confront to norms of politeness, which different
from the learners‘ culture, including taboo avoidance;
4) awareness of conventions governing interpersonal relations –
questions of status, obligation, license, where different from
the leaners‘ culture;
5) familiarity with the main rhetorical conventions in different
written genres, e.g. different types of letters and messages,
form-filling, advertisements.31
e. Computer-Based Technology
Today‘s society is becoming more and more dependent on electronic
devices. In 1980s and 1990s, technology in language teaching started to use
in communicative language teaching two distinct perspectives which are
cognitive approaches and sociocognitive approaches.32
In cognitive approach,
technology can exposed students more to language in meaningful context and
to construct their own individual knowledge such as text-reconstruction
software, concordancing software, and multimedia simulation software.33
In
sociocognitive approach, students had given maximum opportunity for
authentic social interaction such as comprehensible input and communicative
ability. The technology that can be used is internet.
31
Hideo Horbie, The Place of Culture in Teaching English as an International Language
(EIL), JALT Journal volume 30/2 (Novermber, 2008), pp. 244-249. 32
Mark Warschauer and Carla Meskill, Technology and Second Language Teaching,
(New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000), p.304. 33
Ibid
20
Computer technology in schools has made drastic improvements.
Computers have gone from being in every school, to being in every
classroom. Computers in the classroom are a great way to motivate, teach,
and learn for not only the students, but also for the teacher. Access to
computers specifically has become very easy for students to obtain.
Technology is not restricted to computers; there are also projectors, DVD
players, VCR‘s, and video screens that are used today. This available
technology helps advance the learning process and saves time. Furthermore,
the learning process is easily enhanced when technology is used. First, with
internet access in each classroom, it allows the teacher to access massive
amounts of information in just few seconds. This information can be given to
the students in a clear easy to read format as it is projected into the screen.
With such easy access to information, students are able to learn more in a
smaller time span, while teachers are able to be more efficient in how they
teach.
f. Communicative Language Teaching
Communicative teaching focuses on communicative activities and the
concentration of language as mean of communication.34
Furthermore,
communicative language teaching aims broadly to apply the theoretical
perspective of communicative approach by making communicative
competence the goal of language teaching and by acknowledging the
interdependence of language and communication.35
The point of an
understanding of communicative language teaching is an understanding of the
term communicative competence. In addition, Richard also defines
communicative language teaching sets its goal the teaching of communicative
competence which refers to the knowledge we have of a language that
34
Jeremy Harmer, The Practice of English Language Teaching 4th Edition, (London:
Longman Group UK Etd, 2007), p.69. 35
Diane Larsen-Freeman, Techniques and Principles in Langueage Teaching, (UK:
Oxford University Press, 2000), p.121.
21
accounts for our ability to produce sentences in a language.36
It refers to
knowledge of the building blocks of sentences and how sentences are formed.
From the statement above it can be concluded that the goal of language
teaching based on communicative approach is to develop communicative
competence.
Furthermore, Richards and Rodgers mentioned some of the
characteristics of communicative view of language, they are:
1) Language is a system for the expression of meaning.
2) The primary function of language is to allow interaction and
communication.
3) The structure of language reflects its functional and communicative uses.
4) The primary units of language are not merely its grammatical and
structural features, but categories of functional and communicative
meaning as exemplified in discourse.37
Since the communicative competence become the starting point of
communicative language teaching, it needs teacher creativity to elaborate the
situation that can make students really feel interested and get involved to the
class environment, so that the students expand their idea correctly. And the
teacher serves as a facilitator who manages classroom activities in learning
teaching process. Then the students are the communicators who actively
engage in communication to create more communicative activities in learning
and teaching process.
g. Assessment
Assessment is probably one the most important and contentious activities
teacher engage in.38
Assessment is a prior contributor to raise school standard
36
Jack C. Richards, Communicative Language Teaching Today, (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2006), p.2. 37
Jack C. Richards and Theodore S. Rodgers, Approaches and Methods In Language
Teaching, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p.161. 38
Daniel Muijs and David Reynolds, Effective Teaching: Evidence and Practice Second
Edition, (London: Stage Publication Ltd, 2006), p.230.
22
in term of teaching, learning and students‘ achievement.39
In recent years, the
interest of the application of assessment procedures that are radically different
from traditional forms of assessment has been growing. Moreover,
assessment for learning is a term that has been developed to describe forms of
assessment that have been found to impact directly on students‘ achievement
and learning outcomes.
There are many kinds of assessment technique that is used in classroom.
Cohen and friends stated that assessment consists of several types based on
the porpuse such as norm-referenced assessment, criterion-referenced
assessment, domain-referenced assessment, diagnostic assessment, formative
assessment, summative assessment, authentic assessment, etc.40
Furthermore,
Muijs and Reynold clasified three main types of assessment which are
standardized test, teacher-made test and alternative forms of assessment such
as performance assessment and portfolio assessment.41
There are some purposes of assessment. It is being used for:
1) Certification, qualifying students for their lives outside school by
awarding passes, fails grades and marks.
2) Diagnosis, identifying a student‘s particular strengths, weaknesses,
difficulties and needs in order that an appropriate curriculum can be
planned.
3) Improvement of learning and teaching, providing feedback to the
students and teachers respectively so that the action can be prearranged.
4) Evaluation of the quality of teaching, learning and providers for
education.
5) Improvement of students‘ achievement.
6) Motivating students and teachers.42
39
Louise Cohen and Friends, A Guide to Teaching Practic, (New York: Routledge
Falmer, 2006), fifth edition, p.323. 40
Ibid., p. 327. 41
Muijs and Reynolds, op. cit., p.231. 42
Cohen and Friends, loc. cit.
23
In conclusion, assessment cannot be separated from teaching and
learning process. It is important for both teacher and student. Teachers can
improve their teaching through assessment and provide feedback for students
which can help them to improve their learning style.
C. Previous Relevant Studies
The first previous study was conducted by Gunjabi by the tittle ―Effective
Foreign Language Teaching: a Matter of Iranian Students‘ and Teachers‘ Beliefs‖.
The study was investigated the beliefs about language learning of 120 Iranian EFL
students and 16 EFL teachers. The primary aim of the study was to reveal whether
there was any difference between the beliefs of Iranian students and teachers
regarding different aspects of language learning such as grammar teaching, error
correction, culture, target language use, computer-based technology,
communicative language teaching strategies and assessment. The result revealed
that there were some differences between the Iranian students‘ and teachers‘
beliefs regarding what procedures were most effective in bringing about language
learning such as in communicative activities. The Iranian teachers put strong
emphasis on the communicative activities while the students still preferred
focusing primarily on the grammatical items. Another difference between
students‘ and teachers‘ responses regarded the timing of error correction. The
teachers‘ responses were more in line with the existing literature on the timing of
error correction which emphasizes that errors should not be corrected directly and
immediately as their students make errors. But the students had the obverse
beliefs, that is, they reported that they expected their teachers to correct their
errors as soon as they emerged.43
The second previous study was conducted by Brown. He identified and
compared, overall and by teacher, teachers‘ and students‘ ideals of effective
teacher behaviours. The participants for this study consisted of 49 teachers (12
males, 37 females) mostly between the ages of 21 and 35 years and approximately
43
Mahyar Ganjabi, Effective Foreign Language Teaching: a Matter of Iranian Students‘
and Teachers‘ Beliefs, English Language Teaching Journal, 2011, pp. 46-54.
24
1.600 of their students who were recruited on a volunteer basis from 83 intact first
and second-year L2 classes from nine different languages at the participating
university. The result showed there are some difference appeared between
students‘ and teachers‘ perception about effective foreign language teaching. The
students seemed to favour a grammar-based approach, whereas their teachers
preferred a more communicative classroom, as evidenced by significant
differences in such areas as target language use, error correction, and group
work.44
The third study conducted by Ta'amneh. The study aimed to explore the
harmony between teachers‘ and students‘ beliefs about strategies used in learning
English vocabulary. The population of the study, which comprised 200 EFL
teachers and 1500 ninth grade students, consisted of all teachers and students in
Irbid Third Directorate of Education. The sample consisted of 133 EFL teachers
and 306 students with an average age of 41 (ninth grade) who responded to the
questionnaires. And the results showed that there was a harmony between
teachers‘ and students‘ beliefs about the vocabulary learning strategies in all
dimensions the questionnaires except guessing and contextualization. They
believed that rote learning, using technology and dictionary, using multimedia an
asking for help strategies are good strategies to learn English vocabulary items.45
D. Thinking Framework
From the background and theory outlined above it can be acquired a thinking
framework as follows; language learning has raised language practitioners and
researchers attention. One variable which has received a lot of attention recently
in the language learning process is beliefs. Investigation into students‘ beliefs on
effective teaching is necessary, so that teachers in training and practitioners can
understand how to approach and improve their practice. Besides that, by exploring
44
Alan V. Brown, Students‘ and Teachers‘ Perceptions of Effective Foreign Language
Teaching: A Comparison of Ideals, The Modern Language Journal, 2009, pp.46-60. 45
Mohammad Abd Alhafeez Ali Ta'amneh, Exploring the Harmony between Jordanian
EFL Teachers‘ and Students‘ Beliefs about Vocabulary Learning Strategies, Journal of Language
Teaching and Research, 2015.
25
students‘ and teachers‘ beliefs, it can bridge the gap between them in teaching
learning process. However, different beliefs that teachers and learners hold
towards the process of language teaching might negatively influence the
effectiveness of language teaching process.
Effective language teaching defines as meaningful and appropriate teaching
process. Teaching process can be effective when the goals of education reached.
There are some aspects regarding language learning such as grammar teaching,
error correction, target language use, culture, computer-based technology,
communicative language teaching strategies, and assessment. Students and
teachers might have different perception about how an effective English language
teaching should be done. Students might think that grammar teaching is more
effective than teaching using communicative approach while teachers think the
opposite.
To determine and prove the existence of differences between students‘ and
teachers‘ beliefs about effective English language teaching, the writer conducted a
study through questionnaire. In conducting this study, the writer took 5th semester
students and teachers of English Education Department of UIN Syarif
Hidayatullah Jakarta in academic year 2015/2016. Moreover the writer limited the
study only on the items that have significant difference between the teachers‘ and
students‘ responses that will be discussed. By knowing the different beliefs
between teachers and student, the finding hoped could help the teachers to bridge
the gap between the students and help teachers to improve their teaching
instruction. So, the teaching process can be effective.
26
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A. Place and Time of the Study
This study took place at SMA Negeri 3, Tangerang Selatan. The
research was carried from September 8th
to 15th
, 2016.
B. Research Method
This research is conducted to run a detail and comprehensive
comparison between students’ and teachers’ beliefs on effective English
language teaching. How students think and how teachers think about
effective English language teaching. This research is qualitative method.
The nature of qualitative research is no intervention, randomization and
data manipulation.1 Besides that, the researcher conducts qualitative
research method because researcher intends to identify a part of students’
behaviour, as qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings,
attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the
meaning people bring to them.2 The design of this study is survey study
that will be used to collect the data. The questionnaire was distributed
among the participants and they were required to answer the closed-ended
questions based on their past experiences of participating in the language
classes.
1 Mahyar Ganjabi, Effective Foreign Language Teaching: a Matter of Iranian Students’ and
Teachers’ Beliefs, English Language Teaching Journal, 2010. p.46. 2 Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y., The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (Third ed.),
(California: Sage Publication, 2005).
27
C. Participant
This study conducted by using 253 XI grade students and 2
Emglish teachers of SMA Negeri 3, Tangerang Selatan as the participant.
D. Technique of Data Collection
The technique of data collection in this research is questionnaire.
The questionnaire used is originally developed by Brown. It consists of 24
items and seven overarching categories. According to Brown the original
questionnaire made extensive use of Bell’s questionnaire and evolved after
being piloted three times with different beginning-level L2 students. And
there are the seven overarching categories of the questionnaire.
Table 3.1. Effective Teaching Questionaire
(Adapted from: Brown’s Questionnaire)
No Item
1 Frequently use computer-based technologies (Internet, CD–ROM,
email) in teaching the language.
2 Base at least some part of students’ grades on completion of
assigned group tasks.
3 Devote as much time to the teaching of culture as to the teaching of
language.
4 Require students to use English outside of class with other speakers
of the language (e.g., Internet, email, clubs, community events,
etc.).
5 Not correct students immediately after they make a mistake in
speaking.
6 Allow students to respond to test questions in listening and reading
via Bahasa Indonesia rather than English.
7 Not use Bahasa Indonesia in the English language classroom.
28
8 Only correct students indirectly when they produce oral errors
instead of directly (e.g., correctly repeating back to them rather than
directly stating that they are incorrect).
9 Be as knowledgeable about the culture(s) of those who speak the
language (English) as the language itself.
10 Not grade language production (i.e., speaking and writing)
primarily for grammatical accuracy.
11 Teach English primarily by having students complete specific tasks
(e.g., finding out prices of rooms and rates at a hotel) rather than
grammar-focused exercises.
12 Have students respond to commands physically in English (e.g.,
“stand up,” “pick up your book,”
etc.).
13 Address errors by immediately providing explanations as to why
students’ responses are incorrect.
14 Require students to speak English beginning the first day of class.
15 Not use predominantly small groups or pair work to complete
activities in class.
16 Mostly use activities that practice specific grammar points rather
than activities whose goal is merely to exchange information.
17 Ask students to begin speaking English only when they feel they
are ready to.
18 Not present a particular grammar point without illustrating how the
structure is used in a specific, real-world context.
19 Speak English with native-like control of both grammar and accent.
20 Teach grammar by giving examples of grammatical structures
before explaining the grammar rules.
21 Use predominantly real-life materials (e.g., music, pictures, foods,
clothing) in teaching both the language and the culture rather than
the textbook.
29
22 Not simplify or alter how they speak so that students can
understand every word being said.
23 Base at least some part of students’ grades on their ability to
interact with classmates successfully in English
24 Use activities where students have to find out unknown information
from classmates using English.
Table 3.2. General Categories of Questionnaire
((Adapted from: Brown’s Questionnaire)
Category Effective Teacher Questionnaire
Item Number
Grammar Teaching 10, 16, 18, 20
Error Correction 5, 8, 13
Target Language Use 7, 14, 17, 19, 22, 23
Culture 3, 9
Computer-Based Technology 1
Communicative Language Teaching
Strategies
11, 12, 2, 4, 15, 21, 23, 24
Assessment 2, 6, 10, 23
The scoring of the questionnaire uses Likert scale, which is one of
scaling technique of rating scale. It is requiring the respondent to make
an evaluate judgement of the target by marking one of a series of
categories organized into a scale.3 To scale this questionnaire, the writer
3 Zoltan Dorney and Tatsuya Taguchi, Questionnaire in Second Language Research,
(Madison Avenue, New York: Routledge: 2010), p.26.
30
used Likert scale, which is typically used to investigate how respondents
feel about a series of question.4
E. Data Analysis
The main purpose of this study is to run a detailed and
comprehensive comparison between teachers’ and students’ beliefs on the
issues in English language teaching included in the study’s questionnaire.
The questionnaire data calculated per item using independent group t-test
in SPSS to compared students’ and teachers’ beliefs. Then the items that
have significant difference will be displayed on the table and being
discussed. For investigating the research question, descriptive and
inferential statistics were employed. In comparing the students’ and
teachers’ beliefs, a two-sample, independent group t-test was calculated.
4 James Dean Brown, Using Survey in Language Program, (New York: Cambrige
University Press, 2001), p.40
31
CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
A. Research Findings
1. Data Description
This research tended to investigate XI grade students and teachers
of SMA Negeri 3 Tangerang Selatan about effective language teaching
using a questionnaire. The questionnaire was given to 253 students and
2 teachers. The questionnaire focused on seven general categories
which are grammar teaching, error correction, target language use,
culture, computer-based technology, communicative language
teaching, and assessment. Furthermore, the writer runs independent
group t-test on every item to compare all teachers’ and students’
responses of the questionnaire. Table 1 shows the result of teachers’
responses towards the questionnaire.
Table 4.1.
Teachers’ Responses of Effective English
Language Teaching Questionnaire
Item Mean
1 2
2 2
3 1
4 2.50
5 2
6 2
7 3.50
32
Item Mean
8 2.50
9 2.50
10 2.50
11 2
12 1.50
13 2
14 2
15 2.50
16 3.50
17 2.50
18 2
19 2.50
20 3
21 2
22 2.50
23 2
24 2
From the table above, the teachers’ responses ranged from 1 to
3.50. The smallest mean score found in the item 3 and the highest
mean score found in the item number 7 and 16. Item number 4 is
categorized as culture. It says that teacher must devote as much time to
the teaching of language. Meanwhile, item number 7 and 16
categorized as target language use and grammar teaching. Item number
7 says that in English language classroom, the use of Bahasa Indonesia
is not allowed. And item number 16 says that effective English
language teaching should mostly use activities that practice specific
33
grammar points rather than activities whose goal is merely to exchange
information.
Table 4.2.
Students’ Responses of Effective English
Language Teaching Questionnaire
Item Mean
1 1.91
2 1.76
3 2.06
4 1.94
5 2.14
6 2.22
7 2.18
8 2.27
9 1.79
10 2.88
11 2.20
12 1.77
13 1.92
14 2.80
15 2.75
16 2.48
17 2.63
18 2.60
19 1.89
20 1.77
21 1.70
22 2.06
34
Item Mean
23 2.04
24 1.74
Table 2 showed the result of students’ responses towards the
questionnaire. From the data above, students’ responses ranged from
1.70 to 2.88. The smallest mean score is from the item number 21.
This item is categorized as comunicative language teaching. It says
that teachers should use predominantly real-life materials such as
music, pictures, foods, and clothing in teaching the language and the
culture rather than the textbook. Meanwhile, the highest mean score is
the item number 10. It categorized as grammar teaching. The item says
that teachers should not grade language production (i.e., speaking and
writing) primarily for grammatical accuracy.
Table 4.3.
Comparison of Student and Teacher Means by Questionnaire Item
Item Students' means
Teachers' means
Mean Difference
(Ss-Ts)
23 2.04 2 0.04
13 1.92 2 -0.08
1 1.91 2 -0.09
17 2.63 2.50 0,13
5 2.14 2 0.14
11 2.20 2 0,20
6 2.22 2 0.22
8 2.27 2.50 -0.23
35
Item Students' means
Teachers' means
Mean Difference
(Ss-Ts)
2 1.76 2 -0.24
15 2.75 2.50 0.25
24 1.74 2 -0.26
12 1.77 1.50 0,27
21 1.70 2 -0.30
10 2.88 2.50 0.38
22 2.06 2.50 -0.44
4 1.94 2.50 -0.56
18 2.60 2 0.60
19 1.89 2.50 -0.61
9 1.79 2.50 -0.71
14 2.80 2 0.80
16 2.48 3.50 -1.02
3 2.06 1 1.06
20 1.77 3 -1.23
7 2.18 3.50 -1.32
Table 4.3. shows comparison of teachers’ and students’ responses
towards the questionnaire. The items were ranked in descending order
from the largest to the smallest mean difference using absolute values
based on the respondents’ responses. In presenting the results, the
negative sign has been retained in order to indicate direction of
difference; negative values represent greater teacher than student
agreement with the items.
Having analysed the structure of collected data, it came out that the
teachers’ responses and those of students revealed almost the same
amount of variation on the four-point scale with 1 (strongly agree) the
minimum and 4 (strongly disagree) the maximum. The teachers’
36
responses ranged from 1 to 3.50 while the students’ responses ranged
from 1.70 to 2.88. Among the raw scores, there were several items
with mean differences of .44 or higher on the four-point scale.
Practically speaking, a raw score difference of .50 on a four-point scale
would appear to represent a notable difference of opinion. Due to
space limitations, only those items that showed significant differences
between the teachers’ and students’ responses overall are displayed in
the table 4. Among 24 items, 7 items were resulted significantly
different. Table 4 presents the teachers’ and the students’ overall
means side by side, the differences between the students’ and the
teachers’ mean responses (Ss-Ts Mean Difference).
2. Data Analysis
As stated above, the main purpose of this study is to run a detailed
and comprehensive comparison between teachers’ and students’
beliefs on the issues in English language teaching that included in the
questionnaire. The writer ran a t-test on every item comparing all
teachers’ and students’ responses of the questionnaire using SPSS.
Once it done, the writer selected only the items that show significant
difference displayed in the table 4. Among the 24 items, only 7 items
showed significant difference between students’ and teachers’
responses. 7 items showed p value was less than or equal to 0,05 which
can be noted that there is a significant difference while 18 items
showed p value was higher than 0,05 which means there is no
significant difference. In the items number 4, 24, 21, 16,20 and 7 show
that teachers have greater agreement than the students with negative
means difference; -0.56, -0.26, -030, -1.02, -1.23, 1.32 while in the
item number 18 students show greater agreement than the teachers
with mean difference 0.60.
37
Table 4.4
Comparison of Significant Difference Items of Student and Teacher Means
Question Effective English Language Teachers
Should
Mean
Difference
(Ss-Ts)
Teachers’
Means
(n = 8)
Students’
Means
(n = 69)
4 Require students to use English outside of
class with other speakers of the language
(e.g., Internet, email, clubs, community
events, etc.).
-0.56 1.94 2.50
24 Use activities where students have to find
out unknown information from classmates
using English.
-0.26 2 1.74
21 Use predominantly real-life materials (e.g.,
music, pictures, foods, and clothing) in
teaching both the language and the culture
rather than the textbook.
-0.30 2 1.70
18 Not present a particular grammar point
without illustrating how the structure is used
in a specific, real-world context.
0.60 2.50 1.94
16 Mostly use activities that practice specific
grammar points rather than activities whose
goal is merely to exchange information.
-1.02 3.50 2.48
20 Teach grammar by giving examples of
grammatical structures before explaining the
grammar rules.
-1.23 3 1.77
7 Not use student’s native language in the
English classroom.
-1.32 3.50 2.18
38
B. Interpretation
Comparing students’ and teachers’ responses revealed that the
teachers put strong emphasis on the target language use. They agreed more
strongly than did their students that students do not allow to use their
native language in the classroom while the students prefer to no always
use English in the class. In line with ACTFL statement that recommends
language educators and their students use the target language as
exclusively as possible (90%) at all levels of instruction during
instructional time and when feasible, beyond the classroom. Research
found that using target language in the classroom greatly increases
students’ exposure to the target language especially in foreign language
classroom when the target language is not heard outside classroom
context. Another reason, using target language in classroom can help
students to receive more comprehensible input which lead to more
complex language structures. So, students do not only learn about the
language but also learning through the language. Besides that, using target
language in the classroom can provide a source of modelling for students
both in regards to the production of the language and the attitude towards
the language. If teacher able to show proper use of the language daily,
students can use the teacher as a model for production. In the other hand,
students prefer to use target language only in the beginning of the class.
The reason can be students prefer to use native language more in the
classroom activities because sometimes when using English the idea that
they have cannot be delivered appropriately as they use their native
language. It is in line with Al Sharaeai’s research, he found out that almost
41,3% students use their native language to explain new points in the
lesson or to ask for explanation of the lesson. Beside that they also use
their native language to feel connected to their culture and when they feel
39
they could not find the correct word in English.1 When they cannot find
the right words to describe their ideas, it can cause misunderstanding
because the idea might not completely deliver. So they prefer to use their
native language rather than English.
Furthermore, students’ and teachers’ responses revealed that the
teachers put strong emphasis on the communicative activities. It was clear
from their questionnaire responses. For example, the teachers use activities
where students have to find out unknown information from classmate
using English. And activities that whose goal is merely to exchange
information seems to be such an important activities for the teachers. It
seems that the students did not have an appropriate idea about the value of
communication and communicative activities due to the fact that they still
preferred to focus more on the grammatical items. One possible reason is
because the students experience of studying English. From their
experience of studying English, communicative activities were not valued
very much. This finding corroborates results from Brown’s study, which
found that his subjects preferred to have formal grammar instruction over
communicative exchanges in the L2 classroom.2 On the other hand, the
teachers are not merely ignoring the needs of grammar teaching. They still
concern on teaching grammar activities but no as much as communicative
activities.
Moreover, the teachers seemed more enthusiastic about using real-
life materials (e.g., music, pictures, foods, and clothing) in teaching the
language and the culture rather than the textbook. It seems that authentic
materials are more meaningful. And it can be easier for students to
understand the content and that the relevance of content is demonstrated
by real-life examples. Moreover, relevance is particularly important
because learners’ experiences can be used as a basis for new learning. In
1 Wafa Abdo Ahmed Al Sharaeai, Students’ Perspectives on the Use of L1 in English
Classroom, (Ames: Iowa State University: 2012). 2 Alan V. Brown, “Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of Effective Foreign Language
Teaching: A Comparison of Ideals”, The Modern Language Journal, 2009.
40
addition, recent literature on brain function and learning reinforces a
constructivist view in which existing knowledge forms the foundation for
incorporating new information into more complex and sophisticated
schemas. Thus, if prior experience can be connected to new material in a
meaningful way, that material can be more clearly understood and more
easily learned. Moreover, Exposure to the application of content in real
life situations may help to correct such misconceptions. And teachers seem
to use real-life materials to practice a foreign language in situations
simulating real-life than to analyse and practice grammatical patterns.
41
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion
As stated above that this research intended to explore XI grade
students’ and English teachers’ beliefs in SMA Negeri 3 Tangerang
Selatan. It came out that there are some differences between the students’
and teachers’ beliefs about effective English language teaching. The
significant difference has noted in 7 items that categorized as
communicative language strategies, grammar teaching, and target
language use. Teachers put strong emphasis on communicative language
teaching strategies, target language use and while the students prefer to
grammar teaching and minimum target language use.
Beliefs have a pivotal role in the success or failure of language
learning and teaching process. To achieve the maximum amount of
success, the gap between students’ and teachers’ perceptions should be
bridged as much as possible.
B. Suggestion
1. For the Teacher
To make learners aware of their own preconceived notions about
language learning and their possible consequences, the writer
recommend teachers to include discussions about the nature of
language learning as a regular part of their instruction. As student
beliefs about language learning can be based on limited knowledge
and/or experience, the teacher’s most effective course may be to
confront erroneous beliefs with new information.
42
42
2. Future Researchers
For the next researches who want to do the same study, the writer
suggests to add more instruments. The employed questionnaire cannot
give us a complete picture of the students’ and teachers’ beliefs. To
ameliorate this, it is recommended that the questionnaire be
accompanied with some other instruments such as observation, diary
and or interview to achieve more reliable data.
43
REFERENCES
Adams, Cheryll M. and Rebecca L. Pierce. Characteristics of Effective Teaching.
Traditions and innovations: Teaching at Ball State University. 2004.
Al Sharaeai, Wafa Abdo Ahmed. Students’ Perspectives on the Use of L1 in
English Classroom. Iowa State University. 2012.
Altan, Mustafa Zülküf. Beliefs about language learning of foreign language-major
university students. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 31, 2006.
-----. Pre-service EFL teachers’ beliefs about foreign language learning. European
Journal of Teacher Education. 2012.
Brody, Marry Jill. “A Linguistic Anthropological Perspective on Language and
Culture in the Second Language Curriculum”. In D.L Lange and
R.Michael Paige, eds., Culture as the Core: Perspective on Cuture in
Second Language Learning. Greenwich: Information age Publishing Inc.,
2003.
Brown, Alan V. Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of Effective Foreign
Language Teaching: A Comparison of Ideals. The Modern Language
Journal. 2009.
Brown, H. D. Principle of Language Learning and Teaching, 5th edition. New
York: Pearson Education, Inc. 2007.
Brown, H. Douglas. Principle of Language Learning and Teaching, Fourth
Edition. New York: Pearson Education. 2000.
Brown, James Dean. Using Survey in Language Program. New York: Cambrige
University Press. 2001.
Cohen, Louise and Friends. A Guide to Teaching Practic fifth Edition. New York:
Routledge Falmer. 2006.
Crouse, Douglass. How to Stay in the Target Language. New Jersey: The
Language Educator. 2012.
44
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (Third
ed.). California: Sage Publication. 2005.
Dorney, Zoltan and Tatsuya Taguchi. Questionnaire in Second Language
Research. Madison Avenue, New York, Routledge: 2010.
Fives, Helenrose and Michele Gregoire Gill (ed). International Handbook of
Research on Teachers’ Beliefs. New York: Routledge, 2015.
Ganjabi, Mahyar. Effective Foreign Language Teaching: a Matter of Iranian
Students’ and Teachers’ Beliefs. English Language Teaching Journal.
2011.
Harmer, Jeremy. The Practice of English Language Teaching 4th Edition.
London: Longman Group UK Etd. 2007.
Harris, John and Pádraig Ó Duibhir. Effective Language Teaching: A Synthesis of
Research. Dublin: National Council for Curriculum and Assessment,
2011.
Hermans, Ruben, Johanvan Braak, and Hilde Van Keer. Development of the
Beliefs about Primary Education Scale: Distinguishing a developmental
and transmissive dimension. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2008.
Horbie, Hideo, The Place of Culture in Teaching English as an International
Language (EIL). JALT Journal volume 30/2, 2008.
J.C. Richards & C. Lockhart. Reflective teaching in second language classrooms.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2007.
J.C. Richards. Beyond training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1998.
Kern, R.G., Students’ and teachers’ beliefs about language learning. Foreign
Language Annals. 28(1), 2000.
Knop, Constance. Increasing Use of the Target Language in Classroom
Interaction. 2014.
Ko, James and Pamela Sammons. Effective Teaching: a review of research and
evidence Berkshire: CfBT Education Trust. 2013.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. Techniques and Principles in Langueage Teaching. UK:
Oxford University Press. 2000.
45
Lawrence N. Berlin. Contextualizing College ESL Classroom Praxis: A
Participatory Approach to Effective Instruction. New York: Routledge.
2012.
Liao, P.S. and Chiang, M.Y. (2003). The study of students’ and their teachers’
belief about English learning. Proceedings of 2003 International
Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China.
Liddicoat, Anthony J. et al. Report on Intercultural Language Learning.
Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. 2003.
Malamah-Thomas, Ann. Classroom Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
1991.
Mitchell, Rosamund and Florence Myles. Second Language Learning Theories
2nd Edition. London; Arnold. 2004.
Muijs, Daniel and David Reynolds. Effective Teaching: Evidence and Practice
Second Edition. London: Stage Publication Ltd. 2006.
Richards, Jack C. and Theodore S. Rodgers. Approaches and Methods In
Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2001.
Richards, Jack C. Communicative Language Teaching Today. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. 2006.
Richardson, Virginia. “Preservice Teachers’ Beliefs”, in James Raths and Amy
Raths McAninch (ed). Teacher Beliefs and Classroom Performance: The
Impact of Teacher Education. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing,
2003.
Ta'amneh, Mohammad Abd Alhafeez Ali. Exploring the Harmony between
Jordanian EFLTeachers’ and Students’ Beliefs about Vocabulary Learning
Strategies. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. 2015.
Tran-Hoang-Thu. Teachers’ Perceptions about Grammar Teaching. Alliant
International University. 2009.
Ur, Penny. Grammar Practice Activities: A Practical Guide for Teachers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2004.
Wardhaugh, Ronald. An Introduction to Sociolinguistic 4th Edition. West Sussex:
Wiley-Blackwell publishing. 2002.
46
Warschauer, Mark and Carla Meskill. Technology and Second Language
Teaching. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. 2000.
47
APPENDIX 1
Effective Teaching Questionnaire
Nama :
Pekerjaan :
Jenis Kelamin :
Petunjuk : Silakan merefleksikan keyakinan pribadi Anda mengenai apa yang
menjadi ciri khas pengajaran bahasa Inggris yang efektif. Bacalah dengan teliti
setiap pernyataan dan tunjukan sejauh mana Anda setuju atau tidak setuju dengan
melingkari pernyataan yang paling menggambarkan pendapat Anda . Tidak ada
jawaban benar atau salah, hanya ada jawaban yang paling tepat untuk Anda.
Ketulusan dan kejujuran Anda serta tanggapan pribadi Anda akan menjamin
keberhasilan penelitian ini. Terima kasih.
Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris yang efektif harus :
No
Pernyataan Sangat Setuju
Setuju Tidak Setuju
Sangat Tidak Setuju
1 Sering menggunakan teknologi berbasis
komputer (internet, CD-ROM, email) dalam
mengajarkan bahasa Inggris.
1 2 3 4
2 Memasukan setidaknya sebagian dari nilai siswa
berdasarkan penyelesaian tugas-tugas kelompok
yang diberikan .
1 2 3 4
3 Menyediakan waktu sama banyaknya pada
pengajaran budaya seperti pada pengajaran
bahasa Inggris itu sendiri
1 2 3 4
48
4 Mengharuskan siswa untuk menggunakan bahasa
yang diajarkan diluar kelas dengan penutur
bahasa Inggris yang lainnya (e.g. internet, email,
club, acara-acara komunitas, dll)
1 2 3 4
5 Tidak mengkoreksi siswa secara langsung setelah
mereka membuat kesalahan dalam berbicara
1 2 3 4
6 Mengizinkan siswa untuk merespon pertanyaan-
pertanyaan dalam soal-soal medengarkan dan
membaca dengan menggunakan bahasa ibu
daripada bahasa Inggris.
1 2 3 4
7 Tidak menggunakan bahasa ibu dalam kelas
bahasa Inggris
1 2 3 4
8 Hanya mengkoreksi siswa secara tidak langsung
ketika mereka melakukan oral eror daripada
secara langsung
1 2 3 4
9 Berpengetahuan mengenai budaya dari penutur
bahasa sebagaimana bahasa itu sendiri
1 2 3 4
10 Tidak menilai produksi bahasa ( yaitu , berbicara
dan menulis ) terutama untuk akurasi tata bahasa
1 2 3 4
11 Mengutamakan mengajarkan bahasa Inggris
dengan membuat siswa melengkapi soal-soal
yang spesifik ( e.g. temukan harga kamar kamar
dan tarif pada sebuah hotel).
1 2 3 4
12 Membuat siswa merespon perintah secara fisik
dalam bahasa Inggris (e.g. “stand up”, “pick up
your book”, dll).
1 2 3 4
13 Menunjukan kesalahan kesalahan dengan
memberikan penjelasan secara langsung
mengenai kenapa respon siswa tidak tepat.
1 2 3 4
14 Mengharuskan siswa untuk berbicara dengan
menggunakan bahasa Inggris pada awal kelas
dihari pertama
1 2 3 4
15 Tidak menggunakan kelompok kecil atau kerja
berpasangan secara dominan dalam melengkapi
aktifitas-aktifitas di kelas
1 2 3 4
16 Lebih sering menggunakan aktifitas-aktifitas
yang melatih pokok-pokok grammar tertentu 1 2 3 4
49
daripada aktifitas-aktifitas yang semata-mata
bertujuan untuk bertukar informasi.
17 Meminta siswa untuk mulai berbicara bahasa
Inggris hanya ketika mereka merasa siap untuk
melakukannya.
1 2 3 4
18 Tidak menampilkan pokok grammar tertentu
tanpa mengilustrasikan bagaimana susunan
bahasa tersebut digunakan secara spesifik dalam
konteks kehidupan nyata.
1 2 3 4
19 Berbicara bahasa Inggris dengan seseorang yang
berbahasa menyerupai native dengan kontrol
gramar dan aksen
1 2 3 4
20 Mengajarkan gramar dengan memberikan
contoh-contoh sturuktur grammar sebelum
menjelaskan atauran grammarnya
1 2 3 4
21 Menutamakan mengunakan materi-matari real-
life (e.g. musik, gambar, makanan, pakaian)
dalam mengajarkan keduanya, bahasanya dan
budayanya daripada menggunakan buku
1 2 3 4
22 Tidak menyederhanakan atau merubah
bagaimana mereka (penutur bahasa asli)
berbicara sehingga siswa dapat mengerti setiap
kata yang di ucapkan
1 2 3 4
23 Memasukan paling tidak beberapa nilai siswa
berdasarkan kemampuannya yang dengan
suskses berinteraksi dengan teman sekelasnya
mengunakan bahasa Inggris
1 2 3 4
24 Menggunakan aktifitas-aktifitas dimana siswa
harus menemukan informasi yang tidak diketahui
dari teman sekelasnya menggunakan bahasa
Inggris.
1 2 3 4
50
APPENDIX 2
Independent T-test Output
Item 1
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of
Means
F Sig. t df
item Equal variances assumed 1.662 .200 -.224 132
Equal variances not
assumed -1.825 131.000
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
item Equal variances assumed .823 -.09091 .40620 -.89441
Equal variances not assumed .070 -.09091 .04981 -.18945
Item 2
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of
Means
F Sig. t df
item Equal variances assumed 10.414 .002 -.688 132
Equal variances not
assumed -.242 1.004
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
item Equal variances assumed .492 -.24242 .35211 -.93893
Equal variances not assumed .849 -.24242 1.00087 -12.85537
51
Item 3
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of
Means
F Sig. t df
item Equal variances assumed .896 .346 .057 132
Equal variances not
assumed .467 131.000
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
item Equal variances assumed .954 .02273 .39673 -.76204
Equal variances not assumed .641 .02273 .04865 -.07352
Item 4
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of
Means
F Sig. t df
item Equal variances assumed 1.099 .296 2.410 132
Equal variances not
assumed 19.651 131.000
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
item Equal variances assumed .017 .93939 .38980 .16832
Equal variances not assumed .000 .93939 .04780 .84483
52
Item 5
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of
Means
F Sig. t df
item Equal variances assumed .003 .956 -.722 132
Equal variances not
assumed -.722 1.031
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
item Equal variances assumed .472 -.36364 .50395 -1.36049
Equal variances not assumed .599 -.36364 .50378 -6.33324
Item 6
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of
Means
F Sig. t df
item Equal variances assumed 3.417 .067 .543 132
Equal variances not
assumed 4.425 131.000
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
item Equal variances assumed .588 .21970 .40487 -.58117
Equal variances not assumed .000 .21970 .04965 .12148
53
Item 7
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of
Means
F Sig. t df
item Equal variances assumed .009 .925 -3.002 132
Equal variances not
assumed -2.621 1.023
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
item Equal variances assumed .003 -1.31818 .43908 -2.18672
Equal variances not assumed .227 -1.31818 .50286 -7.37670
Item 8
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of
Means
F Sig. t df
item Equal variances assumed .003 .960 -.548 132
Equal variances not
assumed -.452 1.021
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
item Equal variances assumed .584 -.22727 .41450 -1.04720
Equal variances not assumed .728 -.22727 .50255 -6.31687
54
Item 9
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of
Means
F Sig. t df
item Equal variances assumed .135 .714 -1.899 132
Equal variances not
assumed -1.418 1.017
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
item Equal variances assumed .060 -.71212 .37495 -1.45380
Equal variances not assumed .388 -.71212 .50208 -6.84856
Item 10
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of
Means
F Sig. t df
item Equal variances assumed .050 .823 .859 132
Equal variances not
assumed .753 1.023
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
item Equal variances assumed .392 .37879 .44093 -.49342
Equal variances not assumed .587 .37879 .50289 -5.67732
55
Item 11
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of
Means
F Sig. t df
item Equal variances assumed 2.428 .122 .407 132
Equal variances not
assumed 3.320 131.000
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
item Equal variances assumed .685 .19697 .48383 -.76010
Equal variances not assumed .001 .19697 .05933 .07959
Item 12
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of
Means
F Sig. t df
item Equal variances assumed .003 .959 .616 132
Equal variances not
assumed .527 1.022
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
item Equal variances assumed .539 .26515 .43060 -.58662
Equal variances not assumed .689 .26515 .50275 -5.80425
56
Item 13
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of
Means
F Sig. t df
item Equal variances assumed 2.176 .143 -.179 132
Equal variances not
assumed -1.463 131.000
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
item Equal variances assumed .858 -.08333 .46439 -1.00194
Equal variances not assumed .146 -.08333 .05695 -.19599
Item 14
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of
Means
F Sig. t df
item Equal variances assumed 3.243 .074 1.816 132
Equal variances not
assumed 14.804 131.000
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
item Equal variances assumed .072 .80303 .44232 -.07191
Equal variances not assumed .000 .80303 .05424 .69572
57
Item 15
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of
Means
F Sig. t df
item Equal variances assumed .078 .781 .459 132
Equal variances not
assumed .496 1.036
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
item Equal variances assumed .647 .25000 .54502 -.82810
Equal variances not assumed .705 .25000 .50442 -5.65850
Item 16
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of
Means
F Sig. t df
item Equal variances assumed .293 .589 -2.008 132
Equal variances not
assumed -2.030 1.031
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
item Equal variances assumed .047 -1.02273 .50921 -2.02999
Equal variances not assumed .285 -1.02273 .50386 -6.98470
58
Item 17
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of
Means
F Sig. t df
item Equal variances assumed .305 .582 .228 132
Equal variances not
assumed .255 1.039
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
item Equal variances assumed .820 .12879 .56600 -.99081
Equal variances not assumed .840 .12879 .50477 -5.74716
Item 18
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of
Means
F Sig. t df
item Equal variances assumed 5.496 .021 1.124 132
Equal variances not
assumed 9.166 131.000
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
item Equal variances assumed .263 .59848 .53242 -.45470
Equal variances not assumed .000 .59848 .06529 .46932
59
Item 19
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of
Means
F Sig. t df
item Equal variances assumed .018 .895 -1.325 132
Equal variances not
assumed -1.219 1.026
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
item Equal variances assumed .188 -.61364 .46319 -1.52988
Equal variances not assumed .433 -.61364 .50319 -6.64023
Item 20
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of
Means
F Sig. t df
item Equal variances assumed 3.820 .053 -2.824 132
Equal variances not
assumed -23.029 131.000
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
item Equal variances assumed .005 -1.23485 .43725 -2.09977
Equal variances not assumed .000 -1.23485 .05362 -1.34093
60
Item 21
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of
Means
F Sig. t df
item Equal variances assumed 5.370 .022 -.652 132
Equal variances not
assumed -5.313 131.000
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
item Equal variances assumed .516 -.29545 .45347 -1.19246
Equal variances not assumed .000 -.29545 .05561 -.40547
Item 22
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of
Means
F Sig. t df
item Equal variances assumed .018 .892 -.947 132
Equal variances not
assumed -.873 1.026
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
item Equal variances assumed .345 -.43939 .46410 -1.35744
Equal variances not assumed .540 -.43939 .50320 -6.46476
61
Item 23
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of
Means
F Sig. t df
item Equal variances assumed 1.591 .209 .084 132
Equal variances not
assumed .685 131.000
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
item Equal variances assumed .933 .03788 .45063 -.85352
Equal variances not assumed .494 .03788 .05526 -.07145
Item 24
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of
Means
F Sig. t df
item Equal variances assumed 4.213 .042 -.632 132
Equal variances not
assumed -5.151 131.000
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
item Equal variances assumed .529 -.25758 .40777 -1.06419
Equal variances not assumed .000 -.25758 .05001 -.35650