students’ creativity/the...the students having high creativity have better writing skill than...

perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id

commit to user

i

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SELF-REGULATED STRATEGY

DEVELOPMENT TO TEACH WRITING VIEWED FROM

STUDENTS’ CREATIVITY

(An Experimental Study in the Third Semester Students of English Department

IKIP PGRI Madiun in the Academic Year of 2012/2013)

T H E S I S

Submitted to Fulfill One of the Requirements of Getting

Graduate Degree in English Education

By:

SAMSUL ARIFIN

S891108095

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATION

GRADUATE SCHOOL

SEBELAS MARET UNIVERSITY

2013


commit to user

iii


commit to user

iv


commit to user

v


commit to user

vi

MOTTO

Believe in yourself,

Nothing will put you down

(Samsul Arifin, 2013)


commit to user

vii

DEDICATION

This thesis is proudly dedicated to:

My beloved wife and daughters

Sutri Ekawati, Nasywa Jawahir M., Qurrota A’yunina,

My beloved family

Djurin, Suprihatin, Sutrisno, Suwarni, Retno, Wahyu,

Solo boarding-mates

Joni Siswo, Dedi Tri, Siti Sulastri, Dwi Rosita.

Thank you for believing in me, for always being my touchstone and for the

endless and unconditional love and support in this journey. I am incredibly

humbled and grateful for all the things that you have done for me. This would not

be possible without you. Thank you for celebrating the successes and for your

constant faith as I worked toward this achievement. I am so blessed to have each

of you in my life.


commit to user

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The writer’s greatest thank goes to Allah SWT for the mercy and blessing to

finish the thesis. In addition, he realizes that he is unable to finish the works, from

the preparation to the report, without contributions, support, helps, advice, and

suggestions from many people. Therefore, he would deeply like to thank to:

1. The Director of Graduate School of Sebelas Maret University for the

permission to conduct the research.

2. The Head of English Education Department of Graduate School of Sebelas

Maret University Surakarta for the support to finish the thesis.

3. Dr. Abdul Asib, M.Pd, the first consultant, for the patience, valuable

guidance and time during the consultation to finish the thesis.

4. Dra. Dewi Rochsantiningsih, M.Ed., Ph.D, the second consultant, for the

advice, suggestions, and criticism during the consultation to finish the thesis.

5. The lecturers of English Education Department of Graduate School of

Sebelas Maret University Surakarta, for the knowledge during the study.

6. The Rector of IKIP PGRI Madiun for the permission to conduct the research.

7. Nuri Ati Ningsih, S.Pd., M.Pd, the head of English Teaching Department of

IKIP PGRI Madiun, for the help, support, advice, and permission to conduct

the research.

8. The students of English Teaching Department of IKIP PGRI Madiun for the

cooperation during the research.

9. His friends and family for the support and assistance once he met difficulty in

accomplishing the thesis.

Therefore, the writer will accept all constructive criticism and suggestion for

a better study in the future.

Surakarta, August 2nd

2013

Samsul Arifin


commit to user

ABSTRACT

SAMSUL ARIFIN. NIM S891108095. 2013. The Effectiveness of Self-Regulated

Strategy Development to Teach Writing Viewed from Students’ Creativity (An

Experimental Study in the Third Semester Students of English Department IKIP

PGRI Madiun in the Academic Year of 2012/ 2013). First Consultant: Dr. Abdul

Asib, M.Pd. Second Consultant: Dra. Dewi Rochsantiningsih, M.Ed., Ph.D.

Thesis. English Department, Graduate School, Sebelas Maret University.

The research is aimed at finding out whether: (1) Self-Regulated Strategy

Development is more effective than Collaborative Writing to teach writing; (2)

The students having high creativity have better writing skill than those having low

creativity; and (3) there is an interaction between teaching strategies and students’

creativity in teaching writing.

The research was an experimental study conducted at the third semester

students of English Department of IKIP PGRI Madiun in the academic year of

2012/2013, starting from October 2012 to June 2013. The population was the third

semester students of English Department of IKIP PGRI Madiun in the academic

year of 2012/2013 which consisted of 7 classes with the total of 207 students. The

samples were two classes namely experimental class which was taught using Self-

Regulated Strategy Development and control class which was taught using

Collaborative Writing. To find out the sample, a cluster random sampling

technique was implemented. Each class was divided into two groups of which

each consisted of students having high creativity and those having low creativity.

To gain the data, two instruments were used namely writing test to find out the

score of students’ writing and creativity test to find out the score of students’

creativity. The two instruments were, firstly, tried out to get readable instruction.

The data were, then, analysed by using Multifactor Analysis of variance ANOVA

2x2 and Tukey test. Before conducting the ANOVA test, pre-requisite test namely

normality and homogeneity test were conducted.

There are some research findings that can be taken: (1) Self-Regulated

Strategy Development is more effective than collaborative writing to teach

argumentative essay writing; (2) The students having high creativity have better

writing skill than those having low creativity; and (3) There is an interaction

between teaching strategies and students’ creativity in teaching writing. Based on the results of the research, it implies that Self-Regulated Strategy

Development is an effective strategy for teaching writing to the third semester

students of English Department IKIP PGRI Madiun. Therefore it is recommended

that; (1) it is better for lecturers to implement Self-Regulated Strategy

Development in the teaching of argumentative essay; (2) it is better for lecturers

to implement Self-Regulated Strategy Development to accomodate students’

creativity; and (3) it is better to use the finding of this research as a literatural

refference for other researches with different sample and different psychological

aspect.

Keywords: Self-Regulated Strategy Development, Collaborative Writing,

creativity, experimental study.


commit to user

RINGKASAN

SAMSUL ARIFIN. NIM S891108095. 2013. Efektivitas Self-Regulated Strategi

untuk Mengajar Keterampilan Menulis Ditnijau dari Kreatifitas Mahasiswa

(Penelitian Eksperimen pada Mahasiswa Semester Tiga Program Studi

Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris IKIP PGRI Madiun Tahun Akademik 2012/2013).

Pembimbing 1: Dr. Abdul Asib, M.Pd. Pembimbing 2: Dra. Dewi

Rochsantiningsih, M.Ed., Ph.D. Thesis. Prodi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris,

Program Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Sebelas Maret Surakarta.

Penelitian ini bertujuan mengetahui apakah self-regulated strategi lebih

efektif daripada menulis berkolaborasi dalam pengajaran keterampilan menulis;

apakah siswa dengan kreatifitas kebahasaan tinggi memiliki ketrampilan menulis

lebih baik daripada mereka dengan kreatifitas kebahasaan rendah; dan apakah ada

interaksi antara strategi pembelajaran dan kreatifitas mahasiswa dalam

pembelajaran menulis.

Penelitian ini menggunakan model eksperimen pada mahasiswa semester tiga

prodi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris IKIP PGRI Madiun tahun akademik 2012/2013

mulai Oktober 2012 sampai Juni 2013 dengan jumlah populasi sebanyak 238

mahasiswa. Sampel penelitian ini yaitu kelas III F yang merupakan kelas

eksperimen yang diajar dengan menggunakan self-regulated strategi dan kelas III

G yang merupakan kelas kontrol yang diajar dengan menggunakan strategi

menulis berkolaborasi. Untuk menentukan sampel, tehnik acak (sample random

sampling) digunakan. Untuk mengetahui tingkat kreatifitas mahasiswa, masing-

masing kelas dibagi menjadi dua kelompok yang terdiri dari mereka dengan

kreatifitas kebahasaan tinggi dan mereka dengan kreatifitas kebahasaan rendah.

Untuk mendapatkan data, dua instrumen penelitian digunakan yaitu tes menulis

untuk menentukan nilai ketrampilan menulis mahasiswa dan tes kreatifitas untuk

menentukan nilai kreatifitas kebahasaan mahasiswa. Kedua instrumen tersebut

terlebih dahulu di uji cobakan untuk mengetahui apakah keduanya memiliki

tingkat keterbacaan intruksi yang baik. Kemudian data dianalisa menggunakan

multi faktor varian dua arah (ANOVA) dan test tukey. Sebelumnya, tes normality

dan homogeneity dilaksanakan.

Hasil temuan menunjukkan bahwa self-regulated strategi lebih efektif dari

pada menulis berkolaborasi untuk pengajaran menulis; mahasiswa dengan

kreativitas kebahasaan tinggi memiliki kemampuan menulis lebih baik dari pada

mereka dengan kreatifitas kebahasaan rendah; ada keterkaitan antara strategi

pembelajaran dan kreatifitas kebahasaan mahasiswa dalam pembelajaran menulis.

Dari hasil tersebut, bisa disimpulkan bahwa self-regulated strategi efektif

untuk pengajaran menulis bagi mahasiswa di tingkat universitas. Oleh karena itu,

direkomendasikan bagi dosen untuk mengimplementasikan dan menggunakannya

dalam pembelajaran menulis untuk mengakomodasi kreatifitas mahasiswa.

Keywords: Self-regulated strategi, Menulis berkolaborasi, Creativity,

Experimental Study.


commit to user

ix

TABLE OF CONTENT

TITLE ............................................................................................................... i

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................... ii

APPROVAL ..................................................................................................... iii

LEGITIMATION FROM THE BOARD OF EXAMINATION ..................... iv

PRONOUNCEMENT ...................................................................................... v

MOTTO ........................................................................................................... vi

DEDICATION ................................................................................................. vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................... viii

TABLE OF CONTENT ................................................................................... ix

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................... xii

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................... xiii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1

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

B. Identification of the Problems ............................................................ 5

C. Limitation of the Problems ................................................................ 5

D. Statement of the Problems ................................................................. 6

E. Objectives of the Study ...................................................................... 6

F. Benefits of the study .......................................................................... 6

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ............................. 8

A. Writing ............................................................................................... 8

1. The Definition of Writing ........................................................... 8

2. Writing Skill ............................................................................... 9

3. The Teaching of Writing ............................................................. 10

4. Assessing Writing ....................................................................... 11

5. Types of Writing Task ................................................................ 12

6. Argumentative Essay .................................................................. 14

7. Assessing Argumentative Essay ................................................. 17

B. Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) ................................. 20

1. The Definition of SRSD ............................................................. 20

2. The Implementation of SRSD..................................................... 21

3. The Advantages of Using SRSD ............................................... 24

4. The Disadvantages of Using SRSD ........................................... 25

C. Collaborative Writing (CW) .............................................................. 25

1. The Definition of Collaborative Writing .................................... 25

2. The Implementation of Collaborative Writing ........................... 26

3. The Advantages of Collaborative Writing ................................. 27

4. The Disadvantages of Collaborative Writing ............................ 28

D. Teaching Writing Using Self-Regulated Strategy Development

Compared to Collaborative Writing ................................................... 29

1. General Differences of SRSD and CW ....................................... 29

2. The Difference of Lesson Plan between SRSD and CW

in the Teaching of Writing .......................................................... 30

E. Creativity............................................................................................ 31


commit to user

x

1. The Definition of Creativity ....................................................... 31

2. Verbal Creativity ......................................................................... 32

3. Measuring Creativity .................................................................. 32

F. Review of Related Research .............................................................. 34

G. Rationale ............................................................................................ 42

1. The Difference between Self-regulated Strategy Development

and Collaborative Writing in Teaching Writing ......................... 42

2. The Difference in Writing Skill between Students Having

High Creativity and Low Creativity ........................................... 44

3. The Interaction between Teaching Strategies and the Students’

Creativity in Teaching Writing ................................................... 45

H. Hypothesis.......................................................................................... 47

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................... 48

A. The Setting of the Study .................................................................... 48

B. The Research Design ......................................................................... 48

C. Population, Sample, and Sampling .................................................... 49

D. Technique of Collecting the Data ...................................................... 50

E. Technique of Analysing the Data ..................................................... 51

F. Statistical Hypothesis ......................................................................... 55

CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDING ......................................................... 57

A. Data Description ................................................................................ 57

1. Data of Students Taught Using SRSD (A1) ................................ 57

2. Data of Students Taught Using CW (A2) .................................... 58

3. Data of Students Having High Creativity (B1) ........................... 59

4. Data of Students Having Low Creativity (B2) ............................ 60

5. Data of Students Having High Creativity who are Taught

Using SRSD (A1B1) .................................................................... 62

6. Data of Students Having Low Creativity who are Taught

Using SRSD (A1B2) .................................................................... 63


Using CW (A2B1) ........................................................................ 64


Using CW (A2B2) ........................................................................ 65

B. Normality and Homogeneity Test ...................................................... 66

1. Normality of Students Taught Using SRSD (A1) ....................... 66

2. Normality of Students Taught Using CW (A2) ........................... 66

3. Normality of Students Having High Creativity (B1) .................. 66

4. Normality of Students Having Low Creativity (B2) ................... 67

5. Normality of Students Having High Creativity who are Taught

Using SRSD (A1B1) .................................................................... 67

6. Normality of Students Having Low Creativity who are Taught

Using SRSD (A1B2) .................................................................... 67


Using CW (A2B1) ........................................................................ 68


commit to user

xi


Using CW (A2B2) ........................................................................ 68

9. Homogeneity Test ....................................................................... 69

C. Hypothesis Testing............................................................................. 70

D. Discussion and Finding ...................................................................... 74

1. Self-regulated Strategy Development is more Effective than

Collaborative Writing in Teaching Writing ................................ 74

2. Students Having High Creativity have better Writing Skill

than those Having Low Creativity .............................................. 77

3. There is an Interaction between Teaching Strategies and the

Students’ Creativity in Teaching Writing ................................... 80

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, SUGGESTION ............... 83

1. Conclusion .................................................................................. 83

2. Implication .................................................................................. 84

3. Suggestion ................................................................................... 85

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................ 87

APPENDICES

1. Syllabi of Writing III .................................................................. 94

2. Lesson Plan of Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) . 97

3. Lesson Plan of Collaborative Writing (CW) .............................. 125

4. The Blue Print of Writing Test ................................................... 153

5. Readability of Writing Test ........................................................ 155

6. The Blue Print of Creativity Test ................................................ 156

7. Readability of Creativity Test ..................................................... 157

8. The Answer Key of Creativity Test ............................................ 164

9. The Scoring Rubric of Argumentative Essay Writing ................ 167

10. The Score of Writing Test .......................................................... 169

11. The Tabulation of Students’ Creativity and Writing Score ........ 171

12. Frequency Distribution of the Data ............................................ 173

13. Normality Test ............................................................................ 181

14. Homogeneity Test ....................................................................... 189

15. Preparation for Anova Test ......................................................... 190

16. Anova Test .................................................................................. 192

17. Tukey Test .................................................................................. 193

18. Table of Frequency Distribution ................................................. 194

19. Table of Chi-Square .................................................................... 195

20. Table of Tukey ............................................................................ 196


commit to user

xii

LIST OF TABLES

1. Table 2.1. Element of Structure of Argumentative Essay ....................... 16

2. Table 2.2. The Scoring Rubric of Argumentative Essay Writing ........... 18

3. Table 2.3. Comparison of SRSD and CW in Teaching Writing ............. 29

4. Table 2.4. The Basic Stages of Teaching Strategies of Writing ............. 30

5. Table 2.5. The Implementation of Strategies in the Classroom .............. 30

6. Table 3.1. Time and Place of the Research ............................................. 48

7. Table 4.1. Frequency Distribution of Data A1 ........................................ 58

8. Table 4.2. Frequency Distribution of Data A2 ........................................ 59

9. Table 4.3. Frequency Distribution of Data B1 ......................................... 60

10. Table 4.4. Frequency Distribution of Data B2 ......................................... 61

11. Table 4.5. Frequency Distribution of Data A1B1 .................................... 62




15. Table 4.9. Summary of Normality Test................................................... 69

16. Table 4.10. Summary of Homogeneity Test ............................................. 69

17. Table 4.11. Summary of a 2X2 Multifactor Analysis of Variance ........... 70

18. Table 4.12. The Mean of Scores ............................................................... 70

19. Table 4.13. The Result of Tukey’s HSD Test ........................................... 72


commit to user

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Figure 2.1. The Three Stages of Collaborative Writing ........................... 26

2. Figure 4.1. Histogram and Polygon of Data A1 ........................................ 58

3. Figure 4.2. Histogram and Polygon of Data A2 ........................................ 59

4. Figure 4.3. Histogram and Polygon of Data B1 ........................................ 60

5. Figure 4.4. Histogram and Polygon of Data B2 ........................................ 61

6. Figure 4.5. Histogram and Polygon of Data A1B1 .................................... 62



9. Figure 4.8 Histogram and Polygon of Data A2B2 .................................... 65

students’ creativity/the...the students having high creativity have better writing skill than...

Documents