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