students’ perceptions on learning materials and …

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS ON LEARNING MATERIALS AND LEARNING STRATEGIES

OF RESEARCH METHODS CLASS AND ITS CONTRIBUTION

TO STUDENTS’ THESIS WRITING

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements

to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education

By Ignatia Yole Puspita Wardani Student Number: 121214038

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

2018

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS ON LEARNING MATERIALS AND LEARNING STRATEGIES

OF RESEARCH METHODS CLASS AND ITS CONTRIBUTION

TO STUDENTS’ THESIS WRITING

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements

to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education

By

Ignatia Yole Puspita Wardani Student Number: 121214038

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

2018

i


ii


iii


AD MAIOREM DEI GLORIAM “For the greater of Your glory.”

This thesis is dedicated to:

Papa who are in heaven with Jesus, my lovely Mama, my Bapak, my old and little brothers. I can finish this thesis because of your prayers and unconditional love.

Thank you.

iv


v


vi


ABSTRACT

Wardani, Ignatia Yole P. (2018). Students’ Perceptions on Learning Materials and Learning Strategies of Research Methods Class and Its Contribution to Students’ Thesis Writing. Yogyakarta: Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Research Method Class is the course in ELESP Sanata Dharma University that equips students with the nature of the research and the research problems. Research methodology had a big contribution to write a thesis. Its contribution was clearly presented on Chapter III: Research Methodology of the students’ thesis. Research methodology was important to be mastered by the students because it described the design of their whole research. Because Research Methodology was important, sometimes it caused difficulty for the students’ thesis writing. It is therefore interesting to know the students’ perceptions on Research Method Class especially about the learning materials, the learning strategies, and their contribution to students’ thesis writing.

There were two research questions in this study. The first research question was the students’ perceptions on the learning materials and the delivery methods in Research Method Class. The second research question was the students’ perceptions on the contribution of the learning materials and the delivery methods in Research Method Class to thesis writing.

This study was a quantitative research. The data were gathered by using descriptive survey method. The questionnaire was used as the instrument to collect the data. There were close-ended and open-ended questions in the questionnaire. The close-ended data was used as the main data. Meanwhile, the open-ended data was used as the supporting data to sharpen the main data during the discussion.

The first findings of this study were that the students perceived that the learning materials of Research Method Class were useful and meaningful. The students also perceived that the learning materials delivery methods during Research Method Class were effective to assist students to achieve the aims of the course. The second finding of this study was that the students perceived that the contribution of the learning materials and the learning materials delivery methods of Research Method Class to the students’ thesis writing were meaningful and helpful.

Keywords: perception, research methodology, learning material, learning strategy, contribution, thesis

vii


ABSTRAK

Wardani, Ignatia Yole P. (2018). Students’ Perceptions on Learning Materials and Learning Strategies of Research Methods Class and Its Contribution to Students’ Thesis Writing. Yogyakarta: Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Research Methods Class adalah mata kuliah dalam program studi

Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Universitas Sanata Dharma yang membekali mahasiswa dengan karakteristik penelitian dan permasalahan-permasalahan penelitian. Research Methodology mempunyai kontribusi besar untuk penulisan skripsi. Kontribusi tersebut dengan jelas disajikan pada Chapter III: Research Methodology dalam skripsi mahasiswa. Research Methodology penting untuk dikuasai oleh siswa sebab mendeskripsikan desain keseluruhan skripsi yang ditulis oleh mahasiswa. Karena Research Methodology sangat penting, terkadang Research Methodology menyebabkan kesulitan-kesulitan untuk penulisan skripsi mahasiswa. Lebih lanjut, penelitian ini tertarik untuk mengetahui persepsi para mahasiswa terhadap mata kuliah tersebut terutama pada materi pembelajaran, strategi penyampaian materi, dan kontribusinya dalam penulisan skripsi.

Ada dua pertanyaan penelitian dalam penelitian ini. Pertanyaan penelitian pertama adalah persepsi siswa terhadap materi pembelajaran dan metode penyampaian di Research Methods Class. Pertanyaan penelitian kedua adalah persepsi siswa terhadap kontribusi bahan ajar dan metode penyampaian di Research Methods Class terhadap penulisan tugas akhir.

Penelitian ini termasuk sebagai penelitian kuantitatif. Data dikumpulkan dengan metode deskriptif survei. Kuesioner digunakan sebagai instrumen untuk mengumpulkan data. Terdapat pertanyaan tertutup dan terbuka dalam kuesioner. Data close-ended digunakan sebagai data utama. Sedangkan data open-ended digunakan sebagai data pendukung untuk mempertajam data utama selama diskusi.

Temuan pertama dari penelitian ini adalah siswa memiliki persepsi positif terhadap materi pembelajaran Research Methods Class. Artinya materi pembelajaran Research Methods Class dianggap sebagai bahan pembelajaran yang penuh makna. Para siswa juga memiliki persepsi positif terhadap metode penyampaian bahan ajar. Artinya, metode penyampaian materi pembelajaran selama Research Methods Class efektif untuk membantu siswa mencapai tujuan dalam kelas tersebut. Temuan kedua dari penelitian ini adalah siswa memiliki persepsi positif terhadap kontribusi bahan ajar dan metode penyampaian bahan ajar Research Methods Class terhadap penulisan skripsi siswa. Artinya materi pembelajaran dan metode penyampaian bahan ajar Research Methods Class merupakan bagian yang berguna untuk kontribusi penulisan skripsi siswa.

Kata kunci: persepsi, metodologi penelitian, materi pembelajaran, strategi penyampaian materi, kontribusi, skripsi

viii


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The biggest expression of my gratitude is given to Jesus Christ for all His

amazing grace. I also give a big expression of my gratitude to Holy Mary Mother

of God for her prayers. Their amazing grace and prayers helped me to finish my

biggest responsibility as a student of Sanata Dharma University.

I would like to wholeheartedly give my thanks to my important persons

who always be with me during the process of finishing this thesis. The first one is

my advisor, Veronica Triprihatmini, M.Hum., M.A. for her unlimited

understanding, patience, support, motivation, and guidance during the

unforgettable thesis writing process. Then, I would like to express my great thanks

to my parents Yohana Lestari and Pcs. Eddy Meiyartho, my grandfather

Tarcisius Wardjo, my very best friends Kartika Eva Rahmawati, Carolus

Suksmo Praksono, S.Pd., Priscilla Eka Diah Sabu Lazar, S.Pd., and Angelina

Ryan Pamulasari, and my most valuable person Daniel Dwi Wahyu Ananta

Jati who always give the best motivation and who always stand by me during the

process of completing this study. I would also present this work to my brothers

Ignatius Dea Kusuma Wardana, S.E., and Fx. Vino Puspa Wardana who

always support me by their humours, laughs, and the silly tricks and treats.

I would send my bunch of thanks to Hari Krismawan, S.Pd., and Aloysia

Erlin Lasar, S.Pd. who helped me to be my proofreaders. I would like to deliver

my gratitude to Bu Tri’s students: Yohanes Veryndra Honesta, S.Pd., Rosalina

ix


Puspitarini, and Rahmawati Dwi Sulistyorini. I thank them for their willingness

to be my partners of discussion.

The last but not least, I would like to give my best appreciation to

Roosefine Shierly Septiana, S.Pd., Chezia Eufresia Isworo, S.Pd., Antonius

Agus Wijaya, S.Pd., Juan C. Kolemar, S.Pd., Yohana Gabriella Nanda, S.Pd.,

Rosa Avia, S.Pd., Mercy Taum, S.Pd., Indrajid, S.Pd., Bernadeta Erwips,

Slavian Oktabri, Kirana Cinta Murti, Windy Christanti and any other

individuals who have contributed and helped me to complete and finish this

thesis. I believe that this thesis cannot be finished without their participation and

contribution. Their kindness really meaningful for me.

Ignatia Yole Puspita Wardani

x


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TITLE PAGE .................................................................................................. i APPROVAL PAGE ........................................................................................ii STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY .............................................. v PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ...............................................vi ABSTRACT .................................................................................................. vii ABSTRAK ................................................................................................... viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...........................................................................ix TABLE OF CONTENTS ...............................................................................xi LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................ xii LIST OF APPENDICES .............................................................................. xiii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION

A. Research Background ...................................................................... 1 B. Research Questions .......................................................................... 3 C. Significances of the Study................................................................ 3 D. Definition of Terms.......................................................................... 4

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

A. Theoretical Description.................................................................... 7 B. Theoretical Framework .................................................................. 25

CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A. Research Method............................................................................ 30 B. Research Setting............................................................................. 31 C. Research Participants ..................................................................... 32 D. Instrument and Data Gathering Technique .................................... 32 E. Data Analysis Technique ............................................................... 34

CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. Students’ Perceptions about the Learning Materials of Research Method Class.............................................................. 38

B. Students’ Perceptions about the Learning Strategies of Research Method Class.............................................................. 49

C. Students’ Perceptions about the Contribution of Research Method Class to Students’ Thesis Writing ................ 65

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Conclusions .................................................................................... 79 B. Recommendations .......................................................................... 81

REFERENCES............................................................................................. 83

xi


LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 3.1 Research Score of Students’ Questionnaire .............................. 34 Table 3.2 Scale of Score Criteria............................................................... 36 Table 4.1 The Percentages of Students’ Perceptions

on Learning Materials in RM Class .......................................... 39 Table 4.2 The Percentages of Students’ Perceptions

on Learning Strategies in RM Class.......................................... 50 Table 4.3 The Percentages of Students’ Perceptions

on their Contribution of Research Method Class to Students’ Thesis Writing....................................................... 65

xii


LIST OF APPENDICES Page

Appendix A Blueprint ............................................................................... 87 Appendix B Questionnaire........................................................................ 97 Appendix C Formulation of Score Category .......................................... 105 Appendix D Sheets of Questionnaire Results ......................................... 108

xiii


CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter aims to give introduction about this research. The

introduction consists of four parts. There are research background, research

questions, research significances, and definition of terms.

A. Research Background

According to the course outline of English Language Education Study

Program Sanata Dharma University (2016, p.1), Research Methods Class (RM

Class) is the course in ELESP Sanata Dharma University that equips students with

the nature of the research and the research problems. This course also deals with

the types of research methods and instruments for data gathering.

Moreover, research methodology had a big contribution to write a thesis.

This statement was supported by Oliver (2004) who stated that the mastery of

research methodology was one of the thesis writing strengths, so the research

methodology was crucial to be mastered by the students in order to write their

thesis. Because research methodology was crucial to be mastered by the students,

sometimes it caused several difficulties for the students’ thesis writing. As such

the difficulties in determining, designing, implementing, and investigating the

proper methodology for the students’ thesis writing.

Furthermore, the students’ mastery of research methodology could not be

separated from the learning materials and the strategies to deliver those learning

1


2 materials. The choices of learning materials influenced students’ involvement in

the learning process. The learning materials which were appropriate for students’

needs were going to motivate students (Djamarah, 2000, p. 44). The choices of the

learning materials must be related with the delivery methods. In the learning

process, the lecturers had to be ready for the implementation of the learning

strategies that were focused on students’ needs. The implementation was applied

as a solution to the old erroneous learning process which had a belief in

generalization of students’ learning styles (Prashnig, 2007, p. 59). In accordance

with the statements of Djamarah (2000) and Prashnig (2007), lecturers needed to

know the students’ perceptions of the learning materials and the learning materials

delivery method in Research Methods Class. It was important because students’

perceptions could be used as an indicator to know how far the students could

comprehend the research methodology for their research. Moreover, it could be

used as an illustration of the learning process and as a reference for the course’s

development. Therefore, it is interesting to know the students’ perceptions on

Research Methods Class especially about the learning materials, the learning

strategies, and their contribution to students’ thesis writing.

This study aimed to collect students’ experiences about the learning

materials and the delivery methods in Research Methods Class. It also aimed to

gather students’ experiences after attending Research Methods Class related to the

process of their thesis writing. Further, this study aimed to provide a place for

students to contribute to the future development of Research Methods Class’

learning process especially to write their thesis. Last, this study did not aim to find


3 the proof of the students’ difficulties, but to elaborate what students had received

in Research Methods Class for their thesis writing.

B. Research Questions

This section provides the questions of this research. There were three

research questions in this research.

1. What are the students’ perceptions on the learning materials of Research

Methods Class?

2. What are students’ perceptions on the learning strategies of Research Methods

Class?

3. What are the students’ perceptions on the contribution of Research Methods

Class to their Thesis writing?

C. Significances of the Study

This section identifies this study’s contribution for particular parties that

may use the results of this study. The significances of this study are provided

bellow.

1. English Language Education Study Program (ELESP)

This study will contribute to the development of Research Methods Class.

The results of this study will confirm whether the learning process in Research

Methods Class is already meaningful and helpful or not for students’ thesis

writing preparation.


4 2. Students of ELESP

This study can provide a place for students to tell their experiences about

the learning process in Research Methods Class and how it relates to their

thesis writing. Further, the students who have not been in Research Methods

Class, will experience less difficulties in order to understand the research

methodologies. Thus, they will find improvement to ease the thesis writing

process.

3. The Lecturers of ELESP

The lecturers can use this study to improve the learning process in

Research Methods Class. This study can be used as a reference to help students

to understand the materials and to apply their knowledge and skills in the

research. It is very helpful for lecturers to analyse and to find solution for the

next learning process.

4. Other Researchers

Other researchers under the same topic can use this study as a related

study. This study can be useful for other researchers to get information and

evaluation. Then, this study can be used to conduct further improvement about

similar research in the future.

D. Definition of Terms

This section defines and explains the specific and important terms

mentioned in this research questions. The definition of terms in this research are

listed as follows.


5 1. Research Methods Class (RM Class)

Research Methods Class is held on semester six ELESP Sanata Dharma

University before Proposal Seminar Class in semester seven and Thesis in

semester eight. This class aims to give understanding about the research

methodologies as the preparation for Methodology chapter in their Proposal

Seminar and Thesis.

2. Thesis Writing

Thesis writing is normally held on semester eight until semester ten at

ELESP Sanata Dharma University. The students are given three semesters to

finish their Thesis. When the students cannot finish their Thesis in three

semesters, they have to change into Final Paper writing. Thesis or Final Paper

writing is the subject to determine whether students can graduated or not from

Sanata Dharma University.

3. Perception

Perception comes from five senses experiences in the world. Perception is

a process of highly cognitive selecting, organizing, storing, and interpreting

information from the five senses (Solso, 2008, p.75). Besides, according to

Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary-Third Edition (2008), perception is

a belief or opinion often held by many people and based on how things seem.

In this research, perceptions refers to students’ opinions about their experiences

of Research Methods Class’ learning materials, Research Methods Class’

learning materials delivery methods, and Research Methods Class’ contribution

to their thesis writing.


6 4. Learning Material

According to Djamarah (2010), the learning material is the core element of

the learning activity that have to be mastered by students. The learning material

is the substance that will be delivered by the lecturer in the learning process.

Moreover, in this study, the learning materials are the topics that have been

prepared by the lecturer to meet the needs of students’ knowledge in Research

Methods Class.

5. Learning Strategies

Learning strategies are the ways that will be applied by the lecturer to

deliver the learning materials during the learning activity. The ways that will

be applied to explain the learning materials should be delivered appropriately

to the students. The learning materials will be in vain without the proper

learning strategies (Djamarah, 2010, p. 11).


CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter presents the theories related to this research. There will be

several sections. They are Theoretical Description and Theoretical Framework.

A. Theoretical Description

There are several preview studies about students’ perceptions toward

ELESP’ courses. These preview studies are similar with this research. Therefore,

these preview studies can be used as the references to conduct this research.

The title of the first study was “Students’ Perceptions toward the

Simulation as a Part of Experiential Learning in Approaches, Methods, and

Techniques (AMT) Course” by Marselina Karina Purnomo (2016). The focus of

this study was the importance of simulation as part of Experiential Learning in

AMT Course that could facilitate the students’ understanding to apply the certain

approaches, methods, and techniques being studied. The problem formulation of

this study was “What are students’ perceptions toward simulation as a part of

Experiential Learning in AMT course?”. The finding in this study was the

students perceived simulation as an important activity which creates meaningful

learning in AMT course.

The title of the second study was “Students’ Perceptions on the Use of

Group Discussion and Their Engagement in the Speaking Session of CLS I” by

Servinus Yanse (2016). The focuses of this study were the students’ perceptions

7


8 on the use of group discussion as a technique used in classroom activity and

students’ perceptions on their engagement itself during the group discussion. The

problem formulations of this study were “What are students’ perceptions on the

use of group discussion to increase their engagement in the speaking session in

CLS 1?” and “What are students’ perceptions on their engagement in group

discussion in the speaking session in CLS 1?”. The findings of this study were the

use of group discussion is an interesting and effective technique to increase

students’ engagement and the respondents have positive perceptions on their

engagement in group discussion in the speaking session of CLS I.

This study deals with students’ perception on the learning materials, the

delivery methods in Research Methods Class (RM), and their contribution to

thesis writing. The role of each previous study was only an example template for

the author to work on this study. It was because both studies also discussed about

students’ perception. Besides, this study was different with the previous study

because the subject of this study was Research Methods Class of students’ batch

2013 and the participants were students’ batch 2013 who passed Research

Methods Class and they were writing thesis.

There were several theories that were reviewed in this study. Those

theories applied to analyse the research questions. The reviews of those theories

were written as follows.

1. Perception

The theory of perception was used to answer all research questions which

were included in 30 statements and 2 questions in the questionnaire. In those


9 research questions, perception theories were the bases for analyzing students’

perceptions formed through statements and questions based on their experience in

RM class and the contribution of RM class to write their thesis. Then, the

perception analysis was completed by other theories that corresponded to the

points of each research question.

According to Solso (2008), perception involved an advanced cognitive

level in the interpretation of sensory information. Perception referred to the

interpretation of things that people sense. Any experience of the sensory stimuli

that occurs was going to be processed according to people’s knowledge, culture,

hope, even according to the person with whom people was. Those things gave

meanings to the people’s simple sensory experiences.

Further, Robbins (2001) stated that perception was a process of organizing

and interpreting the sense impression that was captured by individuals, then they

interpreted the impression according to their environment. However, the

perception of each person could be different. Differences arose due to several

factors. The factors that affect perceptions by individuals were the perceiver, the

target, and the situation in which the perception is made.

a. Perceiver

When an individual viewed an object and tried to interpret what she/he saw,

then that interpretation was strongly influenced by the characteristics of the

perceiver. Relevant characteristics affected perceptions were attitudes, motives,

interests, past experiences, and expectations.


10

Attitudes discussed about how individuals saw the same thing, but interpreted

it differently. The main reason for differences in perception was the reaction

received by each individual. For an example, students who actively study

independently were easier to found the references of RM materials, while passive

students learning independently was more difficult to find reference for RM

material. This difference of attitude created the perception that appeared

differently about the mastery of the material in RM Class.

Motives related to the things that each individual needs. The unsatisfied needs

of individuals would strongly stimulate and influence individuals in perceiving

things. For an example, students who had high curiosity in the RM course would

have a higher need to achieve the learning objectives in RM class.

The focus of individual interest could influence perception differences. This

difference of perception depended on the interests that the individual was engaged

in. For an example, students who were busy with a personal problem would find

some difficulties to focus on lectures. Students who did not have interest in RM

course would easily get bored when attending RM class. The boredom could

affect perceptions of their achievement in RM class.

Past experiences dealt with experiences that had experienced before. Some new

experienced would be more striking for some individuals. Past experience also

affected interests. Through past experience, the individual would eliminate the

interest factor to form a perception. This was because past experience had shaped

the power of initial perception to eliminate or weaken perceptions that arose when

interest factors would form a new perception. For an example, students who had


11 been criticized by a lecturer in a course would tend to have a negative perception

of the course. Whereas students who gained experience appreciated as the unique

individual would tend to have a positive perception of the course.

Expectations affected individual perceptions. This was because an individual

had expectations of qualifying standards on certain objects, people, or

circumstances. For an example, a student had a certain expectation for a lecturer.

Such expectations usually lead to the criteria of an ideal lecturer as well as to

motivate, to have an interesting method in teaching and learning activities, to be

able to inspire, and to be able to understand the uniqueness of each student.

b. Target

The characteristics of the targets that encountered by individuals affected the

perceptions that they formed. Each target that observed by individuals had

characteristics that probably affected the perception. For an example, the material

in RM class that was too much and difficult to understand would be easier to

influence the perception of students. It was because too much and difficult

material had an impression that impressed students on the formation of meaning

rather than the easy material.

Objects that had a similarity of form or event would tend to be perceived

together. Physical resemblance or timing would tend to be combined with objects

or events that might not be related together. For an example, the selection of less

familiar words and the absence of illustrations in the delivery of RM subjects

would tend to shape the perception of RM course was difficult to understand.


12 Those things would tend to be perceived as a related factor because the objects

appeared in the same timings.

c. Situation

The surroundings of the perception also affected perceptions that were formed.

Environmental circumstances that might affect perceptions were timing, the state

of a place, and social circumstances. The example of timing was about the level of

student participation in teaching and learning activities in “vulnerable hours”,

after lunch. Their participation would tend to be less than in productive hours, in

the beginning of the day, whereas lecturers use the same method. The example of

place was RM material delivery method. It would be more effective when done in

quiet classrooms and no noise disturbance from outside the classroom. Then, the

example of social circumstances was the method of delivering the materials in the

RM class. It would be greater interesting to students when methods elicit

initiatives, relevant to student needs, and help students to recognize their interests

rather than the methods that only focused on the lecturer.

Further, the psychologists developed two core theories of how humans

perceive the world. Those theories were the constructive perception and the direct

perception. The constructive perception stated that humans constructed perception

by actively selecting the stimuli and combining the sensation. Besides, the direct

perception stated that it was formed from the acquisition of information directly

from the environment.

The constructive perception was constructed according to the assumptions

that during the perception, humans form and test the hypothetical hypotheses


13 related to the perceptions based on what humans sense and what they know.

Therefore, the constructive perception was a combination effect of information

that was received by the sensory system and the knowledge about the world that

was learnt by humans. The constructive perception had the foundation of

knowledge, experiences, and learning. It directed humans’ attention and combined

the internal representation in the mind.

The theory of the direct perception stated that information within the

stimuli was the important element. Besides, the learning and the cognition were

not important during the process of perception. It was because the environment

had provided the sufficient information needs that could be used to the

interpretation. In other words, the perception did not require the internal

representation. Humans did not have to bother to compose the perceptions or draw

the conclusions. Therefore, the direct perception helped humans understand some

initial perceptions of sensory impressions.

2. Learning Materials

The theories of learning materials was used to answer the research

question 1. It is about the students' perceptions on the learning materials they

learned in RM class. The theories of learning materials helped the researcher to

analyse the characteristics of learning materials received by students in RM class.

Through these characteristics, the conclusions about the tendency as the results of

the student perceptions could be created. The tendency could be seen through the

statement 1 up to 10 in questionnaire.


14

According to DeNeen (2013), teaching was successful if it was appropriate

with the objectives that were compiled before. In the learning activity, teaching

was not the only thing that could support the success of students’ learning. The

right materials that were appropriate with students’ needs could also support the

success of students’ learning. The appropriate materials could motivate students to

participate and to have a meaningful learning (Djamarah, 2010, p. 44). Further,

the material was the core of the learning activity because the learning material

itself that had to be mastered by students and the references of the materials were

taken from everything that became the sources of the materials (Djamarah, 2010,

p. 48).

According to Arends (2011), the functions of the learning materials for

students were written below.

a. Students learnt independently without teacher or another students

b. Students could learn wherever and whenever they want

c. Students learnt using their own speed

d. Students could organize their own learning

e. The materials helped students to learn independently

f. Learning materials were the guidelines that led the students into the whole

activities in the learning process and into the mastery of the materials.

According to Widodo (2008), the learning material, as the core of the

learning activity, required development that could improve students’ motivation

and effectiveness. The following was the characteristics that could be used to

improve the learning materials. Each characteristic had their own conditions.


15 a. Self-instructional

The meaning of this character was the learning material had to be meaningful

for the students and they could use the learning material independently. There

were conditions of self-instructional, such as:

1. The objectives of the material were clear.

2. The materials were provided in some specific units.

3. There were illustrations and examples to make the materials clearer.

4. There were tasks and exercises.

5. Delivered by contextual approach.

6. The language was simple and communicative.

7. There was summary for each material.

8. There were assessment instruments using self-assessment based.

9. There were evaluation sheets and feedbacks.

10. There were supporting references as other learning resources.

b. Self-contained

Self-contained was all of information both printed and written containing the

learning materials and given to the students. It contained theories and materials

that were grouped into one unit of competence and provided sub-competence.

There were questions in each unit in order to sharpen the understanding of the

student.


16 c. Adaptive

The learning material was flexible. It meant that the learning material could be

used in accordance of technological, scientific, and cultural development.

Moreover, the learning material could be applied for a long period of time.

d. User friendly

A good learning material was the learning material that was not confusing, so it

allowed students to comprehend the meaning of the material contained in the

learning materials. The instructions given within the learning material were

obvious. The use of the language was in accordance with the language that was

commonly used by students.

There were several principles that had to be considered to create and to develop

the learning materials. According to Prastowo (2013), the principles of creating

and developing the learning materials were listed below.

a. Relevance. In this principle, the material had to have the correlation with

competency standards and basic competencies.

b. Consistency. In this principle, the number of the materials should be equal to

the number of the basic competencies.

c. Adequacy. In this principle, the materials should help students to master the

basic competencies. The materials should not be too much or too little.

Furthermore, the good learning materials were the materials that gave new

experiences for the students. According to Browns, Collins, and Duguid (1989),

defining the learning strategies should be correlated with contextual experiences

to make the learning materials became a part of meaningful learning. Therefore,


17 the learning materials could be used as the meaningful tool for students to

comprehend what they have learnt during the learning process because the

materials were close to the students’ life.

3. Learning Strategies

The theories relating to learning strategies were used to answer research

question 2. It is about the students’ perceptions on learning strategies of RM

Class. The theories of learning strategies helped the researcher to analyse the

students' perceptions on lecturers’ roles when delivered the learning materials

during RM Class. Perceptions that had been analysed would be inferred into the

students’ tendency in general. The tendency could be recognized by looking at the

statement 11 up to 22 in the questionnaire.

There were several theories to answer the students’ perception about

learning strategies. One of the theories was students’ perspectives during the

learning process. There were students’ perspectives that occurred during the

learning process. According to Johnson (1979), there were two internal students’

perspectives in the learning process. The first perspective was receiving new

information and the second perspective was individual personalisation towards the

materials that had been learnt. These students’ perspectives conducted

consequences that the teacher was not only delivered the materials, but also

conveyed the material how meaningful it was to the students’ personal

understanding.

In the learning process, there were several principles that would help

students to have meaningful personal understanding about the learning materials.


18 According to Johnson (1979), there were some learning principles. The learning

principles were listed below.

a. Every student had basic ability to learn

b. Learn was meaningful if students realized that something that they had learnt

were relevant to themselves

c. Learning was going to be useless if it against students’ integrity

d. The learning process that against students’ integrity could be reduced by

eliminating the external disturbances

e. Learning was going to be meaningful if students learn through their own

experiences and experiments

f. Learning was going to be successful if students participated actively and

responsibly in every learning process

g. Learning was going to be meaningful and complete if students learnt through

their own initiative

h. Critic and self-evaluation were going to be effective to improve students’

independence, creativity, and confidence.

Johnson (1979) also stated that the teacher did not only deliver the

materials, but also directed the students to comprehend and understand the

meaning of the materials as the characters of the students. As a facilitator, the

teacher should give the chances and help students to realize the purposes of the

learning.

According to Marsh (2005), learning strategy was a series of learning

activities related to the students’ management, the learning environment


19 management, the source of learning material management, and the assessment in

order to achieve the learning aims. Marsh divided the learning strategy into two

main strategies. They were teacher-centered-strategy and student-centered

strategy.

According to Chall (2000) which was cited on Holland (2003), the most

important thing in the learning strategy was the way how the teacher played a role

in those main learning strategies in order to build an effective learning process

and to achieve the goals of the learning. There were several desirable and

undesirable behaviours of the lecturer.

a. Desirable Behaviours

The list below was the lecturer’s desirable behaviours in the learning process.

1. Teachers had to be warm and familiar with the students. They should show the

enthusiasm in the learning process.

2. Teachers had to be cheerful, neat, and not easily offended to build conducive

atmosphere of learning process.

3. Teachers had to be friends for their students, especially to build students’

motivation in learning.

4. Teachers had to challenge their students. This aimed to motivate the students

and to develop students’ curiosity about the topic of the learning.

5. Teachers had to give their attention and concern to help students had

improvement for students’ learning.

6. Teachers had to explain the learning materials clearly and help students

whenever the students faced some difficulties.


20 7. Teachers had to be flexible. It meant that teachers could adjust the

implementation of the learning materials delivery method to suit the students’

needs.

8. Teachers had to be aware of the different learning needs for each student.

9. Teachers had to respond positively any students’ behaviour.

10. Teachers had to prepare the apperception in the beginning of the class,

implement the variety of the learning materials delivery methods smoothly,

and close the learning activities clearly.

11. Teachers had to accustom the students to do reflection before closing the

learning activities. It aimed to help students to get meaningful understanding

from the learning materials.

b. Undesirable Behaviours

The list below was the lecturer’s undesirable behaviours in the learning

process.

1. Teachers had not to interrupt, make comments, ask questions, and give sudden

directions often that could interfere students’

2. Teachers had not to fade the explanation of some learning materials out, so the

students could not catch the important points of the explanation.

3. Teachers had not to digress during the explanation that could cause the

digression of the main points of the learning materials.

4. Teachers had not to begin and end the learning process inappropriately. In

other words, teachers did not give an introduction and a closing that could

cause ambiguity for the students’ understanding.


21 5. Teachers had not to be long-winded during the explanation of any topic.

6. Teachers had not to warn students roughly.

7. Teachers had not to insult or give extreme critic to the students who had

different character and face difficulty.

8. Teachers had not to get angry or offended easily.

9. Teachers had not to give attention only to the smart students.

10. Teachers had not to feel so powerful, arrogant, and excellent without any

awareness of students’ situation.

Furthermore, Weimer (2009), gave opinion about the important things in

the effective learning methods. Those important things were mentioned below.

a. Follow the interest that has risen and complete it with the explanations.

b. Pay attention and respect the students as individuals, and also appreciate their

different interest and the way of learning.

c. Give appropriate appreciation and feedback to the students.

d. Set clear and real learning objectives, and also give the intellectual challenges

that can encourage the students’ spirit of learning.

e. Involve the students actively in the learning process to control the

sustainability of the learning itself.

f. Learn from the students. It is intended to find out what effects of learning for

students that later on, will be modified in accordance with the evidences of

learning effectiveness.

In addition, according to Peterson (1992), there was no best and most

suitable learning strategies for the teacher. It all depended on the way how the


22 teachers determined the method appropriately with the situation of the learning.

Moreover, the tendency of a teacher to be authoritarian also needed to be

considered for avoiding students from the congestion in the learning development.

Nevertheless, there was agreement about the implementation of learning strategy

that had to be adapted to the teacher’s personality, the learning aims, the learning

materials, time allocation for doing the learning activities, the students’ skill

development, and the learning psychology.

4. Research Methodology Contribution to Thesis Writing in ELESP Sanata

Dharma University

These theories were used to answer research question 3 and 4 about the

students' perceptions on the contribution of the learning materials and the learning

strategies in Research Methods Class (RM) to write their thesis. The theories

written in this section would help the researcher to analyse the role of RM course

in thesis writing. The role analysis of RM Class aimed to know the tendency of

student perception about RM Class contribution for thesis writing.

According to Oliver (2004), one of the powers in thesis writing was

research methodologies mastery. The readers believed that the researcher

mastered the research methodologies. This belief was going to be proven when

the researcher was able to justify the research methodologies that she/he

implements in thesis writing by giving the reasons why the researcher chose the

research methodologies.

Then, the research methodology discussed about the organization of the

research. Besides, the research procedure discussed about the steps, the


23 techniques, and the instruments of the research to gather the data. Therefore, the

research methodology included the research procedure and the research

techniques.

Moreover, according to Burns (2000), in research method, the researcher

discussed about three things. The first one was the philosophy of methodology

knowledge. The second one was the research procedure. Then, the third one was

the data analysis technique.

Furthermore, according to Wiersma (1995), research methodology was a

set of systematic and organized methodology to investigate a topic or a title of a

research and to answer the questions that had been formulated on the research.

Then, according to Murray (2002), the function of research methodology could be

obtained by answering these questions below.

a. What is the goal of your research?

b. How do you do your research?

c. Why do you choose this research methodology?

d. What is/are your research question/s?

e. How can your research methodology be implemented on your research

question/s?

f. What topics are proper to explain the methodology on your research?

In ELESP Sanata Dharma University, Research Methods and Thesis are

included in Mata Kuliah Keahlian Berkarya (MKB). In the ELESP curriculum,

Research Methods course had an important role in several courses related to

language teaching or linguistics, literature, seminar proposals, and thesis.


24 According to Research Methods course outline 2016, Research Methods Class

equipped students with knowledge of the nature of research and research

problems. It also dealt with several types of research instruments and appropriate

instruments for data gathering.

There were several goals to be achieved in the course of research method.

These goals were divided into 3 categories: competence, conscience, and

compassion. The goals that had to be achieved in the competence category were

understanding the basic concepts of research, understanding some research

methods that could be employed in the ELT, selecting the appropriate research

method to find the research, and producing a draft of research prospectus. The

goals to be achieved in the conscience category were to gain awareness on the

importance of research to solve problems in ELT and to improve their

responsibility and autonomy in executing various tasks. The goals to be achieved

in the compassion category were to help one another to improve their research

skills and work to complete the assigned tasks.

5. Transformative Learning

The theory of transformative learning was used to analyse the changes of

students’ perceptions on some statements in questionnaire. Those statements

presented the contradiction of the students’ perceptions on the similar situations

during RM Class’ learning activities. The contradiction was used as a sign of the

students’ change that showed transformative learning.

Transformative learning was introduced by Mezirow (1997) as a process

of change that transforms frames of reference. According to Imel (1998), the


25 frames of reference define as the structures of assumptions through which

students understand their experiences. They selectively shape and delimit

expectations, perceptions, cognition, and feelings (Mezirow, 1997, p. 5). In

accordance with this point, actions and behaviors will be changed based on the

changed perspective (Cranton, 1994, p. 730).

According to Cranton (2002) and Taylor (2000), there is an activating

even that typically exposes a discrepancy between what a person has always

assumed to be true and what has just been experienced, heard or read and may

contribute to a readiness for change. Moreover, Cranton (2002) describes this as a

catalyst for transformation. It could be a single event or a series of events that

occur over a much longer period as in an accretion of transformation in points of

view (Mezirow, 1997, p. 7). For example, how students engage in problem

solving may challenge and show discrepancies (Mezirow, 1997; Taylor, 2000).

Furthermore, transformative learning theory leads us to view learning as

a process of becoming aware of one's assumptions and revising these assumptions

(Cranton, 1994, p. 730). According to Baumgartner (2001), actions on the new

perspective are crucial for transformative learning to occur. Moreover, Boyd

(1989) claims an outcome of transformative learning includes a change in self.

B. Theoretical Framework

There are four research questions to be answered in this study. Those

research questions are going to be answered by implementing the theories that

have been described in the review of related theories part. The first research


26 question deals with students’ perception about the learning materials that they had

learnt in Research Methods Class (RM). The second research question deals with

students’ perception about the learning strategies that were applied by the

lecturers in Research Methods Class. The third research question deals with

students’ perception about the contribution of Research Methods Class’ learning

materials to their Thesis writing. The last, research question deals with students’

perception about the contribution of Research Methods Class’ learning strategies

to their Thesis writing.

The theories that are going to be implemented to answer all of the research

question are the theories of perception. Then, the theories that will be

implemented to answer research question 1 are the theories of the learning

materials. The theories of the perception consisted of the theories of Robbins

(2001) and Solso (2008). The theories of Robbins and Solso were used to be the

base for analysing the factors that affected student’s perceptions and how the

perceptions were formed in each statement and questions in the questionnaire.

Next, the theories of the learning materials consisted of the theories of

DeNeen (2013), Djamarah (2010), Widodo (2008), and Arends (2011). The theory

of DeNeen was used to be the reference of one of the teaching success indicators.

The theory of Djamarah was used to identify the roles of the learning materials.

The theory of Widodo was used to identify the characteristics of the learning

materials that arose in the perception of each statement of the aspect 1. The theory

of Arends was used to identify the functions of the learning materials that arose in

the perception of each statement of the aspect 1.


27

Then, the theories of learning strategies consisted of Johnson (1979),

Marsh (2005), Chall (2000), and Weimer (2009). Those theories will be

implemented to answer the second research question. The theory of Johnson was

used to identify the students’ perspective to RM Class’ learning process, to

analyse the learning principles that helped students to get the meaningful personal

understanding about the learning materials, and to strengthen statement 11 in the

questionnaire. The theory of Marsh was used to be the supporting statement in

order to analyse statement 22 in the questionnaire. The theory of Chall was used

to identify the lecturer’s roles when the teacher delivered the learning materials

during RM Class. The theory of Weimer was used to identify the important things

that needed to be designed and to be implemented by the lecturers in order to

achieve the effective learning strategies.

Moreover, the theories of perception were used to know the definition of

the perception and the core theories of how students perceive the learning process

in Research Methods Class. The theories of perception was needed because those

theories helped to know the students’ opinion through their experiences and

knowledge that they experienced in Research Methods Class. Then, the theories

of learning materials were used to determine the position of teaching materials in

the learning process. The theories aimed to know the meanings of the learning

materials for the students. The theories of the learning materials were also used to

identify the characters and the principles of the learning materials in order to have

good development of the learning materials that appropriate for the students’

needs. Later, the theories of the learning strategy were used to recognize the way


28 of the lecturer delivered the materials during the learning activities. The theories

were also implemented to identify what students got as the results of the

implementation of the learning strategies that had been done by the lecturer in

Research Methods Class.

The theories that were going to be implemented to the third and fourth

research questions were the theories of perception, the theories of Research

Methodology implementation in the contribution to thesis writing, and the goals

of Research Method Course in ELESP’ curriculum. The theories of perception

consisted of the theories of Robbins (2001) and Solso (2008). The theories of

Robbins and Solso were used to be the base for analysing the things that affected

student’s perceptions and how the perceptions were formed in each statement and

questions in the questionnaire. Next, the theories of Research Methodology

implementation in the contribution to thesis writing consisted of the theories of

Oliver (2004), Burns (2000), and Murray (2002). The theory of Oliver was used to

identify the general research methodology roles in the thesis writing and to

identify the nature and the scope of the research methodology in research

generally. The theory of Burns was used to identify what the researcher have to do

to compose the research methodology in the research. The theory of Murray was

used to identify the research methodology functions during the process of thesis

writing. Then, the references of Research Method Course goals in ELESP’

curriculum were Research Methods Class’ Course Outline of ELESP Sanata

Dharma University (2016) and Panduan Akademik Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris

Universitas Sanata Dharma (2012). Those two references were used to identify


29 the objectives and the roles of RM Class in order to have contribution to students’

thesis writing.

Moreover, the theories of Research Methodology implementation in the

contribution to thesis writing were used to analyse students’ understanding about

the roles of research methodology in thesis writing. Then, those theories would

help to identify the students’ comprehension of the research methodology

implementation in their thesis writing and also to identify the contribution of

Research Methodology to students’ thesis writing. Further, those theories were

used to identify the students’ difficulties during the process of implementing

research methodology to their thesis writing and to compile what parts have been

done well or what parts needed to be improved.

Additionally, there were theories of transformative learning. The theories

of transformative learning consisted of the theories of Mezirow (1997), Imel

(1998), Cranton (1994; 2002), Taylor (2000), Baumgartner (2001), and Boyd

(1989). Those theories were the bases of the transformative learning in this study.

They were used to analyse the changes of students’ perceptions that occurred in

several statements of the questionnaire.


CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Chapter III presents a rationale of research and analysis method. In this

chapter, this study is going to provide the description of research and analysis

method, the procedure of data gathering and analysing, and the limitation of the

research. This chapter consists of five sections. They are Research Methodology,

Research Setting, Research Participants, Instruments and Data Gathering

Technique, and Data Analysis Technique. The explanations of each section are

going to be discussed below.

A. Research Method

In this study, survey was applied as the method in this research in order to

collect the students’ perceptions towards the learning materials and the learning

strategies in Research Methods Class (RM) for thesis writing. The survey was

applied to make the generalization of students’ behaviour, facts, and claims as a

population (Creswell, 2012, p. 216). It was also used to obtain the information

directly in order to create a conclusion of what actually going on inside the

population was and the relation between the data and the topic of this research.

Moreover, the survey was chosen because this study considered the time

and the cost of this research. The consideration about the time and the cost led to

collect the information by using a questionnaire. The implementation of survey

would ease the researcher to distribute the questionnaire and collect the

30


31 information from the large number of respondents at the same time (Tull, 1978,

p.2).

According to Babbie (1990) which was cited on Creswell (2012), the

purpose of the survey was to obtain the data from the generalization of the

respondents in order to create the conclusion, the characteristics, the behaviour,

and the actions about the respondents. In this research, the survey did not aimed to

test a hypothesis and to find the correlation between the hypothesis and the result

of this study because the format of this study was a descriptive survey. It was in

accordance with Bungin (2011) that stated the format of the descriptive survey

absolutely did not need hypothesis and did not aim to find correlation between

cause and effect of the variables in the research. Further, the survey in this study

only aimed to collect students’ perceptions towards the learning materials and the

learning materials delivery methods for their thesis writing in order to offer a

contribution of Research Methods Class development.

B. Research Setting

The questionnaire of this study was distributed to the batch 2013 students

at June, 24th until July, 8th 2017. The results of the questionnaire were processed

starting at July, 10th 2017. The research was conducted by using online

questionnaire. Therefore, the students could participate to this research wherever

and whenever they were.


32 C. Research Participants

In this research, there was no sample, but there was a population. The

sample was not needed because this research did not have research hypothesis and

did not aim to find the correlation between cause and effect of the variables

(Bungin, 2011, p.46). The population was the students of ELESP Sanata Dharma

University class of 2013. They were students in semester 8 who passed Research

Methods Class, Proposal Seminar, and were writing Thesis. They came from 6

different classes of Research Methods Class batch 2013.

According to Creswell (2012), population of the study had the

homogenous characteristics to be investigated. In accordance with Creswell

(2012), this study focused on the two homogenous characteristics of the

population. Those characteristics were batch 2013 students who passed Research

Methods Class and batch 2013 students who were writing thesis. Specifically, this

study took all students from each class who were in semester 8 and have not

finished their thesis.

D. Instrument and Data Gathering Technique

According to Fink (2002) which was cited on Creswell (2012), there were

four strategies of data gathering. There were a questionnaire, an interview, a

structured record review, and a structured observation. In this study, the

questionnaire was used as the instrument to collect the information from the

participants. A blueprint of the questionnaire was used as the guideline to create

the questions in the questionnaire. The detail information of the blueprint is in


33 Appendix A. There are 30 close-ended statements and 2 open-ended questions

that are going to be investigated. The questionnaire was distributed to the

participants by using electronic questionnaire. According to Ary (2010),

electronic questionnaire could be conducted quickly, easily, less expensive rather

than the traditional questionnaire. The electronic questionnaire also eased the

participants to reply the answer because it was available 24 hours a day.

The distributed questionnaire is divided into 4 parts and written in Bahasa.

The use of Bahasa aimed to avoid misunderstanding of the main points of each

statement in the questionnaire. The first part up to the third part are the close-

ended questions. Besides, the fourth part is the open-ended questions. The first

part consists of the statements number 1 up to 10. Those statements deal with the

students’ perceptions about the materials in Research Methods Class (RM). The

second part consists of the statements number 11 up to 22. Those statements deal

with the students’ perceptions about the learning strategies in Research Methods

Class. Those parts aimed to answer the first and the second research questions of

this study. The third part consists of statements number 23 up to 30. Those

statements deal with the students’ perceptions about the contributions of Research

Methods Class’ learning materials and learning strategies to their thesis writing.

The third part aimed to answer the third research question of this study. Last, the

fourth part consists of the questions number 31 and number 32. Those questions

aimed to have more exploration about students’ experiences in Research Methods

Class. The details of the questionnaire are in Appendix B.


34 E. Data Analysis Technique

In this section, there were explanations about the ways to analyse the

finding. The questionnaire was analysed by applying Likert Scale. According to

Bowling (1997) which was cited on McLeod (2008), Likert Scale was

implemented in the research instrument that used fixed choice response formats

and it was designed to measure attitudes or opinions. In this study, the choice of

Likert Scale that was offered to the participants applied a choice of four pre-coded

responses. The choice of responses consist of “Strongly Agree”, “Agree”,

“Disagree”, and “Strongly Disagree”. In this study, each response had score that

was used to measure the participants’ attitudes. Below is the score of each

response within the participants’ questionnaire.

Table 3.1 Responses Score of Students’ Questionnaire

Scale Score Strongly Agree (SA) 4

Agree (A) 3 Disagree (DA) 2

Strongly Disagree (SDA) 1

Based on the questionnaire, the participants were expected to choose one

of the degrees in each. After the questionnaires were given back to the researcher,

the questionnaires were processed to find the result. In each statement, the number

of students who chose SA, A, DA, or SDA was calculated in percentages. The

following formula was used to calculate the percentages.


35

Known as:

y = the degree of agreement percentages

∑x = the number of students based on the degree of agreement

∑n = the number of all students

Then, the result of each calculation was grouped into Agree and Disagree.

It was to measure the analysis of the participants’ perceptions. Moreover, in

describing the results and the conclusions of this study, the responses score of

each participant within each aspect was calculated to find the sum. The detail

information was in Appendix D on column Score Aspect. Then, based on the sum

of each participant within each aspect, the responses were categorized into

positive or negative of each aspect. Those categories were decided by using the

scale of the criteria. The details were in Appendix C and Appendix D on column

Typical Score. The criteria is presented in the following table.


36

Table 3.2 Scale of Score Criteria

Students’ perceptions of Learning Materials on RM Class Score Criteria 10-24 Negative 25-40 Positive

Students’ perceptions of Learning Materials Delivery Methods on RM Class Score Criteria 12-29 Negative 30-48 Positive

Students’ perceptions on RM Class’ Learning Materials, Learning Materials Delivery Methods,

and Their Contributions to Students’ Thesis Writing Score Criteria 8-19 Negative 20-32 positive

Overall Students’ perceptions of this Study Score Criteria 30-74 Negative 75-120 Positive

Furthermore, to support the close-ended questions, the open-ended

questions within the questionnaire were used. According to Creswell (2012), the

open-ended questions gave the chances for the students to answer those questions

using their own words. There were spaces in the open-ended questions for

students to state their opinions about RM Class’ learning materials, the learning

materials delivery methods of RM Class, and the contribution of RM Class to

students’ thesis writing. The spaces in the open-ended questions found the rich

information to be explored from the students that did not occur in close-ended

questions.

The answers of the open-ended questions were classified into two

categories. The first category was disagree and the second category was agree.

The answer fell into disagree category when the students stated no answering the


37 open-ended questions, and vice versa. There were students’ explanations for

disagree and agree categories. The explanations assisted to observe what students’

answers that commonly occur. The students’ answers helped to make discussions

that were appropriate to the main theories in this study and completed the

information of close-ended questions to present the results and to conduct the last

conclusion of this study.


CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter contained the results and the discussion of the research. The

results and the discussion would be integrated. The results of each aspect would

be presented in the tables. Then, the discussions of each aspect would be

presented following each table.

Based on the research questions and the questionnaire, there were three

aspects of the research that would be discussed in this chapter. The first, the

second, and the third aspects discussed about the answers of the first, the second,

and the third research questions. Further, there was exploration of each aspect by

explaining the open ended questions.

A. Students’ Perceptions about the Learning Materials that They had Learnt

in Research Methods Class

The first aspect deals with the students’ perceptions on learning materials

in Research Methods Class (RM). There are 10 statements to be investigated. The

statements are statement 1 to statement 10. The following table presented the

percentages of those statements.

38


39

Table 4.1 The Percentages of Students’ Perceptions on Learning Materials in RM Class

No. Statement SD D A SA 1 I achieved the learning

objectives of RM Class’ syllabus through the learning materials.

9.7% (7 students)

19.4% (14 students)

56.9% (41 students)

13.9% (10 students)

2 I mastered only a few learning materials in RM Class.

16.7% (12 students)

61.1% (44 students)

19.4% (14 students)

2.8% (2 students)

3 The learning materials of RM Class were able to motivate me in the learning process because they were suitable for my needs.

6.9% (5 students)

20.8% (15 students)

50% (36 students)

22.2% (16 students)

4 I faced some troubles finding the source of RM Class’ learning material.

11.1% (8 students)

52.8% (38 students)

19.4% (14 students)

16.7% (12 students)

5 The learning materials of RM Class made me easier to study independently.

8.3% (6 students)

19.4% (14 students)

52.8% (38 students)

19.4% (14 students)

6 I was able to know the objectives of the learning materials that had been prepared in RM Class.

6.9% (5 students)

23.6% (17 students)

48.6% (35 students)

20.8% (15 students)

7 RM Class’ learning materials were composed specifically and there were illustrations and examples that made me easier to learn.

12.5% (9 students)

33.3% (24 students)

37.5% (27 students)

16.7% (12 students)

8 I think, the language that was used in RM Class’ learning material was easy to be understood.

6.9% (5 students)

38.9% (28 students)

48.6% (35 students)

5.6% (4 students)

9 The contents of RM Class’ learning materials were too much and difficult to be understood.

8.3% (6 students)

41.7% (30 students)

38.9% (28 students)

11.1% (8 students)

10 The learning materials of RM Class related to what I needed for thesis writing.

9.7% (7 students)

16.7% (12 students)

30.6% (22 students)

43.1% (31 students)

All of the statements in this aspect were constructive perceptions. In

accordance with Solso (2008), constructive perception was a combination effect


40 of information received by the sensory systems and knowledge that students

learned. Students had their own knowledge and information about the learning

materials in RM class which was supported by the students' experiences on the

learning process so that a new perception was formed. Moreover, in this aspect,

the differences in perceptions were influenced by some factors. According to

Robbins (2001), there were perceiver factor, target factor, and situation factor.

Statement 1 and 2 deal with the students’ achievement of Research

Methods Class’ learning objectives. There were 21 students who disagreed and

there were 51 students who agreed with statement 1 of the questionnaire. Then,

there were 56 students who disagreed and there were 16 students who agreed with

statement 2 in the questionnaire. Because statement 2 is an unfavorable statement,

the option of disagree refers to the positive tendency of the students’ perceptions.

The comparison of the differences in students’ perceptions between disagree and

agree of statement 1 and 2 tend to be high. The difference of perception was

influenced by perceiver factor. In statement 1, the perceiver factor was influenced

by the different motives. Then, in statement 2, the perceiver factor was influenced

by the different attitudes.

The motive of statement 1 was the need to achieve the learning objectives

in RM Class. Students, who had a perception that they needed to achieve the

learning objectives, would be encouraged to do things that could help them

achieved their needs. Therefore, there were differences of perceptions between

students who could fulfill their needs and students who could not fulfill their

needs.


41

The attitude that emerged was a reaction to the materials that they learned

in RM class. Students received the same material between one student and

another. However, how the students interpreted the material caused the difference

in perception. Students who reacted positively to the materials that were given in

RM class would tend to have the perception that they were capable of mastering

the entire materials. Unlike students who reacted positively, students who

complained that there were too much materials tended to have the perception that

they were able to master only some materials.

Generally, teaching in RM Class tended to be successful. It was because

the majority of students could master the given materials in accordance with the

syllabus that they received at the beginning of the learning process. It meant that

the learning objectives in RM Class could be achieved. This was in accordance

with the statement of DeNeen (2013) that teaching was stated to be successful if

the previously formulated teaching objectives could be achieved. Moreover, this

learning process went well because the learning materials could support to

achieve the learning objectives. The objectives that were achieved by students in

these statements were understanding the basic concepts of the research and several

research methods.

Statement 3 deals with the capability of the learning materials to motivate

students during the learning process. There were 20 students who disagreed and

there were 52 students who agreed with statement 3 in the questionnaire. The

comparison of the differences in student perceptions between disagree and agree

of the statement 3 tends to be high. This difference of perception was influenced


42 by the target factor. The perception of the target was influenced by the

characteristics that were contained in the target. In statement 3, the target was the

capability of RM class’ learning materials to motivate the students during the

lesson. RM class’ learning materials had characteristics that could be observed

and experienced by each student that caused a different perception. The learning

materials’ characteristic that was able to motivate students during the learning

process in accordance with the students’ needs could influence students to have

positive perception of the learning materials in RM Class.

In general, the material in RM Class was able to motivate students based

on their needs. According to Djamarah (2010), the learning materials which were

appropriate with students’ needs were going to motivate students. Thus, it could

be described that the learning materials in RM Class were suitable for students’

needs. It was because most students perceived that learning materials had

capability to motivate them.

Statement 4 deals with the students’ difficulty in finding the learning

sources. There were 46 students who disagreed and 26 students who agreed with

statement 4 in the questionnaire. Because statement 4 is an unfavorable statement,

disagree choice refers to the positive perceptions of this statement. The

comparison of the differences in student perceptions between disagree and agree

of statement 4 tends to be high. The different perception was influenced by

perceiver factor. The perceiver was influenced by different attitudes. The attitude

of statement 4 was the reaction to the sources or references of RM Class’ learning

materials. Students were given the same topic material between one student and


43 another. Here, how the students gave meaning on the process of finding the

sources or references was causing different perceptions. Students who had a

positive meaning in finding the source of learning materials tended to have a

perception that it was not difficult to find references of RM Class’ learning

materials. Unlike students who had positive meaning, students who had less

positive meaning in finding the sources of RM Class’ learning materials would be

more likely to have a perception that it was quite difficult to find sources for RM

Class’ learning materials. Nevertheless, the positive and negative meanings by the

students on the process of finding the references could not necessarily be used to

label students. It was because the differences of perception that arose from attitude

factor was strongly influenced by the stimuli that were received by students so

they triggered different reactions. Probably, the stimuli were negative stimuli so

the students’ reaction was also negative, and vice versa.

In general, students had no difficulty in finding the sources and references

of RM Class’ learning materials. It was in accordance with Djamarah’s (2010)

statement that the references of the materials were everything around the students

that became the sources of the learning materials. Thus, it could be described that

the materials in RM Class were good materials because the references that were

used could be reached and easily found by the majority of students.

Statement 5 deals with the capability of the learning materials to help

students to learn independently. There were 20 students who disagreed and there

were 52 students who agreed with statement 5 in the questionnaire. The

comparison of the differences in students’ perceptions between disagree and agree


44 of statement 5 tends to be high. This perception was influenced by the target

factor. The perception of the target was influenced by the characteristics of the

target. The target in statement 5 was the capability of RM class’ learning materials

to enable students to study independently. The materials of RM Class had a

characteristic that could be observed and experienced by the student which caused

a different perception. The learning materials that were capable of facilitating

students to learn independently could affect students to have a positive perception

of RM Class.

Generally, RM Class’ learning materials allowed students to learn

independently. It was in accordance with Arend’s statement that one of the

learning materials’ functions was to guide students learnt independently without a

teacher or another student. Thus, for statement 5, it could be said that RM Class’

learning materials had performed its function to help students to learn

independently.

Statement 6 to statement 8 deal with one of the learning instructional

design’ characteristics. The characteristic is self-instructional that has several

conditions which were included in statement 6 to 8. Statement 6 deals with the

students’ capability of their understanding about Research Methods Class’

learning objectives. There were 22 students who disagreed and there were 50

students who agreed with statement 6 in the questionnaire. The comparison of the

differences in students’ perceptions between disagree and agree of the statement 6

tends to be high. The difference of perception was influenced by perceiver factor.

The perceiver was influenced by different motives. The motive of statement 6 was


45 the need to be able to know the material objectives in RM Class. Students who

perceived that the need to identify learning objectives in RM Class should be done

to make learning being more meaningful would be motivated to do things that

could help them to achieve those needs. The impulse to reach the needs was what

caused the emergence of the differences in perception between the students whose

needs were complete and students whose needs were not complete.

Generally, students had good motivation to identify the objectives of

learning materials that were given in RM Class. In accordance with Widodo

(2008), it also presented that the material had fulfilled one of the requirements as

the core of the learning activity. The core of this learning activity was used to

build students’ learning motivation. Moreover, as the core of the learning activity,

learning materials were meaningful for students because students understand the

objectives of RM Class clearly.

Statement 7 deals with the organization of the learning materials. There

were 33 students who disagreed and 39 students who agreed with statement 7 in

the questionnaire. Then, statement 8 deals with the language of Research Methods

Class’ learning materials. There were 33 students who disagreed and 39 students

who agreed with statement 8 in the questionnaire. The comparison of the

differences in students’ perceptions between agree and disagree of the statement 7

and 8 were almost balanced. The difference of perceptions were influenced by the

target factor which were influenced by the target’s characteristics. The target of

the statement 7 was the capability of the learning materials in the RM Class to

facilitate the students with the specific material arrangement and to equip the


46 students with proper illustrations. Then, the target of statement 8 was the level of

language that was used to deliver the learning material in RM Class. The learning

materials in RM Class had characteristics that could be observed and experienced

by each student that constructed a difference in perception. The characteristics of

the learning materials that were completed with the specific materials, clear

illustrations to facilitate students in the learning, and easily understood language

in the delivery of learning materials would tend to influence students to have

positive perceptions on RM Class’ learning materials.

In general, the learning materials received by almost half of the total

participants had not been prepared specifically, there were lack of illustrations,

and did not use easy understood language that caused students’ confusion over the

understanding of the learning materials. According to Widodo (2008), there were

conditions of the meaningful learning material. Some of them were the learning

materials were provided in some specific units, there were illustrations and

examples to make materials clearer, and the language was simple and

communicative. In accordance with Widodo’s statement, the process of

understanding the learning materials was less supported by the preparation of the

details, illustrations, and easy understood language. It resulted the characteristics

of learning materials as the core of learning activities could not be perceived by

students as the meaningful materials. It was because the received materials did not

meet some requirements to be regarded as the meaningful materials. These

requirements included the learning materials in a specific order, there were

illustrations and examples to make the learning materials clearer than the learning


47 materials without specific order, illustrations, and examples, and the use of easy

understood language.

Statement 9 deals with one of the learning material’s principles. There


the questionnaire. The comparison of the differences in student perceptions

between disagree and agree of statement 9 was balanced. This difference of

perception was influenced by the target factor which was influenced by the

target’s characteristics. The targets in statement 9 were the amount and the level

of learning materials in RM Class. They could be observed and experienced by

students that caused the form of different perceptions. In accordance with the

basic competencies, the target’s characteristic could affect the students to have a

positive perception of the learning materials in RM Class.

According to Prastowo (2013), there were several principles to develop

learning materials. One of the principles was adequacy. Based on the findings, the

amount and the level of the learning materials that were received by half of the

total number of students were not in accordance with adequacy principle. It was

because there were too much and difficult learning materials. Thus, it could be

said that the amount and the level of the learning materials needed to be the

lecturers’ attention because the learning materials should help students to master

the basic competencies as mentioned in adequacy principle.

Statement 10 deals with the relationship between the learning materials of

Research Methods Class and the needs of the thesis writing. There were 19

students who disagreed and 53 students who agreed with statement 10 in the


48 questionnaire. The comparison of the differences in perception between disagree

and agree on statement 10 tends to be high. This difference of perceptions was

influenced by the target factor. The perception of the target was influenced by the

target’s characteristic. The target of statement 10 was the suitability of the

learning materials with the students’ needs for thesis writing. The learning

materials that were given in RM Class could be observed and experienced by each

student. It caused the construction of the different perceptions. The suitability of

the learning materials with the needs of thesis writing could influence students to

have a positive interpretation of RM Class.

Generally, the learning materials that were received by the majority of

students had been in accordance with their needs for thesis writing. According to

Browns, Collins, Duguid (1989), it could be described that the learning materials

that had been given in RM Class were the materials that were in accordance with

the students’ contextual experiences. Thus, the suitability of learning materials to

the needs of thesis writing could provide meaningful learning for most students

because it was close to the students’ life. However, the attention for students who

perceived that the learning materials in RM Class did not fulfilled the needs of

thesis writing was needed. It happened not only because the students had a

negative perception, but because the learning materials were presented

theoretically without any modifications which were more related to the examples

for thesis writing.

After those explanations of the first aspect, there were several things that

have been done well. First, the learning materials that were delivered assisted


49 students to achieve the learning objectives in RM Class’ syllabus. Second, the

learning materials in RM Class motivated the students during the learning process

because the materials were suitable to the students’ needs. Third, the references of

RM Class’ learning materials were easy to find. Fourth, the learning materials in

RM Class allowed students to learn independently. Fifth, the learning materials in

RM Class were in accordance with the students' needs to write thesis.

Besides, there were several things needed to be improved in RM Class.

First, the learning materials should be well mastered by the students. Second, the

learning materials should be more specific and contain illustrations or examples to

build and develop the students' understanding. Third, the language that was used

in the RM Class should be the easy-understood language for the students. Fourth,

there were too much and difficult learning materials for students to be understood.

B. Students’ Perceptions about the Learning Strategies that the Lecturers

Applied in Research Methods Class

Afterwards, the second aspect deals with the students’ perceptions on

learning strategies in Research Methods Class (RM). There were 12 statements to

be analysed. Those statements were statement 11 to statement 22. The following

table presented the percentages of those statements.


50

Table 4.2 The Percentages of Students’ Perceptions on Learning Strategies in RM Class

No. Statement SD D A SA 11 In RM Class, I got the

opportunity to take the initiative in the learning process.

4.2% (3 students)

19.4% (14 students)

55.6% (40 students)

20.8% (15 students)

12 In RM Class, I was invited to realize issues that were relevant to the learning material that were being studied.

4.2% (3 students)

13.9% (10 students)

62.5% (45 students)

19.4% (14 students)

13 I was guided to explore and recognize the interest in the field I was interested in during the learning process in RM Class.

8.3% (6 students)

23.6% (17 students)

40.3% (29 students)

27.8% (20 students)

14 The lecturer made me motivated to develop the knowledge I got.

11.1% (8 students)

29.2% (21 students)

31.9% (23 students)

27.8% (20 students)

15 I felt the lecturers were flexible in applying the learning strategies to create a conducive learning climate.

15.3% (11 students)

22.2% (16 students)

40.3% (29 students)

22.2% (16 students)

16 The lecturer responded positively to my behavior for the purpose of developing knowledge.

9.7% (7 students)

12.5% (9 students)

47.2% (34 students)

30.6% (22 students)

17 During the learning process, lecturer often interrupted and gave a sudden comment that disturbed me in carrying out learning activities.

37.5% (27 students)

33.3% (24 students)

25% (18 students)

4.2% (3 students)

18 When the lecturer explained the learning materials, I often listen to the long-winded explanations that made me confused.

20.8% (15 students)

31.9% (23 students)

29.2% (21 students)

18.1% (13 students)

19 In the process of learning, I got a reproach or criticism that dropped by lecturer.

52.8% (38 students)

33.3% (24 students)

9.7% (7 students)

4.2% (3 students)

20 In the process of learning, I was feeling understood by lecturers as individuals who have individual uniqueness.

8.3% (6 students)

23.6% (17 students)

52.8% (38 students)

15.3% (11 students)

21 The lecturer helped me in 8.3% 19.4% 59.7% 12.5%


51

the learning process based on my ability.

(6 students)

(14 students)

(43 students)

(9 students)

22 I gained more knowledge about RM when lecturers applied student-centered strategy.

9.7% (7 students)

18.1% (13 students)

59.7% (43 students)

12.5% (9 students)



of information received by the sensory systems and knowledge that students

learned. Students had their own knowledge and information about the learning

strategies in RM class which was supported by the students' experiences on the

learning process so that a new perception was constructed. Further, in this aspect,

the differences in perceptions were influenced by several factors. According to

Robbins (2001), there were perceiver factor, target factor, and situation factor.

Statement 11 deals with the students’ chances to have initiatives during

Research Methods Class. There were 17 students who disagreed and 55 students

who agreed with statement 11 in the questionnaire. The comparison of the

differences in perceptions between disagree and agree of the statement 11 tends to

be high. This different perception was influenced by the situation factor which

was influenced by social circumstance. The social circumstance of statement 11

was the students’ opportunities to have initiative during the learning process in

RM class. The opportunities that were given to take the initiative during the

learning process could affect the students’ perceptions on RM Class. More

opportunities that were offered to the students to take the initiative would tend to


52 influence students to have a positive perception of the learning process in RM

Class, and vice versa.

Generally, the lecturers could create the conducive climate and offer the

opportunities for the majority of students to take the initiative during the learning

process in RM Class. It was in line with Johnson's (1979) statement. He said that

teachers did not only deliver the learning materials, but also created a conducive

climate for students to take the initiative during the learning so that students could

grasp the importance of the learning materials based on their own understanding.

Further, the findings presented that most students had received the learning that

was in accordance with one of the learning principles. The principle said that the

meaningful learning came from the student's own initiative. Nevertheless, other

factors outside the students that caused the lack of opportunities for students to

have initiative needed to be explored as well. It was needed to get meaningful

learning for students in minority groups based on their personal understanding.

Statement 12 and statement 13 deal with the learning principles. Statement

12 deals with the students’ opportunities to realize the relevant things in Research

Methods Class. There were 13 students who disagreed and 59 students who

agreed with statement 12 in the questionnaire. Then, statement 13 deals with the

lecturers’ guidance for the students during Research Methods Class. There were

23 students who disagreed and 49 students who agreed with statement 13 in the

questionnaire. The comparison of the differences in perceptions between disagree

and agree of statement 12 and statement 13 tends to be high. This difference of

perception was influenced by the situation factor which was influenced by social


53 circumstance. The social circumstance of the statement 12 was the opportunities

for students to be aware of things that were relevant to the learning materials that

were being studied. Then, the social circumstance of statement 13 was the

opportunities to have lecturers’ guidance to explore and recognize students'

interests in the areas that they were interested in. The amount of opportunities and

activities guidance were able to influence students’ perceptions on the learning

strategies in RM Class.

In general, the majority of students had the opportunities to realize the

relevant matters related to what they were learning in RM Class. The situation

was supported by students’ experiences of the lecturers’ guidance. The

experiences helped students to explore and recognize the areas that they were

interested in. It presented that most students received lessons that were in

accordance with some principles of the meaningful learning. Those principles said

that learning became meaningful when students realized relevant things to their

needs and when students learnt through their experiences and experiments. This

discussion was in accordance with some learning principles by Johnson (1979).

He said that learning was meaningful if students realized that something they

learnt were relevant to themselves and learning was going to be meaningful if

students learnt through their own experiences and experiments. Nevertheless,

other factors outside the students that caused the lack of opportunities to realize,

experience, and experiment needed to be investigated by the lecturers. It needed to

be done in order to help students to get meaningful learning in accordance with

their needs.


54

Statement 14 to 16 deal with the behaviours that the lecturers have to do.

Statement 14 deals with the lecturers’ behaviours to motivate the students during

the learning process. There were 29 students who disagreed and 43 students who

agreed with statement 14. Then, statement 15 deals with the lecturers’ behaviours

to be flexible implementing the learning strategies. There were 27 students who

disagreed and 45 students who agreed with the statement 15. Next, statement 16

deals with the lecturers’ behaviours to give responses to the students. There were

16 students who disagreed and 56 students who agreed with statement 16. The

comparisons of the differences in perceptions of those three statements are likely

to be high. Those different perceptions were influenced by perceiver factor. The

perceiver factor was influenced by the expectations. The expectation of statement

14 was the behaviour of lecturers who were able or unable to motivate students in

order to develop the knowledge that was achieved by students. Then, the

expectation of statement 15 was the lecturer's flexibility in the learning strategy

implementation to create a conducive climate. Next, the expectation of statement

16 was the lecturer's positive response to any students’ behaviour that aimed for

the students’ knowledge development. Students had their own respective

expectations on the lecturer's behaviour. The difference in expectation affected the

differences in perception. Students whose expectations were fulfilled would have

a positive perception on the method that was used by the lecturer to deliver the

learning materials during the learning process in RM Class.

Generally, the majority of students experienced the lecturers’ positive

behaviour for the development of students’ knowledge. Students received the


55 motivated experiences, the application of flexible learning strategies with a

conducive climate, and the positive responses from lecturers to develop their

knowledge. Those presented that most of the students experienced the learning

guidance from the lecturers who performed their roles well. Further, students’

experiences of the lecturers’ learning guidance were in accordance with Chall

(2000). According to Chall, in this discussion, the lecturers’ roles were the

capability to motivate students, the flexibility in the delivery of material, and the

capability to respond positively to each student’s behaviour. It should be noted

that students who disagreed with statement 14 to 16. Other factors outside the

students needed to be highlighted, especially relating to the behaviour of lecturers

in carrying out their roles to deliver the learning materials in order to build an

effective learning process and to achieve the goals of the meaningful learning. The

lecturers’ behaviors needed to be investigated because students needed to achieve

the meaningful learning based on their needs and lecturers needed to build an

effective learning process.

Statement 17, 18, 19, and 21 deal with the behaviours that the lecturers’

undesirable behaviors. Statement 17, 18, and 19 are unfavourable statements, so

the choice of disagree refers to the students’ positive perception. Statement 17

deals with the lecturers’ behaviours of giving interruption and comment. There


the questionnaire. Statement 18 deals with the lecturers’ long-winded behaviour.

There were 38 students who disagreed and 34 students who agreed with statement

18 in the questionnaire. Statement 19 deals with the lecturers’ behaviours in


56 giving criticisms or reproaches. There were 62 students who disagreed and 10

students who agreed with statement 19 in the questionnaire. Statement 21 deals

with the lecturers’ behaviour in giving attention to the students during Research

Methods Class. There were 20 students who disagreed and 52 students who

agreed on statement 21 in the questionnaire. The comparison of the differences in

perceptions of statement 17, 19, and 21 between disagree and agree tends to be

high. Further, the comparison of the differences in perceptions of statement 18

was nearly balanced.

The different perceptions were influenced by perceiver factor. The

perceiver factor was influenced by expectations. The expectations of the statement

17 were the small intensity of interrupting and giving a sudden remark made by

the lecturer towards the students during the learning activity. The expectation of

the statement 18 was the lecturer was able to convey the learning materials with

no long-winded explanation so the learning materials’ explanation would not be

confusing the students. The experience of the statement 19 was the students had

received reproaches or criticisms that were dropped by the lecturer during the

learning process. The expectation of statement 21 was the lecturers helped

students in the learning process in accordance with the ability of each student.

Students had their own respective expectations on the behaviour of lecturers. The

difference in expectation affected the differences in perception. Students whose

expectations were fulfilled would have a positive tendency towards the way how

the lecturer delivered the learning materials during the learning process in RM

Class.


57

The majority of students received positive behaviour of lecturers when

carrying out learning activities. They did not experience interruptions and sudden

comments that were frequently given by the lecturers that disturbed students

carrying out the learning activities. Then, the majority of students did not received

a reproach or criticism from the lecturers, but they received the experiences of

being understood by the students as students who had different competencies.

Thus, not only students with excellent competencies received attention from the

lecturers, but also all students who needed assistance in the learning process.

Those findings presented that most students had good mentoring from RM Class’

lecturers in accordance with the lecturer’s behaviours in the learning process. The

behaviour of statement 17 said that the lecturers rarely interrupted, made sudden

comments, asked sudden questions, and gave sudden directions that could

interfere with students’ learning activity. The behaviour of statement 19 said that

the lecturers should not have to insult or give extreme criticism to the students.

Then, the behaviour of statement 21 said that the lecturers should not have to give

attention only to the smart students. Based on the findings, the lecturers’

behaviors on statement 17, 19, and 21 were in accordance with the behaviors that

the lecturers had to perform in a meaningful learning process. In those statements,

according to Chall (2000) which was cited on Holland (2009), some behaviors

that lecturers should not have to do were giving often sudden interruption,

comment, or direction, insulting or giving extreme criticism to the students, and

giving attention only to the smart students.


58

Then, the finding of statement 18 was almost half of the number of

students got a long-winded explanation from the lecturer during the lesson in RM

class. This shows that almost half of the total number of students experienced

accompanied by lecturers who were confusing the students with a long-winded

explanation when delivering the learning materials. The intensity of the lecturers

who delivered the learning materials with such a long-winded explanation needed

to be reduced. According to Chall (2000), it was because the behaviour included

in behaviours that should not be done by lecturers during the learning activities.

This behaviour could influence the delivery of the research methodologies’ main

points. If the main points of research methodologies were not delivered, then it

was impossible for the students to get important information about the learning

materials and learning process. It also caused less positive perceptions of the

learning process in RM Class.

Moreover, it was important to note the students who frequently

experienced the interruptions and sudden comments, received extreme criticism,

and did not experience being understood by the lecturers. Although fewer in

number, students who experienced those experiences could not simply be ignored.

Further investigation of lecturers and students is needed to find a solution for

students who experienced such behaviors. It is needed to be a concern for the

authorities, especially in order to realize the meaningful learning for each student

based on their individual needs. Other factors outside the students need to be

evaluated in order to build more effective learning process to achieve the goals of

the meaningful learning.


59

Then, statement 20 deals with the important things in the effective learning

strategy. The important things in the effective learning strategy on statement 20 is

giving attention and respecting students as unique individuals. There were 23

students who disagreed and 49 students who agreed with statement 20 in the

questionnaire. The comparison of the differences in perceptions of the statement

20 between disagree and agree tends to be high. This difference in perception was

caused by the perceiver factor which was influenced by the previous experience.

The experience of the important thing in the effective learning strategy was that

the students felt understood by the lecturer as a person who had individual

uniqueness. Students who experienced being understood as an individual who is

unique tended to have a positive perception of the activities that occurred during

the learning process in RM class. The experience being understood or not as

individuals who had uniqueness could affect the needs of students in developing

themselves. Experiences and needs became the delineations for students to have

their respective perceptions.

In general, the lecturer applied one of the important behaviors in effective

learning strategy. This was because the majority of students experienced being

appreciated as an individual who had their own uniqueness. The finding of

statement 20 was in accordance with Weimer’s opinion. According to Weimer

(2009), the experience of being understood as a person who had individual

uniqueness was one of the important things to do in the effective learning

strategies. Nevertheless, students who did not have experiences being appreciated

as individuals who had individual uniqueness also needed to be given guidance


60 and attention from the lecturers. It was addressed to give meaningful learning and

opportunities for the students to develop themselves respectively.

Statement 22 deals with the lecturers’ tendency for the learning strategies.

There were 20 students who disagreed and 52 students who agreed on statement

22 in the questionnaire. The comparison of different perceptions in statement 22

between disagree and agree tends to be high. This difference in perception was

influenced by perceiver factor which was influenced by motives. The motive of

statement 22 was the need to be able to understand the knowledge of research

methodology when the lecturer used student-centered learning strategies. Students

who had active and dynamic character during the learning process tended to have

a perception that the student-centered learning strategy was very enjoyable and it

allowed students to understand the knowledge of research methodology. Unlike

active and dynamic students, students who had passive character and more likely

to wait for instruction during the learning process tended to have a perception that

student-centered learning strategy was unattractive and did not make the learning

process become easier for students to understand the knowledge about the

research methodology. Motives that were possessed by each student when

receiving the materials encouraged the formation of the differences in perception

of RM course.

Generally, the majority of students had a positive motive when the lecturer

implemented the student-centered method of delivering the learning material in

RM Class. On the other hand, there were several students who faced difficulties

when the lecturers implemented student-centered learning strategy in delivering


61 the learning materials in RM Class. Unfortunately, it dimmed students’ motivation

to deepen the knowledge of the research methodology materials.

Overall, most students found that RM learning materials were easy to

understand through student-centered method that was offered by lecturers.

However, students who did not achieve enough convenience through the strategy

become a reminder that there is no best and most appropriate learning strategy for

lecturers. It was in accordance with Marsh’s opinion (2005) that said learning

strategy was a series of learning activities related to students management,

learning environment management, source of learning material management, and

assessment in order to achieve the learning aims. Further, Chall (2000) stated that

the most important thing in the learning strategy was how the teacher played a

role in those main learning strategies in order to build an effective learning

process and to achieve the goals of the learning. Making students the center of the

learning process was necessary to enhance students' activeness in the learning

process, but being authoritarian was sometimes also necessary in order to keep the

learning process on track. It all depended on the learning strategies that were

appropriate with the situation of the learning, in this case was students' learning

style.

Based on those explanations, there were things that have been done well in

aspect 2 during RM Class’ learning process. First, the lecturers gave the

opportunity for students to have initiatives. Second, the lecturers guided the

students to be aware of the relevant matters in accordance with the learning

materials that were being studied. Third, the lecturers guided the students to


62 explore and recognize the students' interest in the field that they were interested

in. Fourth, the lecturers influenced the students being motivated to develop the

knowledge that they got. Fifth, the lecturers were flexible enough to apply the

learning strategies. Sixth, the lecturers responded positively to each student's

behavior for the knowledge development. Seventh, the lecturers gave only a little

reproach and a sudden comment that can disturb the students in the learning

activities. Eighth, the lecturers avoided to reproach and to criticize the students

sharply. Ninth, the lecturers understood the students as a person who has their

own uniqueness. Tenth, the lecturers assisted the students to understand the

materials based on the ability of each student. Eleventh, most of the lecturers

implemented student-centered methods that were perceived to be able to help

students to gain a lot of knowledge about RM.

Besides, during RM Class’ learning process, there was a way of delivering

the learning material by the lecturers that needed to be improved. The lecturers

often rambled in explaining the learning materials. Therefore, the explanation was

confusing and it caused many learning materials did not completely absorbed by

the students.

Furthermore, there was question 31 that discussed the exploration of

students’ perceptions of the learning materials and the learning strategies in RM

Class. In question number 31, the students' opinions are classified into 2

categories. The 2 categories are agree and disagree. The opinions of students were

classified into agree category when students thought that the learning materials

and the learning strategies that was used by the lecturers helped them to write


63 their thesis. There were 42 students who were classified into the agree category

and the other 30 students were classified into the disagree category. The

comparison of the differences in opinion of question 31 between disagree and

agree tends to be high. This difference in perception was influenced by the target

factor which was influenced by the target’ characteristic. The targets of question

31 were the learning materials and the learning strategies that were used by

lecturers in RM Class. In those targets, the highlighted characteristics were the

target ability to assist the students in the process of thesis writing. The

characteristics on these targets could be observed and experienced by each student

so that the characteristics influenced the differences in perception by each student.

Generally, the majority of students had opinion that the learning materials

and learning strategies used by lecturers in the RM Class helped them in the

process of writing thesis. Many opinions that arose in question 31 included

students getting knowledge of the types of research methodology, the data

gathering techniques, the research instruments, the research data analysis

technique, and the usual things that commonly appeared in the research process

would assist them during thesis writing. Students got the learning materials for the

preparation of research in RM Class that could be used as a guidance for thesis

writing. Students stated that the strategies used by lecturers in delivering the

materials were very interesting so that students could understand a lot of

complicated learning materials in RM class. Lecturers were also able to assist

students in understanding research methodology materials with a brief explanation

using easy-understood language. Lecturers used appropriate explanations for the


64 students’ needs so that students not only understand the learning materials, but

also understand what components were appropriate for their research needs.

Students also stated that the learning materials which were provided

through an interesting power point really assisted them to understand the learning

materials in RM Class. In addition, the handouts were also very useful for

students to understand the research methodology materials. The opinions that

mostly arose in question 31 were consistent with the statement of Peterson (1992).

According to Peterson (1992), teachers did not only deliver the materials, but also

created the chances and assisted the students to realize the purposes of the

learning.

Although the majority of students stated that the learning materials and

learning strategies that were provided by lecturers in RM Class helped students in

thesis writing, there were several students who stated that the learning materials

and learning strategies in RM Class were not helpful in their thesis writing.

Opinions that mostly arose from students who disagreed that the materials and

learning strategies in RM Class were useful for their thesis writing were such as

there were too much materials and less specific materials that were given, the

discussions of the materials were not deep and sharp, the lecturers only read out

the power point, the lecturers too often implemented the lecturing method in

conveying the materials, the explanations of the lecturer were long-winded and

confusing for the students, the students got less opportunities to practice the

materials, the students did not get clear instructions on what would be achieved in

RM Class, and the materials that were presented mostly focused on the


65 educational research only. The opinions from the students who disagreed that the

materials and strategies in RM Class helped them to process their thesis writing

could be used as a reference for ELESP authorities’ evaluation to improve the

quality and to sharpen the objectives of RM Class. It needed to be done for the

progress of students, RM Class, and ELESP itself.

C. Students’ Perceptions about the Contribution of Research Methods Class

to the Students’ Thesis Writing

The third aspect dealt with the students’ perceptions of learning materials,

learning materials delivery methods, and Research Methods Class’ contribution to

students’ thesis writing. There were 8 statements to be investigated. The

statements were statement 23 to statement 30. Below was the table that presented

the percentages of those statements.

Table 4.3 The Percentages of Students’ Perceptions on the Contribution

of Research Methods Class to Students’ Thesis Writing

No. Statement SD D A SA 23 The learning materials that I

received in RM Class can be implemented in my thesis writing.

13.9% (10 students)

13.9% (10 students)

36.1% (26 students)

36.1% (26 students)

24 I am having trouble deciding what research methodology I will use in thesis writing after I received the learning materials in RM class.

23.6% (17 students)

27.8% (20 students)

29.2% (21 students)

19.4% (14 students)

25 I know the reason for using the methodology in my thesis writing after receiving the material in RM Class.

11.1% (8 students)

20.8% (15 students)

51.4% (37 students)

16.7% (12 students)

26 I am still having trouble compiling and applying the

11.1% (8

36.1% (26

37.5% (27

15.3% (11


66

procedures on how a research is done after receiving the learning materials in RM Class.

students) students) students) students)

27 I am able to explain the research procedures and data analysis techniques in thesis writing after receiving the material in RM class.

9.7% (7 students)

36.1% (26 students)

44.4% (32 students)

9.7% (7 students)

28 I am able to design research and know the purpose of each research after receiving the material in RM Class.

8.3% (6 students)

34.7% (25 students)

45.8% (33 students)

11.8% (8 students)

29 The learning materials in RM Class helped me to solve the problems I have formulated in my research.

11.1% (8 students)

26.4% (19 students)

48.6% (35 students)

13.9% (10 students)

30 I am still having difficulties in investigating the methodology that fit the topic of my thesis writing.

15.3% (11 students)

37.5% (27 students)

33.3% (24 students)

13.9% (10 students)



of information received by the sensory systems and knowledge that students

learned. Students had their own knowledge and information about the delivery

method of the learning materials in RM class which was supported by the

students' experiences on the learning process so that a new perception was

constructed. Further, in this aspect, the differences in perceptions were influenced

by several factors. According to Robbins (2001), there were perceiver factor,

target factor, and situation factor.

Statement 23 deals with the contribution of the learning materials whether

it can be implemented or not. There were 20 students who disagreed and 52


67 students who agreed with statement 23 in the questionnaire. The comparison of

difference in perceptions of statement 23 between disagree and agree tends to be

high. This difference was influenced by the target factor which was influenced by

the target’s characteristics. The target of statement 23 was the learning materials

in RM Class that could be implemented in the thesis writing by each student. The

materials in RM Class had characteristics that could be observed and experienced

by each student and then formed different perceptions. Learning materials’

characteristic that was capable of being implemented in thesis writing tended to

influence students to have a positive perception on the contribution of RM

learning materials for thesis writing.

Generally, learning materials in RM Class could be implemented in thesis

writing by most of the students. It presented that most students had mastered the

learning materials in RM Class. The implementation of learning materials that

were received in RM Class for students’ thesis writing was the evidence that the

majority of students understand the learning materials that were given in RM

Class. It was in accordance with Oliver's (2004) statement that one of the powers

in thesis writing was research methodologies that they implemented to write

thesis. Thus, RM’s learning materials have contributed to thesis writing for most

students.

Nevertheless, there were some students who disagreed with statement 23.

It needed further investigation of the learning materials that could not be

implemented for students’ thesis writing. The factors that directed to the

formation of such perceptions needed to be evaluated. Furthermore, mentoring


68 and giving attention to some students who could not implement RM’s learning

materials for thesis writing also needed to be focused in order to develop the

meaningful learning for those students.

Then, statement 24 and statement 25 deal with the students’ choice of their

research methodologies. Statement 24 deals with the students’ decision to apply

the appropriate methodologies for their thesis writing. Because statement 24 is an

unfavourable statement, so disagree choice refers to the students’ positive

perception. There were 37 students who disagreed and 35 students who agreed

with statement 24 in the questionnaire. Then, statement 25 deals with the students’

reason in implementing their research methodologies. There were 23 students who

disagreed and 49 students who agreed with statement 25 in the questionnaire. The

comparison of differences in perceptions of statement 24 between disagree and

agree was nearly balanced. Besides, the comparison of the different perceptions

on statement 25 between disagree and agree tends to be high. The difference in

perception was influenced by the perceiver factor. The perceiver was influenced

by experiences. The experience of statement 24 was the ability of students to

decide what research methodology that would be used for thesis writing after they

received the materials in RM Class. Then, the experience of statement 25 was the

student's ability to identify the reasons for the determination of their thesis

methodology after receiving the learning materials in RM Class. Students had

their own experiences. A striking experience would be easier for students to grasp.

Students who previously experienced difficulties in RM Class tended to have less

positive perception of the decision making experiences to determine the


69 methodology that should be implemented in thesis writing and to have less

positive perception of their ability to identify the reason for deciding a

methodology of thesis writing. Those experiences in RM Class became an early

illustration for students to have a perception of RM Class contribution for thesis

writing. It was because the experience in RM Class was the foundation for

students before students experienced doing research for their thesis. The

experience determining the methodology that was used for thesis writing could

affect students’ interest in their thesis writing process. These experiences and

interests influenced the different perceptions of each student.

Generally, almost half of the number of students had difficulty to

determine what methodology that should be used for their thesis writing. It

presented that one of the goals of the course has not been achieved. This goal was

selecting an appropriate research methodology to solve research problems.

Students' ability to choose the research methodology to solve research problems

should be the attention of lecturers and students, especially when students

experienced difficulties. This was due to ELESP’s curriculum which emphasized

that RM was an important course to prepare students for Proposal Seminar and

thesis writing.

Moreover, most students were able to identify the reasons for the use of

methodology in thesis writing. It indicated that students who previously

experienced difficulties, as contained in the explanation of statement 24, were

influenced by an interest in the need of being able to identify the reasons of the

methodology they used. Thus, they were able to achieve their needs of thesis


70 writing. It was indicated by the change in the number of students who previously

had difficulty into had understanding about the reasons why they used the

methodology. They moved to achieve the needs to be able to identify the reasons

for their methodology selection. According to Mezirow (1997), the students’

movement to achieve their needs showed the changing of their perceptions.

Because the students changed their perceptions, their actions and behaviour also

changed (Cranton, 1994, p.730). Thus, one of the goals of the course had been

achieved by most of the students. The goal was selecting an appropriate research

method to solve research problems. Moreover, according to Oliver (2004),

students' ability to determine the proper methodology that were used in thesis

writing could be identified by looking at the reasons why the methodology was

chosen that were written by the students as the explanation in Chapter III:

Research Methodology. In accordance with Oliver’s statement, it was necessary to

provide assistance from lecturers to students who experienced difficulty in

determining what methodology was appropriate for their research because

research methodology was one of the thesis writing’s powers.

Based on those findings, there was correlation between statement 23,

statement 24, and statement 25. The findings showed that students could

implement the learning materials of research methodologies to their thesis writing.

However they could implement the learning materials of research methodologies,

they experienced difficulties of determining proper methodologies for their

research. Students’ understanding about the research methodology and their

difficulties of determining the proper methodology directed them to find the


71 reasons why they chose the methodology. The changing process of the students in

perceptions, actions, and behaviours was known as transformative learning.

Nevertheless, mentoring students who had difficulty in selecting and

identifying the selection of methodologies they were used for thesis writing

needed to be given a deep attention by holding the principles of the effective and

meaningful learning. Counselling would not work well if students were not

cooperative. Therefore, the deeper investigation was needed toward the synergies

that formed between lecturers and students during the learning process in the RM

class.

Statement 26, statement 27, statement 28, and statement 30 deal with

students’ competence in understanding research methodology’s nature for their

research. Statement 26 deals with the students’ difficulty in organizing and

implementing the procedure of their research. Statement 26 is an unfavourable

statement, so disagree choice refers to the students’ positive perceptions. There

were 34 students who disagreed and 38 students who agreed with the statement 26

in the questionnaire. Statement 27 deals with the students’ capability to explain

about their research methodologies points. There were 33 students who disagreed

and 39 students agreed with statement 27 in the questionnaire. Statement 28 deals

with the students’ capability to design their own research. There were 31 students

who disagreed and 41 students who agreed with statement 28 in the questionnaire.

Then, statement 30 deals with the students’ difficulty in investigating the suitable

methodology for their research. Since statement 30 is an unfavourable statement,

so disagree choice refers to the students’ positive perception. There were 38


72 students who disagreed and 34 students who agreed with statement 30 in the

questionnaire. The comparisons of the differences in perceptions on those four

statements were nearly balanced. The differences in perceptions of the four

statements were influenced by the perceiver factor. The perceiver factor was

influenced by experiences. The experiences of those four statements were the

students' competence in preparing, processing, identifying, and investigating the

form and purpose of the student’s research after attending RM Class. Students had

their own experience. A striking experience was more easily to be captured by

students. The experience in RM Class became an illustration for students to make

perceptions of RM Class’ contribution for thesis writing. Nevertheless, the

differences in perceptions by each student were not only shaped by past

experience, but also by the interests and attitudes that arose in responses to their

experience.

The findings showed that many students had difficulty in thesis writing,

especially composing Chapter III of thesis that closely related to research

methodologies, even though the students had passed RM Class. Almost half of all

the participants still experienced the difficulty in organizing and applying the

theories or materials of RM Class, especially to arrange their research that was

written in Chapter III: Research Methodology of the thesis. In addition, nearly

half of the total participants still also had difficulty in explaining the research

procedures and the data analysis techniques that they used in their research. Then,

almost half of the total participants experienced difficulty in determining the

purpose of their research. These findings presented that the goal of the course in


73 RM Class which was oriented to the thesis writing had not been achieved

optimally. In accordance with the course orientation of RM Class, Burns (2000)

conveyed the important subjects that had to be mastered by students as a

researcher, such as the organization of the research, the techniques of the research,

the techniques and the instruments to the data, and the data analysis technique.

Further, almost half of the total participants still have difficulty to design and

investigate research methodology in accordance with the topic of their thesis

writing. This was closely related to the selection of methodology (statement 24)

and the reason for selection of methodology (statement 25). If students had

difficulty in the selection of methodology, then there was also a tendency for

students to have difficulty in investigating the methodology properly to the topic.

Murray (2002) said that the research method served to explain the purpose

of the research, how to conduct the research, the reasons why choosing the

research methodology, and how the research methodology applied to the research

questions. Based on Murray’s statement, almost half of the total participants who

had difficulty in designing and investigating the methodology properly to their

topic of research perceived that they were able to find the right reasons for their

methodology. The difficulties that experienced by the students encouraged most

of students to move to meet their needs. It indicated the existence of the students’

transformative learning. There were a series of events that showed the students’

change on their perception about their difficulties (Cranton, 2002; Mezirow,

1997). Moreover, the students’ efforts to solve their problem in research

methodology proved the occurrence of transformative learning (Baumgartner,


74 2001). They revised their perceptions about the difficulties of research

methodology into being able to know the purpose, to design, and to explain the

whole of their research.

In the other hand, there were still some students who experienced the

difficulties. Some students who were still experiencing difficulties needed more

attention from the lecturers and ELESP’s authorities. This was necessary because

students needed to internalize the contributions of RM Class and the guidance of

the lecturers as their facilitators during the process of completing their thesis

writing. The honesty and the initiative of the students were also needed so that the

orientations of RM Class that directed to the effort to assist the students in the

process of thesis writing could be achieved.

Afterwards, statement 29 deals with the contribution of Research Methods

Class’ learning materials whether they can help the students to solve the research

problems or not. There were 27 students who disagreed and 45 students who

agreed to statement 29 in the questionnaire. The comparison of the differences in

perception on statement 29 tends to be high. The difference of the perception was

influenced by the target factor which was influenced by the target’ characteristic.

The target of statement 29 was the material in RM Class that had characteristic of

being able to help the students to solve the problems that were formulated in their

research. This learning materials’ characteristic in RM Class was the cause of the

different perceptions. The characteristic that was oriented to assist students in

writing thesis could influence students to have a positive perception of RM Class’

learning materials contribution for thesis writing.


75

Based on the findings, the learning materials that were received by the

majority of students were able to help students to solve the problems that were

formulated in their research. Thus, it could be described that most students had the

perception that the learning materials that were given in RM Class had a

contribution in helping them to solve the problems that had been formulated in the

thesis writing. Nevertheless, there were several students who had the perception

that the learning materials in RM class did not contribute in helping them to solve

the problems formulated in the research. These students needed the attention and

assistance from the lecturers so that they could obtain the application of RM

Class’ learning objectives for their thesis writing.

From those explanations above, there were things that have been done well

in the aspect 3 during the thesis writing. First, the learning materials of RM Class

could be implemented by students. Second, students were able to find out the

reasons for using their chosen research methodology. Third, the learning materials

of RM Class helped to solve problems that have been formulated in the research

question(s) by the students.

Besides, during the thesis writing, there were several things that needed to

be improved in the aspect 3. First, students had difficulties in determining the

research methodology that they should use. Second, students experienced

difficulties in preparing and implementing the procedures for conducting the

research. Third, students faced difficulties in explaining the research procedures

and the data analysis techniques. Fourth, students had not been able to design the

research and to know the purpose of their research. Fifth, students experienced


76 difficulties in investigating the appropriate research methodologies for their

research topics.

Moreover, there was question 32 that discussed the exploration of

students’ perceptions of RM Class’ contribution to the students’ thesis writing. In

the question number 32, the students' opinions are classified into 2 categories. The

2 categories are agree and disagree. The opinions of the students were classified

into the agree category when students thought that the materials and teaching

strategies that were used by the lecturers in RM Class assisted them to write their

thesis. There were 34 students included in the agree category and 38 students

included in the disagree category. The comparison of the differences in

perceptions of question 32 was nearly balanced. The difference in perception was

influenced by perceiver factor which was influenced by each student’ experiences.

The experience that arose in question 32 was the difficulties that students faced

during finding the right methodologies to investigate their research topics after

they attended RM Class. Students had their own experiences on the level of

difficulty that they faced in the investigation process. The differences in

experiences influenced the different perceptions. The differences in experiences

affected the interest of students to meet the need to be able to investigate the

thesis topic. Students whose needs were met tended to have a positive perception

of RM Class’ contribution in a way that this class help them to investigate the

methodology appropriately for the research topic.

Based on the findings, almost half of the total students stated that they still

found some difficulties in finding the right methodology to investigate their


77 research topic. The opinion that mostly arose in question 32 was the fact that

students did not know the types of the research methodologies because the

discussions of the learning materials during RM Class were only limited to the

quantitative and qualitative methodologies in general. The students experienced

the difficulties in identifying the type of methodologies that should be applied

because they did not comprehend the details of the uniqueness and the

characteristics of each methodology that they probably used to investigate their

research topic. The students experienced that they did not absorb any knowledge

about research methodologies in RM Class that caused them to learn from the

beginning when they had to investigate their research topic. Further, the students

found the difficulties in implementing the methodologies that the bases were

CAR, R & D, content analysis, survey, and case study. It was because their

knowledge on this information and the examples of those methodologies

implementation when they studied research methodologies in RM Class was

limited. In addition, students stated that the methodologies that were discussed

specifically in RM Class were only methods related to the field of education,

whereas not all of ELESP students’ thesis topic were in education area.

Based on those opinions, the difficulties came from the contents of

learning materials that were received by the students during RM Class’ learning

process. They experienced that the provided learning materials were not enough

supported by the detail explanations and the examples of how the learning

materials were used. Moreover, the function of RM Class as a place for students

to know the details and the characteristics of the research that were related to the


78 thesis writing was not enough experienced by the students. The important

knowledge and information for the preparation of thesis related to the research

methodology were not clearly mastered by the students. Therefore, there were

perceptions that the contribution of RM Class did not enough assist the students in

thesis writing.

Actually, those difficulties encouraged most of students to move forward

to meet their needs. In this case, the students’ needs were the capability to be able

to find out the reasons of choosing the proper methodology and to investigate it in

accordance with the topic of students’ thesis writing. This change of the students

indicated the existence of transformative learning that influenced the students to

move for their needs (Boyd, 1989), even though there were some students who

still had difficulties. Some students who were still experiencing the difficulties

need to be given more attention by lecturers and ELESP’s authorities. This was

necessary so that the contributions of RM Class and the lecturers’ guidance could

be experienced by those students for the process of their thesis writing. The

openness and the initiative of the students were also needed so that the orientation

of RM class that led to the effort to assist the students in the process of thesis

writing could be achieved. Furthermore, these difficulties needed more attention

from the authorities of ELESP in order to improve the quality of the learning

materials in RM Class as the contribution for students’ thesis writing.


CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Chapter V contains of two sections. The first section is the conclusions of

the research findings that are related to the research questions. Then, the second

section is the recommendations that contains of the suggestions for the lecturers,

the students, and the future researchers.

A. Conclusions

In this study, there were three aims that needed to be completed. The first

aim was to collect students’ experiences about the learning materials and the

learning strategies in Research Methods Class (RM). The second aim was to

gather students’ experiences after attending Research Methods Class related to the

process of students’ thesis writing. The last aim was to provide a place for

students to contribute to the future development of Research Methods Class

learning process by giving their suggestions especially to prepare students for

their thesis writing.

Those aims were to find out the students’ perceptions on Research

Methods Class’ the learning materials, the learning strategies, and RM Class’

contribution to students’ thesis writing. There are three research questions in this

study. The first problem formulation is about students’ perceptions about RM

Class’ learning materials. The second problem formulation is about students’

perception on the learning strategies in Research Methods Class. The third

79


80 problem formulation is about students’ perceptions about the contributions of

Research Methods Class’ learning materials and delivery methods to their Thesis

writing.

Based on the findings of this study, the first findings of students’

perceptions were in positive response. The students had positive perceptions on

the learning materials of Research Methods Class. It intended that the learning

materials of Research Methods Class were considered as the useful and

meaningful learning materials. It was because the learning materials motivated the

students to have meaningful learning by providing the students’ needs in thesis

writing and assisting the students to learn independently in order to achieve the

goals of the course.

Then, the students also had positive perceptions on the learning strategies.

It intended that the learning materials delivery methods during Research Methods

Class were effective to assist students to achieve the aims of the course. The

lecturers applied some behaviors in order to deliver the meaningful learning

materials to the students. During Research Methods Class, the majority of

students have perceptions that they experienced being responded, respected, and

understood as a unique person by the lecturers. It was because the lecturers

delivered the learning materials by providing students with the chances to explore

and develop their knowledge in accordance with students’ needs and interests in

the topic of their thesis writing.

The third findings of students’ perceptions were in positive response. The

students had positive perceptions on the contribution of the learning materials and


81 the learning strategies of Research Methods Class to the students’ thesis writing.

It intended that the learning materials and the learning materials delivery methods

of Research Methods Class were the useful and helpful parts for the contribution

of students’ thesis writing. The learning materials and the learning materials

delivery methods of Research Methods Class were useful because they contribute

as the references for students to work on Chapter III: Research Methodology of

their thesis writing. The majority of the students experienced that the learning

materials and the learning strategies were helpful because students could

implement what they have learnt in RM Class. They were also assisted to

recognize the reasons of the use of their methodology and to solve their problems

of their research problems.

B. Recommendations

The recommendations are addressed to the lecturers, the students, and the

future researchers. The first recommendation is for the lecturers. Based on the

findings of this study, the students have perceptions that the learning materials on

Research Methods Class provided a little information about the details of each

topic, a few illustrations, and less specific explanations. The lecturers also

delivered the learning materials by using complicated language and long-winded

explanations that confused the students. Therefore, the lecturers need some

improvements and reconsiderations for the learning materials and the delivery of

the learning materials in order to provide the students with the obvious research

method learning materials and to prepare the students for their thesis writing.


82

The second recommendation is for the students. Based on the findings,

some students experienced the difficulties in the understanding and the

implementation of the research methodologies. Some of them also have

perceptions that they did not get anything on Research Methods Class that made

them faced a lot of difficulties during the process of thesis writing. Even though

the students faced a lot of difficulties, the students should not think that they were

alone without any guidance. The students should be honest and open to their

thesis advisors about the difficulties on thesis writing especially about the

research methodology in order to have directions, guidance, and enlightenment for

finishing their thesis writing.

The last recommendation is for the future researchers. The researcher

suggests that the future researchers should develop further research related to the

students’ perceptions on Research Methods Class’ learning materials, learning

strategies, and its contribution to thesis writing. Since this study focuses on the

perception, the future researchers can conduct the researches about the correlation

between the understanding of research methodology and the length of time to

finish thesis writing, the effectiveness of Research Methodology Class in order to

prepare the students for thesis writing, and the design of research methodology

handout, module, or handbook that can meet the students’ needs on understanding

the research methodologies to prepare their thesis writing.


83

REFERENCES

Arends, R. (2011). Learning to teach (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill

Education. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. K. (2010). Introduction to research in

education (8th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Baumgartner, L.M. (2001). An update on transformational learning. In S.B.

Merriam (Ed.), New directions for adult and continuing education: No. 89. The new update on adult learning theory (pp. 15-24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Babbie, E. (1990). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth. Bowling, A. (1997). Research methods in health. Buckingham: Open University

Press. Boyd, R.D. (1989). Facilitating personal transformation in small groups, Part I.

Small Group Behavior, 20(4), 459-474. Browns, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture

of learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32-42. Bungin, H. M. B. (2011). Metodologi penelitian kuantitatif: komunikasi, ekonomi,

dan kebijakan publik serta ilmu-ilmu sosial lainnya (2nd ed.). Jakarta: Kencana Prenadamedia Group.

Burns, R. B. (2000). Introduction to research methods. London: Sage Publication

Ltd. Cambridge advanced learner’s dictionary-third edition. (2008). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. Chall, J. S. (2000). The academic achievement challenge: What really works in

the classroom?. New York: Guilford Press. Cranton, P. (1994, November/December). Self-directed and transformative

instructional development. Journal of Higher Education, 65(6), 726-744. Cranton, P. (2002, Spring). Teaching for transformation. In J.M. Ross-Gordon

(Ed.), New directions for adult and continuing education: No. 93. Contemporary viewpoints on teaching adults effectively (pp. 63-71). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.


84 Creswell, J. W. (2012). Research design pendekatan kualitatif, kuantitatif, dan

mixed (3rd ed.). (A. Fawaid, Trans). Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar. DeNeen, J. (2013). 25 things successful educators do differently. InformEd.

Retrieved on January, 17, 2018, from https://www.opencolleges.edu.au/informed/features/25-things-successful-educators-do-differently/.

Djamarah, S. B. & Zain, Awan. (2010). Strategi belajar mengajar. Jakarta:

Rineka Cipta. Fink, A. (2002). The survey kit (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Holland, R. G. (2003). To build a better teacher – the emergence of a competitive

education industry. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. Imel, S. (1998). Transformative learning in adulthood. Washington, D.C.: Office

of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED42326). Retrieved on January 18, 2018, from http://www.cete.org/acve/docgen. asp?tbl=digest&ID=53

Johnson, D. W. (1979). Educational pyschology. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc. Kaplan, R. M. & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2009). Psychological testing principles,

applications, and issues. Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Marsh, J. & Larson, J. (2005). Making literacy real: theories and practices for

learning and teaching. London: Sage. McLeod, S. A. (2008). Likert scale. Simply Psychology. Retrieved on May, 3,

2017, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/likert-scale.html. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions in adult learning. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass. Mezirow, J. (1997, Summer). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. In P.

Cranton (Ed.), New directions for adult and continuing education: No. 74. Transformative learning in action: Insights from practice (pp. 5-12). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory

in progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Murray, D. M. (2002). How to write a thesis. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open

University Press.


https://www.opencolleges.edu.au/informed/features/25-things-successful-educators-do-differently/

https://www.opencolleges.edu.au/informed/features/25-things-successful-educators-do-differently/

http://www.cete.org/acve/docgen.%20asp?tbl=digest&ID=53

https://www.simplypsychology.org/likert-scale.html

85 Oliver, P. (2004). Writing your thesis. London: Thousand Oaks. Peterson, R. (1992). Managing successful learning a practical guide for teachers

and trainers. London: Kogan Page Limited. Prashnig, B. (2007). The power of learning style: memacu anak melejitkan

prestasi dengan mengenali gaya belajarnya. (N. Fauziah, Trans). Bandung: Kaifa.

Prastowo, A. (2013). Pengembangan bahan ajar tematik – panduan lengkap

aplikatif. Yogyakarta: DIVA Press (Anggota IKAPI). Purnomo, M. K. (2016). Students’ perceptions toward the simulation as a part of

experiential learning in approaches, methods, and technique (AMT) Course. Yogyakarta: Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Robbins, S. P. (2001). Perilaku organisasi: konsep, kontroversi, aplikasi (8th ed.).

(H. Pujaatmaka & B. Molan, Trans). Jakarta: Prenhallindo. Solso, R. L., Maclin, O. H., & Maclin, M. K. (2008). Psikologi kognitif (8th ed.).

(M. Rahardanto & K. Batuadji, Trans). Jakarta: Erlangga. Taylor, E.W. (2000). Analyzing research on transformative learning theory. In J.

Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 29-310). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Tull, D. S. & Albaum, G. S. (1978). Survey research: a decisional approach. New

York: Intertexzt Books. Universitas Sanata Dharma. (2012). Panduan akademik program studi Pendidikan

Bahasa Inggris jurusan pendidikan bahasa dan seni fakultas keguruan dan ilmu pendidikan Universitas Sanata Dharma Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta: Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Universitas Sanata Dharma. (2016). Course outline KPE 378 research methods

English Language education study program. Yogyakarta: Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Weimer, M. (2009). Effective teaching strategies: Six keys to classroom excellence: faculty focus – higher education teaching strategies. Madison: Magna Publication.

Widhiarso, W. (2010). Membuat kategori skor hasil pengukuran dari skala.

Yogyakarta: Fakultas Psikologi Universitas Gadjah Mada.


86 Widodo, C. S. & Jasmadi. (2008). Panduan menyusun bahan ajar berbasis

kompetensi. Jakarta: Elex Media Komputindo. Wiersma, W. (1995). Research Method in Education: An Introduction. Boston:

MA: Allyn and Bacon. Yanse, S. (2016). Students’ perceptions toward on the use of group discussion

and their engagement in the speaking session of CLS I. Yogyakarta: Universitas Sanata Dharma.


87

Appendix A Blueprint of Questionnaire


The Questionnaire Blueprint

This research is focused on students’ perceptions on Research Methods

Class’ learning materials and learning strategies and its contribution to students’

thesis writing. There are three research questions in this research. The first

research question deals with the students’ perception about the learning materials

in Research Methods Class. The second question deals with the learning strategies

of Research Methods Class. These two research questions will be answered by

using the questions number 1 up to 22. The questions number 1-10 are addressed

to investigate students’ perceptions about Research Methods Class’ learning

materials. Besides, the questions numbers 11 up to 22 are addressed to investigate

students’ perceptions about the learning strategies of Research Methods Class.

The third research question deals with students’ perceptions about the contribution

of Research Methods Class to students’ Thesis writing. This third research

question will be answered by using questions number 23 up to 30. Further, there

are number 31 and number 32 as the open-ended questions for the students to

have more exploration about their experiences in Research Methods Class.

Below is the blueprint of the questionnaire. The blueprint will present the

underlying theories of the questionnaire to answer those research questions.

Questionnaire Number

Aspects of Investigation Underlying Theories

Students’ Perception of Learning Materials in RM Class 1-2 Students’ perception

about the learning materials in Research

Methods Class: Constructive Perception-

Perceiver Factor

According to DeNeen (2013), teaching was successful if it was appropriate with the objectives that were compiled before.


3 Students’ perception about the learning

materials in Research Methods Class:

Constructive Perception-Target

Factor

According to Djamarah (2010), the materials which were appropriate with students’ needs were going to motivate students. “Bahan pelajaran yang sesuai dengan kebutuhan anak didik akan memotivasi anak didik dalam jangka waktu tertentu (p.44)”.



Constructive Perception- Perceiver

Factor

According to Djamarah (2010), the references of the materials are everything that becomes the sources of the materials. “Sumber pelajaran adalah hal-hal yang dapat digunakan sebagai sarana menemukan asal bahan pelajaran (p.48)”.



Constructive Perception- Target

Factor

According to Arends (2011), the function of learning materials for students are (a) students learn independently without teacher or another students; (b) students can learn wherever and whenever they want; (c) students learn using their own speed; (d) students can organize their own learning; (e) the materials help students to learn independently; (f) learning materials are the guidelines that lead the students into the whole activities in the learning process and into the mastery of the


materials. 6-8 Students’ perception

about the learning materials in Research

Methods Class: Constructive

Perception-Perceiver and Target Factor

According to Widodo (2008), there were some characteristics of learning instructional design. They were self-instructional, self-contained, adaptive, and user friendly. Each of the characteristic had some conditions. There were the conditions of self-instructional: 1. The objectives of the

material were clear. 2. The materials were

provided in some specific units.

3. There were illustrations and examples to make the materials clearer.

4. There were tasks and exercises.

5. Delivered by contextual approach.

6. The language was simple and communicative.

7. There was summary for each material.

8. There were assessment instruments using self-assessment based.

9. There were evaluation sheets and feedbacks.

10. There were supporting references as other learning resources.


According to Prastowo (2013), there were



Constructive Perception- Target

Factor

principles to develop the learning materials. 1. Relevance. In this

principle, the material had to have the correlation with competency standards and basic competencies.

2. Consistency. In this principle, the number of the materials should be equal with the number of the basic competencies.

3. Adequacy. In this principle, the materials should help students to master the basic competencies. The materials should not be too much or too little.




Factor

According to Browns, Collins, Duguid (1989), defining the learning strategies should be correlated with contextual experiences to make the materials became a part of meaningful learning.

Students’ Perception of Learning Strategies in RM Class


strategies in Research Methods Class:

Constructive Perception-Situation

Factor

According to Johnson (1979), teacher as the facilitator should always strive for creating conducive climate for students to have initiative and to learn.

12-13 Students’ perception about the learning

strategies in Research Methods Class:

Constructive

According to Johnson (1979), there were some learning principles. They were (1) every student had basic ability to


Perception-Situation Factor

learn; (2) learn was meaningful if students realized that something that they learnt were relevant to themselves; (3) learning was going to be useless if it against students’ integrity; (4) the learning process that against students’ integrity could be reduced by eliminating the external disturbances; (5) learning was going to be meaningful if students learnt through their own experiences and experiments; (6) learning was going to be successful if students participated actively and responsibly in every learning process; (7) learning was going to be meaningful and complete if students learn through their own initiative; (8) critic and self-evaluation were going to be effective to improve students’ independence, creativity, and confidence.

14-16 Students’ perception of learning strategies in

RM Class: Constructive Perception-Perceiver

Factor

According to Chall (2000) which is cited on Holland (2003), there are several teachers’ desirable behaviors. Some of them are listed below. 1. Teachers have to be

friends for their students, especially to build students’ motivation in


learning. 2. Teachers have to

challenge their students. This is aimed to motivate the students and to develop students’ curiosity about the topic of the learning.

3. Teachers have to be flexible. It means that teachers can adjust the implementation of the learning materials delivery method to suit the students’ needs.

4. Teachers have to respond positively any students’ behavior.

17-19 and 21 Students’ perception of

learning strategies in RM Class: Constructive

Perception-Perceiver Factor

According to Chall (2000) which is cited on Holland (2003), there are several teachers’ undesirable behaviors. Some of them are listed below. 1. Teachers have not to

interrupt, make comments, ask questions, and give sudden directions often that can interfere students’

2. Teachers have not to be long-winded during the explanation of any topic.

3. Teachers have not to insult or give extreme critic to the students who have different character and face


difficulty. 4. Teachers have not to

give attention only to the smart students.

20 Students’ perception of learning strategies in


Factor

Furthermore, Weimer (2009), gives opinion about the important things in the effective learning methods. Some of them are Pay attention and respect the students as individuals, and also appreciate their different interest and the way of learning.

22 Students’ perception of learning strategies in


Factor

According to Peterson (1992), the tendency of a teacher to be authoritarian also needs to be considered for avoiding students from the congestion in the learning development. According to Marsh (2005), learning method was a series of learning activities related to the students management, the learning environment management, the source of learning material management, and the assessment in order t According to Chall (2000), the most important thing in the learning material delivery method was the way how the teacher played a role in those main learning strategies in order to build an effective learning process and to achieve the goals of the learning


to achieve the learning aims.

Learning Materials, Learning Strategies, and RM Class’ Contribution to Students’ Thesis Writing

23 Students’ Perception of RM Knowledge

Implementation for Thesis Writing:


Factor

According to Oliver (2004), one of powers in thesis writing was research methodologies mastery. The readers believed that the researcher mastered the research methodologies. This belief was going to be proved when the researcher was able to justify the research methodologies that she/he implemented in thesis writing by giving the reasons why the researcher chose the research methodologies.

24 and 25 Students’ Perception of RM Knowledge


Constructive Perception-Perceiver

Factor




Factor

According to Burns (2000), research methodology discussed about the organization of the research. Besides, the research procedure discussed about the steps, the techniques, and the instruments of the research to gather the data. Therefore, we conclude that research methodology included research procedure and research techniques.




Factor

According to Murray (2002), research methodology was a set of systematic and organized methodology to investigate a topic or a title of a research and





Factor

to answer the questions that have been formulated on the research. Then, the function of research methodology could be obtained by answering these questions below. • What is the goal of

your research? • How do you do your

research? • Why do you choose

this research methodology?

• What is/are your research question/s?

• How can your research methodology be implemented on your research question/s?

• What topics are proper to explain the methodology on your research?




Factor




Factor

According to Johnson (1979), the teacher did not only deliver the materials, but also made the students to comprehend and understand the meaning of the materials as the characters of the students. As a facilitator, the teacher should give the chances and help students to realize what their purposes on learning are.


97

Appendix B Questionnaire


1. Bahasa Version

Questionnaire

Pada questionnaire ini, peneliti bermaksud untuk melakukan pencarian data

yang akan dipergunakan sebagai komponen utama dalam diskusi pada penelitian

yang berjudul “Students’ Perceptions on Research Methods Class’ Learning

Materials and Delivery Methods and Its Contribution to Students’ Thesis

Writing”. Peneliti sangat berterimakasih kepada Anda yang telah bersedia

berkontribusi sebagai responden dalam penelitian ini.

Tujuan dari penelitian ini antara lain untuk mengetahui pengalaman-

pengalaman yang Anda miliki, terutama pengalaman tentang materi pembelajaran

dan cara penyampaian materi pembelajaran dalam kelas Research Methodology

(RM). Selain itu, penelitian ini juga bertujuan untuk mengetahui pengalaman

Anda setelah melalui kelas Research Methodology yang berkaitan dengan proses

pembuatan Thesis Anda. Lebih jauh, penelitian ini bertujuan sebagai wadah bagi

mahasiswa untuk berkontribusi dalam pengembangan kelas Research

Methodology terutama untuk mempersiapkan mahasiswa dalam penulisan Thesis

pada waktu mendatang.

Saya sangat berterima kasih kepada Anda yang bersedia membantu untuk

mengisi questionnaire di bawah ini sebagai salah satu cara pengumpulan data

yang saya lakukan. Terima kasih pula sebab Anda berkenan untuk ikut

berpartisipasi dalam survey penelitian ini.


Informasi yang tersedia dalam questionnaire ini hanya akan digunakan

untuk kepentingan penelitian. Informasi tersebut tidak akan dipergunakan dengan

sengaja jika tanpa persetujuan dari Anda.

Nama :

NIM :

No. HP :

Berilah tanda centang (√) pada salah satu kolom Sangat Setuju (SS), Setuju

(S), Tidak Setuju (TS), atau Sangat Tidak Setuju (STS) yang tersedia pada tiap

butir pernyataan di bawah ini sejauh mana pernyataan tersebut merefleksikan

situasi yang Anda alami.

No. Pernyataan SS S TS STS Persepsi Saya terhadap

Materi Pembelajaran dalam Kelas RM 1 Saya berhasil mencapai tujuan

pembelajaran dalam silabus RM melalui materi yang disampaikan.

2 Saya menguasai beberapa materi saja dalam mata kuliah RM.

3 Materi dalam mata kuliah RM mampu memotivasi saya dalam proses pembelajaran sebab sesuai dengan kebutuhan saya.

4 Saya kesulitan menemukan sumber materi mata kuliah RM.

5 Materi yang diberikan dalam mata kuliah RM memudahkan saya untuk belajar secara mandiri.

6 Saya mampu mengetahui tujuan materi yang telah disusun dalam mata kuliah RM.

7 Materi dalam mata kuliah RM tersusun secara spesifik serta terdapat ilustrasi dan contoh yang memudahkan saya untuk belajar.

8 Bagi saya, bahasa yang digunakan dalam materi mata kuliah RM mudah dipahami.

9 Materi yang terdapat dalam mata kuliah


RM terlalu banyak dan sulit untuk saya pahami.

10 Materi dalam mata kuliah RM berkaitan dengan apa yang saya butuhkan untuk penulisan skripsi.

Persepsi Saya terhadap Metode Penyampaian Materi dalam Kelas RM

11 Dalam mata kuliah RM, saya mendapatkan kesempatan untuk berinisiatif dalam proses pembelajaran.

12 Dalam mata kuliah RM, saya diajak untuk menyadari hal-hal yang relevan dengan materi yang sedang dipelajari.

13 Saya dibimbing untuk menggali dan mengenali ketertarikan pada bidang yang saya minati selama proses belajar dalam kelas RM.

14 Dosen membuat saya termotivasi untuk mengembangkan ilmu dan pengetahuan yang saya dapatkan.

15 Saya merasa dosen cukup luwes dalam menerapkan metode pembelajaran sehingga tercipta iklim pembelajaran yang kondusif.

16 Dosen merespons secara positif setiap perilaku saya yang bertujuan untuk pengembangan pengetahuan.

17 Selama proses pembelajaran, dosen lebih banyak menyela dan memberi komentar yang mendadak sehingga mengganggu saya dalam melaksanakan aktivitas belajar.

18 Saat dosen menjelaskan materi, saya sering mendengarkan penjelasan yang bertele-tele sehingga membuat saya bingung.

19 Dalam proses pembelajaran, saya pernah mendapatkan celaan atau kritik yang menjatuhkan dari dosen.

20 Dalam proses pembelajaran, saya merasa dipahami oleh dosen sebagai pribadi yang memiliki keunikan individual.

21 Dosen membantu saya dalam proses pembelajaran sesuai dengan kemampuan saya.


22 Saya lebih banyak mendapatkan pengetahuan tentang RM ketika dosen menggunakan metode yang berpusat pada mahasiswa.

Persepsi Saya terhadap Kontribusi Materi Pembelajaran dan

Metode Penyampaian Materi dalam Penulisan Skripsi 23 Materi yang saya terima dalam kelas RM

dapat saya implementasikan dalam penulisan skripsi.

24 Saya kesulitan memutuskan metodologi penelitian apa yang akan saya gunakan dalam penulisan skripsi setelah saya menerima materi dalam kelas RM.

25 Saya mengetahui alasan penggunaan metodologi dalam penulisan skripsi saya setelah menerima materi dalam kelas RM.

26 Saya masih kesulitan menyusun dan menerapkan tata cara bagaimana suatu penelitian dilakukan setelah menerima materi dalam kelas RM.

27 Saya mampu menjelaskan prosedur penelitian dan teknik analisis data dalam penulisan skripsi setelah menerima materi dalam kelas RM.

28 Saya mampu mendesain penelitian dan mengetahui tujuan penelitian masing-masing setelah menerima materi dalam kelas RM.

29 Materi dalam kelas RM membantu saya untuk memecahkan permasalahan yang saya rumuskan dalam penelitian.

30 Saya masih kesulitan dalam menginvestigasi metodologi yang sesuai dengan topik penulisan skripsi saya.

Jawablah pertanyaan di bawah ini sesuai dengan pengalaman yang telah Anda terima pada tempat yang telah disediakan. 31. Apakah materi dan metode yang digunakan oleh dosen di kelas RM

membantu Anda untuk penulisan skripsi Anda saat ini? Jelaskan secara singkat. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


32. Setelah menerima materi dalam kelas RM, apakah Anda mengalami kesulitan menemukan metodologi yang tepat untuk menginvestigasi topik yang akan Anda teliti? Jika ya, kesulitan seperti apakah itu? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

-Terima Kasih-

2. English Version

The Questionnaire

No. Statements SA A D SD

My Perception on RM Class’ Learning Materials

1 I achieved the learning objectives of RM Class’ syllabus through the learning materials.

2 I mastered only a few learning materials in RM Class.

3 The learning materials of RM Class were able to motivate me in the learning process because they were suitable for my needs.

4 I faced some troubles finding the source of RM Class’ learning material.

5 The learning materials of RM Class made me easier to study independently.

6 I was able to know the objectives of the learning materials that had been prepared in RM Class.

7 RM Class’ learning materials were composed specifically and there were illustrations and examples that made me easier to learn.

8 I think, the language that was used in RM Class’ learning material was easy to be understood.

9 The contents of RM Class’ learning materials were too much and difficult to be understood.

10 The learning materials of RM Class related to what I needed for thesis


writing. My Perception on

RM Class’ Learning Strategies 11 In RM Class, I got the opportunity to

take the initiative in the learning process.

12 In RM Class, I was invited to realize issues that were relevant to the learning material that were being studied.

13 I was guided to explore and recognize the interest in the field I was interested in during the learning process in RM class.

14 The lecturer made me motivated to develop the knowledge I got.

15 I felt the lecturers were flexible in applying the learning strategies to create a conducive learning climate.

16 The lecturer responded positively to my behavior for the purpose of developing knowledge.

17 During the learning process, lecturer often interrupted and gave a sudden comment that disturbed me in carrying out learning activities.

18 When the lecturer explained the learning materials, I often listen to the long-winded explanations that made me confused.

19 In the process of learning, I got a reproach or criticism that dropped by lecturer.

20 In the process of learning, I was feeling understood by lecturers as individuals who have individual uniqueness.

21 The lecturer helped me in the learning process based on my ability.

22 I gained more knowledge about RM when lecturers applied student-centered strategy.

My Perception on the Contribution of Research Methods Class in Thesis Writing

23 The learning materials that I received in RM Class can be implemented in my thesis writing.

24 I am having trouble deciding what research methodology I will use in


thesis writing after I received the learning materials in RM class.

25 I know the reason for using the methodology in my thesis writing after receiving the material in RM Class.

26 I am still having trouble compiling and applying the procedures on how a research is done after receiving the learning materials in RM Class.

27 I am able to explain the research procedures and data analysis techniques in thesis writing after receiving the material in RM Class.

28 I am able to design research and know the purpose of each research after receiving the material in RM Class.

29 The learning materials in RM Class helped me to solve the problems that I have formulated in my research.

30 I am still having difficulties in investigating the methodology that fit the topic of my thesis writing.

31. Did the learning materials and learning strategies that were used by lecturers in

RM Class help you for writing your current thesis? Please, explain briefly. ________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

32. After receiving the learning materials in RM class, are you having trouble

finding the right methodologies to investigate the topics you are researching? If it is so, what kind of difficulty is that?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

-Thank you-


105

Appendix C Formulation of Score Category


Formulation of Score Category

According to Kaplan (2009) which is cited on Widhiarso (2010), the

researcher calculate the hypothetical mean in order to categorize the score of each

students. The hypothetical mean deals with the most neutral point that occurs in the

questionnaire’s score. Below is the formula that will be used to calculate the

hypothetical mean.

𝜇 = 12

(𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑥 + 𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑛)�𝑘

Known as:

µ = hypothetical mean

imax = the maximum score of each item

imin = the minimum score of each item

∑k = the number of items

There were three calculations to make the categorization. Below is the

calculation of each aspect and in general.

Aspect 1 Aspect 2

𝜇 = 12


𝜇 = 12

(4 + 1) 10

𝜇 = 12

× 50

𝜇 = 25

𝜇 = 12


𝜇 = 12

(4 + 1) 12

𝜇 = 12

× 60

𝜇 = 30


Aspect 3

𝜇 = 12


𝜇 = 12

(4 + 1) 8

𝜇 = 12

× 40

𝜇 = 20

In general

𝜇 = 12


𝜇 = 12

(4 + 1) 30

𝜇 = 12

× 150

𝜇 = 75


108

Appendix D Sheets of Questionnaire Results


S.1 S.2 S.3 S.4 S.5 S.6 S.7 S.8 S.9 S.101 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 4 29 142 3 2 2 1 4 4 2 2 2 4 26 163 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 3 2 20 174 3 2 2 2 3 4 1 4 1 1 23 195 2 2 1 4 1 2 3 1 3 2 21 206 3 2 4 1 4 4 3 3 2 4 30 207 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 4 3 25 218 3 2 4 2 3 3 3 3 2 4 29 219 4 2 3 2 4 3 3 2 3 3 29 2210 1 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 4 4 25 2211 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 26 2212 2 3 2 4 3 3 2 1 3 1 24 2313 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 2 1 16 2314 3 1 3 3 4 3 4 2 2 4 29 2315 4 3 4 2 3 3 4 3 2 4 32 2316 3 2 3 2 3 4 3 2 3 4 29 2317 4 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 4 4 30 2418 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 2 2 1 17 2419 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 28 2420 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 25 2421 4 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 27 2422 3 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 3 2 22 2523 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 4 28 2524 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 25 2525 4 2 3 2 4 3 2 2 2 4 28 2526 3 2 3 2 3 4 4 2 3 4 30 2527 1 3 3 4 3 3 2 2 3 4 28 2528 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 4 24 2529 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 19 2530 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 23 2631 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 26 2632 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 23 2633 3 3 3 2 4 4 3 3 2 3 30 2634 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 27 2635 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 14 2736 3 2 3 4 2 2 3 3 3 3 28 27

The Questionnaire Results

Participants Aspect 1 Score: Aspect 1

Typical Score


37 3 2 4 2 3 3 4 3 3 4 31 2738 3 2 3 1 3 2 2 2 3 4 25 2739 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 3 2 4 30 2840 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 22 2841 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 1 2 26 2842 4 1 3 2 3 4 3 2 2 4 28 2843 4 3 4 2 4 4 4 4 1 4 34 2844 3 1 3 2 3 3 4 3 2 3 27 2845 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 21 2846 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 3 1 20 2847 3 2 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 34 2848 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 4 28 2849 3 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 29 2950 3 1 4 1 4 4 4 3 4 4 32 2951 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 28 2952 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 4 28 2953 3 1 2 3 3 3 2 2 4 2 25 2954 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 24 2955 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 24 3056 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 27 3057 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 30 3058 3 2 4 2 3 3 2 3 3 4 29 3059 2 2 3 4 3 2 1 2 3 1 23 3060 3 1 4 1 4 4 4 3 3 4 31 3061 4 3 4 2 3 4 4 3 2 4 33 3062 4 2 4 2 4 4 4 3 2 4 33 3063 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 26 3064 3 2 2 1 3 3 2 2 3 4 25 3165 3 1 4 1 3 2 2 3 2 3 24 3166 2 2 3 4 2 2 2 2 3 3 25 3167 3 2 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 4 30 3268 3 3 4 2 4 4 3 2 1 4 30 3269 4 3 4 2 4 3 4 3 1 3 31 3370 3 2 2 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 30 3371 2 1 2 4 2 2 2 2 3 2 22 3472 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 4 28 34

Score 198 150 207 174 204 204 186 182 182 221Mean 2.75 2.08333 2.875 2.41667 2.83333 2.83333 2.58333 2.52778 2.52778 3.06944


S.11 S.12 S.13 S.14 S.15 S.16 S.17 S.18 S.19 S.20 S.21 S.221 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 32 202 3 4 4 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 30 203 2 3 3 1 1 3 3 4 2 2 2 1 27 214 4 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 34 215 2 3 2 1 2 2 3 4 2 2 2 1 26 236 3 3 4 3 3 3 1 2 1 4 4 3 34 237 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 33 238 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 4 3 3 33 259 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 3 3 4 29 2610 4 4 1 1 4 4 1 4 1 4 1 1 30 2611 4 3 3 4 4 4 1 1 1 3 3 3 34 2612 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 23 2713 3 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 26 2714 3 4 2 2 4 3 1 2 2 3 3 2 31 2715 3 3 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 4 4 4 37 2916 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 39 2917 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 34 2918 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 2 1 20 2919 2 3 3 3 2 3 1 3 1 3 3 2 29 2920 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 33 2921 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 34 2922 3 3 3 1 1 2 3 4 3 3 2 3 31 3023 2 3 3 3 4 4 2 1 1 3 3 3 32 3024 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 30 3025 4 4 4 4 3 4 2 3 1 4 3 3 39 3026 4 4 4 3 3 4 2 3 1 4 4 4 40 3027 2 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 1 3 4 2 37 3128 2 3 3 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 26 3129 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 4 1 1 1 20 3130 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 32 3131 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 4 1 3 3 3 32 3132 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 34 3233 3 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 3 3 3 35 3234 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 30 3235 1 2 2 1 1 1 4 4 2 1 1 1 21 3236 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 4 1 3 3 4 33 32

Aspect 2 Score: Aspect 2

Typical Score


Participants


37 3 3 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 35 3338 3 2 4 4 3 3 1 2 1 4 3 3 33 3339 4 4 4 4 4 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 35 3340 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 31 3341 3 3 3 2 3 4 1 1 1 3 3 2 29 3342 3 3 3 3 3 4 1 2 1 3 3 3 32 3343 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 4 4 4 39 3344 4 3 3 3 4 4 1 1 1 2 2 3 31 3345 3 2 3 2 2 1 4 4 4 2 2 2 31 3446 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 25 3447 4 3 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 3 3 4 36 3448 3 3 4 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 34 3449 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 3 3 3 33 3450 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 40 3451 3 3 4 4 3 4 1 2 1 3 3 3 34 3452 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 33 3453 3 3 4 4 3 3 1 2 2 3 3 2 33 3454 3 3 1 2 1 1 3 4 1 1 1 2 23 3455 3 3 1 2 1 1 3 4 1 1 1 2 23 3456 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 30 3557 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 34 3558 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 2 3 27 3559 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 1 2 2 21 3560 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 3 1 3 4 3 38 3661 3 3 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 3 3 3 34 3662 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 3 3 3 36 3663 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 29 3664 4 4 2 3 3 4 2 3 2 2 3 4 36 3765 3 2 2 3 2 4 1 2 1 3 3 3 29 3766 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 2 1 3 29 3767 3 3 4 4 4 4 2 2 1 3 3 3 36 3868 3 3 2 4 3 4 1 2 1 4 3 4 34 3969 3 4 3 4 4 3 1 1 1 4 4 3 35 3970 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 2 29 3971 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 27 4072 3 3 4 4 4 4 1 2 1 4 4 3 37 40

Score 211 214 207 199 194 215 141 176 119 198 199 198Mean 2.93056 2.97222 2.875 2.76389 2.69444 2.98611 1.95833 2.44444 1.65278 2.75 2.76389 2.75


S.23 S.24 S.25 S.26 S.27 S.28 S.29 S.301 4 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 22 15 83 522 4 1 3 2 4 4 4 1 23 16 79 523 1 4 2 4 2 2 2 4 21 16 68 564 1 3 2 3 2 3 1 2 17 16 74 595 1 4 2 3 2 2 2 3 19 17 66 606 4 1 4 2 3 2 3 2 21 17 85 637 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 21 17 79 638 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 21 17 83 669 3 4 2 2 2 2 2 3 20 17 78 6810 4 4 1 4 1 1 1 4 20 18 75 6811 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 24 18 84 7012 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 4 16 18 63 7013 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 4 17 18 59 7114 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 19 19 79 7215 4 1 4 1 4 4 4 1 23 19 92 7216 4 4 3 4 2 3 3 2 25 19 93 7317 4 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 22 19 86 7418 1 3 2 3 2 1 1 2 15 19 52 7419 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 23 19 80 7520 4 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 21 19 79 7521 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 21 19 82 7522 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 23 20 76 7523 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 20 20 80 7624 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 20 20 75 7625 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 20 20 87 7626 4 1 3 2 4 4 4 1 23 20 93 7727 4 2 4 3 3 3 4 4 27 20 92 7728 2 4 1 3 2 2 3 3 20 20 70 7829 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 4 17 20 56 7830 3 3 2 4 2 2 3 3 22 20 77 7931 2 3 1 3 2 2 2 3 18 20 76 7932 3 4 2 3 2 2 3 1 20 20 77 7933 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 21 21 86 7934 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 1 19 21 76 7935 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 4 17 21 52 7936 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 19 21 80 79


Aspect 3 Score: Aspect 3

Typical Score

Total Typical Score

Participants


37 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 21 21 87 7938 3 1 3 2 2 2 2 1 16 21 74 8039 4 1 3 2 2 3 3 2 20 21 85 8040 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 4 17 21 70 8041 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 18 21 73 8042 4 1 3 2 3 3 3 1 20 21 80 8043 4 1 4 1 4 4 4 1 23 21 96 8244 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 21 21 79 8245 3 1 3 4 1 2 2 3 19 21 71 8346 1 4 2 3 1 2 2 3 18 22 63 8347 4 1 4 1 3 3 4 2 22 22 92 8348 4 3 4 3 2 2 3 3 24 22 86 8349 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 22 22 84 8450 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32 22 104 8451 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 3 24 22 86 8452 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 21 22 82 8453 3 1 3 1 4 3 3 3 21 23 79 8554 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 25 23 72 8555 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 25 23 72 8656 4 2 4 2 3 3 3 2 23 23 80 8657 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 19 23 83 8658 4 2 4 2 3 3 3 2 23 23 79 8659 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 16 23 60 8660 4 1 4 3 3 4 4 4 27 23 96 8761 4 2 4 2 4 4 3 2 25 23 92 8762 4 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 19 24 88 8863 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 23 24 78 9064 3 4 2 4 2 2 2 3 22 24 83 9265 3 2 3 1 3 4 3 3 22 24 75 9266 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 21 25 75 9267 4 2 3 3 3 3 4 2 24 25 90 9268 2 2 4 2 3 3 3 1 20 25 84 9369 3 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 18 25 84 9370 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 20 27 79 9671 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 19 27 68 9672 4 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 21 32 86 104

Score 212 176 197 185 183 187 191 177Mean 2.94444 2.44444 2.73611 2.56944 2.54167 2.59722 2.65278 2.45833


students’ perceptions on learning materials and …

Documents