Students' self-efficacy levels
The median split method is applied to group the writing self-efficacy questionnaire responses. The results of self-efficacy levels in the experimental and control groups are presented in Table 2.
Table 2 Self-efficacy levels in experiment and control groups
Group
|
Levels
|
Frequency
|
Experimental
(SRL-BI)
|
High
|
13
|
Moderate
|
14
|
Low
|
13
|
Control
(RWI)
|
High
|
16
|
Moderate
|
11
|
Low
|
13
|
Table 2 presents the distribution of self-efficacy levels in the experimental group. As shown, 13 students are in the high category, 14 in the moderate category, and 13 are categorized in the low category. The distribution level for the control group covers 16 students categorized as high, 11 as moderate, and 13 as low. The varying levels of self-efficacy are due to students' different beliefs about their ability to successfully navigate the challenges of academic writing skills.
Normality and homogeneity of the quantitative data
Data normality and homogeneity assumptions must be assessed before pre-test and post-test result analysis to ensure the robustness of the effectiveness analysis Self-Regulated Learning-Based Instruction (SRL-BI) and regular writing instruction. In the high, moderate, and low self-efficacy levels of the experimental group, all data of pre-test and post-test were normal and homogenous. In high self-efficacy levels, the value of Kolmogorov-Smirnov for the pre-tests and post-tests is .200, the value of Shapiro-Wilk for the pre-tests is .903, and for the post-tests is .990. The value of Based on Mean in the Levene test is .838. In moderate self-efficacy levels, the value of Kolmogorov-Smirnov for the pre-tests and post-tests is .200, the value of Shapiro-Wilk for the pre-tests is .890, and for the post-tests is .830. The value of Based on Mean in the Levene test is .963. In low self-efficacy levels, the value of Kolmogorov-Smirnov for the pre-tests and post-tests is .200, the value of Shapiro-Wilk for the pre-tests is .722, and for the post-tests is .268. The value of Based on Mean in the Levene test is .182.
In the control group, the data are all normal and homogenous. In high self-efficacy levels, the value of Kolmogorov-Smirnov for the pre-tests is .200 and post-tests is .163, the value of Shapiro-Wilk for the pre-tests is .130, and for the post-tests is .394. The value of Based on Mean in the Levene test is .937. In moderate self-efficacy levels, the value of Kolmogorov-Smirnov for the pre-tests and post-tests is .200, the value of Shapiro-Wilk for the pre-tests is .775, for the post-tests is .791. The value of Based on Mean in the Levene test is .934. In low self-efficacy levels, the value of Kolmogorov-Smirnov for the pre-tests and post-tests is .200, the value of Shapiro-Wilk for the pre-tests is .274, and for the post-tests is .263. The value of Based on Mean in the Levene test is .852. All data in the experimental and control group are more than the Sig. value .05 implies that the data are homogeneous and normally distributed. Therefore, the parametric test is used in this study.
Self-Regulated Learning-Based Instruction in enhancing the academic writing skills of students with high, moderate, and low self-efficacy levels
The Paired sample t-test run on the experimental group (Self-Regulated Learning- Based Instruction intervention), revealed a statistically significant difference between the pre-test and post-test of students with high, moderate, and low self-efficacy levels. Cohen et al. (2018) state that the Cohen's d value of more than 1.00 indicates a strong effect. The results reveal that Self-Regulated Learning strongly enhances the students' writing performance in their academic writing skills (see Table 3). Considering the students' self-efficacy levels, students with high self-efficacy exhibited statistically significant gains in academic writing skills (Sig. = <.001) with a mean upgrade of 10.980 (SD= 1.937, t=-20.432, df=12). In high self-efficacy levels, the effect size had a strong effect (d=5.668), which indicated that the intervention of SRL contributed to a strong effect in improving students' academic writing skills. Besides, the students with the moderate self-efficacy level demonstrated notable improvements in their academic writing skills, as supported by statistically significant data (Sig.= <.001) with a mean improvement of 13.714 (SD= 3.214, t=-15.962, df=13). The effect size in the moderate self-efficacy level was a strong effect (d=4.266) that showed that SRL significantly improved students' academic writing skills. In addition, students with a low level of self-efficacy showed considerable increases in their academic writing skills, as evidenced by statistically significant data (Sig. = <.001) with a mean enhancement of 15.942 (SD= 5.611, t=-10.234, df=12). The effect size seen at the low self-efficacy level was a strong effect (d=2.841), indicating that SRL contributed considerably to enhancing students' academic writing skills.
Table 3 Paired sample t-test in the experimental group
Tests
|
N
|
Paired sample statistics
|
Paired sample test
|
|
Mean
|
Std. Deviation
|
Mean
|
Std. Deviation
|
t
|
df
|
Sig. (2-tailed)
|
d
|
High Pre-test
|
|
13
|
63.442
|
5.593
|
-10.980
|
1.937
|
-20.432 12 <.001
|
5.668
|
High Post-test
|
|
13
|
74.423
|
5.347
|
Moderate Pre-test
|
|
14
|
56.392
|
5.983
|
-13.714 3.214
|
-15.962 13 <.001
|
4.266
|
Moderate Post-test
|
|
14
|
70.107
|
6.034
|
Low Pre-test
|
|
13
|
51.750
|
6.704
|
-15.942 5.611
|
-10.234 12 <.001
|
2.841
|
Low Post-test
|
|
13
|
67.692
|
4.971
|
Regular Writing Instruction in enhancing the academic writing skills of students with high, moderate, and low self-efficacy levels
In the control group (regular writing instruction), a Paired sample t-test was conducted to scrutinize the effect of regular writing instruction in enhancing students' academic writing skills. The results indicate that regular writing instruction also strongly improves academic writing skills among students with different self-efficacy levels (see Table 4). Students who had high levels of self-efficacy had statistical improvements in their academic writing skills (Sig. = <.001), with a mean increase of 6.421 (SD= 1.559, t= -16.475, df=15). The effect size in the control group of students with high self-efficacy levels was strong (d=4.119), revealing that regular writing instruction also improved students' academic writing skills. The moderate self-efficacy level of the control group showed significant improvements, as evidenced by the statistical data (Sig. = <.001), and a mean improvement of 9.590 (SD= 5.737, t= -5.544, df=10). The effect size in the control group of students with moderate self-efficacy levels was found to be strong (d=1.672), indicating that regular writing instruction can also enhance students' academic writing skills. The low self-efficacy students had 13.158 (SD= 10.399, t=-6.869, df=12) mean gains in academic writing skills (Sig. = <.001). The control group of students with low self-efficacy had a strong effect size (d=1.265) showing that regular writing instruction was able to improve students' academic writing skills.
Table 4 Paired sample t-test in the control group
Tests
|
N
|
Paired sample statistics
|
Paired sample test
|
|
Mean
|
Std. Deviation
|
Mean
|
Std.
Deviation
|
t
|
df
|
Sig.
(2-tailed)
|
d
|
High Pre-test
|
16
|
|
62.12
|
2.815
|
-6.421
|
1.559
|
-16.475 15 <.001
|
4.119
|
High Post-test
|
16
|
|
68.54
|
3.606
|
Moderate Pre-test
|
11
|
|
60.70
|
5.436
|
-9.590 5.737
|
-5.544 10 <.001
|
1.672
|
Moderate Post-test
|
11
|
|
70.25
|
5.551
|
Low Pre-test
|
13
|
|
57.00
|
8.296
|
-13.158 10.399
|
-6.869 12 <.001
|
1.265
|
Low Post-test
|
13
|
|
70.15
|
6.135
|
Students' voices toward the effectiveness results of self-regulated learning strategy-based instruction
Although quantitative research proves useful as a starting point, gaining a thorough knowledge of Self-Regulated Learning-Based Instruction (SRL-BI) involves investigating the research participants' voices regarding the quantitative research results. Exploring the students' voices enriches the quantitative results and promotes a nuanced understanding of SRL-BI's impact on students' academic writing skills and learning outcomes in writing instruction. Regarding the students' voices, three themes were discovered, which cover students' voices toward the quantitative results of SRL-BI effectiveness, the benefits of SRL, and the challenges of SRL.
The experimental research results prove that SRL is efficacious for students across various levels of self-efficacy. This is in line with the students' voices on the effectiveness of SRL-BI results. The subsequent excerpt depicts students' voices on the matter.
Excerpt 1. Interview with Student 6 (student with high self-efficacy level)
Based on my experience, self-regulated learning is effective in helping me finish my assignments in my Essay Writing class on time because my learning process is monitored through My SRL diary. Self-regulated learning can improve the student's writing skills. Knowing the results of experimental research widens my understanding of SRL-BI effectiveness. For students with low self-efficacy, it may make them feel more confident when doing the assignment. For students with moderate self-efficacy, it helps them be more precise in their progress. Meanwhile, for students with high self-efficacy, it helps them maintain their motivation to improve their academic writing skills.
Student 6 voice shows a positive viewpoint toward the results of SRL effectiveness. The voice is supported by her learning experiences written in My SRL diary, her performance in submitting the writing assignments in classroom Google Drive and the University Learning Management System, and her writing scores that reflect her voice. Below is an example of her learning experiences, which were recorded in My SRL diary. Figure 1 presents the evidence of Student 6 in the forethought phase (part of self-motivation beliefs) and performance phase (part of self-control: self-consequences) that guide students to have self-efficacy beliefs and commitments in finishing the assignments. In the forethought (part of self-motivation beliefs), Student 6 wrote that she believed that she could do the assignments because of her ability to understand the material. In the performance phase (part of self-control: self-consequences), she wrote her commitment to finish the assignments before the deadline and shared her own reward and punishment to motivate her to finish the assignment.
Figure 2 displays the evidence of Student 6's folder in her classroom Google Drive as a tool to submit the writing assignments, particularly in writing the essays' introduction, body, conclusion, and peer feedback form. It can be seen from the date of the last modified part in the drive that Student 6 completed all assignments by the informed deadline. It can be proved that the student has high self-efficacy beliefs and is committed to finishing the writing assignment on time. Besides, some information is blurred in Figure 2 because it relates to the student's identity.
In addition, Figure 3 presents proof that Student 6 was on time for one of the quizzes and got a good score. The quiz was uploaded to the University Learning Management System. It consisted of ten questions with four multiple-choice answers. The quiz was related to the writing materials explained in the meeting, with the purpose of checking students' understanding of the topic. Based on the quiz score, Student 6 got 80 out of 100 points, meaning she understood the material. This data validates Student 6's responses during the interview session.
After exploring students' voices regarding the results of SRL-BI effectiveness, the researchers found that students were concerned about the benefits of SRL-BI. Based on the interview, the students viewed that SRL-BI helps students improve their writing skills, evaluate their learning process, be goal-oriented and proactive, and develop their mastery of the materials. The following excerpts further elucidate the students' voices.
Excerpt 2. Interview with Student 2 (student with high self-efficacy level)
I am starting to improve my writing skills; I can apply the writing skills that had been taught in class, I am able to give peer feedback to friends when we are having discussions, and I am able to evaluate myself through the diary provided by the lecturer.
Excerpt 3. Interview with Student 1 (student with moderate self-efficacy level)
I am forced to learn and practice regularly and evaluate my weaknesses from week to week. Studying regularly has a good impact on my ability to understand the material.
Excerpt 4. Interview with Student 29 (student with low self-efficacy level)
There are several benefits; firstly, Self-Regulated Learning makes my learning more controlled, which, by determining learning objectives, makes me more focused on learning. I am no longer confused about what I must learn because I have planned it in the learning objectives. Secondly, by using my chosen method, I have found an easy and effective way of learning that suits my abilities and learning style. Finally, I evaluate my learning by looking for my strengths and weaknesses when learning. By evaluating I can know what is lacking in my learning so that I can overcome and reduce the risks arising from my weakness in learning.
Figure 4 shows the peer feedback example that supports Student 2's voice regarding the peer feedback activity in SRL-BI, which was done in the supporting stage of SRL-BI. Before providing feedback to their peers, the feedback giver read their friend's essay in the classroom Google Drive. Then, the students shared their feedback in the classroom WhatsApp group. Therefore, all students could read all feedback, learn from it, and improve their essays.
The record in their My SRL diary supporting Students 2, 1, and 29 voices strengthens further evidence of their voices concerning self-evaluation, strengths, and weaknesses. Figures 5, 6, and 7 show the examples of the students 2, 1, and 29 report in My SRL Diary.
Despite the benefits of SRL-BI, the students' voice reflects the challenges of joining the classroom ecology of SRL-BI. The students' interview responses denote that the challenges of SRL-BI cover students' psychological traits and issues in retaining their motivation, discipline, and laziness, students' time management, and students' discouragement. Excerpts 5 and 6 present the students' responses of SRL-BI challenges.
Excerpt 5. Interview with Student 8 (student with high self-efficacy level)
I think the hardest challenges of self-regulated learning are maintaining motivation, discipline, and laziness. On the other hand, I must encourage myself to actively monitor my learning progress. In addition, overcoming distractions while effectively managing time and resources is an ongoing challenge in this approach.
Excerpt 6. Interview with Student 10 (student with moderate self-efficacy level)
I felt discouraged when the tasks I had carefully planned and felt confident about did not meet my expectations in practice.
Figures 8 and 9 show the record found in the My SRL diary, which provides additional evidence to support the voices of Students 8 and 10 and further solidifies the overall evidence of the students' voices.
Students' voices toward the effectiveness results of regular writing instruction
The quantitative research results show that regular writing instruction (RWI) implemented in the control group also strongly enhances students' academic writing skills. Discovering the students' voices enhances the numerical findings and develops the grasp of the influence of regular writing instruction with a focus on students' academic writing skills. The regular writing instruction in the control group was case method-based instruction, which was stated in the university academic guideline of the research context, and it was suggested that case method-based instruction be implemented in the instruction. Furthermore, three themes emerged from the students' voices, encompassing their perspectives on the quantitative results of regular writing instruction effectiveness, the virtues of regular writing instruction, and the hurdles associated with regular writing instruction.
The experimental research results demonstrate the effectiveness of regular writing instruction for students with different levels of self-efficacy. This aligns with students' voices regarding the results of regular writing instruction effectiveness.
Excerpt 7. Interview with Student 5 (student with high self-efficacy level)
One might easily argue that self-efficacy controls the effectiveness of case method on each student with different levels of self-efficacy, as it is common to understand that it affects how we conduct things based on our level of certainty of self-ability and self-confidence. However, building the most suitable learning environment and encouraging feedback and constructive criticism from both classmates and the lecturer can be a big step in implementing case method effectively. I think it is important to not only provide a lecture that can highlight those who already have a high self-efficacy but also be able to cater to those with moderate and low self-efficacy, as there will be some of those who benefit greatly from the utilization of case method.
Student 5 has a clear argument, actionable suggestions, an inclusive mindset, and a confident expression in his voice regarding the effective results of regular writing instruction. This voice is validated by some examples of peer feedback. The form of peer feedback was adapted from Nguyen (2016). Figures 10 and 11 present different peer feedback styles that indicate it is needed to promote constructive feedback, particularly in the last stage of regular writing instruction implementation. Figure 10 displays the constructive feedback, while Figure 11 shows incomplete feedback.
Another student voiced concern about the advantages of regular writing instruction. The students shared that regular writing instruction in the context of case method helps the students develop their critical thinking, build teamwork, and create active classroom ecology.
Excerpt 7 Interview with Student 1 (student with high self-efficacy level)
The regular writing instruction is effective in the essay writing class because it enhances critical thinking and teamwork.
Excerpt 8 Interview with Student 37 (student with moderate self-efficacy level)
Regular writing instruction in the form of case method improves my critical thinking skills by looking for various references on how to express critical thoughts. Apart from that, I also improve my communication skills by trying to express ideas or arguments clearly.
Excerpt 9 Interview with Student 19 (student with low self-efficacy level)
The benefit of this instruction is that I can express the same ideas to provide solutions related to the given case, and then we can also establish communication with group members actively to discuss the given case and make the class more active.
The following figures solidify the students' voices regarding the benefit of regular writing instruction. Figure 12 shows one of Student 37's folders in her classroom, Google Drive, which is related to compiling her argumentative essay references. Figure 13 presents the group discussion result that builds the students' teamwork. Besides, Figure 14 deals with one of the group activities in the classroom in which the students did an active group discussion.
The last theme of student voice regarding the effectiveness of regular writing instruction (Case Method-Based Instruction) relates to its hurdles. The challenges cover multifaceted activities that are time-consuming, demanding learning, and critical analysis.
Excerpt 10. Interview with Student 23 (student with high self-efficacy level)
Based on my experience, this is very time-consuming because I must search for sources and infer from multiple sources. Then, I must prepare beforehand to build effective ideas that will be delivered in the writing.
Excerpt 11. Interview with Student 31 (student with moderate self-efficacy level)
One of the challenges I have encountered with regular writing instruction is when I must solve the case itself. Sometimes, understanding the problem and coming up with a solution can be tricky. It requires careful analysis and critical thinking to identify the key issues and develop a good response.
Excerpt 12. Interview with Student 22 (student with low self-efficacy level)
There are some challenges faced when using this instruction. One of them is when you get a case that is arguably still new. The lack of articles discussing the case makes me confused about how to compose the essay. The second challenge is the difficulty of composing an essay because I must elaborate my arguments with expert arguments in the article.
To validate the students' voices, the students showed their performance-based activity when they needed to construct and write the essay outline, develop it into the draft, and revise it into the final draft. These activities were recorded in the students' classroom Google Drive. The evidence is presented in Figure 15.