THE EFFECT OF PICTURE WORD INDUCTIVE MODEL (PWIM) AND

STUDENTS’ SELF-EFFICACY TOWARD THEIR WRITING SKILL

OF DESCRIPTIVE TEXTS AT GRADE X OF SMA NEGERI 1
IX KOTO SUNGAI LASI

Marsika Sepyanda, Mukhaiyar, Kusni

Pascasarjana Universitas Negeri Padang

Abstrak: Penelitian ini ditulis untuk melihat pengaruh strategi picture word
inductive model (PWIM) dan self-efficacy siswa terhadap keterampilan mereka
dalam menulis teks deskriptif. Penelitian ini merupakan quasi-experimental
dengan rancangan factorial design. Data penelitian ini diambil dari hasil tes
keterampilan menulis siswa dan angket self-efficacy. Kemudian, data tersebut
dianalisis dengan menggunakan t-test dan Anova dua Arah melalui aplikasi
Minitab 14. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan strategi PWIM memberikan efek
yang signifikan terhadap keterampilan menulis siswa jika dibandingkan dengan
strategi listing yang biasa digunakan oleh guru dalam pengajaran menulis. Hasil
tersebut memperlihatkan t-hitung sebesar 1,900 yang lebih besar daripada t-tabel
yang bernilai 1,684. Kemudian, siswa yang memiliki self-efficacy tinggi yang
diajarkan dengan strategi PWIM mempunyai kemampuan yang lebih baik dalam
menulis teks deskriptif dibandingkan dengan siswa yang diajarkan dengan
strategi listing, dimana t-hitung sebesar 3,160 yang lebih besar daripada t-tabel
yang bernilai 1,812. Akan tetapi, siswa yang memiliki self-efficacy rendah yang
diajarkan dengan strategi PWIM tidak mempunyai kemampuan yang lebih baik
dalam menulis teks deskriptif dibandingkan dengan siswa yang diajarkan dengan
strategi listing yang mana t-hitung sebesar 1,730 yang lebih kecil daripada t-tabel
yang bernilai 1,812. Selanjutnya, dari hasil penelitian juga ditemukan bahwa
tidak ada interaksi antara strategi mengajar dengan self-efficacy terhadap
keterampilan menulis siswa dimana F-hitung sebesar 0,08 yang lebih tinggi
daripada F-tabel yang bernilai 2,58.

Key words: picture word inductive model, self-efficacy, writing skill, descriptive
text

INTRODUCTION for Senior High Schools, the students

Writing is one of language should be able to show their feeling
skills that should be taught at Senior and ideas in spoken and written
High Schools beside other skills such forms. They also should be able to
as listening, speaking, and reading. use their analytic and imaginative
The students’ daily activities in ability in learning English as foreign
schools cannot be separated from language. It means that these
writing, especially when they are expectations are included in the
learning English as foreign language. language skills, one of them is
Based on the curriculum of English writing skill.
 Journal English Language Teaching (ELT) Volume 1 Nomor 1, Maret 2013

The scope of learning English In addition, Harmer

at Senior High Schools as mentioned (2007:118) states that writing is an
on the curriculum is the students are enabling activity where teachers have
able to understand and produce any students write sentences in
kind of functional texts. For the first preparation for some other activity.
grade students of Senior High Beside that, writing is used as a
Schools, they learn about recount, practical tool to help students
narrative, procedure, descriptive, and practice and work with language they
news item text. From the several have been studying. It means that
texts above, descriptive texts is one students can practice their language
of text types besides narrative and through writing as the form of
news item texts learnt by the first written language.
grade students of Senior High There are many problems
Schools in second semester. found by the teachers when asking
Descriptive texts is one of the students in writing a certain kind
text types besides narrative and news of text. Some problems are limited
item texts learnt by the first grade vocabulary, lack of grammar
students of Senior High Schools in mastery, lack of ideas, and less of
second semester. Based on the practice. When the students do not
observation at SMA Negeri 1 IX have enough vocabulary related to
Koto Sungai Lasi, descriptive text is the topic, they may get difficulties to
difficult to be mastered by the write down their ideas. Beside that,
students. It might be caused by the grammar mastery also has an impact
text construction that requires the to the students’ writing ability. If
students to be able to describe about they are not good in grammar
a specific thing, person, or place. mastery, they cannot produce a good
Eventhough it looks simple to write a written work.
text that describes about something, Hedge (2000:32) says that
students still need more guidelines to writing process involves several
write this kind of text. activities such as setting goals,
Writing is not an easy activity generating ideas, organizing
that can be simply done by the information, selecting appropriate
students, because writing is not an language, making a draft, reading
activity that only crash the pen or and reviewing it, then revising and
pencil on a piece of paper. Palmer editing. It shows that writing is a
(2003:5) states that writing is an complex activity which is neither
activity that let the students to easy nor spontaneous for the
explore and express their ideas, to students.
communicate what they think and In the same way, Richards
know, and to take the ownership of and Renandya (2000:53) add that the
all that they learn. It means that writing process as a private activity
writing is an activity that cannot be may be broadly seen as comprising
separated from students’ activity in for main stages. The stages are
the teaching and learning process. planning, drafting, revising, and
They need writing as a skill that editing. These stages are usually used
supports their learning whether it is as the process of writing.
on other skills or subjects. Moreover, teachers do not
consider about strategy that they use

112
 Journal English Language Teaching (ELT) Volume 1 Nomor 1, Maret 2013

in teaching writing. Teachers seldom strategies that can be applied to

teach the students how to write a text various level of students. It is also
based on the genre where it is also can be focused on all language skill,
important to be mastered by the specifically reading and writing
students beside other language skills. skills.
Teachers often ask the students to McBurney and Paetsch
write a text as their homework. As a (2012:2) state that Picture Word
result, most of the students Induction Model (PWIM) is an
accomplish the task through copying inquiry oriented strategy that
texts that they find from internet. In includes explicit instruction and
other words, the students do not structured inductive activities. It is
produce the texts based on their focused to develop reading and
writing ability. writing skill. In other words, Picture
One of strategies that is Word Induction Model (PWIM)
usually used by the teachers in supports the students learning of
teaching writing is listing strategy. sight words which include expanding
Nordquist (2009:3) says that listing their speaking vocabulary into a
is the simplest prewriting strategy. It reading and writing vocabulary. As
is usually the first method writers use final process, this strategy leads the
to generate ideas. Listing means students into the writing of titles,
exactly what the name implies-- factual sentences, and paragraph
listing the writer’s ideas and building.
experiences. The writers usually Jiang and Perkins (2013:9)
write down as many ideas as they explain that the intent of the PWIM
can without stopping to analyze any strategy is to capitalize on students’
of them. ability to think inductively and
Ferris and Hedgcock generalize the basis structural and
(2005:149) state that listing is the phonetic analysis. They also add that
process of generating ideas that the purpose of this strategy is to
offers another way of producing develop vocabulary word concepts
concepts and sources for further and paragraph and sentence
thought, exploration, and structures. Because of that, this
speculation. Listing is distinct from strategy can help the students in
free writing and brainstorming in that writing process. Through this
students generate only words and strategy, students can compose their
phrases, which can be classified and writing from the basic aspect such as
organized if only in a sketchy way. vocabulary.
There are new strategies that Calhoun (1999:4) states that
are created and applied in teaching the Picture Word Inductive Model is
language skills. The strategies can be designed to teach reading, writing,
used to help the students in solving and the language system. Because of
their problem in writing where the that, this strategy is predicted can
common problems found by students help the students to solve their
are related to vocabulary, grammar, problems in writing, especially in
and idea. One of the strategies that writing descriptive texts. This
may help the students to solve the strategy leads the students to identify
problems is Picture Word Inductive each object in a picture that they will
Model (PWIM) which is one of describe. Through this strategy, the

113
 Journal English Language Teaching (ELT) Volume 1 Nomor 1, Maret 2013

students will be easier to develop Q1. Are students’ writing skills

their descriptive writing based a who are taught by using Picture
picture. Word Inductive Model
Furthermore, there are many (PWIM) strategy significantly
psychological factors affected the higher than those who are
students in language learning. There taught by using listing strategy
is one interesting aspect found in at grade X of SMA Negeri 1 IX
sub-indicators of motivation, which Koto Sungai Lasi?
is self-efficacy. Bandura (1986:16) Q2. Are students’ writing skills
explains that how people behave can with high self-efficacy who are
often be predicted by the beliefs they taught by using Picture Word
hold about their capabilities than by Inductive Model (PWIM)
what they are actually capable of strategy significantly higher
accomplishing, for these self- than those who are taught by
perceptions help determine what using listing strategy at grade
individuals do with the knowledge X of SMA Negeri 1 IX Koto
and skills they have. In other words, Sungai Lasi?
students’ successful in language Q3. Are students’ writing skills
learning can be predicted by their with low self-efficacy who are
beliefs about themselves in doing taught by using Picture Word
something. Inductive Model (PWIM)
Lin and Wen (2012:4) say strategy significantly higher
that writing self-efficacy as a strong than those who are taught by
sense of confidence for the task of using listing strategy at grade
writing. Having sufficient self-belief X of SMA Negeri 1 IX Koto
in their writing ability, students may Sungai Lasi?
have greater interest in writing, make Q4. Is there any interaction between
more constant efforts, and show teaching strategy (PWIM and
greater perseverance and resiliency listing strategy) and students’
in the face of difficulty when they self-efficacy toward the
are conducting a writing task. students’ writing skill?
So, self-efficacy is one of
aspects that can be used to measure METHOD
the students’ ability in learning a This research was conducted
language psychologically. It is often by using quasi experimental
defined as people’s judgments of research, because the researcher
their capabilities to organize and to investigated the effect of Picture
do something. As can be seen in Word Inductive Model strategy and
daily life, everyone can judge students’ self-efficacy toward their
themselves whether they are able or writing skill of descriptive texts. This
not to do something. This is also research used the factorial design.
applicable to the students who may The population of this
have their own judgement about research was the grade X students of
themselves in learning a language, SMA Negeri 1 IX Koto Sungai Lasi.
especially in writing skill. There were five classes in this grade
Related to the explanation that were consisted of 137 students;
above, the research questions of this they are X1, X2, X3, X4, and X5.
study are:

114
 Journal English Language Teaching (ELT) Volume 1 Nomor 1, Maret 2013

The sampling method of this taught by using listing strategy. It

research was the cluster random was approved by the result of
sampling in which group, not hypothesis testing showed that t-
individual, was randomly selected. value = 1,900 and t-table = 1,684
There were two classes chosen as the with df = 46 and α = 0,050. Since
sample of this research. Students in t-value was higher than t-table (t-
class X2 were chosen as value > t-table), it means that null
experimental group and students in hypothesis (Ho) is rejected and
class X1 were chosen as control alternative hypothesis (Ha) is
group. accepted. In other words, it
The data was collected shows that the students’ writing
through writing test and students’ skill of descriptive text that was
self-efficacy questionnaire. Both of taught through Picture Word
the groups got the treatment where Inductive Model (PWIM)
the experimental class was treated strategy was better than students
through PWIM strategy and the who were taught through listing
control class was treated through strategy.
listing strategy. Then, the groups got This is related to Bandura’s
same post-test in the same length of theory about self-efficacy where
time. The questionnaire of self- he suggests that individuals will
efficacy was distributed at the end of perform a task successfully if
teaching and learning process. The they know what behaviors will
data was divided into two parts, high produce desired outcomes and if
and low self-efficacy. they evaluate themselves as
The hypotheses testing were capable of performing the
analyzed by using Minitab 14 for necessary behaviors. In this way,
Microsoft Windows. T-test was used a student might know what is
to test the first, second, and third expected in an effective piece of
hypothesis in order to know the writing and might even know the
difference of students’ score in steps necessary to produce such a
experimental group and control piece. But if the person lacks the
group. Then, two ways ANOVA belief that he or she can achieve
was used to test the fourth the desired outcome, then
hypothesis. It was used in order to effective behavior will likely not
know the interaction between result.
strategy used and students’ self- It was also supported by
efficacy toward their writing skill. McCarthy in Erkan and Saban
(2011) who states that students
FINDING AND DISCUSSION with strong efficacy are better
Based on the data analysis of writers; and less anxious students
the hypothesis testing, the finding of were better writers. She had
this research can be described as proved the statement through a
follows: research showed there was only
1. Students’ who were taught by efficacy strength was
using Picture Word Inductive significantly related to
Model (PWIM) strategy have performance in students’ writing
better writing skill of descriptive at post-test.
texts than students who were

115
 Journal English Language Teaching (ELT) Volume 1 Nomor 1, Maret 2013

So, students with high self- capable of performing the

efficacy have a better necessary behaviors. In this way,
performance on their writing a student might know what is
because they had known well expected in an effective piece of
about their capability in writing and might even know the
accomplishing a writing test. In steps necessary to produce such a
addition, the PWIM strategy piece. But if the person lacks the
assisted the students to be more belief that he or she can achieve
familiar with vocabularies that the desired outcome, then
they identified based on the given effective behavior will likely not
picture and helped them to know result.
new vocabularies. While in It was also supported by
listing strategy, students were McCarthy in Erkan and Saban
very limited to develop their (2011) who states that students
vocabulary because they were with strong efficacy are better
leaded directly to the ideas. writers; and less anxious students
2. Students with high self-efficacy were better writers. She had
got higher score through Picture proved the statement through a
Word Inductive Model (PWIM) research showed there was only
strategy which can improve their efficacy strength was
vocabulary and grammar that significantly related to
also lead them into a good performance in students’ writing
writing. This result was proved at post-test.
by their record sheet and the So, students with high self-
result of the writing test. efficacy have a better
The result of hypothesis testing performance on their writing
showed that t-value = 3,160 and because they had known well
t-table = 1,812 with df = 10 and α about their capability in
= 0,050. Since t-value was higher accomplishing a writing test. In
than t-table (t-value > t-table), it addition, the PWIM strategy
means that null hypothesis (Ho) is assisted the students to be more
rejected and alternative familiar with vocabularies that
hypothesis (Ha) is accepted. In they identified based on the given
other words, it shows that the picture and helped them to know
writing skill of descriptive text of new vocabularies. While in
students with high self-efficacy listing strategy, students were
who was taught through Picture very limited to develop their
Word Inductive Model (PWIM) vocabulary because they were
strategy was better than students leaded directly to the ideas.
who were taught through listing 3. Students with low self-efficacy
strategy. who were taught by using Picture
This is related to Bandura’s Word Inductive Model (PWIM)
theory about self-efficacy where strategy was not better than
he suggests that individuals will students who were taught by
perform a task successfully if listing strategy. Eventhough the
they know what behaviors will mean score of students with low
produce desired outcomes and if self-efficacy in experimental
they evaluate themselves as group was higher than students

116
 Journal English Language Teaching (ELT) Volume 1 Nomor 1, Maret 2013

with low self-efficacy in control students’ writing skill of

group, there was no significant descriptive text.
difference both of group. This result is related Schunk and
The result of hypothesis testing Swartz in Schunk (2007) who
showed that t-value = 1,730 and state that modeled strategy
t-table = 1,812 with α = 0,050. instruction combined with goal
Since t-value was lower than t- setting raised students’ writing
table (t-value < t-table), it means skills and self-efficacy and
that null hypothesis (Ho) is helped them maintain and
accepted and alternative transfer use of the strategy
hypothesis (Ha) is rejected. In beyond the instructional context.
other words, it shows that the Strategy may bring positive result
writing skill of descriptive text of to students’ writing skill and self-
students with low self-efficacy efficacy, but there is no
who was taught through Picture interaction between the strategy
Word Inductive Model (PWIM) and self-efficacy that may affect
strategy was not better than students’ writing skill.
students who were taught through So, it can be concluded that there
listing strategy. is no interaction between
This is related to McCarthy in teaching strategy (PWIM and
Erkan and Saban (2011) who listing strategy) and students’
states that efficacy expectations self-efficacy toward the students’
lead to performance, followed by writing skill. Teaching strategy
feedback and further indirectly lead the students to
development of expectations. grow up their self-efficacy
Students with strong efficacy become well, but the interaction
expectations evaluate themselves both of them can not affect the
as capable, while students with students’ writing skill.
weak efficacy expectations Based on the explanation
evaluate themselves as less above, it can be concluded that
capable of effective performance. Picture Word Inductive Model
So, students with low self- (PWIM) strategy is more effective in
efficacy were intended to have teaching writing skill of descriptive
low performance in their writing. texts than listing strategy. This
They had judged their capability strategy can be applied by the
was low in accomplishing the teachers in teaching writing of
writing performance. Indirectly, descriptive text. Thus, the students
their judgment included them can develop their writing skill of
into the form of low self-efficacy descriptive texts.
that also indicated them has low
capability in writing. CONCLUSION
4. The data analysis showed that F- Related to the research
value is 0,08 and the score of F- finding above about the effect of
table is 2,58. It means that F- Picture Word Inductive Model
value < F-table. It means that (PWIM) strategy and students’ self-
there was no interaction between efficacy toward their writing skill of
both strategies of teaching descriptive texts, it can be concluded
writing and self-efficacy toward that the implementing Picture Word

117
 Journal English Language Teaching (ELT) Volume 1 Nomor 1, Maret 2013

Inductive Model (PWIM) strategy is Composition: Purpose,

better than Listing strategy on Process, and Practice
students’ writing skill of descriptive (Second Edition). New
text. It also gives effect to students Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
who have high self-efficacy, but it is Associates.
not happened to students with low Harmer, Jeremy. 2007. The Practice
self-efficacy. Then, there is no English Language
interaction between teaching Teaching. New York:
strategies (Picture Word Inductive Longman.
Model and Listing strategy) toward
the students’ writing skill. Hedge, Tricia. 2000. Teaching and
Note: This article was written from Learning in the Language
the writer’s thesis at Pascasarjana Classroom. New York:
of State University of Padang Oxford University Press.
supervised by Prof. Dr. Mukhaiyar Hughes, Arthur. 2003. Testing for
and Dr. Kusni, M.Pd. Language Teachers (Second
Edition) Cambridge:
REFERENCES Cambridge University
Bandura, Albert. 1986. Social Press.
Foundations of Thought and Hyland, Ken. 2002. Teaching and
Action: A Social Cognitive Researching Writing.
Theory. New Jersey: Harlow: Pearson Education.
Prentice Hall.
Jiang, Xuan and K. Perkins. 2013. ‘A
______. 1997. Self-Efficacy in conceptual paper on the
Changing Society. application of the picture
Cambridge: Cambridge word inductive model using
University Press. bruner’s constructivist view
Calhoun, Emily F. 1999. Teaching of learning and the cognitive
Beginning Reading and load theory’.
Writing with the Picture Interdisciplinary Journal of
Word Inductive Model. Teaching and Learning,
Alexandria: Association for Vol. 3. No. 1: 8-17.
Supervision and Curriculum Lin, C. An and L. M. Wen. 2012.
Development. How Writing Self-Efficacy
Erkan, D. Yavuz and A. İ. Saban. and Knowledge Influence
2011. ‘Writing performance the Use of Metacognitive
relative to writing Strategies for Business
apprehension, self-efficacy Writing: The Example of
in writing, and attitudes International Business
towards writing: a Workers in Taiwan.
correlational study in Changhua: National
turkish tertiary-level EFL’. Changhua University of
Asian EFL Journal, No. 3: Education.
164-192. Nordquist, Richard. 2009.
Ferris, Dana R. And J. S. Hedgcock. ‘Prewriting and Discovery
2005. Teaching ESL Strategies: Listing’.

118
 Journal English Language Teaching (ELT) Volume 1 Nomor 1, Maret 2013

Retrived on July 2th 2013 achievemnt in writing: a

from review of the literature’.
http://grammar.about.com. Reading & Writing
Quarterly, No. 19: 139-158.
Palmer, Sue. 2003. How to Teach
Writing Across the Schunk, Dale H. and F. Pajares.
Curriculum at Key Stage 1. 2001. The Development of
New York: David Fultan Academic Self-Efficacy. San
Publishers. Diego: Academic Press.
Pajares, Frank. 2003. ‘Self-efficacy
beliefs, motivation, and

119