Anita Septiani

181230028

TBI-4A

No Sources Keywords Context Methods Findings

Joanna W. Teacher Bilingual -Contexts for Self-reflexive and
1. Wong , Steven Z. education; teachers hold teacher student-learning
Athanases & bilingual particular learning, inquiries informed
Leslie C. Banes teachers; self- potential to -Selection of ideologies, planning,
(2017): reflexive provide case study andteaching for ALMA
Developing as an inquiry; culturally and participant, and ALMA also had
agentive bilingual student- linguistically -Data these available
teacher: self- learning responsive collection resources
reflexive and inquiry; instruction. and data And teacher learning
student-learning leveraging; analysis, spaces that allowed her
inquiry as teacher -Reasearch to act agentively to
teacher education agency positionalitie identify issues and
resources, s. make decisions.
Learners in the
USA,
International
Journal of
Bilingual
Education and
Bilingualism,
Vol.23 Page.153-
169, Juli 2017.
2. Ahmed, W. M. A. Learner- This study -Participants, 1. The findings
& Al-Ward, A. S. centered aimed to -Instrument revealed that teaching
(2020). approach ; explore and macro -practices vary
Motivational macro- whether the -Data in the degree of their
teaching practices practices ; teaching Analysis. motivation from most
from EFL motivation; practices motivating (i.e. ,
learners’ teacher- adopted by familiarize learners
perspective at centered teachers are with L2 related
tertiary level in approach; motivating values) to the least
Yemen . Yemeni EFL from the motivating (present
Indonesian context learners’ tasks properly) as
Journal of perspective. perceived by learners.
Applied 2. The findings
Linguistics, Vol. of the current study
9 No. 3, pp. 695- placed this macro -
703, January practice as themost
2020. underutilized according
to the participants’
responses , i.e., tenth ,
which is in
congruence with the
 findings of the study
conducted by Cheng
and Dörnyei
(2007).
3. Fatemeh Bilinguals, By exploring -Participants, 1.The first research
Poorebrahim, monolinguals, the interplay -Instruments, question probed
Simin Sattarpour, socio-affective between -Data whether there were
Zahra Fakher strategies, monolingualis collection any differences between
Ajabshir (2019) proficiency m/ procedure monolingual Persian
Written Text level bilingualism, - Scoring and and bilingual Persian-
Quality and proficiency writing Turkish EFL learners
Socio-affective level, and sample. in their use of writing
Strategy Use: writing skill, socio-affective
Monolinguals this study fills strategies.
versus Bilinguals the gap in 2. Descriptive statistics
across Different previous (Table 5) revealed that
Proficiency literature and bilinguals used more
Levels adds its positive socio-affective
Learners in the contribution to strategies (M
Iran, The Journal these areas of = 3.18) than
of Asia TEFL enquiry. monolinguals (M =
Vol. 16, No. 4, 2.85).
Page. 1119-1134, 3. With regard to
Winter 2019, . negative socio-
affective strategies,
monolinguals (M =
2.38) had a higher
mean than
bilinguals (M = 2.88).
4. Combining
the qualitative and
quantitative data
provides a broader
picture of the study
and also leads to a
higher validity and
reliability of the
research.