Arnis' Thesis Complete Chapters 1-5 4rc3b

THE ANALYSIS OF LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES (LLSs) APPLIED BY THE LEARNERS OF THE FIRST GRADE ACCELERATION AND REGULAR CLASS AT SMAN 1 JEMBER IN ACADEMIC YEAR 2009/2010

THESIS

By Arnis Silvia NIM 050210401170

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTEMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ART EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF JEMBER 2010

THE ANALYSIS OF LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES (LLSs) APPLIED BY THE LEARNERS OF THE FIRST GRADE ACCELERATION AND REGULAR CLASS AT SMAN 1 JEMBER IN ACADEMIC YEAR 2009/2010

THESIS done to fulfill the final assignment and as one of requirements for achiving S1-degree at English Department Faculty of Teacher Training and Education Jember University

By Arnis Silvia NIM 050210401170

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTEMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ART EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF JEMBER 2010

ii

APPROVAL SHEET

THE ANALYSIS OF LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES (LLSs) APPLIED BY THE LEARNERS OF THE FIRST GRADE ACCELERATION AND REGULAR CLASS AT SMAN 1 JEMBER IN ACADEMIC YEAR 2009/2010

THESIS done to fulfill the final assignment and as one of requirements for achiving S1-degree at English Department Faculty of Teacher Training and Education Jember University Name Identification Number Level Place, Date of Birth Department Program

: Arnis Silvia : 050210401170 : 2005 : Jember, 24 February 1988 : Language and Arts : English Education

Approved by: Consultant I

Consultant II

Drs. Sugeng Ariyanto, MA NIP.19590412 198702 1 001

Drs. Annur Rofiq, MA, M. Sc NIP. 19681025 199903 1 001

iii

APPROVAL OF THE EXAMINATION COMMITEE This thesis was approved and received by the Examination Committee of the Faculty of Teacher Training and Education of Jember University. Day

: Wednesday

Date

: June 16th , 2010

Place : The Faculty of Teacher Training and Education Examiner team The Chairperson

The Secretary

Drs. Bambang Suharjito, M.Ed NIP. 19611023 198902 1 001

Drs. Annur Rofiq, M.A., M.Sc NIP. 19681025 199903 1 001

The , 1.

Dra. Musli Ariani, M.App.Ling

1.

NIP. 19680602 199403 2 001 2.

Drs. Sugeng Ariyanto, M.A.

2.

NIP. 19590412 198702 1 001 The Faculty of Teacher Training and Education The Dean,

Drs. Imam Muchtar, S.H., M.Hum

iv

NIP. 19540712 198003 1 005

DEDICATION

*** This thesis is presented to my beloved husband, family, lecturers, friends, students, and readers. ***

v

MOTTO

"It takes better teachers to focus on the learners.” (Peter Strevens) “We cannot teach another person directly; we can only facilitate his (or her) learning.” (Carl Rogers)

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Praise be to Allah for the blessing and mercy that guide me to finish this thesis entitled “The Analysis of Language Learning Strategies (LLSs) Applied by the Learners of the First Grade Acceleration and Regular Class at SMAN 1 Jember in Academic Year 2009/2010”. I would also like to express my gratitude to these following people: 1. the first and second consultant, Drs. Sugeng Ariyanto, M.A and Drs. Annur Rofiq, M.A, M.Sc for their suggestion and guidance. 2. Mr. Handoyo Puji Widodo, S.Pd, Postgrad.Dipp.App.Ling, M.A and Dra.Musli Ariani, M.App.Ling for their help and suggestion. 3. The heaster, the head of acceleration program, the English teacher and the learners of SMAN 1 Jember, for their help and . 4. other parties who helped me in finishing this thesis. Hopefully this thesis would be beneficial for the readers, for the researchers, and for the development of SLA research. Any suggestion for the better improvement would be wisely considered.

Jember, June 2010

The writer

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page COVER PAGE........................................................................................................i TITLE PAGE.........................................................................................................ii APPROVAL SHEET............................................................................................iii APPROVAL OF THE EXAMINATION COMMITEE ...................................iv DEDICATION........................................................................................................v MOTTO ................................................................................................................vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ..................................................................................vii TABLE OF CONTENT .....................................................................................viii LIST OF APPENDICES .......................................................................................x THE LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................xi SUMMARY..........................................................................................................xii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION..........................................................................1 1.1 Background of Research........................................................................1 1.2 Research Problem...................................................................................2 1.3 Research Objective.................................................................................2 1.4 Operational Definition of Key ....................................................2 1.5 Research Significance............................................................................3 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE..................................4 2.1 The Nature of Language Learning Strategies (LLSs)............................4 2.2 The Nature of Communicative Competence..........................................7 2.3 The Oxford’s Classification of LLS.....................................................10 2.4 Factors Affecting LLS Choice.............................................................13 2.5 Studies on LLS ....................................................................................16 2.6 The Importance of LLS in Language Learning....................................18 2.7 The Nature of First Grade Acceleration and Regular Learners...........20 2.8 The Nature of SILL..............................................................................21

viii

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD...........................................................22 3.1 Research Design...................................................................................22 3.2 Area Determination Method................................................................24 3.3 Respondent Determination Method.....................................................24 3.3 Data Collection Method.......................................................................25 3.5 Data Analysis Method..........................................................................27 CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...............................................29 4.1 The Results of Collected Data..............................................................29 4.1.1 The Results of Interview.......................................................29 4.1.2 The Results of Documentation..............................................31 4.1.3 The Results of SILL..............................................................31 4.2 The Discussion of the Data..................................................................37 4.2.1 The Discussion of Interview.................................................38 4.1.1 The Discussion of SILL Results...........................................38 CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION......................................42 5.1 Conclusion............................................................................................42 5.2 Suggestion............................................................................................42 REFERENCES APPENDICES

ix

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1.

Research Matrix

Appendix 2.

The Original Version of SILL

Appendix 3.

The Modified Version of SILL Used in the Research

Appendix 4.

The Interview Results

Appendix 5.

The Name Lists of the Learners

Appendix 6.

The Coding of LLS

Appendix 7.

The Results of SILL in X.acceleration and X.3

Appendix 8.

The Rank of LLS Use in X.acceleration and X.3

Appendix 10. The Letter of Statement from the Faculty Appendix 11. The Letter of Statement from SMAN 1 Jember Appendix 12. The Consultation Sheet

x

LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1.

The Modified Likert Scale Used in SILL ................................... 26

Table 2.

The Sample of Mode Analysis ...................................................

Table 3.

The Results of Questionnaire in X.acceleration.......................... 34

Table 3.

The Results of Questionnaire in X.3...........................................

xi

33 37

SUMMARY Silvia, Arnis. 2010.The Analysis of Language Learning Strategies (LLSs) Applied by the Learners of the First Grade Acceleration and Regular Class at SMAN 1 Jember in Academic Year 2009/2010. Thesis, English Education Program, Language and Arts Department, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Jember University. Key words

: language learning strategies, SILL, non-participant observation

Language Learning Strategy (LLS) is a significant factor for achieving the teaching and learning goal which is communicative competence. It was like Oxford (1990:1) stated that “learning strategies are important for language learning as tools for active, self-directed involvement, which were essential for developing communicative competence”. The previous researches described the distribution of LLS in different groups and found significant correlations between LLS and English proficiency. This research was intended to describe the use of LLS in two different classes: the first grade acceleration and regular class (X.3) without comparing or correlating the related variables. The research participants were 54 learners consisting of 20 learners from X.acceleration class and 34 learners from X.3. A modified SILL version 7.0 with modified Likert Scale was used to acquire the frequency of LLS use between the two classes. Descriptive statistic (frequency and mode) was applied in analyzing the results of SILL. The SILL results revealed that the mostly used strategies in X.acceleration class were compensation strategies while in X.3 the most used strategies were metacognitive strategies. The results were discussed and recommendation for future research was suggested.

xii

I. INTRODUCTION This chapter covers the background of the research, problems of the research, operational definition of the key , objectives of the research, the significance of the research and the limitation of the research. 1.1 Background of the Research English as a Foreign Language (EFL) is an essential subject at present because of its function as a communicative means in this borderless world. It implies that the English teaching in the classroom should raise the learners’ communicative

competence

(for

further

explanation

of

communicative

competence, see Chapter 2, p.9). In order to succeed this goal (communicative competence), a synergy between teachers and learners are required since the success of a teaching and learning process is not only laid on the effectiveness of teaching methods but also laid on learning strategies the learners apply. Oxford (1990:1) states that learning strategies are important for language learning as tools for active, self-directed involvement, which is essential for developing communicative competence. Some studies on English Language Teaching (ELT), especially in Jember, commonly concerned the teaching strategies. There was no study on language learning strategies conducted in the field yet, whereas foreign researchers have conducted studies on language learning strategies (henceforth LLS) such as Oxford (1996), Cohen (1998), Chamot (2001) as cited by Tseng (2005: 321). The findings of their studies showed there was a tendency of LLS use between more proficient and less proficient learners. Based on the preliminary study conducted by interviewing the head of acceleration program, there was two kinds of first grade classes in SMAN 1 Jember in which one of them was regarded as the most proficient class. This information encouraged the researcher to conduct a descriptive research aiming at describing the LLS use in two different classes: the first grade acceleration and first grade regular class. The researcher examined the trend of LLS use in the two

xiii

classes and reported them. A modified Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) questionnaire version 7.0 (Oxford, 1990) was applied to obtain the type and frequency of distribution of LLS. The questionnaires used Likert-scale learners’ response ranging from 1(never) to 5 (always). SILL and descriptive statistics were used in describing the frequency of LLS use and the modes of LLS in each class. For this purpose, a study entitled “The Analysis of Language Learning Strategies (LLSs) Applied by the Learners of the First Grade Acceleration and Regular Class at SMAN 1 Jember in Academic Year 2009/2010” was conducted. 1.2. Research Problem Regarding the above background of research, the problem of this research was formulated as: “ What Language Learning Strategies (LLSs) applied by the learners of the first grade acceleration and regular class at SMAN 1 JEMBER in academic year 2009/2010?” 1.3. Research Objective This study was designed to describe the LLSs applied by the learners of the first grade acceleration and regular class at SMAN 1 JEMBER in academic year 2009/2010 1.4 Operational Definition of Key An operational definition contained a guideline to understand the concepts and indicators of the study and it also helped the researcher and the reader to get mutual understanding of the concepts being examined. Some key used in this study were defined as follows. 1.4.1 Language Learning Strategies (LLS) Basically, there are two types of learning strategy: skill learning strategy and language learning strategy (Ellis, 1996: 530). Skill learning strategy referred

xiv

to learners’ effort to become skillful in a specific skill, such as reading, writing, reading, or listening. The aim of skill learning strategy was to become skilled reader, writer, reader or listener while language learning strategy deals with the learners’ effort to master new linguistic and sociolinguistic information. Language learning strategy was more general than skill learning strategy. Language learning strategy is any strategies, steps, or techniques that are applied by learners to succeed their language learning process. There are some types of learning strategy proposed by some linguists. However, the researcher chose Oxford’s classification of language learning strategies which consisted of six types of learning strategies, such as: memory strategies, cognitive strategies, compensation strategies, metacognitive strategies, affective strategies, and social strategies (for further detail of the explanation of Oxfords’ classification of LLS, see Chapter 2, p.10). 1.5. Research Significance The findings of this study were expected to contribute significantly to the teaching learning process, especially for these following parties: 1.5.1 The English Teacher Either for the class teachers or other teachers, this study would contribute to opening another window for studies in teaching and learning. The previous studies guided the teachers to select, make, and apply teaching strategies and techniques regardless of their appropriateness with the learners’ LLS. This study findings were expected to provide to the teachers concerning their learners’ LLS. By considering the learners’ LLS, teachers were expected to adapt their teaching techniques with the learners’ LLS so that a harmonious collaboration between teacher and learners could be created. This study was at the same time introducing an instrument (SILL questionnaire) constructed by Oxford (1990) which can help teachers to analyze their learners’ LLS. This would be beneficial if the teacher conducted this questionnaire in the beginning of the semester. Teachers would know their learners’ LLS, their favorite/less favorite learning activities as well as the

xv

appropriate learning tasks to the learners. Thus, teachers could choose the appropriate learning materials and methods so that the learning strategies and the teaching strategies were met. Consequently, the teaching and learning goal would be achieved more effectively. 1.5.2 The Learners This study is aimed at informing the learners about kinds of Language Learning Strategies (LLSs). When the learners read the questionnaire items, they might realize that there are a lot of strategies in learning English in which some of the strategies have been applied and the others have not been applied yet. Besides, they would become aware the frequency of using the strategies in English learning when they respond to the questionnaire. 1.5.3 The Future Researchers This study described the LLSs used by learners without correlating some variables such as: age, gender, and English proficiency. This study could be used as a reference for future studies which are interested in the use of LLS in order to expand the findings. Future studies might investigate the correlation between LLS and some mentioned variables or to investigate whether the LLS use has a positive effect on the enhancement of proficiency.

xvi

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE This chapter presents the theories related to the topics of study, such as: the nature of LLS (Language Learning Strategy), the nature of communicative competence, the Oxford’s taxonomy of LLS, factors affecting LLS choice, the importance of LLS in language learning, studies on LLS, the nature of first grade acceleration and non acceleration class, and the nature of SILL. 2.1 The Nature of Language Learning Strategies (LLSs) An English as a Foreign Langugae (EFL) classroom was like a problemsolving environment where learners faced new inputs and difficult tasks given by the teacher. The learners were always trying to find the quickest and easiest way to solve the difficulties in doing the tasks, and that when learning strategies are needed. All language learners might use language learning strategies either consciously or subconsciously when they were facing and performing tasks in the classroom. Learning strategy according to Rubin (in Tseng, 2005:321) means “any sets of operations, steps, plans, routines used by the learners to facilitate the obtaining, storage, retrieval, and use of information”. Further, he identified six characteristics of the language learning strategies: 1) language learning strategies refer to specific actions or techniques. They are not characteristics that describe a learners’ general approach. 2) some of these actions will be observable and other will not be observable 3) language learning strategies are problem oriented. Learners utilize them to facilitate the acquisition, storage, or retrieval or use of information. 4) language learning strategies could be consciously employed, but for some learning problems they are automated. 5) language learning strategies are behaviors that are amenable to change. (Rubin in Tseng 2005:322) Rubin’s version emphasized that learning strategies varied from one learner to another. Therefore, it could not be drawn a general similarity of one’s xvii

LLS with the others’. When one strategy worked well on one learner, it did not mean that it worked on the other learners too. Thus, this couldn’t be generalized that an appropriate LLS for a group of learners was the appropriate strategy for the other groups. Some strategies could be observed, such as: making schedule, starting conversation in English, practicing English with peers, but some others are unobservable, such as: thinking about learning progress, relating new information with prior knowledge, analyzing the strength and weaknesses, and so on. On this point, teachers might not be able to observe how learners use their LLSs. LLSs could be consciously employed by the learners. Anyhow, in certain cases, LLSs could be automatically applied because of the rapid practices or use of the LLSs. Since it could be a conscious process, LLS can be manipulated by training. Further, Oxford (1990:9) made a list of 12 features of learning strategies, which mentioned that language learning strategies: 1) contribute to the main goal, communicative competence 2) allow learners to become more self-directed 3) expand the role of language teachers 4) are problem-oriented

5) are specific actions taken by learners 6) involve many aspects of the learners, not just the cognitive

7) learning both directly and indirectly 8) are not always observable 9) are often conscious 10) can be taught 11) are flexible 12)

are influenced by a variety of factors. (Oxford, 1990:9)

Oxford’s version indicated that LLSs gave much contribution to the learning goal, which was communicative competence (see p.7) as it ed

xviii

learning both directly and indirectly. LLSs directly ed learning process which was involving the language in direct way. The strategies which dealed with the language directly were called direct strategies, including: memory strategies, compensation strategies, and cognitive strategies. On the other hand, LLS also indirectly assisted the learners to cope with the language in indirect way. These strategies were called indirect strategies consisting metacognitive strategies, affective strategies, and social strategies. LLS was task-oriented, as it could be applied based on what the learners were supposed to do in their EFL classroom. Certain tasks might require certain strategies, for example: memory strategies are needed to new vocabularies; cognitive strategies are applied when learners faced reading tasks, and so forth. When LLSs helped the learners to be more self-directed, the role of their teacher expanded, from the knowledge presenter to the mediator or facilitator of learning. Learners could be so autonomous that they can construct their knowledge. To reach this goal, learners might be taught or trained about how the optimize their LLS. It was like what Oxford says above that “LLS can be taught”. The teachability of LLS relied on the nature that LLS could be a conscious process. The teacher could be the trainer for his learners in explaining and training the learners about what strategies that were commonly used and effective in EFL learning. To sum up, LLSs are any steps, thoughts, techniques, behaviors which help learners to succeed in the learning process to achieve communicative competence. LLSs are specific from one learner to another, either observable or unobservable and applied either consciously or subconsciously. The learners might apply different strategies for the same tasks depend on the personal preferences and some influencing factors (later will be discussed in the following chapter). 2.2 The Nature of Communicative Competence

xix

The idea of communicative competence originated from Chomsky’s distinction between competence and performance. Later, Hymes, Saville-Troike, and Canale & Swain viewed it from their own perspectives. Firstly, Hymes (in Ohno, 2005:26) defined communicative competence as “knowledge of the rules for understanding and producing both the referential and social meaning of language”. He formulated an acronym of language use dealing with communicative competence which was known as SPEAKING : Setting and scene, Participants, Ends, Act sequence, Key, Instrumentalities, Norms of interaction and interpretation, and Genre (Hymes in Kamiya, 2000: 64). “Setting” referred to the time and place while scene describes the environment of the situation. “Participants” referred to the person/people who is/are involved in the speech including the speaker and the audience. “Ends” meant the purpose and goals of the speech along with any outcomes of the speech. “Act Sequence” referred to the order of the events that took place during the speech. “Key” referred to the overall tone or manner of the speech. “Instrumentalities” meant the form and the style of the speech being given. “Norms” referred to what was socially acceptable at the event, and Genre meant the type of speech that was being given. Hymes’ formula implied that in order to communicate a language well, learners did not only need to learn the vocabulary and grammar, but also needed to know the context in which the words were used. Learners should not only master the grammatical rules, but should also consider those aspects to communicate well. For a learner to say he or she knows a language, therefore, he or she must know “when to speak, when not, ... what to talk about with whom, when, where, in what manner” (Hymes in Kamiya, 2000:65) Secondly, Saville-Troike (in Kamiya, 2000:66) who was in line with Hymes, divided a central construct of communicative competence into three types of knowledge: linguistic, interactional, and cultural competence (Saville-Troike in Kamiya, 2000:66). Linguistic competence referred to the knowledge of full-range of the linguistic code, including linguistic features that carry social meaning. Interactional competence referred to the knowledge and expectation of social norms and conventions. Cultural competence referred to the social structure of the

xx

speech community and the values and attitudes attached to language use. Shortly, a learner should know the language variations among cultures, social norms and conventions, values and attitudes, which were included in the language use. Lastly, Canale and Swain (in Kamiya, 2000:66) strongly believed that the study of grammatical competence was as essential to the study of communicative competence as was the study of sociolinguistic competence. Then they described that communicative competence covered four areas of competences: grammatical competence, sociolinguistics competence, discourse competence, and strategic competence. Grammatical competence referred to an ability to express and interpret literal meaning of utterances (such as: acquisition of pronunciation, vocabulary, word and sentence meaning, construction of grammatical sentences, correct spelling, et cetera.) Sociolinguistics competence referred to how utterances were produced and understood in different sociolinguistic contexts (like: understanding of speech act conventions, awareness of norms of stylistic appropriateness, the use of a language to signal social relationships, and so on). Discourse competence concerned in cohesion and coherence of various kinds of discourse in L2 (for example: use of appropriate pronouns, synonyms, conjunctions, substitution, repetition, marking of congruity and continuity, topiccomment sequence, and as such). Strategic competence attempted to compensate for deficiencies/handicaps in the grammatical and sociolinguistic competence or to enhance the effectiveness of communication (such as: paraphrasing, how to address others when uncertain of their relative social status, slow speech for rhetorical effect, and so forth). In EFL classroom, learners’ goal in the EFL learning activity was to achieve their communicative competence either in spoken or written forms. This meant that the learners were capable of not only constructing utterances in correct grammatical forms but also communicating well. As Brown (in Kamiya, 2000:75) said that “focus in a classroom should be on all of the components of communicative competence of which grammatical or linguistic competence is just part”. In other words, the development of communicative competence required a real use of language in which all of the components of communicative

xxi

competence were involved. By raising the students’ awareness of their LLS use, this goal was hoped to be achieved. LLSs help the learners participating actively in the meaningful and contextualized learning atmosphere which was involving all components of communicative competence. By this means, the communicative competence would be gained. Additionally, Oxford (1990:8) explained further about how LLS can stimulate the development of communicative competence. For instance, metacognitive strategies assist the learners to manage their cognition to focus, plan, and evaluate their own progress. Affective strategies raise the learners’ selfconfidence in performing tasks and involving themselves actively in language learning. This active involvement is a requirement for obtaining the communicative competence. Social strategies the learners to increase social interaction with others and to gain understanding. These two characteristics are also necessary to reach communicative competence. Cognitive strategies are useful for understanding and recalling new information, which is very important in the process of becoming competent in using a new language. Compensation strategies work on overcoming the limitations of knowledge and on continuing to communicate. As a result, the communication is not handicapped, and that is an indication of communicative competence achievement. Broadly speaking, LLSs contribute concretely towards the main goal of language learning, the communicative competence. Therefore, raising students’ awareness of LLS could be a way of achieving the communicative competence. 2.3 The Oxford’s Classification of LLS Oxford’s classification has been approved and used by researchers who concerned LLS. Oxford’s classification was “perhaps the most comprehensive classification of learning strategies to date” (Ellis, 1994: 539). Oxford (1990:1621) classified LLS into two classes: direct strategies and indirect strategies. Direct strategies help learners to learn the target language by using the target language directly. They consist of three strategies: memory strategies, cognitive strategies, and compensation strategies. Indirect strategies learners to learn the target

xxii

language without involving the target language directly during their learning process. They consist of three subdivisions such as: metacognitive strategies, affective strategies, and social strategies. Each strategy’s explanation can be read below. The examples presented in each strategy are adapted from the questionnaire (SILL). The discussion of SILL questionnaire can be read in the following section.

2.3.1 Memory strategies Memory strategies deal with techniques which help learners to and store the language/information more quickly. Learners might use sounds (rhyming), images (a mental picture of the word/the meaning of the word), body movement, mechanicals (flashcards), or location (on a page or blackboard). The strategies were suitable with these statements: “I use new English words in a sentence so I can them”, “I sing the new words into rhymes”, “I use flashcards to new English words”, “I act out the English words”, “I review English lesson often”, and so on. 2.3.2 Cognitive strategies Cognitive strategies deal with learners’ mental strategies used to make sense of their learning. They enable learners to manipulate the language material in direct ways. They involve reasoning, analysis, note-taking, summarizing, synthesizing, outlining, reorganizing information to develop stronger schemas (knowledge structures), practicing in naturalistic settings, and practicing structures and sounds formally. These statements referred to these examples: “I say or write new English words several times”, “I try to talk like native English speakers”, “I try to find patterns in English”, and such. 2.3.3 Compensation strategies Compensation strategies concern with learners’ effort to make up their missing knowledge in the process of comprehending or producing the target language. They were needed to overcome any gaps in knowledge of the language. For example: “When I find unfamiliar English words, I try to guess”, “When I

xxiii

can’t say English words during my conversation, I use gestures”, “When I can’t say a word in English, I use different words or phrase that means the same”, and so forth. 2.3.4 Metacognitive strategies Metacognitive strategies are strategies applied by learners to regulate or manage their learning, such as: identifying their own learning style preferences and needs, planning for language tasks, gathering and organizing materials, arranging a study space and a schedule, monitoring mistakes, evaluating task success, and evaluating the success of any types of learning strategy. The sub skills referred to these statements: “I plan my schedule so that I have enough time to study English”, “I think about my progress in learning English”, “I have clear goals for improving my English skills”, and so on. 2.3.5 Affective strategies Affective strategies help learners to take control their emotions, attitude, and motivation during the learning process. Affective strategies include these sub skills: identifying one’s mood and anxiety level, talking about feelings, rewarding oneself for good performance, and using deep breathing or positive self-talk. These statements were suitable with these examples: “I encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid of making mistakes”, “I write down my feelings in a language learning diary”, “I give myself a reward when I do well in English”, et cetera. 2.3.6 Social strategies Social strategies help learners to learn through interaction with others. Social strategies included these sub skills: asking questions to get verification of a confusing point, asking for help in doing language task, talking with a nativespeaking conversation partner, and exploring cultural and social norms. This strategies were suitable with these statements: “If I do not understand what people said, I ask them to slow down or say it again”, “I practice English with my friend”, “I try to practice English with a native speaker”, “I ask my friend if I do not understand during my learning”, or “I learn other English-speaking countries’ culture” (adapted from Oxford, 2003: 16-18)

xxiv

2.4 Factors Affecting LLS Choice LLS preference is influenced by some factors. Those factors are coming either from the learning themselves such as: age, sex, motivation, learning style, the learning experience or from situational and social factors, such as: the setting, the kind of the tasks, et cetera. Byalistok as mentioned by Tseng (2005:323), speculates that such factors might relate to “characteristics of the learners, such as language learning aptitude, attitude, and motivation, personality; or relate to characteristics of learning situation, such as length of exposure to the language, the teaching method employed.”. 2.4.1 Gender Gender difference contributed to the tendencies of LLS choice. Oxford & Green (1995:266) found that female learners were reported to use greater overall strategy use than male learners. Oxford & Nyikos as restated in Oxford & Green (1995:266) found that female learners use more LLS than male learners in three of five factors: formal ruled practice, general study strategies, and conversational input elicitation strategies. In line with this, Tseng (2005:324) stated that female learners show more use of social learning strategies, more frequent use of formal rule-based practice strategies and conversational input elicitation strategies. A study conducted by Sy (as cited by Green & Oxford, 1995:266) in China reported a significant difference between genders. Female learners used higher frequency of cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, and social strategies than the male learners. Later, Kato (2005:256) found that there was a significant gender difference on affective and social strategies in which the female learners used them more often. However, on memory, compensation, and metacognitive strategies, both genders did not show significant difference. These findings were not trying to consider particular gender to be better than the other. But they were important to notice, that there might be a consistent difference between genders for particular strategies. As Green & Oxford (1995:266) stated that “If gender differences appear in many studies across different cultures, this suggests that biological and/or socialization-related causes for these differences might exist.”

xxv

This suggestion did not reflect the overall state of LLS preference between genders. The factors cultural background, location, or social situation might bear different results. 2.4.2 Age Oxford (1990:3) said that students from different ages of EFL learning used different strategies, with certain strategies often being employed by older or more advanced students. It was strengthened by Brown (1983) as cited by Ellis (1994: 541) who concluded that young children’s strategies are often simple, while mature learners’ strategies are more complex. This situation occured conditionally as the result of exposures, education, or previous language learning experience was experienced. Oxford and Nyikos (1989:295) stated that in general , more experienced language learners used LLS far more often than less experienced learners. 2.4.3 English proficiency Takeuchi’s study (in Kato, 2005: 244) on the correlation between LLS and English achievement concluded that some LLS were positively related to English proficiency, such as: to write notes, messages, letters, or reports in English; to try not to translate word-for-word; to find the meaning of an English word by dividing words into parts to find meaning; and to pay attention when someone is speaking English. Takeuchi employed multiple regression analysis between SILL and CELT (Comprehensive English Language Test). Later, a study conducted by Yamato (in Kato, 2005: 244) also resulted positive correlation between LLS and English proficiency. He mentioned six factors which affected the English proficiency: metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies, heuristic strategies, socioaffective strategies, conceptually driven strategies, and pleasure-oriented strategies. Kato’s (2005:256) findings indicated that metacognitive, social, and cognitive strategies showed active effect on English proficiency. Some strategies such as: seeking opportunities to use or practice English, managing own English learning, and overcoming some difficulties in learning English showed positive results on English proficiency. 2.4.4 Type of task

xxvi

Oxford (1994:3) stated that the nature of the task help learners determining the strategies naturally employed to carry out the task. Different types of task required different combination of LLS. Constructing a dialogue required different strategies from listening to radio podcasts. When the learners were asked to (for example) making a dialogue, they might combine social strategies (asking their friend about some words they couldn’t say in English/cooperating with their peers), compensation strategies (using different phrases when they couldn’t say a word in English/using gestures to emphasize their meaning/asking their partner to repeat their sayings), and affective strategies (encourage themselves to be confident). But when they were asked to fill in the blanked spaces to make a complete story, they might combine compensation strategies (guessing the meaning for the given sentences) and memory strategies (relate the new word with their previous knowledge). This study’s aim was to describing the types of strategies (LLS) used by the learners of two different classes. The LLS choice could not be separated by its affecting factors. Despite the tendency of LLS choice might be influenced by these mentioned factors, this research was just aimed at describing the types of LLS without correlating it with these factors since it would need another set of instruments with different research design.

2.5 Studies on LLS The focus of education research changed from behavioristic theory to cognitive theory in the 1950s – 1960s (Mayer in Tseng, 2005:322). As a result, the paradigm of the learners changed from that of a recipient of knowledge to that of a constructor of knowledge. Thus, the view of learners as ive recipient shifted into active constructor of knowledge. Oxford & Nyikos (1989) started a study in discussing variables affecting the LLS preferences including years of study, sex, and major among 1,200 foreign language students in a conventional language setting by using SILL. The results

xxvii

showed that “the degree of expressed motivation was the most powerful influence on the choice of language learning strategies, that sex had a profound effect on strategy choice, and other variables had significant effects on the reported use of strategies.” (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989: 294) “A Closer Look at Learning Strategies, L2 Proficiency and Gender”, a study istered by Green and Oxford in 1995, attempted to analyze the correlation between LLS -

English Proficiency and LLS – genders. They

conducted the research included 374 college students at three different course levels at the University of Puerto Rico. SILL was used as the instrument for LLS, while ESLAT (English as a Second Language Achievement Test) is used for indicating English proficiency. As previous studies reported, this study also found that more successful learners (higher ESLAT score) used greater LLS than less successful learners. 14 strategies were reported to be used significantly by females than males. Next, Sawako Kato (2005) carried out a research entitled “How Language Learning Strategies affect English Proficiency in Japanese University Students”. He addressed some objectives, such as: 1) to explore the distribution of LLS use by Japanese University students, 2) to determine how LLS relates to the English proficiency, 3) to examine the difference of LLS use between genders. The LLS was analyzed using SILL version 7.0 translated into Japanese while the English Proficiency was shown by TOEIC score. 194 students from 1th – 4th year participated in this study. The study produced a significant correlation between LLS (especially metacognitive and affective strategies) and TOEIC score. For gender variable, it was found that there was no statistically difference for the use of memory strategies, compensation strategies, and metacognitive strategies. A significant correlation between genders and LLS was found in the use of cognitive, affective, and social strategies. (Kato, 2005: 239-262) Ya-Ling Wu (2008) conducted a descriptive-comparative study between students at different proficiency levels at National University of Technology in Taiwan. 137 participants were split into two groups: higher proficiency group and lower proficiency group based on the scores of entrance exam. SILL version 7.0

xxviii

was used in this study and the results were analyzed by using independent sample t-test to find the significant correlation between variables. The study resulted that higher proficiency group used more cognitive, metacognitive, and social strategies than lower proficiency group. On the other hand, there was no difference in the use of memory strategies between two groups. (Wu: 1998:75-88). There has been dozens of researches which cannot be mentioned one by one in this chapter. However, the other unmentioned research are commonly used the similar variables, procedures, and instruments. All of those researches was basically describing the distribution of LLS used by the participants before correlating it to some variables. Adapting Kato’s and Wu’s design in of describing the distribution of LLS used by the participants, this study was purposed to decribe the Language Learning Strategies (LLSs) applied by the learners of two different classes (X.acceleration and X.3). 2.6 The Importance of LLS in Language Learning Knowledge of language learning strategies was essential since the greater awareness the learners have about their language learning process, the learning would be more effective and meaningful. There was some importance of LLS in language learning. Firstly, LLSs are “tools for active, self-directed involvement, which are essential for developing communicative competence.” For teachers who are aiming at improving their learners’ communicative competence, they should be familiar with learning strategies, because learning strategies “contribute in the development of the communicative competence of the students and those are used into all strategies which foreign language learners use in learning the target language and communication strategies” (Lessard-Clouston, 1997). In addition to developing learners’ communicative competence, LLSs are important because when teachers train the learners about “what good learners” do in their learning, it can help the learners to become better language learners. In this case, the learners would be inspired by more proficient learners. Secondly, LLS can improve learners’ language skills in a better way. Fedderholt (in Hismanoglu, 2000) mentioned some major strategies which

xxix

contribute a lot for the improvement. Metacognitive strategies improve organization of learning time, self-monitoring, and self-evaluation. Cognitive strategies include using previous knowledge to help solve new problems. Socioaffective strategies include asking native speakers to correct their pronunciation, or asking a classmate to work together on a particular language problem. Developing skills in these three areas can help the language learners building up learner independence and autonomy whereby they can take control of their learning. More specifically, Oxford (1990:317-330) listed the useful strategies according to each of the four language skills. For example, taking notes (cognitive strategies) and paying attention (metacognitive strategies) are useful for improving listening skill. Grouping, using keywords, semantic mapping (memory strategies) and summarizing (cognitive strategies) are fruitful in developing reading skill. Asking for correction, cooperating with peers, developing cultural understanding (social strategies), lower anxiety in speaking (affective strategies), using synonym for the words that can be said, using mime or gesture (compensation) are beneficial for speaking. For writing skill, using mechanical techniques (memory strategies), repeating new words by using it several time, practicing (cognitive strategies), using synonym (compensation strategies), selfmonitoring (metacognitive strategies), writing a learning diary (affective strategies), asking for correction, cooperating with peers (social strategies) are useful to be developed. Thirdly, LLSs are good indicators of how learners overcome the problems occurred during their language learning. Tseng (2005:324) stated that language learning strategies give language teachers valuable clues about how their students assess the situation, plan, select appropriate skills so as to understand, learn, or new input presented in the language classroom. These indicators are definitely referring to the observable LLSs employed by the learners. Lastly, LLSs are powerful tools to improve the English proficiency as Oxford (1990:1) stated that “appropriate language learning strategies result in improved proficiency.” Bialystok (in Hismanoglu, 2000) also stated that language learning strategies are “to improve competence in a second language” which

xxx

focused on how to be more proficient learners. According to Gas and Selinker (2001:5), there were differences between more proficient learners and less proficient learners in strategies they applied. More proficient learners were more able to apply wider range of language strategies in a greater number of situations than the less ones. Dealing with the research objective, these importance would be met when the findings of this research would be used as a by the teacher to reflect his/her English teaching in the class. 2.7 The Nature of First Grade Acceleration and Regular Learners SMAN 1 Jember had two kinds of classes for its first grade learners; they were regular classes and an acceleration class. Basically, all of the first grade learners were coming from the regular class. To as the first grade learners, they had to a local test istered by the school itself. The school conducted its independent test to recruit its new learners. The test was not similar to the residential or regional test. To the entrance tests, the learners should have average score of 70 for Mathematics, Science, English subject, Social Science from their reports in Junior High School (taken from semester I to VI). After ing the institutional test, they were accepted as the students of SMAN 1 Jember. They were then given an opportunity to enter an acceleration class through serial tests. The acceleration class was a 20-learner class which placed as the most proficient class amongst all first grade classes. To enter this class, students from all first grade classes were given a chance to . After getting through an IQ test, some of the applicants would be eliminated. The minimum IQ score required was 125 in less or more. After this procedure, the students should have an istrative selection. A minimum 80 of average score for Mathematics, Science, Economics and English subject was a must have grade to the selection. As the goal of SMAN 1 Jember was to be an International Standardized School, this school was preparing the students to be ready and able to communicate actively in English. Thus, SMAN 1 Jember istered an ESP

xxxi

(English for Specific Purposes) as its additional subject. The materials used for this ESP subject was a TOEFL preparation. One of the objectives of this study was to describe the LLS use in two classes (acceleration and regular class). For this purpose, the researcher picked a class as a representative of regular class. In fact, there was no significant difference among first grade classes. Thus, the researcher asked the first grade English teacher to choose any class which is suitable for this study. The English teacher suggested Class X.3 as the “first grade regular class”. Both classes (acceleration class and Class X.3) were taught by the same teacher. The acceleration class consisted of 20 students, 7 females and 13 males. The age ranged between 14-17 years old. In another side, Class X.3 consisted of 34 students, 24 females and 10 males. In acceleration class, the number of male learners is bigger than other classes which are commonly dominated by female students. 2.8 The Nature of SILL As Ellis (1996:539) stated that Oxford taxonomy is the most comprehensive one, her instrument that was known as SILL has widely used in large scale of studies. This form of questionnaire has been the key instrument in more than 40 studies, including 12 dissertations and theses, involving approximately 8000 students around the world (Green & Oxford, 1995: 264). The SILL was a standardized measurement for learners which was translated in many languages, and as such can be used to collect and analyze information about large numbers of language learners. It has also been used in studies that correlated LLS use with variables such as learning styles, gender, proficiency level, and culture. Oxford stated that this instrument has been extensively checked for reliability and validated in multiple ways (Oxford & Stock, 1995: 4). Considering those facts, SILL was a well approved and recommended instrument to use in measuring the Language Learning Strategies use with various variables thus the researcher applied this questionnaire as the research instrument.

xxxii

III. RESEARCH METHOD This chapter presents the research design, the area determination method, the respondent determination method, the data collection method and the data analysis method. 3.1 Research Design The objective of this research was to describe the data dealing with the LLS use in the two classes; X.acceleration and X.3 (regular class) at SMAN 1 Jember in the second semester in academic year 2009/2010. Regarding the research objective, the appropriate research design was descriptive research instead of experimental or classroom action research since it is aimed at describing instead of improving something. It was in line with what Vanderstoep and Johnston (2009:35) stated that a descriptive research was just what it sounded like. It described the attitudes and behaviours observed during the investigation. This research was conducted based on the following procedures: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Selecting the problems Constructing the study design Collecting data Making code and analyzing data Interpreting the results (Bailey in Salim, 2007:9)

Each procedure was defined as follows: 3.1.1

Selecting the problems Based on the preliminary study conducted on February 13, 2010 by

interviewing the head of acceleration program, there was a significant difference in the academic competence between X.acceleration and regular class. From the

xxxiii

interview with the English teacher, it was known that the acceleration learners performed more actively than the non acceleration ones during the teaching and learning process. The X.acceleration learners also achieved higher TOEFL mean score (465,5) at the end of the semester than the regular class learners did (366,14). As what mentioned in Chapter I, this research problem was formulated as: “what Language Learning Strategies (LLSs) applied by the learners of the first grade acceleration and regular class at SMAN 1 Jember?” 3.1.2

Constructing the study design Based on the above formulated problems, a descriptive study was conducted

in this research. Descriptive study meant that the research reported or presented the data based on the collected instruments without giving any treatment towards the research subjects. 3.1.3

Collecting data After the study design was constructed, the data were then collected. The

data collected were in forms of questionnaire, interview, and documentation. Interviews were conducted with the head of acceleration program, the English teacher, and the ESP teacher. The questionnaire (SILL) was delivered to the learners of two chosen classes. Afterwards, observations were done in each class. Lastly, documents were collected from the students’ name lists from the curriculum staff. 3.1.4

Making code and analyzing data From the questionnaire and the group interview, codes were made to ease

the data analysis. For example: “A”for memory strategies, “B” for cognitive strategies, “C” for compensation strategies, “D” for metacognitive strategies, “E” for affective strategies, “F” for social strategies, “A1” for “I relate new English words with my previous knowledge”, and so on. (see Appendix 7). The results from the SILL and observations were then analysed by defining the modes of LLS used in each class. 3.1.5

Interpreting the results After the data was analyzed, the results from descriptive statistics were

interpreted and linked back to the research problem. The results would answer the

xxxiv

formulated research problem. The results and the interpretation were presented in the following chapter. 3.2 Area Determination Method Purposive method was used to determine the study area. According to Arikunto (1996:27) purposive method is a method based on a certain purpose and reasons. This study was conducted in SMAN 1 Jember, in two classes : first grade acceleration (X.acceleration) and first grade regular class (X.3) in the second semester 2009/2010. SMAN 1 Jember was located at 55 Let.Jend. Panjaitan Street Jember. This school was chosen based on some considerations. First, this school was the first high school in Jember to be an International Standard School. It means, in the teaching learning process, English was used as a medium of instruction. In all subjects, English was used bilingually with Bahasa Indonesia. Second, this school had two kinds of classes, which one of them was distinctive among the others. And, above all, the researcher was given permission by the principal to compile the TOEFL score and students’ identity to this study. 3.3 Respondent Determination Method The respondents of this research were the learners of X.acceleration and X.3 (as the representation of first grade regular class) of SMAN 1 Jember in the second semester of 2009/2010 academic year. The selection of these two classes was aimed at answering the research problem about the kind of LLSs which the learners of the acceleration and regular classes applied. In this study, the subjects were chosen by purposive method. It means that the respondents were chosen because they had particular features or characteristics which will enable detailed exploration of the research objectives. Among all Class X, the teacher chose X.3 randomly since there was no significant difference among other first grade regular classes in term of their English proficiency. The participants consists of 54 first grade learners / class X learners (n=50, 21 males and 29 females) of SMAN 1 Jember.

xxxv

3.4 Data Collection Method The data used in this research were collected through questionnaire, observation, and documentation. The detail explanation can be seen bellow. 3.4.1 SILL Questionnaire Some previous researches used SILL as the instrument with the respondents of college level EFL and ESL learners. By the assumption that college level had acquired more complex sentence structures, the researcher modified the SILL items in order to make the participants (first grade senior high school level) understand the statements. The questionnaire used in this study consists of two parts: a background questionnaire and the SILL. The background questionnaire covered the learners’ name, age, gender, the language proficiency, the language experience, and such (see Appendix 3). The second part consisted of directions, examples, and SILL items as well as the score spaces. The SILL items were divided into six parts, from Part A to Part F. Part A, ranges from 1 to 9, represents memory strategies; Part B, ranged from 10 to 23, reflecting cognitive strategies; Part C, ranged from 24 to 29 representing compensation strategies; Part D, ranged from 30 to 38, representing metacognitive strategies; Part E, extended from 39 to 44, reflecting affective strategies; and the Part F, from 45 to 50, were for social strategies. At the end of each part, there was a space to sum up. The learners might sum it themselves or leave it blank preferably. In the second part, there was a space at the end of each item to put the participants’ responses. The response was in 1 – 5 scale. It was adapted from Likert Scale which ranges from “never or almost never true of me” to “always or almost always of me”. The modified scale can be seen below. Table 1. The Modified Likert Scale for Learners’ Responses Scale 1 2 3 4

Likert-scale of learners’ responses Never or almost never true of me Generally not true of me Somewhat true of me Generally true of me

xxxvi

Modified scale of learners’ responses Never Seldom Sometimes Often

5

Always or almost always true of me

Always

The learners score their own LLS range use directly by writing the score (1 to 5) beside each item of questionnaire. For example: 1. I relate new information with my prior knowledge

3

A pilot study was done aiming at checking the learners’ understanding of the statements in the SILL Questionnaire. It used the original version of SILL questionnaire (see Appendix 2). Class X.6 had done the questionnaire on February 13, 2010.

The pilot study showed some words that were considered as

“unfamiliar” to the participants, such as: 1. “recently” (on the background questionnaire) 2. “prior” (SILL Part A item 1) 3. “flashcards” (SILL Part A item 6) 4. “native” (SILL Part B item 11) 5. “gestures” (SILL Part C item 25) 6. “make it up” (SILL Part C item 27) The researcher then explained these words to the students in Bahasa Indonesia. In the modified questionnaire, the unfamiliar words were explained as follows. 1. recently (akhir-akhir ini) 2. prior (sebelumnya/ terdahulu) 3. flashcards (kartu untuk belajar vocabulary) 4. native (penutur asli) 5. gestures (gerakan isyarat) 6. make it up (menjelaskannya dengan kata lain) 3.4.2 Documentation Documents compiled for this study were dealing with the learners’ name list. The documents were gathered from curriculum staff. This data was used to the background questionnaire given and to calculate the number of total participant in each class.

xxxvii

3.4.3 Interviews Beside the questionnaire, interviews were conducted in order to gain more reliable data. The English teacher, TOEFL teacher, and the curriculum staff were the interviewees to gain the data. The English teacher and the ESP was asked about the nature (the characteristics) of the acceleration and regular class learners. At last, the researcher asked the curriculum staff for name lists of class X.3 and X.acceleration. The researcher crosschecked them with the data gained from the background questionnaire. 3.5 Data Analysis Method Data analysis method was the method to analyze the obtained data. The data analysis method was presented as follows. 1. Collecting the SILL score from the two classes 2. Coding the LLS and the learners’ name 3. Inputting the learners’ coded name and the SILL score into a worksheet (for each class) 4. Classifying the SILL score by its parts and defining the modes of LLS applied by each learner 5. Defining the modes of LLS per parts. 6. Defining the modes of LLS by the class learners. 7. Drawing analysis and conclusion

xxxviii

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This chapter presents the results of investigation done for the research as well as presents the discussion of presented results. 4.1 The Results of Collected Data The collected data covering interview, documentation, and SILL questionnaire results provides underlying information of the research subjects. The results of those data are presented below. 4.1.1 The Results of Interview In this research, structured interviews were conducted with the English teacher, the ESP teacher, and the head of acceleration program during the preliminary study. The head of acceleration program of the school informed the nature of acceleration and regular class. The interview was done on 5 March 2010 in the vice heaster’s office and took about 30 minutes. The head of acceleration program informed that SMAN 1 Jember had two kinds of the first grade class, they were the regular and acceleration class. All of the acceleration class learners came from the regular class who fulfilled some requirements, such as: IQ test and istration selection. He also said that all of the the regular first grade learners were selected through series of tests and istration steps. He added that there were two kinds of requirements other than the basic requirements for registration, such as: copies of National Examination score, graduation papers, and so forth. According to the head of acceleration class, there were two steps to enrol the acceleration class as follows. First, the applicants should have their score report of Mathematics, Natural Science, Economics, and English with minimum score of 8 in all semesters. Second, the applicants should a local test istered by SMAN 1 Jember. Third, the applicants should have minimum IQ

xxxix

score of 125. He also stated that the acceleration class was a specific class in which the learners would have two years of study. The learners had three semester materials finished in the first year and the next three semester materials finished in the second year. The head of acceleration program also informed that since SMAN 1 Jember prepared itself as an International Standard School, the school prepared its learners to be communicative actively both in speaking and writing. To this idea, the school added a new subject (ESP: English for Specific Purposes) which placed as the complementary subject. ESP teacher used TOEFL preparation as its material. The second interviewee interviewed on 5 March 2010 in the teacher office was the English teacher of the first grade. It was also conducted during the break time. The interview took about 20 minutes. The teacher gave some information about the nature of first graders in English teaching and learning, the teaching materials, the teaching method, the difference between the first grade acceleration and regular class learners, and so forth. He said that the regular classes were almost having the same level of English achievement that he suggested the researcher to pick up any class as the research subject. In of picking out a class sample, the teacher chose X.3 as the research subject. According to the English teacher, he used contextual language teaching. However, he also used other approaches flexibly. The material he used was various, such as: English textbooks, a teacher-made modul, and the others. When being asked about the acceleration learners and the regular class learners in of their reception of material, the teacher told that the acceleration learners were easier to get understood when they were explained about the materials than the regular learners. The third interviewee was the ESP teacher of the school. The interview concerned in the difference between ESP and English subject in the school and the difference between first graders in term of their TOEFL achievement. The interview was conducted in 5 March 2010 and it took 20 minutes. The ESP teacher stated that ESP was a compulsory subject where learners are focused for succeeding TOEFL

xl

test. It took once a week for each class within two periods (2 x 45 minutes). He also said that the acceleration learners were more receptive to the materials than the regular learners. When he explained the materials, the acceleration learners were more easily get understood and comprehended than regular learners. 4.1.2 The Results of Documentation Documentation was collected to get the data about the learners’ name and number. From the namelist given by the curriculum staff, there were 20 learners in X.acceleration and 34 learners in X.3. 4.1.3 The Results of SILL SILL questionnaire was conducted once in each class. Before the questionnaire was given in X.acceleration and X.3, a pilot study using the SILL questionnaire had been given to X.6 class to test the acceptability of the learners. As what mentioned in chapter 3, some words were rephrased in order to avoid learners’ misunderstanding. The questionnaire was given on 16 March 2010 for X.3 class and on 17 March 2010 for X.acceleration class. This timing was based on the consideration that in the following month, X.acceleration class would have semester test. A. The Results of SILL in X.acceleration SILL questionnaire was given to X.acceleration class on 17 March 2010. It took about 45 minutes to complete. The questionnaire session was begun with the explanation from the researcher about the nature of SILL questionnaire and about how to do the questionnaire. Then, the questionnaire was spread to the learners and explain how to fill the questionnaire. The researcher gave an opportunity to ask questions related to the questionnaire items. The questionnaire result was then coded into six types of LLS, which are “A” for memory strategies, “B” for cognitive strategies, “C” for compensatin strategies, “D” for metacognitive strategies, “E” for affective strategies, and “F” for social strategies. The LLS was also coded into “A1” representing “I relate new English words with my previous knowledge” (memory strategies) up to “F50” representing “I learn English culture” (social strategies). By calculating the mode score of each strategies and the mode of strategies used, the mostly used LLS of

xli

X.acceleration class and the mostly used LLS in a group of LLS was decided. The sample of mode analysis was presented below. Table 2. The Sample of Mode Analysis in X.acceleration No. 1. 2. 3.

Names A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 X1 2 2 4 2 1 1 5 3 3 X2 4 3 1 3 4 1 4 1 5 X3 3 3 4 5 2 1 4 2 3 ........ Mode 3 3 2 4 2 1 3 3 4 Note: A1- A9 = memory strategies’ items X1-X20 = the X.acceleration learners’ name 1 = never ; 2 = seldom ; 3 = sometimes, 4= often ; 5 = always

Mode 2 4 3

Table 2 indicated that the vertical mode showed the mostly appeared range of memory strategies used by one learner. Meanwhile, the horizontal mode (at the bottom part of the table) showed the mostly appeared range of one item in memory strategies. For example: 1) the vertical mode of learner X1 is 2. It means that the learner X1 seldom uses memory strategies 2) the horizontal mode of A1 is 3. It means that strategy A1 (I relate new English words to my previous knowledge) is sometimes used by the class. By applying the above procedure to all strategies, the mostly and the least used strategies in each part was gained (see Appendix 8 for the complete results). The mostly used strategy/ies was/were shown by the largest number of range (5 or 4) and the least used strategy/ies was/were shoen by the smallest number of range (1 or 2). The results of this procedure were presented as follows. Table 3. The Result of Questionnaire in X.acceleration Memory strategies Code Mode A1 3 A2 3 A3 2 A4 4 A5 2 A6 1 A7 3

Cognitive strategies Code Mode B10 3 B11 3 B12 3 B13 3 B14 3 B15 4 B16 2

Compensation strategies Code Mode C24 4 C25 4 C26 4 C27 3 C28 4 C29 3

xlii

Metacognitive strategies Code Mode D30 3 D31 4 D32 4 D33 4 D34 3 D35 3 D36 4

Affective strategies Code Mode E39 3 E40 4 E41 2 E42 3 E43 1 E44 1

Social strategies Code Mode F45 5 F46 3 F47 3 F48 3 F49 3 F50 1

A8 A9

3 4

Mode of part A

3

B17 B18 B19 B20 B21 B22 B23

3 4 2 3 3 4 3

Mode of part B

3

Mode of part C

4

D37 D38

3 4

Mode of part D

4

Mode of part E

3

Mode of part F

3

From the above table, the highest used of memory strategies was in the range of 4 (often). Strategy A4 and A9 were often used by the learners of X.acceleration. In other words, “to new words, I imagine what it is like” and “I new English words and phrases by ing their location on the page, on the board, on a street sign” was often used by the X.acceleration learners. Meanwhile, the least used strategy was in the range of 1 meaning that it was never used. Strategy A6 (to new words, I use flashcards) was never used by the X.acceleration learners. On part B (cognitive strategies), the highest range was 4 (often) while the lowest range was 2 (seldom). Strategy B15 (I watch English TV programs or watching English movies), B18 (I read generally first, then read carefully an English text), and B22 (I try not to translate word for word) were often used by the learners of X.acceleration. On the other hand, some strategies were seldom used by the learners, such as: B16 (I read comics/ novels/ stories/ magazines in English) and B19 (I search words in my own language that are similar to new English words). Compensation strategies (part C) were sometimes and/or often used by the learners in which the range of use was 4 for the highest and 3 for the lowest. In this case, all of the compensation strategies occupied the range. Metacognitive strategies (part D) were typically sometimes or often used by the learners as the highest range was 4 and the lowest range was 3. The often used metacognitive strategies were strategy D31 (I realize my mistakes and that makes me become better), D32 (I pay attention when someone is speaking English), D36 (I try to read English text as much as possible), D38 (I monitor my progress in in learning English) and D33 (I try to find out how to be a better learner of English). Meanwhile, the rest of strategies on part D were sometimes used by the learners. xliii

Later on, the mostly used strategy in part E (affective strategies) was E40 (Although I feel afraid, I try hard to speak English). This strategy was often used by the learners (range 4). On the other side, there were two strategies that were never applied (range 1) namely: E43 (I write diary about my English learning) and E44 (I talk to someone else about how I feel when learning English). Lastly, in social strategies, strategy 45 was mostly used while strategy 50 was least used. The X.acceleration learners always asked the other person to speak slowly or to repeat their speaking when they didn’t get the point. On the other hand, the learners never learnt about English culture as it was shown by range 1. Table 3 also showed the mode of each strategies which ranging from 3 (sometimes) to 4 (often). Compensation and metacognitive strategies were often applied while memory, cognitive, affective, and social strategies were sometimes used. B. The Results of SILL in Class X.3 SILL questionnaire was given in X.3 on 16 March 2010 from 06.45 to 07.30. Of 34 learners, only 28 learners participated in doing the questionnaire. 6 learners were sick at that time. The SILL questionnaire was introduced at the beginning of the session and afterwards the procedure of how to do the questionnaire was explained to the learners. Then, SILL was delivered to the learners and the researcher let the learners ask some questions about the questionnaire items. After that, the learners filled the questionnaire. It took 45 minutes to finish. The questionnaire result was then coded into six categories of Oxford’s LLS which are “A” for memory strategies, “B” for cognitive strategies, “C” for compensatin strategies, “D” for metacognitive strategies, “E” for affective strategies, and “F” for social strategies and drawed the mean. The LLS was also coded into “A1” representing “I relate new English words with my previous knowledge” (memory strategies) up to “F50” representing “I learn English culture” (social strategies). By calculating the mode score of each strategies and the mode of strategies used, the mostly used LLS of X.acceleration class and the mostly used LLS in a group of LLS was decided. The sample of mode analysis

xliv

was presented on table 2 in the previous discussion. Using the same procedure with the previous class, the results of SILL could be read below.

Table 3. The Result of Questionnaire in X.3 Memory strategies Code Mode A1 4 A2 3 A3 1 A4 4 A5 2 A6 1 A7 2 A8 3 A9 3

Mode of part A

4

Cognitive strategies Code Mode B10 3 B11 4 B12 4 B13 4 B14 4 B15 4 B16 2 B17 3 B18 4 B19 4 B20 3 B21 3 B22 4 B23 4

Compensation strategies Code Mode C24 4 C25 5 C26 3 C27 3 C28 4 C29 5

Metacognitive strategies Code Mode D30 3 D31 4 D32 4 D33 5 D34 3 D35 4 D36 3 D37 3 D38 3

Affective strategies Code Mode E39 4 E40 4 E41 2 E42 3 E43 1 E44 3

Social strategies Code Mode F45 5 F46 4 F47 3 F48 3 F49 2 F50 3

Mode of part B

Mode of part C

Mode of part D

Mode of part E

Mode of part F

4

4

5

3

4

Table 3 showed that the always used strategy was metacognitive strategies, while affective strategies were least used (they were sometimes used). Memory, cognitive, compensation, and social strategies were often used. On memory strategies, the most frequently appeared strategies were A1 and A4 in range 4 meaning that “I relate new words to my previous knowledge” and “to new words, I imagine what it is like” were often applied by the learners in memorizing the new words. Meanwhile, strategy A3 and A6 placed the lowest range (1). It indicated that the learners of X.3 never “use pictures to new English words” and “use flashcards to new words”. Different from memory strategies, most of strategies on part B (cognitive) were often used. There were 9 cognitive strategies that appeared to be often used. (see Appendix 8). However, one strategy was seldom used which is reading comics/ novels/ stories/ magazines in English.

xlv

Later on, some strategies such as: using gestures when can’t say certain English words (C25) and using a word or phrase that mean the same (C29) were always used by the X.3 learners to compensate their lackness in English learning (shown by range 5). Some other strategies like “If I can’t find the right English words, I make it up” (C26) and “when reading English texts, I’m not looking at every words” (C27) were sometimes used as shown by range 3. Next, on metacognitive strategies, the highest range was 5 and the lowest was 3 meaning that metacognitive strategies were highly used. Strategy D33 (try to find out how to be a better learner of English) was always used while the other strategies (D30, D34, D36, D37, and D38) were sometimes used. Dealing with affective strategies, learners of X.3 often tried to relax whenever feeling afraid of using English (E39) and trying hard to speak English although they feel afraid (E40). However, they never told other people about their feeling in English learning (E43). At last, the learners always applied the strategy F45 by asking the other person to speak more slowly or to repeat what he/she was saying when they didn’t get the meaning. Contrastly, asking questions in English (F49) was seldom used by X.3 learners. To conclude the result of SILL questionnaire in X.3, metacognitive was mostly (always) used by the learners while affective strategies was least used (sometimes). 4.2 The Discussion The discussion session mentions the interpretation collected data analyzed at the previous sub chapter. It covers the discussion of interview results and documentation results as presented as follows. 4.2.1 The Discussion of Interview Results The interview with the head of acceleration program eindicated that the acceleration learners were “selected” learners who had been through series of tests and fulfilled some requirements. Later on, the learners would finish their study in

xlvi

two years, on eyear faster than regular learners. It was implicitely defining that the acceleration learners were supposed to be more intelligent than regular learners especially in major subjects like Mathematics, Natural Science (IPA), Economics, and English. The interview with the English teacher and the ESP teacher ed this idea. Both teachers stated that during the English teaching and learning, the acceleration learners were more receptive toward materials given. In sum, acceleration learners were acclaimed as “more proficient” than other learners. 4.2.2 The Discussion of SILL Results The SILL results reflected that the learners applied all six types of LLS during their English learning. In X.acceleration class, compensation strategies and metacognitive were more frequently used than the other strategies. This was contradictive with Kato’s (2005:255) findings which mentioned that more proficient learners used metacognitive, cognitive, and social strategies more often than other strategies. It means that the acceleration learners tended to make up their knowledge impairment and managing their own learning (doing metacognitive strategies) more frequently than ing new English words (memory strategies), tryin to make sense their learning (cognitive), controlling their moods (affective strategies) and interacting with other (social strategies). The learners tried to cover their limitation of knowledge in order to keep the communication going on. Acceleration learners preferred to compensate their lackness in their language learning by guessing the meaning of new words, using gestures to explain the words they couldn’t say, making up words, and so on. On the other hand, the learners least frequently new vocabularies. They prefer to guess the meaning of new words instead of ing their meaning one by one. Whenever they found unfamiliar words, they prefer to look into their dictionary or ask the teacher. The less use of memory strategy is in line with Kato’s (2005:256) findings which stated that learners with memory strategies were not successful in English proficiency.

xlvii

On the other hand, X.3 learners tended to use metacognitive strategies more frequently than the other strategies. In this case, the learners tried to find out how to be better learners of English. It implied that the learners preferably managed their English learning to make their learning more effective. The learners of X.3 class applied the other strategies in a quite frequent scale (often) meaning that the learners tried to orchestrate those strategies whenever they learn English. However, the X.3 learners least used affective strategies meaning that they did not manage their emotions, feelings and mood quite frequent. In memory strategies, strategy A4 (to new English words, imagine what it is like) were the most favorite strategy of the two classes. This strategy was often applied when the learner had listening activity in which they imagine what the speaker was saying. When facing reading text, learners of the two classes preferred to use their dictionary than imagining the words. Meanwhile, the learners of both classes were similarly never using flashcards to the new words. This might be caused by the facts that flashcards were not familiar to the learners. Flashcards were never used nor introduced during the lesson. Perharps, the learners never used flashcards in their English learning in their previous schools since the typical classes in Jember were big classes that might not be manageable if the teacher used flashcards to the learners. Regarding the cognitive strategies, the most familiar strategies to the learners of both classes were strategy B15, B18 and B22. In other words, the learners often watch English TV programs or watching English movies, I read generally first, then read carefully an English text, and I try not to translate word for word. Either for pleasure or for learning purpose, watching English movies or TV programs were applied by the learners to get more exposure of English besides the English lesson at school. The latter two strategies were familiar to the learners since they were taught in reading activity since the learners were in Junior High School. Such strategies were some reading strategies that were commonly taught by the teacher in preparing the learners to anticipate long English texts. Meanwhile, B16 (I read comics/ novels/ stories/ magazines in English) was seldom used by the learners of both classes. This phenomenon might be caused by

xlviii

the high price of English comics/ novels/ stories or magazines. The learners tried to access the English reading material freely from the internet. In compensation strategies, C25 was the most familiar strategy in the two classes in which the learners used gestures when they could not say certain English words. On the other hand, C27 (when reading English texts, I’m not looking at every words) was similarly sometimes used by the learners of both classes. The learners applied these strategies in favor to compensate their limitation in speaking and reading. Some metacognitive strategies were similarly often used by the learners of the two classes, like “I try to find out how to be a better learner of English” meaning that the learners were finding out any ways or strategies that can make their English learning better. However, the learners less use some strategies like: I try to use English as often as possible, I plan my schedule so I have enough time to learn English, and I have clear targets for improving my English skills whereas these strategies are very important to be autonomous learners. Considering the less use, teacher could train the learners to activate those strategies more frequently so that they could improve their learning English more significantly. Dealing with affective strategies, most of the learners tried hard to speak English although they feel afraid. This was encouraged by the learners’ intrinsic motivation as well as the teacher encouragement to be more brave to speak English regardless their errors. In contrast, the learners never wrote diary about their learning English. Although this strategy was proven as effective as a tool to control emotion and to evaluate some difficulties in learning English, writing diary was unfamiliar for the learners since they were not accustomed to. Writing diary might be not practical for the learners as it required quite long time. Lastly, in social strategies, “f I don’t understand what people say in English, I ask them to speak more slowly or to say it again” was mostly used by the learners as it had been familiar to the learners and had been used for a long time. Regarding social strategies, teacher should introduce more strategies to the learners, such as: learning English culture, asking questions in English, asking English speaker to correct their English and so on in order to enrich the learners’ LLSs.

xlix

V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 5.1 Conclusion Having discussed the results of the research, it could be concluded that the mostly often used strategies in X.acceleration were compensation strategies, such as: guessing the meaning of new words and using gestures to explain the words they couldn’t say. The other strategies such as: memory strategies, cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, affective strategies and social strategies were sometimes used. In X.3, metacognitive strategies especially “trying to find out how to be better learners” were always used while memory, cognitive, compensation, and social strategies were often used and the affective strategies were sometimes used. 5.2 Suggestion Based on the results and discussion of the research that have been mentioned in conclusion above, some suggestions were given to the English teacher, the learners, and the future researchers. The English teacher was suggested to reinforce the learners’ LLS by introducing the types of LLS and how to integrate them in their English learning. It was based on the idea that LLS could be taught. He was also suggested to explicitely train the learners to apply effective strategies to improve all English skills. Besides, the teacher was suggested to create some various activities so that the learners would be better involved and active during the class. The learners were suggested to learn about the various types of LLS which were applicable to their English learning. They were noticed the types of LLS when they filled the SILL questionnaire thus they were hoped to be aware of their own learning strategies and hoped to improve it to be better. Learners, helped by the English teacher, might practice themselves in using LLS for all English skills and components. Finally, the researcher suggested the future researchers to study further based on this study findings. The results of this study could be used as a reference for an comparative study comparing the use of LLS in two different l

classes: more proficient class and less proficient class. Later on, a correlational study could be conducted in correlating some variables, such as: the LLS choice and gender, the LLS choice and English proficiency, and so forth.

li

lii